...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: jimp on 17 Dec 2009 11:32 In sci.physics "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_delet3th1s(a)greenms.com> wrote: > <jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message > news:6isov6-47s.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com... >> In sci.physics "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" >> <mooregr_delet3th1s(a)greenms.com> wrote: >> >> If the energy density is low enough to be safe, it isn't high enough to >> be particularly usefull. >> >> > > In other words you've just proven terresterial solar power doesn't work > either. I'll go tell the folks I know using it that you've proven their > systems don't work. Terresterial solar power as a general source of electrical power (as opposed to niche situations) only works today on an economic level because of government subsidies in many forms. Someday in the future the costs may come down to where it can compete on it's own, but that day isn't here yet. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 17 Dec 2009 11:35 In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall(a)gmail.com> wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > :In sci.physics "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" <mooregr_delet3th1s(a)greenms.com> wrote: > :> <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. > : > :If the energy density is low enough to be safe, it isn't high enough to > :be particularly usefull. > : > > Wrong. Right. Lookup the the microwave energy density levels concidered safe for continuous exposure. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 17 Dec 2009 11:49 In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall(a)gmail.com> wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > :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. > : > > Missile ranges have the same characteristics as your rectenna zone. If > a pilot can't read a bloody chart and avoid flying through restricted > airspace that is marked as restricted from 0-50,000 feet, he has no > business flying at all. > > Pilots are *REQUIRED* to check their flight plan against CURRENT > charts that show all the SUAS zones. Not all flights have flight plans. And incursions never occur because it is against regulations to do so. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 17 Dec 2009 12:13 In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245(a)sympatico.ca> wrote: > Fred J. McCall wrote: > >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > >> :If the energy density is low enough to be safe, it isn't high enough to >> :be particularly usefull. >> : >> >> Wrong. > > Thank you Fred. Such a profound answer really helps. > > Jim: > > The advantage provided by a SPS over solar energy is not in the > energy density. It is because you get your energy 24 hours a day > and you get it in a much more convenient form. You can convert > the energy you receive from a SPS much more easily because it > is all at the same wave-length. That wave-length is one you > chose for being convenient. The Sun insists on sending us > its energy across a broad range of wave-lengths and only about > half the time every day, not to mention that cloud cover can > cut down on the solar energy you receive. > > > Alain Fournier The amount of recoverable energy is directly proportional to the energy density for a given area. The amount of lawsuits generated and the costs for a ground station are directly proportional to the ground area. The wave length can not be chosen as a "convienient" one but must be in an ISM band as governed in the US by Part 18 of the FCC rules. RF exposure level standards for continuous exposure will have to be met. The NIMBY's get their panties in a wad over "radiation" from cell phone towers. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 17 Dec 2009 12:15
In sci.physics Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186(a)zen.co.uk> wrote: > jmfbahciv wrote: >> jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >>> In sci.physics Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186(a)zen.co.uk> wrote: >>>> Alain Fournier wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>> >>> >>> Name something that is impossible to make on Earth or would be cheaper >>> to make in space for which there is an actual market. >> >> Vacuum? >> >>> >>> I hear this arm-waving claim from the space cadet crowd a lot, but no one >>> seems to be able to identify a product. >>> >>> >> >> It sure would be nice to find one. > > Foamed metals, some biologicals, and quite a lot of chemistry can be > done better and easier in micro-gee - there are a number of others. > > Vacuum is available on Earth at not too high a cost - but micro-gee just > plain isn't. > > -- Peter Fairbrother OK, so what's the product and "easier" isn't the criteria, the criteria is cost. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply. |