Reply to Wash Post article

11 views
Skip to first unread message

Keith Henson

unread,
Mar 6, 2023, 11:52:16 PM3/6/23
to Howard Bloom, Power Satellite Economics, 847lov...@gmail.com, a.p.k...@astrox.com, ag...@cecglobalevents.com, algl...@gmail.com, am...@sonic.net, analyte...@bellsouth.net, andre...@gmail.com, anna.j.n...@gmail.com, astrobi...@gmail.com, barn...@barnhard.com, b...@spaceward.org, bgo...@gmail.com, bmack...@alum.mit.edu, boyd...@newschool.edu, bpit...@earthlink.net, budo...@gmail.com, c...@sedov.co, cacar...@yahoo.com, cash...@gmail.com, comp...@gmail.com, d.m.bu...@larc.nasa.gov, dalels...@gmail.com, david.c...@gmail.com, davi...@spacegeneration.org, dennis.m...@nasa.gov, dliv...@davidlivingston.com, don.fl...@ohio.edu, dougsp...@gmail.com, drs...@thespaceshow.com, dstewa...@gmail.com, ericm...@factualfiction.com, feng...@gmail.com, feng...@gmail.com, flou...@ohio.edu, gabriela...@gmail.com, gabriela...@nss.org, gale.s...@gmail.com, garyba...@aol.com, gbl...@cinci.rr.com, genemey...@icloud.com, ghal...@aol.com, giu...@gmail.com, h.ha...@suddenlink.net, harold...@verizon.net, hicou...@aol.com, jajos...@gmail.com, james...@gmail.com, james...@comcast.net, jam...@dimensionality.com, james...@aol.com, jaso...@gmail.com, jdrutl...@gmail.com, jeroen...@gmail.com, jgl...@igc.org, jgl...@aol.com, jgl...@aol.com, jkst...@sbcglobal.net, joecham...@gmail.com, jssd...@aol.com, karen...@gmail.com, kdw...@gmail.com, kins...@icloud.com, kr...@maficstudios.com, lauren...@gmail.com, liz.k...@tis.org, loby4...@aol.com, lonnie...@aol.com, lorigor...@gmail.com, louisl....@asc-csa.gc.ca, lziel...@comcast.net, mac...@comcast.net, marde...@aol.com, mark.h...@nss.org, mark....@asteroidenterprises.com, na...@universetoday.com, news...@aol.com, nicola...@gmail.com, paul.da...@gen-astro.com, paul.e.d...@gmail.com, peter.g...@us.af.mil, pwe...@gmail.com, rausche...@gmail.com, rckz...@aol.com, re...@mtu.edu, rfu...@thought.live, rich...@gmail.com, ri...@earthlightfoundation.org, robsh...@gmail.com, rocket...@gmail.com, roger.h...@usafa.edu, sam.co...@gmail.com, sam.s...@runbox.com, s...@etiam-engineering.com, sara.a...@seds.org, snn...@columbia.edu, spac...@gmail.com, stelli...@gmail.com, stephen...@gmail.com, topa...@singularsci.com, transg...@comcast.net, trent.wa...@gmail.com, william.w...@gmail.com, willj...@gmail.com, win...@skycorpinc.com, wol...@aol.com, yoda...@hotmail.com


I have long been concerned with power satellites which take a much larger flow of cargo into space than communication satellites.  Back in 2014 (been a while now) I asked NOAA to look into the ozone damage from up to a million flights per year.

NOAA put a lot of effort into modeling the problem, hundreds of hours of supercomputer time on the models, writing a paper, and getting it through peer review. I really appreciate what they did.

The paper is available online at


Click on the PDF symbol next to the journal title.

Short answer: the damage to the ozone is not a showstopper.

Now, this was for hydrogen-burning rockets, so it needs to be redone for hydrocarbons.  Most of the ozone damage is due to reentry.

Keith Henson

unread,
Mar 7, 2023, 12:54:29 PM3/7/23
to jgl...@aol.com, howl...@aol.com, power-satell...@googlegroups.com, 847lov...@gmail.com, a.p.k...@astrox.com, ag...@cecglobalevents.com, algl...@gmail.com, am...@sonic.net, analyte...@bellsouth.net, andre...@gmail.com, anna.j.n...@gmail.com, astrobi...@gmail.com, barn...@barnhard.com, b...@spaceward.org, bgo...@gmail.com, bmack...@alum.mit.edu, boyd...@newschool.edu, bpit...@earthlink.net, budo...@gmail.com, c...@sedov.co, cacar...@yahoo.com, cash...@gmail.com, comp...@gmail.com, d.m.bu...@larc.nasa.gov, dalels...@gmail.com, david.c...@gmail.com, davi...@spacegeneration.org, dennis.m...@nasa.gov, dliv...@davidlivingston.com, don.fl...@ohio.edu, dougsp...@gmail.com, drs...@thespaceshow.com, dstewa...@gmail.com, ericm...@factualfiction.com, feng...@gmail.com, feng...@gmail.com, flou...@ohio.edu, gabriela...@gmail.com, gabriela...@nss.org, gale.s...@gmail.com, garyba...@aol.com, gbl...@cinci.rr.com, genemey...@icloud.com, ghal...@aol.com, giu...@gmail.com, h.ha...@suddenlink.net, harold...@verizon.net, hicou...@aol.com, jajos...@gmail.com, james...@gmail.com, james...@comcast.net, jam...@dimensionality.com, james...@aol.com, jaso...@gmail.com, jdrutl...@gmail.com, jeroen...@gmail.com, jgl...@igc.org, jgl...@aol.com, jkst...@sbcglobal.net, joecham...@gmail.com, jssd...@aol.com, karen...@gmail.com, kdw...@gmail.com, kins...@icloud.com, kr...@maficstudios.com, lauren...@gmail.com, liz.k...@tis.org, loby4...@aol.com, lonnie...@aol.com, lorigor...@gmail.com, louisl....@asc-csa.gc.ca, lziel...@comcast.net, mac...@comcast.net, marde...@aol.com, mark.h...@nss.org, mark....@asteroidenterprises.com, na...@universetoday.com, news...@aol.com, nicola...@gmail.com, paul.da...@gen-astro.com, paul.e.d...@gmail.com, peter.g...@us.af.mil, pwe...@gmail.com, rausche...@gmail.com, rckz...@aol.com, re...@mtu.edu, rfu...@thought.live, rich...@gmail.com, ri...@earthlightfoundation.org, robsh...@gmail.com, rocket...@gmail.com, roger.h...@usafa.edu, sam.co...@gmail.com, sam.s...@runbox.com, s...@etiam-engineering.com, sara.a...@seds.org, snn...@columbia.edu, spac...@gmail.com, stelli...@gmail.com, stephen...@gmail.com, topa...@singularsci.com, transg...@comcast.net, trent.wa...@gmail.com, william.w...@gmail.com, willj...@gmail.com, win...@skycorpinc.com, wol...@aol.com, yoda...@hotmail.com
It's worth reading the whole article, but on the other hand, it is
technical and it is a subject that few people understand.

The main point is that there are people at NOAA who understand ozone
damage from rocket flights. If you are concerned about this subject
(which I was) ask them.

Best wishes,

Keith

On Tue, Mar 7, 2023 at 9:34 AM <jgl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Based on the Abstract of the 2016 paper cited, I am not sure why damage to the ozone might not be a "showstopper," nor did the Abstract make clear whether the increased high altitude water vapor would have an effect on global warming.
>
> I do not understand why
>
> Water vapor emissions from 105 flights per year increase polar stratospheric and mesospheric cloud fractions by 20%
>
> and
>
> NOX emissions from ascent and reentry of 105 flights per year result in the loss of 0.5% of the globally averaged ozone column
>
> would be insignificant.
>
> Perhaps, as a non-scientist, I am mis-reading the Abstract, which I append.
>
> Jeffrey Liss
> ________________________
>
> https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016EF000399
>
> Global atmospheric response to emissions from a proposed reusable space launch system
>
> Erik J. L. Larson, Robert W. Portmann, Karen H. Rosenlof, David W. Fahey, John S. Daniel, Martin N. Ross
>
> First published: 16 November 2016 https://doi.org/10.1002/2016EF000399
>
> Abstract
>
> Modern reusable launch vehicle technology may allow high flight rate space transportation at low cost. Emissions associated with a hydrogen fueled reusable rocket system are modeled based on the launch requirements of developing a space-based solar power system that generates present-day global electric energy demand. Flight rates from 104 to 106 per year are simulated and sustained to a quasisteady state. For the assumed rocket engine, H2O and NOX are the primary emission products; this also includes NOX produced during reentry heating. For a base case of 105 flights per year, global stratospheric and mesospheric water vapor increase by approximately 10 and 100%, respectively. As a result, high-latitude cloudiness increases in the lower stratosphere and near the mesopause by as much as 20%. Increased water vapor also results in global effective radiative forcing of about 0.03 W/m2. NOX produced during reentry exceeds meteoritic production by more than an order of magnitude, and along with in situ stratospheric emissions, results in a 0.5% loss of the globally averaged ozone column, with column losses in the polar regions exceeding 2%.
>
> Key Points
>
> Roughly 105 flights per year from hydrogen fueled reusable launch systems are necessary to significantly impact the global climate
>
> Water vapor emissions from 105 flights per year increase polar stratospheric and mesospheric cloud fractions by 20%
>
> NOX emissions from ascent and reentry of 105 flights per year result in the loss of 0.5% of the globally averaged ozone column
>
> _____________________________________________

Narayanan Komerath

unread,
Mar 7, 2023, 7:43:19 PM3/7/23
to Keith Henson, jgl...@aol.com, howl...@aol.com, power-satell...@googlegroups.com, 847lov...@gmail.com, a.p.k...@astrox.com, ag...@cecglobalevents.com, algl...@gmail.com, am...@sonic.net, analyte...@bellsouth.net, andre...@gmail.com, anna.j.n...@gmail.com, astrobi...@gmail.com, barn...@barnhard.com, b...@spaceward.org, bgo...@gmail.com, bmack...@alum.mit.edu, boyd...@newschool.edu, bpit...@earthlink.net, budo...@gmail.com, c...@sedov.co, cacar...@yahoo.com, cash...@gmail.com, comp...@gmail.com, d.m.bu...@larc.nasa.gov, dalels...@gmail.com, david.c...@gmail.com, davi...@spacegeneration.org, dennis.m...@nasa.gov, dliv...@davidlivingston.com, don.fl...@ohio.edu, dougsp...@gmail.com, drs...@thespaceshow.com, dstewa...@gmail.com, ericm...@factualfiction.com, feng...@gmail.com, feng...@gmail.com, flou...@ohio.edu, gabriela...@gmail.com, gabriela...@nss.org, gale.s...@gmail.com, garyba...@aol.com, gbl...@cinci.rr.com, genemey...@icloud.com, ghal...@aol.com, giu...@gmail.com, h.ha...@suddenlink.net, harold...@verizon.net, hicou...@aol.com, jajos...@gmail.com, james...@gmail.com, james...@comcast.net, jam...@dimensionality.com, james...@aol.com, jaso...@gmail.com, jdrutl...@gmail.com, jeroen...@gmail.com, jgl...@igc.org, jgl...@aol.com, jkst...@sbcglobal.net, joecham...@gmail.com, jssd...@aol.com, karen...@gmail.com, kdw...@gmail.com, kins...@icloud.com, kr...@maficstudios.com, lauren...@gmail.com, liz.k...@tis.org, loby4...@aol.com, lonnie...@aol.com, lorigor...@gmail.com, louisl....@asc-csa.gc.ca, lziel...@comcast.net, mac...@comcast.net, marde...@aol.com, mark.h...@nss.org, mark....@asteroidenterprises.com, na...@universetoday.com, news...@aol.com, nicola...@gmail.com, paul.da...@gen-astro.com, paul.e.d...@gmail.com, peter.g...@us.af.mil, pwe...@gmail.com, rausche...@gmail.com, rckz...@aol.com, re...@mtu.edu, rfu...@thought.live, rich...@gmail.com, ri...@earthlightfoundation.org, robsh...@gmail.com, rocket...@gmail.com, roger.h...@usafa.edu, sam.co...@gmail.com, sam.s...@runbox.com, s...@etiam-engineering.com, sara.a...@seds.org, snn...@columbia.edu, spac...@gmail.com, stelli...@gmail.com, stephen...@gmail.com, topa...@singularsci.com, transg...@comcast.net, trent.wa...@gmail.com, william.w...@gmail.com, willj...@gmail.com, win...@skycorpinc.com, wol...@aol.com, yoda...@hotmail.com
Mr. Henson and NOAA have thought of this, I am sure: Aren't there thousands/millions of shooting stars every year? Depositing most of their mass as gas/dust at high altitudes.  Surprised to hear that spacecraft re-entry may significantly hurt Ozone: I always imagined rocket exhaust at launch to be the big problem, and there I discounted high-altitude water vapor.

There used to be a theory that all the oceans came from comet fragments falling in.

Thanks

nk

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/CAPiwVB4P%2BXQvDd650Lxdi7XJT_0qQ2K%3D9DAQJQ0JAUOtg4yd3w%40mail.gmail.com.

k.a.c...@sympatico.ca

unread,
Mar 7, 2023, 11:33:21 PM3/7/23
to Power Satellite Economics

From https://www2.tulane.edu/~sanelson/Natural_Disasters/impacts.htm, the total meteorite flux (i.e., total mass of extraterrestrial objects) that strike the Earth is in the range of 10,000 to 1 million tonnes per year. That will include a range of chemical compounds and minerals --- much rock and metal, also a fair bit of carbonaceous materials. For meteorites in the vicinity of Earth, probably the only volatile materials (e.g., water) will be whatever is chemically bound to minerals, rather than chunks of ice (we’re too close to the Sun for ice to last long).

k.a.c...@sympatico.ca

unread,
Mar 8, 2023, 9:35:08 AM3/8/23
to Power Satellite Economics

For reference, SpaceX is currently flying about 60 Falcon 9 missions per year. Upper stage is not re-used, its dry mass is about 4 tonnes, presumably most of that ends up as gases and fine particulates in the upper atmosphere. Payload delivered to LEO is about 20 tonnes; eventually much of that will also end up burning up in the atmosphere. That totals to something less than 60*24=1440 tonnes per year of waste disposed by burning up in the atmosphere. Of course, there are also a few others rockets in the world 😊, so maybe double that number to something less than 3000 tonnes per year. That is something less than 30% of the natural meteoroid flux (for the low-end flux estimate), or 0.3% for the high-end flux estimate.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.

Narayanan Komerath

unread,
Mar 8, 2023, 10:31:07 AM3/8/23
to k.a.c...@sympatico.ca, Power Satellite Economics
Based on that, if one went to build a constellation of 8000 1-GW SPS stations in orbit, using expendable stages, yes, I can see how that would amount to a spectacular meteor shower year-round. An argument for re-usable or at least parachuted components for most of the mass.

At a specific power of 1 kW/kg placed in orbit (which is 10x as good as anything in the works today but I think is needed before SSP gets real), 8000E9 Watts in orbit means 8000E6kg or 8 million tons. To put that there, at a payload fraction of 5%, needs 160 million tons of stuff sent up. If half of that is propellant fumes and the the rest becomes gases and particulates, yes, that is a lot. Fortunately it will take at least 50 years to put that much up, so much it may settle down and we will be able to see the sky still. Hope my arithmetic is OK to within a few zeroes :)

But the other side is that such a 50-year enterprise is the perfect business case for a 100% reusable architecture based on H2-O2.

Thanks

nk

corne...@earthlink.net

unread,
Mar 8, 2023, 11:12:45 AM3/8/23
to Narayanan Komerath, k.a.c...@sympatico.ca, Power Satellite Economics

There are alternatives to get material into orbit,  One example is Spin Launch, where a centrifuge is used to get to orbital velocity

SpinLaunch

https://www.spinlaunch.com/

 

Rail gun approaches have been suggested in the past

 

Charlie Jackson

a.p.kothari astrox.com

unread,
Mar 8, 2023, 11:24:38 AM3/8/23
to corne...@earthlink.net, Narayanan Komerath, k.a.c...@sympatico.ca, Power Satellite Economics

Centrifuge does not get to orbital velocity (~24,440 f/s Easterly from KSC). It gets only to Mach 6ish. SpinLaunch also has tremendous g forces.

IMO it will never work on Earth. Moon maybe.

Other options like Skylon cannot close either.

SpaceX Starship or F9H are the best options so far by far. Hopefully RocketLab’s Neutron will compete and some day (!) Bezo’s New Glenn.

 

-------------------------------------------------------

Dr. Ajay P. Kothari

President

Astrox Corporation

 AIAA Associate Fellow

 

Ph: 301-935-5868

Web:  www.astrox.com

Email: a.p.k...@astrox.com

-------------------------------------------------------

Keith Henson

unread,
Mar 8, 2023, 12:08:07 PM3/8/23
to k.a.c...@sympatico.ca, Power Satellite Economics
As I recall from discussions with the author of the paper on ozone
damage, the natural flux of meteorites causes about half the ozone
destruction through the formation of NOx in the upper atmosphere.

But don't assume this to be the case without researching it.

Keith
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/power-satellite-economics/049401d95177%241babeaf0%245303c0d0%24%40sympatico.ca.

Narayanan Komerath

unread,
Mar 9, 2023, 9:35:21 PM3/9/23
to Keith Henson, k.a.c...@sympatico.ca, Power Satellite Economics

Keith Henson

unread,
Mar 9, 2023, 10:21:27 PM3/9/23
to Narayanan Komerath, k.a.c...@sympatico.ca, Power Satellite Economics
With respect to ozone, it is not what comes in but how fast it is
going. Fast enough and it ionizes the nitrogen and oxygen which
recombine into oxides of nitrogen that react with ozone. Reentry is
fast enough to cause this reaction.

NOAA only looked at the hydrogen-burning Skylon rocket plane because
that study was done well before StarShip was designed. The water from
burning hydrogen was considered and had effects on high clouds, but
the ozone damage came mostly from reentry.

As far as I know, nobody has done a study on the effects of
methane-burning rockets. I think NOAA would do such a study, but
someone would have to ask and provide them with data the way Reaction
Engines did on the Skylon rocket plane.

It's been a frightfully long time since I started getting concerned
about high rocket traffic damage to the ozone and tracked down the
right people at NOAA.

Keith

Keith Lofstrom

unread,
Mar 10, 2023, 12:10:49 PM3/10/23
to Narayanan Komerath, Keith Henson, k.a.c...@sympatico.ca, Power Satellite Economics
Narayanan shares a livescience.com squib summarizing this
preprint article from Nature:

https://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso2302/eso2302a.pdf

Measuring V883 Orionis, a protostar 1,300 light-years away.

The measurements are made with the ALMA radio telescope array
(in the Chilean desert) in a few molecular resonance bands
within the 200GHz to 250GHz frequency region. The spatial
resolution at that distance is 60au, rather amazing. They
measure the isotopic composition of the water in that
condensing cloud.

Remarkable!

------

Reading this in the space solar power context, I am curious
if we have estimates of the "high harmonic" sidelobe spew
from a constellation of multiGW SSPS. For conversion
efficiency, the transmit elements of an SSPS will probably
be class C (lots of harmonics) and not lossily filtered,
hence megawatts of harmonics WILL be broadcast.

The harmonics from the phased array will NOT be focused
on the rectenna like the fundamental. Small phase angle
tweaks to each 2.5 GHz broadcasting element, compensating
for orbital movement and transmitter angle to construct
a highly focused main beam, will be magnified perhaps
100x in the angle of the 250 GHz harmonic scatter.

A lot of words meaning "A powersat can spew megawatts of
harmonics in all directions ... including Chile's ALMA
radio telescope array at latitude 23 south, and other
radio telescopes around the world."

I presume that the ALMA telescope receivers have marvelous
cryogenic-temperature low noise amplifiers (LNA) on the
"front end", amplifying the incoming signal before band
filtering. A common radio receiver technique - the
inevitable thermal noise from the filter is compared to
an amplified version of the input signal.

The problem with high-gain low noise amplifiers is that
they are not perfectly linear, and this leads to harmonics
and intermodulation, "funhouse mirror" combinations of
desired signal and interference signals. A common
intermodulation product is "IM3", with the desired signal
multiplied by the third harmonic of the interferer.

Anyway ... what for us are some "slight" (1%, 100 MW) power
losses from 10GW SSPS microwave generation (and yes, I've
seen 1% harmonics described in published papers about SSPS
transmit elements) can be "laser beam in the eye" for radio
astronomy. Not enough interference power to bake the radio
receiver elements, but more than enough to blind them.

----

Some SBSP proponents elevate the need for grid power into
"anything goes, justification for any harms done" in the
quest for SBSP economic efficiency and rapid deployment.

Such justifications are NOT ALLOWED for power generating
alternatives such as hydro, combustion, and nuclear;
imagine how quickly and cheaply those alternatives could
be deployed with similar lack of restraint and oversight.

And in fact some were so deployed - there are thousands
of tonnes of plutonium production waste stored at Hanford,
potentially more long-term harmful to the population of
the Pacific Northwest than the plutonium bomb used on
Nagasaki (Hiroshima was Oak Ridge U235). Such sloppiness
is the main reason nuclear hasn't displaced combustion.

----

Bottom line, if the only way we can make SBSP budgets work
is by imposing enormous and uncompensated costs on others,
we WILL be stopped, just as those other alternatives have
been stopped by public and politician push-back. Instead,
we must carefully measure and MITIGATE those harms in our
design process, not during and after deployment.

Keith L.

--
Keith Lofstrom kei...@keithl.com

Keith Henson

unread,
Mar 10, 2023, 1:09:22 PM3/10/23
to Keith Lofstrom, Narayanan Komerath, k.a.c...@sympatico.ca, Power Satellite Economics
The entire power satellite discussion may be moot.

https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities

Best wishes,

Keith

Keith Lofstrom

unread,
Mar 10, 2023, 5:50:23 PM3/10/23
to Power Satellite Economics
In response to my posting:

Subject: Interference Re: Reply ... protostar measurements ...

On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:08:51AM -0800, Keith Henson wrote:
> https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/uMQ3cqWDPHhjtiesc/agi-ruin-a-list-of-lethalities

Keith Henson, your deflecting response to a serious-but-
perhaps-quantifiable-and-sovable problem with SBSP is
lazy and (dare I say it?) churlish.

When you change the subject, PLEASE change the subject line.

Eliezer Yudkowsky has been working his angle for decades.
He spoke at one of Chris Peterson's early nanotechnology
conferences, circa 2000, and I watched as Marvin Minsky's
sharp tongue cut him to ribbons.

Marvin cut me a new asshole once. I learned from that.
It was his signature teaching method, and alleviates
intellectual constipation.

What has Yudkowsky actually made, besides word salad?

The problem is, physical stuff is hard, and no matter how
hyper-intelligent and convincing an AI is, atoms and the
laws of physics AREN'T LISTENING. The conversation goes
the other way - if we listen VERY VERY carefully to nature,
nature might tell us something new and useful, which we
can combine with the other useful things we know, and the
atoms available, to make new and amazing and profitable
objects. Mechanical Turk ChatGPT style, processes called
"science" and "engineering" and "production" and "sales",
fueled by hypergolic "collaboration" and "competition".

I am currently working on a new (and IMHO amazing!) version
of SBSP, which might provide terawatts for some aspects of
AGI, but more likely will enable far more profitable uses
of space energy IN SPACE, entirely bypassing the hazards
of terawatt transmissions to Earth.

I've discussed this idea off-list with a few list members,
and will share it with this list when I learn how to
disclose it publicly in a "3rd-party-non-patentable" way.

My biggest fear about ChatGPT is that it will be trained
to write and submit freedom-thwarting patent applications.

There are many more profitable products than idiot savant
chatbots. I daresay a Eliezer Yudkowsky chatbot is well
within current software capabilities, and I can understand
his concerns about being replaced by AI. ("ChatGPT,
write a blog posting in the style of Yudkowsky")

----

All that said, please let's un-hijack my posting about
sidelobe harmonic interference from SSPS, quantify the
problem (if any), and SOLVE IT. Deflecting isn't solving.
SBSP will NEVER happen if we don't quickly solve problems
as they arise. Delay evaporates investment.

James Salsman

unread,
Mar 11, 2023, 3:16:23 PM3/11/23
to Power Satellite Economics
>  I've seen 1% harmonics described in published papers about
> SSPS transmit elements

I'd like to see those sources, please.

Gary barnhard

unread,
Mar 15, 2023, 12:20:58 AM3/15/23
to white...@gmail.com, power-satell...@googlegroups.com, kei...@kl-ic.com
Keith L, Keith H, and colleagues of the list -

I infrequently write to the list not out of a lack of interest, but rather an acknowledgment that I can make no claim to immaculate perception much less prescience.  Rather, far more often than not, I stand to learn more from listening and coming to understand what others are saying than revealing in my own eloquence or lack there of.  Given that caveat, I could not resist this thread . . .
>On Fri, Mar 10, 2023 at 10:08:51AM -0800, Keith Henson wrote:

Eliezer Yudkowsky's, screed (see link above)  is quite the read, and the avalanche of comments all the more so.   I simultaneously felt enlightened, perhaps a bit offended, most definitely bemused, as well as a keen sense that his glimpse of prescience (of which he acknowledges is limited at best for more reasons than even he has come to understand) was illuminating the problem space, not the solution space.   My take on what he has to say is that he is trying to drive home the point that humanity does not yet have in our tool kit the necessary transforms that will allow us the ability to lay bare the general problem that has to be solved with respect to Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) much less the solution space.  With that, at least in part I must beg to differ.

At the risk of being labeled hopelessly naive if not ignorant, I proffer the notion that the solution space must be architected from the premise that an intelligence needs to be able to understand three things to maximize the probability of its survival both in terms of physicality and metaphorically (what it cares about, what it endows with meaning, that which it loves).
  1. What actions they are capable of.
  2. What are the impacts of their actions.
  3. Why they chose to take actions.
It does not matter if the intelligence is biological, artificial, or some other construct we have not yet conceived of.
It applies to all.

Furthermore in order for intelligence to ultimately be successful it must account for and contend with:
  • both established and emergent situations,
  • the potential for and simultaneous presence of co-existence, cooperation, collaboration, competition, and conflict, as well as
  • rational actors, and irrational actors.
I did not need to read Eliezer's screed to appreciate the complexity of the problem space of which he rants (his characterization of the same). and suspect any number of souls could lend their efforts to articulating the same with equal to or greater alacrity as well as varying degrees of civility.  

I posit that the solution space is to be found by learning to understand and orchestrate shared control between humans, robots, and advanced autonoma.
This does not come with a guarantee that all the choices that will be made are good ones, but it can increase the probability of better outcomes.
Acknowledging the potential for at least three classes of intelligent actors, while a simplification, offers a window into the real dimensions of the problem space.  As I see it, it is an n-dimensional interaction problem of an arbitrary number of actors interacting in an arbitrary number of ways.

The fact is that humans may kill one another.  Robots may kill robots.  Advanced autonoma may kill advanced autonoma.  Humans may kill robots, etc. 
Mathematically, the simplest analogy to this is that taking a determinant of 2x2 matrix is trivial.  However, chances are it will take you some number of attempts to get the determinant of 3x3 matrix right.  Any larger construct in two dimensional space is typically intractable by hand, you have to write a program to do it.  When you abstract this analogy to the reality of n-dimensional space it does not change the nature of the problem, it merely lays it bare.

While I have not had the honor of being torn a new one by Marvin Minsky, more than a few, in many ways far more brilliant than I, have lent their efforts to try and learn me as the colloquialism goes.

In an all too real sense being a profit of doom suffers tremendously from confirmation bias.  After all, what do you get out of it if you are right.
That leaves us to face the fact that not only must humanity learn to make better choices, all that we create must do so as well.
As Eliezer's "word salad" (as Keith L perhaps most aptly labeled), intonates and my modest contribution to the growing body of work in this area asserts in no uncertain terms, "Failure to do so will not just result in profound misunderstandings, it could easily prove to be our undoing".

For those, inclined to tear me a new one, or otherwise set me to straights, I have provided links to several of my recent germane papers and presentations.
Truth be told I am writing my second thesis on the subject as partial atonement for my myriad of sins against the ghods of academia, and as such would sincerely welcome a tough technical room on the same, be it in this fora, in any other fora, or by direct message to barn...@barnhard.com as deemed appropriate. 

Ad Astra!

- Gary


----- GWAVA AUTHENTICATED & SIGNED MESSAGE -----
 
Gary Pearce Barnhard
Space Development Foundation

 

>>> Keith Lofstrom <kei...@kl-ic.com> 3/10/2023 5:45 PM >>>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Power Satellite Economics" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to power-satellite-ec...@googlegroups.com.

Jerome Glenn

unread,
Mar 15, 2023, 9:44:42 AM3/15/23
to Gary barnhard, white...@gmail.com, power-satell...@googlegroups.com, kei...@kl-ic.com

In an all too real sense being a profit of doom suffers tremendously from confirmation bias.  After all, what do you get out of it if you are right?

 

What you get is skipping the effort of having to prove the positive is possible. Speaking of which, The Millennium Project is beginning a two-year study on AGI governance – what may well be impossible but we have to try. https://www.millennium-project.org/transition-from-artificial-narrow-to-artificial-general-intelligence-governance/

 

And:  "Failure to do so will not just result in profound misunderstandings, it could easily prove to be our undoing".

 

The Millennium Project is preparing to interview leading AGI “experts” worldwide for their insights on how AGI could be created and governed. The results will be used for an international assessment (Real-Time Delphi) of the most important unresolved questions. This Real-Time Delphi will be submitted to 50-75 AGI authorities worldwide. The results will be used to provide content to alternative global governance AGI scenarios that will be widely distributed to broaden and deepen the current conversations about future AI.

 

If you would like to be invited to the RTDelphi (in two or so months) please send me via email to jerome...@millennium-project.org a one line or two your experience working on AGI issues.

 

Cheers.

 

Jerry

 

Jerome C. Glenn

Millennium Project News

James M. (Mike) Snead

unread,
Mar 15, 2023, 10:39:26 AM3/15/23
to Jerome Glenn, Gary barnhard, white...@gmail.com, power-satell...@googlegroups.com, kei...@kl-ic.com

The Millennium Project is preparing to interview leading AGI “experts” worldwide for their insights on how AGI could be created and governed.”

 

As I understand the intent of this project is to locate self-identified “experts” who will volunteer to tell everyone else how they, through their “wisdom”, will instruct a computer to govern and control us through enforced ignorance of truth that conflicts with the “wisdom” of the self-identified “experts”.

 

Seems like this was tried with COVID-19 and massively failed, and is now being tried with ESG, equity, and a number of other similar topics. I opine that AGI is seen by these experts as just another means to control the message by controlling what the public is told as being the only accepted “truth”. Having a computer program say that it is AI, simply is putting another stamp of “approval” on the information to try to dissuade or even socially punish disbelief. The real intelligence remains with the human programmers of so-called artificial intelligence.

 

I enter a library seeking an answer to a question on plumbing. I walk up to the old-fashioned wall of trays of index cards arranged by topic. Opening the tray labeled plumbing, I find the card identifying the book—“Everything you wanted to know about toilets”—with the apparent answer to my question on toilets. In examining the book, written by a human, it answers my question. Does an AI chatbot answer merely repeating the same information from the same book on toilets have intelligence? If the AI has never used a toilet, how would it “really” know if its answer was correct? If the AI doesn’t really know an answer is correct, is it really intelligent? Or is it just a fancy index card?

 

Mike Snead

 

This was written without any AI help.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages