Against War and Warming
Introduction:
I: CO2 From Fossil Fuel [FF], from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fossil_fuel.

"The burning of fossil fuels produces around 21.3 billion tons (21.3 gigatons) of carbon dioxide per year, but it is estimated that natural processes can only absorb about half of that amount, so there is a net increase of 10.65 billion tones of atmospheric carbon dioxide per year (one tonne of atmospheric carbon is equivalent to 44/12 or 3.7 tons of carbon dioxide).[5] Carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases that enhances radiative forcing & contributes to global warming, causing the average surface temperature of the Earth to rise in response, which climate scientists agree will cause major adverse effects."

All of RDL's Major Projects are primarily aimed at reducing use of FF  by 90% by 80+ million [m] people (Ideal Customers), plus 50% by another 31m people, in connection with air travel.

II: RDL also seeks to merge the development of:

  1. Master Chief Super Hawks [MCSH], mostly piloted, but some pilotless MCSH, & Gavin Hawks, such as:
  • Gavin Sports, Gavin Hawks, Gavin Super Hawks, Gavin "SuperSea" Hawks, GiaBat  & SuperGiaBat [GS, GH, GSH, GSSH, GB, SGB], mostly Zero-CO2, [ZCgy], & almost all pilotless autogyros.

UAVs were of interest primarily of the US ground forces (including the Army and Marine Corps), originally for aerial reconnaissance, then for delivering supplies in battle. They have been limited to 1) extremely small, less than 6" wingspan, 2) small (6 inches-to-six-feet, such as GB) and 3) mid-sized vehicles (over six feet wingspans, such as SGB, & even larger Predators and Global Hawks).

Early versions of UCAVs carried 250# bombs, which, properly aimed and able to penetrate thick armor, are at least as capable as 500# & 1000# bombs and cause much less collateral damage.  Not carrying pilots or crews makes it possible to reduce cargo by 500-to-1000# & also the supporting structures, by at least as much.  Carrying half the weight of bomb loads, & no crew, permits equally effective bombers weighting half as much, & costing four-to-five times less, to build & replace, or fly. In addition
, practically
  eliminating the risk to pilots and crews to lose their lives or be captured, & associated cost, makes this solution much cheaper, infinitely safer & more politically acceptable to spouses, parents, grandparents & other voters. 

GiaBats [GB] never carry weapons but 1) can observe, sense,   photograph situations, communicate
situations in visual data, 2) detect chemicals, & report back to & be directed by bases.

SuperGiaBats [SGB] can range from four-to-eight foot spans, carry short range arms such as grenade launchers & small guided missiles  to destroy vehicles, small buildings, troop concentrations & fortifications. Their weapons are designed to disable &/or kill individuals (or small groups) who resist capture, are smaller; but several may be carried by each SGB. Both, millions of GiaBats & hundreds of thousands of SGB carried by Mother Hawks, & various versions of millions of Gavin Hawks can work together, coordinated by bases, to dominate battle scenes. While engaged in landing millions of troops in the matter of a few hours, to establish control of key points to effectively terminate combat.

The latest version of UCAV, from:

http://www.gizmag.com/go/7909/,

"...carries a payload of 3,750 pounds, the jet-fighter sized MQ-9 Reaper can fly at 300mph, reach 50,000 feet in altitude and stays airborne for 14 hours at a time. The "hunter-killer" U[C]AV also incorporates infrared, laser and radar targeting and is capable of deploying precision guided weapons, 14 Hellfire II anti-armour missiles - or four Hellfires and two 500-pound bombs. The MQ-9 Reaper can also deploy precision guided weapons such as the GBU-12 and 500lb GBU-38 JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition), and also employs sensors to provide real-time data to commanders and intelligence on the ground. It is clearly not merely a reconnaissance squadron about to enter into the front-line, but rather an attack squadron, with a lot more weaponry and kinetic ability at hand."

The combination of the pilotless UAV, Global Hawk, Predator/Reaper, similar UCAVs, and soldiers-on-the-ground [SOTG], if available, can make US an unbeatable opponent.  The main restriction on confidence in the minds of military leaders is the "if available" clause.

RDL now adds one more dimension: Consider up-to-four flocks of up-to-500, 10-passenger, pilotless Gavin Super Hawks [GSH],  carrying from up-to-20,000 troops, each (from anywhere: up-to- 600 miles away, or more, in 2 hours, or less), their pilots on the ground from up-to-12,000 miles away, to anywhere in a battle area, taking off and landing vertically, & re-deployable within an hour, to anywhere within 200 miles from where they landed.  Most. say, as few as 1% of the GSH (even in military use), would not carry arms (except personal arms carried by troops) would be interchangeable with, & inseparable
from pilotless-civilian-passenger GSHs (unless specially marked).   

Another version of GSH, Master Chief Super Hawks [MCSH], can also look the same as a GSHs, and can carry zero-to-two pilots each (& the necessary equipment to act as Mother Hawks, similar to Global Hawks). Thus, piloted MCSHs can cooperate with one or more land-based (or ship-based on aircraft carriers or Almaric III Convoys), pilot/air-traffic-controller [PATC] operating centers [PATCO]  to control and manage several flocks of up-to-500 GSHs, each.  Or, MCSHs can carry weapons, instead of equipment to control other flocks of *SH [*SH stands for any mix of GSHs and MCSHs]. MCSH can be operated pilotlessly, in the same manner as UCAVs, flown under the control of one or more other MCSHs or Global Hawks, and carrying appropriate weapon systems (including but not limited to GNB and SGB) to defend their flocks in the air. Or, alternatively, return ground fire or destroy vehicles or sites, on the ground. For use in battle zones or hazardous areas, GSHs (and all versions of MCSHs) can look and behave alike, unless opening fire, making it hard for an enemy to identify or select a target.  (Techniques are also possible to provide a reasonable degree of stealth against radar detection or targeting.)

One or more aircraft carriers can be used to carry several flocks (of 500 *SH), each flock carrying up to 5,000 troops. (BTW: GE sailed the USNS General Pope, & USNS General Black, both carrying nearly as many troops/month, to-&-from the Korean War.)  Or, they can be based on one or more small, very simple, ground-based "micro-airports" arranged
, in advance, with allies' or captured from enemies, in the course of battle.  Each *SH uses a platform of  40', or less, in diameter & one/minute to occupy &/or take off vertically. Or, at-the-same-time, to land vertically & be parked-to-storage. So, for example, taking off or landing the entire flock of 500 *SHs would take 500 minutes (8.24 hours), using one platform, or 8.34 minutes using 100 platforms.  The area needed for 100 platforms is 251,200 square feet, approximately 5.17 acres, allowing for space between platforms and moving onto-and-off platforms to-and-from storage areas.  The deck space of a large aircraft carrier is about 130,000 square feet, so it would take about 15 minutes to launch a flock of 500 *SH with 5000 troops aboard.

Another option has been launched by RDL, Click on Amalric III, which could replace conventional aircraft carriers, for details.


One crew-of-two, trained, PATC pairs, is necessary to control  up-to-four flocks of *SH for the term of the flight. For an extended campaign, a pair of PATC is desirable, to attend full-time-no-interruptions control, during the term of the campaign. For a several-day campaign, it would be best to have a six-man-PATC, serving two-at-a-time, on 8-hour shifts, for each group of up-to-four flocks of *SH. If the flock splits, to form more than four flocks, another crew is desirable for each additional group of up-to-four-flocks.  If a flock is launched for several days, which may split into as many as 40 separate flocks, flown by 10 ground-based, six-man crews, ie 60 PATC, needed, until up-to-four-flocks have returned to its original flock, or to base.

The number of PATC flying with flocks is double the number of piloted MCSHs flying with it, ie two pilots aboard each piloted MCSH.  The number of MCSHs needed is proportional to:

  • the number of weapon carrying  (UCAV type) MCSH, not controlled exclusively by Mother Hawks (or Global Hawks), assigned to protect the flock, or attack ground targets, divided by four, added to
  • the maximum number of flocks working together on the task or formed by splitting  into separate missions or destinations during the course of the campaign, not controlled exclusively by Mother Hawks, also divided by four.

In other words, each two-person team of PATCs on board an MCSH can control up-to-four flocks of up to 12,000 *SH, & up-to-four weapon-carrying UCAV type MCSHs, in each case without help from a Mother Hawk or Global Hawk.  

Please note that the main limitation of a UAV type MCSH, to perform the same role as a Mother or Global Hawk, is that it only flies up to 25,000 feet up, whereas a Global Hawk can reach and cruise at 65,000 feet for up to 15 hours. The area scanned and defended is therefore less than the Global (or Mother) Hawk's operating area of 40,000 square miles, perhaps an area of 10,000 to 15,000 square miles.  Obviously, all three can shift the area they can scan at the speed-of-flight.

In summary, the main threat of war, remaining for a country equipped as described above, is terrorists & rogue-countries, & possible coalitions, with access to nuclear weapons, which we shall call "The Enemy".   The Enemy needs to deliver their weapons to targeted countries from the air, or some kind of vehicle on land or sea, carrying a sufficiently powerful weapon, probably nuclear, but possibly deadly toxins, to be able to credibly threaten MAD, & thus to extract their desired ransom. If they are not credible, their threat, whether verbal, or actual strike to demonstrate their power, may lead to preemptive counter-MAD. If a second strike is not available to The Enemy, they will be certainly extirpated, totally alone, without revenge: so, a nationwide  Kamikaze, easily justified by their threat. If they are credible, it would certainly justify a preemptive MAD, with the same result.

(Note:  It has not been clear why the President of Iran has threatened to "wipe Israel off Map". The relationship to MAD is obvious; but, the threat against Israel, is only understandable to emphasize Iran's inability to threaten the USA, or Western Europe, directly.  This could seek support from anti-American forces, 1) to accuse America of unfairness, if it acts to defend Israel or 2) to allow America to be characterized as impotent if it did not, a win-win MAD ploy. Interesting observation: As Iran can threaten Russia: How does it know, that Russia would not fear that  possibility, & thus, would not be provoked to launch its own preemptive counter-MAD strike?)  

One alternative, of a country threatened with MAD from The Enemy, could be a not-so-MAD [NSMAD] counter-attack, of the kind described above.  (Exactly the kind already launched against Iraq &Afghanistan, by the United States, & British, mostly... [Now. recently vs Syria's use of poison gas].) In a response, to what could not be justified by a clearly incredible MAD threats from Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein. Their threats could not have been construed as MAD, nor to justify a preemptive MAD response; maybe only a precautionary NSMAD counter-attack, which was the course they actually did choose.  This resulted in a loss of 4000+ American soldiers lives, so far, almost all after "winning-the-war"; also almost all against "insurgents", mostly supported by Iran and Syria. And, possibly, by Russia or China, testing a restart of the proxy wars, via Iran, similar to the previous wars against America, using North Korea and North Viet Nam. 

The American policy to keep soldiers-on-the-ground  [SOTG] in Iraq was mostly a follow-on from "peace keeping" practices to protect civilians from invaders inspired, or ordered, by proxy or rogue-country political leaders (such as Slobodan Milošević  of Serbia). But, keeping SOTG could have been to prevent a takeover by a coalition of Iraq's neighboring countries, especially Iran, with ben Laden, which could generate a credible MAD threat.  This could certainly happen with help from Russia, using Iran as her proxy, to avoid another MAD confrontation directly on Russia, from America. (Russia didn't win the last one, with the Cuban crisis. But the American defeat when she attempted, unsuccessfully, to solve the problem by occupying Cuba gave Russia some points, which she lost in Afghanistan & subsequently lost the entire pot, losing the USSR. The United States gained (very small) points by putting SOTG into Grenada & Panama, occupied quickly, successfully, with very brief, & very low  (US) losses.


RDL still hopes that Israel will not preempt Iran with fighter-bombers or the British with those $20m Boeing Reapers (UCAVs
, already in use in Afghanistan): See:


And, RDL still thinks Zero-CO2, pilotless autogyros are the best way to put SOTG quickly, safely & with finality.  Well, the safe part probably needs at least 1% (5) of 500 Gavin Super Hawks [GSH] to be disguised, UCAV type, MCSH, equivalent to Predators, one fifth the size of a Reaper. (Adding Project 8's GBs and SGBs carried by as many as necessary of the GSHs or MCSHs should control any initial resistance.)  The approach of equipping Gavin Super Hawks, to carry Metal Storm Advanced Weapons [MSAW] and/or SGBs carrying MSAWs ranging from 10 multiple barrels, stacked with 9mm bullets to 10 mutiple barrels, stacked with 40mm grenade misseles capable firing one million bullets/minute provides adaquate defense of flocks of Gavin Hawks from attack with fighter aircraft, air-to-air and/or ground-to-air rockets.

 
Another development which can have military and civilian application is:

"The $1.1 Billion ABL project is directed at testing airborne laser battle management and beam control/fire control systems in order to destroy airborne missiles. Three private companies are contracted to the project: the Boeing Company, ABL's prime contractor, provides the modified 747-400F ABL aircraft along with the battle management system and leads overall systems integration and testing; Northrop Grumman supplies the missile-killing high-energy laser, as well as the beacon illuminator laser which is used to measure atmospheric conditions between the aircraft and the target; Lockheed Martin provides the beam control/fire control system, which incorporates the beacon illuminator laser and ABL's other illuminator, the track illuminator laser, which tracks hostile ballistic missiles."

The possibility of downsizing this application, or distributing the components, to carry the weapon in a UCAV type MCSH, or a team, in collaboration with a Mother Hawk,
Global Hawk
,  or Reaper would give it a very potent, dual role, capability.


How to defeat Global Warming too:
(Planned by Real Div Ltd [RDL], with:
  • Zero-CO2 cities [Utopia]
  • villages [Mini-Utopia-Villages]
  • GaviHas
  • Pilot/air-traffic-controller operation centers [PATCO] &
  • autogyros [ZCgy]).
  • You will probably guess: Using hydrogen fueled GSHs (in flocks controlled by remote pilots), instead of cars, in civilian hands, takes care of a big part of CO2 emissions caused by making, fueling & driving cars.(And, also save many thousands of lives -- & billions of dollars in insurance & costs of medical care of injuries -- as well).  (Other -- eleven or so-- trillions of dollars would be saved by not fitting every gas station to fill up with hydrogen for a new generation of Big-Butted-Bastard "GM" cars [B3GMC].
  • BTW: B3GMC's planners plan to make hydrogen fuel cells for everybody's cars, eg Honda's.)
  • The rest mostly comes from using electricity from sunlight, wind, waves, tides and heat from under the earth's surface, to make hydrogen fuel [HF] (from water), instead of fossil fuel [FF] oil, natural gas and coal, for almost every other kind of fuel requirement.  Of course, RDL uses sunlight to make hydrogen from water in everybody's house, just like NASA intends to make it for rocket fuel to power voyages to the outer planets and stars, by mining the water from the Luna's ice caps.  (Fortunately, for NASA, the Sun's light is five times stronger and always shines at the Lunar poles, where the ice caps are, except, very briefly, during infrequent Lunar, but not Solar, eclipses.) But, we have a lot more roof tops for solar panels, and lots of fresh water, even in the northern continents, where most people's homes are. (There is also a lot of energy around the Pacific Rim, in Hawaii, in Yellowstone and in Iceland, some conveniently for refueling of GHs by Amalric IIIs, in mid-oceans.)

Other savings! Of money and Global Warming! Don't build:
  • any more roads
  • any more airports, except mini-airports with 100-to-250' long landing strips (before vertical landing is economically feasible); then 
  • replaced by land-based platforms for vertical takeoffs  & landings, or Amalric IIIs in lakes, rivers or seas, & all mostly equipped to make hydrogen from water & use it to refuel Gavin Hawks
  • any more airport passenger terminals
  • any more baggage losers
  • any huge (ar any) aircraft using FF
  • any huge aircraft carriers (check Amalric III)
  • any huge passenger ships
  • many more piloted fighter aircraft
  • any huge bombers
  • any piloted bombers
  • anything made from cement, ie concrete houses, buildings, bridges etc, nor
  • bury waste wood to avoid releasing CO2
  • any more private cars, especially, but only limited to, 16 million hydrogen powered cars
  • any fossil-fueled [FF] anything
  • any large centralized plants to convert natural gas to hydrogen
  • any distribution systems for hydrogen, from centralized plants, to refuel cars or anything else
  • any more huge nuclear power plants, which create
  • huge demands for uranium, which is already in short supply
  • nor allow huge demands for oil, gas, and coal which are close to, if not past, the peak of, even remotely economically feasible, extraction limits.


Altogether, these require at least $1,000 trillion [t] to pay for them.  And, they all produce huge CO2 emissions to build them, & build-in-demand to use them, which produces even larger CO2 emissions.

In particular, building nuclear power plants, sufficient to reduce CO2 emission by FF by 50% will take 50 years, & cost $400t of that $1,000t. It will also hugely exacerbate unsolved problems, which have been totally unsolved for over 60 years, of protection against:

  •     unsafe storage of radioactive waste &
  •     bootlegging uranium and plutonium to make into nuclear bombs for:
  1.     terrorists and rogue-country leaderships, to make MAD credible threats, on their own or
  2.     in coalition among terrorists, potential war proxies &/or
  3.     proxy-war advocates of old enemies who already have access to nuclear weapons, or at least access to the technology, if they can obtain or produce from the raw material.

Instead of all those Don'ts, what Does does RDL propose?
:

  • Merge the efforts to develop UVA and UCVA to support both military & civilian transportation with cheap, safe, universally applicable, hydrogen  powered, (ie Zero-CO2) autogyros [ZCgy], instead of airplanes and helicopters (except where their costs and advantages for military use is strongly & clearly established, by fair evidence). 
  • It is important to remember that the predominance of helicopters is a historical accident due to military support of one solution, initially as rescue vehicles, which was then extremely important, & required, to make it politically acceptable to use Soldiers-On-The-Ground [SOTG], and Pilots-In-The-Air [PITA], in war
  • The development and use of airplanes were always promoted by governments since 1908ad years, initially by France, derived from their use as war weapons, then found to be widely adaptable, & acceptable for civilian needs, especially justified because of the use of highly trained pilots & air traffic controllers [PATC] to save passenger lives. RDL feels that cost & safety of autogyros make a strong argument over helicopters, & overwhelmingly superior in their ability to free civilian transport from Cars-On-The-Road [COTR], on the one hand, & airplanes-using-airports, on the other. If advanced autogyro technology (Gavin Hawks, by RDL) is shared between the civil & military roles, their advantages need not be exclusive between war-fighters & global-warming-fighters.
  •    The significant differences between autogyros & helicopters was originally, & to some extent still is:
  1. The ability of helicopters to hover (not only takeoff & land vertically), making them able to rescue sailors & soldiers needing evacuation, without ever landing on land or sea, but
  2. Helicopters are ten times more expensive than Gavin Hawks to build & operate, and 
  3. Two or three times more expensive to train and maintain the skills of helicopter pilots, and
  4. The much superiority of autogyros to land softly and safely, after helicopter's rotor or rotor-driving-engine failures. (Please note that autogyros do not require rotor-driving-engines: Thus, there is nothing to fail, or require the helicopter pilots to learn how fly an autogyro, within 30 seconds, & start the rotor autorotating, thus stopping the helicopter from falling out of the sky, like a rock, as in Kirk Douglas's case.)

In either case, the 3rd difference is probably eliminated if they are both made pilotless.  If the situation is modified, so that the risk of needing a rescue is reduced to less than the ratio of un-successful attempts by helicopters, that aspect of the game is even.  (Of course, if it becomes possible for autogyros to hover:

  1. without the extortionate costs of helicopters, or
  2. problems with safety;

those could also eliminate the disparity, in another way.)

Airplanes are another matter: 
  • At present, according to Boeing, it is impossible to run anything larger than a glider, on hydrogen fuel [HF] rather than FF
  • Airplane passenger (and freight) travel  accounts for up-to-40% of all CO2 emissions
  • A typical airplanes carries about 120 passengers, at nearly 600 mph. A first-generation, Gavin Hawks [ZCgy] carries up-to-10 passengers at ~300mph  
  • A flock of 12 Gavin Hawks carry the same numbers of passengers as a typical airplane 
  • To collect the passengers from home (or office) for an airplane flight, to the airport, & for them to get to their destination, after landing, takes four hours, 240 minutes
  • Assembling a Gavin Hawks flock takes 15 minutes to join the flock and another 15 minutes to land and debark at destination: ie a half hour in all, an average of 3.5 hours less, ie 210 minutes 
  • The overall time for air travel via ZCgy is less, for anything less than 2,100 miles in an airplane
  • The 210 minutes saved is lost by ZCgys, traveling two-thirds as fast per minute in the air; if it is more than than 400 * 210, or 4,200 miles
  • Please note: If the next-generation ZCgy's cruising speed can be raised to 450mph, the competitive range is extended to over 5000 miles, adaquate for transAtlantic voyages, ie 11.51  hours by ZCgy vs 12.33 hours by airplane.  (The crux will be carrying enough fuel for this range, without the need for mid-air refueling -- or stopping in Iceland??? -- for really cheap hydrogen???)
  • If you join an airplane trip, you will have also joined the 40%-more-CO2-pollution-class, for your trip, instead of zero, on a ZCgy Gavin Hawks. And, of course, doubled risking your life or injury for two hours, on the road to and from the airport, instead of in the air with a ZCgy flock, protected by PATC
  • BTW: Everything can be said to be times-four, as there are 10 passenger in each ZCgy. Or, you can multiply that by 30 as there are 12 ZCgys in a flock, carrying the same 120 passengers as on an average airplane. Comes to multiplying by 120 in the end. There are the same kinds of calculations for troops.)   
The situation vis-a-vis cars:
  • Assembling Gavin Hawks into a  flock for a trip of less than 30 minutes away from your house or office doesn't seem to be practical.  Ie any PATC controlledGavin Hawk's flock trip takes at least 30 minutes, so any trip by road that takes less than 30 minutes, can be better. Or, by private ZCgy flown by a pilot, if his/her price is acceptable.  Check below for the other options:
  • Either walk, ride a bike, or or on a Zero-CO2 vehicle [ZCpv]. Or, live in a house equipped with broadband-Internet-video-conferencing [BIVC], so that commuting to work, or to school,  is not necessary, nor even desirable. Purchasing, via Internet, goods & services, including downloading or delivery, so that traveling to shop for, & carry goods home, is not needed either
  •  Another option in cities (ie 25,000+ population) is Zero-CO2-public-transport [ZCpv], by rail or bus, driven by professional, safe drivers on special roads to avoid the remaining car drivers, & cars, on the roads. 
  • Planning Utopia around a radius of a 10 minute walk (or bike ride, maybe on one &/or two-person, ZCvs  (or wheel chairs for the disabled) is a good start
  • Walking 0.66 miles at four mph takes 10 minutes
  • Bikes & ZCvs travel at 20 mph or less, on slow roads, or between 20 mph to 30 mph, on fast roads, carrying the driver (and passengers, if any) 3.3 miles, or 5 miles, in the same 10 minutes
  • (Hint: Don't place schools or hospitals on fast roads, unless there is another, slow road, for access on a different side.)
  • Bikes are used on slow roads, practically, for up to 10 minutes, for access to work, school, a business, industrial plant or ZCpv pickup or drop point
  • A ZCv can also be used in the same manner on fast roads 
  • ZCpv can be used to transport passengers, bikes & ZCv on any road, at legal speeds, including cleared roads, which have no speed limit (for the next five years)
  • Overall, all residential houses (are planned by RDL) to have access to a ZCpv stop (or drop) within 0.66 miles (a 10 minute walk) & schools & hospitals within 3.3 miles (a 10 minute bike ride), or ZCv ride, also 10 minutes for 5 miles (or 30 minutes for 15 miles). ZCpvs are allowed to travel on any road, but only at the speed designated for that class of road
  •  Emergency vehicles, such as road-using police and ambulance cars, are permitted on any road at the speed-limits designated, or (for the next five years) on cleared roads, driven by professionally-trained-licensed-drivers [PTLD] at any speed, but not likely to average, safely, more than 60 mph for a trip, ie 30 miles in a half hour
  • But, no one else will be permitted to use cleared roads, except Zero-CO2 cars, ZCpv & GaviHas, & then only if driven by PTLD.
  • Roads between cities, less than 30 miles apart, can also be declared cleared roads & then used in the same manner and subject to the same conditions 
  • Distances of less than 30 miles are not practical for ZCgy flocks but must be navigated on the ground, or by ZCgys flown by PLTD aboard or by PATC remotely, and not part of a flock. These do not have to wait for a scheduled flock or take 30 minutes to takeoff, assemble and land. This usually takes 10 minutes plus 0.2 minutes/mile.  Thus 15 minutes takes the ZCgy 25 miles, 20 minutes takes it 50 miles, 30 minutes takes  it 100 miles. But, whichever distance, the trip will have a premium cost to provide for the PLTD or PATC
  • After the five year moratorium, all cleared roads are converted to 20 mph (slow) roads for ZCpts and fitted with platforms above (not more than 3.3 miles apart)  for landing and taking off ZCgy for police and ambulance services, but not part of a flock
  • Before & after the the moratorium, in many cases, Zero-CO2-train [ZCtr] railways may be used instead of cleared roads.  If this essentially replaces the need for a cleared road, it will be closed, with the land becoming available for other uses (which may be to allow plants to grow & people & animals to roam freely, without suffering roadkill).  Also, ZCtr, when equipped with ZCrc platforms (attached to the train and usable while under way) for takeoff & landing, may be boarded or taken off from, by ZCgy piloted by a PTLD aboard, or PATC crew remotely &, in each case, not as part of a flock
  • As has been included elsewhere, combining the use of passenger and freight carrying ZCtr,  for fast, long distances (such as the EuroStar) including one or more ZCgy-carrying-rail-cars [ZCrc] will add the possibility of passengers boarding and leaving the train (with their luggage without handling) anywhere along the the line without stopping or slowing the train, or having to travel by road from home or destination to a station to board or leave the train. BTW: This does not need to wait for the ZCgys to be able to takeoff and land vertically, use hydrogen fuel, or even be equipped for PATC pilotage
  • Any autogyro which can travel up to 200 mph can land & take off from a fast moving train, & be stowed below the top-deck platform in order to go through a tunnel. After taking off again, from the moving train at least at 30 mph, the GSH (or ZCgy) can land on any available platform or lot, clear of obstacles in a 40 foot circle, take off from there & land again on another, moving at 30 to 200 mph, towing a ZCrc
  • The first improvement, planned by RDL, is to equip ZCgys with an accessory electric motor powered by the same type of batteries designed to furnish electricity for  hybrid cars & propeller equipped gliders.  This is an accessory for driving the ZCgy rotor, spinning it up to speed to takeoff or land vertically. But, the blades would be angled to avoid taking off, from 30 seconds to a minute.  Then, when up to speed & ready to takeoff, vertically, the blade angles are automatically adjusted to takeoff, from rest on the ground, using the inertia stored in the rotor, until the main engine propeller (or jet) starts to move it horizontally through the air. This starts the rotor to autorotate, which can be controlled to climb aloft to the desired level & keep the ZCgy in the air until slowed to land. While moving horizontally, the autorotation of the rotor can be used by switching the motor to operate it as a generator, recharging the batteries to their maximum charge. So,  if needed to land vertically (ie without moving horizontally along a landing strip, or to land on a trains' ZCrc) the  rotor can be powered again by the electric motor to slowly lower the autogyro vertically to the Earth or waters' surface, or a platform
  • Now the improved ZCgy can be used to take off and land vertically (in any 40 foot circle in any unobstructed area) whether traveling horizontally, or not. With the right batteries, this can be repeated several times without recharging the batteries, while in the air. In fact, the batteries can be left on the ground (or if they fail) landing can still be made, once, vertically, by using the stored inertia in the rotor to come down the 50 last feet, slowly and vertically, even after all the horizontal motion is stopped
  • Another option is to use the propeller engine (or jet), instead of batteries, to generate electricity to power the rotor motor, a belt-and-braces safety measure, or a way to save the cost and weight of batteries
  • A big improvement: Most likely within 2-to-4 years, is to  use hydrogen fuel cells for all power requirements on a fully ZCgy, including spinning the rotor to takeoff or land, also eliminating the need to carry batteries
  • The only improvements left: Make sure all hydrogen needs of ZCgys, Utopia, Mini-Utopia Villages, Alpha, Beta & Gamma houses & GaviHas are made from plain water, using local sources of electrical power from sunlight, wind, tides, waves and subsurface heat to electrolyze water, available locally, (FF are not used locally) & all electricity & refueling are available locally from local services.  Some food, goods and services may not come from local sources, but local businesses and industrial plants will use Zero-CO2 sources of  food, goods, & services, including transportation & travel, whenever available 
  • Vehicles which travel too far afield to be refueled from local sources (ie any Zero-CO2 location) will be designed find and use sources of electricity (in an emergency) to get to the nearest Zero-CO2 source of hydrogen, or electricity to generate hydrogen.

    The accompanying pages, listed on the left hand column above, have plans for all the current projects of RDL, almost all designed to reduce Global Warming by eliminating at least 90% of all CO2 emissions, by at least 80+ million of the people on the Earth, within 21 years.