Air Force Eyes Nuclear Reactors, Beamed Power for Spacecraft

"The U.S. Air Force has laid out a new vision
for its energy science and technology needs
over the next 15 years – a forecast that
includes plans for space-based power
stations and the prospective use of small
nuclear reactors for new spacecraft."

See:

http://www.space.com/14643-air-force...r-beaming.html

On Feb 23, 10:13*am, wrote:
"The U.S. Air Force has laid out a new vision
for its energy science and technology needs
over the next 15 years – a forecast that
includes plans for space-based power
stations *and the prospective use of small
nuclear reactors for new spacecraft."

See:

http://www.space.com/14643-air-force...tors-power-bea...

Perhaps this is bigger than we think. Understand I am spit balling
here.
The beamed power isn't likely cost effective to power a city, but for
other
uses it maybe crazy powerful depending on what it takes to capture
beamed power.

Uses I imagine a
Boosts of power beamed to aircraft, space shuttles, space tugs, and
even flight to Mars or Venus depening on how far this power might be
projected. It might also power space torpedoes, if the primary vessel
has a reactor or solar array. In fact, the ship might collect it beam
power
and then resupply it to another smaller vessel or weapon.

Perhaps SP would be primary step to the colonization and exploration
of Mars.

With Mercury, solar space power might be the ticket. Assuming the
resources
make it make sense. Perhaps a self sustaining robotic mechanism to
supply
human societies and space based colonization further out from Sol.

How far out could beamed power be projected?

How focused can beamed power be and be practical?

How difuse can beamed power be and be practical?

I suppose though the military is thinking in terms of powering
bases, ships, missiles, beams, or similar.

Or hey maybe they what to do organic farming on the
North of Greenland in the heart of winter ;-)

Two cups of fine wine...............................Trig

wrote in message
...

http://www.space.com/14643-air-force...r-beaming.html


Space Solar Power and the Pentagon?
What a bunch of pie-in-the-sky kooks!


s

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote:


http://www.space.com/14643-air-force...r-beaming.html


Space Solar Power and the Pentagon?
What a bunch of pie-in-the-sky kooks!


Did you bother to read your own cite? They're talking about power FOR
USE IN SPACE. Where did they talk about beaming power to earth?


I've said a hundred times, the big advantage of SSP is it doesn't
need to be compete directly with conventional power, it has
plenty of applications all to itself. I've been consistant in listing
military and orbital uses as examples. And even a child can grasp
the notion that the easist path would be first.

You keep insisting on comparing the last or final form of SSP, large
scale orbit to ground power transmission, to the current cost
of conventional power to make a point. That's not a fair tactic.
I'm talking about what could become realistic in the near future.

In any event, which technology appears to be closer to practical
application, and a worthy world-changing goal for NASA now?

I don't see the Pentagon, or any legitimate private corporations
running around talking about colonies on the Moon or Mars, or
Fusion or mining asteroids or any of other truly pie-in-the-sky ideas
NASA has been kicking around, in prayer one might stick!

NASA dropped the ball with the whole Bush 'Vision' of absurdly
long and expesensive goals that return nothing. And the military
has picked it up and found perfectly good national security
applications.

Now that the military has taken over the manned space program
it seems our space future might become better and more consistantly
funded through the black budget, while also heading in more practical
directions, such as....SSP.

I mean, militarizing our future in space might just be the solution
to the biggest problem of all, the abuse of NASA as a playground
for local politicians and their big-money supporters.

I wonder if China will follow suit, and start tossing boatloads
of cash into low orbit? And is a ..race for space a bad thing?
Was it with Apollo?



s



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

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Let me ask again. Where in that paper are they talking about beaming
one watt to earth?


Scanned quickly (through the entire 72 page document), I couldn't find mention
of it. The full document is available he

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/energy.pdf

Dave

Jonathan wrote:
Eh hum.. the executive summary states the whole point is finding
...revolutionary...science and technology concerning energy.
And the...only thing...it identifies as "revolutionary" just happens
to be....

"...and revolutionary new services such as in-space power beaming
and on-orbit refueling."

Wouldn't that then be "space to ground" power beaming? "In-space"
suggests (to me anyway) pt-pt power beaming in space - ie source and
destianation in space.

rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
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...

"David Spain" wrote in message
...
Fred J. McCall wrote:

Let me ask again. Where in that paper are they talking about beaming
one watt to earth?


Scanned quickly (through the entire 72 page document), I couldn't find
mention of it. The full document is available he

http://www.fas.org/irp/doddir/usaf/energy.pdf


Eh hum.. the executive summary states the whole point is finding
...revolutionary...science and technology concerning energy.
And the...only thing...it identifies as "revolutionary" just happens
to be....

"...and revolutionary new services such as in-space power beaming
and on-orbit refueling."




s







Dave

In article ,
says...

Jonathan wrote:
Eh hum.. the executive summary states the whole point is finding
...revolutionary...science and technology concerning energy.
And the...only thing...it identifies as "revolutionary" just happens
to be....

"...and revolutionary new services such as in-space power beaming
and on-orbit refueling."

Wouldn't that then be "space to ground" power beaming? "In-space"
suggests (to me anyway) pt-pt power beaming in space - ie source and
destianation in space.

No, what they want is space to space power beaming. There are far
easier ways to generate power on Earth than by beaming power from space.

Jeff
--
" Ares 1 is a prime example of the fact that NASA just can't get it
up anymore... and when they can, it doesn't stay up long. "
- tinker

"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:
Eh hum.. the executive summary states the whole point is finding
...revolutionary...science and technology concerning energy.
And the...only thing...it identifies as "revolutionary" just happens
to be....

"...and revolutionary new services such as in-space power beaming
and on-orbit refueling."

Wouldn't that then be "space to ground" power beaming? "In-space"
suggests (to me anyway) pt-pt power beaming in space - ie source and
destianation in space.


Right, in-space, first the idea must crawl before it can walk.
Space Solar Power is about solar power collected in space
Where it goes is another subject g

The point being, just five years ago, hardly anyone was even
talking about SSP in any serious way.



rick jones
--
Wisdom Teeth are impacted, people are affected by the effects of events.
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...

On Feb 26, 6:49*am, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in messagenews:4i1jk7d83lnlidehe5q4ful9looadg87j4@4ax .com...

"Jonathan" wrote:

http://www.space.com/14643-air-force...tors-power-bea....

Space Solar Power and the Pentagon?
What a bunch of pie-in-the-sky kooks!

Did you bother to read your own cite? *They're talking about power FOR
USE IN SPACE. *Where did they talk about beaming power to earth?

I've said a hundred times, the big advantage of SSP is it doesn't
need to be compete directly with conventional power, it has
plenty of applications all to itself. *I've been consistant in listing
military and orbital uses as examples. And even a child can grasp
the notion that the easist path would be first.

You keep insisting on comparing the last or final form of SSP, large
scale orbit to ground power transmission, to the current cost
of conventional power to make a point. That's not a fair tactic.
I'm talking about what could become realistic in the near future.

In any event, which technology appears to be closer to practical
application, and a worthy world-changing goal for NASA now?

I don't see the Pentagon, or any legitimate private corporations
running around talking about colonies on the Moon or Mars, or
Fusion or mining asteroids or any of other truly pie-in-the-sky ideas
NASA has been kicking around, in prayer one might stick!

NASA dropped the ball with the whole Bush 'Vision' of absurdly
long and expesensive goals that return nothing. And the military
has picked it up and found perfectly good national security
applications.

Now that the military has taken over the manned space program
it seems our space future might become better and more consistantly
funded through the black budget, while also heading in more practical
directions, such as....SSP.

I mean, militarizing our future in space might just be the solution
to the biggest problem of all, the abuse of NASA as a playground
for local politicians and their big-money supporters.

I wonder if China will follow suit, and start tossing boatloads
of cash into low orbit? *And is a ..race for space a bad thing?
Was it with Apollo?

s

You are correct, in that future SPS is going to become a very
necessary part of our off-world and terrestrial advancements, that is
unless launching tonnes of coal and oxygen into space or putting those
massive nuclear reactors into LEO suddenly becomes viable, or perhaps
something like the fusion energy that William Mook was telling us
about.

Going after practical off-world investments that have perfectly clear
objectives and direct benefit to the civilian world that we've only
messed up, is apparently asking too much from those in authority above
whomever we elect or appoint.

Apparently, keeping those Seans and WingWalkers of our ACIO as happy
campers isn't going to be cheap, so we'll need to consolidate like
never before.

Unfortunately, Fred J. McCall and most others here are clearly in
favor of creating the biggest bully government possible, with as many
cloak and dagger agencies as well as having unlimited resources and
benefits for themselves, plus whatever it takes for accommodating
those of special needs which has absolutely nothing to do with any
civilian needs other than indirectly, that'll get at best a minimum
wage or less and mostly w/o benefits none the less.

Fred and others of his sucky kind see nothing wrong with spending or
losing track of an extra trillion here or there, as long as none of it
goes directly back into civilian applications.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”