LOGO
Terrorism Discuss the War on Terrorism

Reply to Thread New Thread
Old 06-10-2010, 02:34 PM   #21
hiedeemom

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
462
Senior Member
Default
Being deliberately obtuse does not win your argument.
hiedeemom is offline


Old 06-10-2010, 02:39 PM   #22
ViaxobbimeVar

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
437
Senior Member
Default
Today they are running photobioreactors on the far flung fire bases in Afghanistan.
Are they really doing that, or was this a joke? Sounds so cool.
ViaxobbimeVar is offline


Old 06-10-2010, 02:58 PM   #23
Sanremogirl

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
562
Senior Member
Default
Being deliberately obtuse does not win your argument.
My argument is: Technology deployed by the military to get the mission done is expensive, not developed by the military alone and doesn't always end up producing anything we the public will ever use.

There is also nothing new in using "alternative" fuels by the military. The press seems to have noticed all of a sudden. (I wonder what corporations stand to make a fortune supporting which technologies?)

bio fueled ships: Navy Green: Military Investigates Biofuels to Power Its Ships and Planes: Scientific American

aviation biofuel- Agency Seeks to Develop Military Aviation Biofuel - U.S. Department of Defense Transformation News Story

ethanol used by U.S. army in the 40's: Ethanol Fuel History.

there's more but I'm sure other people can use google.
Sanremogirl is offline


Old 06-10-2010, 02:59 PM   #24
Uciaucrx

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
430
Senior Member
Default
My argument is: Technology deployed by the military to get the mission done is expensive, not developed by the military alone and doesn't always end up producing anything we the public will ever use.

There is also nothing new in using "alternative" fuels by the military. The press seems to have noticed all of a sudden. (I wonder what corporations stand to make a fortune supporting which technologies?)

bio fueled ships: Navy Green: Military Investigates Biofuels to Power Its Ships and Planes: Scientific American

aviation biofuel- Agency Seeks to Develop Military Aviation Biofuel - U.S. Department of Defense Transformation News Story

ethanol used by U.S. army in the 40's: Ethanol Fuel History.

there's more but I'm sure other people can use google.
And who said "always?"
Uciaucrx is offline


Old 06-10-2010, 03:12 PM   #25
Kimmitmelvirm

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
416
Senior Member
Default
The military was the first to utilize carbon fiber skin for aircraft, because of the potential stealth benefits as well as being able to carry more payload because of the decreased weight. That technology has been shifted to commercial, and the 787 is the worlds first commercial plastic (carbon fiber) airplane. The 777 had a plastic tail section.

Its kind of a sad statement on humanity that our biggest technological breakthroughs come from trying to kill people in new more efficient ways, but I guess its hard to argue with results.
Kimmitmelvirm is offline


Old 06-10-2010, 03:18 PM   #26
brilkyPlayday

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
444
Senior Member
Default
The military was the first to utilize carbon fiber skin for aircraft, because of the potential stealth benefits as well as being able to carry more payload because of the decreased weight. That technology has been shifted to commercial, and the 787 is the worlds first commercial plastic (carbon fiber) airplane. The 777 had a plastic tail section.

Its kind of a sad statement on humanity that our biggest technological breakthroughs come from trying to kill people in new more efficient ways, but I guess its hard to argue with results.
Yeah, I beileve there are many aerospace breakthroughs that are tested and perfected in military applications first. Wasn't fly-by-wire technology first used in fighter jets?
brilkyPlayday is offline


Old 06-10-2010, 03:21 PM   #27
FilmCriticAwezume

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
445
Senior Member
Default
I don't know where it was first used, probably military, but Airbus had fly-by-wire on all of its models when they were designed, long before Boeing, since Boeing was trying to maintain fleet consistency whereas Airbus designed everything new without worrying about legacy aircraft.
FilmCriticAwezume is offline


Old 06-10-2010, 03:22 PM   #28
markoiutrfffdsa

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
362
Senior Member
Default
My argument is: Technology deployed by the military to get the mission done is expensive, not developed by the military alone and doesn't always end up producing anything we the public will ever use.

There is also nothing new in using "alternative" fuels by the military. The press seems to have noticed all of a sudden. (I wonder what corporations stand to make a fortune supporting which technologies?)

bio fueled ships: Navy Green: Military Investigates Biofuels to Power Its Ships and Planes: Scientific American

aviation biofuel- Agency Seeks to Develop Military Aviation Biofuel - U.S. Department of Defense Transformation News Story

ethanol used by U.S. army in the 40's: Ethanol Fuel History.

there's more but I'm sure other people can use google.
so do you disagree with anything that's been said by any of the other posters in this thread?
markoiutrfffdsa is offline


Old 06-10-2010, 03:34 PM   #29
plaiskegizils

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
549
Senior Member
Default
And who said "always?"
Damn...I just don't believe folks should be getting their hopes up or finding this "sudden" breakthrough in the news to be remarkable.
plaiskegizils is offline


Old 06-10-2010, 03:42 PM   #30
Moupponge

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
436
Senior Member
Default
Its kind of a sad statement on humanity that our biggest technological breakthroughs come from trying to kill people in new more efficient ways, but I guess its hard to argue with results.
Not all of them. But, there is some logic in killing people before they can kill you getting more resources then getting yourself to work cheaper when you can already afford to get yourself to work.

Of course we could spend a lot of resources on making sure people don't want to kill us in the first place, seemingly that's just talking madness.
Moupponge is offline


Old 06-10-2010, 03:44 PM   #31
fount_pirat

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
618
Senior Member
Default
so do you disagree with anything that's been said by any of the other posters in this thread?
I'm not hopeful this media blurt amounts to more then a bunch of hot air to support some corporation somewhere. A Marine company isn't making many technological innovations all on it's own, there's a few companies helping them and a lot of tax money to be spent.
fount_pirat is offline


Old 06-10-2010, 03:48 PM   #32
Waymninelia

Join Date
Nov 2005
Posts
520
Senior Member
Default
I'm not hopeful this media blurt amounts to more then a bunch of hot air to support some corporation somewhere. A Marine company isn't making many technological innovations all on it's own, there's a few companies helping them and a lot of tax money to be spent.
so no, you don't particularly disagree with anything that's been said, you just want to be as pessimistic as possible. gotcha.
Waymninelia is offline


Old 06-10-2010, 03:49 PM   #33
nvideoe

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
489
Senior Member
Default
Damn...I just don't believe folks should be getting their hopes up or finding this "sudden" breakthrough in the news to be remarkable.
Party pooper.
nvideoe is offline


Old 06-10-2010, 04:13 PM   #34
taesrom

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
462
Senior Member
Default
Damn...I just don't believe folks should be getting their hopes up or finding this "sudden" breakthrough in the news to be remarkable.
Well, you can be pessimistic if you want. Your choice. The whole point of the OP was possibilities, not inevitabilities.
taesrom is offline


Old 06-11-2010, 01:03 AM   #35
ranndomderr

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
460
Senior Member
Default
Are they really doing that, or was this a joke? Sounds so cool.
From the article...

The Air Force will have its entire fleet certified to fly on biofuels by 2011 and has already flown test flights using a 50-50 mix of plant-based biofuel and jet fuel; the Navy took its first delivery of fuel made from algae this summer. Biofuels can in theory be produced wherever the raw materials, like plants, are available, and could ultimately be made near battlefields. ... which was probably grown in a pond. A photobioreactor is a closed vessel with inputs for water, an algae culture, nutrients (slightly composted sewage), light (either directly or with solar powered red and blue LEDs), and CO2 (thats right, the very "evil pollutant" that plants use for photosynthesis) can produce vegetable oil that can go right in the tank in warm weather, or can be transesterified into biodiesel.



A base doesn't have to be very big before you can start putting these in for power. A nuclear powered tanker could produce it continuously while underway, delivering fuel to mobile formations in the field via vertical convoys.
ranndomderr is offline


Old 06-11-2010, 02:47 AM   #36
MondayBlues

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
429
Senior Member
Default
From the article...



... which was probably grown in a pond. A photobioreactor is a closed vessel with inputs for water, an algae culture, nutrients (slightly composted sewage), light (either directly or with solar powered red and blue LEDs), and CO2 (thats right, the very "evil pollutant" that plants use for photosynthesis) can produce vegetable oil that can go right in the tank in warm weather, or can be transesterified into biodiesel.



A base doesn't have to be very big before you can start putting these in for power. A nuclear powered tanker could produce it continuously while underway, delivering fuel to mobile formations in the field via vertical convoys.
If they do this with algae, that's great, and I'd totally get behind that.

This pretty much defeats the only downside of bio fuels, which were the inevitable increase in cost of food, but if they use algae for this, then great.
MondayBlues is offline


Old 06-11-2010, 03:13 AM   #37
squicscor

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
402
Senior Member
Default
well of course they can. i think the point being made here is that the military will be experimenting with and developing new technologies that could make them less cost prohibitive.
And how exactly do they make new technologies more cost effective in the private sector? The ONLY thing that makes something cheap in the private sector is mass consumption. When DVD players first came onto the market, they cost more than $2,000. Once shipments reached larger volumes, prices began to come down to the point now where you can pick one up for about $35.

If you want to make green technology cheaper, all the rich green-minded Liberals need to pony up and start putting their money where their mouth is.
squicscor is offline


Old 07-10-2010, 12:19 PM   #38
Bgfbukpf

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
380
Senior Member
Default
Well, you can be pessimistic if you want. Your choice. The whole point of the OP was possibilities, not inevitabilities.
Not being pessimistic, being realistic. I've spent more then a decade now in R&D with most clients being in the defense sector. There is an amazing range of innovations and equipment that never get to be commercial products because they cost too damn much to get into the mass market. There are even technologies that cost too much for the military even without congress being involved in such things as funding. Yet there is still a constant demand for innovation.
Bgfbukpf is offline


Old 07-10-2010, 02:57 PM   #39
GZFL2tDA

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
351
Senior Member
Default
Not being pessimistic, being realistic. I've spent more then a decade now in R&D with most clients being in the defense sector. There is an amazing range of innovations and equipment that never get to be commercial products because they cost too damn much to get into the mass market. There are even technologies that cost too much for the military even without congress being involved in such things as funding. Yet there is still a constant demand for innovation.
Well of course there are. That's the nature of R&D - lots of dead ends, with a few big hitters that sell and justify the costs of the dead ends.
GZFL2tDA is offline


Old 07-10-2010, 03:08 PM   #40
Gorlummm

Join Date
Oct 2005
Posts
444
Senior Member
Default
One of the advantages to deploying new technology to the military first is it doesn't have to meet commercial standards. For example military vehicles don't have to meet commercial safety standards, their emissions don't have to follow EPA regulations, etc.

I think the algae that eats CO2 and poops diesel, if it works, will be the thing that ultimately resolves the fossil fuel energy crisis - and there will be downsides, like mutated algae species running rampant over ecosystems.
Gorlummm is offline



Reply to Thread New Thread

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:52 PM.
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
Design & Developed by Amodity.com
Copyright© Amodity