Your qualifications are...?
Just a person who likes well written statements of facts based on sourced articles. No matter how many times you repeat a non-fact, it still won’t become a verifiable fact. All of your postings to date on this subject have been in the theoretical vein. Sure this world could do anything it sets its mind to. Does it have the will?? I doubt it. Before the world (read the good old US) invests $100B into a scheme, there will have to be a lot of Scientific FACTS brought to bear on the subject. You are doing a whole disservice to you quixotic crusade by being passionate and not practical about the problem. What is the problem?
I know that the celebrity crowd is convinced that global warming is man made. However, the science is not there. I refer you to http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm for some well cited science that goes a long way to dispelling the validity of the Man-Made global warming. When you can prepare a proposal that covers the concept, the development, the funding and the timeline for having a Sulfur delivery vehicle ready in time to save the planet based o the alarmist predictions of the Man-mad global warming crowd; then I’ll take you seriously. Until then your opinions are specious and disingenuous. I guess I gave away my qualifications.
I am a Vice President for the delivery of complex integrated systems to the commercial Banking and international trading arenas. I have worked on multi disciplined Government systems that addressed the professional Program development and Project management of strategic initiatives. I am in no way well versed in the passionate cause of man-made Global Warming. I am however, trained to think and make decisions on well developed facts and theories based on exhaustive research and not folklore. (Folklore is undocumented “Common Knowledge”).
So maybe that doesn’t put me in your league of an innate knowledge of things that need no documentation, but it does make me well qualified to inform you that your postings so far sound like a true Nutty Professor. You need facts and in lieu of facts, convincing scientific research to support a hypothesis when you make a statement.
I have already read his numbers. All they are proposals and fantasies. They are nothing more than “What ifs. . .” His proposals are pie in the sky. What would be the design/develop/test/deploy time lines? What would be the manufacturing time for this impressive fleet of vehicles to be delivered? All of this speculation is just that. There are no valid suggestions or recommendations on a course of action in the article. Give it up Nutty Professor. The more you rant the less relevant you sound.
Neither I, or anyone else has proposed that we invest any money at all in any scheme. This whole thing started because "Uncle Peter" ignorantly ranted about how expensive and ridiculous it would be to launch sulphur into the upper atmosphere, using a Titan rocket (which no longer exists) as an (irrelevant) example of how much it would cost. I simply pointed out that if one wanted to launch sulphur into the atmosphere, this would be an insane way of doing it, and that he hadn't made an effective argument against it. The only point is that if we really wanted to do this, there are affordable ways to do it, using the types of systems already under development for space tourism and low-cost research, and they don't involve huge, expensive expendable rockets. Or non-existent mag-lev schemes or fantasy vehicles (e.g., Aurora) for which no funds have been appropriated, and for which there's no solid evidence of their existence.
What would be the design/develop/test/deploy time lines? What would be the manufacturing time for this impressive fleet of vehicles to be delivered?
Similar to that for a similar fleet of Gulfstream executive jets. Shorter and cheaper, actually, since under current regulations, they don't have to be FAA certified (they would get launch licenses, which is much simpler). People really have studied this stuff, and run the numbers, even if you haven't bothered to educate yourself.