Ideosphere Forum

Re: fx-discuss: claim Sorb question

Author: James Bowery
Conversation: Re: fx-discuss: claim Sorb question ( prev | next ) reply!
Topic: fx-discuss ( prev | next )
In-Reply-To: chrisran.bma e-mail's post
Date: Fri Aug 03, 2018 12:25 pm
chrisran.bma e-mail
James Bowery




Since I proposed the claim I can answer some of the questions from that
perspective:

On Fri, Aug 3, 2018 at 11:00 AM chrisran.bma e-mail <chrisran.bma@virgin.net>
wrote:

> I am all for more claims.
>
> However, last price of 36 suggests this one isn't 'all but decided' yet.
> Are we better not getting ahead of ourselves or should we clarify matters
> on first claim before drawing up rules for another?
>
The tradeoff is market depth vs market width. Adding another claim would
increase width but sacrifice depth -- in the sense that a potentially fixed
capital reserve would be spread between 2 claims reducing the depth of each
(and increasing the bid-ask spread hence uncertainty if the probability).
However, if there is insufficient depth in Sorb, it might be due to the
problems mentioned. Adding a new claim could increase the total capital
reserve but increase the bid-ask spread of Sorb while punishing those
invested in Sorb who don't react quickly enough to the new market.

> There are a number of questions when judging this claim:
>
> 1. It has to be transport, right? So does this mean testing of new
> supersonic jet wouldn't count nor do military flights that are for military
> operations or pilot training?
>
The intent was commercially reasonable transport service, so if there is
"testing" it would have to be done with cargo that is being paid for by a
customer. A Tesla roadster wouldn't count.

> The suggestion of "standard industry surveys" seems to me to point to
> military operation and training not counting. In addition, we aren't likely
> to get details of military flight easily or more likely at all.
>

That's a good point and I didn't envision that kind of transport unless it
was provided by commercial carriers. The military does patronize
commercial carriers as well as running its own transport fleet.


> 2. What is Mach 2.5 in space?
>
That's just the operational definition of "high mach". It would not be
practical in space.

> 3. Presumably discarded parts like rocket fairings don't count. Guess
> there are lots of reason for this: The flight is orbital even if the
> fairings don't go that far, the transport is of the rocket's payload, the
> purpose of the fairings is protection of the payload not transport, the
> fairing flight might count but there is zero payload with them, and/or the
> fairings are not a vehicle in their own right having own means of
> propulsion. (Just trying to understand the rules here.)
>
Again, the question to ask is: "Are the customers paying for the delivery
of the cargo?" If the "cargo" is a fairing, and the customer wants to take
delivery of the fairing, then it counts. Otherwise, it doesn't.


> 4: "majority of the distance is covered without benefit of locally
> available gasses as the primary propulsion reaction mass" What does this
> mean? Does it mean any rocket containing its own fuel qualifies even if it
> flies at low level? Or does it have to be flying above something like 26Km
> (I am using this as approx height
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skylon_(spacecraft) suggests might be
> possible)?
>
Skylon is a queer duck but even so the wording is adequate so long as
"primary" is taken to mean ">50%". In other words, if Skylon delivers
cargo between points on Earth, divide the on-board fuel consumed by the
total reaction mass coming out the back end of the engine during flight.
If it is less than 50% then it falls under high mach air transport and
that's true even if it flies to the moon and back.


> 5 Is niobium the judge still around, and if not who decides issues such as
> above? Is it just the new judge whoever that turns out to be?
>
> 6. Should a new judge be needed should they be appointed before or after a
> discussion such as this?
>
> Plenty to ponder?
>
> Regards
>
> Chris Randles
>
> crandles 7886
>
> Disclosure I hold +1425 in this claim.
>
>
>
>
> On 03 August 2018 at 15:38 James Bowery <jabowery@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> *Author: * Neal Gafter <neal@gafter.com>
> Date: Wed May 27, 2009 06:19 pm
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *The claim Sorb is about whether "Suborbital transportation will
> exceedhigh-mach air transportation by the year 2020".If they're both zero,
> I presume this will be judged FALSE/0 (i.e., zero doesnot exceed zero). Am
> I correct?Regards,Neal*
>
> WSJ April 2018: Supersonic Flight Prepares for Takeoff (Again)
> <https://www.wsj.com/articles/supersonic-flight-prepares-for-takeoff-again-1522850332
>
> Defense News August 2018: One possible job for SpaceX’s BFR rocket?
> Taking the Air Force’s cargo in and out of space.
> <http://www.defensenews.com/space/2018/08/02/one-possible-job-for-spacexs-bfr-taking-the-air-forces-cargo-in-and-out-of-space/
>
> One possible job for SpaceX’s BFR rocket? Taking the Air Force’s cargo in
> and out of space.
> “Think about this. Thirty minutes, 150 metric tons, [and] less than the
> cost of a C-5,” he continued. In comparison, it would take the service’s
> cargo aircraft take anywhere from eight to 10 hours to get to the other
> side of the world.
>
>
> This is turning into a real problem in more two ways:
>
> 1) As Neal points out, there is a distinct possibility the both numbers
> could be "judged" 0.
> 2) There is a distinct possibility that 2021 will see non-zero numbers
> reported.
>
> Both of these problems could be addressed by a new claim pushing the year
> out to, say, 2025, or by a scaled claim of some sort.
>
>

source



All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL