Proof Space Solar Power Can't Compete!

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
-Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society

"Airplanes are interesting toys of no military value."
-Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, France

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."
-Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in physics, 1923

"The biggest fool thing we have ever done. The [atom] bomb
will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
-ADM William D. Leahy to President Truman

"There is no hope for the fanciful idea of reaching the moon
because of the insurmountable barriers of escaping Earth's gravity."
-Dr. Forest R. Moulton, astronomer

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future
scientific advances."
-Dr. Lee DeForest, "Father of Radio and Grandfather
of Television"

Said Wilbur Wright, "I confess that in 1901, I said to my brother
Orville that man would not fly for 50 years. Two years later we
ourselves made flights. This demonstration of my impotence
as a prophet gave me such a shock that ever since I have
distrusted myself and avoided all predictions." Orville fared
no better, declaring "No flying machine will ever fly from
New York to Paris . . . [because] no known motor can run
at the requisite speed for four days without stopping."

And this from Vanevar Bush, our own head of defense research
and one of America's most visionary men, testifying to Congress
just after World War II (1945):

"There has been a great deal said about a 3,000-mile-high angle rocket.
In my opinion such a thing is impossible for many years. The people
who have been writing these things that annoy me have been talking
about a 3,000-mile-high angle rocket shot from one continent to
another, carrying an atomic bomb and so directed as to be a precise
weapon which would land exactly on a certain target, such as a city.
I say, technically, I don't think anyone in the world knows how to
do such a thing, and I feel confident that it will not be done for
a very long period of time to come. . I think we can leave that out
of our thinking."


"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous
to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead
in the introduction of a new order of things. For the reformer
has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only
lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the
new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their
adversaries . . . and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who
do not truly believe in anything new until they have had
actual experience of it."

-Niccolo Machiavelli, 1532

http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2012/spring/garretson.pdf






s

On Tuesday, June 5, 2012 8:52:07 PM UTC-7, jonathan wrote:
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
-Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society

"Airplanes are interesting toys of no military value."
-Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, France

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."
-Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in physics, 1923

"The biggest fool thing we have ever done. The [atom] bomb
will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
-ADM William D. Leahy to President Truman

"There is no hope for the fanciful idea of reaching the moon
because of the insurmountable barriers of escaping Earth's gravity."
-Dr. Forest R. Moulton, astronomer

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future
scientific advances."
-Dr. Lee DeForest, "Father of Radio and Grandfather
of Television"

Said Wilbur Wright, "I confess that in 1901, I said to my brother
Orville that man would not fly for 50 years. Two years later we
ourselves made flights. This demonstration of my impotence
as a prophet gave me such a shock that ever since I have
distrusted myself and avoided all predictions." Orville fared
no better, declaring "No flying machine will ever fly from
New York to Paris . . . [because] no known motor can run
at the requisite speed for four days without stopping."

And this from Vanevar Bush, our own head of defense research
and one of America's most visionary men, testifying to Congress
just after World War II (1945):

"There has been a great deal said about a 3,000-mile-high angle rocket.
In my opinion such a thing is impossible for many years. The people
who have been writing these things that annoy me have been talking
about a 3,000-mile-high angle rocket shot from one continent to
another, carrying an atomic bomb and so directed as to be a precise
weapon which would land exactly on a certain target, such as a city.
I say, technically, I don't think anyone in the world knows how to
do such a thing, and I feel confident that it will not be done for
a very long period of time to come. . I think we can leave that out
of our thinking."


"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous
to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead
in the introduction of a new order of things. For the reformer
has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only
lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the
new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their
adversaries . . . and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who
do not truly believe in anything new until they have had
actual experience of it."

-Niccolo Machiavelli, 1532

http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2012/spring/garretson.pdf






s

perhaps beamed power is what is needed for cheaper
off surface launches. I think the angle for the power would have advantages.

The nuclear power proponents especially those of light water reactors
and current class breeders are fools or worse. Maybe thorium reactors
but.................. Maybe fusion reactors 20 years from now, LOL.

First, I replace most of the housing stock with houses buried in the ground
or at least with R-60 insulation, a batch HW, some solar panels, detached
from the grid, regulated fresh air intake and maybe gas connection to power a fuel cell array.

Coal should stay in ground except for coke as related to steel production.

Oil shouldn't be burned. It should be used for needed plastics and
lubs.

a better designed world............................Trig

On 6/06/2012 1:52 PM, jonathan wrote:
"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
-Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society

"Airplanes are interesting toys of no military value."
-Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, France

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."
-Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in physics, 1923

"The biggest fool thing we have ever done. The [atom] bomb
will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
-ADM William D. Leahy to President Truman

"There is no hope for the fanciful idea of reaching the moon
because of the insurmountable barriers of escaping Earth's gravity."
-Dr. Forest R. Moulton, astronomer

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future
scientific advances."
-Dr. Lee DeForest, "Father of Radio and Grandfather
of Television"

Said Wilbur Wright, "I confess that in 1901, I said to my brother
Orville that man would not fly for 50 years. Two years later we
ourselves made flights. This demonstration of my impotence
as a prophet gave me such a shock that ever since I have
distrusted myself and avoided all predictions." Orville fared
no better, declaring "No flying machine will ever fly from
New York to Paris . . . [because] no known motor can run
at the requisite speed for four days without stopping."

And this from Vanevar Bush, our own head of defense research
and one of America's most visionary men, testifying to Congress
just after World War II (1945):

"There has been a great deal said about a 3,000-mile-high angle rocket.
In my opinion such a thing is impossible for many years. The people
who have been writing these things that annoy me have been talking
about a 3,000-mile-high angle rocket shot from one continent to
another, carrying an atomic bomb and so directed as to be a precise
weapon which would land exactly on a certain target, such as a city.
I say, technically, I don't think anyone in the world knows how to
do such a thing, and I feel confident that it will not be done for
a very long period of time to come. . I think we can leave that out
of our thinking."


"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous
to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead
in the introduction of a new order of things. For the reformer
has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only
lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the
new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their
adversaries . . . and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who
do not truly believe in anything new until they have had
actual experience of it."

-Niccolo Machiavelli, 1532

http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2012/spring/garretson.pdf


You will notice that all those claims relate to the possibility of doing
something, not to its economics.

There is little doubt that a space power system could be implemented if
there were sufficient motivation. It's not as if there's any part of it
that's a theoretical problem, or even an engineering one.

But economics does raise its head. Will it ever be cheaper to build a
space power system than to build a ground based power system that
delivers the same power? Therein lies the real question.


Sylvia.

Il 06/06/2012 05:52, jonathan ha scritto:

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous
to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead
in the introduction of a new order of things. For the reformer
has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only
lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the
new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their
adversaries . . . and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who
do not truly believe in anything new until they have had
actual experience of it."

-Niccolo Machiavelli, 1532

LOL !

you elegantly put the basic difference between Latins and germanic/
Anglo-saxons; these words I always applied to their original humanistic
context, e.g. politics and society, but an german/anglo-saxon applies
this to the scientific & technical context.

Best regards from Italy,
dott. Piergiorgio.

On Jun 6, 2:21*am, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 6/06/2012 1:52 PM, jonathan wrote:









"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
* * * *-Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society

"Airplanes are interesting toys of no military value."
* * *-Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, France

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."
* * * *-Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in physics, 1923

"The biggest fool thing we have ever done. The [atom] bomb
* *will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
* * * * -ADM William D. Leahy to President Truman

"There is no hope for the fanciful idea of reaching the moon
because of the insurmountable barriers of escaping Earth's gravity."
* * *-Dr. Forest R. Moulton, astronomer

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future
* *scientific advances."
* * * *-Dr. Lee DeForest, "Father of Radio and Grandfather
* * * * *of Television"

Said Wilbur Wright, "I confess that in 1901, I said to my brother
Orville that man would not fly for 50 years. Two years later we
ourselves made flights. This demonstration of my impotence
as a prophet gave me such a shock that ever since I have
distrusted myself and avoided all predictions." Orville fared
no better, declaring "No flying machine will ever fly from
New York to Paris . . . [because] no known motor can run
at the requisite speed for four days without stopping."

And this from Vanevar Bush, our own head of defense research
and one of America's most visionary men, testifying to Congress
just after World War II (1945):

"There has been a great deal said about a 3,000-mile-high angle rocket.
In my opinion such a thing is impossible for many years. The people
who have been writing these things that annoy me have been talking
about a 3,000-mile-high angle rocket shot from one continent to
another, carrying an atomic bomb and so directed as to be a precise
weapon which would land exactly on a certain target, such as a city.
I say, technically, I don't think anyone in the world knows how to
do such a thing, and I feel confident that it will not be done for
a very long period of time to come. . I think we can leave that out
of our thinking."

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous
to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead
in the introduction of a new order of things. For the reformer
has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only
lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the
new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their
adversaries . . . and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who
do not truly believe in anything new until they have had
actual experience of it."

-Niccolo Machiavelli, 1532

http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2012/spring/garretson.pdf

You will notice that all those claims relate to the possibility of doing
something, not to its economics.

There is little doubt that a space power system could be implemented if
there were sufficient motivation. It's not as if there's any part of it
that's a theoretical problem, or even an engineering one.

But economics does raise its head. Will it ever be cheaper to build a
space power system than to build a ground based power system that
delivers the same power? Therein lies the real question.

Sylvia.

And that is exactly the point that Jonathan is failing to perceive.
Anything is possible if enough money is thrown at it.

In article ,
says...

"Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible."
-Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society

"Airplanes are interesting toys of no military value."
-Marshal Ferdinand Foch, Ecole Superieure de Guerre, France

"There is no likelihood man can ever tap the power of the atom."
-Robert Millikan, Nobel Prize in physics, 1923

"The biggest fool thing we have ever done. The [atom] bomb
will never go off, and I speak as an expert in explosives."
-ADM William D. Leahy to President Truman

"There is no hope for the fanciful idea of reaching the moon
because of the insurmountable barriers of escaping Earth's gravity."
-Dr. Forest R. Moulton, astronomer

"Man will never reach the moon regardless of all future
scientific advances."
-Dr. Lee DeForest, "Father of Radio and Grandfather
of Television"

Said Wilbur Wright, "I confess that in 1901, I said to my brother
Orville that man would not fly for 50 years. Two years later we
ourselves made flights. This demonstration of my impotence
as a prophet gave me such a shock that ever since I have
distrusted myself and avoided all predictions." Orville fared
no better, declaring "No flying machine will ever fly from
New York to Paris . . . [because] no known motor can run
at the requisite speed for four days without stopping."

And this from Vanevar Bush, our own head of defense research
and one of America's most visionary men, testifying to Congress
just after World War II (1945):

"There has been a great deal said about a 3,000-mile-high angle rocket.
In my opinion such a thing is impossible for many years. The people
who have been writing these things that annoy me have been talking
about a 3,000-mile-high angle rocket shot from one continent to
another, carrying an atomic bomb and so directed as to be a precise
weapon which would land exactly on a certain target, such as a city.
I say, technically, I don't think anyone in the world knows how to
do such a thing, and I feel confident that it will not be done for
a very long period of time to come. . I think we can leave that out
of our thinking."


"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous
to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead
in the introduction of a new order of things. For the reformer
has enemies in all those who profit by the old order, and only
lukewarm defenders in all those who would profit by the
new order, this lukewarmness arising partly from fear of their
adversaries . . . and partly from the incredulity of mankind, who
do not truly believe in anything new until they have had
actual experience of it."

-Niccolo Machiavelli, 1532

http://www.au.af.mil/au/ssq/2012/spring/garretson.pdf

People also said SpaceX would never be able to get Falcon 9 to fly and
that NASA would never let them berth Dragon to ISS because they'd never
be able to meet the specs.

The way to prove you can do something is to do it. Until space based
power proves that it can be cheaper than terrestrial based power, it
isn't cheaper. In fact, it does not yet exist!

Until SPSs are beaming power to earth and selling it for less than
terrestrial based power, you've proved absolutely nothing.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:44:54 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:
SNIP

People also said SpaceX would never be able to get Falcon 9 to fly and
that NASA would never let them berth Dragon to ISS because they'd never
be able to meet the specs.

The way to prove you can do something is to do it. Until space based
power proves that it can be cheaper than terrestrial based power, it
isn't cheaper. In fact, it does not yet exist!

Until SPSs are beaming power to earth and selling it for less than
terrestrial based power, you've proved absolutely nothing.

What about safety?
Unless the SPS is at the top of a space elevator, it will involve the
beaming of significant amounts of power.
What guarantees that such a beam can never get directed at an unwilling
recipient?


--

Terry V.

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:44:54 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:
SNIP

People also said SpaceX would never be able to get Falcon 9 to fly and
that NASA would never let them berth Dragon to ISS because they'd never
be able to meet the specs.

The way to prove you can do something is to do it. Until space based
power proves that it can be cheaper than terrestrial based power, it
isn't cheaper. In fact, it does not yet exist!

Until SPSs are beaming power to earth and selling it for less than
terrestrial based power, you've proved absolutely nothing.

What about safety?
Unless the SPS is at the top of a space elevator, it will involve the
beaming of significant amounts of power.
What guarantees that such a beam can never get directed at an unwilling
recipient?

As I said earlier, the energy per second per square meter would be low
enough that it wouldn't be an effective "death ray". Me thinks you've
been watching too many (bad) sci-fi movies.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:01:42 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:44:54 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:
SNIP

People also said SpaceX would never be able to get Falcon 9 to fly and
that NASA would never let them berth Dragon to ISS because they'd never
be able to meet the specs.

The way to prove you can do something is to do it. Until space based
power proves that it can be cheaper than terrestrial based power, it
isn't cheaper. In fact, it does not yet exist!

Until SPSs are beaming power to earth and selling it for less than
terrestrial based power, you've proved absolutely nothing.

What about safety?
Unless the SPS is at the top of a space elevator, it will involve the
beaming of significant amounts of power.
What guarantees that such a beam can never get directed at an unwilling
recipient?

As I said earlier, the energy per second per square meter would be low
enough that it wouldn't be an effective "death ray". Me thinks you've
been watching too many (bad) sci-fi movies.

I didn't mention any death rays - and I try to watch only good movies.

Any useful power beam can be unwelcome even though less-than-lethal, since some
of its power will be absorbed on the ground even without a rectenna.

How about if your neighbor country (with whom you have a border dispute) makes
your highland snow pack melt too quickly, causing floods and then a drought?

--

Terry V.

On Thursday, June 7, 2012 1:29:41 PM UTC-7, Strobe wrote:
On Thu, 7 Jun 2012 11:01:42 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:

In article
,
says...

On Wed, 6 Jun 2012 10:44:54 -0400, Jeff Findley
wrote:
SNIP

People also said SpaceX would never be able to get Falcon 9 to fly and
that NASA would never let them berth Dragon to ISS because they'd never
be able to meet the specs.

The way to prove you can do something is to do it. Until space based
power proves that it can be cheaper than terrestrial based power, it
isn't cheaper. In fact, it does not yet exist!

Until SPSs are beaming power to earth and selling it for less than
terrestrial based power, you've proved absolutely nothing.

What about safety?
Unless the SPS is at the top of a space elevator, it will involve the
beaming of significant amounts of power.
What guarantees that such a beam can never get directed at an unwilling
recipient?

As I said earlier, the energy per second per square meter would be low
enough that it wouldn't be an effective "death ray". Me thinks you've
been watching too many (bad) sci-fi movies.

I didn't mention any death rays - and I try to watch only good movies.

Any useful power beam can be unwelcome even though less-than-lethal, since some
of its power will be absorbed on the ground even without a rectenna.

How about if your neighbor country (with whom you have a border dispute) makes
your highland snow pack melt too quickly, causing floods and then a drought?

--

Terry V.

Assuming the beamed energy is in the form of microwaves. Or that
its only one beam aimed at the spot.