Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Marsha Ivins ****ting Her Diapers!

Alex Terrell wrote:

:
:You could build a proof of concept and then move it to Earth - moon L1
:to support lunar operations, which might at some point need multi MW
f power. The scaling issue would be solved by replacing the rectenna
:with lasers.
:

Now convince everyone that putting multi-megawatt lasers in space
isn't a weapons program...

Now account for the fact that laser power transmission is almost an
order of magnitude less efficient than microwaves.

Now account for the size of your solar collector (20 square miles and
~50 tons, costing ~$400 million just to lift from earth).


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:13:28 -0700, John Schilling
wrote:

SSP is an *inadequate* reason to fund low cost to orbit. People who
have money, and this includes the United States Congress, will not
invest in low cost to orbit in order to pursue SSP. They are not
going to do that, period, full stop.

Well, that's going a bit too far. I think it is unlikely, but it isn't
out of the realm of possibility that some charismatic president in the
next decade or two would decide an Apollo-like project to once and for
all end America's dependence on foreign oil is the way to go, and as
part of it, initiate a major low-cost space infrastructure to build
SSP. It doesn't have to make perfect sense, afterall. Apollo didn't.
(We were behind the Soviet Union technologically only in one
relatively unimportant quality: payload mass, but we spent a zillion
dollars to change that and make sure the world knew it.) A President
standing up against Big Oil could be very popular.

Brian

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 15:42:54 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:13:28 -0700, John Schilling
wrote:

SSP is an *inadequate* reason to fund low cost to orbit. People who
have money, and this includes the United States Congress, will not
invest in low cost to orbit in order to pursue SSP. They are not
going to do that, period, full stop.

Well, that's going a bit too far. I think it is unlikely, but it isn't
out of the realm of possibility that some charismatic president in the
next decade or two would decide an Apollo-like project to once and for
all end America's dependence on foreign oil is the way to go, and as
part of it, initiate a major low-cost space infrastructure to build
SSP.

What does "Apollo-like" mean in this regard? That it will be a
no-federal-funds-barred technological achievement that makes no
economic sense?

Brian Thorn wrote:
On Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:13:28 -0700, John Schilling
wrote:


SSP is an *inadequate* reason to fund low cost to orbit. People who
have money, and this includes the United States Congress, will not
invest in low cost to orbit in order to pursue SSP. They are not
going to do that, period, full stop.


Well, that's going a bit too far. I think it is unlikely, but it isn't
out of the realm of possibility that some charismatic president in the
next decade or two would decide an Apollo-like project to once and for
all end America's dependence on foreign oil is the way to go, and as
part of it, initiate a major low-cost space infrastructure to build
SSP. It doesn't have to make perfect sense, afterall.

Indeed. I recall widely circulated emails calling for boycotting gas
stations for a single day. This was supposed to bring Big Oil to its
knees. When friends and coworkers mentioned the letter, I'd tell them if
they really wanted to bring gas prices down with reduced demand, buy
smaller cars, walk or ride a bike when possible, use the bus. A lot of
people participated in the single day boycott but not many traded in
their Hummers for VW Bugs.

To a population whose #1 concern is Britney Spear's wigs, a charismatic
leader might be able to sell SPS as an adequate reason to fund low cost
to orbit.

Hop

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:17:05 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Well, that's going a bit too far. I think it is unlikely, but it isn't
out of the realm of possibility that some charismatic president in the
next decade or two would decide an Apollo-like project to once and for
all end America's dependence on foreign oil is the way to go, and as
part of it, initiate a major low-cost space infrastructure to build
SSP.

What does "Apollo-like" mean in this regard? That it will be a
no-federal-funds-barred technological achievement that makes no
economic sense?

More like mobilizing existing capabilities in pursuit of a single goal
that the average American can understand and get behind. Not
necessarily a massive increase in expenditures, although there would
probably be that, too (on several fronts, including greatly increased
wind energy production, etc.) The only economic sense it *must* make
is that it end the practice of sending all our dollars to the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia and the pockets of Exxon/Mobil (which seems to be
putting very little of its massive profit back into the US economy,
for example).

In this hypothetical President's campaign, of course. It could very
well sound _very_ good to John Q. Voter. Politics is funny that way.

No, I don't think this will happen. But to dismiss it out of hand... I
wouldn't go that far. Much stranger things have happened.

Brian

John Schilling wrote:


But you have the huge disadvantage that most of your orbit will be
out of LOS of your rectenna. And that probably gets worse if you
go sun-synchronous.

And much of the time the sat's within LOS of the rectenna, the area
receiving microwaves is quite large.

If the beam were a tube of diameter d, the ellipse on the ground would
have area (pi d^2) / sin(grazing angle).

A more realistic model would be a cone instead of a tube, in which case
the ellipse has an even greater area as d increases with distance from
the sat.

And a beam with a low grazing angle would pass through a lot more
atmosphere.

It seems to me a rectenna wouldn't get much power from a sat close to
the horizon.


This problem could be partially addressed by having a very long rectenna
along the satellite track. With this scheme an equatorial orbit seems
the most sensible. If inclined, the orbit should be a simple fraction of
the day so the track sinewave would connect with itself rather than
forming a smeared band across the planet's face.

But, in all the cases I can imagine, the sat track would be over mostly
ocean.


A LEO power sat is a bone headed idea, IMHO.


Rand's notion of an sps between LEO and GEO has some possibilities, though.

Hop

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:51:05 GMT, in a place far, far away, Brian
Thorn made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

On Sat, 09 Jun 2007 17:17:05 GMT, h (Rand
Simberg) wrote:

Well, that's going a bit too far. I think it is unlikely, but it isn't
out of the realm of possibility that some charismatic president in the
next decade or two would decide an Apollo-like project to once and for
all end America's dependence on foreign oil is the way to go, and as
part of it, initiate a major low-cost space infrastructure to build
SSP.

What does "Apollo-like" mean in this regard? That it will be a
no-federal-funds-barred technological achievement that makes no
economic sense?

More like mobilizing existing capabilities in pursuit of a single goal
that the average American can understand and get behind. Not
necessarily a massive increase in expenditures, although there would
probably be that, too (on several fronts, including greatly increased
wind energy production, etc.)

If those things made economic sense, we'd be doing them, without
subsidization. I just get tired of people wanting to use Apollo for a
model, usually thoughtlessly, as in "if we can send a man to the moon,
why can't we (have world peace, end world hunger, give everyone a
pony, etc)?" Once you do that, you invite the "waste anything but
time" mentality, which is not going to give us affordable energy
independence.

The only economic sense it *must* make
is that it end the practice of sending all our dollars to the Kingdom
of Saudi Arabia and the pockets of Exxon/Mobil (which seems to be
putting very little of its massive profit back into the US economy,
for example).

We don't do that. We actually buy relatively little oil from the
Middle East (less than a quarter, I'd guess, and a lot of that is from
Iraq, not Saudi Arabia)). It makes more sense to purchase it closer
to home (e.g., Canada, Mexico, Venezuela) to reduce transportation
costs. The problem with the Saudis isn't that we send dollars to them
but that their other customers (in Europe and Japan) do, and they then
use it to fund Islamic radicalism and terrorism all over the world.

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
u...
goanna wrote:
In (Henry Spencer)
writes:

robert casey wrote:
[...]
It's probably a lot cheaper to just build the solar power plant on the
ground (like in a desert in Arizona), even though it can only work
during the daytime. But power consumption does peak during the
daytime...

Unfortunately, even Arizona gets clouded out at times, and atmospheric
absorption cuts available power early and late in the day (a particular
annoyance for the latter, since that's when the highest demand peak
is).
And there is quite a bit of 24x7 base load to be supplied, and there'll
be much more of that if electricity is used to manufacture or replace
petroleum-derived liquid fuels.

True for photovoltaic, but recent developments in fairly low tech
solar thermal employ effective thermal storage to enable baseline
power without flywheels, pumped hydro or the like. For example,
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719858-7.html


The cost comparison made there is between solar thermal and gas fired
plant. Even then, they're waving their hands a bit to get the price down
to 10 cents per kWh.

They couldn't substitute for gas fired plant, because such plant is used
for peak loads, and the costs for the solar thermal plant would be based
on its use for baseload.

Coal fired stations (one of the usual ways that baseload power is
generated) have much lower costs, at around 4 cents per kWh.


Coal puts out twice the greenhouse gasses as fuel oil.
And three time the sulfur dioxide. For twenty or thirty
years from now coal will not the fuel of desperation.
As environmental concerns will make it difficult to sell.

Just last week in my local, Florida Power and Light was
unamimously denied a permit for a state of the art
clean coal power plant. Emissions and cost
shot it down.

"Not in my back yard"

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/busines...LANT_0606.html




Sylvia.

Jonathan wrote:

For twenty or thirty
years from now coal will not the fuel of desperation.

This sentence no verb?

Paul

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Jonathan wrote:
Lost your religion? This pessimism must be based on the past
performance of our political system. We live in an entirely different
political world these days.


"The four most expensive words ever spoken are 'this time is different'."


Ouch! Probably the toughest hurdle to overcome I've heard yet.
Why now when it failed before?

SSP certainly was a pipe-dream when it was first proposed.
And it has failed several attempts since then. I just read an
extensive study and poll by the Dept of Energy they conducted
back in 1980. They involved over 9000 people from three distinct
public interest groups. And it failed miserably.

General response to the SPS Concept

"The overall general response to SPS was negative. Of 382 responses,
87 percent (331) indicated opposition to the SPS concept, ranging
from a sense that there were better energy options to unequivocal hostility,
Eight percent (31) were neutral or undecided, saying that more study was
required and five percent (20) supported SPS development."

But what surprised me was the size of this study. And that over a
quarter of a century has passed since then.
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/li...Experiment.pdf

I think this study helps define the biggest problems SSP would
confront if proposed again. Which were.


"...concerns that most frequently emerged we"

*the perceived problems of microwaves for SPS power transmission
and its impacts upon human health, local ecosystems, and the
atmosphere.

*the concern that SPS is a highly centralized technology that is
considered inconsistent with the "inherently decentralized" nature
of solar technologies.

*the high economic costs associated with SPS development.

*the possible uses of SPS as a military weapon or its vulnerability
as a military target

*the availability of other energy options--notably decentralized
terrestrial applications of solar.

*the miscellaneous environmental impacts of the SPS (e.g. air, water
pollution, resource depletion, and disruption of communications
systems).


Of all those reasons, I see the availability of other energy options, the
cost, and the centralization issues to be the most difficult hurdles
that remain.

But once our all our conventional options are gone, it'll be
too late for a long term program like SSP to come to
the rescue. And if the public perceives global warming
to be a threat to our very existence, the cost will diminish
as a concern. As far as the "Big Brother" concern
of centralized control, making this an international effort
would be crucial. The biggest political divide between
the US and the EU right now is....Kyoto.

This screams...new opportunity.


Wisdom is a collective property, and
the internet is quickly allowing the weight of the people to assert
itself
over our political system.

"The sum of gossip does not produce either knowledge or insight." --
Ursula Franklin.


I was going to reply with that old quote about new ideas having to wait
for the old generation to die off before they have a chance.
But that's not appropriate. SSP is an old idea.


"But how shall finished creatures
A function fresh obtain?—
Old Nicodemus’ phantom
Confronting us again!"


How can an old idea become new again, how can that
which is old be reborn? Whether an idea, or ..us?


"Come, dear, beloved, Nicodemus—walk even now
in the light of the age to come."

http://www.kerux.com/documents/KeruxV7N2A3.asp


Sooner or later solar power and space will define or 'save'
humanity.





...I'm looking for the 'magic goal' that
will /sell itself/ even if only a few lamers are pushing it.

Right -- now consider the possibility that no such goal exists. Hint:
if it would sell itself, why hasn't it done so already?


You don't believe in 'magic'? Or in the infallable goal?
Then you don't believe in Nature, or understand reality.

A man-made goal clearly defines where the system
should end up. For instance, on the surface of the moon.
Or if you like, a certain technological benchmark.
And then allows the process to adapt and emerge
as it will to accomplish the specified creation or
final product.

Nature does ...exactly...the opposite.

Nature establishes a process of creation, a brute
force method of attempting every possible combination
and allowing the best one to win. The result of a natural
process of creation is the system eventually settles
on the ....very best...practical solution to the given
problem.

Nature allows the final product to emerge as it will.

Like magic, naturally evolving systems ...cannot fail.
As the best possible must be defined as success
to any thinking person.


To initiate a natural process of creation...

What is that term you rocket scientists use
for max aerodynamic pressure? Max Q?

A naturally evolving system only has two
primary variables. The static and chaotic
attractor basins or behaviors. Place each
variable in their maximum dynamic state
...the complex realm..and set them against
each other, or interacting, in the same
complex way.

Max Q the static realm....in this case the potential
tangible benefits to society.

Max Q the chaotic realm, in this case the potential
to inspire dreams of a wondrous future.

If that can be done in a single system, or idea, it
should self organize or take on a life of its own.

SSP qualifies on all three crucial counts


Well, I intend to spend a couple more years pumping this. Any advice
that can make the message more effective would be appreciated.

You're already boring and annoying people here with your stubborn
repetition


That's a compliment imo, others might call it determination.


of poorly-justified fantasies


If you won't and can't understand the mathematics of
complexity science, that's not my fault. Except of course
in my inability to explain the concepts to layman.


and your total ignorance of
politics.


We'll see. My political judgement has stood up here.
Many ridiculed me when I predicted that Katrina would
be the last straw in the debate over global warming, and
while she was ...still at sea.

Many here said the same thing when I screamed those
blueberries weren't simple mineral concretions ...three weeks
after Opportunity landed. Weeks later NASA came out
and officially said...'oh yes they are'. And I continued pounding
them for months until they /retracted/ that identification and, with
great embarrassment, immediately thereafter stopped publicly
interpreting the rover data. And they stopped due to their mistaken
id of the blueberries.

As for SSP, the first tangible sign of its recent come back as
an idea was the well-received proposal to the Pentagon to
create their own SSP program. A proposal that used almost
the very same justifications I've been using for some time.

We'll see how my prediction that SSP should find its way
to the political surface in the next two years or so works out.
All the trends are on the side of SSP.

I'm bullish~



Stop posting to Usenet and start talking to Congressmen --
actually *talking to Congressmen* and trying to get your message across,
not just telling people how easy it will be to convince Congressmen.


Now who is it that is showing their political shortcomings?
Politicians are convinced by votes, and large numbers of votes.


Convert half a dozen of them to enthusiastic and vocal supporters, and
your claims will have much more credibility.


Two things before that should be done. The message should
be well refined. And the timing needs to be optimized.
And since I believe the political landscape is on hold
until the next election, I have time to practice and learn
and listen to the other side. I'm not there yet.

One of those 'open letters' with all sorts of titles attached
to signatures....on or about some related event...just
might do the trick.


Fail to So so, and you will
be wiser.


Nature and complexity science are clear on this, that
Utopia resides in the chase, in the process.
Not in the final result.


"WE play at paste,
Till qualified for pearl,
Then drop the paste,
And deem ourself a fool.
The shapes, though, were similar,
And our new hands
Learned gem-tactics
Practising sands."


--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |