A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old May 13th 06, 02:48 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation



"What began as a desire and need to carry mail by air
became today's global system of passenger airlines."
http://www.centennialofflight.gov/es...rmail/POL6.htm



There can be little doubt that the efforts of the US govt
to jump start commercial aviation has changed the
world substantially and for the better.

The military started off by providing the initial technology,
rikkety Jennys, and some daring pilots. But the govt provided
something else far more substantial to creating the
world-changing industry of commercial aviation.

A market! A cargo! The US Airmail.

So....what is the market/cargo for space?

For those at Nasa, I feel it's necessary to explain what a market
system does. It has mostly to do with /supply and demand./
So....what does space have in abundance that earth does not?
What do we need on earth the most which space can
provide the best?

A simple max/min problem of ....suppply and demand.
Concerning a market between .....space and earth.

Hmm, we seem to need lots of energy, clean energy, here
on earth. Space seems to have plenty of solar power.

A market make in heaven. '

Nasa's goal should be to provide a cargo and offer
lucritive contracts to put it up. Cargo like this.



Science at Nasa

Beam it Down, Scotty!

"Solar power collected in space and beamed to Earth
could be an environmentally friendly solution to our
planet's growing energy problems."
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2001/ast23mar_1.htm


Jonathan


ps; I'd normally link to the extensive Space Solar Power
home page at Nasa, with all the testimony and detailed
studies. But a few weeks after I began ranting about this
and linking to the page, it....disappeared!

They took the Space Solar Power home page down, or
moved it somewhere not easy to find. They seem rather
sensitive to this issue, just one more reason to push it.
If anyone can find it, I'd appreciate it.


s

















  #2  
Old May 13th 06, 06:07 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Solar power requires massive infrastructure. You would need a cost per
Kg about 2 orders of magnitude lower than the current.
Also, IMHO, SPS will not be able to provide more than a small fraction
of energy needs. Fission is by far preferable in the foreseeable future.

  #3  
Old May 13th 06, 06:51 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation



Hyperboreea wrote:

Solar power requires massive infrastructure. You would need a cost per
Kg about 2 orders of magnitude lower than the current.
Also, IMHO, SPS will not be able to provide more than a small fraction
of energy needs. Fission is by far preferable in the foreseeable future.


Wanna see something neat?:
http://www.enviromission.com.au/project/project.htm

Pat
  #4  
Old May 13th 06, 09:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Pat Flannery a écrit :


Hyperboreea wrote:

Solar power requires massive infrastructure. You would need a cost per
Kg about 2 orders of magnitude lower than the current.
Also, IMHO, SPS will not be able to provide more than a small fraction
of energy needs. Fission is by far preferable in the foreseeable future.


Wanna see something neat?:
http://www.enviromission.com.au/project/project.htm

Pat


Very interesting.
Thanks for the link
  #5  
Old May 13th 06, 09:49 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


"Hyperboreea" wrote in message
ups.com...

Solar power requires massive infrastructure. You would need a cost per
Kg about 2 orders of magnitude lower than the current.
Also, IMHO, SPS will not be able to provide more than a small fraction
of energy needs. Fission is by far preferable in the foreseeable future.



But fission won't help create a space based industry.
It won't give Nasa a reason for being, larger budgets
and long lasting public and Congressional support.

Fission is also massively expensive and a typical
reactor can take 15 or 20 years to be built. And
a dramatic increase in fission will require a solution
to the nuclear waste issue that has yet to be solved.
But I suppose we can turn Nasa into a great big
Waste Management company, and have them
blast the nuclear waste into the sun~


Besides, I'm not talking about the foreseeable future.
I'm talking about the future. Ultimately, say a century
or two down the road, where will our energy come
from? Solar power is the obvious conclusion.

The future should define the present.


s






  #6  
Old May 14th 06, 12:36 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


Besides, I'm not talking about the foreseeable future.
I'm talking about the future. Ultimately, say a century
or two down the road, where will our energy come
from? Solar power is the obvious conclusion.


So the oil has run out - where do we get our energy?

Wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, Earth-based solar power, and
fission reactors (more of which are being built right now) are all far
more cost-effective than anything that has to be launched into space,
maintained in space, replaced in space when it wears out, etc. etc.
Waste vegetation can be turned into fuel fairly easily, too (which is a
kind of solar energy, really). The combination of all these
Earth-based approaches will keep the price of power down way below any
motivation to get power from space.

You're looking at this backward - starting with the assumption that we
will go into space, then trying to justify it

  #7  
Old May 14th 06, 01:59 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


wrote in message
oups.com...

Besides, I'm not talking about the foreseeable future.
I'm talking about the future. Ultimately, say a century
or two down the road, where will our energy come
from? Solar power is the obvious conclusion.


So the oil has run out - where do we get our energy?

Wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, Earth-based solar power, and
fission reactors (more of which are being built right now) are all far
more cost-effective than anything that has to be launched into space,
maintained in space, replaced in space when it wears out, etc. etc.
Waste vegetation can be turned into fuel fairly easily, too (which is a
kind of solar energy, really). The combination of all these
Earth-based approaches will keep the price of power down way below any
motivation to get power from space.



You're forgetting about the rest of the world that doesn't live
in a western-like economy. China is growing at ten percent
a year. Indonesia, India and the Asian tigers are having explosive
growth. Now these countries have very little industrialization.

When the rest of the world becomes as industrialized and energy
hungry as we are, they will be pump this planet dry. And all the
while using very little pollution controls.



You're looking at this backward - starting with the assumption that we
will go into space, then trying to justify it



No, you have it backwards. All things being equal, the simplist
explanation or solution is generally the best one.

Small steps do not lead to great accomplishments.
As the insignificance of each step fails to inspire
the next one. And is swept away by the next issue
that comes along.

A /large goal/ inspires and initiates those countless small steps
in pursuit of the long term dream. As the large goal has
magnificent benefits and countless justifications.

One approach fails, the other succeeds.

An intelligent and inspiring goal is the first step to success.





s




  #8  
Old May 16th 06, 10:32 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

In article .com,
Wind power, tidal power, geothermal power, Earth-based solar power, and
fission reactors (more of which are being built right now) are all far
more cost-effective than anything that has to be launched into space,
maintained in space, replaced in space when it wears out, etc. etc.


If you assume today's costs of doing things in space, that's certainly
true.

Of course, any attempt to obtain serious amounts of power from space will
utterly dwarf today's space programs, so assuming that its costs will be
similar is ridiculous.

Oh, and don't forget the costs of the storage systems you need for wind
and Earth-based solar, and the fact that tidal and geothermal are
cost-effective in only a few particularly favorable places, and the limits
imposed on fission by uranium supply.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
  #9  
Old May 17th 06, 12:34 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation


"Henry Spencer" wrote in message
...

Oh, and don't forget the costs of the storage systems you need for wind
and Earth-based solar, and the fact that tidal and geothermal are
cost-effective in only a few particularly favorable places, and the limits
imposed on fission by uranium supply.



And the fact that most of the world's uranium is found in politically
unpalatable countries, like Australia :-)


  #10  
Old May 20th 06, 03:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default ...Lesson for Nasa! US Airmail and Aviation

Of course, any attempt to obtain serious amounts of power from space will
utterly dwarf today's space programs, so assuming that its costs will be
similar is ridiculous.


Absolutely. But, even if we are talking about Manhattan Project sized
efforts (which is really the crux of space cornucopia proposals) I'm
can't find any data supporting the preeminence of solar power.

Oh, and don't forget the costs of the storage systems you need for wind
and Earth-based solar, and the fact that tidal and geothermal are
cost-effective in only a few particularly favorable places, and the limits
imposed on fission by uranium supply.


Isn't the problem of supply obviated by using breeder reactors? And
what about the kilotons of U238 in storage?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:31 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.