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

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 14:32:08 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hyper
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Powersats in LEO to me doesn't seem to be much better than just building
the thing on the ground. At night, a powersat visible from the ground
will probably also be in the Earth's shadow.

In shadow only twice a year during equinoxes, and only for an hour or
so per day.

That's the case only for GEO. We were talking about LEO.

I guess the only advantage of a LEO SPS over ground-based solar is no
interruptions due to cloud cover. At least you'd have a solid 50%
availability of solar power.

Even if a SPS was built in LEO just as an experimental proof-of-concept
prototype, I'd still like to see it raised to GEO eventually.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn

On Jun 5, 2:20 pm, (Henry Spencer) wrote:
In article .net,
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.

The production of liquid fuels by electricity could probably be
coordinated
with supply and demand of electricity. I think that massive solar
power
plants on Earth are more viable if you also have production of large
amounts of liquid fuels with electriciy.


Alain Fournier

In article ,
John Doe wrote:
Is it true that prior to that announcement, NASA was prohibited from
using any of its budgets to perform research for a manned Mars mission ?

I don't *think* there was ever any formal prohibition, but budget items
obviously intended for that purpose tended to get zeroed out by Congress.
Which didn't mean no R&D got done, but it had to stay low-key.

If so, when would such a policy have been imposed on Nasa ? Bush Jr ?
CLinton ? Bush Sr ?

The Congressional distaste for manned Mars mission R&D got started with
Bush Sr's SEI debacle, and was strengthened under him and later regimes by
NASA's repeated demonstration that it isn't competent to build even a
space station on time or on budget.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

On Jun 5, 7:18 pm, "Scott Hedrick" wrote:
"Henry Spencer" wrote in message

...

With one small caveat: some of the generating capacity now used only for
peak loads, which would have to run 24x7 if some new big off-peak energy
use appeared, is not suited to providing base-load power -- too expensive,
too polluting, etc. (Some utilities use older plants, or inefficient but
low-capital-cost technologies like gas turbines, to help meet peak loads.)
It would have to be replaced with new base-load generating capacity in
this scenario.

That's a point that a lot of those pushing electric vehicles miss. It still
takes x amount of power to move the vehicle (and the weight of batteries
often makes the vehicle heavier, requiring more energy). That energy isn't
free, it still has to be generated. Electric vehicles do not eliminate the
pollution cost of generation, it just shifts it from the vehicle itself to
the generating plant.

The big advantage of electric or hybrid vehicles comes from
regenerative
braking (there are other advantages but that is a big one). When you
push
on the brakes of a well designed electric car the motor becomes a
generator
and you recharge the batteries. That is why hybrid cars generally have
better
fuel efficiency in the city where you do a lot of stop and go, while a
typical
gasoline or diesel car will have better fuel efficiency on the
highway.

The extra weight of the batteries also give extra recharge when
braking.
So extra weight on a hybrid is not as bad as extra weight on vehicle
without
regenerative braking. Adding weight on a vehicle with regenerative
braking
will still lower the efficiency but not as much.


Alain Fournier

On Jun 5, 11:54 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Joe Strout wrote:

:In article ,
: John Schilling wrote:


: And SSP is somewhat relevant to global warming, but mostly to the extent
: that it replaces Chinese coal-fired power plants and blast furnaces. But
: any plan to devote Sagans of American taxpayer dollars to building new and
: better power plants for the Chinese, is an absolute political non-starter.
:
:China is certainly important, but the US is at the top of total CO2
:emissions at least as of 2003:
: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_tp20.htm
:

Get current. China is now at the top of the list.

I don't think so. I think China's annual increase in CO2 output is the
worlds greatest. But I think they still lag US CO2 emissions by a lot.

:Of course I realize that what matters is current and near-future
:emissions, not total past emissions. But the U.S. is at the head of
:that "current" list too, at least as of 2005:
: http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicato.../2006_data.htm
:

Again, get current. It's not 2005, either. It's 2007 and China just
screamed past us in the last few months (a good year or two ahead of
the projections).

Cite?

:Granted, China's got a lot of power coming online in the near future,
:but it's extreme head-in-the-sand-ism to say that US emissions don't
:matter. We're responsible for over 20% of the CO2 emitted on the
lanet. That's huge.
:

And we're responsible for over 25% of the global product. When we're
producing a bigger share of CO2 than we are global output, THEN we're
the problem. Until then folks like India and China are the problem.

Why should that be the metric? Why not CO2 production per capita?
(where
the West lags way behind China and India.) Shouldn't everyone be
treated
equally? If some use their share of CO2 production inefficiently and
don't
make much with that is their problem, but shouldn't the poor have the
same
polution rights as the rich? If not it might be difficult for them to
get out of
poverty.


Alain Fournier

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 17:39:37 -0700, in a place far, far away,
" made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Get current. China is now at the top of the list.

I don't think so. I think China's annual increase in CO2 output is the
worlds greatest. But I think they still lag US CO2 emissions by a lot.

Relative to GDP?

And we're responsible for over 25% of the global product. When we're
producing a bigger share of CO2 than we are global output, THEN we're
the problem. Until then folks like India and China are the problem.

Why should that be the metric? Why not CO2 production per capita?

Because that would make no economic sense?

"John Schilling" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:35:34 -0400, "Jonathan" wrote:




So you're saying that global warning, oil prices and the war are
NOT urgent political issues? You are the delusional one to
think they are not. SSP connects strongly to them all and many
more.

Only in ill-thought propaganda.

SSP doesn't connect to oil prices, because SSP generates electricity and
oil is almost exclusively used in applications where electricity is *not*
an adequate substitute. You're thinking about "energy" as if it were a
fungible commodity; it's not. There are two almost completely independant
energy markets, one for fixed power and one for motor vehicle fuel.



Fixed power uses mostly coal, natural gas and oil. Aren't you aware of that?
Two of those sources have exploded in price the last five years. While the
third source emits gobs of greenhouse gasses.

From the US govt.

"Despite the rapid growth projected for biofuels and other
nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources and the expectation
that orders will be placed for new nuclear power plants for the
first time in more than 25 years, oil, coal, and natural gas still
are projected to provide roughly the same 86-percent share
of the total U.S. primary energy supply in 2030 that they did in 2005"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html

86%

By 2030, if we continue to rely almost exclusively on coal, natural gas
and oil for our energy production ...86% of it... the US will be emitting
EIGHT THOUSAND MILLION TONS of carbon dioxide each year.

That's 8000000000 tons of greenhouse gasses....TONS.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_8.html

And just as global warming becomes irreversible, we'll have
this trend to deal with.

"Total primary energy consumption, including energy for electricity
generation, grows by 1.1 percent per year from 2005 to 2030
in the reference case (Figure 34). Fossil fuels account for 87 percent
of the growth. The increase in coal use occurs mostly in the
electric power sector, where strong growth in electricity demand
and favorable economics under current environmental policies
prompt coal-fired capacity additions. About 61 percent of the
projected increase in coal consumption occurs after 2020, when
higher natural gas prices make coal the fuel of choice for
most new power plants."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/demand.html


Coal, puts out TWICE the amount of carbon dioxide as oil, SIX times
the amount of carbon monoxide as oil and TWICE the amount
of sulfur dioxide as oil.

So, your vision of our energy future is what? To depend on coal
and screw the environment...right?

We need a replacement for fossil fuels, that simple fact is glaringly
obvious.


SSP is doubly irrelevant to the war because A: see above, and B: SSP can
not possibly be brought on line in significant quantity until the war is
long since won or lost.


I was referring to future potential wars over diminishing energy resources.
We're in the middle of a war right now that oil is at least a significant
factor.



And SSP is somewhat relevant to global warming, but mostly to the extent
that it replaces Chinese coal-fired power plants and blast furnaces. But
any plan to devote Sagans of American taxpayer dollars to building new and
better power plants for the Chinese, is an absolute political non-starter.


Ya know, I don't think Saudi Arabia gives a hoot who they sell their
energy to. If the US dominated the future electricity market I don't
see why that matters even a bit. In fact, I like the idea of a future
where China and other major powers become reliant on us the
way we are dependent on the Middle East now.






Furthermore, SSP is *percieved* as being absolutely completely totally
irrelevant to anything in the real world, on account of being a hopelessly
unrealistic fantasy.


Really, so that is why Congress instructed NASA to PRODUCE
....not study, but produce the technologies needed for a large scale
SSP program just before Bush came into office. With funding and flight
timelines all laid out in detail. In fact if Bush didn't cancel the
program
we would already have our first SSP demonstrator flying.

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309075971

"Technology flight demonstrations (referred to by NASA as MSCs) are
scheduled in FY 2006-2007, FY 2011-2012, and FY 2016."

From 2002 to 2006 the funding request for SSP was respectively

$88million
$124million
$211million
$282million
$312million


If you propose to change that perception, note that
people have spent thirty-odd years trying to change that perception, with
zero success. What do you propose to do that they haven't already done?


I'm trying every angle I can think of quite frankly. Some reasons are
better or worse than others. I'm hoping for some constructive criticism
to help refine the message. But I believe the patriotic and geopolitical
consequences of a credible SSP program have yet to be properly
presented. Remeber, it was a Texas oil man with very close ties
to the Saudis that killed SSP. A large scale SSP program was just
about to become policy in 2001.

And l...since then...oil prices have shot up some 25%, we're in a large
Middle East conflict and Katrina has bolted global warming to a new
high as an issue. Time is on the side of SSP.

Every year the reasons for SSP become stronger, while our supplies
of fossil fuels decrease and our planet warms.

The trends are pretty clear.




Which SSP may not offer, and even if it does, how do you propose to get
it? Shouting for massive government spending to develop SSP technology,
however you propose to structure the program this time, *will not work*.
And damn few of us will join you on that fool's errand.


The folks over at Cambridge seem to think different
New Research is being conducted, for instance,
just a couple weeks ago at MIT with NASA help.
http://web.mit.edu/space_solar_power/

One of NASA's better known researchers and sci-fi writers
attended that conference.
http://mit.edu/aeroastro/www/people/landis/landis.html

Pentagon Considering Study on Space-Based Solar Power
Thursday, April 12, 2007

By Jeremy Singer

"The Pentagon's National Security Space Office (NSSO) may begin
a study in the near future on the possibility of using satellites to
collect solar energy for use on Earth, according to Defense
Department officials."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265380,00.html



Is NASA, MIT the Pentagon fools also?


What about the former Chairman of the House Space and
Aeronautics committee? Another fool?

Chairman Rohrabacher opened the hearing by stating that
space solar power (SSP) is "precisely what NASA as an
agency should be all about" - He stated that NASA's lack
of preparation to follow up on SSP, a concept that, he claimed,
"cries out for further research," may be because NASA wants
to focus on human space flight, "in hopes of reclaiming the
glory days of Apollo." He wants NASA to take the next measured
step in research, and believes that this visionary approach would
reap huge public support for NASA ."

Hearing on "Space Solar Power: A Fresh Look" before the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House
Committee on Science, October 24, 1997.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/solar.html





If that's all you've got, then you are not going to get what you need.
So your time would be better spent figuring out how to do without.




And read that article from the Pentagon, and the reasons it gives for SSP.
The reasons they give are virtually identical to the reasons I've
been posting for months. A potential "Game Changer" they call it.

But maybe you're correct, spending the next twenty years
to build a shelter for four people on the moon is a better
use of NASA funds, time and expertise.

But those two alternative goals, more moon rocks and a potential
replacement for fossil fuels, side by side. Look at each, which
is better for our future?










--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
* for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition *

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article ,
John Schilling wrote:




Furthermore, SSP is *percieved* as being absolutely completely totally
irrelevant to anything in the real world, on account of being a
hopelessly
unrealistic fantasy.

No argument there. Of course if it were demonstrated, even on a small
scale, people would stop laughing. But as long as they're laughing,
it's hard to demonstrate.


If Bush had not killed SSP, we would ALREADY have a demonstrator
flying. This was not another study, it was Congress telling NASA
to start building an ambitious large scale SSP program.

Bush killed it.


Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309075971

"Technology flight demonstrations (referred to by NASA as MSCs) are
scheduled in FY 2006-2007, FY 2011-2012, and FY 2016."

From 2002 to 2006 the funding request for SSP was respectively

$88million
$124million
$211million
$282million
$312million


I didn't see Congress laughing at this idea, quite the opposite.

Chairman Rohrabacher opened the hearing by stating that
space solar power (SSP) is "precisely what NASA as an
agency should be all about" - He stated that NASA's lack
of preparation to follow up on SSP, a concept that, he claimed,
"cries out for further research," may be because NASA wants
to focus on human space flight, "in hopes of reclaiming the
glory days of Apollo." He wants NASA to take the next measured
step in research, and believes that this visionary approach would
reap huge public support for NASA ."

Hearing on "Space Solar Power: A Fresh Look" before the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House
Committee on Science, October 24, 1997.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/solar.html



This is the classic problem space development
has faced over and over, occasionally with success (e.g. space tourism).

We need clean solutions to global warming and fossil fuels.

Which SSP may not offer, and even if it does, how do you propose to get
it? Shouting for massive government spending to develop SSP technology,
however you propose to structure the program this time, *will not work*.
And damn few of us will join you on that fool's errand.

True. About the only hope I have for SSP is for some visionary business
leader to do it -- maybe Richard Branson, who has deep pockets and an
obvious interest in both space development and clean energy. But I
don't imagine that there's much we can do here to have any influence on
it at all.


Nonsense, a democratic Congress will eventually return NASA to
the idea of SSP. I'm hoping by the next general election the idea
takes hold enough to become a campaign issue.






Best,
- Joe

"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...

You can't realistically hope to build and
operate powersats with the sort of space transportation we've got now --
it's a whole new order of magnitude -- so the current situation, in which
access to space is difficult and infrequent, simply isn't relevant.


You guys just don't get it. We need a /reason/ to make space
transportation cheap. SSP is the /reason/ to fund low cost
to orbit. We need a goal that has as a prerequisite building
the space infrastructure needed to truly exploit and colonize
space.

Once we can do SSP {even if it never happens"} then we
.....can do anything in space.

Our goal cannot be to build space infrastructure, or low
cost to orbit. Because people will ask 'WHY', and no one
will have an answer.

Have any of you ever watched a greyhound race?

Think of SSP as that little rabbit that makes the race go.


Jonathan

s




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

" wrote:

:On Jun 5, 11:54 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Joe Strout wrote:
:
: :In article ,
: : John Schilling wrote:
:
:
: : And SSP is somewhat relevant to global warming, but mostly to the extent
: : that it replaces Chinese coal-fired power plants and blast furnaces. But
: : any plan to devote Sagans of American taxpayer dollars to building new and
: : better power plants for the Chinese, is an absolute political non-starter.
: :
: :China is certainly important, but the US is at the top of total CO2
: :emissions at least as of 2003:
: : http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_tp20.htm
: :
:
: Get current. China is now at the top of the list.
:
:I don't think so. I think China's annual increase in CO2 output is the
:worlds greatest. But I think they still lag US CO2 emissions by a lot.
:

What you think doesn't matter. Reality is what it is and China now
outputs more CO2 than the US.

: :Of course I realize that what matters is current and near-future
: :emissions, not total past emissions. But the U.S. is at the head of
: :that "current" list too, at least as of 2005:
: : http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicato.../2006_data.htm
: :
:
: Again, get current. It's not 2005, either. It's 2007 and China just
: screamed past us in the last few months (a good year or two ahead of
: the projections).
:
:Cite?
:

Is it that you just don't pay attention to the news or do you simply
ignore anything you don't want to hear? See statements by Fatih Birol
of the IEA and many others.

: :Granted, China's got a lot of power coming online in the near future,
: :but it's extreme head-in-the-sand-ism to say that US emissions don't
: :matter. We're responsible for over 20% of the CO2 emitted on the
: lanet. That's huge.
: :
:
: And we're responsible for over 25% of the global product. When we're
: producing a bigger share of CO2 than we are global output, THEN we're
: the problem. Until then folks like India and China are the problem.
:
:Why should that be the metric?
:

Because other ways of measuring impact are simply silly unless your
goal is for us all to move back into caves.

:
:Why not CO2 production per capita?
where
:the West lags way behind China and India.) Shouldn't everyone be
:treated
:equally?
:

Yes, they should, and that treatment should be based on how much
output they get for how much carbon they emit to get it. It's the
same rule for everyone, not biased to encourage everyone being dragged
down to the lowest common denominator.

:If some use their share of CO2 production inefficiently and
:don't
:make much with that is their problem,

No, it's EVERYONE'S problem, since if you measure on a per capita
basis and believe the disaster scenarios for global warming that
essentially says that one of two things happens:

1) The planet gets an economic death spiral, as total output must fall
in a system biased to favour the less economically efficient
contributors to the problem, or

2) We all die from global warming.

:
:but shouldn't the poor have the
:same
olution rights as the rich?
:

It's not about some 'right' to emit carbon on a per head basis. It's
about maximizing welfare of everyone by getting the most output for
the least amount of carbon.

:
:If not it might be difficult for them to
:get out of
overty.
:

Why is that? Your way, it is not only difficult for them to get out
of poverty but it ensures that the rest of us will be dragged down
into it with them.

You don't consider overpopulation to be pollution? Your way says that
everyone must be dragged down to the poorest level. My way says that
everyone should be encouraged to move up to better conditions.


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