Questions about "The High Frontier"

Matthias Warkus wrote:
Mike Combs schrieb:

The primary problem is not atmospheric scattering. It's that the sun sets
every night.

So you build several solar power stations all around the planet instead
of one and you link them with 21st-century high-technology devices
called cables. It'd probably still be at least one order of magnitude
cheaper than putting SPSes in orbit.

Ah. I had actually suggested a similar idea - for using solar power on
the Moon, since the Moon is made up of light rocks, and so nuclear
power - with the fuel shpped *from Earth* is wildly impractical there.

When I saw your post, I didn't look carefully, and I thought the
"solar power stations" were still solar power satellites. Even with
modern HVDC technology, I think that building a globe-girdling network
of solar power stations is a bit ambitious.

The Earth is rather *big*, and therefore this could well be *more*
expensive than a solar power satellite. (Of course, if one uses the
*existing* power grid infrastructure, then one is just talking about
cables across the Bering Strait and a few other strategic locations,
which would make it practical. Upgrading of the existing power grid is
presumably required in any case.)

Nuclear power plants - particularly breeder reactors, including the
Thorium breeder - seem like a more near-term solution, while we're
waiting for fusion power.

John Savard

On Fri, 12 Oct 2007 12:30:38 -0500, "Mike Combs"
wrote, in part:

My prediction: A fair number will say "no" to either scenario, but there
will be a big difference between those saying yes to the second scenario vs.
the first. That may provide a clue to which is most likely to come about.

Well, *of course* the second is more attractive. It also involves
launching vastly more mass into space.

Hence, _if_ we can't improve on launch costs by very much, then this
rather depressing and limited scenario might be the only thing on offer.
If people are also unable to have children on Earth because it is so
badly overcrowded, there might be some takers.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 13:46:41 +0200, Eivind Kjorstad
wrote, in part:

John Savard skreiv:

On the overcrowded Earth of 2100, living space is at a premium.

Unbelievably unlikely. Current estimates show population topping out
around 10 billion in aproximately 50 years.

This cannot be allowed to get worse, and must be reversed. This necessity has
led to only one married couple out of 100 being issued a permit to have
one child.

From "unbelievably unlikely" to flat out silly.

Obviously, if average living-age is constant, then the steady-state is 2
children pro woman. If lifespan grows, as seems likely, the steady-state
will be somewhat under 2 children for each woman.

0.01 child/woman, as you suggest, would lead to the population being cut
by two orders of magnitude inside of one human lifespan. You'd end up
with literally 99.5% of the population being over 50 after 50 years of that.

Yes, so it couldn't be kept up for long... unless, of course, a cure for
old age had also been discovered. In that case, cutting the human
population by two orders of magnitude in one billion years... will just
barely be fast enough to permit everyone to be evacuated when the Sun
goes off the main sequence!

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html

The Earth is rather *big*, and therefore this could well be *more*
expensive than a solar power satellite. (Of course, if one uses the
*existing* power grid infrastructure, then one is just talking about
cables across the Bering Strait and a few other strategic locations,
which would make it practical. Upgrading of the existing power grid is
presumably required in any case.)

Nuclear power plants - particularly breeder reactors, including the
Thorium breeder - seem like a more near-term solution, while we're
waiting for fusion power.

John Savard

The trick with SPS is to find the intermediate steps where costs are
high, but it provides leverage where other systems don't. Military
bases supplied with 24 hours-a-day solar power, for example, which is
what the Pentagon is looking at at the moment. Also, you could use
solar mirrors to provide solar lighting for base security, 24-hour
surface operations etc. Or to augment the capacities of existing solar
power arrays, something which can only be conducted from space (and
not by simply building cheaper arrays).

Solar power started off as being hideously expensive, but worth it
because nothing else fitted the bill for satellites. It then moved to
calculators and off-grid power-supply for houses, phones, etc. and now
people stick it to their roofs or get it from a utility that has PV
farms. And the growth has been absolutely explosive. SPS would start
off in exactly the same way. Japan is seriously considering SPS,
because it's rich, it manufactures most of the world's PV cells and
SPS can fit the bill for its need for energy independence (nuclear
reactors being not such a good idea in a natural disaster-prone
country).

On Oct 14, 8:23 am, Quadibloc wrote:
Damien Valentine wrote:
Of course, it is certainly *unfair* if the only survivors of some
ecological catasrophe are the billionaires whose excesses brought it
about in the first place. But it would still meet the condition of
continuing the human species. (Of course, the problem here is that
it's likely the billionaires wouldn't really have planned seriously
for long-term isolated survival; a planned colony filled with trained
astronauts is more likely to manage in the long term.)

An Israeli colony on Mars might help to discourage the ambitions that
feed the frenzied minds of terrorists.

John Savard

That might just be the way it happens. Jews are a very capable bunch,
and have plenty of grit. Ironically, the Saudis and the like would
probably also love to have their own orbiting space palaces. Just look
at what places like Dubai have managed to build. They've recognised
that once the oil runs out, all that they have left is a lot of sand.
So, they have to put in money-generating infrastructure while they
still can. This may extend to space tourism as well.

Troy wrote:

That might just be the way it happens. Jews are a very capable bunch,
and have plenty of grit.
That's putting it mildly, just ask the Romans...and Babylonians, and
Persians, and Egyptians, and Ottomans, and British, and Nazis, and
Syrians...the list goes on and on.
I always got a kick out of how the Israelis cut the words "Never Again"
in Hebraic into the case of their first atomic bomb.
That was classy.
Don't screw with this crew.
Meanwhile, back in Israel, a mystery deepens:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../wrobot211.xml
Something's going on, but what, and by who?

Pat

Pat Flannery wrote:

Meanwhile, back in Israel, a mystery deepens:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.../wrobot211.xml

Something's going on, but what, and by who?
From the above:
"The interruptions have led to canceled subscriptions and forced Yes to
seek to pacify its 500,000 subscribers with free films."

"Oh good...they're running 'The Sorrow and the Pity' again."
"That's a great film!"
"It was a great film around two weeks ago! Right now, it's boring crap!
So I need these frogs mistreating Jews every other day? Can't we get the
good films? Where's Jolson in "The Jazz Singer"? Where's a good Jewish
kid having to decide whether he's going to bring honor to his family by
singing in his synagogue or spending the rest of his life imitating a
schwartzer with the shoe polish on his face? Those were the great Jewish
films."
"They're running 'Schindler's List' next."
"Like I need that? I could tell you the name of everyone on Schindler's
List by now... every two days it's Schindler's List again. I need
'Schindler's List' like I need a hole in the head."
"Spielberg won the academy award for that! It's a classic of of the
Holocaust made by a Jewish director!"
"Director-schmellector... you want to know what those God-Damned Nazis
were like, you watch "Jaws"; that's just what those *******s were like,
sneaking up on you when you weren't looking, and then...dead as hell.
It's no surprise they got a good Jewish kid like Richard Dreyfuss to
warn those goys about that damn thing, but do they take him seriously?
No, of course they don't. They just wait around to get eaten, that's
what they do."
" 'Jaws' is a Jewish movie?"
"You're damn right it's a Jewish movie! It's a GREAT Jewish movie! That
stupid blonde girl goes swimming naked out in the water at night,
disgracing herself like a slut... and look what happens to her! A great
big shark gobbles her up like a little Kosher herring!"
"So?"
"That's no shark, that's a God-Damned Nazi U-Boat! You kids today can't
see any symbolism in things like were done by the great Jewish movie
directors of old! Back then they had to be careful so as not get
blacklisted; or worse yet, killed by the Klu-Klux-Klan! So everything
had to be careful so that their enemies wouldn't get it, but their
people in the ghetto would.
What do you think The Wizard Of Oz was all about?"
"What?!"
"What do you think that was all about? Dorothy was a nice Jewish girl
stuck in the middle of nowhere, dreaming about getting back to her
homeland... then one day, just like Elijah, God comes along and takes
her up in a whirlwind...where does she end up? In 'Oz' of course... 'OZ'
....Our Zion! She squishes that wicked Witch Of The East on the way
down...Karl Marx... but that Wicked Witch Of The West...American
Capitalism... is still there, trying to get her! Can't you little putz's
get anything? THE RUBY SLIPPERS! Who do you think the jewel-cutters of
this world are?
Why do you think rubies are RED? The blood of our people! Next I'm going
to have to explain to you what the 'The Pride Of The Yankees' is REALLY
about. Better I had a Golem than a grandson like you! If he got out of
line I could fix it with a garden hose."
"Grand-dad?"
"Don't even talk to me... I don't even need to hear your voice right
now. You call yourself a 'Sabra', but what sort of a Sabra wouldn't even
go down to the video store to get him a copy of 'Jaws' so someone
could point out to you the hidden Jewish meanings of it.... or stop off
at Shlomo's Deli on the way back to get him some really decent bagels
and lox with extra cream cheese....I'm glad your your grandmother
didn't live to see what her posterity would do to an old man who one
day...probably soon...her grandchildren may miss. I got shot at by Arabs
back in 1948 for this? :-)

Pat

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
ups.com...

Ah: I had seen earlier where someone had suggested using a cable to
link together multiple *solar power satellites*, and this was
criticized as impractical, and so it was noted that modern HVDC
techniques on Earth, which reduce electrical transmission losses,
_could also be applied in space_.

I thought there were serious issues with using very high voltage
in space, since free electrons or ions in the vicinity can be
accelerated to high energy by the electric fields. If these hit
exposed surfaces, they can dislodge additional charged
particles, perhaps leading to an exponentially growing
breakdown.

Paul

"John Savard" wrote in message
...

Hence, _if_ we can't improve on launch costs by very much, then this
rather depressing and limited scenario might be the only thing on offer.
If people are also unable to have children on Earth because it is so
badly overcrowded, there might be some takers.

Or maybe they just... wouldn't have children. This seems to be
the common response when economic forces make children
too expensive.

Paul

"Damien Valentine" wrote in message
oups.com...

...So in other words, there is no justification for a kilometer-scale
O'Neill colony that doesn't involve either kilometer-scale SSPs (which
probably can't be built),

Please. Even the most pessimistic on this thread haven't attempted to
assert that SPS can't be built, only that they're presently not economical
in comparison to current competition.

or a national ideology based on the so-far-
unheard-of idea of "saving the human species" (which, for some reason,
forbids settling the Moon and Mars,

We won't build orbital habitats because someone has forbidden the moon or
Mars. We'll build orbital habitats because there are significant advantages
to them over same-scale habitats built on either the moon or Mars. People
who insist on living on other planetary bodies will find themselves unable
to economically compete with those located in free orbit.

even though to build the O'Neill
in the first place you'd have to have thousands of people on the Moon
already...).\

Nonsense. A crew of a few tens of workers could keep lunar ore launching up
to L-2.

--


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