Re: Whitey On the Moon

[Jonathan]

"tooly" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3c342d2e-738b-4861...@h6g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...

>>On Jan 26, 12:33 am, Bret Cahill <Bret_E_Cah...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY
>
> >A little common sense.
>
> >Bret Cahill


>Not sure about going to the moon [as the best target]...
>but I am sure that Obama has no understanding of the human condition
>when he guts the manned space program.

> I'm against spending...for gutting government...

> But NASA is the one area that is more than just spending. People need
>VISION; they need to feel part of some higher purpose. Some gain it
>through belief systems, but in a concrete way, the space program
>captured our imagination to bind us a nation with purpose beyond just
>surviving. It gave us a future [far and away].

I agree completely, NASA should be all about inspiring visions
of a better future for humanity. And making it happen.

But you should know that NASA has long been under the thumb
of the Big Aerospace contractors and the relevant politicians
for decades. When NASA was asked to chart it's future
for a manned space program, here is their vision.

First send men to a football field sized asteroid, so we can
better learn how to destroy it should the incredibly slim chance
the need occurs. Why do men have to go btw?

Then send men back to the moon to prepare for a manned
landing on Mars, which is meant to build a temporary shelter
on Mars for some ...six people for a few ...weeks.

Now, that'll take like fifty years, and cost more than anyone
can possibly imagine today. And even on the slim chance
the next 6 or 8 administrations keep funding it, what does
humanity, the future or the taxpayers get in return? NASA
simply replies, in the most incredible turn of logic possible
for an agency dedicated to science, that we should have ...faith
it'll produce wonders along the way. Ya know, like what they said
about the space station.

The current NASA 'vision' is Big Aero milking the taxpayers
with an open ended--gold plated program which doesn't have
any competition, and doesn't have to actually produce
anything at all. What a great deal that must be for them~

While the world flippin' burns, America's premier research
agency is off chasing comets so fat cats can cash in.

NASA had a more worthy goal before President Bush
gave NASA to Lockheed et al.

And that goal was Space Solar Power, building magnificent
power plants in orbit that can transmit completely clean
completely abundant energy to ANY POINT on Earth.

A power plant that doesn't have to pay for a constant
steam of oil, gas or coal. A power plant that doesn't
have to worry about the price of the ...sun going up
or bottled up in the Straight of Hormuz.

Enabling the poor and rural masses to have electricity
for the first time. Power quickly delivered to any disaster
area, war or even space stations and colonies. And even
converting America from the largest energy user, to the
largest energy...supplier.

In science fiction, what underlies almost all dreams of
a wondrous future? It's unlimited energy. Those 'di-lithium
dreams' that ignite trekkian visions of miraculous discovery
and social justice.

We can have that future, the technology and know-how
already exists. And Space Solar Power will have all kinds
of market niches to itself from it's ease of traveling.
So Space Solar Power doesn't have to compete
with conventional sources. That means SSP is
practical now.

NASA's Space Solar Power Program (SERT)
Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

Space Energy Inc
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm
Space Energy Inc Presentation
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation
Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm


Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm

War Without Oil: A Catalyst For True Transformation

"Complicating the matter is a lack of professional consensus on
the actual expected date of global peak oil production, with
credible organizations such a ExxonMobil predicting that
the non-OPEC Hubbert's Peak will arrive within 5 years
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/cst/csat56.pdf



Jonathan







>I may not be articulating this properly [it's a deep thing], but I
>KNOW gutting that manned program was a mistake. It would have made
>far more sense to gut 'food stamps'. But it shows how Obama thinks.
> He is so diconnected, he may not even be white. [jk]

[Jonathan]

And I forget to mention, Space Solar Power can also
become the primary solution to climate change.
Nice little spin-off.


s

[Bret Cahill]

> And I forget to mention, Space Solar Power can also
> become the primary solution to climate change.
> Nice little spin-off.

That's not necessary because earth based PV is getting so cheap that
even fresh water for irrigation will soon be a non issue.

The problem is high density energy storage for surface transportation
and space won't help us much there.

Every last materials scientist needs to be working on a good battery.
All we need is just one, just one more breakthrough as great as Li
Ion.

Is that asking too much?

Just _one_ more breakthrough?


Bret Cahill

[trigonometry1972@gmail.com |]

Compressed air and an air pressure driven
turbine? Hydrogen and oxygen from water
to be burned at night or in a fuel cell?

Breakthru? or simply an engineer with a will and
the resources...........................................Trig

[Bret Cahill]

> > > And I forget to mention, Space Solar Power can also
> > > become the primary solution to climate change.
> > > Nice little spin-off.
>
> > That's not necessary because earth based PV is getting so cheap that
> > even fresh water for irrigation will soon be a non issue.
>
> > The problem is high density energy storage for surface transportation
> > and space won't help us much there.
>
> > Every last materials scientist needs to be working on a good battery.
> > All we need is just one, just one more breakthrough as great as Li
> > Ion.
>
> > Is that asking too much?
>
> > Just _one_ more breakthrough?
>
> > Bret Cahill
>
> Compressed air and an air pressure driven
> turbine?

Lead acid batteries have a higher energy density.

> Hydrogen and oxygen from water
> to be burned at night or in a fuel cell?

Trial lawyers' dream come true.


Bret Cahill

[Jonathan]

"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cebd1d30-2f9a-465d...@i18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...

>> And I forget to mention, Space Solar Power can also
>> become the primary solution to climate change.
>> Nice little spin-off.
>
> That's not necessary because earth based PV is getting so cheap that
> even fresh water for irrigation will soon be a non issue.

You miss the point of Space Solar Power, it can travel to places
where terrestrial solar isn't practical. And terrestrial solar is
intermittant which means it can't be used for ...baseload power.
Which is adding to an existing grid. Terrestrial solar can only
reduce the load on a grid here and there, it can't be piped
...into...a power grid. The difference is night and day.

>
> The problem is high density energy storage for surface transportation
> and space won't help us much there.

The problem with solar power is the need for 24 hour flows.
Then the storage problem is eliminated.

>
> Every last materials scientist needs to be working on a good battery.
> All we need is just one, just one more breakthrough as great as Li
> Ion.

Space Solar Power IS the solution to the storage problem.

>
> Is that asking too much?
>
> Just _one_ more breakthrough?

Space Solar Power IS the big breakthrough with
speading energy far and wide across the planet.

Why wait for some breakthrough that may never happen?
Especially when the solution to the storage problem
can be...NASA filling the night sky with magnificent
engineering accomplishments. Is planting the flag
somewhere really that big a deal that the planet
has to do without a future?


>
>
> Bret Cahill
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Jonathan]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cmq8i7t9vaid2mfr1...@4ax.com...

> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bret Cahill" <Bret_E...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:cebd1d30-2f9a-465d...@i18g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>>>> And I forget to mention, Space Solar Power can also
>>>> become the primary solution to climate change.
>>>> Nice little spin-off.
>>>
>>> That's not necessary because earth based PV is getting so cheap that
>>> even fresh water for irrigation will soon be a non issue.
>>>
>>
>>You miss the point of Space Solar Power, it can travel to places
>>where terrestrial solar isn't practical. And terrestrial solar is

>>intermittent which means it can't be used for ...baseload power.

>>Which is adding to an existing grid. Terrestrial solar can only
>>reduce the load on a grid here and there, it can't be piped
>>...into...a power grid. The difference is night and day.
>>
>

> What property of terrestrial solar do you think prevents putting it
> into a long distance line?


Base load power means continuous power supply 24/7.
Solar terrestrial varies enormously with position and seasons.
Not to mention every day. It would have to be stored
on a large scale and would still only be available locally.

Space Solar Power can provide continuous and consistent
power to ANY point on Earth. And building a rectenna
on the ground is enormously easier and cheaper than
building new power plants near the need.

Once Solar Satellites are up, then 24/7 power can be
accessed far easier and cheaper, and in far more places
than ANY other energy source, especially terrestrial
solar. Since thinly populated areas could justify a rectenna
when a nuclear or conventional power plant is out of
the question.

As once the satellites are up, you only have to roll out
a great big chicken wire fence to have power. Not build
multi-billion dollar plants and hundreds of miles of roads
and railroads or shipping to continuously supply some
power plant with coal, oil or gas. Or cover hundreds of
miles of very expensive property with solar panels.

The point is that Space Solar can travel so much better,
analogous to the huge improvement that AC power made
over DC.

DC power meant a power plant on every city block
essentially. Space Solar is that next big step over AC
in terms of availability. Space Solar has all kinds
of market niches all to itself, it can charge what it
needs to charge for power. As the alternative is
remaining in the Stone Age.

If space activity is to explode, it has to be connected
be a gigantic commercial market, with a bottomless pit
of financing.

Energy is the second largest market of all.
Connecting NASA, low-earth orbit and
the monstrous energy market into one, then
you've got a space future that is truly
inspirational, and on every level.

From social justice, to national security to
expanding into space, to climate change
you name it. Energy effects just about everything.

If NASA is to change the world...again...how better
than solving the global energy problem???


Jonathan


s



Jonathan


s

>
>>
>>Space Solar Power IS the solution to the storage problem.
>>
>

> How's that work, again?
>
>
> --
> "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
> territory."
> --G. Behn

[Jonathan]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:64uai7dshmq4r60q8...@4ax.com...

> Please describe the number and size of the SP vehicles required and
> the orbits they must be placed in to provide this "continuous and

> consistent power to ANY point on Earth".

The same as any satellite constellation in geosynchronous orbit

This start-up private corp has a detailed business plan for SSP
http://spaceenergy.com/

And the advisors for this company have the highest
level of credibility

Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm




>
>>

>>And building a rectenna
>>on the ground is enormously easier and cheaper than
>>building new power plants near the need.
>>
>

> But once you factor in the costs of the satellites and their
> maintenance it is tremendously more difficult and more expensive than

> building new power plants near the need.

That's not true, if you listen to the TEDX presentation on the
home page above, a gigawatt class SSP would cost about
the same as a new nuclear power plant. And take about the
same time to...build. Plus, once the SSP is up, there are
almost maintenance costs and no operating costs. Since
it has almost no moving parts or people.

>
>>
>>Once Solar Satellites are up, then 24/7 power can be
>>accessed far easier and cheaper, and in far more places
>>than ANY other energy source, especially terrestrial
>>solar. Since thinly populated areas could justify a rectenna
>>when a nuclear or conventional power plant is out of
>>the question.
>>
>

> Just what sort of location do you think "a nuclear or conventional
> power plant is out of the question" in?

Rural areas around the world that can't justify a power plant.
Poor areas that can't afford them.
Disaster areas like Japan that can't wait five or ten years
to rebuild.
Wars where troops are on the move, or in distant places
so our troops won't have to be followed around by
exploding gas tankers everywhere they go.
Power much larger satellites in orbit.
Power spacecraft in orbit or in route.
Power colonies someday.
And NASA has proposed that rectennas could
be as small as 3 meters...about the size of a car.
So...someday maybe each and every car could be
powered directly from space.

Just to name a few...

>
>>
>>As once the satellites are up, you only have to roll out
>>a great big chicken wire fence to have power.
>>
>

> Bullshit.


A rectenna is little more than chicken wire fence connected
to a grid. Far cheaper than building a new power plant.
Not even close.

>
>>
>>Not build
>>multi-billion dollar plants and hundreds of miles of roads
>>and railroads or shipping to continuously supply some
>>power plant with coal, oil or gas. Or cover hundreds of
>>miles of very expensive property with solar panels.
>>
>

> Uninhabited hinterlands (what you describe above) seldom have a large
> need for electrical power.

Really! Tell that to India where a fourth of all the food
they grow spoils for lack of refrigeration.
The UN claims rural electrification is the best way to raise
poverty levels around the world.

>
>>
>>The point is that Space Solar can travel so much better,
>>analogous to the huge improvement that AC power made
>>over DC.
>>

>

> Your business case assumes the huge investment required to loft and
> maintain a massive array of Solar Power Satellites doesn't exist and
> that they are free. They're not.


The cost doesn't matter in the business world, the ability
to make a profit matters. Once that is demonstrated
a bottomless pit of financing becomes available from
the commercial sector. $10 billion dollar financing is
a weekly event in the energy sector.

NASA or the government couldn't hope to finance it
directly. The commercial sector can float all the loans
it wants once a profit is shown.

And if the only thing holding it back is a marginal business case
then SSP is far closer to practical and far more beneficial
than any other long range goal NASA has proposed.




>
> --
> "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
> only stupid."
> -- Heinrich Heine

[Bret Cahill]

> >Compressed air and an air pressure driven
> >turbine?
>

> And just how much compressed air can you tote around?  There are real
> limits to just how much pressure you can use and safety issues with
> that.

>
>
>
> >Hydrogen and oxygen from water
> >to be burned at night or in a fuel cell?
>

> Too large and bulky and old, old technology.

>
>
>
> >Breakthru? or simply an engineer with a will and
> >the resources...........................................Trig
>

> The question here is physics and chemistry, not engineering.

Thanks. Physicists keep saying it's an engineering problem.

It's OK for physicists to be off several orders of magnitude. Not
true for engineers.


Bret Cahill

[David Spain]

[alt.philosophy cross-posting elided]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> And if the only thing holding it back is a marginal business case
>> then SSP is far closer to practical and far more beneficial
>> than any other long range goal NASA has proposed.
>>
>

> But that's not the only thing holding it back. Get back to me when
> you can put a pound in geosynch orbit for less than $100.
>
> Frankly, I wish your uninformed view was correct. But it isn't.
>

Regrettably, I have to agree with Fred on this one.

Your case would be much much stronger if you had a working prototype supplying
say 100kW continuous baseline as a demonstrator.

There are also particular design requirements for the demonstrator as well.
It can't be a simple one-off. It has to be built in such a way as to show that
it can be *scaled* to the proper capacity to get where you need for SPS (i.e.
it has to be shown how, within a finite cost that that 100kW design can scale
to a 1GW design without requiring any technological breakthroughs to get there.)

There are several 'barriers to entry' to borrow a term from the commercial/VC
sector.

1) Cost to GEO (as Fred has already pointed out).
2) Cost of assembly (both at GEO and on ground).
3) Cost of operation (ditto).
4) Cost of maintenance and repair (ditto).

Hand waves won't do as estimates are unreliable in a totally 'new' area of
endeavor (and this is for sure new). A hand wave can easily be off by as much
as an order of magnitude in a high risk venture (and again, this has to be
viewed as high risk until proven out) where just simple factors of 2x or 3x
over cost estimate is usually enough to sink most ventures.

The issue here IMHO is very similar to the race between space-based telco and
terrestrial telco (be it voice/data via cell or sat). Again as above, it boils
down to how costly is it to deploy, how costly is to upgrade, and how costly
is it to maintain or repair. And you should include the time to do any of
these as a cost. Time = Money. Those costs then must be compared to those to
do the equivalent on the ground. Also, you have to assume that to a large
degree your prices are fixed and are more or less tagged to what they
currently are thanks to all those pesky public utility commissions at the
state level. So you have to provide a VERY compelling case at the outset, to
do that mean you'll need to undercut the existing terrestrial providers by a
significant amount. You cannot expect to get relief from the PUCs, they are
not generally amenable to large price increases.

BTW, using HSF as a means of build-out vs using fully automated or tele-robtic
means is an EXTREMELY expensive way to go about this. With all due respect to
Dr. O'Neill R.I.P., I think this is a fantastically WEAK argument as a means
to bootstrap HSF.

Get the 100kW demo up and running then come back here with your case when that
is done.

This of course *assumes* you are following the commercial model, as you said
since you say only that sector has enough capital to fund its start-up.

If you are following the governmental mandated/subsidized model then, well for
a price, almost anything can be done. Would people be willing to add 5% - 10%
to their income tax rates to pay for just the build-out of a federal
government-run electric power monopoly? With the monthly rate per kW hour to
be decided later?

Dave

[David Spain]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>> BTW, using HSF as a means of build-out vs using fully automated or tele-robtic
>> means is an EXTREMELY expensive way to go about this. With all due respect to
>> Dr. O'Neill R.I.P., I think this is a fantastically WEAK argument as a means
>> to bootstrap HSF.
>>
>

> In fact, it almost has to work the other way. There almost needs to
> be an EXISTING market for the use of space-based resources in space,
> which implies that there is a fairly large off-Earth population when
> you start this.
>

Right. It's a fair point. But I'll set aside the 'Star Trek' scenario for now.

> We know what it's going to cost. If you're building it all from
> Earth, you're talking $1-$2 per kilowatt-hour for break even. I think
> nuclear is somewhere around $0.12 per kilowatt-hour and even something
> like solar thermal (which can store power as molten salt) is only
> around $0.30 per kilowatt-hour.
>

For those less mathematically inclined among the readership, what Fred is
saying here is take your existing monthly electric bill and multiply it
anywhere from between 10x to slightly under 17x your current monthly payment,
assuming you live in France and get nearly all of your electricity from nukes.
Figures in the US are lower and IIRC (chip in here Fred if I'm way off) range
between $0.04 and $0.08 per kilowatt-hour depending upon where you live.
That means for US customers you need to multiply your currently monthly
electric bill by anywhere from 25x to 50x if you're nearer the $0.04 figure to
12.5x to 25x if you're nearer the $0.08 figure. Your electric bill will tell
you your rate so you can compute accordingly for your area.

> It's going to take more than a 5%-10% tax bump to build out an SPS
> system, especially if you're going to subsidize the power cost to get
> it down to economically competitive levels.
>

A hand wave on my part. It's really too depressing a subject to seriously get
into....

Dave

[Quadibloc]

On Jan 28, 2:39 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Space Solar Power IS the solution to the storage problem.
>

> How's that work, again?

Oh, that's easy. Terrestrial solar power is produced during the
daytime. Any space solar power satellite would hardly ever have to
worry about the Earth eclipsing the Sun. So wherever its microwave
beam goes to, the supply of power would be continuous - just like from
a nuclear power plant or a coal fired power plant or a hydroelectric
dam.

The United States doesn't subtend 360 degrees of longitude, or
anything close. Unlike the British Empire, the Sun does set on the
contiguous 48 states each day. So transporting power across the
continent won't solve the problem of continuous availability entirely.

John Savard

[David Spain]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Figures I saw for the US came in around $0.10-$0.12 on average (higher
> in California). In another article I looked up the typical electric
> usage of a home in the United States. Around the $2.00 price point,
> the average household monthly electric bill would be about $2,000 per
> month.

That would be the case for my electric bill if I included all of the charges.
(My bill reads like the "death of a thousand cuts").

But I used only the charge I receive for buying electricity from the utility.
i.e. I used only the rate my utility charges for generation, not delivery, not
line maintenance, "stranded costs" (read a nuke plant with some 'history'),
etc. etc. None of that would change if the power came from coal or from outer
space.

The charge for utility supplied generated power is $0.08 per kW-hr not $2 per
kW-hr. At $2 per kW-hr my monthly electric bill would exceed my mortgage.

Dave

[trigonometry1972@gmail.com |]

On Jan 28, 1:50 am, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |" <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Compressed air and an air pressure driven
> >turbine?
>

> And just how much compressed air can you tote around?  There are real
> limits to just how much pressure you can use and safety issues with
> that.
>
>
>

> >Hydrogen and oxygen from water
> >to be burned at night or in a fuel cell?
>

> Too large and bulky and old, old technology.
>
>
>

> >Breakthru? or simply an engineer with a will and
> >the resources...........................................Trig
>

> The question here is physics and chemistry, not engineering.
>

> Oh, and contrary to what was said, it takes more than 'one more
> breakthrough'.
>
> --
> "The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
>  man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
>  all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
>                                       --George Bernard Shaw

I guess you are thinking autos and trucks. I was thinking the power
grid
or better yet city based night power production. Worried about a
compressed
chamber of atmospheric gas? But not worried about a nuke plant? Really.

[trigonometry1972@gmail.com |]

I also seem to agree with McCall that spaced power is likely highly
expensive.
I suspect insulation and more efficient frigs, cooling units, and
heating yeild
some of the biggest bangs for the dollar. I suspect in home fuel cell
electric
production could have merit though this is because it gets one off the
grid
and one might lose the base charge. And then one could be very sparing
as to power use. The stove and oven would end up on some sort of
gas. What is the cheapest way to cook? A solar cooker in the summer?
Breakfast at noon? Dinner at 2 PM?
Or perhaps some PV panels might be useful further to the south for the
well pump and the 12 volt power system?

cherry pie in the sky that is to say a flock of starlings
flying
over.........................................................Trig

[Jonathan]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:c77ci7tet93oksm2g...@4ax.com...
> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:



>>
>
> I saw lots of hand waving numbers, but no serious numbers. $16
> billion for the first SPS? Really? I don't find that number at all
> credible and certainly not without some backing.
>
> Have you actually read the DoD paper they point to during that
> presentation? I have. Let me give you a few cogent points from it.



All that you say below is true, but you still miss the point.

The pre-requisites for SPS are things like low cost to orbit
and a greatly expanded commercial launch industry and
even using the surface of the Moon eventually in the longer
terms. And so on.

Well...aren't all things things, those prerequisites, exactly the kind
of things space activity needs to truly become a large and important
aspect of our future???

Isn't that what we all want?

Space Solar Power as the ultimate goal gives a /reason/ to do
all those prerequisites. You can't have low cost to orbit as ...the goal.
You have to have a ...reason to build low cost to orbit.

NASA's problem has been the notion of just build the thing
and some use will be found later. It has to be the other way
around for the commercial sector to jump in.

You have to have a worthy goal to do all those things.
With Apollo everyone could easily see all kinds of good
reasons, tangible and inspiring, that made it click.

Anyone can easily understand the potential of a new and
clean energy source. As energy effects just about everything
one way or another. The larger the basin of attraction, the
larger the fitness peak. The goal has to make as many
connections as possible, like Apollo did by appealing
far and wide for many different reasons.

What better way than connecting NASA and space activity
to a direct solution to both the future of energy and
climate change?

Giving SPS Apollo-like scope and sense of urgency.

Kennedy proved thinking big is the way to start something
special.


>
> 1) It assumes that the power produced would be at a price of $1/kWHr
> for use at forward military bases. Electricity costs in advanced
> countries (where most of the market is) are an order of magnitude
> below that (including nuclear).
>
> 2) The report found that "SBSP cannot be constructed without safe,
> frequent (daily/weekly), cheap, and reliable access to space and
> ubiquitous in-space operations". We don't have that.
>
> 3) "The SBSP Study Group found that individual SBSP technologies are
> sufficiently mature to fly a basic proof-of-concept demonstration
> within 4-6 years and a substantial power demonstration as early as
> 2017-2020, though these are likely to cost between $5B-$10B in total."
> Note the cost for the 'proof of concept' demonstrator. Kind of calls
> that whole $16 billion for the first operational SPS into question,
> doesn't it?
>
> 4) "The SBSP Study Group universally acknowledged that a necessary
> pre-requisite for the technical and economic viability of SBSP was
> inexpensive and reliable access to orbit." Access to orbit is
> anything but inexpensive.
>
> 5) "The SBSP Study Group found that the nation's existing EELV-based
> space logistics infrastructure could not handle the volume or reach
> the necessary cost efficiencies to support a cost-effective SBSP
> system." Keep in mind that that is assuming a cost for electricity an
> order of magnitude higher than what most of us currently pay. Now, I
> can afford for my electricity bill to go up by 10x, although it would
> make me pretty unhappy. Most people can't. Can you?
>
> 6) "In order to cost-effectively build, operate, maintain and repair
> much larger SBSP systems, America needs to develop ubiquitous on-orbit
> space operations, including on-orbit assembly, highly-efficient
> orbital transfer systems, and on-orbit repair, maintenance and
> refueling capabilities." We've got none of that. It also pretty much
> explodes the whole idea that once you put these things up you can just
> ignore them. Read the last part of that last sentence again. "...
> and on-orbit repair, maintenance and refueling capabilities."
>
> 7) "The SBSP Study Group found that growth past a certain (perhaps
> even initial) stage is likely to require or make attractive the use of
> off-Earth materials because of their abundance and significantly lower
> energy costs." I think I've been saying for years that the only way
> an SPS system makes sense is if you have sufficiently ubiquitous space
> access and industrialization that the use of space-based resources
> makes sense.
>
> 8) "The SBSP Study Group found that even with the DoD as an anchor
> tenant customer at a price of $1-2 per kilowatt hour for 5-50
> megawatts continuous power for the warfighter, when considering the
> risks of implementing a new unproven space technology and other major
> business risks, the business case for SBSP still does not appear to
> close in 2007 with current capabilities (primarily launch costs)."
> Launch costs to GEO for significant SV masses have not gone down to
> speak of since 2007, when this study was done. And note that we're
> now allowing the cost of power to float clear up to $2/kWHr before
> this starts to become economically viable. Typical home usage of
> electricity in the US is somewhere around 10-12 MWHrs per year. At
> the $2 that is the upper limit of the cost of SPS power, that amounts
> to an electricity bill of around $2,000 per month. Can YOU afford
> that? Do you think most people can?
>
> 9) "The SBSP Study Group found that America's aerospace industry alone
> does not have all of the necessary skills, knowledge, resources,
> systems or procedures necessary to effectively and economically
> develop SBSP in 2007." That seems to say it all, really.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Once Solar Satellites are up, then 24/7 power can be
>>>>accessed far easier and cheaper, and in far more places
>>>>than ANY other energy source, especially terrestrial
>>>>solar. Since thinly populated areas could justify a rectenna
>>>>when a nuclear or conventional power plant is out of
>>>>the question.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just what sort of location do you think "a nuclear or conventional
>>> power plant is out of the question" in?
>>
>>Rural areas around the world that can't justify a power plant.
>>
>

> I hope they're rich rural areas, at $2/kWHr.

>
>>
>>Poor areas that can't afford them.
>>
>

> Then they sure can't afford to by power from an SPS at $2/kWHr.

>
>>
>>Disaster areas like Japan that can't wait five or ten years
>>to rebuild.
>>
>

> Cheaper to rebuild.

>
>>
>>Wars where troops are on the move, or in distant places
>>so our troops won't have to be followed around by
>>exploding gas tankers everywhere they go.
>>
>

> They still need gas, so there are still those tankers. Note that the
> military doesn't need to make an economic case.

>
>>
>>Power much larger satellites in orbit.
>>Power spacecraft in orbit or in route.
>>
>

> How's that work, again?
>
>>

>>Power colonies someday.
>>And NASA has proposed that rectennas could
>>be as small as 3 meters...about the size of a car.
>>So...someday maybe each and every car could be
>>powered directly from space.
>>
>

> Ok, so you have a 3 meter rectenna. I assume you mean 3 meters on a
> side, which is sort of bigger than a car, giving 9 square meters of
> area. Assume the power density is around 600 watts/square meter,
> which is a little high, but let's be generous. That gives you about
> 5.5 kW of power, if we assume that the SPS is directly above your car.
> That's less than 7.5 horsepower. Not much of a car.

>
>>
>>Just to name a few...
>>
>

> And none of them are workable. You understand that you're posting
> into the 'science' hierarchy, right?

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>As once the satellites are up, you only have to roll out
>>>>a great big chicken wire fence to have power.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>
>>A rectenna is little more than chicken wire fence connected
>>to a grid. Far cheaper than building a new power plant.
>>Not even close.
>>
>

> If you assume that the SPS is free. And it IS quite a bit more than
> "chicken wire fence connected into a grid". The fact that you have
> apparently seriously made this statement demonstrates the level of
> ignorance you have achieved about how this stuff all works.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Not build
>>>>multi-billion dollar plants and hundreds of miles of roads
>>>>and railroads or shipping to continuously supply some
>>>>power plant with coal, oil or gas. Or cover hundreds of
>>>>miles of very expensive property with solar panels.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Uninhabited hinterlands (what you describe above) seldom have a large
>>> need for electrical power.
>>>
>>
>>Really! Tell that to India where a fourth of all the food
>>they grow spoils for lack of refrigeration.
>>
>

> Not 'uninhabited hinterlands'. If it costs you $2/kWHr, you can't
> afford to refrigerate the stuff.

>
>>
>>The UN claims rural electrification is the best way to raise
>>poverty levels around the world.
>>
>

> But not at ruinously expensive rates for power.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The point is that Space Solar can travel so much better,
>>>>analogous to the huge improvement that AC power made
>>>>over DC.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your business case assumes the huge investment required to loft and
>>> maintain a massive array of Solar Power Satellites doesn't exist and
>>> that they are free. They're not.
> <>
>>
>>The cost doesn't matter in the business world, the ability
>>to make a profit matters.
>>
>

> And you don't think costs affect profit? REALLY?????

>
>>
>>Once that is demonstrated
>>a bottomless pit of financing becomes available from
>>the commercial sector. $10 billion dollar financing is
>>a weekly event in the energy sector.
>>
>

> But not for 'investments' that don't have a prayer of showing a profit
> in competition with ANY other power source.

>
>>
>>NASA or the government couldn't hope to finance it
>>directly. The commercial sector can float all the loans
>>it wants once a profit is shown.
>>
>>And if the only thing holding it back is a marginal business case
>>then SSP is far closer to practical and far more beneficial
>>than any other long range goal NASA has proposed.
>>
>

> But that's not the only thing holding it back. Get back to me when
> you can put a pound in geosynch orbit for less than $100.
>
> Frankly, I wish your uninformed view was correct. But it isn't.
>

> --
> "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
> truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
> -- Thomas Jefferson

[Jonathan]

"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
news:e2b927e8-4494-4715...@ih8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

One satellite couldn't of course, but any satellite would be targeting
specific markets and needs. And a constellation could be designed
that has broader coverage. For global coverage, the surface of
the Moon seems to become the better choice. Space Energy Inc
points to this paper.

Architecture Options for SSP
http://ssi.org/Potter_SSP_99_SSI.pdf


But again, all this misses the point. Does anyone believe for a minute
that Kennedy cared a bit whether we used, say, a 2 or 3 stage rocket?
Or if the lander had 3 or 4 legs etc etc? Of course not, all that comes
....after the goal/commitment has been made, it has to
...IF you want to succeed.

Self-organized systems, where the final product is allowed to emerge
as it will (NOT pre-planned) will always settle on the best
possible solution. Emergent vs. pre-designed is the difference
between natural and man-made.

Apollo self-organized....it couldn't fail...life finds a way.

To self-organize, in the most abstract form possible, what's required
is that the system-specific static and chaotic attractors must be
at simultaneous maximums...and...critically interacting with each
other.

For the system called space future, that translates into a goal
where the static (tangible) and chaotic (inspirational) potentials
are at their maximums, and intractably entangled with each other
in a single system or project.

Maximum potential commercial return, combined with maximum
ability to 'change the future' for the better. In the shortest time span
possible. The sense of urgency is a crucial aspect. It provides the
basic impetus or force for self-organizing, just as a slope does
to a fluid.

It finds a way!


Jonathan


>John Savard

[Jonathan]

"Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:XPudnWMDzeAevrbS...@giganews.com...

>
> Maximum potential commercial return, combined with maximum
> ability to 'change the future' for the better. In the shortest time span
> possible. The sense of urgency is a crucial aspect. It provides the
> basic impetus or force for self-organizing, just as a slope does
> to a fluid.
>
> It finds a way!

If ...'before climate change becomes irreversible'..is the pressing
deadline. Then a new, clean energy source for the future should
become the problem a self-organized system will relentlessly solve.
Whatever that solution happens to become, technological, political
etc, it will be the best ...practical solution for that problem.

It's just the inverse square law...everywhere.
Get close enough, and the force for organizing
becomes overwhelming and unstoppable.
If the slope is high enough, if the gravity strong enough.
If the goal is ambitious enough, if it's difficult enough
to attain, it springs to life, and can't fail.

If we want it bad enough, it'll find a way to happen.

What's needed to actually produce that shining space future
is to design a suitable goal, which evokes the power of nature
for it's success. Not some new technological breakthrough
or new world to exploit.

Figuratively speaking, if we click our click our heels j u s t r i g h t
the path to that shining future suddenly becomes a reality, and as if
by magic. Like Kennedy did! His speech and idea were just right.
That's how the natural world works.

The new math is clear on that~
It all starts with wanting.

Space Solar Power has all the elements to self-organize, and may
already be taking on a life of it's own. It's really only the business
case that's been holding it back, but every day, with peak oil and
the Iranians and climate change and revolutions and all that, Space
Solar Power becomes closer and closer to becoming affordable.

SSP doesn't even have to move ahead as an idea, it can sit and wait
and it's day will come. Every act of geo-political Nature brings it
closer to efficiency. SSP is an idea with Nature at it's back.

And if enough people want it bad enough, it can be sooner
rather than later. Even a few loud, or important, people could
be the difference. Imho.




s



>
>
> Jonathan
>
>
>>John Savard
>
>
>

[David Spain]

[I don't post to alt.philosophy, cross-post elided]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Self-organized systems, where the final product is allowed to emerge
>> as it will (NOT pre-planned) will always settle on the best
>> possible solution. Emergent vs. pre-designed is the difference
>> between natural and man-made.
>>
>

> Absolute and utter bullshit!
>
> <snip pseudo-religion>
>

The 'self-organized' system has to beat $0.08/kWh or come in very close to it
for me to be ok with it.

As far as SSP saving us from "Anthropogenic Global Warming" now called
"Climate Change".

Climate is so complex and our understanding of it so poor how do we even
pretend we know how to solve 'climate change'? Or worry about it? So I don't.
I can plant a tree. So I'll do that.

Dave

[bob haller]

On Feb 3, 1:38 pm, David Spain <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> [I don't post to alt.philosophy, cross-post elided]
>
> Fred J. McCall wrote:

> > "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Self-organized systems, where the final product is allowed to emerge
> >> as it will (NOT pre-planned) will always settle on the best
> >> possible solution.  Emergent vs. pre-designed is the difference
> >> between natural and man-made.
>
> > Absolute and utter bullshit!
>
> > <snip pseudo-religion>
>
> The 'self-organized' system has to beat $0.08/kWh or come in very close to it
> for me to be ok with it.
>
> As far as SSP saving us from "Anthropogenic Global Warming" now called
> "Climate Change".
>
> Climate is so complex and our understanding of it so poor how do we even
> pretend we know how to solve 'climate change'? Or worry about it? So I don't.
> I can plant a tree. So I'll do that.
>
> Dave

well the cost of igoring the possiblity its true can lead to a
devasted planet

[Jonathan]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:urjmi7d9832iv6b6h...@4ax.com...

> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Quadibloc" <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote in message
>>news:e2b927e8-4494-4715...@ih8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
>>On Jan 28, 2:39 pm, Fred J. McCall <fjmcc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Jonathan" <Callinst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> >Space Solar Power IS the solution to the storage problem.
>>>
>>>> How's that work, again?
>>
>>>Oh, that's easy. Terrestrial solar power is produced during the
>>>daytime. Any space solar power satellite would hardly ever have to
>>>worry about the Earth eclipsing the Sun. So wherever its microwave
>>>beam goes to, the supply of power would be continuous - just like from
>>>a nuclear power plant or a coal fired power plant or a hydroelectric
>>>dam.
>>>
>>>The United States doesn't subtend 360 degrees of longitude, or
>>>anything close. Unlike the British Empire, the Sun does set on the
>>>contiguous 48 states each day. So transporting power across the
>>>continent won't solve the problem of continuous availability entirely.
>>>
>>
>>One satellite couldn't of course, but any satellite would be targeting
>>specific markets and needs. And a constellation could be designed
>>that has broader coverage. For global coverage, the surface of
>>the Moon seems to become the better choice. Space Energy Inc
>>points to this paper.
>>
>

> You realize you're arguing with someone who was AGREEING with you,
> right?


Who's arguing? I was expanding upon.

>
>>
>>Architecture Options for SSP
>>http://ssi.org/Potter_SSP_99_SSI.pdf
>>
>

> Have you read and understood it, or is this like the DoD paper they
> pointed to that you obviously are ignoring the contents of?
>
> The cost for power from the Moon is HIGHER than the $1-$2/kWHr cited
> in the DoD study (See Table 2.5).

>
>>
>>But again, all this misses the point. Does anyone believe for a minute
>>that Kennedy cared a bit whether we used, say, a 2 or 3 stage rocket?
>>Or if the lander had 3 or 4 legs etc etc? Of course not, all that comes
>>....after the goal/commitment has been made, it has to
>> ...IF you want to succeed.
>>
>

> A bit of a difference there and if there HAD been a little more
> concern with HOW and a little less concern with speed we'd have gotten
> a much better system out of it.

>
>>
>>Self-organized systems, where the final product is allowed to emerge
>>as it will (NOT pre-planned) will always settle on the best
>>possible solution. Emergent vs. pre-designed is the difference
>>between natural and man-made.
>>
>

> Absolute and utter bullshit!


So, you're saying that the final product of a naturally
evolving system ...IS...known in advance???
So you believe in Intellgent Design then.

Or is it you don't believe a man-made system, like
a building, is designed before it's built???

Which is it?

Or is it you don't even read before replying?
Why am I happy you don't agree with me?

By the way, the sky is blue....


>
> <snip pseudo-religion>


How would you know?



s

[Jonathan]

"David Spain" <nos...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:a_udnWxAANhRtLHS...@giganews.com...

> [I don't post to alt.philosophy, cross-post elided]
>
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Self-organized systems, where the final product is allowed to emerge
>>> as it will (NOT pre-planned) will always settle on the best
>>> possible solution. Emergent vs. pre-designed is the difference
>>> between natural and man-made.
>>>
>>
>> Absolute and utter bullshit!
>>
>> <snip pseudo-religion>
>>
>
> The 'self-organized' system has to beat $0.08/kWh or come in very close to
> it for me to be ok with it.

I bet Japan would pay more. So would the Pentagon or places
too rural to get on a conventional grid. Would you also object to
AC power transmission over DC for cost reasons? If the
alternative to DC was nothing at all? SSP's big advantage
is the ability to travel so much better.

With DC you had to have a power plant almost on every
city block. With AC you have to have one almost
near every major city...figuratively speaking.

With SSP you can have baseload power to any point
on Earth, 24/7. Rain or shine, close or far from the equator
Rural or populated. And you can even plant crops, or have
terrestrial solar panels...beneath...an SSP receiving rectenna.

SSP is characterized by high initial start-up costs, and
almost NO operating costs. Operating costs for a major
power plant is having to pay through the nose each and
every day for a constant stream of oil, gas, coal and
so on. Prices which might swing wildly from time to time.

No other power source can do that, not nuclear, not fusion
and especially not the growing choice of the third-world....Coal.

>
> As far as SSP saving us from "Anthropogenic Global Warming" now called
> "Climate Change".
>

> Climate is so complex and our understanding of it so poor how do we even
> pretend we know how to solve 'climate change'?

NASA is convinced the recent warming is real and man-made.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/

They say so rather strongly, but maybe you have a better
source than......

"What does NASA have to do with global warming?"

"NASA employs the world's largest concentration of
climate scientists. NASA's mission to study Earth involves
monitoring atmospheric conditions, global temperatures, land
cover and vegetation, ice extent, ocean productivity, and
a number of other planetary vital signs with a fleet of
space-based sensors."
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/what-does-nasa-have-to-do-with-global-warming/

>Or worry about it? So I
> don't. I can plant a tree. So I'll do that.
>

But you make a good point, predicting the longer term
future of such a complicated ecosystem is guesswork.

The question on climate-change shouldn't be about
arguing the finer points of volumes of statistical data.
The question should be whether we're going to just
let Nature takes it's course, warmer of colder?

And just hope for the best?

Or are we going to build the ability to manage our biosphere
so we can deal with the future ....regardless
of whether the future is hotter or colder?

Should we just have 'faith', or control our own destiny?


s


> Dave
>

[Jonathan]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:3m91j7prv4j2gv6cd...@4ax.com...

> "Jonathan" <Calli...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Self-organized systems, where the final product is allowed to emerge
>>>>as it will (NOT pre-planned) will always settle on the best
>>>>possible solution. Emergent vs. pre-designed is the difference
>>>>between natural and man-made.
>>>>

>>>
>>> Absolute and utter bullshit!
>>>
>>

>>So, you're saying that the final product of a naturally
>>evolving system ...IS...known in advance???
>>So you believe in Intellgent Design then.
>>
>>Or is it you don't believe a man-made system, like
>>a building, is designed before it's built???
>>
>>Which is it?
>>


>

> Neither. Do I need to type slower for you?


No, I think I can understand 'absolute and utter bullshit'
at any speed you type~



s

[Jonathan]

"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message

news:1fv3j7hoi1262j8f5...@4ax.com...

> Apparently not, given how much of it you post.

I'm a fast typer.