Geoengineering with Rockets?

Jason

Senior Member
my personal (outsider) opinion, is if they are going to hijack the term geoengineering, you should stick them to it. and if its inefficient under 60,000 feet for climate change then its inefficient. *

if they are spraying aluminum to sell Monsanto seeds then the planes need to be lower to have any effect.

* its also ridiculous to suggest America would spray for climate change (sun screening) OVER AMERICA. you'd think people would know our reputation by now. we would do it over another country.
OT: And in theory a rocket would probably work better at that altitude than a plane. It would be very easy to have re-useable rockets sent up to that altitude and release the chemical cocktail, rather than refitting planes.
 
Last edited:

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
OT: And in theory a rocket would probably work better at that altitude than a plane. It would be very easy to have re-useable rockets sent up to that altitude and release the chemical cocktail, rather than refitting planes.

Actually, this is not off-topic.

The concept (theoretically) for an attempt at influencing Earth's atmosphere WILL involve other vehicles than commercial passenger airliners.

However, as I usually attempt to convey and point out, ANY such endeavor is on such a scale as to be...well, GLOBAL. This means it encompasses many countries, and as such, is going to be a HUGE public event.

There is little doubt that the various 24-hour News networks would miss this.... ;)
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Actually, this is not off-topic.

The concept (theoretically) for an attempt at influencing Earth's atmosphere WILL involve other vehicles than commercial passenger airliners.

However, as I usually attempt to convey and point out, ANY such endeavor is on such a scale as to be...well, GLOBAL. This means it encompasses many countries, and as such, is going to be a HUGE public event.

There is little doubt that the various 24-hour News networks would miss this.... ;)

Unless it's being done secretly, and/or the news media is silenced, as the theorists suggest.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Unless it's being done secretly, and/or the news media is silenced, as the theorists suggest.
http://www.numberof.net/number-of-rocket-launches-per-year/
By the looks of it, it seems this will most likely become a widespread CT by the end of the decade because some are predicting there will be a 1000 launches a "day". Currently NASA sends up about a 1000 a year not counting other nations. It's hard to find an accurate total on the web including all nations and private entities.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Just saying NASA launches a 1000 a year. How many of them are televised or reported in the media. That's just NASA

1,000 a year? They only have 15 scheduled in the next six months:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/schedule/#.U5MsTGQv-Gk

I don't see this becoming a conspiracy theory, as all the launches have a specific purpose with specific payloads. A rocket heading into space is not a very useful deliver mechanism for the stratosphere.
 
J

Joe

Guest
1,000 a year? They only have 15 scheduled in the next six months:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/schedule/#.U5MsTGQv-Gk

I don't see this becoming a conspiracy theory, as all the launches have a specific purpose with specific payloads. A rocket heading into space is not a very useful deliver mechanism for the stratosphere.
Im sure its no where near a thousand but you cant just count Nasa any more . The last launch wasn't on their schedule since it was a private firm . May 16, 2014 • Delta 4 • GPS 2F-6
Launch Time: 8:03 pm EDT
Launch Site: SLC 37-B, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
United Launch Alliance will launch a Delta 4 rocket that will carry the Air Force’s sixth Block 2F navigation satellite for the Global Positioning System.
 

Jason

Senior Member
1,000 a year? They only have 15 scheduled in the next six months:
http://www.nasa.gov/missions/schedule/#.U5MsTGQv-Gk

I don't see this becoming a conspiracy theory, as all the launches have a specific purpose with specific payloads. A rocket heading into space is not a very useful deliver mechanism for the stratosphere.
Agreed but the fact that planes aren't suitable or a best method for geoengineering hasn't stopped the conspirators. You're right most rockets are used for leaving earth's orbit but rockets can have a multitude of payloads and detonate at a specific height. What were those high altitude test NASA was launching from Virginia or Maryland last year. I remember them making announcements to the public so people didn't panic if they saw vivid colors in the sky. I can't find it yet
 

Jason

Senior Member
Just a thought. Does NASA and US Gov have to announce each rocket they launch. Are there certain international laws regarding this topic.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Just a thought. Does NASA and US Gov have to announce each rocket they launch. Are there certain international laws regarding this topic.
I dont think so but its pretty hard to keep that a secret .
 

Jason

Senior Member
Im sure its no where near a thousand but you cant just count Nasa any more . The last launch wasn't on their schedule since it was a private firm . May 16, 2014 • Delta 4 • GPS 2F-6
Launch Time: 8:03 pm EDT
Launch Site: SLC 37-B, Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Florida
United Launch Alliance will launch a Delta 4 rocket that will carry the Air Force’s sixth Block 2F navigation satellite for the Global Positioning System.
Great point. So what about the US Gov and their research facilities. Can they orchestrate their own launches or do they use NASA for everything. I'm sure out gov had to run rocket test each year to ensure our ballistic missiles work or new technology they come up with. Is there any governance over what gov's can launch each year.
 

WeedWhacker

Senior Member
Just a thought. Does NASA and US Gov have to announce each rocket they launch.

Airspace restrictions, so yes this is known in advance (in the USA) via the NOTAM system.

Keeping in mind that the Vandenberg Launch Complex has dedicated restricted airspace (out over the ocean) already, but these areas go "hot" only for an active launch window (usually). Vandenberg is utilized for many secret D.o.D missions, and also for all Polar orbit insertion launches.

There is a "public" launch schedule, as well:
http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbsked.htm
 

Jason

Senior Member
Airspace restrictions, so yes this is known in advance (in the USA) via the NOTAM system.

Keeping in mind that the Vandenberg Launch Complex has dedicated restricted airspace (out over the ocean) already, but these areas go "hot" only for an active launch window (usually). Vandenberg is utilized for many secret D.o.D missions, and also for all Polar orbit insertion launches.

There is a "public" launch schedule, as well:
http://www.spacearchive.info/vafbsked.htm
Are these rockets launched in good faith. Meaning who governs that these rockets are being used for the right reason or for R&D. Are there inspectors at each launch to ensure safety and that they are doing what they said they were going to do.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Geoengineering with rockets IS something that has been looked into. It's really not practical.


8 Non-Aircraft Systems 8.1 Rocket Powered Glider

An analysis of a rocket powered system was carried out for comparison to airplanes. The concept vehicle utilizes off-the-shelf rocket engines or motors to boost a vehicle and payload to altitude. At apogee wings are deployed to increase the vehicle’s lift-to- drag coefficient to allow it to glide at altitude and disperse payload. Once dispersal is completed, the wings retract to allow it to descend quickly.

8.1.1 Cost Estimate

Rocket glider cost estimates were developed; however, a preliminary analysis showed this architecture is far too costly when compared to other systems. An initial estimate for the cost of the rockets was made using the cost per kilogram-payload of existing rocket systems. Both sounding rockets and orbital rockets were examined. Orbital rocket costs per kilogram are scaled down by 1/7 to account for the reduced complexity and energy required to achieve high altitude instead of orbit. Similarly, suborbital rock- ets costs were scaled to equalize costs based on a constant altitude and payload capa- bility (Figure 34). Seven sounding rockets and seven orbital rockets costs were com- pared.

The average cost computed from the 1/7 orbital rocket cost is $2,086 / kg-payload. This is in line with several published values that price a suborbital rocket launch at about $2,000 / kg-payload40. Based on this, our notional 5,000 kg-payload rocket-glider has a fly-away cost of $10M each. At this rate, launching 1M tonnes a year to altitude requires 200,000 vehicles a year and would cost $2,000B per year. It is important to note that these values assume a signal use rocket.

Due to the high acquisition cost of rockets, refurbishing and reusing them is cost effec- tive. Assuming a 1 month turnaround time, reusing the rockets reduces the required fleet to 16,000 bringing total yearly costs down from $2,000B per year to $390B per year. If 10 full time technicians are required to refurbish each rocket, an army of 160,000 technicians is required costing $30B in labor each year.

Rocket motors and engines produce extremely large amounts of energy through con- trolled combustion of highly volatile chemicals. For this reason, a typical rocket has a failure rate of several percent. The top 10 most utilized rockets have a failure rate of 7%, with 1,973 launches between them.41 The Delta 2 rocket has a realized failure rate of 1.35% with 93 consecutive successful launches, the most of any orbital rocket. Be- cause the chemical propellants and oxidizers are carried with the rocket, payload frac- tions are small and a large number of launches would be required to achieve geoengi- neering up-masses. With a 5,000 kg payload, 200,000 launches a year would be re- quired. If rockets can be refueled and refurbished in 1 month, each rocket can fly 12 sorties a year. If no failures occur, a fleet of about 16,000 vehicles is required. If a fail- ure rate of 5% is assumed (note, this is equivalent to retiring a rocket after 20 success- ful launches), a staggering 10,000 rockets will be lost or retired per year. Replacing these rockets dominates acquisition costs requiring a total fleet size of over 216,000 rockets with almost all lost or retired.
Content from External Source
AuroraGeoReport.pdf (page 62 of 87) 2014-06-07 12-06-30 2014-06-07 12-06-32.jpg
 

Attachments

  • AuroraGeoReport.pdf
    4.1 MB · Views: 798

Jason

Senior Member
Geoengineering with rockets IS something that has been looked into. It's really not practical.


8 Non-Aircraft Systems 8.1 Rocket Powered Glider

An analysis of a rocket powered system was carried out for comparison to airplanes. The concept vehicle utilizes off-the-shelf rocket engines or motors to boost a vehicle and payload to altitude. At apogee wings are deployed to increase the vehicle’s lift-to- drag coefficient to allow it to glide at altitude and disperse payload. Once dispersal is completed, the wings retract to allow it to descend quickly.

8.1.1 Cost Estimate

Rocket glider cost estimates were developed; however, a preliminary analysis showed this architecture is far too costly when compared to other systems. An initial estimate for the cost of the rockets was made using the cost per kilogram-payload of existing rocket systems. Both sounding rockets and orbital rockets were examined. Orbital rocket costs per kilogram are scaled down by 1/7 to account for the reduced complexity and energy required to achieve high altitude instead of orbit. Similarly, suborbital rock- ets costs were scaled to equalize costs based on a constant altitude and payload capa- bility (Figure 34). Seven sounding rockets and seven orbital rockets costs were com- pared.

The average cost computed from the 1/7 orbital rocket cost is $2,086 / kg-payload. This is in line with several published values that price a suborbital rocket launch at about $2,000 / kg-payload40. Based on this, our notional 5,000 kg-payload rocket-glider has a fly-away cost of $10M each. At this rate, launching 1M tonnes a year to altitude requires 200,000 vehicles a year and would cost $2,000B per year. It is important to note that these values assume a signal use rocket.

Due to the high acquisition cost of rockets, refurbishing and reusing them is cost effec- tive. Assuming a 1 month turnaround time, reusing the rockets reduces the required fleet to 16,000 bringing total yearly costs down from $2,000B per year to $390B per year. If 10 full time technicians are required to refurbish each rocket, an army of 160,000 technicians is required costing $30B in labor each year.

Rocket motors and engines produce extremely large amounts of energy through con- trolled combustion of highly volatile chemicals. For this reason, a typical rocket has a failure rate of several percent. The top 10 most utilized rockets have a failure rate of 7%, with 1,973 launches between them.41 The Delta 2 rocket has a realized failure rate of 1.35% with 93 consecutive successful launches, the most of any orbital rocket. Be- cause the chemical propellants and oxidizers are carried with the rocket, payload frac- tions are small and a large number of launches would be required to achieve geoengi- neering up-masses. With a 5,000 kg payload, 200,000 launches a year would be re- quired. If rockets can be refueled and refurbished in 1 month, each rocket can fly 12 sorties a year. If no failures occur, a fleet of about 16,000 vehicles is required. If a fail- ure rate of 5% is assumed (note, this is equivalent to retiring a rocket after 20 success- ful launches), a staggering 10,000 rockets will be lost or retired per year. Replacing these rockets dominates acquisition costs requiring a total fleet size of over 216,000 rockets with almost all lost or retired.
Content from External Source
AuroraGeoReport.pdf (page 62 of 87) 2014-06-07 12-06-30 2014-06-07 12-06-32.jpg
So in your expert opinion Mick, if geoengineering were to become a dire need in the future to help mitigate global warming, what would be the most likely scenarios for such a venture.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Agent K Earthquake at China Lake Current Events 1
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #11: Jim Lee – Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Conspiracies, and Semantics Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
MikeG Geoengineering in Southeastern Pennsylvania Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Geoengineering Watch and the Wagon Wheel Effect Contrails and Chemtrails 20
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Magic77 What is this Dark Mysterious Line in the Sky Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 5
Mick West Banff Chemtrails Billboard Worries David Keith Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Mick West Quantifying Expert Consensus Against Covert Geoengineering / Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 116
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
mrfintoil Debunked: CIA Director admits chemtrails, geoengineering, stratospheric aerosol injection Contrails and Chemtrails 24
MikeG Debunked: Geoengineering Killing Great Barrier Reef Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Van Wigington Debate Mentioned in this radio segment, Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, January 30, 2016 Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Mick West Debunked: A Snow Test for Signs of Geoengineering, Portland Oregon Contrails and Chemtrails 7
MikeG Accidental Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 7
cmnit Patrick Roddie and the Saudi princess Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Ray Von Geezer Ian Simpson / Look-up.org.uk debunks chemtrails & geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 13
Dan Page Scott Stevens Unique Geoengineering Ideas Contrails and Chemtrails 7
MikeG Common Core and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 2
skephu Debunked: Geoengineering And The Ozone Layer Recovery Lie Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Trailblazer Debunked: "Top climate scientist Tim Lenton admits to ongoing geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 23
Jay Reynolds Claim: Did Geoengineering Just Kill Almost 200,000 Alpacas In Peru? Contrails and Chemtrails 1
CeruleanBlu CBS San Fransico local news story about Marine Cloud Brightening Project. Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Debunked: Strontium as Footprint of Geoengineering Proposals or Patents [There is none] Contrails and Chemtrails 24
Mick West Debunked: J. Marvin Herndon's "Geoengineering" Articles in Current Science (India) and IJERPH Contrails and Chemtrails 355
3 Debunked: Fort Lauderdale Passes Resolution Banning Aerial Aerosol Dispersement General Discussion 6
3 Rhode Island Bill H5480 - Relating to the Health and Safety of Geoengineering General Discussion 51
deirdre Madison Moonstar's Fake clouds Contrails and Chemtrails 2
MikeC Warning over aerosol climate fix from Vienna Contrails and Chemtrails 0
derrick06 Debunked: HAARP ELF waves causing a earthquake Contrails and Chemtrails 12
Tunnelvisionary Geoengineering would be 'irrational and irresponsible' - Article on New Scientist Contrails and Chemtrails 2
Mick West Comments not showing up on Geoengineering Watch's UVB Radiation Video? Contrails and Chemtrails 30
H Bill Gates is helping fund geoengineering (chemtrails) ... so why are you denying it? Contrails and Chemtrails 77
Gabriel Incertis Claim: MOREGELLON'S Is Patent US 6245531 And It Is Not A Disease Health and Quackery 6
Steve Funk Geoengineering illustration [From New Scientist, 2009] Contrails and Chemtrails 11
H2meloen Clouds formed when they should not? Contrails and Chemtrails 52
Mick West Debunked: The Science Claims of Global March Against Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Mick West Debunked: Geoengineering Watch's confirmation of "Record Shattering UV Levels" Contrails and Chemtrails 73
mrfintoil Debunked: SKYSCRATCH - The Geoengineering/Chemtrail Cover Up Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Mick West Debunked: Aerosol Geoengineering Film Footage Reality [Fuel Dumps] Contrails and Chemtrails 54
Mick West Debunked: Ice Boulders on Great Lakes Caused by Geoengineering [Natural but Rare Ball Ice] General Discussion 11
Mick West Climates of suspicion: 'chemtrail' conspiracy narratives & the int'l politics of geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 182
Mick West Debunked: Patents. As Evidence of Chemtrails, Geoengineering, Existence, Operability, or Intent Contrails and Chemtrails 62
A.G. "EPA Rep Has Loose Lips About Geoengineering" Contrails and Chemtrails 60
Mick West Debunked: Rosalind Peterson "Leaker" Addressing UN about Chemtrails and Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 85
Mick West Debunked: Obama Geoengineering April Fools Joke on Huffington Post Contrails and Chemtrails 2
FuzzyUK "Geoengineering And The Collapse Of Earth 2014", a Dane Wigington presentation Contrails and Chemtrails 16
Strawman David Keith on Colbert discussing Geoengineering Contrails and Chemtrails 30
solrey Debunked: Weatherwar101-Geoengineering ice storm Cleon HAARP 10
scombrid NPR Story on Geoengineering: Contrails and Chemtrails 0
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top