...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: Alain Fournier on 16 Dec 2009 22:26 Peter Fairbrother wrote: > Alain Fournier wrote: > >> >> Another possibility than having super lift capabilities from Earth >> is to go for a space based economy. Build the SPSs from asteroid >> material. I'm not saying that this would clearly be cheaper. >> But it would be worth evaluating the possibility. I suspect that >> for a single SPS, launching it from Earth would be cheaper, >> but if you want to build several, I don't know. > > > Up to the level of enough manufacturing capacity to supply the Earth's > present energy needs, it's still cheaper to make the parts on Earth and > lift them, assuming something like the systems I described (and that's > true even if they cost a whole lot more than I estimated, it's quite a > bit cheaper). Probably true. But until we actually build space based manufacturing capacity, or at least do serious work on trying to do so, estimates of what such a thing would cost are quite unreliable. It might be much cheaper than it seems to be (but it is expensive). > However there would be other benefits to starting a space-based economy, > for instance things can be made in space which are impossible or > expensive to make on Earth - and in the longer-term it's a no-brainer, > energy and materials are available in much greater abundance than on > Earth, which we don't want to mess up too much with mining etc. Agreed. Alain Fournier
From: Sylvia Else on 16 Dec 2009 22:27 Jonathan wrote: > "Sylvia Else" <sylvia(a)not.at.this.address> wrote in message > news:00a54b65$0$23681$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... >> Dr J R Stockton wrote: >>> In sci.space.history message <00851e07$0$16793$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com > > >>> Perhaps you do not have a background in the physical sciences? >>> > > >> Perhaps you're not as clever as you think you are. >> > > > ....replies Sylvia, as she attempts to toss her cognac in the face of > the rude dinner quest. But he stops her just in time, their hands > now locked in anger, their eyes engage, and as suddenly > the crescendo is transformed into two coequal legacies. > An anger with no boundaries, and a lust as capacious as the sea. > With Elysium now only as far as to the very nearest room. > > The opening of a door, felicity or doom? > > > I know. I shouldn't let people drag me down to their level. But sometimes it's hard to resist the temptation. Sylvia.
From: Greg D. Moore (Strider) on 16 Dec 2009 22:37 <jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:lc3ov6-5mp.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com... > In sci.physics "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" > <mooregr_delet3th1s(a)greenms.com> wrote: >> <jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:fqrnv6-6so.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com... >>> >>> For existing things there is the concept of minimum enroute altitude >>> which ensures you are above all the obstacles for a significant >>> distance. >>> >>> There is no getting above an energy beam from space. >>> >> >> And yet people still fly into the ground or buildings. Again, it's the >> pilot's fault. Not the build, ground or beam. > > Apples and oranges. > > How do you avoid something that is invisible to all existing aviation > sensors? Same way pilots avoid no-fly zones now. They consult their maps and NOTAMs and fly around them. > > While flying VFR, obstacles are avoided by eyesight and altitude, neither > of which will work with an energy beam from space. > Pilots flying VFR avoid no-fly zones now. I'm not sure why in the future you think they're suddenly going to become stupid. In any case, at the energies discussed, the power levels just aren't that dangerous. -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
From: Jonathan on 16 Dec 2009 22:54 "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_delet3th1s(a)greenms.com> wrote in message news:Y5KdnWoHtKD7x7TWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... > <jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:fqrnv6-6so.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com... >> >> For existing things there is the concept of minimum enroute altitude >> which ensures you are above all the obstacles for a significant distance. >> >> There is no getting above an energy beam from space. >> > > And yet people still fly into the ground or buildings. Again, it's the > pilot's fault. Not the build, ground or beam. Let's see, two different futures here. One future where the FAA has to write some new regulations, or devise some new-fangled warning system, to make sure SSP is safe for aviation and birds alike. Or another future where one day the oil market panics, and collapses. Sending much of the world into a pre-industrial state, with wars breaking out all over. But not those nice 'clean' modern wars fought with cruise missiles v. car bombs. But the good old fashioned pre-industrial wars, with human wave assaults numbering in the hundreds of thousands. People that can't wait to become cannon fodder, to die for hate instead of slowly starving to death in an agrarian society that can no longer handle the crush of the cheap-energy spawned masses. Back to the time tested forms of population control, routine genocide's. For the good of all. Not to be too melodramatic or anything~ > > > -- > Greg Moore > Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC. >
From: jimp on 17 Dec 2009 00:33
In sci.physics Jonathan <Home(a)again.net> wrote: > > "Greg D. Moore (Strider)" <mooregr_delet3th1s(a)greenms.com> wrote in message > news:Y5KdnWoHtKD7x7TWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d(a)earthlink.com... >> <jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message >> news:fqrnv6-6so.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com... >>> >>> For existing things there is the concept of minimum enroute altitude >>> which ensures you are above all the obstacles for a significant distance. >>> >>> There is no getting above an energy beam from space. >>> >> >> And yet people still fly into the ground or buildings. Again, it's the >> pilot's fault. Not the build, ground or beam. > > > Let's see, two different futures here. One future where the FAA > has to write some new regulations, or devise some new-fangled > warning system, to make sure SSP is safe for aviation > and birds alike. > > Or another future where one day the oil market panics, and > collapses. Sending much of the world into a pre-industrial > state, with wars breaking out all over. But not those nice 'clean' > modern wars fought with cruise missiles v. car bombs. But the > good old fashioned pre-industrial wars, with human wave assaults > numbering in the hundreds of thousands. People that can't wait > to become cannon fodder, to die for hate instead of slowly > starving to death in an agrarian society that can no longer > handle the crush of the cheap-energy spawned masses. > > Back to the time tested forms of population control, routine > genocide's. For the good of all. > > > Not to be too melodramatic or anything~ Except that oil has little to nothing to do with electricity. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |