...100 MW of Space Solar Power ...per single launch!

Pat Flannery wrote:
Peter Fairbrother wrote:
BTW there are a lot of studies available at
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/index.htm if you are
interested, though I think many of them seem to miss the point a bit -
for instance, providing power to forward troops is not going to work
well politically, inciting claims of cooking the enemy etc.

The military is still interested in that concept the last I heard; how
to get the rectenna into position in the field is a good question - some
sort of a thing that rolls up like a carpet for air transport?
If you could be sure it wouldn't wander off target, you might be able to
send down the power as a laser beam and run some sort of steam generator
with it at the ground end... although that would be something that could
be converted into a weapon in no time flat.

Yes, supplying forward troop is really a non-starter from the political
and military point of view - complaints fof weaponizing space (whether
to use as a direct weapon or just to supply power to forward troops,
UAV's etc), claims of cooking your enemies and your own troops,
technically challenged - that's not the way to go.

The real money is in supplying fixed domestic and industrial power,
which has very few unwanted domestic (and pretty well zero
international) political consequences if done right.

The initial cost though is going to be a real whopper to fund.

Indeed, but the potential return is very large.

This sounds like something the Chinese would do, as they seem really
enthralled with giant projects at the moment.


And no greenhouse gases, or very few, and no nuclear waste, and almost
zero environmental impact (except for some at the ground sites, which
IMO should be situated in deserts or otherwise empty areas).

Personally I'd go for 100 GW Brayton cycle turbine systems rather than
a 400 MW direct semiconductor conversion system, with maybe 5 km
diameter space antennas and 8 km ground antennas - though I haven't
done any detailed studies on this, it's very BOTE.

NASA seriously considered Brayton Cycle power generation for the ISS,
but decided to go with the solar arrays instead.
They did run a test Brayton or Stirling Cycle generator for a year or
two nonstop with no problems though, IIRC.
One problem with solar arrays in GEO is that solar storms slowly degrade
them with their radiation, and that every decade or two you would need
to replace them...not a easy thing to do considering the altitude of the
orbit and size of the SPS.
So maybe some sort of thermal system might have the advantage over solar
arrays in this regard.

There are other advantages too, so my last-post-but-one.

-- Peter Fairbrother

In sci.space.history tadchem wrote:
"Exclusion zones" are not foolproof. We have had several cases of
unregulated aircraft inadvertently violating the Washington D.C. no-
fly zone recently.

I'm sure that would be of great consolation to the families of the
victims.

You word that like it would be the fault of the exclusion zone and not
the pilot.

A tall building is something of an exclusion zone - do we fault the
building if a pilot flies into it?

rick jones
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

On Dec 15, 10:21*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:
Peter Fairbrother wrote:
BTW there are a lot of studies available at
*http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/index.htmif you are
interested, though I think many of them seem to miss the point a bit -
for instance, providing power to forward troops is not going to work
well politically, inciting claims of cooking the enemy etc.

The military is still interested in that concept the last I heard; how
to get the rectenna into position in the field is a good question - some
sort of a thing that rolls up like a carpet for air transport?
If you could be sure it wouldn't wander off target, you might be able to
send down the power as a laser beam and run some sort of steam generator
with it at the ground end... although that would be something that could
be converted into a weapon in no time flat.
It would at least get the size of the receiver device down somewhat
compared to microwaves, but it still might be pretty wide if it came all
the way down from GEO.



The real money is in supplying fixed domestic and industrial power,
which has very few unwanted domestic (and pretty well zero
international) political consequences if done right.

The initial cost though is going to be a real whopper to fund.
This sounds like something the Chinese would do, as they seem really
enthralled with giant projects at the moment.

The Chinese may be the only option with NASA anymore.
Since their screw-ups with optics, has put the ground people
on an entirely different approach to systems development.

And their screwups with computer clearances has also led
the computer engineers to forever bequeath Fortran to
the Game Theory cranks in AI.

And their screwups with contracting has also led the
people who are serious about high-tech jobs into
the field of rapid prototyping, and let them work
with Hollywood and the Suez Canalers.








And no greenhouse gases, or very few, and no nuclear waste, and almost
zero environmental impact (except for some at the ground sites, which
IMO should be situated in deserts or otherwise empty areas).

Personally I'd go for 100 GW Brayton cycle turbine systems rather than a
400 MW direct semiconductor conversion system, with maybe 5 km diameter
space antennas and 8 km ground antennas - though I haven't done any
detailed studies on this, it's very BOTE.

NASA seriously considered Brayton Cycle power generation for the ISS,
but decided to go with the solar arrays instead.
They did run a test Brayton or Stirling Cycle generator for a year or
two nonstop with no problems though, IIRC.
One problem with solar arrays in GEO is that solar storms slowly degrade
them with their radiation, and that every decade or two you would need
to replace them...not a easy thing to do considering the altitude of the
orbit and size of the SPS.
So maybe some sort of thermal system might have the advantage over solar
arrays in this regard.

Pat

In sci.physics Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history tadchem wrote:
"Exclusion zones" are not foolproof. We have had several cases of
unregulated aircraft inadvertently violating the Washington D.C. no-
fly zone recently.

I'm sure that would be of great consolation to the families of the
victims.

You word that like it would be the fault of the exclusion zone and not
the pilot.

A tall building is something of an exclusion zone - do we fault the
building if a pilot flies into it?

rick jones

Buildings are visible and don't extend from the surface all the way through
the atmosphere.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.history tadchem wrote:
"Exclusion zones" are not foolproof. We have had several cases of
unregulated aircraft inadvertently violating the Washington D.C. no-
fly zone recently.

I'm sure that would be of great consolation to the families of the
victims.

You word that like it would be the fault of the exclusion zone and not
the pilot.

A tall building is something of an exclusion zone - do we fault the
building if a pilot flies into it?

rick jones
--
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
Q: Is middle-posting more muddling?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on usenet and in e-mail?

In sci.space.history wrote:
In sci.physics Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history tadchem wrote:
"Exclusion zones" are not foolproof. We have had several cases of
unregulated aircraft inadvertently violating the Washington D.C. no-
fly zone recently.

I'm sure that would be of great consolation to the families of the
victims.

You word that like it would be the fault of the exclusion zone and not
the pilot.

A tall building is something of an exclusion zone - do we fault the
building if a pilot flies into it?

rick jones

Buildings are visible

Not always. Same with mountains. Darkness, clouds, fog...

And yet one could easily postulate that the beam site would be
surrounded by any number of towers with the same sorts of strobes
present on tall buildings, so the site wouldn't be any less visible
than buildings.

Sure, the pilot might be thinking he is high enough to clear the
"buildings" but he is supposed to have checked-out his flight path and
have up-to-date charts and all that correct?

and don't extend from the surface all the way through the
atmosphere.

True.

rick jones
--
The computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as
it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose."
- Rick Jones
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

"Rick Jones" wrote in message
...
In sci.space.history wrote:
In sci.physics Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history tadchem wrote:
"Exclusion zones" are not foolproof. We have had several cases of
unregulated aircraft inadvertently violating the Washington D.C. no-
fly zone recently.

I'm sure that would be of great consolation to the families of the
victims.

You word that like it would be the fault of the exclusion zone and not
the pilot.

A tall building is something of an exclusion zone - do we fault the
building if a pilot flies into it?

rick jones

Buildings are visible

Not always. Same with mountains. Darkness, clouds, fog...

If I were flying in darkness, cloud or fog I'd stay well clear of
charted mountains and cities with tall buildings in them.
But then I'd have to be flying for a commercial purpose, not
for fun.




And yet one could easily postulate that the beam site would be
surrounded by any number of towers with the same sorts of strobes
present on tall buildings, so the site wouldn't be any less visible
than buildings.

Sure, the pilot might be thinking he is high enough to clear the
"buildings" but he is supposed to have checked-out his flight path and
have up-to-date charts and all that correct?

and don't extend from the surface all the way through the
atmosphere.

True.

rick jones
--
The computing industry isn't as much a game of "Follow The Leader" as
it is one of "Ring Around the Rosy" or perhaps "Duck Duck Goose."
- Rick Jones
these opinions are mine, all mine; HP might not want them anyway...
feel free to post, OR email to rick.jones2 in hp.com but NOT BOTH...

In sci.physics Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history wrote:
In sci.physics Rick Jones wrote:
In sci.space.history tadchem wrote:
"Exclusion zones" are not foolproof. We have had several cases of
unregulated aircraft inadvertently violating the Washington D.C. no-
fly zone recently.

I'm sure that would be of great consolation to the families of the
victims.

You word that like it would be the fault of the exclusion zone and not
the pilot.

A tall building is something of an exclusion zone - do we fault the
building if a pilot flies into it?

rick jones

Buildings are visible

Not always. Same with mountains. Darkness, clouds, fog...

And yet one could easily postulate that the beam site would be
surrounded by any number of towers with the same sorts of strobes
present on tall buildings, so the site wouldn't be any less visible
than buildings.

Sure, the pilot might be thinking he is high enough to clear the
"buildings" but he is supposed to have checked-out his flight path and
have up-to-date charts and all that correct?

For existing things there is the concept of minimum enroute altitude
which ensures you are above all the obstacles for a significant distance.

There is no getting above an energy beam from space.



--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

In sci.space.history message
, Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:55:56, Sylvia Else
posted:

Yes, and if the transmitter could run at the temperature of the surface
of the sun, there'd be no problem.


We know that a body at Earth's distance from the Sun, heated by solar
radiation and cooled by its own natural radiation, has an equilibrium
temperature of about (a little below?) the melting-point of ice. (The
Earth is such a body, but has an atmospheric greenhouse effect making
the surface warmer.)

Such an object that is transmitting a large portion of the incident
energy as microwaves to Earth must necessarily tend to run cooler than
that, overall.

The transmitting components themselves will dissipate heat, and must be
cooled; but it is only necessary to transfer that heat to the rest of
the structure. The components will be distributed across the structure,
so the transfer should not be unduly difficult.

Perhaps you do not have a background in the physical sciences?

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQqish topics, acronyms & links;
Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.
No Encoding. Quotes before replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Don't Mail News.

On Dec 16, 2:02*pm, "
wrote:
On Dec 15, 10:21*pm, Pat Flannery wrote:





Peter Fairbrother wrote:
BTW there are a lot of studies available at
*http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/li...index.htmifyou are
interested, though I think many of them seem to miss the point a bit -
for instance, providing power to forward troops is not going to work
well politically, inciting claims of cooking the enemy etc.

The military is still interested in that concept the last I heard; how
to get the rectenna into position in the field is a good question - some
sort of a thing that rolls up like a carpet for air transport?
If you could be sure it wouldn't wander off target, you might be able to
send down the power as a laser beam and run some sort of steam generator
with it at the ground end... although that would be something that could
be converted into a weapon in no time flat.
It would at least get the size of the receiver device down somewhat
compared to microwaves, but it still might be pretty wide if it came all
the way down from GEO.

The real money is in supplying fixed domestic and industrial power,
which has very few unwanted domestic (and pretty well zero
international) political consequences if done right.

The initial cost though is going to be a real whopper to fund.
This sounds like something the Chinese would do, as they seem really
enthralled with giant projects at the moment.

* *The Chinese may be the only option with NASA anymore.
* *Since their screw-ups with optics, has put the ground people
* *on an entirely different approach to systems development.

* *And their screwups with computer clearances has also led
* *the computer engineers to forever bequeath Fortran to
* *the Game Theory cranks in AI.

* *And their screwups with contracting has also led the
* *people who are serious about high-tech jobs into
* *the field of rapid prototyping, and let them work
* *with Hollywood and the Suez Canalers.





And no greenhouse gases, or very few, and no nuclear waste, and almost
zero environmental impact (except for some at the ground sites, which
IMO should be situated in deserts or otherwise empty areas).

Personally I'd go for 100 GW Brayton cycle turbine systems rather than a
400 MW direct semiconductor conversion system, with maybe 5 km diameter
space antennas and 8 km ground antennas - though I haven't done any
detailed studies on this, it's very BOTE.

NASA seriously considered Brayton Cycle power generation for the ISS,
but decided to go with the solar arrays instead.
They did run a test Brayton or Stirling Cycle generator for a year or
two nonstop with no problems though, IIRC.
One problem with solar arrays in GEO is that solar storms slowly degrade
them with their radiation, and that every decade or two you would need
to replace them...not a easy thing to do considering the altitude of the
orbit and size of the SPS.
So maybe some sort of thermal system might have the advantage over solar
arrays in this regard.

Pat- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you referring to "cranks" in the sense of

(a) the great unwashed

or

(b) undiscovered genius

or

? anything in the Moby Thesaurus words for "crank" ?

L, Tartar, abnormal, aficionado, alien, angle, angle off,
anomalous, apex, bar, beam, bear, bee, bellyacher, bend,
bifurcate,
bifurcation, bight, boom, boutade, brainstorm, branch, branks,
buff, bug, cant, cant hook, capriccio, caprice, case, character,
chevron, circle, circulate, circumrotate, circumvolute, claw bar,
coin, complainant, complainer, conceit, corner, crab, crackbrain,
crackpot, crank in, crankish, cranky, craze, crazy idea, croaker,
crook, crosspatch, crotchet, crotchety, crow, crowbar,
cucking stool, cuckoo, deflection, deviant, deviative, devotee,
different, ding-a-ling, divergent, dogleg, dotty, dragon, draw
in,
draw taut, ducking stool, eccentric, elbow, ell, energumen,
enthusiast, erratic, exceptional, fad, fan, fanatic, fanatico,
fancy, fantastic notion, fantasy, faultfinder, feist, fey,
finger pillory, fire-eater, flake, flaky, flimflam, fool notion,
fork, freak, freakish, freakish inspiration, frondeur, funny,
furcate, furcation, fury, go around, go round, griper,
grizzly bear, grouch, grouser, growler, grumbler, gyrate, gyre,
handspike, harebrain, harebrained idea, hermit, hobo, hook,
hothead, hotspur, humor, idiocratic, idiosyncratic, infatuate,
inflection, iron crow, irregular, jimmy, kicker, kink, kinky,
knee,
kook, kooky, kvetch, lever, limb, lone wolf, loner, lunatic,
lunatic fringe, maggot, maggoty, malcontent, marlinespike,
maverick, megrim, meshuggenah, monomaniac, murmurer, mutterer,
natural, nonconformist, nook, notion, nut, nutty, odd, odd
fellow,
oddball, oddity, original, outrigger, outsider, pariah,
passing fancy, peavey, peculiar, pedal, pillory, pinch bar,
pirouette, pivot, point, prize, pry, pull in, queer, queer duck,
queer fish, queer specimen, querulous person, quirk, quirky,
quoin,
rara avis, reactionary, reactionist, rebel, recluse, reel, reel
in,
revolve, ripping bar, rotate, round, screw, screwball, screwy,
singular, solitary, sorehead, sourpuss, spar, spin, stocks,
strange, strange duck, swerve, swing, swivel, tackle, tauten,
tighten, toy, tramp, treadle, treadmill, trebuchet, triangle,
triangles, trim, turn, turn a pirouette, turn around, turn round,
twist, twisted, type, ugly customer, unconventional, unnatural,
vagary, veer, vertex, wacky, wamble, weirdo, wheel, whim,
whim-wham, whimsical, whimsy, whiner, whipping post, winch, wind,
wind in, windlass, wooden horse, wrecking bar, zag, zealot, zig,
zigzag

Oh, well, sorry I asked, but it just seems like there's wayyyy too
many weeds in here...

American

"Eat the meat and spit out the bones"
- anonymous