...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 21:01 In sci.physics Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186(a)zen.co.uk> wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: >> In sci.physics Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186(a)zen.co.uk> wrote: >> >>> Both 2.45 GHz and 5.8 GHZ are ISM (industry, scientific, medical) bands, >>> and aiui are not allowed to be used for communications (part 18, FCC >>> rules, as well as international agreements, prohibit this). Otherwise >>> microwave ovens would interfere with wifi or cordless phones. >>> >>> There should be no interference with wifi or cordless phones. >> >> 802.11 devices run in the 2.4 GHz and 5.8 GHz bands in the US (and most >> of the world) under FCC Part 15 as do cordless phones. >> >> Bluetooth is 2450 MHz. >> >> HIPERLAN runs at 5.8 GHz. >> >> Users of Part 15 devices have no legal recourse if a Part 18 emitter >> cause interference. > > Ah. Well that's okay then. You can't get sued :) You don't get sued no matter what. If you violate FCC regs you get shut down and maybe fined. >>> The needed bandwidth is - very small indeed, it's power not >>> communications, and could be used by all the satellites worldwide. The >>> beam would need to be very monochromatic (within < 0.5 ppm) for >>> beamspread reasons anyway. >> >> For regulatory and practical interference reasons, the frequency would >> need to be tightly controlled and would likely require coordination with >> the ITU for a globally acceptable frequency to use. > > As I understand the present situation, internationally speaking you can > use 2450 +/- 50 MHz and 5800 +/- 75 MHz for satellite power systems, or > for anything else you like. You don't have to do anything, or even tell > anyone, you can just go ahead and do it. Actually, there is nothing in the FCC rules about space power system. And Part 18 as it exists doesn't allow space power systems. The closest thing that exists is Part 5, EXPERIMENTAL RADIO SERVICE (OTHER THAN BROADCAST), which requires a license. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: Peter Fairbrother on 17 Dec 2009 22:08 jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > In sci.physics Peter Fairbrother <zenadsl6186(a)zen.co.uk> wrote: >> As I understand the present situation, internationally speaking you can >> use 2450 +/- 50 MHz and 5800 +/- 75 MHz for satellite power systems, or >> for anything else you like. You don't have to do anything, or even tell >> anyone, you can just go ahead and do it. > > Actually, there is nothing in the FCC rules about space power system. > > And Part 18 as it exists doesn't allow space power systems. > > The closest thing that exists is Part 5, EXPERIMENTAL RADIO SERVICE > (OTHER THAN BROADCAST), which requires a license. If the US was to build this then it would probably take a Bill in Congress (or whatever) to finance it - and they could just include a clause to say "we amend Part 18 so you can use frequency x". My point was that afaik there is no need to do anything on an international / UN / ITU front (if it's for domestic use, as opposed to eg supplying frontline troops). I'm not absolutely certain of that, I don't have a copy of the recent Radio Regulations, and don't want to spend $250 on one! However that seems to be the opinion of people who have published studies, the Japanese people who have proposed and are maybe going to do in-space trials, etc.. -- Peter Fairbrother
From: jimp on 17 Dec 2009 22:05 In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall(a)gmail.com> wrote: > jimp(a)specsol.spam.sux.com wrote: > > : > :The NIMBY's get their panties in a wad over "radiation" from cell phone > :towers. > : > > And yet many of us still have and use cell phones, despite your > opinion that a cellular network, like an SPS rectenna receiver, is > simply 'impossible' because of NIMBY. You are a babbling idiot. I never said ANYTHING was 'impossible'. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: jimp on 17 Dec 2009 22:06 In sci.physics Fred J. McCall <fjmccall(a)gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > : > > Well, if someone says that if the Sun wouldn't shine if it isn't made > out of cream cheese, what response do you think is appropriate beyond > 'wrong'? That's pretty much the magnitude of the error in the > statement I was responding to. > > Jimp the Chimp is a long demonstrated adamantine idiot. Further > explanation would be wasted. Still a name caller at the 6 year old level I see. -- Jim Pennino Remove .spam.sux to reply.
From: David Spain on 18 Dec 2009 00:30
Pat Flannery <flanner(a)daktel.com> writes: > If you can get that technologies like that to work then space solar power > only has the advantage of being 24/7...if the power satellites are up in GEO. Um, IIRC not quite 24/7. There is a short period of time when a GEO sat passes through the Earth's shadow and you'll lose power for that breif interval. As a former satellite internet user, I remember folks writing about this in the forums. Comm sats make up for this by using internal back-up batteries, but you won't have that luxury with a powersat unless it can orbit in GEO at a high enough inclination to miss the shadow. Is that possible? I thought GEO geometry is pretty restrictive... Dave |