|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
"What began as a desire and need to carry mail by air became today's global system of passenger airlines." http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...rmail/POL6.htm There can be little doubt that the efforts of the US govt to jump start commercial aviation has changed the world substantially and for the better. The military started off by providing the initial technology, rikkety Jennys, and some daring pilots. But the govt provided something else far more substantial to creating the world-changing industry of commercial aviation. A market! A cargo! The US Airmail. So....what is the market/cargo for space? For those at Nasa, I feel it's necessary to explain what a market system does. It has mostly to do with /supply and demand./ So....what does space have in abundance that earth does not? What do we need on earth the most which space can provide the best? A simple max/min problem of ....suppply and demand. Concerning a market between .....space and earth. Hmm, we seem to need lots of energy, clean energy, here on earth. Space seems to have plenty of solar power. A market make in heaven. ' Nasa's goal should be to provide a cargo and offer lucritive contracts to put it up. Cargo like this. Science at Nasa Beam it Down, Scotty! "Solar power collected in space and beamed to Earth could be an environmentally friendly solution to our planet's growing energy problems." http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23mar_1.htm Jonathan ps; I'd normally link to the extensive Space Solar Power home page at Nasa, with all the testimony and detailed studies. But a few weeks after I began ranting about this and linking to the page, it....disappeared! They took the Space Solar Power home page down, or moved it somewhere not easy to find. They seem rather sensitive to this issue, just one more reason to push it. If anyone can find it, I'd appreciate it. s |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
Hyperboreea wrote: 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. Wanna see something neat?: http://www.enviromission.com.au/project/project.htm Pat |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
Pat Flannery a écrit :
Hyperboreea wrote: 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. Wanna see something neat?: http://www.enviromission.com.au/project/project.htm Pat Very interesting. Thanks for the link |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
"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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
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. So the oil has run out - where do we get our energy? Wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, Earth-based solar power, and fission reactors (more of which are being built right now) are all far more cost-effective than anything that has to be launched into space, maintained in space, replaced in space when it wears out, etc. etc. Waste vegetation can be turned into fuel fairly easily, too (which is a kind of solar energy, really). The combination of all these Earth-based approaches will keep the price of power down way below any motivation to get power from space. You're looking at this backward - starting with the assumption that we will go into space, then trying to justify it |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
wrote in message oups.com... 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. So the oil has run out - where do we get our energy? Wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, Earth-based solar power, and fission reactors (more of which are being built right now) are all far more cost-effective than anything that has to be launched into space, maintained in space, replaced in space when it wears out, etc. etc. Waste vegetation can be turned into fuel fairly easily, too (which is a kind of solar energy, really). The combination of all these Earth-based approaches will keep the price of power down way below any motivation to get power from space. You're forgetting about the rest of the world that doesn't live in a western-like economy. China is growing at ten percent a year. Indonesia, India and the Asian tigers are having explosive growth. Now these countries have very little industrialization. When the rest of the world becomes as industrialized and energy hungry as we are, they will be pump this planet dry. And all the while using very little pollution controls. You're looking at this backward - starting with the assumption that we will go into space, then trying to justify it No, you have it backwards. All things being equal, the simplist explanation or solution is generally the best one. Small steps do not lead to great accomplishments. As the insignificance of each step fails to inspire the next one. And is swept away by the next issue that comes along. A /large goal/ inspires and initiates those countless small steps in pursuit of the long term dream. As the large goal has magnificent benefits and countless justifications. One approach fails, the other succeeds. An intelligent and inspiring goal is the first step to success. s |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
In article .com,
Wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, Earth-based solar power, and fission reactors (more of which are being built right now) are all far more cost-effective than anything that has to be launched into space, maintained in space, replaced in space when it wears out, etc. etc. If you assume today's costs of doing things in space, that's certainly true. Of course, any attempt to obtain serious amounts of power from space will utterly dwarf today's space programs, so assuming that its costs will be similar is ridiculous. Oh, and don't forget the costs of the storage systems you need for wind and Earth-based solar, and the fact that tidal and geothermal are cost-effective in only a few particularly favorable places, and the limits imposed on fission by uranium supply. -- spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. | |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message ... Oh, and don't forget the costs of the storage systems you need for wind and Earth-based solar, and the fact that tidal and geothermal are cost-effective in only a few particularly favorable places, and the limits imposed on fission by uranium supply. And the fact that most of the world's uranium is found in politically unpalatable countries, like Australia :-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation
Of course, any attempt to obtain serious amounts of power from space will
utterly dwarf today's space programs, so assuming that its costs will be similar is ridiculous. Absolutely. But, even if we are talking about Manhattan Project sized efforts (which is really the crux of space cornucopia proposals) I'm can't find any data supporting the preeminence of solar power. Oh, and don't forget the costs of the storage systems you need for wind and Earth-based solar, and the fact that tidal and geothermal are cost-effective in only a few particularly favorable places, and the limits imposed on fission by uranium supply. Isn't the problem of supply obviated by using breeder reactors? And what about the kilotons of U238 in storage? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|