A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Time to start building space elevator or die



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old July 3rd 05, 11:35 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Which do you think would be most cost efficient.
1) Creating a reflective dust cloud round the Earth
2) Placing some kind of umbrella in orbit round the Earth
3) Placing a much smaller umbrella at the stable point between the
Earth and Sun.

Option 1 would probably continuously need topping up.

Option 2 would need to surround the whole Earth to give an effective
shield with only that on the Sun facing side working at one time.
Rather a hazzard to space flight as well.

Option 3 would need more fuel to place in position, but would be much
smaller thus might be more efficient.


Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 22:09:11 GMT, in a place far, far away,
lid (John Savard) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:


Why, yes, there are. We _can_ tread more gently on the Earth without
attempting to curtail human material well-being to an unrealistic
extent. There are other ways to produce energy besides the use of fossil
fuels.


Yes, and as the cost of fossil fuels rises, we will continue to shift
over to them more and more.


  #12  
Old July 5th 05, 03:37 AM
Pete Lynn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
ups.com...

Which do you think would be most cost efficient.
1) Creating a reflective dust cloud round the Earth
2) Placing some kind of umbrella in orbit round the
Earth
3) Placing a much smaller umbrella at the stable point
between the Earth and Sun.

Option 1 would probably continuously need topping
up.


Option one will be many orders of magnitude more cost effective. If
memory serves the average life expectancy of such dust in the atmosphere
is around three years. This should enable fairly responsive regulation
of dust levels.

Perhaps a dozen 747s continuously ferrying dust to altitude might be
sufficient, (highly dependent on assumptions, particularly average
particle size). A cross the board jet fuel dust additive might be more
easily made to happen, it might only be a few percent of such fuel by
mass. Fly back artillery systems, high mountains and towers, thermals
from power stations, jet streams, etcetera, might also bring the cost
down dramatically. The type of dust might also be selected for specific
wave lengths - reduced UV might greatly reduce cancer rates.

A nuclear winter is the quick fix to global warming, and it would only
take one nuclear power to get desperate.

Lets say global warming does get bad and result in global depression,
this would quite likely result in at least a little nuclear war as
people naturally start fighting over fewer resources. So global warming
will be "naturally" counter acted. :-)

Pete.


  #13  
Old July 5th 05, 06:59 PM
Mike Combs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote in message
ups.com...

Which do you think would be most cost efficient.
1) Creating a reflective dust cloud round the Earth
2) Placing some kind of umbrella in orbit round the Earth
3) Placing a much smaller umbrella at the stable point between the
Earth and Sun.


You left off option 4:

4) Use the space infrastructure you'd need to build giant sunshields in
space to instead build Solar Power Satellites.

The SPS would speed the retirement of fossil-fueled power plants, thus doing
more to combat global warming than would anything merely providing a bit of
shade.

But if limited to your 3 choices, I'd pick 2. I hear you that it's less
than efficient in that the shades are not always between you and the sun,
but the L-1 sunshade is also less than efficient in that the penumbra is
several times the size of the Earth by the time it gets here, meaning much
of the shadow is wasted, so to speak.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CEV PDQ Scott Lowther History 829 June 12th 05 07:17 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 4th 05 05:21 AM
CRACK THIS CODE!!! WHY DID IT HAPPEN READ THIS DISTRUCTION!!!! zetasum History 0 February 3rd 05 01:28 AM
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Space Shuttle 150 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 27th 03 02:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:13 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.