...NY Times op-ed......Harvest the Sun - From Space

Alan Erskine wrote:
I never thought I'd say this, but I agree with Bob.

I'm seeking psychological intervention (with a large dose of alcohol for
'medicinal purposes) for the above sentence... ;-)


I'll see your booze, and double you.
Or at least try.
Has OM ever run into the pure terror of "Steel Reserve High Gravity
Beer" from Texas?
Not only have I, but there's an ongoing slow-motion collision with it
occurring at the moment. :-)

Pat

VMCM1905 wrote:

Oh brother... here we go again.
This topic has been discussed to death on s.p for well over 14 years.

Let's face it..._every_ space topic has been discussed to death on
sci.space.policy over the years. :-D
I still like my ground-based solar arrays and a giant space mirror to
illuminate the U.S. 24/7, as that will probably lead to the extinction
of bats, and I never saw a bat that I either liked or trusted.

Pat

On Jun 4, 9:35*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
VMCM1905 wrote:

Oh brother... here we go again.
This topic has been discussed to death on s.p for well over 14 years.

Let's face it..._every_ space topic has been discussed to death on
sci.space.policy over the years. :-D
I still like my ground-based solar arrays and a giant space mirror to
illuminate the U.S. 24/7, as that will probably lead to the extinction
of bats, and I never saw a bat that I either liked or trusted.

Pat


Second by second, day by day, this world, in 2005, used an average
equivalent of 16 TW (terrawatts per unit time). 37, 25 and 23 %
billed to oil, coal and natural gas respectively...for a fossil fuel
victory of 85 to 15 %
of the total world energy consumption.

This would be equivalent to 3,200 'energy satellites'.
Think 20 megatons of mass or 200 aircraft carriers.

And all this for about 1/10000 the area of our beloved USA.

And what about the hours long morning eclipse for south Brazil,
Argentina and Chile....it could get chilly.

Also, it would not be difficult to use those mirror sections in
a 'fresnel' fashion.


May the road rise to meet you.....
May the sun shine warm apon your face....

(with an intensity of a MW/m^2).

Your's is a truly modest proposal.

On Jun 5, 1:09*am, asetnil wrote:
On Jun 4, 9:35*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:

VMCM1905 wrote:

Oh brother... here we go again.
This topic has been discussed to death on s.p for well over 14 years.

Let's face it..._every_ space topic has been discussed to death on
sci.space.policy over the years. :-D
I still like my ground-based solar arrays and a giant space mirror to
illuminate the U.S. 24/7, as that will probably lead to the extinction
of bats, and I never saw a bat that I either liked or trusted.

Pat

* * Second by second, day by day, this world, in 2005, used an average
equivalent of 16 TW (terrawatts per unit time). *37, 25 and 23 %
billed to oil, coal and natural gas respectively...for a fossil fuel
victory of 85 to 15 %
of the total world energy consumption.

* * This would be equivalent to 3,200 'energy satellites'.
* * Think 20 megatons of mass or 200 aircraft carriers.

* * And all this for about 1/10000 the area of our beloved USA.

(oops again)

As for your proposal:

What about the hours long morning eclipse for south Brazil,
Argentina and Chile....it could get chilly.

* * Also, it would not be difficult to use those mirror sections in
* * a 'fresnel' fashion.

* * May the road rise to meet you.....
* * May the sun shine warm apon your face....

* * (with an intensity of a MW/m^2).

* * Your's is a truly modest proposal.

"Jonathan" wrote in message
...
AS we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative
energy sources - coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-based
solar- are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge
energy storage systems or harm the environment. There is,
however,one potential future energy source that is environmentally
friendly, has essentially unlimited potential and can be cost
competitive with any renewable source: space solar power.

Bull****. It's more economical to have the solar panels on home roofs than
to manufacture them and then launch them into space.

Clearly, neither you nore the idiot quoted in the story (O. Glenn Smith - I
note he's a "former manager of science and
applications experiments for the International Space Station at NASA's
Johnson Space Center" - what's he doing now; running a side show?) know
anything of the subject.

But nothing surprises me about a troll like you.

Jonathan wrote:

Harvest the Sun - From Space
By O. GLENN SMITH
Published: July 23, 2008

O. Glenn Smith is a former manager of science and
applications experiments for the International Space Station
at NASA's Johnson Space Center.
.

AS we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative
energy sources - coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-based
solar- are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge
energy storage systems or harm the environment. There is,
however,one potential future energy source that is environmentally
friendly, has essentially unlimited potential and can be cost
competitive with any renewable source: space solar power.
[snip rest of crap]

1) Vastly more expensive than International Space Station Freedom
FUBAR Space Hole One Alpha.
2) No way to get the stuff up there.
3) No way to construct it in orbit.
4) Huge surface area unstable in orbit to residual air resistance.
Solar constant is a kW/m^2. 100 GW is 10^8 m^2 minimum (conversion
efficiencies). That is 38.6 mi^2. HA HA HA.
5) Trivially uncreated by orbital debris and the occasional meteor
shower.
6) San Onofre is 6.6 GW. Bull**** orbital DCF/ROI if it is beaming
down 10 GW. 100 GW received at ground level starts looking
attractive.
7) Don't stand in the beam - or within 100 miles of it. Gonna heat
the atmosphere, too.
8) Are ya gonna put it in geosynchronous orbit over its receiver,
moron? What kind of microwave antenna - minimum antenna diameter vs.
broadcast wavelength re numerical aperture - stays collimated over
22,300 miles?
9) Anything passing through the beam gets fried, massively adding
to orbital debris.

Listen up, stooopids, ISS FUBAR has an unlimited budget. ISS FUBAR
has huge solar panels. ISS FUBAR is flaring the night sky with
reflections. Reflected light is not converted to solar power. The
idiots did not anti-reflection coat the solar panels because... Acres
of precision vacuum-deposited anti-reflection coat would bankrupt
Croesus and the local environment will chew it to pieces anyway. How
about 38 square miles of it? The Civilian Vacuum Coating Corps ending
unemployment in America with Green employment.

Wait... WAIT... the E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C rocket! GM will build giant
hibrid rockets that get excellent acceleration in vacuum and every
nation will buy lots because they are chick magnets.

THEY ARE LYING TO YOU like the Amazon River pours water into the
Pacific Ocean and you are too stoooopid to know it. Kill yourself out
of concern for others.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On Jun 5, 8:02*am, Uncle Al wrote:
Jonathan wrote:

Harvest the Sun - From Space
By O. GLENN SMITH
Published: July 23, 2008

* O. Glenn Smith is a former manager of science and
applications experiments for the International Space Station
at NASA's Johnson Space Center.
.

AS we face $4.50 a gallon gas, we also know that alternative
energy sources - *coal, oil shale, ethanol, wind and ground-based
solar- are either of limited potential, very expensive, require huge
energy storage systems or harm the *environment. There is,
however,one potential future energy source that is environmentally
friendly, has essentially unlimited potential and can be cost
competitive with any renewable source: space solar power.

[snip rest of crap]

* *1) Vastly more expensive than International Space Station Freedom
FUBAR Space Hole One Alpha.
* *2) No way to get the stuff up there.
* *3) No way to construct it in orbit.
* *4) Huge surface area unstable in orbit to residual air resistance.
Solar constant is a kW/m^2. *100 GW is 10^8 m^2 minimum (conversion
efficiencies). *That is 38.6 mi^2. *HA HA HA. *
* *5) Trivially uncreated by orbital debris and the occasional meteor
shower.
* *6) San Onofre is 6.6 GW. *Bull**** orbital DCF/ROI if it is beaming
down 10 GW. *100 GW received at ground level starts looking
attractive.
* *7) Don't stand in the beam - or within 100 miles of it. *Gonna heat
the atmosphere, too.
* *8) Are ya gonna put it in geosynchronous orbit over its receiver,
moron? *What kind of microwave antenna - minimum antenna diameter vs.
broadcast wavelength re numerical aperture - stays collimated over
22,300 miles?
* *9) Anything passing through the beam gets fried, massively adding
to orbital debris.

Listen up, stooopids, ISS FUBAR has an unlimited budget. *ISS FUBAR
has huge solar panels. *ISS FUBAR is flaring the night sky with
reflections. * Reflected light is not converted to solar power. * The
idiots did not anti-reflection coat the solar panels because... Acres
of precision vacuum-deposited anti-reflection coat would bankrupt
Croesus and the local environment will chew it to pieces anyway. *How
about 38 square miles of it? *The Civilian Vacuum Coating Corps ending
unemployment in America with Green employment.

Wait... WAIT... the E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C rocket! *GM will build giant
hibrid rockets that get excellent acceleration in vacuum and every
nation will buy lots because they are chick magnets.

THEY ARE LYING TO YOU like the Amazon River pours water into the
Pacific Ocean and you are too stoooopid to know it. *Kill yourself out
of concern for others.

--
Uncle Alhttp://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
*(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

Why don't you ask for the expertise and vast wisdom of William Mook?

He's a little bit bipolar cranky, but otherwise has viable
alternatives that you're not taking into account.

~ BG

On Jun 5, 11:02*am, Uncle Al wrote:

The
idiots did not anti-reflection coat the solar panels because... Acres
of precision vacuum-deposited anti-reflection coat would bankrupt
Croesus and the local environment will chew it to pieces anyway. *How
about 38 square miles of it? *The Civilian Vacuum Coating Corps ending
unemployment in America with Green employment.

Wait... WAIT... the E*L*E*C*T*R*I*C rocket! *GM will build giant
hibrid rockets that get excellent acceleration in vacuum and every
nation will buy lots because they are chick magnets.

Sometime Ole Uncle Al is really, REALLY, funny! Uncle Al, I think I
want to have your love-child!

Benj wrote:
Sometime Ole Uncle Al is really, REALLY, funny! Uncle Al, I think I
want to have your love-child!


When they built Telstar, every one of those solar cells was covered by a
thin sheet of synthetic sapphi
http://www.smecc.org/k_d__smith__bel...es_telstar.htm

Pat