...IT'S ALIVE....PENTAGON to Study Space Solar Power Program.

On Mon, 7 May 2007 04:13:03 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:


... how efficient
would microwave power relaying be? How much less material on orbit do
you you need? There are vast areas on Earth -- the Sahara, the
Arabian peninsula's Empty Quarter, the interior of Australia, others
-- now receiving a wealth of near-constant, high quality sunlight. If
you can collect a fraction of the potential PV power from it
economically, can it be beamed up to relays and back down...?

It's been suggested. The actual energy-conversion processes should be
80-90% efficient without great difficulty -- better than long-haul
transmission by high-voltage power line! -- provided the antennas are big
enough to get almost all of the transmitted beam into the receiver. You
save *something* on orbited mass due to no solar collectors, but you still
need kilometer-scale orbiting structures to make it work.

Yes, Peter Glaser used to call this one of the "terraces" on the way
to full SPS.

On May 6, 9:42 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Henry Spencer) wrote:
:The central difficulty with powersats is not that they are obviously
:uneconomical, but that they do not scale down well, which means that (at
:least with current technology) a very large up-front investment is needed
:to test their viability.
:

And that leads to both an immense barrier to entry, as it makes sure
prices for a working system stays preposterously high until the point
where you have a large working system, at which point what economies
of scale may exist don't help you all that much (because the system is
already built).

Well, wait a minute: if the size of the market you have to address
with SPS before you get competitive economies of scale is, say, 5% of
the world's electrical power demand, that still leaves the other 85%
-- which *would* enjoy the economies of scale established in getting
that first 5%. Addressing 5% with a single upfront investment in a
technically risky technology that might not even start paying off for
20 years or more -- yes, that is very likely an insuperable barrier at
present. But after that, what's wong with the economies-of-scale
argument? If, as is usually assumed, SPS is made cheaper through
lunar ISRU, why just let all that resource extraction gear sit around
on the Moon, when it could be even more profitable than it was
initially? The only way your argument works is if you can prove that
SPS only becomes cost-competitive if you meet *all* demand in the very
first installation (and demand doesn't grow significantly thereafter.)

Maybe understanding is breaking down on what we mean by "system"?
Maybe you mean "one SPS satellite and its ground rectennas", where I
would mean "the entire logistical supply chain for construction and
maintenance"?

-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com

On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, (Rand Simberg)
wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:08:53 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In article .com,
Michael Turner wrote:

As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.

Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
their natural resources,

Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.

What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?

And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!

On May 1, 8:58 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
(Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
:Turner made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
:way as to indicate that:
:
:And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
:people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
:Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
:who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
:pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
:Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
:of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
:
:Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
:sanctions.

More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
where the US gets its oil.

If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
women are probably friendlier.

The Canadians have never threaten to use petroeuros like Saddam did.


If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
OPEC).

That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
as the sale is in dollars.

It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.

Petrodollars not petroeuros.

As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
long before the Bush Administration ever took office.

No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

Eric Chomko wrote:

:On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, (Rand Simberg)
:wrote:
:
: Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
: been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
:
:
:What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
:

That's a poor reason to hate anyone.

:
:And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
:

Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Eric Chomko wrote:

:On May 1, 8:58 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:
: :On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
: :Turner made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: :way as to indicate that:
: :
: :And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
: :people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
: :Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
: :who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
: :pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
: :Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
: :of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
: :
: :Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
: :sanctions.
:
: More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
: where the US gets its oil.
:
: If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
: oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
: women are probably friendlier.
:
:The Canadians have never threaten to use petroeuros like Saddam did.
:

So it isn't "all about oil" even for the loony. Thank you very much.

:
: If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
: and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
: wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
: increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
: OPEC).
:
:That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
:as the sale is in dollars.
:

You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
because it doesn't really matter.

: It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
: 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
:
:Petrodollars not petroeuros.
:

Dumbass.

: As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
: long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
:
:No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
:

What planet are you living on, Eric?

Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.

From the Congressional Report entitled "Iraq: U.S. Regime Change
Efforts and Post-War Governance"

"In November 1998, amid a crisis with Iraq over U.N. weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) inspections, the Clinton Administration stated that
the United States would seek to go beyond containment to promoting a
change of regime."

"The Iraq Liberation Act made the previously unstated policy of
promoting regime change in Iraq official, declared policy. A provision
of the ILA states that it should be the policy of the United States to
“support efforts” to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein. In
mid-November 1998, President Clinton publicly articulated that regime
change was a component of U.S. policy toward Iraq."

"In May 1999, in concert with an INC visit to Washington, the Clinton
Administration announced it would draw down $5 million worth of
training and “non-lethal” defense equipment under the ILA. During 1999
- 2000, about 150 opposition members underwent civil administration
training at Hurlburt air base in Florida, including attending Defense
Department-run courses provided civil affairs training, including
instruction in field medicine, logistics, computers, communications,
broadcasting, power generation, and war crimes issues. However, the
Clinton Administration asserted that the opposition was not
sufficiently organized to merit U.S. provision of lethal military
equipment or combat training."

Read all the preceding closely, Eric. You starting to catch on here
yet?


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On May 9, 11:37 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:

:On May 1, 8:58 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: (Rand Simberg) wrote:
:
: :On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
: :Turner made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: :way as to indicate that:
: :
: :And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
: :people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
: :Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
: :who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
: :pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
: :Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
: :of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
: :
: :Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
: :sanctions.
:
: More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
: where the US gets its oil.
:
: If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
: oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
: women are probably friendlier.
:
:The Canadians have never threaten to use petroeuros like Saddam did.
:

So it isn't "all about oil" even for the loony. Thank you very much.

More to do with dollars for oil. Reading comprehension. Get some!

:
: If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
: and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
: wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
: increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
: OPEC).
:
:That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
:as the sale is in dollars.
:

You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
because it doesn't really matter.

Sure it does. We rely on and need dollar hegemony, especially where
oil is concerned.


: It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
: 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
:
:Petrodollars not petroeuros.
:

Dumbass.

Poor Freddy. He uses the above standard line when he's wrong.


: As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
: long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
:
:No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
:

What planet are you living on, Eric?

Have you ever read the PNAC agenda dated in 1998 and submitted to then
President Clinton? No? Then don't comment.

Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.

Yes, and its states:

"through active application of all relevant United Nations Security
Council resolutions"

Bush ignored that part. No where does Clinton mention war. So in 2001
we get attacked by Al Qeada operating out of Afghanistan and Bush
attacks Iraq and useful idiots like you claim that Bush was
implementing Clinton's desire to oust Saddam Hussein because of the
above cited document?

No one ever stated that Saddam was a good guy. Well no one but
Rumsfeld and others in the Reagan administartion back in the 80s, but
that is another story.


From the Congressional Report entitled "Iraq: U.S. Regime Change
Efforts and Post-War Governance"

"In November 1998, amid a crisis with Iraq over U.N. weapons of mass
destruction (WMD) inspections, the Clinton Administration stated that
the United States would seek to go beyond containment to promoting a
change of regime."

"The Iraq Liberation Act made the previously unstated policy of
promoting regime change in Iraq official, declared policy. A provision
of the ILA states that it should be the policy of the United States to
"support efforts" to remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein. In
mid-November 1998, President Clinton publicly articulated that regime
change was a component of U.S. policy toward Iraq."

"Support efforts" is not the same as starting a war unilaterally.
We're failing in Iraq because Bush felt like we could and should do it
all alone. Now we have even our allies not giving two ****s if we
succeed or fail due to not taking them in account when we went in.


"In May 1999, in concert with an INC visit to Washington, the Clinton
Administration announced it would draw down $5 million worth of
training and "non-lethal" defense equipment under the ILA. During 1999
- 2000, about 150 opposition members underwent civil administration
training at Hurlburt air base in Florida, including attending Defense
Department-run courses provided civil affairs training, including
instruction in field medicine, logistics, computers, communications,
broadcasting, power generation, and war crimes issues. However, the
Clinton Administration asserted that the opposition was not
sufficiently organized to merit U.S. provision of lethal military
equipment or combat training."

Read all the preceding closely, Eric. You starting to catch on here
yet?

What that Bush snubbed the UN where Clinton wanted to work through it?
Yeah, that is clear. Also, are you trying to lay some of the blame on
Clinton for the current mess in Iraq? Sorry, that won't work either.

Eric


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

On May 9, 11:24 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Eric Chomko wrote:

:On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, (Rand Simberg)
:wrote:
:
: Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
: been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
:
:
:What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
:

That's a poor reason to hate anyone.

I don't hate Bush, I just think that he hasn't been a good president.


:
:And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
:

Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?

The fact that there is a world drug market such as opium and cocaine,
when both are illegal, makes your "logic" about markets flawed and
less predictable than you think. But since you DON'T think and merely
react one can expect much of the nonsense that you post.

Have ever even looked into the interaction of oil, drugs and arms?
Maybe you should to catch up.

Eric

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

Eric Chomko wrote:

:On May 9, 11:37 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
:
: :On May 1, 8:58 am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: : (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: :
: : :On 30 Apr 2007 20:43:00 -0700, in a place far, far away, Michael
: : :Turner made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
: : :way as to indicate that:
: : :
: : :And let's face it: the Bush administration was and is packed with
: : :people who had long advocated and supported active "regime change" in
: : :Iraq, and who are well-connected with the American oil industry, AND
: : :who know Saudi Arabia and its social problems quite well. So given a
: : :pretext that could be easily trumped up, so why *wouldn't* they invade
: : :Iraq with access to oil being a major (though downplayed/denied) part
: : :of the agenda if they thought they could get away with it?
: : :
: : :Because all they had to do to get access to the oil was lift the
: : :sanctions.
: :
: : More importantly, because we did not and do not need the oil. Look at
: : where the US gets its oil.
: :
: : If it was 'all about oil' we would have invaded Canada; we get more
: : oil from them than from anywhere else, it's a lot closer, and the
: : women are probably friendlier.
: :
: :The Canadians have never threaten to use petroeuros like Saddam did.
: :
:
: So it isn't "all about oil" even for the loony. Thank you very much.
:
:More to do with dollars for oil. Reading comprehension. Get some!
:

Preposterous notion. Writing sensibly. Try it! You might like it.

: :
: : If it was 'all about oil' we would have simply left Saddam in power
: : and gotten the sanctions listed. Since oil is pretty fungible, it
: : wouldn't matter who Iraq sold their oil too. Iraqi oil on the market
: : increases the supply and lowers the price (assuming no reaction from
: : OPEC).
: :
: :That simple, huh? It doesn't matter who Iraq sell there oil to as long
: :as the sale is in dollars.
: :
:
: You really need to stop injecting your stupid paranoid fantasies into
: things. Did I say anything about what currency? Of course not,
: because it doesn't really matter.
:
:
:Sure it does. We rely on and need dollar hegemony, especially where
il is concerned.
:

Why? Try and put forward a coherent case for why this matters.

:
: : It was only about oil insofar as something needed to be done about
: : 'aggressive madman in the room with a gun'.
: :
: :Petrodollars not petroeuros.
: :
:
: Dumbass.
:
:
:Poor Freddy. He uses the above standard line when he's wrong.
:

Poor El Chimpko. He throws his feces ... well, pretty much all of the
time.

:
: : As for 'active regime change', I believe CLINTON was calling for that
: : long before the Bush Administration ever took office.
: :
: :No, the PNAC bunch during Clinton's administration did.
: :
:
: What planet are you living on, Eric?
:
:
:Have you ever read the PNAC agenda dated in 1998 and submitted to then
:President Clinton? No? Then don't comment.
:

You're confused. Go read the sequence above. Show me where I said
*ANYTHING* about anyone but President Clinton. You responded with
'No'. Showing that someone else may have also said something similar
does *NOT* prove that Clinton didn't say it.

Logic - get some!

: Have you ever heard of the Iraq Liberation Act? Clinton signed it.
:
:Yes, and its states:
:
:"through active application of all relevant United Nations Security
:Council resolutions"
:

Try reading the whole thing. In fact, just try reading Section 3.
It's quite short and even you should be able to understand it:

"It should be the policy of the United States to support efforts to
remove the regime headed by Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq and to
promote the emergence of a democratic government to replace that
regime."

That's it. No conditions about means.

In point of fact, the Iraq Liberation Act does not contain the phrase
YOU quote above at all. In fact, it doesn't contain the world
"through" at all, much less the rest.

Liar.

:
:Bush ignored that part.
:

Because it wasn't there.

:
:No where does Clinton mention war. So in 2001
:we get attacked by Al Qeada operating out of Afghanistan and Bush
:attacks Iraq
:

Gee, El Chimpko seems to have missed an entire war in Afghanistan
there.

:
:... and useful idiots like you claim that Bush was
:implementing Clinton's desire to oust Saddam Hussein because of the
:above cited document?
:

Cite where I made such a claim.

Liar.

:
:No one ever stated that Saddam was a good guy. Well no one but
:Rumsfeld and others in the Reagan administartion back in the 80s, but
:that is another story.
:

Yes, it is - 'story' in the sense of 'lie'.

Liar.


--
"You take the lies out of him, and he'll shrink to the size of
your hat; you take the malice out of him, and he'll disappear."
-- Mark Twain

Eric Chomko wrote:

:On May 9, 11:24 pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
:
: :On Apr 30, 12:37 pm, (Rand Simberg)
: :wrote:
: :
: : Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
: : been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.
: :
: :
: :What abpout rationally hating George Bush based upon results?
: :
:
: That's a poor reason to hate anyone.
:
:I don't hate Bush, I just think that he hasn't been a good president.
:

Eric: "What about rationally hating George Bush based upon results?"

Make up your mind.

:
: :
: :And to your dumb comment about buying, who sets the price? We do!
: :
:
: Preposterous! Do you understand NOTHING about world minerals markets?
:
:
:The fact that there is a world drug market such as opium and cocaine,
:when both are illegal, makes your "logic" about markets flawed and
:less predictable than you think. But since you DON'T think and merely
:react one can expect much of the nonsense that you post.
:

Poor Eric. Too stupid to understand what's said to him, so all he can
do is bleat idiocy like the preceding.

:
:Have ever even looked into the interaction of oil, drugs and arms?
:Maybe you should to catch up.
:

Have ever even looked into the interaction of your head, your ass, and
your mouth? Maybe you should to heal up.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn