"Hyperboreea" wrote in message
ups.com...

Solar power requires massive infrastructure. You would need a cost per
Kg about 2 orders of magnitude lower than the current.
Also, IMHO, SPS will not be able to provide more than a small fraction
of energy needs. Fission is by far preferable in the foreseeable future.


But fission won't help create a space based industry.
It won't give Nasa a reason for being, larger budgets
and long lasting public and Congressional support.

Fission is also massively expensive and a typical
reactor can take 15 or 20 years to be built. And
a dramatic increase in fission will require a solution
to the nuclear waste issue that has yet to be solved.
But I suppose we can turn Nasa into a great big
Waste Management company, and have them
blast the nuclear waste into the sun~


Besides, I'm not talking about the foreseeable future.
I'm talking about the future. Ultimately, say a century
or two down the road, where will our energy come
from? Solar power is the obvious conclusion.

The future should define the present.


s