Ares IV Revelation

"Starlord" wrote in message
. ..

N.A.S.A. is all about going into space, for doing things about the earth
there are other groups. NASA has always been about going into space.


Just for the sake of it?

What if Nasa, instead of spending the next forty years building
a shelter on the moon and mars, built dozens of space solar
power stations? Beaming electricity down to earth like cable tv
is today. In the process Nasa would build a massive space
infrastructure allowing all kinds of future space journeys.
And in the process solve the impending oil crisis ....and...
global warming, ending wars over oil.

Ending America's great weakness.

All this, while turning ...America...into the world's largest energy
supplier, the next Saudi Arabia to the world.

But instead of saving America, the future and the world...
.....Lockheed decides what is best.

And we're left to pick up the pieces after the big contractors
have had their fill.


Jonathan

s












--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across
the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet
be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.


The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html


"Jonathan" wrote in message
. ..

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007, kT wrote:
RMOLLISE wrote:

You want to go to Mars?

It's not the destination, it's the journey.

Geesh, months in a sardine can doing nothing.
Better bring some real good ****ing friends.

But you look at the samples Apollo brought back as "little rocks," with
no more significance than that?

They're rocks. All rocks are the same. George told us that.

Riddle of the day. What are small rocks called?

Sheesh!

No ... whoooosh!

Moon dust, achoo. Mars dust, aaacHOOOooo.
For allergy relief, take tours on icy planets.

Whoever wrote this article did not get historical facts straight:

"In the Apollo programme the crew and service module spacecraft docked
with the lunar module in Earth orbit."

This only occurred on Apollo 9. All other flight had LM docking after
trans lunar injection.

With a mistake this big in the article it calls into question the
accuracy of the rest of the article.

Matthew Ota

kT wrote:
http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles...st+flight.html

What a way to send four guys to the moon, eh? One would think with all
this horsepower, they could just reproduce Apollo and get it over with.

--
The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org

My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :

http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

First of all there is no super watt mricowave transmitter that can do that
as of yet, so far the tests that have been down on earth have barly gotten a
few watts just over a mile.

Plus thing about this, the station would have to be in geosynce orbit and
that's an awefull longs ways and the reciver station on the ground would
have to cover miles of land and what if by chance an plane flys into the
power beam? new style of fries to eat. The last drawing of such an station
it would have to cover at lest 10qubic miles of land to power an area as big
as rosamond and it's 25,000 people. The better way would to provied a full
theromnuke reactor like the test one they have back east, only everyear it's
funding is cut.

Plus with not only living places on the moon and some day the space city
sats in orbit and then even mars, mankind will have a much better chance of
making it to the stars.


--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.


The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html


"Jonathan" wrote in message
. ..

"Starlord" wrote in message
. ..

N.A.S.A. is all about going into space, for doing things about the earth
there are other groups. NASA has always been about going into space.


Just for the sake of it?

The idea is not new.

the first consideration is how to get the power down from space. The
one suggestion I've heard was to use microwaves. Further, the
reception spot on Earth would have to be something on the order of a
mile in diameter. I'm not sure if that includes a safety ring or just
the receiver area.

Anyway... between the transmitter and receiver flows an enormous
amount of power. The amount which can bake turkeys in flight, roast
pigs on the ground, and do all sorts of damage to airplanes and
passengers) that stry into the no-fly columns.

I don't know the exact numbers and figures, but intuition tells me
you'd need a LOT of solar arrays to generate any significant
contribution to the power grid. So now satellites need to be really
huge, and orbits are getting really crowded, and many spots on the
Earth are becoming hazardous to all life. And it's horrendously
expensive to make and orbit these arrays.

Speaking of orbits... In order to be able to target those receivers,
the satellites will probably have to be in a geosynchronous orbit.
That's already crowded space, and countires are vying for space for
things as small as communication satellites, let alone gigantic solar
arrays.

Ah - but nuclear power in space? uh... I'm not very comfortable with
that. It'sgreat for interpanetary flights like Cassini, but I wouldn't
want the stuff literally over my head. And I suspect there would have
to be a LOT of reactors to contribute...

That's off the cuff.

"Jonathan" wrote:
Just for the sake of it?

What if Nasa, instead of spending the next forty years building
a shelter on the moon and mars, built dozens of space solar
power stations? Beaming electricity down to earth like cable tv
is today. In the process Nasa would build a massive space
infrastructure allowing all kinds of future space journeys.
And in the process solve the impending oil crisis ....and...
global warming, ending wars over oil.

Ending America's great weakness.

All this, while turning ...America...into the world's largest energy
supplier, the next Saudi Arabia to the world.

But instead of saving America, the future and the world...
....Lockheed decides what is best.

And we're left to pick up the pieces after the big contractors
have had their fill.


Jonathan

s

=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA
http://flavorj.com/~skysea

"SkySea" wrote in message
...
The idea is not new.

the first consideration is how to get the power down from space. The
one suggestion I've heard was to use microwaves. Further, the
reception spot on Earth would have to be something on the order of a
mile in diameter. I'm not sure if that includes a safety ring or just
the receiver area.

Anyway... between the transmitter and receiver flows an enormous
amount of power. The amount which can bake turkeys in flight, roast
pigs on the ground, and do all sorts of damage to airplanes and
passengers) that stry into the no-fly columns.

You may want to do some research on SPS. None of that's even close to true.


I don't know the exact numbers and figures, but intuition tells me
you'd need a LOT of solar arrays to generate any significant
contribution to the power grid. So now satellites need to be really
huge, and orbits are getting really crowded, and many spots on the
Earth are becoming hazardous to all life. And it's horrendously
expensive to make and orbit these arrays.

The expense is right. But the rest really isn't. Geo Synch orbit is quite
large.



Speaking of orbits... In order to be able to target those receivers,
the satellites will probably have to be in a geosynchronous orbit.
That's already crowded space, and countires are vying for space for
things as small as communication satellites, let alone gigantic solar
arrays.

Yes, but once you have a solar array, you hang your com dishs off of that.



Ah - but nuclear power in space? uh... I'm not very comfortable with
that. It'sgreat for interpanetary flights like Cassini, but I wouldn't
want the stuff literally over my head. And I suspect there would have
to be a LOT of reactors to contribute...

That's off the cuff.

"Jonathan" wrote:
Just for the sake of it?

What if Nasa, instead of spending the next forty years building
a shelter on the moon and mars, built dozens of space solar
power stations? Beaming electricity down to earth like cable tv
is today. In the process Nasa would build a massive space
infrastructure allowing all kinds of future space journeys.
And in the process solve the impending oil crisis ....and...
global warming, ending wars over oil.

Ending America's great weakness.

All this, while turning ...America...into the world's largest energy
supplier, the next Saudi Arabia to the world.

But instead of saving America, the future and the world...
....Lockheed decides what is best.

And we're left to pick up the pieces after the big contractors
have had their fill.


Jonathan

s

=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA
http://flavorj.com/~skysea

"Starlord" wrote in message
. ..
First of all there is no super watt mricowave transmitter that can do that
as of yet, so far the tests that have been down on earth have barly gotten
a
few watts just over a mile.

Nasa thinks laser transmission is promising.
JPL Power Beaming Technology Vision & Goals
http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/...eaming_TIM.pdf

No one is saying it's easy, neither was going to the moon the first
time. But it's a challenge with huge potential, and makes for
more justifications to the public and Congress to dramatically
increase Nasa funding.




Plus thing about this, the station would have to be in geosynce orbit and
that's an awefull longs ways and the reciver station on the ground would
have to cover miles of land

Laser transmission would dramatically reduce rectenna size


and what if by chance an plane flys into the
power beam? new style of fries to eat.

Not so according to Nasa.

• Completely safe
• Power density in center of beam = 2.4 mW/cm2
(less than 1/2 of the acceptable safety level for short-term exposure as per
NSTS 1700.7B
http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/...M_F_Little.pdf



The last drawing of such an station
it would have to cover at lest 10qubic miles of land to power an area as
big
as rosamond and it's 25,000 people. The better way would to provied a full
theromnuke reactor like the test one they have back east, only everyear
it's
funding is cut.

Here's a nice summary of where SSP technology stands.
http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/publications/sctm/



Plus with not only living places on the moon and some day the space city
sats in orbit and then even mars, mankind will have a much better chance
of
making it to the stars.


But what makes such grand dreams go? Energy!
SSP could be used to power space ships and colonies.
The biggest single obstacle to SSP is cost to orbit.
Solving that problem would enable all kinds of other
space activities. For truly ambitious future space
ideas, first we need low cost to orbit, then plenty
of energy.

SSP as a Nasa goal would not only inspire the
public to increase funding, but build just the
infrastructure space exploration needs.

Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite
NASA/TM—2004-212743
http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/20...004-212743.pdf









--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across
the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet
be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.


The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html


"Jonathan" wrote in message
. ..

"Starlord" wrote in message
. ..

N.A.S.A. is all about going into space, for doing things about the
earth
there are other groups. NASA has always been about going into space.


Just for the sake of it?

"Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)" wrote:

"SkySea" wrote
The idea is not new.

the first consideration is how to get the power down from space. The
...
Anyway... between the transmitter and receiver flows an enormous

You may want to do some research on SPS. None of that's even close to true.

None? So, we can generate the power in space, but don't need to get it
to the Earth somehow to make use of it? A carrier wave won't be
carrying a large amount of power? Okay. It's old info that I had. I'm
not averse to being "updated". But not even close?

I don't know the exact numbers and figures, but intuition tells me
you'd need a LOT of solar arrays to generate any significant
contribution to the power grid. So now satellites need to be really
huge, and orbits are getting really crowded, and many spots on the
Earth are becoming hazardous to all life. And it's horrendously
expensive to make and orbit these arrays.

The expense is right. But the rest really isn't. Geo Synch orbit is quite
large.

Not sure I follow. The arrays don't need to be huge? The reception
areas wouldn't be many and hazardous (I'll assume I'm wrong, based on
the previous section of response)? While the geosynchronous girth is
huge, there are hot spots that are popular, and I recall some verbage
about countries starting negotiations about allocations of arc
sections. For instance:

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/r...er_space.shtml
So how am I so far wrong?

Speaking of orbits... In order to be able to target those receivers,
the satellites will probably have to be in a geosynchronous orbit.
That's already crowded space, and countires are vying for space for
things as small as communication satellites, let alone gigantic solar
arrays.

Yes, but once you have a solar array, you hang your com dishs off of that.

Sounds like manual labor to make in-situ modifications to existing
satellites? Oy. But yes, sending a new generation of satellites
integrated with large arrays sounds viable.

And it would still be useful to hear from someone with real knowledge
about panel output etc., and find out just how big, how many, ...

But I think I'll shut up now. Clearly, I'm in over my head.

=============
- Dale Gombert (SkySea at aol.com)
122.38W, 47.58N, W. Seattle, WA
http://flavorj.com/~skysea

Jonathan wrote:
"Starlord" wrote in message
. ..

N.A.S.A. is all about going into space, for doing things about the earth
there are other groups. NASA has always been about going into space.


Just for the sake of it?

What if Nasa, instead of spending the next forty years building
a shelter on the moon and mars, built dozens of space solar
power stations? Beaming electricity down to earth like cable tv


It isn't an "instead of". Building a shelter on the moon and learning
how to live and work there, is a necessary second step toward building
the mass driver infrastructure to deliver the materials to build SPSs.
The first step is to build an inexpensive, inefficient, reliable
reusable launch system. Back in '70, the big aerospace companies
pegged the price of LEO at $25/lb. The mass of an aircraft carrier
could be put in space for under seven billion at that rate.
That cost over run of 40000% is what keeps the potential of space at
the bottom of the gravity well.

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 19:49:35 -0800, in a place far, far away, SkySea
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

The idea is not new.

the first consideration is how to get the power down from space. The
one suggestion I've heard was to use microwaves. Further, the
reception spot on Earth would have to be something on the order of a
mile in diameter. I'm not sure if that includes a safety ring or just
the receiver area.

Anyway... between the transmitter and receiver flows an enormous
amount of power. The amount which can bake turkeys in flight, roast
pigs on the ground, and do all sorts of damage to airplanes and
passengers) that stry into the no-fly columns.

No, it can't. Why don't you do a little research on the subject,
instead of repeating idiotic myths that have been discredited for
decades?