...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: Eric Chomko on 17 Dec 2009 12:28 On Dec 16, 7:15 pm, "zzbun...(a)netscape.net" <zzbun...(a)netscape.net> wrote: > American wrote: [...] > > > Fortran CAN do frame processing - even frame processing used by > > programs like e.g. ANGIE described in: > > Fortran CAN do anything any other general purpose computer language > can do. Would you want to use FORTRAN for regular expressions and pattern matching, string processing? > But it doesn't do Home Broadband, for the simple reason that > University idiots > invented Fortran. Scientists invented FORTRAN. > It's doesn't do XML for the even siimpler reason that AT&T wrote > the > C - Fortran cross compilers for Fortran, > It's doesn't do Blue Ray and USB for the trivial reason that the > only thing Fortran > programmers even know about i/o is LISP. LISP I/O?!?! Surely you jest! > It's doesn't do Flat Screen Software Debuggers, Flash Memory, and > Data Fusion > for the obvious reason that the only thing even know Fortran > Programmers even know about > code debugging is The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Only to those that don't know how to program. That would be most scientists and non-software engineers. > It's doesn't do All-in-One Printers, Holographic Integration, and > Rapid Prototyping > for the well-known Historic Reason that the only thing Fortran > Programmers > even know about integration is mathmatica. Which is actually more than most! > It's doesn't do Desktop Publishing for the quite apparent reason > that > Fortran only does HTML Publishing. Number crunching libraries, already painstakingly written. THAT is what FORTRAN is used for! Eric
From: jimp on 17 Dec 2009 12:21 In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245(a)sympatico.ca> 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. > > Well there is no market for something that doesn't exist, so there > is currently no market for things that are impossible to make on Earth. > But here are a few things that a space based industry could possibly do. > > - Alloys made of metals of very different densities. > - Metal mousse (kind of a metal air alloy, or a metal vacuum alloy(??) ). > - It is suspected that some crystals next to impossible to grow on > Earth could be made in zero g. > > But I think that a space based industry would probably not be exporting > hardware to Earth, at least not at first. Exports to Earth would probably > at first be data and/or energy. So a space based industry could build > > - SPS > - Giant space telescopes. > - Fuel for interplanetary probes and interplanetary manned missions. > - Interplanetary probes or parts of them. > > Would you like more? What I would like is to hear of is an industrial product that would be purchased in the commercial marketplace. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Greg D. Moore (Strider) on 17 Dec 2009 12:52 <jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:623qv6-963.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: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. > Please explain how economics has anything to do with the physics of the safety of the power density. Right, it doesn't. In other words you're creating a strawman here. I never argued economics. > 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. > > -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
From: Greg D. Moore (Strider) on 17 Dec 2009 12:53 <jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message news:683qv6-963.ln1(a)mail.specsol.com... > 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. > I did. Have you? Do you know what the expected density is or are you just blowing smoke? And who said anything about continuous exposure. If you're in a plane, you're in the beam for a few minutes at most. -- Greg Moore Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
From: Alain Fournier on 17 Dec 2009 12:58
jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Alain Fournier <alain245(a)sympatico.ca> 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. >> >>Well there is no market for something that doesn't exist, so there >>is currently no market for things that are impossible to make on Earth. >>But here are a few things that a space based industry could possibly do. >> >>- Alloys made of metals of very different densities. >>- Metal mousse (kind of a metal air alloy, or a metal vacuum alloy(??) ). >>- It is suspected that some crystals next to impossible to grow on >>Earth could be made in zero g. >> >>But I think that a space based industry would probably not be exporting >>hardware to Earth, at least not at first. Exports to Earth would probably >>at first be data and/or energy. So a space based industry could build >> >>- SPS >>- Giant space telescopes. >>- Fuel for interplanetary probes and interplanetary manned missions. >>- Interplanetary probes or parts of them. >> >>Would you like more? > > > What I would like is to hear of is an industrial product that would be > purchased in the commercial marketplace. As I said "there is there is no market for something that doesn't exist, so there is currently no market for things that are impossible to make on Earth. But I see no reason why >>- Alloys made of metals of very different densities. >>- Metal mousse (kind of a metal air alloy, or a metal vacuum alloy(??) ). >>- It is suspected that some crystals next to impossible to grow on >>Earth could be made in zero g. could not be traded in a commercial marketplace. Alain Fournier |