...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Does inductive reasoning lead to knowledge?
Next: What is the correct term for this type of chart?
From: Peter Fairbrother on 16 Dec 2009 13:31 jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Jonathan <Home(a)again.net> wrote: >> "BradGuth" <bradguth(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:6b4a5e28-24e8-423a-89d4-94a3d2e10e6a(a)x5g2000prf.googlegroups.com... >> >> >>> 64% all-inclusive efficiency isn't half bad, >>> Getting so much created, deployed and serviced is likely going to >>> consume most every megawatt of energy it produces, and then some. >>> Is this energy going to cost us $1/kw.h? >> It doesn't really matter, the greater benefit would be >> the effect on all other energy sources. > > Yes, it does, and a lot. > > The cost of electricity increasing by a factor of around 5 would be > an economic catastrophe. I wonder what the cost of electricity decreasing by a factor of five would do? > > Technical problems are trivial compared to economic issues. Yep. -- Peter Fairbrother
From: Peter Fairbrother on 16 Dec 2009 13:39 Pat Flannery wrote: > Peter Fairbrother wrote: >> BTW there are a lot of studies available at >> http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/index.htm if you are >> interested, though I think many of them seem to miss the point a bit - >> for instance, providing power to forward troops is not going to work >> well politically, inciting claims of cooking the enemy etc. > > The military is still interested in that concept the last I heard; how > to get the rectenna into position in the field is a good question - some > sort of a thing that rolls up like a carpet for air transport? > If you could be sure it wouldn't wander off target, you might be able to > send down the power as a laser beam and run some sort of steam generator > with it at the ground end... although that would be something that could > be converted into a weapon in no time flat. Yes, supplying forward troop is really a non-starter from the political and military point of view - complaints fof weaponizing space (whether to use as a direct weapon or just to supply power to forward troops, UAV's etc), claims of cooking your enemies and your own troops, technically challenged - that's not the way to go. >> The real money is in supplying fixed domestic and industrial power, >> which has very few unwanted domestic (and pretty well zero >> international) political consequences if done right. > > The initial cost though is going to be a real whopper to fund. Indeed, but the potential return is very large. > This sounds like something the Chinese would do, as they seem really > enthralled with giant projects at the moment. > >> >> And no greenhouse gases, or very few, and no nuclear waste, and almost >> zero environmental impact (except for some at the ground sites, which >> IMO should be situated in deserts or otherwise empty areas). >> >> Personally I'd go for 100 GW Brayton cycle turbine systems rather than >> a 400 MW direct semiconductor conversion system, with maybe 5 km >> diameter space antennas and 8 km ground antennas - though I haven't >> done any detailed studies on this, it's very BOTE. > > NASA seriously considered Brayton Cycle power generation for the ISS, > but decided to go with the solar arrays instead. > They did run a test Brayton or Stirling Cycle generator for a year or > two nonstop with no problems though, IIRC. > One problem with solar arrays in GEO is that solar storms slowly degrade > them with their radiation, and that every decade or two you would need > to replace them...not a easy thing to do considering the altitude of the > orbit and size of the SPS. > So maybe some sort of thermal system might have the advantage over solar > arrays in this regard. There are other advantages too, so my last-post-but-one. -- Peter Fairbrother
From: Rick Jones on 16 Dec 2009 13:51 In sci.space.history tadchem <tadchem(a)comcast.net> wrote: > "Exclusion zones" are not foolproof. We have had several cases of > unregulated aircraft inadvertently violating the Washington D.C. no- > fly zone recently. > I'm sure that would be of great consolation to the families of the > victims. You word that like it would be the fault of the exclusion zone and not the pilot. A tall building is something of an exclusion zone - do we fault the building if a pilot flies into it? rick jones -- A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?
From: zzbunker on 16 Dec 2009 14:02 On Dec 15, 10:21 pm, Pat Flannery <flan...(a)daktel.com> wrote: > Peter Fairbrother wrote: > > BTW there are a lot of studies available at > > http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/index.htmif you are > > interested, though I think many of them seem to miss the point a bit - > > for instance, providing power to forward troops is not going to work > > well politically, inciting claims of cooking the enemy etc. > > The military is still interested in that concept the last I heard; how > to get the rectenna into position in the field is a good question - some > sort of a thing that rolls up like a carpet for air transport? > If you could be sure it wouldn't wander off target, you might be able to > send down the power as a laser beam and run some sort of steam generator > with it at the ground end... although that would be something that could > be converted into a weapon in no time flat. > It would at least get the size of the receiver device down somewhat > compared to microwaves, but it still might be pretty wide if it came all > the way down from GEO. > > > > > The real money is in supplying fixed domestic and industrial power, > > which has very few unwanted domestic (and pretty well zero > > international) political consequences if done right. > > The initial cost though is going to be a real whopper to fund. > This sounds like something the Chinese would do, as they seem really > enthralled with giant projects at the moment. The Chinese may be the only option with NASA anymore. Since their screw-ups with optics, has put the ground people on an entirely different approach to systems development. And their screwups with computer clearances has also led the computer engineers to forever bequeath Fortran to the Game Theory cranks in AI. And their screwups with contracting has also led the people who are serious about high-tech jobs into the field of rapid prototyping, and let them work with Hollywood and the Suez Canalers. > > > > > And no greenhouse gases, or very few, and no nuclear waste, and almost > > zero environmental impact (except for some at the ground sites, which > > IMO should be situated in deserts or otherwise empty areas). > > > Personally I'd go for 100 GW Brayton cycle turbine systems rather than a > > 400 MW direct semiconductor conversion system, with maybe 5 km diameter > > space antennas and 8 km ground antennas - though I haven't done any > > detailed studies on this, it's very BOTE. > > NASA seriously considered Brayton Cycle power generation for the ISS, > but decided to go with the solar arrays instead. > They did run a test Brayton or Stirling Cycle generator for a year or > two nonstop with no problems though, IIRC. > One problem with solar arrays in GEO is that solar storms slowly degrade > them with their radiation, and that every decade or two you would need > to replace them...not a easy thing to do considering the altitude of the > orbit and size of the SPS. > So maybe some sort of thermal system might have the advantage over solar > arrays in this regard. > > Pat
From: jimp on 16 Dec 2009 14:03
In sci.physics Rick Jones <rick.jones(a)hp.com> wrote: > In sci.space.history tadchem <tadchem(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> "Exclusion zones" are not foolproof. We have had several cases of >> unregulated aircraft inadvertently violating the Washington D.C. no- >> fly zone recently. > >> I'm sure that would be of great consolation to the families of the >> victims. > > You word that like it would be the fault of the exclusion zone and not > the pilot. > > A tall building is something of an exclusion zone - do we fault the > building if a pilot flies into it? > > rick jones Buildings are visible and don't extend from the surface all the way through the atmosphere. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |