Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
How many 'excuses' for manned space flight has NASA offered?
4 views
Skip to first unread message
Jonathan
Nov 24, 2011, 7:23:19 AM11/24/11
to
US manned space program...
Originally the Soviet menace was the driving
reason for manned flight. Racing them to the
Moon and all that. Not a bad reason at all.
Then it became the Space Station and all those
earth-shattering discoveries from micro-gravity
research. How has that worked out?
Then it was going back to the Moon, and onto Mars
in the search for life elsewhere. But that didn't fly.
Next up was helium-3 on the Moon. That mythical
'unobtanium' which would power and save the future.
And then another reason which didn't pass the
laugh test ...water on the Moon. Making colonies
a cinch they said.
Now, as I type, a NASA talking head on CNN is explaining
how sending ...men to a football field sized ...asteroid will help
us learn how to blow them up with nuclear weapons.
And thus spare humanity from extinction. As one of the 'scientists'
just said, "if you don't think we're in danger, just ask
a dinosaur". The asteroid 'menace'.
How sending men to an asteroid will help blow one up is
beyond me, but as we see, any 'menace' will do.
What's next? Will it involve Elvis?
When will NASA propose a goal that sticks?
Here's one that makes a bit more sense to me....
What do you think?
NASA's Space Solar Power Research Program...SERT
(canceled by President George W Bush in his first budget)
Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power (SERT)
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
Space Energy Inc
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm
Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
(scroll down)
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm
Space Energy Inc Sales Presentation
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation
Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
(National Space Security Office)
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm
Jonathan
s
Jonathan
s
Originally the Soviet menace was the driving
reason for manned flight. Racing them to the
Moon and all that. Not a bad reason at all.
Then it became the Space Station and all those
earth-shattering discoveries from micro-gravity
research. How has that worked out?
Then it was going back to the Moon, and onto Mars
in the search for life elsewhere. But that didn't fly.
Next up was helium-3 on the Moon. That mythical
'unobtanium' which would power and save the future.
And then another reason which didn't pass the
laugh test ...water on the Moon. Making colonies
a cinch they said.
Now, as I type, a NASA talking head on CNN is explaining
how sending ...men to a football field sized ...asteroid will help
us learn how to blow them up with nuclear weapons.
And thus spare humanity from extinction. As one of the 'scientists'
just said, "if you don't think we're in danger, just ask
a dinosaur". The asteroid 'menace'.
How sending men to an asteroid will help blow one up is
beyond me, but as we see, any 'menace' will do.
What's next? Will it involve Elvis?
When will NASA propose a goal that sticks?
Here's one that makes a bit more sense to me....
What do you think?
NASA's Space Solar Power Research Program...SERT
(canceled by President George W Bush in his first budget)
Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power (SERT)
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
Space Energy Inc
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm
Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
(scroll down)
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm
Space Energy Inc Sales Presentation
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation
Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
(National Space Security Office)
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm
Jonathan
s
Jonathan
s
Neolibertarian
Nov 24, 2011, 11:01:37 AM11/24/11
to
In article <9o2dnab1G8reqlPT...@giganews.com>,
space was A) impractical with liquid fueled rockets, since LF rockets
require constant maintenance/replenishment and B) too provocative--there
is no plausible "defensive" reason to deploy nuclear weapons in
orbit--other than to directly threaten some or all the nations on earth.
With these things in mind, it was believed that the Moon is
"the ultimate high ground" as Jack Kennedy once called it. Atop a
powerful gravity well, the Soviet Union slid by underneath Moon once
every 25 hours. All things considered, the Moon seemed to be a practical
location for a Missile Base, since a colony of men could live there, and
could provide enough personnel to service the rockets round the clock.
The missiles, themselves, could be fairly small, since little fuel would
be needed for the "downhill" approach to earth. A missile base could
also have the cover of being a 'scientific outpost.' The first nation to
the Moon would presumably be the only nation there for quite some time.
You could build a missile base in complete secrecy, since no one else
could observe any of your actions. Perhaps even the threat that you
MIGHT build a missile base would be as effective as actually building
one, as long as you were the first.
The other aspect of the race to the Moon was this: as a super weapon,
the V-2 rocket could easily have forced England to sue for peace, but it
didn't.
The V-1 drone had proved too easy to intercept, of course. Britain had
radar, and its Spitfire pilots developed a practical method of
intercepting and eliminating them before they reached their targets.
However, there was no defense against the V-2. It came in from above the
stratosphere without warning. It even fell on target without a sound.
For Londoners, there couldn't have been a greater weapon of terror,
since the first warning that they were being attacked was the huge
explosion as the warhead detonated. No air raid siren, no chance to head
for shelter, no sound of an approaching bomber. Not even the scream of
bombs being dropped.
The reasons England wasn't forced to sign a peace treaty were
these--First, Germany deployed them too late in the war, and was never
able to produce or deploy enough. Second, the V-2 could not be precisely
targeted. It hit randomly, many times out in the countryside were its
warhead could do no damage. And a certain percentage of the rockets
never made it to Britain--they either exploded on the launch pad, or
fell into the channel when the guidance hardware failed.
Well, in the 1950's, the Soviets and the US were mainly working with V-2
rockets. There's lots of movie footage showing how often these rockets
failed to achieve flight. Just like at Peenemünde, the spectacular
failures on the US launch pads made many wonder if rocket flight would
ever be practical. Placing a nuclear warhead on such an unstable system
seemed worse than fool hardy.
Bombers were still the only practical delivery system, and bombers can
be shot down.
And this was the heart of the "Space Race." The first nation to
demonstrate dependable rocketry would be the first nation to possess the
ultimate terror weapon. The success of Sputnik was just such a
demonstration.
Having Alan Shepard and John Glenn splash down in the ocean where you
WANTED them to splash down was an even more powerful demonstration. It
was plain by the early 1960's that both the Soviets and the US were
getting close to having dependable, accurate rockets. Nuclear warheads
on intercontinental rockets were finally an effective deterrent. By
1969, the US had already perfected the Minute Man III solid fueled
rocket.
Missile bases on the Moon were no longer necessary. Silo-based missiles
in Iowa could hit their target on the other side of the globe within 45
minutes. A missile launched from the Moon is 250,000 from target, and
would take over a day to hit its target. Solid fuel rockets required far
less maintenance.
The idea of a Moon Base was no longer necessary by the time Neil
Armstrong misspoke those immortal words as he stepped off the Eagle's
ladder.
The US was already committed, so it went back to the Moon a few more
times. Astronauts played a few rounds of golf there, and never returned.
The Soviets never even really tried to send men there in the first place.
So, when you say "not a bad reason," I suppose you're correct. But it's
hardly a simple question to answer.
October 16, 2003:
"A Chinese space capsule touched down on an isolated patch of the Gobi
Desert Thursday, Oct. 16, successfully completing China's first manned
space mission and bringing back to Earth a new hero, Lt. Col. Yang
Liwei.
"Shenzhou 5, or Divine Vessel 5, landed at 6:23 a.m. after orbiting the
globe 14 times in a 21-hour mission, making China the third country
after Russia and the United States to send a man into space."
-------
From CNN:
November 29, 2003
China plans to land a human on the moon by 2020, the country's chief
space official said in comments broadcast by state television. "By 2020,
we will achieve visiting the moon," said Luan Enjie, director of the
National Aerospace Bureau. Luan used a verb that specifically describes
a human act.
Luan said that would follow the launch of a probe to orbit the moon by
2007 and an unmanned lunar landing by 2010.
-------
January 15, 2004
"BUSH UNVEILS VISION FOR MOON AND BEYOND
"President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding
"Bush: 'Much remains for us to explore and to learn.'
U.S. President Bush unveils the multi-billion dollar space initiative.
CNN's Miles O'Brien on NASA plans to ask for an incremental budget
increase. President Bush's space proposal includes a permanent presence
on the moon.
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saying "the desire to explore and understand is
part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious
plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a
steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/14/bush.space/
>
> Next up was helium-3 on the Moon. That mythical
> 'unobtanium' which would power and save the future.
> And then another reason which didn't pass the
> laugh test ...water on the Moon. Making colonies
> a cinch they said.
Colonies on the Moon would never be a cinch, of course.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq6q2BrTino
But, sooner or later we're gonna become a Type 1 Civilization. Despite
everything.
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
"Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> US manned space program...
>
> Originally the Soviet menace was the driving
> reason for manned flight. Racing them to the
> Moon and all that. Not a bad reason at all.
In the late 1950's, they realized that building a missile platform in
> US manned space program...
>
> Originally the Soviet menace was the driving
> reason for manned flight. Racing them to the
> Moon and all that. Not a bad reason at all.
space was A) impractical with liquid fueled rockets, since LF rockets
require constant maintenance/replenishment and B) too provocative--there
is no plausible "defensive" reason to deploy nuclear weapons in
orbit--other than to directly threaten some or all the nations on earth.
With these things in mind, it was believed that the Moon is
"the ultimate high ground" as Jack Kennedy once called it. Atop a
powerful gravity well, the Soviet Union slid by underneath Moon once
every 25 hours. All things considered, the Moon seemed to be a practical
location for a Missile Base, since a colony of men could live there, and
could provide enough personnel to service the rockets round the clock.
The missiles, themselves, could be fairly small, since little fuel would
be needed for the "downhill" approach to earth. A missile base could
also have the cover of being a 'scientific outpost.' The first nation to
the Moon would presumably be the only nation there for quite some time.
You could build a missile base in complete secrecy, since no one else
could observe any of your actions. Perhaps even the threat that you
MIGHT build a missile base would be as effective as actually building
one, as long as you were the first.
The other aspect of the race to the Moon was this: as a super weapon,
the V-2 rocket could easily have forced England to sue for peace, but it
didn't.
The V-1 drone had proved too easy to intercept, of course. Britain had
radar, and its Spitfire pilots developed a practical method of
intercepting and eliminating them before they reached their targets.
However, there was no defense against the V-2. It came in from above the
stratosphere without warning. It even fell on target without a sound.
For Londoners, there couldn't have been a greater weapon of terror,
since the first warning that they were being attacked was the huge
explosion as the warhead detonated. No air raid siren, no chance to head
for shelter, no sound of an approaching bomber. Not even the scream of
bombs being dropped.
The reasons England wasn't forced to sign a peace treaty were
these--First, Germany deployed them too late in the war, and was never
able to produce or deploy enough. Second, the V-2 could not be precisely
targeted. It hit randomly, many times out in the countryside were its
warhead could do no damage. And a certain percentage of the rockets
never made it to Britain--they either exploded on the launch pad, or
fell into the channel when the guidance hardware failed.
Well, in the 1950's, the Soviets and the US were mainly working with V-2
rockets. There's lots of movie footage showing how often these rockets
failed to achieve flight. Just like at Peenemünde, the spectacular
failures on the US launch pads made many wonder if rocket flight would
ever be practical. Placing a nuclear warhead on such an unstable system
seemed worse than fool hardy.
Bombers were still the only practical delivery system, and bombers can
be shot down.
And this was the heart of the "Space Race." The first nation to
demonstrate dependable rocketry would be the first nation to possess the
ultimate terror weapon. The success of Sputnik was just such a
demonstration.
Having Alan Shepard and John Glenn splash down in the ocean where you
WANTED them to splash down was an even more powerful demonstration. It
was plain by the early 1960's that both the Soviets and the US were
getting close to having dependable, accurate rockets. Nuclear warheads
on intercontinental rockets were finally an effective deterrent. By
1969, the US had already perfected the Minute Man III solid fueled
rocket.
Missile bases on the Moon were no longer necessary. Silo-based missiles
in Iowa could hit their target on the other side of the globe within 45
minutes. A missile launched from the Moon is 250,000 from target, and
would take over a day to hit its target. Solid fuel rockets required far
less maintenance.
The idea of a Moon Base was no longer necessary by the time Neil
Armstrong misspoke those immortal words as he stepped off the Eagle's
ladder.
The US was already committed, so it went back to the Moon a few more
times. Astronauts played a few rounds of golf there, and never returned.
The Soviets never even really tried to send men there in the first place.
So, when you say "not a bad reason," I suppose you're correct. But it's
hardly a simple question to answer.
>
> Then it became the Space Station and all those
> earth-shattering discoveries from micro-gravity
> research. How has that worked out?
You don't know what you'll find until you look.
> Then it became the Space Station and all those
> earth-shattering discoveries from micro-gravity
> research. How has that worked out?
>
> Then it was going back to the Moon, and onto Mars
> in the search for life elsewhere. But that didn't fly.
The reasons for "going back to the Moon" are obvious:
> Then it was going back to the Moon, and onto Mars
> in the search for life elsewhere. But that didn't fly.
October 16, 2003:
"A Chinese space capsule touched down on an isolated patch of the Gobi
Desert Thursday, Oct. 16, successfully completing China's first manned
space mission and bringing back to Earth a new hero, Lt. Col. Yang
Liwei.
"Shenzhou 5, or Divine Vessel 5, landed at 6:23 a.m. after orbiting the
globe 14 times in a 21-hour mission, making China the third country
after Russia and the United States to send a man into space."
-------
From CNN:
November 29, 2003
China plans to land a human on the moon by 2020, the country's chief
space official said in comments broadcast by state television. "By 2020,
we will achieve visiting the moon," said Luan Enjie, director of the
National Aerospace Bureau. Luan used a verb that specifically describes
a human act.
Luan said that would follow the launch of a probe to orbit the moon by
2007 and an unmanned lunar landing by 2010.
-------
January 15, 2004
"BUSH UNVEILS VISION FOR MOON AND BEYOND
"President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding
"Bush: 'Much remains for us to explore and to learn.'
U.S. President Bush unveils the multi-billion dollar space initiative.
CNN's Miles O'Brien on NASA plans to ask for an incremental budget
increase. President Bush's space proposal includes a permanent presence
on the moon.
"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saying "the desire to explore and understand is
part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious
plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a
steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/14/bush.space/
>
> Next up was helium-3 on the Moon. That mythical
> 'unobtanium' which would power and save the future.
> And then another reason which didn't pass the
> laugh test ...water on the Moon. Making colonies
> a cinch they said.
>
> Now, as I type, a NASA talking head on CNN is explaining
> how sending ...men to a football field sized ...asteroid will help
> us learn how to blow them up with nuclear weapons.
> And thus spare humanity from extinction. As one of the 'scientists'
> just said, "if you don't think we're in danger, just ask
> a dinosaur". The asteroid 'menace'.
>
> How sending men to an asteroid will help blow one up is
> beyond me, but as we see, any 'menace' will do.
> What's next? Will it involve Elvis?
No, not Elvis. Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck:
> Now, as I type, a NASA talking head on CNN is explaining
> how sending ...men to a football field sized ...asteroid will help
> us learn how to blow them up with nuclear weapons.
> And thus spare humanity from extinction. As one of the 'scientists'
> just said, "if you don't think we're in danger, just ask
> a dinosaur". The asteroid 'menace'.
>
> How sending men to an asteroid will help blow one up is
> beyond me, but as we see, any 'menace' will do.
> What's next? Will it involve Elvis?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq6q2BrTino
>
> When will NASA propose a goal that sticks?
>
> Here's one that makes a bit more sense to me....
> What do you think?
>
>
> NASA's Space Solar Power Research Program...SERT
> (canceled by President George W Bush in his first budget)
There's problems with this, as well.
> When will NASA propose a goal that sticks?
>
> Here's one that makes a bit more sense to me....
> What do you think?
>
>
> NASA's Space Solar Power Research Program...SERT
> (canceled by President George W Bush in his first budget)
But, sooner or later we're gonna become a Type 1 Civilization. Despite
everything.
--
Neolibertarian
"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Nov 24, 2011, 11:07:44 AM11/24/11
to
On Nov 24, 4:23 am, "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> US manned space program...
>
> Originally the Soviet menace was the driving
> reason for manned flight. Racing them to the
> Moon and all that. Not a bad reason at all.
>
Shrug. Perhaps or not. It was the unmanned
> US manned space program...
>
> Originally the Soviet menace was the driving
> reason for manned flight. Racing them to the
> Moon and all that. Not a bad reason at all.
>
developments in the form of spy sats that did
the heavy lifting of all the space programs.
Any way it looks like the next step is a "prayer based"
mannned space program as USA marches into a Hoover/Norquist/Newt
depression age Amerika.
Top bankers and their families need to be the test subjects
for the suborbital thrill ride systems....................Trig
Jonathan
Nov 25, 2011, 8:09:47 PM11/25/11
to
<trigonom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1c5ea50-9747-46e3...@x29g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> Any way it looks like the next step is a "prayer based"
> depression age Amerika.
The current recession is a crying shame for so many reasons
the largest being it didn't have to happen. Only Wall Street's greed
surpassed our government's incompetence. A one-two punch
that set off a world-wide depression.
> Top bankers and their families need to be the test subjects
> for the suborbital thrill ride systems....................Trig
being so pricey.
Jonathan
Nov 25, 2011, 8:37:09 PM11/25/11
to
"Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:306ae$4ece6882$18f556a5$11...@allthenewsgroups.com...
> From CNN:
>
> November 29, 2003
>
> China plans to land a human on the moon by 2020, the country's chief
> space official said in comments broadcast by state television. "By 2020,
> we will achieve visiting the moon," said Luan Enjie, director of the
> National Aerospace Bureau. Luan used a verb that specifically describes
> a human act.
>
> Luan said that would follow the launch of a probe to orbit the moon by
> 2007 and an unmanned lunar landing by 2010.
>
> -------
>
> January 15, 2004
>
> "BUSH UNVEILS VISION FOR MOON AND BEYOND
>
> "President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding
new arms race, this time with the Chinese to the Moon
for missile defense. Using the Moon for tracking and
surveillance and so on. Thankfully, President Obama
has nipped that in the bud. The last thing we need
is another decades long and very expensive cold war.
NASA needs a goal that does something for...us
for a change instead of the military industrial simplex.
s
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Nov 26, 2011, 2:47:58 AM11/26/11
to
On Nov 25, 5:09 pm, "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Naw the Money boys led the way over the edge and the Goverment
boys followed as they were paid off to remove the post-1930's reforms
over the decades.
It looks like Europe is rolling over the edge............and it will
suck others along. China is slowing. China may run blood red yet so
no China on the moon IMHO.
The slaves may yet rise if they aren't used for spare parts.
The thrill ride won't fly enough unless the do something.
If they could replace the Concord, maybe they'll make
a profit .......or
not...............................................Trig
> <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
boys followed as they were paid off to remove the post-1930's reforms
over the decades.
It looks like Europe is rolling over the edge............and it will
suck others along. China is slowing. China may run blood red yet so
no China on the moon IMHO.
The slaves may yet rise if they aren't used for spare parts.
The thrill ride won't fly enough unless the do something.
If they could replace the Concord, maybe they'll make
a profit .......or
not...............................................Trig
Jonathan
Nov 25, 2011, 5:21:47 AM11/25/11
to
<trigonom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a7e0e304-2d83-40aa...@20g2000prp.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 25, 5:09 pm, "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e1c5ea50-9747-46e3...@x29g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Any way it looks like the next step is a "prayer based"
> > > manned space program as USA marches into a Hoover/Norquist/Newt
> > > depression age Amerika.
>
> > The current recession is a crying shame for so many reasons
> >the largest being it didn't have to happen. Only Wall Street's greed
> >surpassed our government's incompetence. A one-two punch
> >that set off a world-wide depression.
>
> > > Top bankers and their families need to be the test subjects
> > >for the suborbital thrill ride systems....................Trig
>
> > I think the plan is to fill those rides up with the rich-and-famous
> >being so pricey.
> Naw the Money boys led the way over the edge and the Government
> <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e1c5ea50-9747-46e3...@x29g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Any way it looks like the next step is a "prayer based"
> > > manned space program as USA marches into a Hoover/Norquist/Newt
> > > depression age Amerika.
>
> > The current recession is a crying shame for so many reasons
> >the largest being it didn't have to happen. Only Wall Street's greed
> >surpassed our government's incompetence. A one-two punch
> >that set off a world-wide depression.
>
> > > Top bankers and their families need to be the test subjects
> > >for the suborbital thrill ride systems....................Trig
>
> > I think the plan is to fill those rides up with the rich-and-famous
> >being so pricey.
> boys followed as they were paid off to remove the post-1930's reforms
> over the decades.
Yep, I think we've had our fill of the deregulation mania for now.
> over the decades.
Seeing how it's pretty much laid waste to the world economy
like nothing else since WW2.
I don't think we have to wonder when WW3 is gonna happen.
This is it.
> It looks like Europe is rolling over the edge............and it will
> suck others along. China is slowing. China may run blood red yet so
> no China on the moon IMHO.
race to the Moon, this time it would've been with the Chinese
and over missile defense. In any event, the last thing we need
is a massive decades long arms race with the cash-rich Chinese.
> The slaves may yet rise if they aren't used for spare parts.
set off a panic sell and give them an endless array of
cheap stock prices.
Wall Street is still laughing all the way to the bank as we speak.
The worst part is Wall Street set off this panic by convincing
our idiot government to ...shower them...with our money
with the rescue bill. That's just over the line in so many ways.
It's bad enough to be ripped off, but when we're conned
into...paying them...so they can rip us off, is just well...it's...
just too much to take.
I mean the great crash in Oct 08 came days after the big
rescue bill, and the recent one came two days after the
next rescue bill. WTF! The protesters are right, we need
an ...anti-Wall Street rescue bill.
> The thrill ride won't fly enough unless the do something.
> If they could replace the Concord, maybe they'll make
> not...............................................Trig
I think that's about right, at best these suborbital rides
will be another Concorde. A niche market for the wealthy.
Hardly a world-changing new technology.
That's what I like about Space Solar Power, it's not in
that tiny market, it's in the $2 trillion dollar a year energy
market. With plenty of niches that need to be filled.
For instance, think like an entrepreneur, SSP can deliver
/baseload/ green power 24 hours a day to any place on Earth
and in days or weeks, not years or decades as in
building a new power plant somewhere.
For instance in post earthquake Japan, an existing SSP
satellite could deliver gigawatt flows to the disaster area
in days or weeks. Or to any place too thinly populated,
distant or rugged, to troops in the field or to power larger
satellites in orbit. Quickly and easily, as it just takes
laying down nothing more than a large chicken-wire
fence to power a grid. On the receiving end, SSP is
dirt cheap. once the satellites are up and running.
I think what's lost in the debate is that SSP is essentially
...wireless..power transmission. Which greatly improves
the ability for the energy to travel to places it can't reach
now. SSP is very analogous to the huge advance of
AC power transmission over DC in that sense. SSP
can deliver baseload power where nothing else can.
SSP doesn't have to compete with conventional sources
as a result, it will have plenty of completely open markets
to fill all by itself.
And I don't see any other market that could potentially
afford the massive costs of space activities, or set off
a new gold rush for space. Energy is the second largest
market on Earth.
Jonathan
s
Neolibertarian
Nov 26, 2011, 12:15:28 PM11/26/11
to
In article <6d-dnWawyuBJ303T...@giganews.com>,
This is Usenet, after all.
"Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:306ae$4ece6882$18f556a5$11...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>
> > From CNN:
> >
> > November 29, 2003
> >
> > China plans to land a human on the moon by 2020, the country's chief
> > space official said in comments broadcast by state television. "By 2020,
> > we will achieve visiting the moon," said Luan Enjie, director of the
> > National Aerospace Bureau. Luan used a verb that specifically describes
> > a human act.
> >
> > Luan said that would follow the launch of a probe to orbit the moon by
> > 2007 and an unmanned lunar landing by 2010.
> >
> > -------
> >
> > January 15, 2004
> >
> > "BUSH UNVEILS VISION FOR MOON AND BEYOND
> >
> > "President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding
>
>
>
> What was happening is that Bush was starting a brand
> new arms race, this time with the Chinese to the Moon
> for missile defense.
You misunderstood, prolly because you can't read.
> "Neolibertarian" <cogn...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:306ae$4ece6882$18f556a5$11...@allthenewsgroups.com...
>
> > From CNN:
> >
> > November 29, 2003
> >
> > China plans to land a human on the moon by 2020, the country's chief
> > space official said in comments broadcast by state television. "By 2020,
> > we will achieve visiting the moon," said Luan Enjie, director of the
> > National Aerospace Bureau. Luan used a verb that specifically describes
> > a human act.
> >
> > Luan said that would follow the launch of a probe to orbit the moon by
> > 2007 and an unmanned lunar landing by 2010.
> >
> > -------
> >
> > January 15, 2004
> >
> > "BUSH UNVEILS VISION FOR MOON AND BEYOND
> >
> > "President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding
>
>
>
> What was happening is that Bush was starting a brand
> new arms race, this time with the Chinese to the Moon
> for missile defense.
This is Usenet, after all.
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Nov 27, 2011, 7:16:32 AM11/27/11
to
target of attack on a nation. An attack that could be both
crippling and deniable depending on security measures.
A lower tech approach would be better designed houses.
Super insulation with active ventilation plus a measure
of on the roof solar cells which is closer for servicing
than a high stationary orbit. For cold weather natural gas
or propane for cooking and drying would lower electricity loads.
And with a bit of designing and manufacturing frigs
can have non-electric compressors to circulate the
chlorofluorocarbons or whatever they using at the time.
I'll grant natural gas has larger downsides the the gas
folks will admit.
I am not rejecting the SSP I am just not sure of it.
Your point of about to directing power to isolated region
of global might offer all manner of new ways of
exploitation of resources. Like enough electric power
to strip mine the ocean floor or perhaps enough power
to melt a glacier or ice sheet section for fresh water.
If multiple directions are possible this would really
expand the possibilities. And if it make power cheap enough
the heat from this source could be used to extract and
extend such hydrocarbon source as oil shale and tar sands.
Also possible enabling extract from now less concentrated
shale and sands thus enlarging the resource as well.
And finally the question comes as to how deadly could power
beams be made? I mean rather than seeking the safest mode
of transmission how about the opposite. So have with enemies
or a rebellion in a city or lower tech nation, just target and toast.
Popping all the popcorn at once so to speak? Is that practical?
Never again until next time so to speak.
a geometric solid has more than one angle....................Trig
Jonathan
Nov 26, 2011, 7:55:24 AM11/26/11
to
<trigonom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8fd8fe94-7fdf-41bf...@d37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> And finally the question comes as to how deadly could power
> beams be made? I mean rather than seeking the safest mode
> of transmission how about the opposite. So have with enemies
> or a rebellion in a city or lower tech nation, just target and toast.
> Popping all the popcorn at once so to speak? Is that practical?
> Never again until next time so to speak.
> a geometric solid has more than one angle....................Trig
express reason to show it couldn't be weaponized and
the overall effect should be to reduce the prospects of
future wars over oil and such.
Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
And this start-up private company claims the most intense
part of the microwave beam is less than natural sunlight.
And they claim you can safely grow crops directly under
the receiving rectenna on the ground. Birds and planes
can safely fly through the beam also.
Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
Message has been deleted
Jonathan
Nov 26, 2011, 3:11:32 PM11/26/11
to
"Fred J. McCall" <fjmc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pg35d71v7bi7dq3ie...@4ax.com...
>>
>>Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
>>http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm
>>
>
> And all this has been known since 1976. Still no SPS.
>>Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
>>http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm
>>
>
Price of gas in 1976 was about 60 cents a gallon.
Price of jet fuel is four times higher today than in 2000.
Message has been deleted
Jonathan
Nov 26, 2011, 8:05:23 PM11/26/11
to
news:u665d79if08frl2ck...@4ax.com...
> And that's relevant how?
I'm sorry, but that's just a completely idiotic reply.
Are you going to sit there and claim the price of
fossil fuels has nothing to do with the economic
viability of other competing energy sources?
It's really important to think before you speak.
Else others might think you don't know how.
a
I'm sorry, but that's just a completely idiotic reply.
Are you going to sit there and claim the price of
fossil fuels has nothing to do with the economic
viability of other competing energy sources?
It's really important to think before you speak.
Else others might think you don't know how.
a
Message has been deleted
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Nov 28, 2011, 2:50:38 AM11/28/11
to
On Nov 26, 4:55 am, "Jonathan" <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Once they are up at least with current tech altering and weapons
would seem difficult.
It seems to me space power plants require geostationary orbits.
I certainly would not want a low earth orbit. Look at the ISS when
it goes over during the night, if it were a power station it might
provide power a couple minutes a night.
Indeed, a space based power station my need to weaponized with
an energy beam of some sort just to protect itself. To zap an
incoming explosive bolt fragment or some tiny piece of creation's
leftovers.
And as I understand it and this is one of the big ones as objections
go, what sort of launch cost to high orbit or even low orbit need to
be?
100 dollars per kilogram? What are those numbers now, 2 or 20 thousand
dollars per kg?
Then the issue is replacement time. How long do the chips last up
there
in the harsh light of space perhaps 10 years?, 7 years?, 15 years?
Plus the array panels would be really large. A large target I think
for
both the universe and man.
How many safe beams add up to a city popping zapper? Even if it
didn't kill it could drive the population away or indoors. Say Syria
had 5 SSP so it stops taking power for industry and
then uses the power to immobilize a city until the troops are
in place for a purge. Or someone hacks the 30 SPP of the
Greater North American Confederate States to zap the great city of New
Amsterdam or the complaining city of Montreal.
> <trigonometry1...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8fd8fe94-7fdf-41bf...@d37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > And finally the question comes as to how deadly could power
> > beams be made? I mean rather than seeking the safest mode
> > of transmission how about the opposite. So have with enemies
> > or a rebellion in a city or lower tech nation, just target and toast.
> > Popping all the popcorn at once so to speak? Is that practical?
> > Never again until next time so to speak.
> > a geometric solid has more than one angle....................Trig
>
> The Pentagon wrote this paper on SSP publicly for the
> express reason to show it couldn't be weaponized and
> the overall effect should be to reduce the prospects of
> future wars over oil and such.
>
> Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm
> news:8fd8fe94-7fdf-41bf...@d37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > And finally the question comes as to how deadly could power
> > beams be made? I mean rather than seeking the safest mode
> > of transmission how about the opposite. So have with enemies
> > or a rebellion in a city or lower tech nation, just target and toast.
> > Popping all the popcorn at once so to speak? Is that practical?
> > Never again until next time so to speak.
> > a geometric solid has more than one angle....................Trig
>
> The Pentagon wrote this paper on SSP publicly for the
> express reason to show it couldn't be weaponized and
> the overall effect should be to reduce the prospects of
> future wars over oil and such.
>
>
> And this start-up private company claims the most intense
> part of the microwave beam is less than natural sunlight.
> And they claim you can safely grow crops directly under
> the receiving rectenna on the ground. Birds and planes
> can safely fly through the beam also.
>
> Space Energy Inc Technical Consultantshttp://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm
Perhaps they can be designed so they wouldn't be weaponized.
> And this start-up private company claims the most intense
> part of the microwave beam is less than natural sunlight.
> And they claim you can safely grow crops directly under
> the receiving rectenna on the ground. Birds and planes
> can safely fly through the beam also.
>
> Space Energy Inc Technical Consultantshttp://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm
Once they are up at least with current tech altering and weapons
would seem difficult.
It seems to me space power plants require geostationary orbits.
I certainly would not want a low earth orbit. Look at the ISS when
it goes over during the night, if it were a power station it might
provide power a couple minutes a night.
Indeed, a space based power station my need to weaponized with
an energy beam of some sort just to protect itself. To zap an
incoming explosive bolt fragment or some tiny piece of creation's
leftovers.
And as I understand it and this is one of the big ones as objections
go, what sort of launch cost to high orbit or even low orbit need to
be?
100 dollars per kilogram? What are those numbers now, 2 or 20 thousand
dollars per kg?
Then the issue is replacement time. How long do the chips last up
there
in the harsh light of space perhaps 10 years?, 7 years?, 15 years?
Plus the array panels would be really large. A large target I think
for
both the universe and man.
How many safe beams add up to a city popping zapper? Even if it
didn't kill it could drive the population away or indoors. Say Syria
had 5 SSP so it stops taking power for industry and
then uses the power to immobilize a city until the troops are
in place for a purge. Or someone hacks the 30 SPP of the
Greater North American Confederate States to zap the great city of New
Amsterdam or the complaining city of Montreal.
bob haller
Nov 28, 2011, 10:42:26 AM11/28/11
to
a constelation of low earth orbiting solar power plants could cover
the entire planet as they go round and round.
lets say solar plants replace coal and other fossil fuels for electric
power, and coal to gasoline plants are built..
just the announcement would drive down the price of oil:)
the entire planet as they go round and round.
lets say solar plants replace coal and other fossil fuels for electric
power, and coal to gasoline plants are built..
just the announcement would drive down the price of oil:)
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Nov 28, 2011, 1:06:30 PM11/28/11
to
even high orbit getting the power down would be much easier
to use far fewer power sats.
Don't get me wrong I'd love to replace the use of most oil on earth
and
most nuclear as well except in deep space and were processing
on earth is needed to get it into space. I'd love fusion as well but
that is always 30 years in the future. How far in the future is
a space solar power system? 50 years?
Jonathan
Nov 27, 2011, 6:58:54 PM11/27/11
to
<trigonom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7d57333e-7502-4a05...@h37g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
> Plus the array panels would be really large. A large target I think
> for
> both the universe and man.
speculation that soon a huge advance will come along and
dramatically improve the system. In NASA's last small scale
study, they theorized that instead of mile-sized solar panels
collecting the sunlight and converting it to microwaves.
The sunlight could be collected by far smaller mirrors which
would convert it directly in a laser beam. The mirrors
would be in geostationary orbit, and they would use
the lasers to transfer the power to small low orbit satellites
which would then microwave it down in the conventional way.
They even speculated that the receiving rectenna could be as small
as 3 square meters. About the size of a ...car. And if you
simply extrapolate how fast all things computerized and
electronic are advancing it's not hard to envision a future
where cars and all kinds of consumer products are powered
directly from space.
Space Solar Power is essentially...wireless...power transmission.
Electricity falling from the sky like cable TV.
> How many safe beams add up to a city popping zapper?
ground and then use a constellation of orbiting mirrors to
hit various places on the ground. Like with this place...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfire_Optical_Range
The Chinese asat shoot down showed anything in orbit
is vulnerable to a first strike. So the important and
expensive stuff stays on the ground.
s
Message has been deleted
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Nov 28, 2011, 10:00:37 PM11/28/11
to
In sci.physics trigonom...@gmail.com | <trigonom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 28, 7:42 am, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> a constelation of low earth orbiting solar power plants could cover
>> the entire planet as they go round and round.
>>
>> lets say solar plants replace coal and other fossil fuels for electric
>> power, and coal to gasoline plants are built..
>>
>> just the announcement would drive down the price of oil:)
>
> Won't that be massively wasteful. If they are geostationary or
> even high orbit getting the power down would be much easier
> to use far fewer power sats.
It doesn't matter much as:
> On Nov 28, 7:42 am, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> a constelation of low earth orbiting solar power plants could cover
>> the entire planet as they go round and round.
>>
>> lets say solar plants replace coal and other fossil fuels for electric
>> power, and coal to gasoline plants are built..
>>
>> just the announcement would drive down the price of oil:)
>
> Won't that be massively wasteful. If they are geostationary or
> even high orbit getting the power down would be much easier
> to use far fewer power sats.
Absent the invention of Star Trek technology the cost will far exceed the
cost of ground based power.
Statutory limitations on RF field intensity will limit what you can beam
down and lawsuits from the tinfoil hat crowd will effectively reduce that
limit to 0.0 mW/m^2.
--
Jim Pennino
Remove .spam.sux to reply.
J. Clarke
Nov 29, 2011, 12:17:13 AM11/29/11
to
In article <lfudq8-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
says...
> Statutory limitations on RF field intensity will limit what you can beam
> down and lawsuits from the tinfoil hat crowd will effectively reduce that
> limit to 0.0 mW/m^2.
The statutory limitations don't restrict what you can transmit, just
require a certain size rectenna. And it's time to tell the tinfoil hat
crowd to go screw themselves.
>
>
says...
>
> In sci.physics trigonom...@gmail.com | <trigonom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 7:42 am, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> a constelation of low earth orbiting solar power plants could cover
> >> the entire planet as they go round and round.
> >>
> >> lets say solar plants replace coal and other fossil fuels for electric
> >> power, and coal to gasoline plants are built..
> >>
> >> just the announcement would drive down the price of oil:)
> >
> > Won't that be massively wasteful. If they are geostationary or
> > even high orbit getting the power down would be much easier
> > to use far fewer power sats.
>
> It doesn't matter much as:
>
> Absent the invention of Star Trek technology the cost will far exceed the
> cost of ground based power.
The numbers disagree with you.
> In sci.physics trigonom...@gmail.com | <trigonom...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 7:42 am, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
> >> a constelation of low earth orbiting solar power plants could cover
> >> the entire planet as they go round and round.
> >>
> >> lets say solar plants replace coal and other fossil fuels for electric
> >> power, and coal to gasoline plants are built..
> >>
> >> just the announcement would drive down the price of oil:)
> >
> > Won't that be massively wasteful. If they are geostationary or
> > even high orbit getting the power down would be much easier
> > to use far fewer power sats.
>
> It doesn't matter much as:
>
> Absent the invention of Star Trek technology the cost will far exceed the
> cost of ground based power.
> Statutory limitations on RF field intensity will limit what you can beam
> down and lawsuits from the tinfoil hat crowd will effectively reduce that
> limit to 0.0 mW/m^2.
require a certain size rectenna. And it's time to tell the tinfoil hat
crowd to go screw themselves.
>
>
trigonometry1972@gmail.com |
Nov 29, 2011, 5:25:08 AM11/29/11
to
On Nov 28, 7:00 pm, j...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
Plus the USA and Europe are in a depression with a growing
recession coming down the road. Wealth is possession of the means of
production and the resources to do it, banking doesn't
count rather it fees and steals.
National systems need it would seem need to seek sufficiency.
The liberal free trader model of the international system, is a
beast that eats nations, small children, old, the sick, and the
poor plus making more poor.
burn more coal to increase the
targeted rise above 6 degrees C............Trig
recession coming down the road. Wealth is possession of the means of
production and the resources to do it, banking doesn't
count rather it fees and steals.
National systems need it would seem need to seek sufficiency.
The liberal free trader model of the international system, is a
beast that eats nations, small children, old, the sick, and the
poor plus making more poor.
burn more coal to increase the
targeted rise above 6 degrees C............Trig
G=EMC^2
Nov 29, 2011, 8:55:13 AM11/29/11
to
On Nov 29, 5:25 am, "trigonometry1...@gmail.com |"
Nixon proved when he turned NASA over to the Mafia it was its end.
Mafia GOP NASA built 5 toilets at $25,000,000 each and depends worked
better in free fall. Shuttles were killers. China will copy the
Saturn V to go to the Moon. I keep asking "What happened to the 21
engineers that quit?? Rumor was they were died in 6 months from
instant cancer. TreBert
Mafia GOP NASA built 5 toilets at $25,000,000 each and depends worked
better in free fall. Shuttles were killers. China will copy the
Saturn V to go to the Moon. I keep asking "What happened to the 21
engineers that quit?? Rumor was they were died in 6 months from
instant cancer. TreBert
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Nov 29, 2011, 12:50:49 PM11/29/11
to
J. Clarke <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <lfudq8-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> says...
>>
>> In sci.physics trigonom...@gmail.com | <trigonom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 28, 7:42 am, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> a constelation of low earth orbiting solar power plants could cover
>> >> the entire planet as they go round and round.
>> >>
>> >> lets say solar plants replace coal and other fossil fuels for electric
>> >> power, and coal to gasoline plants are built..
>> >>
>> >> just the announcement would drive down the price of oil:)
>> >
>> > Won't that be massively wasteful. If they are geostationary or
>> > even high orbit getting the power down would be much easier
>> > to use far fewer power sats.
>>
>> It doesn't matter much as:
>>
>> Absent the invention of Star Trek technology the cost will far exceed the
>> cost of ground based power.
>
> The numbers disagree with you.
Then let's see some realistic numbers for the life time cost of such
> In article <lfudq8-...@mail.specsol.com>, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
> says...
>>
>> In sci.physics trigonom...@gmail.com | <trigonom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 28, 7:42 am, bob haller <hall...@aol.com> wrote:
>> >> a constelation of low earth orbiting solar power plants could cover
>> >> the entire planet as they go round and round.
>> >>
>> >> lets say solar plants replace coal and other fossil fuels for electric
>> >> power, and coal to gasoline plants are built..
>> >>
>> >> just the announcement would drive down the price of oil:)
>> >
>> > Won't that be massively wasteful. If they are geostationary or
>> > even high orbit getting the power down would be much easier
>> > to use far fewer power sats.
>>
>> It doesn't matter much as:
>>
>> Absent the invention of Star Trek technology the cost will far exceed the
>> cost of ground based power.
>
> The numbers disagree with you.
a system using current technology.
>> Statutory limitations on RF field intensity will limit what you can beam
>> down and lawsuits from the tinfoil hat crowd will effectively reduce that
>> limit to 0.0 mW/m^2.
>
> The statutory limitations don't restrict what you can transmit, just
> require a certain size rectenna. And it's time to tell the tinfoil hat
> crowd to go screw themselves.
have at ground level.
For microwave frequencies and continuous exposure, I think you will find
that the number is roughly equal to what you can get out of sunlight.
Pick a frequency then go look up the number, which is about the same for
all the first world countries, then tell us how big an antenna array you
need to get significant power.
As for the tinfoil hat crowd, while I agree with you in principal, it is
just not politically possible.
Jonathan
Nov 28, 2011, 7:31:46 PM11/28/11
to
<trigonom...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1f50df2e-96df-49b2...@z22g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> How far in the future is a space solar power system? 50 years?
decades like fusion. But I think most would be surprised just
how quickly it could happen.
President George W Bush canceled the SERT program in his
first budget in 2002. The SERT program was planning on building
several increasingly larger SSP satellites. Here's the schedule they
were planning on, and presented to Congress....
Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power (SERT)
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1
NASA Model System Category
MSC 1
~100 kW
Free flyer
LEO-to-Earth power beaming research platform
Solar power plug in space
Cryogenic propellant depot
"Mega-commsat" demonstrator
(2006-2007)
MSC 1.5
~1 MW
GEO-to-Earth solar power satellite
(SPS) demonstrator
Lunar exploration SPS platform
(2011-2012)
MSC 3
~10 MW
Free flyer
GEO-based SPS demonstration platforms for
wireless power transmission, solar power
generation, power management and distribution,
and solar electric propulsion
(2016-2017)
MSC 4
~1 GW
Commercial space full-scale solar power satellite
(2021+)
Model System Category
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=13
Now that's with the government and a dozen committees doing
all of it. This start-up private corporation below claims 6 years
to build a full scale gigawatt class satellite for around $17 billion
dollars.
That's the same /price/ and /time/ it would take to build
a new nuclear power plant of similar output. SSP is
already practical. It's no pipe-dream, but a matter
of someone floating a power-plant sized loan for the
...first one.
And I'd suggest taking the time to look over the
technical consultants of this start-up corp making
those claims. The best and brightest in this
technology.
Somehow I doubt a Texas /Oilman/ like George Bush
canceled the Space /Solar/ Power program out of
cost and benefit analysis concerns. Lockheed wanted
the Moon, and Bush/Cheney/Lockheed have been
in bed together for years like few others. Lockheed
even gave Lynn Cheney a seat on the board.
And Bush tried to turn the Texas welfare system
over to Lockheed.
When Bush/Cheney came into town, Big Aero
got to write their own ticket just like Big Oil wrote
energy policy.
Jonathan
s
Jonathan
Nov 28, 2011, 7:48:54 PM11/28/11
to
"bob haller" <hal...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:9fb0cbc8-9b7f-40d9...@u5g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
oil quadruple in just months during Iraq? That's the classic
sign of a 'thin' market. Which is a market that doesn't know
how it's going to replace a disruption in supply. The market
knows it'll take many years.
A credible SSP program by the US would go a long way
towards calming the markets by demonstrating a new
clean and endlessly abundant source is waiting in the wings.
I can't emphasize this point enough, everyone saw what
happened to the stock market with the Big Crash three
years ago, and the havoc it's causing. You should know
the oil market can panic in just the same way.
And it would be the Industrial Age that collapses and comes
to a sudden halt. That's when the wars over oil will truly
begin.
For instance in Japan now. An existing SSP satellite could
deliver gigawatt flows to the disaster area in weeks or
months. All it takes in laying down nothing more than a
large chicken wire fence as a receiving rectenna and
hooking it up to a grid. While new conventional power plants
take five and ten years to build.
There's no existing power source, conventional or green, that
can provide continuous baseload power into a grid to ANY
place on Earth and in weeks. SSP is ...wireless...green...power
transmission, two of the Holy Grails of energy. The third
is an bottomless supply of green...energy. Which SSP also
promises.
The fact SSP can travel so well means it doesn't have to
compete with conventional sources, it'll have plenty
of market niches all too itself.
Jonathan
s
Jonathan
Nov 28, 2011, 8:14:39 PM11/28/11
to
<ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
news:lfudq8-...@mail.specsol.com...
> It doesn't matter much as:
>
> Absent the invention of Star Trek technology
the horse. What makes those 'Trekkian' dreams
of exploration and social justice tick? It's those
mysterious di-lithium crystals. Or in other words
a clean, cheap and...endless source of energy.
Space Solar Power is the path towards that
Trekkian future. Not the other way around.
> the cost will far exceed the
> cost of ground based power.
Power can provide continuous baseload power to /any point/
on Earth. No matter how thinly populated, distant, rugged
or far from the equator. No other power source, conventional
or not, can do that. This means SSP would have plenty of
market niches with ZERO competition.
Space Solar Power travels so well due to the ease of building
a ground based rectenna, it doesn't have to compete with
anyone. Would post-earthquake Japan quibble over a few
cents per Kwh? If it was SSP or nothing for the next five
years or so?
Did AC power transmission worry about competing with DC?
Of course not, they don't overlap much due to the ease AC
power can travel over DC. SSP is that kind of advance
not just another source, but a much better way.
Would the Pentagon quibble for the troops in the field
if it meant they no longer had to be followed everywhere
they go with exploding gas tankers? Or would far larger
power needy satellites quibble if it meant they didn't have
to supply their own power?
Or the ...third...of all food that spoils on the way to market
for a lack of refrigeration quibble? Food is the largest market
of all, with energy right behind.
On and on, /wireless/ power almost on demand wouldn't have
any problem finding customers. And the first one that makes
money with SSP will set off a gold-rush, but this time in space.
Only the $2 Trillion dollar a year energy market can finance
large scale space activities.
Jonathan
s
ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com
Nov 29, 2011, 11:43:40 PM11/29/11
to
Jonathan <wr...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:lfudq8-...@mail.specsol.com...
>
>> It doesn't matter much as:
>>
>> Absent the invention of Star Trek technology
>
> Now wait a minute, you're putting the cart before
> the horse. What makes those 'Trekkian' dreams
> of exploration and social justice tick? It's those
> mysterious di-lithium crystals. Or in other words
> a clean, cheap and...endless source of energy.
Cheap?
>
> <ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com> wrote in message
> news:lfudq8-...@mail.specsol.com...
>
>> It doesn't matter much as:
>>
>> Absent the invention of Star Trek technology
>
> Now wait a minute, you're putting the cart before
> the horse. What makes those 'Trekkian' dreams
> of exploration and social justice tick? It's those
> mysterious di-lithium crystals. Or in other words
> a clean, cheap and...endless source of energy.
Not a chance.
> Space Solar Power is the path towards that
> Trekkian future. Not the other way around.
>> the cost will far exceed the
>> cost of ground based power.
>
>
> That's not a valid argument at all against.
> Since Space Solar
> Power can provide continuous baseload power to /any point/
> on Earth. No matter how thinly populated, distant, rugged
> or far from the equator. No other power source, conventional
> or not, can do that. This means SSP would have plenty of
> market niches with ZERO competition.
money.
> Space Solar Power travels so well due to the ease of building
> a ground based rectenna, it doesn't have to compete with
> anyone. Would post-earthquake Japan quibble over a few
> cents per Kwh? If it was SSP or nothing for the next five
> years or so?
The space based part is enormously difficult and expensive.
> Did AC power transmission worry about competing with DC?
> Of course not, they don't overlap much due to the ease AC
> power can travel over DC. SSP is that kind of advance
> not just another source, but a much better way.
Google power transmission and get educated.
> Would the Pentagon quibble for the troops in the field
> if it meant they no longer had to be followed everywhere
> they go with exploding gas tankers? Or would far larger
> power needy satellites quibble if it meant they didn't have
> to supply their own power?
<snip remaining babbling nonsense>
CWatters
Dec 1, 2011, 11:17:08 AM12/1/11
to
On 24/11/2011 12:23, Jonathan wrote:
>
> When will NASA propose a goal that sticks?
>
When they are given a long term budget?
>
> When will NASA propose a goal that sticks?
>
When they are given a long term budget?
Jonathan
Dec 1, 2011, 9:45:25 PM12/1/11
to
"CWatters" <colin....@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.com> wrote in message
news:MMidnZFxPosTNUrT...@brightview.co.uk...
> On 24/11/2011 12:23, Jonathan wrote:
>
>>
>> When will NASA propose a goal that sticks?
>>
>
> When they are given a long term budget?
Which comes first?
>
>>
>> When will NASA propose a goal that sticks?
>>
>
> When they are given a long term budget?
Weak goals get similar budgets.
>
>
0 new messages