Space Solar Power Looks For Shortcuts

heres another issue, SSP would require lots of launches. Wonder what
the cost of mass produced falcons would be? we need 500 launched at a
rate of a 100 per year.. whats your cost to orbit?

plus such a large order of launchers could piggyback other users, so
it might be 700 launchers, attracted by the low price

this sort of demand would be ground breaking since theres never been a
real mass production line of launchers...

perhaps a larger falcon or some other launcher would be better suited,
but you should get the idea

In article 5b1b4a84-b82c-476d-a0ba-
, says...

On Oct 31, 4:58*pm, David Spain wrote:

Took a quick look, not clear to me if these average 'retail' prices are
for just generation or include generation + distribution + etc.

Distribution charges would not change even for SPS.

My $0.08/kWH figure is for generation only (as it gets broken down on my
electric bill). Actually last bill shows $0.071/kWH and supposedly
(according to what I read in the paper) my part of the country has one
the highest generation charges per customer that there is. So depending
upon where you live your numbers could be even lower, which is worse for
SPS; which when I last checked range from an unrealistically optimistic
(IMHO) $1 to (still low) $6/kWH. Quite a spread and that's just a crude
estimate from largely hand-waving.

Just to give folks and idea of what we are talking about.

My avg. monthly consumption is currently running about 50kWH but goes
higher in cold weather.

these numbers of costs per KWH will all change once a nuke plant melts
down in the US.... this event is guaranteed to occur in the future
because nothing man makes works perfectly

Wipe out a big part of our country will make SSP a sudden favorite

Sorry chicken little, but even if *your* worst nuclear power plant
accident happened in the US *and* all nuclear power plants shut down for
good, there are still many other terrestrial sources of power that are
much cheaper than today's predicted cost for SPS.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article 7e0e8368-6f26-4cbd-b800-9e08e1c879b4
@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, says...

heres another issue, SSP would require lots of launches. Wonder what
the cost of mass produced falcons would be? we need 500 launched at a
rate of a 100 per year.. whats your cost to orbit?

plus such a large order of launchers could piggyback other users, so
it might be 700 launchers, attracted by the low price

this sort of demand would be ground breaking since theres never been a
real mass production line of launchers...

perhaps a larger falcon or some other launcher would be better suited,
but you should get the idea

Expendables won't lower launch costs enough. There is a reason SpaceX
is (slowly) working on reusability.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On Nov 1, 7:23*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 5b1b4a84-b82c-476d-a0ba-
, says...







On Oct 31, 4:58*pm, David Spain wrote:

Took a quick look, not clear to me if these average 'retail' prices are
for just generation or include generation + distribution + etc.

Distribution charges would not change even for SPS.

My $0.08/kWH figure is for generation only (as it gets broken down on my
electric bill). Actually last bill shows $0.071/kWH and supposedly
(according to what I read in the paper) my part of the country has one
the highest generation charges per customer that there is. So depending
upon where you live your numbers could be even lower, which is worse for
SPS; which when I last checked range from an unrealistically optimistic
(IMHO) $1 to (still low) $6/kWH. Quite a spread and that's just a crude
estimate from largely hand-waving.

Just to give folks and idea of what we are talking about.

My avg. monthly consumption is currently running about 50kWH but goes
higher in cold weather.

these numbers of costs per KWH will all change once a nuke plant melts
down in the US.... this event is guaranteed to occur in the future
because nothing man makes works perfectly

Wipe out a big part of our country will make SSP a sudden favorite

Sorry chicken little, but even if *your* worst nuclear power plant
accident happened in the US *and* all nuclear power plants shut down for
good, there are still many other terrestrial sources of power that are
much cheaper than today's predicted cost for SPS.

Jeff
--

laugh if you want but its not over till the fat lady sings........

once a chunk of our country cant be lived in for many generations the
people will demand safe options and SSP will likely be top on a green
agenda.

On Nov 1, 7:25*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 7e0e8368-6f26-4cbd-b800-9e08e1c879b4
@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, says...



heres another issue, SSP would require lots of launches. Wonder what
the cost of mass produced falcons would be? we need 500 launched at a
rate of a 100 per year.. whats your cost to orbit?

plus such a large order of launchers could piggyback other users, so
it might be 700 launchers, attracted by the low price

this sort of demand would be ground breaking since theres never been a
real mass production line of launchers...

perhaps a larger falcon or some other launcher would be better suited,
but you should get the idea

Expendables won't lower launch costs enough. *There is a reason SpaceX
is (slowly) working on reusability.

Jeff

theres never been a space booster built in large quanties, as a
ongoing production run for many years 700 vehices would make a ton of
difference cost wise

On 10/31/2012 8:39 PM, bob haller wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:58 pm, David Spain wrote:
Distribution charges would not change even for SPS.

My $0.08/kWH figure is for generation only (as it gets broken down on my
electric bill). Actually last bill shows $0.071/kWH and supposedly
(according to what I read in the paper) my part of the country has one
the highest generation charges per customer that there is. So depending
upon where you live your numbers could be even lower, which is worse for
SPS; which when I last checked range from an unrealistically optimistic
(IMHO) $1 to (still low) $6/kWH. Quite a spread and that's just a crude
estimate from largely hand-waving.

Just to give folks and idea of what we are talking about.

My avg. monthly consumption is currently running about 50kWH but goes
higher in cold weather.

Dave

these numbers of costs per KWH will all change once a nuke plant melts
down in the US.... this event is guaranteed to occur in the future
because nothing man makes works perfectly

Wipe out a big part of our country will make SSP a sudden favorite


I disagree. We have an example. The Three Mile Island Nuclear Electric
Plant near Harrisburg, PA suffered a partial meltdown in one of its two
reactors in March 1979 and it didn't effect my electric utility rates by
one penny, then or now. So historically speaking, based on actual facts,
you are wrong in this case.

A significant fraction of the electric power I receive is generated by a
nuke. I've been paying for its decommissioning since it came on-line and
in fact that charge is about to go away as the fund has started to near
its cap. I have a feeling this plant is going to get a license extension
anyway, it is too vital to the region.

BTW i should have said my avg monthly consumption must be about 50kWH /
day. I just did the math, I have to multiply by 30 days to get a figure
close to what my utility bill is per month, based on that $0.08 figure.
I would say the vast majority of that is due to my refrigerator! Maybe
time for an upgrade?

Dave

On Nov 1, 9:48*am, David Spain wrote:
On 10/31/2012 8:39 PM, bob haller wrote:





On Oct 31, 4:58 pm, David Spain wrote:
Distribution charges would not change even for SPS.

My $0.08/kWH figure is for generation only (as it gets broken down on my
electric bill). Actually last bill shows $0.071/kWH and supposedly
(according to what I read in the paper) my part of the country has one
the highest generation charges per customer that there is. So depending
upon where you live your numbers could be even lower, which is worse for
SPS; which when I last checked range from an unrealistically optimistic
(IMHO) $1 to (still low) $6/kWH. Quite a spread and that's just a crude
estimate from largely hand-waving.

Just to give folks and idea of what we are talking about.

My avg. monthly consumption is currently running about 50kWH but goes
higher in cold weather.

Dave

these numbers of costs per KWH will all change once a nuke plant melts
down in the US.... this event is guaranteed to occur in the future
because nothing man makes works perfectly

Wipe out a big part of our country will make SSP a sudden favorite

I disagree. We have an example. The Three Mile Island Nuclear Electric
Plant near Harrisburg, PA suffered a partial meltdown in one of its two
reactors in March 1979 and it didn't effect my electric utility rates by
one penny, then or now. So historically speaking, based on actual facts,
you are wrong in this case.

A significant fraction of the electric power I receive is generated by a
nuke. I've been paying for its decommissioning since it came on-line and
in fact that charge is about to go away as the fund has started to near
its cap. I have a feeling this plant is going to get a license extension
anyway, it is too vital to the region.

BTW i should have said my avg monthly consumption must be about 50kWH /
day. I just did the math, I have to multiply by 30 days to get a figure
close to what my utility bill is per month, based on that $0.08 figure.
I would say the vast majority of that is due to my refrigerator! Maybe
time for an upgrade?

Dave

the three mile incident realeased near no radiation outside of the
plant.

and theres still that MINOR problem of used fuel disposal that hasnt
been solved

now just imagine a nuke plant melting down near a major city,. most
plants are near big citys and the US has those GE plants like
fukashima with elevated waste core storage pools, a excellent
terrorist target, the storage pools hold hundreds of times the
radiation in a operating reactor and the buildings arent hardened at
all.

imagine new york city having to be permanetely evacuated?

one incident like this will drive space solar power, or just a few
more years of global warming driven severe storms.......

In article ef477eb2-d768-496d-bcf7-f0da25edc127
@h9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 1, 7:23*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 5b1b4a84-b82c-476d-a0ba-
, says...

Wipe out a big part of our country will make SSP a sudden favorite

Sorry chicken little, but even if *your* worst nuclear power plant
accident happened in the US *and* all nuclear power plants shut down for
good, there are still many other terrestrial sources of power that are
much cheaper than today's predicted cost for SPS.

laugh if you want but its not over till the fat lady sings........

once a chunk of our country cant be lived in for many generations the
people will demand safe options and SSP will likely be top on a green
agenda.

No, it won't because it costs too much. There are plenty of terrestrial
based "green" energy sources that are cheaper, including terrestrial
based solar energy.

That's not to say there isn't a niche market for SSP, but it certainly
won't be used in places where cheaper, terrestrial based, power is
available or easily developed.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

In article 0197490a-b22f-43e1-931a-fee202d6d652
@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com, says...

On Nov 1, 7:25*am, Jeff Findley wrote:
In article 7e0e8368-6f26-4cbd-b800-9e08e1c879b4
@j12g2000vbm.googlegroups.com, says...



heres another issue, SSP would require lots of launches. Wonder what
the cost of mass produced falcons would be? we need 500 launched at a
rate of a 100 per year.. whats your cost to orbit?

plus such a large order of launchers could piggyback other users, so
it might be 700 launchers, attracted by the low price

this sort of demand would be ground breaking since theres never been a
real mass production line of launchers...

perhaps a larger falcon or some other launcher would be better suited,
but you should get the idea

Expendables won't lower launch costs enough. *There is a reason SpaceX
is (slowly) working on reusability.

theres never been a space booster built in large quanties, as a
ongoing production run for many years 700 vehices would make a ton of
difference cost wise

There has never been "large quantity" production line style construction
of passenger jet aircraft either. It's far cheaper to build them to be
reusable for decades.

Jeff
--
"the perennial claim that hypersonic airbreathing propulsion would
magically make space launch cheaper is nonsense -- LOX is much cheaper
than advanced airbreathing engines, and so are the tanks to put it in
and the extra thrust to carry it." - Henry Spencer

On 11/1/2012 10:29 AM, bob haller wrote:

one incident like this will drive space solar power, or just a few
more years of global warming driven severe storms.......


Do the math; at $6/kWH x 50 kWH/day x 30 days...
I'll be living in a kerosene powered Yurt at those prices....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yurt

Dave