Skip to content

Bay Area Recovered Water Funded Pumped storage Agency (BARWF PSA)

So let’s examine the idea San Francisco creates 80 Million gallons of treated water, The other bay area communities generate (placeholder) generate more. 80 MGD


sanitary_district (1)

The North San Mateo County Sanitation District 8 MGD dry season 25 MGD wet season

Order R2-2006-0068final (1)


Sewer Authority Mid-Coastside (SAM) 2 MGD


Silicon Valley Clean Water 108 MGD


Regional Water Quality Control Plant (Palo Alto) 39 MGD


WWTP | Clean Water Program San Mateo 60 MGD

City of San Mateo SSMP 2015

San Francisco Public Utilities Commission  80 MGD


SEP Plant – ssip_factsheet_treatmentfacilities_SEP_hh_061614




Our grand plan is that the wastewater would be sent uphill locally in San Francisco in the early hours of the Morning and that this water would generate power during peak hours. Local water after its generated power would recharge groundwater and indirectly recharge the local waste reservoirs. Some of the local treated wastewater could recharge San Francisco creeks. It should be mentioned that San Francisco local creeks where seasonal so that the greater pumped storage project might be required.

Most of the Regionals wastewater would be pumped uphill to storage facilities that would discharge into the drinking water reservoir system after flowing through the power generator this would not be local water but  all of our treated wastewater discharged into the San Andreas, crystal springs reservoir and the Pilersitos  reservoir


We wish to study treated wastewater from those members of the BAWSCA who are a part of the BAWSCA freshwater projects. A pump storage wastewater storage project means that the member organizations have an indirect fresh water supply. Traditional pumped storage facilities involve billions of dollars in reservoirs at high elevations but current battery storage technologies would eliminate this leaving only the piping systems and due to lack of a purpose-built reservoir a much smaller turbine

The water instead would flow to freshwater reservoirs already built and to stream restoration and groundwater recharge. treated water would be pumped uphill all day except for during peak power periods and the Telsa Giga battery would sell power during peak period prices. The system should pay for itself with power sales and reuse 200 Million gallons a day of treated wastewater delivered to the existing bay area water reservoirs. 

It also makes sense for the 200 Million gallons a day to be pumped uphill utilizing solar and wind power.

The original wastewater pumped storage post is here  Bay Area Recovered Water Funded Pumped storage Agency (BARWF PSA) SpaceX propellent tanks mass produced as shipboard water and LNG Build the ships at NASSCO shipyards in San Diego!


As a reference, Raccoon Mountain pumped storage project built and operated by the TVA has 107 Million gallons that produce 1,632 megawatts San Francisco Bay Area might represent 3,260 megawatts produced and stored in batteries






2016 State of Regional Water System Report_Final_Sept 2016



2015-16 BAWSCA Audited Financial Statements – CALLP Final


summ_rpt_ch3 (1)








ULA ACES ESPA cost engineering and business model & Terrestrial & Cislunar Exploration Technologys ESOP

The OPAG Ice Giant study group has 13 science instruments and avionics/comnav cost engineered at $700 million this comes out to $54 million per instrument.Our business model would be to divide up this cost in 3 to 4 ways.Dividing up the instruments 4 ways places about 3 instruments in each group of cost engineered funding payment modes.

(A)(1) mode one is the NASA Salmon instrument flight opportunity where 3 instruments fly for 1/4th the total mission costs or about $250 Million.This would be competitively put out through a salmon AO.The question would be wich instruments the NASA customer want to use for this process? All 13 instruments and three are chosen or NASA picks out three instruments for the AO bid process?$250 Million mostly upfront in early phases of the spacecraft build over 5 years before launch.$50 Million per year.This could also be an in-kind Salmon purchased instruments that pay a rideshare fee or $17 Million per year per instrument.

(A)(2) NASA data purchase of $250 Million payable over the life of the Mission of 15 years from three additional instruments, $17 Million per year over 15 years

(A)(3) The International community up for three to four instruments equipment in-kind with a rideshare fee payable to us equivalent to the costs of the launch vehicle and ACES  at 1/4th and operations costs plus a profit.So an in-kind donation of $250 million for science payloads

(A)(4) Some instruments are within reach of private foundations and university indeed some instruments might be cheaper than University funded telescopes.Three smaller instruments like the ice giant study groups proposed Magnatometer could be in-kind equipment with a rideshare fee

Terrestrial & Cislunar Exploration technologies borrow $1.3 Billion that accrues to a Leveraged ESOP.Deductions are made to this sum for in-kind equipment transferred to the project.As many as 6 instruments might be in-kind so between $300 to $400 Million need not be borrowed by the leveraged ESOP.In the case of the 3 instruments that we are selling data with the ESOP company would purchase these along with the ULA ACES spacecraft.What instrument has the most data values? would the customer be willing to pay for that additional value? To us, the most valuable instruments would be the science imaging cameras.The ESOP company would hire our own PI for these, however, we would like to point out that idea from previous posts on this blog that those PI’s would be co-employees with the ESOP and their home institutions.As the ESOP debt is paid down the science investigators and engineers would vest in the success of the ESOP pension plan

Our goal would be to use profits earned after ESOP debt retirement and employee pension payouts to invest in the serial production of more ACES/ESPA spacecraft and those instruments we have purchased, ICE giant spacecraft should be able to share the same 13 instruments at Neptune Uranus and a return to Saturn ditto Jupiter flyby science in route

Last week we wrote about a ULA ACES with ESPA rings both forward and aft of the ACES the aft ESPA ring held connections for an ACES solar array that powers a onboard SEP engine.The Xenon is kept cryogenic to save the weight of the propellant tank mass and is cryocooled by the ACES LH2 After 5 AU the solar array/ESPA ring detaches.In the case of Saturn, we keep this solar array ring so that some RTGs can descend to Titan with an ESPA ring in a floating HIAD on a Titan sea.Hopefully, the very long descent by parachute would allow the HIAD to cool 🙂 The HIAD is our flotation mechanism and the ESPA ring provides the structure to the landed instruments.Perhaps a modest submarine on a tether could be deployed and retrieved

Year 1                        Year 2                 Year 3

$17 Million

$17 Million           in progress………….

$17 Million

$17 Million

In-kind furnished instruments with rideshare fee







What we should do next 2.0 ?

(A)(1) Investigate with ground based systems miscibility of noble ullage gases with cryogenic LH2, LO2 and LCH4

(A)(2) investigate mixing of noble gas ullage with Cryogenic propellants over hours, days and  weeks

(B)(1) investigate in space liquefaction/fractionation machinery in conjunction with a zero boil off unit.

(B)(2) this machinery would be used to process gasses H2 and O2 out of noble ullage/ion propellant in hybrid chemical ion powered systems; investigate with ground based experiments a Liquid air fractionation unit

(B)(3) removal of noble elements out of LH2 and LO2 in the case of a chemical refueling of a hybrid powered stage

(C)(1) investigate with ground based experiments with removing Noble gasses from Nitrogen oxygen gases in the case of habitat’s being re-purposed as ion propellant tank.This is also done with an in space liquid air liquefaction/fraternization system. 


(D)(1) We need to use a ground based experiment to study of Noble gas ullage/Ion propellants with hypergolic propellants; If these behave better on longer term missions and behave better on miscible issues then Hyperbolic chemical/ion powered hybrid stages then we could in future do trades with cryogenic ion powered hybrids

(E)(1) The ground based Air liquefaction/fractionation unit leads the way to IRSU of rocks.Imagine the system at work on a landed hybrid propellent Xues/Centuat lander coupled to a Oxygen production system.

(F)(1) Air Liquefaction/Fractionation unit allows for the GH2/GO2/GCH4 in the propellent tanks to be separated from one another and fed to both The IVF and Ion propulsion systems since we envision that both systems are present and that both use the same propellent and oxidizer  tanks.

EDIT 16 March 2016

(G) (1) Does Noble element ice sink or float in cryogenic oxidisers or propellant? I think if large Noble element ice forms it sinks


Synergies between Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) & Cold Tech and Row World Landers

Synergies between Commercial Lunar Payload Services (CLPS) & Cold Tech and Row World Landers


Land a CLPS lander in permanent darkness Lunar crater to test ROW world cold tech and to collect data

Seek commonality with Row World landers

Cost engineer this! use CLPS to test Cold Tech and seek the Decadel survey science goals for the Atkinson basin lander

The idea of commonality among ROW world landers argues for a series of ARGOS type flybys of those objects in need of landing site characterizing. Ice Giants would require this but Juice should satisfy landing site characterization   for Callisto and Ganymede

So two Argos Uranus & Neptune flybys to cover unseen hemispheres of ROW worlds, Enceladus LIFE or Plume sample return uses the same spacecraft bus as ARGOS

8 to 10 common ROW world landers designed for the larger ROW worlds but with an engine that can throttle down for the smaller ROW worlds


CLSP and integration of Cold tech and a COTS ROW World program.Lunar night and dark crater test program.


Size the lander for Ganymede at

1.428 m/s2 (0.146 g)[e]


Or The Moon

0.779 m/s2 (0.0794 g)


1.235 m/s2 (0.126 g)[e]


1.62 m/s2  (0.1654 g)[4]


1.314 m/s2 (0.134 g)[e]


0.379 m/s²[e]


0.346 m/s²[c]



Equatorial surface gravity
0.28 m/s2[7]
0.029 g

Mercury dark crater lander! this might have little commonality with any of the others

  • 3.7 m/s2
  • 0.38 g[6]

screencapture-livestream-viewnow-lpsc2019-videos-188950558-2019-03-20-17_03_12This slide might be wrong (Jacob Bleacher) The PPE staged with the Transfer vehicle makes for the better outer planet missions design but a hybrid system might be better


serially produced Row World landers for planned off the shelf procurement

serially produced Row World landers for planned off the shelf procurement

This an AO management tool meant to allow for European lander engineering test model to lead to a Triton lander. The objective here is to build the Lander and its testbed and parts for a third and fourth spacecraft. The parts for the third lander could be anywhere from 30% to 60% of the next vehicle and would be stored until the next AO

This could be done on a COTS model where the vendor is guaranteed a flight with a newly competed science team through an AO. A ROW world lander for cryogenic worlds could be landed in a permanently shaded Lunar or Mercury crater as a test flight. This test flight would allow lessons learned from the commercial lunar lander program to be adopted by the ROW world lander program

This process would also allow for more efficient cost engineering and risk reduction of ROW world landers

Most of the larger ROW worlds are similar in size where you could possibly have a 1 size lander. You could then offload propellent or have an oversized lander be a hopper



EOR for Europa Clipper and Ice Giant missions

Bring up Europa Clipper on a ULA ACES upper stage after the SpaceX heavy has brought up the Europa lander(boil off issues) Two launches Europa Clipper and lander dock together nose to nose.

Both stages fire to TJI and the ULA upper stage jettisons.Not sure about what’s next have the orbiter arrive first or have them arrive together? That would be a EOUD or Europa orbit un docking perhaps it best if both spacecraft separate after TJI

Docking also enables sample return

Apollo11-03Delta Heavy and Falcon Heavy could do more for science than for today’s Orion proposal

Orion/Delta V/ICPS Wetlab & Falcon Heavy docked upper stage

So the NASA Administrator may have been cooking this up for some time? We have been blogging for several years about Cislunar wetlabs that recycle spent upper stages at EML-2. The question is are you utilizing three stages here that includes the Orion service module? if you are then the ICPS is most likely being left behind in some less then HEO orbit

ICPS with its boil-off issues means it goes first and is jettisoned and  SpaceX Falcon heavy upper stage docks with Orion, this is a “eyeballs” out TLI after EOR

Orion docked with Falcon heavy second stage with the expended Orion Service module is your poor person’s human-tended space station

It would be more fun to discuss EOR  for Europa Clipper and Ice Giant missions!

Concurrent R&D of a European & Triton Landers

Concurrent R&D of a European & Triton Landers

One would very likely fly latter the other so the instruments and flight computer might be manufactured later for the Triton Lander, The Neptune orbiter should arrive first.

The goal is to have 70% commonality between the two landers

Copper mineralization precipitate as a source of arthropod progenitor source of Anthropoid copper circulatory systems

Copper mineralization precipitate as a source of arthropod progenitor source of Anthropoid copper circulatory systems

This would have to have been evolved somewhere after the Anilied Arthropod split from the common ancestor





This ESOP restaurant start-up and acquisition fund

This blog post is about an idea that for me is almost 30 years old it works like this


One recent idea is that you acquire a 100 percent ESOP that is not leveraged by another ESOP that is 100% leveraged. So one brewpub buys out another and both are ESOPS. This means a long-standing ESOP owned Brewpub is cashing out its employees into the rollover investments and the old and new employees of the acquiring ESOP brewpub start over.

Brewpub A has a leveraged ESOP use the funds to by Brewpub B a long-standing ESOP with fully vested employees. All the Employees at B are cashed out and become employees at A.

This plan allows for continued ESOP participation in the ESOP in the Merged Entity and the cashed out employees could you the cash out to increase rates of homeownership

So I propose to be ESOP B and I might make a deal with a union to use their hiring hall in exchange for paying for my ESOP feasibility studies and incorporation fees (can be $100,000) Some of these ideas are here, the public benefit esop owned restaurant acquisition corporation (1)    And    university of michigan student government as americorps vista-final -2      and another  the jack in the box michigan disability

A new idea is that nonprofit receives a grant to do an ESOP feasibility for its clients to use, This might work for San Francisco’s nonprofit restaurant incubator La Cochina each graduate or group of graduates would have a Leveraged ESOP loan to build a large brick and mortar establishment.

These ESOPS if newly created could operate with a union a training hall, our training hall would be unique in that it would teach culinary and ESOP skills IE the employees would learn how to be employee owners and managers and learn a rarely taught skill union democracy and the duty to properly represent union members.


San Francisco Coast redwood propagation project

We do not agree with the idea that only 8% of the land area Of UCSFMount Sutro should be set aside for California native trees and plants it should be more like 30% to 40 % and primarily with Coast Redwoods.

Mount Sutro Vegetation Management Plan Final EIR_Full DocumentMount_Sutro_Vegetation_Management_Plan_3_30_2018_Final

We would seek to propagate in San Francisco a diverse range of coast redwood genome such as those collected by ArchAngel Nonprofit

Rooftop rain harvesting & Aquaculture

TNDC rain water collection

Rooftop rain retention could be utilized by combined aquaculture aquaponics systems. The Google earth measurement tool tells me that the TNDC buildings at Taylor Street and Eddy might be producing 400,000 gallons of rooftop rainwater per year! On a rainy day, 500 Million gallons goes out the overflow outfall VS
My guess is all the TNDC properties are say 25 million gallons? ‘

The newly announced

Green Infrastructure Grant Program

Ensures that organizations like Friends of the Urban Forests and the park alliance that has written into their programs features that are not compatible with each other would have to be better-coordinated if they were to become Green Infrastructure vendors or contractors. It unlikely a green infrastructure  project could possibly have just one contractor vender

The requirement is the project cover at least .5 acres so not a possibility that anyone nonprofit is going to be able to prevail as a single source vendor



It should be possible to set up at the 145 Taylor Street courtyard a native California marshland for captured rainwater

However, the water garden might be heavily aerated by water flow like in the video above so we are looking for Riverian water flow plants



Boeddeker Park Rain Capture project

This might be another $400 Million gallons a year from adjacent properties some of whom are TNDC buildings


Boeddeker Park

San Francisco Water Power Sewer Diablo Canyon Nuclear power plant ownership plan

PG&E claims to see no value in the Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant after 2024, They propose to close it. We claim the plant does have value after 2024 as a carbon-neutral power source.

So we think this power plant could be a subsidiary and property of the city and county San Francisco and PG&E in bankruptcy court would be contracted to renew the NRA license

%d bloggers like this: