|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
How many 'excuses' for manned space flight has NASA offered?
In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote: "Neolibertarian" wrote in message news:306ae$4ece6882$18f556a5$11665@allthenewsgroup s.com... From CNN: November 29, 2003 China plans to land a human on the moon by 2020, the country's chief space official said in comments broadcast by state television. "By 2020, we will achieve visiting the moon," said Luan Enjie, director of the National Aerospace Bureau. Luan used a verb that specifically describes a human act. Luan said that would follow the launch of a probe to orbit the moon by 2007 and an unmanned lunar landing by 2010. ------- January 15, 2004 "BUSH UNVEILS VISION FOR MOON AND BEYOND "President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding What was happening is that Bush was starting a brand new arms race, this time with the Chinese to the Moon for missile defense. You misunderstood, prolly because you can't read. This is Usenet, after all. -- Neolibertarian "Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity." |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
How many 'excuses' for manned space flight has NASA offered?
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message news Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm And all this has been known since 1976. Still no SPS. Price of gas in 1976 was about 60 cents a gallon. Price of jet fuel is four times higher today than in 2000. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
How many 'excuses' for manned space flight has NASA offered?
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ... "Jonathan" wrote: "Fred J. McCall" wrote in message news Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm And all this has been known since 1976. Still no SPS. Price of gas in 1976 was about 60 cents a gallon. Price of jet fuel is four times higher today than in 2000. And that's relevant how? I'm sorry, but that's just a completely idiotic reply. Are you going to sit there and claim the price of fossil fuels has nothing to do with the economic viability of other competing energy sources? It's really important to think before you speak. Else others might think you don't know how. a |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
How many 'excuses' for manned space flight has NASA offered?
"Quadibloc" wrote in message ... Thus, it's close to fusion ("burning the rocks" versus the deuterium in the world's oceans) in its potential as a *long-term* energy source, if not a renewable one. Even if thorium pans out, it's still just an incremental improvement in nuclear power, a very dirty improvement. There isn't really much of a shortage of fissile material. And since Japan the future of nuclear power has taken a huge step backwards. There's only one green source of energy that can provide continuous 24/7 baseload power to every point on Earth. No matter how thinly populated, distant, rugged or far from the equator. As a result SSP doesn't have to compete, it has all kinds of market niches all too itself. Especially in the impoverished third world. When will those distant places ever get their nuclear or fusion power plants? And if you watch this sales presentation, you'll see SSP already is competitive with building a new nuclear power plant. Space Energy Inc Presentation http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm John Savard |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
How many 'excuses' for manned space flight has NASA offered?
On Nov 25, 2:21*am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote in message ... On Nov 25, 5:09 pm, "Jonathan" wrote: wrote in message .... Any way it looks like the next step is a "prayer based" manned space program as USA marches into a Hoover/Norquist/Newt depression age Amerika. The current recession is a crying shame for so many reasons the largest being it didn't have to happen. Only Wall Street's greed surpassed our government's incompetence. A one-two punch that set off a world-wide depression. Top bankers and their families need to be the test subjects for the suborbital thrill ride systems....................Trig I think the plan is to fill those rides up with the rich-and-famous being so pricey. Naw the Money boys led the way over the edge and the Government boys followed as they were paid off to remove the post-1930's reforms over the decades. Yep, I think we've had our fill of the deregulation mania for now. Seeing how it's pretty much laid waste to the world economy like nothing else since WW2. I don't think we have to wonder when WW3 is gonna happen. This is it. It looks like Europe is rolling over the edge............and it will suck others along. China is slowing. China may run blood red yet so no China on the moon IMHO. I think the recession has ended the prospect of another cold war race to the Moon, this time it would've been with the Chinese and over missile defense. In any event, the last thing we need is a massive decades long arms race with the cash-rich Chinese. The slaves may yet rise if they aren't used for spare parts. Wall Street knew full well a single massive rescue bill would set off a panic sell and give them an endless array of cheap stock prices. Wall Street is still laughing all the way to the bank as we speak. The worst part is Wall Street set off this panic by convincing our idiot government to ...shower them...with our money with the rescue bill. *That's just over the line in so many ways. It's bad enough to be ripped off, but when we're conned into...paying them...so they can rip us off, is just well...it's... just too much to take. I mean the great crash in Oct 08 came days after the big rescue bill, and the recent one came two days after the next rescue bill. WTF! *The protesters are right, we need an ...anti-Wall Street rescue bill. The thrill ride won't fly enough unless the do something. a profit .......or If they could replace the Concord, maybe they'll make not............................................... Trig I think that's about right, at best these suborbital rides will be another Concorde. A niche market for the wealthy. Hardly a world-changing new technology. That's what I like about Space Solar Power, it's not in that tiny market, it's in the $2 trillion dollar a year energy market. With plenty of niches that need to be filled. For instance, think like an entrepreneur, SSP can deliver /baseload/ green power 24 hours a day to any place on Earth and in days or weeks, not years or decades as in building a new power plant somewhere. For instance in post earthquake Japan, an existing SSP satellite could deliver gigawatt flows to the disaster area in days or weeks. Or to any place too thinly populated, distant or rugged, to troops in the field or to power larger satellites in orbit. Quickly and easily, as it just takes laying down nothing more than a large chicken-wire fence to power a grid. On the receiving end, SSP is dirt cheap. once the satellites are up and running. I think what's lost in the debate is that SSP is essentially ...wireless..power transmission. Which greatly improves the ability for the energy to travel to places it can't reach now. SSP is very analogous to the huge advance of AC power transmission over DC in that sense. SSP can deliver baseload power where nothing else can. SSP doesn't have to compete with conventional sources as a result, it will have plenty of completely open markets to fill all by itself. And I don't see any other market that could potentially afford the massive costs of space activities, or set off a new gold rush for space. Energy is the second largest market on Earth. Jonathan s One of the objections I have to SP is that it offers another target of attack on a nation. An attack that could be both crippling and deniable depending on security measures. A lower tech approach would be better designed houses. Super insulation with active ventilation plus a measure of on the roof solar cells which is closer for servicing than a high stationary orbit. For cold weather natural gas or propane for cooking and drying would lower electricity loads. And with a bit of designing and manufacturing frigs can have non-electric compressors to circulate the chlorofluorocarbons or whatever they using at the time. I'll grant natural gas has larger downsides the the gas folks will admit. I am not rejecting the SSP I am just not sure of it. Your point of about to directing power to isolated region of global might offer all manner of new ways of exploitation of resources. Like enough electric power to strip mine the ocean floor or perhaps enough power to melt a glacier or ice sheet section for fresh water. If multiple directions are possible this would really expand the possibilities. And if it make power cheap enough the heat from this source could be used to extract and extend such hydrocarbon source as oil shale and tar sands. Also possible enabling extract from now less concentrated shale and sands thus enlarging the resource as well. And finally the question comes as to how deadly could power beams be made? I mean rather than seeking the safest mode of transmission how about the opposite. So have with enemies or a rebellion in a city or lower tech nation, just target and toast. Popping all the popcorn at once so to speak? Is that practical? Never again until next time so to speak. a geometric solid has more than one angle....................Trig |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
How many 'excuses' for manned space flight has NASA offered?
On Nov 27, 12:04*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Quadibloc wrote: Nope. Thorium breeders are close enough to fusion as a source of energy ... What? *That statement makes absolutely zero sense. I'm sorry, I should have expanded. Thorium supplies are somewhat larger than Uranium supplies, even just counting the most obvious mineral reserves. However, Thorium is also found in dilute but usable quantities in common forms of rock. Thus, it's close to fusion ("burning the rocks" versus the deuterium in the world's oceans) in its potential as a *long-term* energy source, if not a renewable one. John Savard |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
How many 'excuses' for manned space flight has NASA offered?
::: Nope. Thorium breeders are close enough to fusion as a source of
::: energy ... :: What? That statement makes absolutely zero sense. : Quadibloc : I'm sorry, I should have expanded. Thorium supplies are somewhat : larger than Uranium supplies, even just counting the most obvious : mineral reserves. However, Thorium is also found in dilute but usable : quantities in common forms of rock. Thus, it's close to fusion : ("burning the rocks" versus the deuterium in the world's oceans) in : its potential as a *long-term* energy source, if not a renewable one. By those criteria, uranium breeders and seawater are also "close enough to fusion", and you even extract it from seawater so the analogy is better. Plus, the technology is slightly more masture, both in terms of the nucleonics, and the practical extraction of the fissionables (and/or protofissionables). Of course, as a technology, fission of *any*thing is *vastly* more mature than fusion of anything for power production. So all in all, at any reasonable level of abstraction, might just as well have just come out and said "fission is a cromulent source of energy" (or some veriation on that theme). Mentioning breeders and speculative technology like fusion is somewhat irrelevant. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
How many 'excuses' for manned space flight has NASA offered?
wrote in message ... Plus the array panels would be really large. A large target I think for both the universe and man. The idea is to put them in geostationary orbit. But there's speculation that soon a huge advance will come along and dramatically improve the system. In NASA's last small scale study, they theorized that instead of mile-sized solar panels collecting the sunlight and converting it to microwaves. The sunlight could be collected by far smaller mirrors which would convert it directly in a laser beam. The mirrors would be in geostationary orbit, and they would use the lasers to transfer the power to small low orbit satellites which would then microwave it down in the conventional way. They even speculated that the receiving rectenna could be as small as 3 square meters. About the size of a ...car. And if you simply extrapolate how fast all things computerized and electronic are advancing it's not hard to envision a future where cars and all kinds of consumer products are powered directly from space. Space Solar Power is essentially...wireless...power transmission. Electricity falling from the sky like cable TV. How many safe beams add up to a city popping zapper? The military has decided to keep the laser weapons on the ground and then use a constellation of orbiting mirrors to hit various places on the ground. Like with this place... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfire_Optical_Range The Chinese asat shoot down showed anything in orbit is vulnerable to a first strike. So the important and expensive stuff stays on the ground. s |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
How many 'excuses' for manned space flight has NASA offered?
On Nov 26, 4:55*am, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote in message ... And finally the question comes as to how deadly could power beams be made? I mean rather than seeking the safest mode of transmission how about the opposite. So have with enemies or a rebellion in a city or lower tech nation, just target and toast. Popping all the popcorn at once so to speak? Is that practical? Never again until next time so to speak. a geometric solid has more than one angle....................Trig The Pentagon wrote this paper on SSP publicly for the express reason to show it couldn't be weaponized and the overall effect should be to reduce the prospects of future wars over oil and such. Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Securityhttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm And this start-up private company claims the most intense part of the microwave beam is less than natural sunlight. And they claim you can safely grow crops directly under the receiving rectenna on the ground. Birds and planes can safely fly through the beam also. Space Energy Inc Technical Consultantshttp://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm Perhaps they can be designed so they wouldn't be weaponized. Once they are up at least with current tech altering and weapons would seem difficult. It seems to me space power plants require geostationary orbits. I certainly would not want a low earth orbit. Look at the ISS when it goes over during the night, if it were a power station it might provide power a couple minutes a night. Indeed, a space based power station my need to weaponized with an energy beam of some sort just to protect itself. To zap an incoming explosive bolt fragment or some tiny piece of creation's leftovers. And as I understand it and this is one of the big ones as objections go, what sort of launch cost to high orbit or even low orbit need to be? 100 dollars per kilogram? What are those numbers now, 2 or 20 thousand dollars per kg? Then the issue is replacement time. How long do the chips last up there in the harsh light of space perhaps 10 years?, 7 years?, 15 years? Plus the array panels would be really large. A large target I think for both the universe and man. How many safe beams add up to a city popping zapper? Even if it didn't kill it could drive the population away or indoors. Say Syria had 5 SSP so it stops taking power for industry and then uses the power to immobilize a city until the troops are in place for a purge. Or someone hacks the 30 SPP of the Greater North American Confederate States to zap the great city of New Amsterdam or the complaining city of Montreal. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
How many 'excuses' for manned space flight has NASA offered?
a constelation of low earth orbiting solar power plants could cover
the entire planet as they go round and round. lets say solar plants replace coal and other fossil fuels for electric power, and coal to gasoline plants are built.. just the announcement would drive down the price of oil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NASA uses Mars as an excuses to keep ISS | Marvin the Martian | Policy | 363 | October 5th 09 01:35 AM |
...Robotic vs. Manned Space Flight? It's a Tie! | jonathan[_3_] | History | 11 | June 26th 08 02:58 PM |
Manned Space Flight | [email protected] | Policy | 25 | March 11th 07 07:21 AM |
Space amateurs preparing to track China's first manned space flight | James Oberg | Space Shuttle | 2 | October 12th 03 04:01 PM |
Space amateurs preparing to track China's first manned space flight | James Oberg | Misc | 4 | October 12th 03 04:01 PM |