....BUZZ Aldrin Launches New Space Solar Power Alliance.

It's just so much fun to watch an idea spread and gather
steam.

How many times do I have to say it's only a matter
of time before Space Solar Power becomes the new
goal of NASA. The day Pres Bush leaves office, it'll
be like the "Vision never happened.



New Alliance for Space Solar Power to Be Announced


On October 10, 2007, leading space advocacy organizations
and Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin will announce the formation
of a new alliance to advance a common goal: Ensuring that
the benefits of renewable clean energy from space solar power
are understood and supported by business, governments
and the general public.

The inaugural event of the new alliance, to be held at the
National Press Club in Washington D.C., will highlight a
study underway by the National Security Space Office
(NSSO) on the viability of space-based solar power.

Space Solar Power means gathering energy in space
and transmitting it wirelessly for use on Earth. Such
technology could be a major solution to humanity's
long-term energy needs, providing limitless renewable
power with zero carbon emissions.

We invite you to join us for this special event, to hear
interim results of the study, and to learn about the
initial goals and members of the new alliance.




http://www.comspacewatch.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=23696

On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 19:14:05 -0500, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

It's just so much fun to watch an idea spread and gather
steam.

How many times do I have to say it's only a matter
of time before Space Solar Power becomes the new
goal of NASA.

Who knows? No matter how many times you say it, it remains a fantasy.
If you think that Buzz Aldrin saying something lends it credibility,
you've been toking even more than you thought. I like Buzz, but the
notion that his imprimatur increases its likelihood defies history.

"Rand Simberg" I like Buzz, but the
notion that his imprimatur increases its likelihood defies history.

Dunno why this space power thing attracts people, other than the Buck
Rogers fantasy. I think the effort to do this is like a moon landing
times 1000. Aldrin has the vision thing, but lacks the "scale" thing.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In article ,
"Revision" wrote:

"Rand Simberg" I like Buzz, but the
notion that his imprimatur increases its likelihood defies history.

Dunno why this space power thing attracts people, other than the Buck
Rogers fantasy. I think the effort to do this is like a moon landing
times 1000. Aldrin has the vision thing, but lacks the "scale" thing.

It attracts people because it's a reasonably good idea, and one of the
few ways we can reasonably provide large-scale baseline power for the
Earth without either increasing our carbon burden, or encouraging
nuclear proliferation. (This assuming that polywell fusion doesn't work
out, of course -- we should know something more about that within a
year, I would guess.)

Of course, the fact that it's a good idea doesn't change the fact that
Jonathan is a nut.

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

On Oct 31, 9:28 am, Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,

"Revision" wrote:
"Rand Simberg" I like Buzz, but the
notion that his imprimatur increases its likelihood defies history.

Dunno why this space power thing attracts people, other than the Buck
Rogers fantasy. I think the effort to do this is like a moon landing
times 1000. Aldrin has the vision thing, but lacks the "scale" thing.

It attracts people because it's a reasonably good idea, and one of the
few ways we can reasonably provide large-scale baseline power for the
Earth without either increasing our carbon burden, or encouraging
nuclear proliferation. (This assuming that polywell fusion doesn't work
out, of course -- we should know something more about that within a
year, I would guess.)

Of course, the fact that it's a good idea doesn't change the fact that
Jonathan is a nut.

Einstein was also a weird kind of Jewish nut that didn't believe in
God, so what's your point?
- Brad Guth -

"Revision" wrote in message
.. .

"Rand Simberg" I like Buzz, but the
notion that his imprimatur increases its likelihood defies history.

Dunno why this space power thing attracts people, other than the Buck
Rogers fantasy. I think the effort to do this is like a moon landing
times 1000. Aldrin has the vision thing, but lacks the "scale" thing.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


So, how exactly would it be done?

A GEO satellite would be in the dark half the time, Right?
A Polar orbit satellite would not have a place to "Beam" the power to.
Wouldn't such an installation have to be huge?
Would you want to live next door to the target area?

With many(thousands?) of expensive and polluting launches required to get a
1/2 time Microwave beam with it's own losses and risks, how is this
"limitless clean power"?

Al G

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 14:02:19 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Al G"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Revision" wrote in message
. ..

"Rand Simberg" I like Buzz, but the
notion that his imprimatur increases its likelihood defies history.

Dunno why this space power thing attracts people, other than the Buck
Rogers fantasy. I think the effort to do this is like a moon landing
times 1000. Aldrin has the vision thing, but lacks the "scale" thing.




--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com


So, how exactly would it be done?

A GEO satellite would be in the dark half the time, Right?

Wrong. It gets continuous sunlight except for a few minutes a day
during the solstices.

With many(thousands?) of expensive and polluting launches

If launches remain expensive, then it will make no sense, but they
won't.

"Al G" wrote in message
...

"Revision" wrote in message
A GEO satellite would be in the dark half the time, Right?

No. Note the Earth has a tilt to it, so at 22,300 miles, you're "above" or
"below" the pole at least as far as the being able to see the Sun is.

A Polar orbit satellite would not have a place to "Beam" the power to.
Wouldn't such an installation have to be huge?
Would you want to live next door to the target area?

Sure, power would be cheap and I like living next to large open fields.


With many(thousands?) of expensive and polluting launches required to get
a 1/2 time Microwave beam with it's own losses and risks, how is this
"limitless clean power"?

Expensive, none. Since it's not cost effective. When launch costs start to
drop we'll see more talk.

As for polluting, moving to something like a LH2/LOX launcher solves most of
that problem (but not all).



Al G




--
Greg Moore
SQL Server DBA Consulting Remote and Onsite available!
Email: sql (at) greenms.com http://www.greenms.com/sqlserver.html

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:
"Al G" wrote in message
With many(thousands?) of expensive and polluting launches required

Expensive, none. Since it's not cost effective. When launch costs
start to drop we'll see more talk.

As for polluting, moving to something like a LH2/LOX launcher solves
most of that problem (but not all).

And is it really that big a problem even if it is RP1(?)/LOX. Apart
from maint, those are a one time thing, not like the recurring release
of carbon et al from running a conventional power plant.

rick jones
--
portable adj, code that compiles under more than one compiler
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

"Revision" wrote in message
.. .

"Rand Simberg" I like Buzz, but the
notion that his imprimatur increases its likelihood defies history.

Dunno why this space power thing attracts people, other than the Buck
Rogers fantasy. I think the effort to do this is like a moon landing
times 1000. Aldrin has the vision thing, but lacks the "scale" thing.


Oil was $92 a barrel the other day. A lot of people, including
Congress and NASA thought it was a good idea when oil
was as low as $8 under Clinton.

And with C02 rising at over 2% per year, and our biosphere
only 10% away from it's Co2 tipping point, SSP is an idea
that gets more attractive each and every day.

You guys think in such narrow ways. You see only
all the problems, time and effort, building such
a system entails...and throw your hands up
in the air...saying it's all just too much.

And given the circumstances today you'd be correct.

But your classical training leaves you so limited.
You wait for some problem to come along, then
try to find the best solution(s) you can think of.
SSP would not be seen as the best solution
right now since there's so many unanswerable
questions from one end to the other.

Such large amounts of uncertainty can't be
fashioned into the kind of exact answers
your objective methods are inherently
attracted to.

I just look at it as another complex dynamic
system.

A complex adaptive system (CAS), according to
complexity science, defines the abstract
idealized naturally evolving system. Or, a
CAS is what the perfect evolving system
would look like...if there could be a perfect
system. Which of course is not possible
in reality.

Thematic Complexity Introductions
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm

Don't you see what this means?

A CAS is the abstract 'perfect' solution
to any given real world problem.
You merely must learn how to apply
the abstract to the real world system
at hand.

Any naturally evolving systems are
ultimately a system initiated by ...two...
primary driving forces/variables

Complex Adaptive Systems - Webs of Delight
http://www.calresco.org/lucas/cas.htm

One of those variables, in this case, would be your
conventional analysis, what can actually do the job.
But the other driving force, which serves to generate
a self organizing system, would be the level of
connectivity the whole (idea) has to the components
involved. In this case people.

You must /limit your solution/ to the region that
is equally attractive to all concerned.

Before I gave a whit about NASA or SSP, and before
I even knew we were going back to the moon
I wondered if I could apply complexity science
to finding the idealized solution to, not a problem
but an idea. Treat deriving an idea as a system.

The two primary variables must always be the
system specific static and chaotic forms.
Or..the classical and quantum forms.
Or...the deterministic and statistical sciences.

The static variable of the perfect idea....

.....would be the simplest solution to the largest
possible problem.

The chaotic variable of the perfect idea...

....would be the region of greatest attraction to
to the most possible.

Since finding those two variables will find the
perfect solution, you simply reapply those
two questions ...at every step in the process
from here on. This is a universal problem
solving method. Each step is simply solved
in the same rote way.

For instance, the first question to be answered
is what is the largest and most difficult problem
that exists?

Well... we must translate this question from the
abstract to the real. Find the static and chaotic
or as I call it....the opposite extremes in possibility.

For the greatest problem those two opposite extremes
are simply the present and the future. Which problem
is optimized for both....and....also appeals to the
most possible for the present and the future also.

So I merely compiled a short list of the greatest
global problems.


CBS News/New York Times Poll. July 9-17, 2007.
N=1,554 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).