A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

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

Time to start building space elevator or die



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 26th 05, 11:49 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default Time to start building space elevator or die

The space elevator might be the only way to save mankind from the effects of
global warming.
With the use of the elevator a large sunshield can be placed in a stable
orbit between the earth and the sun.
Rockets could be used but the scale of the project would make these
virtually useless.



  #2  
Old June 26th 05, 01:43 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 20:49:46 +1000, s wrote:

The space elevator might be the only way to save mankind from the effects of
global warming.
With the use of the elevator a large sunshield can be placed in a stable
orbit between the earth and the sun.
Rockets could be used but the scale of the project would make these
virtually useless.

Uh - why? Really, all we'd have to do to cut down on incoming
sunlight is spread reflective particles into orbit in a sky-writing
type rocket trail. Rockets would be perfect for that.

Of course that assumes that global warming will have a negative
effect, which has not been shown - it also hasn't been shown that just
living with the effects of global warming wouldn't be cheaper than
working to prevent or reverse it.


  #3  
Old June 26th 05, 11:09 PM
John Savard
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 08:43:50 -0400, wrote, in part:

Of course that assumes that global warming will have a negative
effect, which has not been shown - it also hasn't been shown that just
living with the effects of global warming wouldn't be cheaper than
working to prevent or reverse it.


Gambling with the continued existence of *all the people there are* is
not an option. Earth is not yet home to merely 1% of the human beings in
a Solar System opened to human settlement.

Of course, currently, we don't have one world government. Therefore, we
have competing nations, each trying to be militarily stronger than its
neighbors, so it is very difficult to get countries to limit their
energy consumption and their population. If, fifty years ago, only one
out of every hundred families had gotten a permit to have one child, the
world's energy demands would be much lower. Of course, that might be too
rapid, as it might not allow enough young people to take care of the
elderly. Perhaps one out of ten.

What's wrong with _that_ picture, of course, is that the only immediate
option for 'one world government' would be surrender to the
dictatorships; this would have the result of making human existence
pointless. Are there other options?

Why, yes, there are. We _can_ tread more gently on the Earth without
attempting to curtail human material well-being to an unrealistic
extent. There are other ways to produce energy besides the use of fossil
fuels.

Quite simple, really.

All the electricity that isn't supplied from hydroelectric power - build
nuclear power plants to produce it. Build them big enough so that their
constant output equals the peak demand, not the baseload demand.

Work like mad to develop fusion power - and to develop the thorium
breeder as well, in case it turns out to be a long wait for the former.

There is no reason to tolerate the possibility of global warming, when
it hasn't been proved that catastrophic consequences of it are
impossible. Local catastrophes have happened from resource consumption
of societies in the past; today, the world is more heavily populated
than at that time, and our reach is greater, and so global catastrophe
is not impossible.

John Savard
http://www.quadibloc.com/index.html
_________________________________________
Usenet Zone Free Binaries Usenet Server
More than 120,000 groups
Unlimited download
http://www.usenetzone.com to open account
  #4  
Old June 27th 05, 03:33 PM
James Nicoll
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
John Savard wrote:

Of course, currently, we don't have one world government. Therefore, we
have competing nations, each trying to be militarily stronger than its
neighbors, so it is very difficult to get countries to limit their
energy consumption and their population. If, fifty years ago, only one
out of every hundred families had gotten a permit to have one child, the
world's energy demands would be much lower.


Or the 99% of the population deemed unsuitable for reproduction
might have overthrown the WorldGov, since while they might risk death in
a messy civil war, their families will definitely be expunged under the
WorldGov Plan.

--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
  #5  
Old June 27th 05, 04:45 PM
Joe Strout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , s wrote:

The space elevator might be the only way to save mankind from the effects of
global warming.
With the use of the elevator a large sunshield can be placed in a stable
orbit between the earth and the sun.
Rockets could be used but the scale of the project would make these
virtually useless.


Please don't be silly. Space elevators are a worthwhile project, and
global warming is a legitimate concern, but they have almost nothing to
do with each other, and trying to block out the Sun is not the solution.

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
  #6  
Old June 27th 05, 06:22 PM
Mike Combs
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article , s wrote:

The space elevator might be the only way to save mankind from the

effects of
global warming.
With the use of the elevator a large sunshield can be placed in a stable
orbit between the earth and the sun.
Rockets could be used but the scale of the project would make these
virtually useless.


Please don't be silly. Space elevators are a worthwhile project, and
global warming is a legitimate concern, but they have almost nothing to
do with each other, and trying to block out the Sun is not the solution.


It would be far more sensible to argue that the space elevator will enable
mass construction of SPS, and that this will reduce global warming by
reducing the need for new fossil-fueled power plants, and by speeding the
retirement of existing ones.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.


  #7  
Old June 27th 05, 07:42 PM
Joe Strout
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
"Mike Combs" wrote:

Please don't be silly. Space elevators are a worthwhile project, and
global warming is a legitimate concern, but they have almost nothing to
do with each other, and trying to block out the Sun is not the solution.


It would be far more sensible to argue that the space elevator will enable
mass construction of SPS, and that this will reduce global warming by
reducing the need for new fossil-fueled power plants, and by speeding the
retirement of existing ones.


Agreed. Though of course, nuclear power could do the same thing. (But
it has its own set of problems.)

,------------------------------------------------------------------.
| Joseph J. Strout Check out the Mac Web Directory: |
| http://www.macwebdir.com |
`------------------------------------------------------------------'
  #8  
Old June 28th 05, 02:01 AM
Pete Lynn
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Mike Combs" wrote in message
...
"Joe Strout" wrote in message
...
In article , s wrote:

The space elevator might be the only way to save
mankind from the effects of global warming.
With the use of the elevator a large sunshield can
be placed in a stable orbit between the earth and
the sun. Rockets could be used but the scale of
the project would make these virtually useless.


Please don't be silly. Space elevators are a
worthwhile project, and global warming is a
legitimate concern, but they have almost nothing to
do with each other, and trying to block out the Sun
is not the solution.


It would be far more sensible to argue that the space
elevator will enable mass construction of SPS, and
that this will reduce global warming by reducing the
need for new fossil-fueled power plants, and by
speeding the retirement of existing ones.


Lets assume for a moment that global dimming is a reality, (there is
some disturbing evidence). This perhaps goes something like all the
pollution currently released with greenhouse gases is blocking the sun
and largely counteracting global warming, (who knows?). Inference being
that halting such pollution without similarly stopping the greenhouse
gases would result in greatly accelerated global warming.

It might be a fair assumption that under SPS we would not use electric
aircraft, cars, etcetera, but instead use LH2 or hydrocarbon fuels
energised by SPS. This scenario would see a similar release of
greenhouse gases, (especially H2O), without the accompanying sun
blocking pollution. The result of this might be SPS induced accelerated
global warming. :-)

Seriously though, sun blocking is almost the only practical solution to
global warming that I can envisage, should one be required. BOTE
calculations inferred a few billion dollars annually to add sufficient
dust into the upper atmosphere. This is a few orders of magnitude
cheaper than Kyoto, and it should actually work. This is the emergency
short term fix should we need it.

The long term solution to global warming is to take control of global
wind and water currents. This enables crude and localised climate
control, (temperature and humidity/rainfall), and also enables sea level
management, (by freezing the poles). Obviously this would not be a
small undertaking, however, the increased agricultural output should
more than pay for it. As a by product, it also produces enough energy
to serve the world's needs. Deserts, land and sea, (the latter nutrient
poor), can be partially phased out, greatly increasing global biomass.

Pete.


  #9  
Old June 29th 05, 03:21 PM
Henry Spencer
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Joe Strout wrote:
...and trying to block out the Sun is not the solution.


A recent paper in Science ("Advanced technology paths to global climate
stability: energy for a greenhouse planet", 1 Nov 2002 issue) concluded
that "planetary engineering" strategies -- like partial blocking of
sunlight -- were worth exploring as a backup strategy, although more
direct solutions seemed preferable.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |
 




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

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
CEV PDQ Scott Lowther History 829 June 12th 05 07:17 PM
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide Steven S. Pietrobon Space Shuttle 0 February 4th 05 05:21 AM
CRACK THIS CODE!!! WHY DID IT HAPPEN READ THIS DISTRUCTION!!!! zetasum History 0 February 3rd 05 01:28 AM
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) Stuf4 Space Shuttle 150 July 28th 04 07:30 AM
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 December 27th 03 02:32 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:58 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.