# 9861 byxenophile2002@... on April 25, 2007, 1:03 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
they did a show on solar power. They pointed out several times that
solar's main problem is that it is dark half of the time (not counting
clouds). There was a lot of stuff about how it could be worthwhile to
use solar during the day, and just use grid power at night. Hey, it
still reduces fossil fuel use, reduces greenhouse emissions, and maybe
even save money... maybe. There was interesting stuff going on in
Germany, and outside of Las Vegas.
They never did. When the one guys said "the sun doesn't shime all the
time" I thought that was a perfect time to point out that yes it does,
we just aren't always pointed at it. This would have been the perfect
time to go into powersats, soaking up the sun 24/7/265.25. But no.
They also didn't mention how all those dark solar cells reduce the
Earth's albedo, causing the Earth to absorb more heat.
And you know, that albedo thing, together with powersats, well it got
me to thinking. Why not make rectennas shiny? And use some (say,
10%) of the electricity for carbon sequestering. The shiny rectennas
will reflect sunlight back into space, and the sequestering will
actively reduce greenhouse gases. Now, this sequestered carbon would
be buried away someplace (old oil wells and coal mines, perhaps), and
any carbon extracted for anything else (synthetic hydrocarbon fuels
and such) would have to be extracted above and beyond that.
# 9862 byspider_boris@... on April 25, 2007, 2:18 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
AFAIK, rectennae would be shiny anyhow, seeing as how
they are just a network of wires and diodes. Most of
the sunlight would get through though.
--- Xenophile wrote:
# 9863 bydinmont2@... on April 25, 2007, 1:04 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
It has become my bitter conclusion that these people dont want simple
solutions to the problems they claim to want to solve since that
would make easy and thus deprive them of their big stage and God
alone knows what else.
colonization, they never mention space islands even though the
solution can be achieved in our lifetime. They discuss generation
ships and crygenics and geneticly altered human beings and the need
for warp drive and new forms of nuclear energy and propulsion but not
once have I seen one show on space islands and the vision of Gerard
K. O'Neall. The last time I saw any show with any mention on them was
in part of an episode of Leanard Nimoy's In Search Of.
It is frustrating.
They have shown us all a major problem.
WE have a simple brilliant solution that advances mankind.
They are nowhere to be found.
Part of the problem I believe is all THEIR solutions require people
to give them power over their lives. Our solution gives people power
over their lives independant of them.
# 9864 bysqorpo@... on April 25, 2007, 2:56 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I watched that too... I was also disappointed they didn't talk about
solar "powersats"(SPS).. Matter of fact.. They didn't really talk
about much of anything.. They covered 40 & 50 year old technology
mostly and teased a little with some stuff being developed within the
last decade.. I think It could have been much better...
haven't looked at that approach enough to give an intelligent opinion
on it, but from what I understand they are basically grids of wires
with diodes between them that catch microwaves... I'm not sure how
much sunlight could be deflected back out of the atmosphere like
that.. It seems it would be all over the place.. Then again.. If the
wires were flat, and you could keep the wind from blowing them around
like kites.. Maybe it could work...
I've often wondered if Tesla wasn't on to the right idea for this
application.. Huge Tesla coils?? Maybe 300m towers? Of course you'd
probably need at least a couple sqkm "no-fly" kill zone.. Because
anything that got too close would get fried like a giant bug zapper..
There would be many more issues to work out, but I think 24/7 energy
from SPSs makes a lot of sense..
Then there's the "tether"... Maybe if we can develop the material for
the "space elevator" cable, ribbon or whatever, we can make "power
lines" for our SPSs.. Probably out of some kind of nanomaterial..
Carbon nanotubes or something with some kind of superconducting core..
Sounds good.. Right?
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
# 9865 bybobunf@... on April 25, 2007, 2:55 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
The idea of "beaming" power to Earth is completely ridiculous. It
amazes me anyone mentions it seriously.
1. Power in sunlight at Earth orbit: 1300 Watts/m2
2. Solar Cell efficiency: 15% (I know, 30% have been run in the
lab, so just to be ridiculously optimistic, let it be) 30%
3. Conversion of electricity to microwave, optimistically: 50%
4. Losses in transmission through the atmosphere, including from
pollutants, targeting problems, and anomalous events such as dust
storms, icing, desert varnish, flocks of birds and other phenomena:
20%
5. At present there are no devices to convert the microwave
radiation directly back into useful amounts of electrical power.
Currently the best method would be to heat water with the microwaves,
and run the steam through a turbine with efficiency at,
optimistically: 40%
So, 1300 x .30 x .5 x .8 x .4 = 62.4 watts per square meter of
photovoltaic cellsat the very most, probably, really more like 20.
On the surface of the Earth one would eliminate steps 3 and 5.
Figure the diurnal cycle would cut production by 50%. This would
leave 1300 x .5 x .8 x .3 = 156 watts per square meter. Or you could
just use that clunky old steam turbine instead of PV cells, taking
advantage of the 40% efficiency of this 19th century technology, not
have to worry about a theorized doubling of PV cell efficiency and
get 1300 x .5 x .8 x .4 = 208 watts per square meter.
In short, double to triple the amount of electricity and you don't
even have to put the stuff in orbit, which, of course, would be
incredibly more expensive. Electricity from orbit would cost about
three orders of magnitude more than what people pay today. The
annual electric bill for a house would be in the millions of
dollars. The whole idea is completely crazy.
Bob
# 9866 bymikecombs@... on April 25, 2007, 3:04 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of bobunf
> amazes me anyone mentions it seriously.
When it strikes you that people around you are discussing something
ridiculous, the possibility that you are one of the few non-ridiculous
people around is only one of two possibilities. The other is that there
are aspects of what's being discussed that you haven't grasped yet.
All your analysis accomplished was to reveal serious gaps in your
knowledge of the specifics of the power-beaming proposal.
Regards,
Mike Combs
# 9867 byjoe@... on April 25, 2007, 3:40 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On Apr 25, 2007, at 14:53 UTC, bobunf wrote:
Why? Some very smart people who are experts in the field have studied
it and found it to be not ridiculous. What do you know that they don't
know?
> 1. Power in sunlight at Earth orbit: 1300 Watts/m2
About 8 times the power density on the Earth's surface.
> 2. Solar Cell efficiency: 15% (I know, 30% have been run in the
> lab, so just to be ridiculously optimistic, let it be) 30%
> 3. Conversion of electricity to microwave, optimistically: 50%
50-60% has been demonstrated, I believe.
> 4. Losses in transmission through the atmosphere, including from
> pollutants, targeting problems, and anomalous events such as dust
> storms, icing, desert varnish, flocks of birds and other phenomena:
> 20%
No, this would be pretty close to zero. There isn't much which
interferes with a microwave beam, except metal, you don't see metal
grids floating about in the atmosphere too often.
> 5. At present there are no devices to convert the microwave
> radiation directly back into useful amounts of electrical power.
> Currently the best method would be to heat water with the microwaves,
> and run the steam through a turbine with efficiency at,
> optimistically: 40%
Wow, what a whopper! Up till this point I thought you knew something
about the subject. In reality, this is the easiest step: a simple
metal grid (plus a few diodes) converts microwave energy directly to
electricity with extremely high efficiency -- 90% can be achieved, and
that's the end-to-end efficiency (including transmission), not just the
rectenna, which itself has an efficiency close to 100%.
You can demonstrate the efficient conversion of microwaves into
electricity by putting, say, a fork in your microwave, turning it on,
and watching for sparks. (Sparks form of course because the
electricity has noplace to go short of jumping to ground; in a rectenna
the voltage would be drawn off as a steady current.)
> So, 1300 x .30 x .5 x .8 x .4 = 62.4 watts per square meter of
> photovoltaic cellsat the very most, probably, really more like 20.
Experts estimate 75 to 100 W per m^2 of PV in space. I'm actually
surprised you were as close as you were. :)
> On the surface of the Earth one would eliminate steps 3 and 5.
> Figure the diurnal cycle would cut production by 50%.
It's more like 66% even under ideal conditions, and there are darn few
places on Earth with ideal conditions.
> This would leave 1300 x .5 x .8 x .3 = 156 watts per square meter.
Hah! No. Terrestrial solar power is in the neighborhood of 15 W/m^2.
And then you have the (massive) problem of power storage, since your
supply is very intermittent.
> In short, double to triple the amount of electricity and you don't
> even have to put the stuff in orbit, which, of course, would be
> incredibly more expensive.
If that were true, SSP would be ridiculous. But it's not true, and SSP
is not ridiculous. Here's a good reference which, with a bit of
effort, you can find online or at your local library:
Hoffert et al., "Advanced technology paths to global climate stability:
energy for a greenhouse planet." Science 298: 981-987 (Nov. 2002).
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
# 9868 byapsmith@... on April 25, 2007, 3:48 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
"bobunf" - I wrote an article comparing Terrestrial and Space solar
power in some detail a few years back:
It's definitely not "ridiculous", but it's not clear which one is a
better use of resources either - it depends on estimates for costs of
solar power cells, space launch, and related components, and the
relative importance of base-load power or the cost of power storage or
long-distance transmission for terrestrial solar.
More specific comments below.
bobunf wrote:
> The idea of "beaming" power to Earth is completely ridiculous. It
> amazes me anyone mentions it seriously.
>
> Even forgetting money, just consider:
>
> 1. Power in sunlight at Earth orbit: 1300 Watts/m2
> 2. Solar Cell efficiency: 15% (I know, 30% have been run in the
> lab, so just to be ridiculously optimistic, let it be) 30%
> 3. Conversion of electricity to microwave, optimistically: 50%
> 4. Losses in transmission through the atmosphere, including from
> pollutants, targeting problems, and anomalous events such as dust
> storms, icing, desert varnish, flocks of birds and other phenomena:
> 20%
> 5. At present there are no devices to convert the microwave
> radiation directly back into useful amounts of electrical power.
>
Why do you assert this? Microwave radiation *IS* electrical
(electromagnetic) power, just at a frequency and voltage that's not
particularly useful - but power conversion is well-established
technology with 90% plus conversion efficiencies available. And
conversion from microwave to DC or AC is proven technology at quite high
efficiencies - there's the old experiments from the 70's that had 60%
DC-microwave transmission - DC efficiency. Heating water would work -
perhaps that would even be the cheapest solution - but there are much
more efficient methods.
> [...]
>
> So, 1300 x .30 x .5 x .8 x .4 = 62.4 watts per square meter of
> photovoltaic cellsat the very most, probably, really more like 20.
>
Actually, probably more like 140 W/m^2 with these assumptions. You are
also assuming a 1:1 area ratio - solar power can be relatively easily
concentrated with mirrors up to several hundred times at least, and some
solar cells are actually more efficient at higher concentrations. But
you can do concentrating solar power on Earth too, so this isn't such an
obvious issue for contrasting numbers.
>
> On the surface of the Earth one would eliminate steps 3 and 5.
> Figure the diurnal cycle would cut production by 50%. This would
>
> leave 1300 x .5 x .8 x .3 = 156 watts per square meter.
>
Two points you have wrong here:
* Earth's atmosphere is much more absorbing/reflecting of regular light
than you seem to think. We actually receive just 58% of incoming
sunlight at the surface - the atmosphere absorbs or reflects the rest
(replace the 0.8 by 0.58). Microwaves penetrate clouds easier than
visible light.
* "the diurnal cycle" when averaged over Earth's surface cuts insolation
by a factor of 4, not 2, because we live on a sphere. This also leads to
seasonal intermittency - at mid latitudes in winter-time you'll only get
half as much daylight as in summer, or less. To actually capture
anywhere close to 1/2 of noon-time sunlight in a day you need to be
constantly turning your solar panels to face the sun, requiring complex
mounting, and adding considerably to the area of your facility to avoid
shadowing effects. So replace your 0.5 by perhaps 0.35. Maybe 80 W/m^2.
>
> Or you could
> just use that clunky old steam turbine instead of PV cells, taking
> advantage of the 40% efficiency of this 19th century technology, not
> have to worry about a theorized doubling of PV cell efficiency and
>
> get 1300 x .5 x .8 x .4 = 208 watts per square meter.
>
In order to get the very high temperatures needed for 40% thermal
efficiency you need a complex heliostat system - I've seen one in
operation in Spain. But any clouds or turbulent air and you've lost your
power. And there's no way they can operate at full power during all
daylight hours because of the effects of the sun's angle.
> In short, double to triple the amount of electricity and you don't
> even have to put the stuff in orbit, which, of course, would be
>
> incredibly more expensive.
>
You're comparing power per square meter - but square meters in space are
not necessarily more expensive than square meters on Earth. Most of
space is empty - there are trillions of square meters not being used at
all in Earth's neighborhood. If space launch and the materials costs are
inexpensive enough, they're just there for the taking. Not so with solar
power on the ground.
You're also forgetting one other thing: terrestrial solar power can't
run at night or under clouds. So in addition to the equipment costs for
keeping your solar cells pointed at the sun, you have the cost of
storing that energy for potentially long periods of time. Adding
everything up can easily make it a wash - it all depends on the details.
Far from "completely ridiculous" anyway.
Arthur Smith
# 9869 bybmaillists@... on April 25, 2007, 3:51 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
1. On the surface of Earth at the equator it is 1,020 W/m, Away from
the equator you get less. If you are in winter you will also get less.
Don't forget to account for cloudy days.
Brayton cycle engine) with light weight mirrors is another option.
4. Careful selection of frequency minimizes losses.
5. It is called a rectenna http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rectenna as you
will note in the article it can be 90% efficient.
On earth you typically get 5 peak hours of sunlight a day to generate
electricity in. You can boost that a bit by tracking the sun, not by
much though.
May I suggest you get a hold of "The High Frontier"by Gerard K O'Neil
and start reading. Heck even a short search of Wikipedia would be useful.
B
bobunf wrote:
# 9870 bybmaillists@... on April 25, 2007, 5:01 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I forgot to mention that the 1,020 W/m at the equator is at noon. It is
minimal at Dawn and Dusk.
# 9871 bybobunf@... on April 25, 2007, 7:30 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, joe@... wrote:
"Some very smart people who are experts in the field have studied it
and found it to be not ridiculous. What do you know that they don't
know?"
nor scheduled such a thing. And now they don't even mention it.
What do you suppose they know?
Bob
# 9872 byspider_boris@... on April 25, 2007, 8:17 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- bobunf wrote:
> ridiculous. It
> amazes me anyone mentions it seriously.
>
> Even forgetting money, just consider:
That is something that cannot be set aside, whatever
one thinks of space-based solar power.
>
> 1. Power in sunlight at Earth orbit: 1300 Watts/m2
That's pretty close. 1360W/m^2 is closer to 1400 than
it is to 1300 though.
> 2. Solar Cell efficiency: 15% (I know, 30% have
> been run in the
> lab, so just to be ridiculously optimistic, let it
> be) 30%
That's a huge mistake. Photovoltaic cells require
more energy to manufacture than they ever themselves
produce. PV arrays are made in semiconductor plants,
and yet semiconductor plants do not use photovoltaics
as their power source, which should tell you
something.
No, one would have to use a heat engine, either
Stirling, Brayton, or Carnot cycle. Yes, that means
moving parts, but if one is going to build a solar
power satellite then regular maintenance would have to
be part of the process.
A heat engine's efficiency depends on the absolute
temperatures of the input to the system and the output
of the system. For a Carnot cycle heat engine, if the
input is 300K (27 degrees C), and the output side is
at 3K (which is the background temperature of the
universe), then the efficiency is 99%. If the input
temperature is 3000K and the output is 3K then the
efficiency is 99.9%. So, for any reasonable
temperature at the input, we are looking at some very
high efficiencies right off the bat.
Note that with a heat engine, the vast majority of
your solar power satellite would consist of a simple
sheet of aluminum foil, perhaps held in place by
inflatable tubes embedded in the structure (arranged
sort of like the veins on a leaf). A structure like
that could be huge and flimsy and lightweight, exactly
the sort of structure that requires the freefall
environment.
> 3. Conversion of electricity to microwave,
> optimistically: 50%
Did you pull that number out of thin air?
> 4. Losses in transmission through the atmosphere,
> including from
> pollutants, targeting problems, and anomalous events
> such as dust
> storms, icing, desert varnish, flocks of birds and
> other phenomena:
> 20%
This number is definitely pulled out of thin air.
Desert varnish? How on earth would that interfere
with microwave beams - is there some special property
of desert varnish that causes rocks on the ground to
interfere with microwaves being received by a rectenna
suspended well above the ground?
Ice and flocks of birds would not interfere either, as
the microwave frequency would be chosen so that it
does not resonate water. The beam would likely be
several kilometers across as well. I will grant that
targeting is an issue that could affect efficiency.
> 5. At present there are no devices to convert the
> microwave
> radiation directly back into useful amounts of
> electrical power.
It's called a rectenna. The process is well
understood, and nearly 100% efficient.
> Currently the best method would be to heat water
> with the microwaves,
> and run the steam through a turbine with efficiency
> at,
> optimistically: 40%
No. Having the microwaves at a frequency that they
would resonate water molecules is absolutely the worst
possible frequency to choose. Just becausee the word
"microwave" is involved does not mean that it is
exactly like the magnetron in your microwave oven. In
your microwave oven, that particular frequency was
chosen precisely because it does resonate water
molecules. The solar power satellite would beam
microwaves of a different frequency so that you don't
lose a whole lot of energy as the microwaves pass
through the water vapor in the atmosphere.
>
> So, 1300 x .30 x .5 x .8 x .4 = 62.4 watts per
> square meter of
> photovoltaic cellsat the very most, probably,
> really more like 20.
Or, let's use some sane numbers. Assume a Carnot
cycle heat engine of 99% efficiency. Assume
conversion losses from electricity to microwave and
back again at 50% (as you did, above). Assume
microwave transmission losses of 20% (again, your
assumption). Then you are getting 1360 x 0.99 x 0.5 x
0.8 ~ 540 W per square meter of collector.
Now assume that your collector is a reflector 30
kilometers in diameter made of standard household
aluminum foil. The collector part would mass about
38000 metric tonnes, and the total power delivered
would be about 380 gigawatts, 24/7/365. Right now
total world output of commercial nuclear power is
about 371 gigawatts. So, that one solar power
satellite would by itself total more power delivered
than all the world's commercial nuclear power plants,
combined.
Which brings us back the question of economics,
arguably the biggest objection to the whole thing.
Delivering that much material to orbit from the
earth's surface would be very expensive. However, the
moon has a high aluminum content, so perhaps a
mining/processing/launch facility on the moon would
make economic sense.
Even so, at 100 metric tonnes per gigawatt, the price
of launch to orbit from the earth's surface is still
less per gigawatt than the cost of building a nuclear
reactor.
Ed
>
> On the surface of the Earth one would eliminate
> steps 3 and 5.
> Figure the diurnal cycle would cut production by
> 50%.
Closer to 75%, when taken over the course of a year at
all latitudes between 60N and 60S.
> This would
> leave 1300 x .5 x .8 x .3 = 156 watts per square
> meter. Or you could
> just use that clunky old steam turbine instead of PV
> cells, taking
> advantage of the 40% efficiency of this 19th century
> technology,
> not have to worry about a theorized doubling of PV
cell
# 9873 byapsmith@... on April 25, 2007, 8:32 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Ed Minchau wrote:
>
> -
> > 2. Solar Cell efficiency: 15% (I know, 30% have
> > been run in the
> > lab, so just to be ridiculously optimistic, let it
> > be) 30%
>
> That's a huge mistake. Photovoltaic cells require
> more energy to manufacture than they ever themselves
> produce. PV arrays are made in semiconductor plants,
> and yet semiconductor plants do not use photovoltaics
> as their power source, which should tell you
> something.
>
Ed, your other points are good, but this one's a myth on two counts. The
energy requirements of PV cells are paid back in operation even on Earth
within between a few months and a few years of production. With typical
lifetimes and installations a PV cell will pay back the energy costs of
its production at least 10-fold.
manufacturing facilities, not standard micro-chip plants. These are
expanding at such rapid rates (30-40% per year) thanks to the
availability of cheap fossil energy - which PV still is not. PV is fine
for niche applications and consumer-retail installations, but it's not
ready to supply energy for industrial production until costs come down a
factor of 3-5, and there are still the storage/intermittency issues
we've already discussed. I'm sure we'll eventually see solar cell
manufacturing plants that run directly off solar energy - but it might
not be until we're manufacturing things in space.
Arthur
# 9874 bydante_feditech@... on April 25, 2007, 9:42 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: Ed Minchau
> That is something that cannot be set aside, whatever
> one thinks of space-based solar power.
vastly underestimate the gross profits of such a satellite over it's
lifetime. Usually because they have some blinkered belief that the
electricity must be sold to America. Sell it to Europe (where we pay 2x as
much for power) and suddenly you have $160B to cover construction costs.
> That's a huge mistake. Photovoltaic cells require
> more energy to manufacture than they ever themselves
> produce.
How do you figure? A 1W panel will over a 20 year lifetime on an SSPS will
produce 630MJ of energy. In reality there will be some loses of course, but
that's still a lot of energy to counter manufacturing energy use.
> Which brings us back the question of economics,
> arguably the biggest objection to the whole thing.
> Delivering that much material to orbit from the
> earth's surface would be very expensive. However, the
> moon has a high aluminum content, so perhaps a
> mining/processing/launch facility on the moon would
> make economic sense.
>
> Even so, at 100 metric tonnes per gigawatt, the price
> of launch to orbit from the earth's surface is still
> less per gigawatt than the cost of building a nuclear
> reactor.
I really don't understand why people obsess over the cost per power output
figures. It's largely meaningless. Surely what matters more is cost per
energy output. As in $$/kWh. SSPS win over nukes because they come with
massive fringe benifits, because they don't produce waste, and because they
can be easily recycled on an on going basis (the material doesn't have to be
launched a *second* time) and hence can last effectively forever. It's a
case of $100B in, $300B+ out.
John
# 9875 byxenophile2002@... on April 26, 2007, 2:08 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers, "ANTIcarrot" wrote:
>> That is something that cannot be set aside, whatever one thinks
>> of space-based solar power.
> Not entirely sure I agree. People who think that's a sumbling block
> tend to vastly underestimate the gross profits of such a satellite
> over it's lifetime. Usually because they have some blinkered belief
> that the electricity must be sold to America. Sell it to Europe
> (where we pay 2x as much for power) and suddenly you have $160B to
> cover construction costs.
Hhmmnn...
Well then, I guess the question is: what can you do with $160B in the
way of High Frontier goals?
>> Even so, at 100 metric tonnes per gigawatt, the price
>> of launch to orbit from the earth's surface is still
>> less per gigawatt than the cost of building a nuclear
>> reactor.
> I really don't understand why people obsess over the cost per power
> output figures. It's largely meaningless. Surely what matters more
> is cost per energy output. As in $$/kWh.
I'm going to reveal my ignorance here (like that'll come as a surprise
to anybody) and ask, "What's the difference?"
> SSPS win over nukes because they come with massive fringe benifits,
> because they don't produce waste, and because they can be easily
> recycled on an on going basis (the material doesn't have to be
> launched a *second* time) and hence can last effectively forever.
Hadn't thought of that, but yeah, I can't think of any reason that
isn't right.
> It's a case of $100B in, $300B+ out.
Which brings us back to the question: why isn't anybody doing it? I
know that some of the people I know would immediately jump out with
"the oil companies would never let you do it." They never can tell me
exactly why the oil companies have any say, other than "they have a
lot of money" and "they are very powerful." But really, if they have
the power to stop the expansion into space, shouldn't something be
DONE about that?
So why don't the oil companies do it themselves? Lock up the industry
for themselves, make hundreds of billions, and be environmental heroes.
There's something we're missing here.
# 9876 byjoe@... on April 26, 2007, 3:34 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On Apr 26, 2007, at 02:07 UTC, Xenophile wrote:
It's perceived as an extremely risky investment, and investors have
other things to do with their money which are perceived as much safer.
And realistically, this is almost certainly the case -- the initial
capital required to build the first SSP plant is astronomical, and you
almost certainly COULD find something safer and more profitable to do
with that kind of money. Probably, lots of somethings in fact.
This is mainly due to two things: one, power beaming from space has
never even been demonstrated, so while it looks great in theory and in
small-scale model tests, we'll never know what devils lurk in the
details of big systems until we do it. And second, lifting all that
mass from Earth is just too friggin' expensive with our current launch
systems; and either developing new, substantially cheaper launch
systems, or developing a whole lunar (or NEO) mining infrastructure to
obviate the need to lift all that mass from Earth, is an even more
ridiculously expensive proposition.
The first problem would be a good job for a government; a strong
argument could be made that NASA should be building small demonstration
powersats rather than, say, inventing its own new rockets when there
are several commercial rockets available that could be easily
man-rated. But "why isn't NASA doing it" is a harder and more subtle
question.
The second problem, launch costs, is a chicken-and-egg problem which
many people have tried to crack, without much success yet. Granted, a
serious attempt at SSP would probably crack it, given the extremely
high flight rates required... but nobody knows *exactly* what's inside
that egg, so you don't want to bet the farm on it.
My guess is that Richard Branson is not stupid; he's interested in
space and in clean energy, and must know about SSP. But he's working
methodically, step by step, making a profit at each stage. He's got
his airline business; he's getting into the power business; the next
step is to get into the suborbital flight business, which should start
soon. After that will be orbital flight. When orbital flight is
routine, and costs come down, then he can start looking seriously into
building powersats.
(Or, somebody invests enough money to see if polywell fusion can
actually work, and if it does, then both our energy and our space
launch problems are solved almost overnight beyond our wildest dreams.)
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
# 9877 byjwsmith42000@... on April 26, 2007, 10:51 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I certainly concur with this and came to the same conclusion many years ago.
I do not have an answer except in what I do. The problem is that each person
has to have it their way and will not join together to get the job done.
I will continue to do what I can do as long s I can
1000 Planets, Inc.
Http://www.1000Planets.com
In a message dated 4/25/2007 9:08:45 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
dinmont2@... writes:
# 9878 bydante_feditech@... on April 26, 2007, 12:55 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: Xenophile
> Hhmmnn...
> Well then, I guess the question is: what can you do with $160B in the
> way of High Frontier goals?
costs. Diversify and use your CATS for other uses. If you get launch costs
to GEO down to $1000/kg, $100B of that is still going to involve getting it
up there. There will be $20B-$30B profit there, and there will be
significantly more during the second lifetime, but there will still be those
who say it's a bad idea. The $160B figure is based on selling to Europe, and
hence many in the US will dismiss it as a 'waste of time'. For true
stability an American company would have to get costs down far enough to
sell domestically.
> > I really don't understand why people obsess over the cost per power
> > output figures. It's largely meaningless. Surely what matters more
> > is cost per energy output. As in $$/kWh.
>
> I'm going to reveal my ignorance here (like that'll come as a surprise
> to anybody) and ask, "What's the difference?"
One is a measure of how much a power station will cost to build. The other
is how much it will cost to make electricity there, which is important as
that figure tells you how competitive it is in the long run. It's total cost
divided by the total energy produced over the lifetime of the facility.
$1,000/kW for example tells you construction costs for a 10GW facility will
be $10B.
$0.15/kWh tells you if something will or will not be competitive in a market
where the going rate is $0.07/kWh or $0.25/kWh.
Or if you prefer, the other is car price, the other is car fuel economy. A
car which costs 10% more but uses half as much fuel might work out cheaper
in the long run. My gripe is that the first figure is often used to 'prove'
that a $10/kW coal power station will 'naturally' produce cheaper
electricity than a $20/kW green station.
> > SSPS win over nukes because they come with massive fringe benifits,
> > because they don't produce waste, and because they can be easily
> > recycled on an on going basis (the material doesn't have to be
> > launched a *second* time) and hence can last effectively forever.
>
> Hadn't thought of that, but yeah, I can't think of any reason that
> isn't right.
Radiation would cause some transmutation of material, but I don't see that
significantly affecting material strength after it goes through solar
furnaces and it recast.
> > It's a case of $100B in, $300B+ out.
>
> Which brings us back to the question: why isn't anybody doing it?
To beat an old drum, it's all NASA's fault. (Or so I believe at any rate.
Them and Hollywood.) Their unmanned probes and satellites do good work that
is and rightly should be admired.
But for thirty years they locked themselves into an 'launchers might look
like aeroplanes' mindset. In stamping down on all of the more sensible
designs (and with today's materials, anything that's *not* a space plane is
a more sensible design) they have conditioned lots of people into thinking
that capsules can only be small things suitable for reentry and not much
else. Other things like a blinkered obsession with SSTO, a preferences for
experimental designs which were demonstratably impossibly with known
material science (mostly so they could *try* and advance material science)
and political considerations, especially regarding their workforce, hasn't
helped. So I believe at any rate.
Films and Video Games have sexy space planes, or awe inspiring space
elevator designs, and hence this is the way the public believes it must be.
People think Mars is a good idea because they're told it is, and because
they are not offered alternatives.
> "the oil companies would never let you do it."
I'm not sure I believe that. SSPS doesn't pose a threat to oil as far as I
can see. Even if we launched one tomorrow, planes and cars would still run
on the black stuff. That's pretty much their core market, and will take a
long time to change.
Though I'm sure there are a lot of interests in many governments that don't
want it revealed that space is actually very easy. Put aside the problems of
home built satellites being a nightmare to police, and a threat to important
commercial and military ones. And, for that matter, put aside that America
has a history of stamping viciously on anything that might threaten it's
strategic power; in space or down here.
Would you want North Korea to suddenly find out that all they can build a
missile that can hit any city in North America using wielded steel, a small
power plant, and a five year old laptop? They might not be the most advanced
nation in the world, but even they have access to 18th century technology.
In the 17th centaury the Catholic Church lost control of much 'secret
information' (like the actual contents of the bible) because ordinary people
discovered the power of the printing press. In the last few years the
internet has caused a similar loss of control over other information that
authorities would like to keep secret. Information like 'how to easily kill
an Abrams tank' or 'ten fun things to do with a hijacked 767' or 'high
schools are a target rich environment and no one there has the power to stop
you' or access to the ten thousand books written on the subject of how to
conduct the one kind of war that western armies cannot win.
This is one conspiracy theory why the western world might want space to be
seen as difficult, complex, and expensive.
John
# 9879 byjanet_baker76@... on April 26, 2007, 5:38 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
John wrote, 'Though I'm sure there are a lot of interests in many
governments that don't want it revealed that space is actually very
easy. Put aside the problems of
home built satellites being a nightmare to police, and a threat to
important commercial and military ones. And, for that matter, put
aside that America has a history of stamping viciously on anything
that might threaten it's strategic power; in space or down here.'
did not capture the point in any one sentence, summing up that it
added up to the "conspiracy theory" of why we aren't taking
advantage of technology now and moving to space islands in our
lifetime.
But let me sum it up violently: in his examples, it adds up to this--
every single "step" we've taken technologically has ended up being a
nightmare of some form or other. SO LETS JUST CHILL, being the
national consensus. Let's talk about it, sure, since we got these
degrees that say we should, but let's not actually do it or
entertain serious, sustained debate.
Doesn't that about sum up John's point?
Well, I'd like to examine it. Let's say he's right and that's the
mindset. We might call it lethargy. My son and I had the same
argument about a different epoch. He's a computer engineer living
the good life. But he's still a rebel, of course, and on the issue
of either aliens or Indians--native Americans--he's religiously
rebellious, as in, the conquest of Mexico was wrong, it shouldn't
have happened. Why? The Indians had a right to their own culture. I
asked him a more specific question: if you were a hunter-gatherer in
Europe, would you have chosen to begin to move to food production--
agriculture, animal domestication--as some hunter-gatherers did, or
would you choose to remain a hunter-gather, with actually more food
and more free time (Jared Diamond says), but none of the technology
that food production made possible?
But he hasn't written me back on his Blackberry, from the seat of
his high speed train going home from his high rise building. He
knows he'd have to see Apocoolypto, then, which his crowd has
boycotted because it's too "racist." That is, it shows a group of
people rejecting a 'lower' level of culture for a 'higher' one.
Oh, now's the time we have to get into this discussion: what's
lower, what's higher? How can you say one culture is higher than
another, etc. etc. etc. Until we're exhausted, of course. We'll have
this discussion on the internet.
But see, interestingly enough for the purposes of this group, he
applies his same (nonsensical) liberalism to alien cultures, too. We
shouldn't find them, is what it boils down to--just to do what Jared
Diamond wished in Germs, Guns, and Steel about present day remnants
of hunter-gatherer societies, the "missionaries" and "universities"
should just please leave them alone. The precious things. We
shouldn't find them.
That's the hidden position of our whole society right now. We Stink.
I actually had someone say it out loud to me in a beauty shop where
I was sharing the plot of a science fiction novel. A woman said, but
would you actually want to take our rotten, horrible society and
infect some other part of the universe with it? That's the voters'
choice today. They get the NASA they want. If they wanted something
else, they'd get a different NASA.
We have to quit feeding the monster. In my opinion, which is
not "equal" to yours but is either right or wrong, just as two plus
two never does equal five: we have to forsake liberalism. We have to
see our society as worth taking somewhere, meaning we'll have to
make it a society worth taking somewhere, meaning that we have to
recognize the value of food production over hunter-gathering, along
with a whole host of other judgements, the value of certain
lifestyles over others, the value of some cultures over others. The
idea that all things are equal puts us to sleep. We must value some
things over others, and we've lost the sense of it, and hence have
lost our fire, our thirst, our love.
You know, they had the same problem before the conquest of the New
World. They had to interest people in it. But they had just those
few on-fire missionaries, that handful of saints (it makes your
blood boil to hear me say it, doesn't it--thus has liberalism done
to you, the very idea that they thought their faith was worth dying
for, and don't say, 'no, they thought it was worthy killing for,'
because it was Spain and France who wanted that, and the
missionaries who consistently defended the rights of native
americans not to be slaves against the government-look it up!).
They had that handful of saints who believed in what they were
taking to the New World. Where are our saints who believe in what we
are taking to the stars? Presently liberal engineers manage to drown
out any mention of "religion" and "space colony" in the same breath,
but I tell you, my spacenutty brothers, this maliase we are calling
conspiracy will not end until we have leadership that believes in
itself again, believes in the culture it is bringing.
I don't think we have to say, here on earth, which is "best." Let
the "best" win the race. Just admit there is a best. Admit that it
is not only okay to believe in something, that it is essential to
believe in something--hear me, I'm saying I don't care whether you
believe that hunter-gathers were really on to something, really
believe in it. We will just have to make it to space to have "room"
for all the fire. "Tolerance" just doesn't get it in the motivation
department, and in fact is just another name for increased suicide
rate, for a bitter negation of humanity's incredible beauty, for
lethargy. "Sexual freedom" isn't much better. We need beliefs in
meaty stuff, discipline, ardor, self-sacrifice--wow, that old-time
religion! (Line from Dylan: 'want my army be some real sons of
bitches/gonna recruit them from the old-time religions')
Yours in Christ, damn it,
Jan Baker
-- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
wrote:
>
> > From: Xenophile
> > Hhmmnn...
> > Well then, I guess the question is: what can you do with $160B
in the
> > way of High Frontier goals?
>
> Expand. Build lots more SSPSs to establish market domination and
bring down
> costs. Diversify and use your CATS for other uses. If you get
launch costs
> to GEO down to $1000/kg, $100B of that is still going to involve
getting it
> up there. There will be $20B-$30B profit there, and there will be
> significantly more during the second lifetime, but there will
still be those
> who say it's a bad idea. The $160B figure is based on selling to
Europe, and
> hence many in the US will dismiss it as a 'waste of time'. For true
> stability an American company would have to get costs down far
enough to
> sell domestically.
>
> > > I really don't understand why people obsess over the cost per
power
> > > output figures. It's largely meaningless. Surely what matters
more
> > > is cost per energy output. As in $$/kWh.
> >
> > I'm going to reveal my ignorance here (like that'll come as a
surprise
> > to anybody) and ask, "What's the difference?"
>
> One is a measure of how much a power station will cost to build.
The other
> is how much it will cost to make electricity there, which is
important as
> that figure tells you how competitive it is in the long run. It's
total cost
> divided by the total energy produced over the lifetime of the
facility.
> $1,000/kW for example tells you construction costs for a 10GW
facility will
> be $10B.
> $0.15/kWh tells you if something will or will not be competitive
in a market
> where the going rate is $0.07/kWh or $0.25/kWh.
>
> Or if you prefer, the other is car price, the other is car fuel
economy. A
> car which costs 10% more but uses half as much fuel might work out
cheaper
> in the long run. My gripe is that the first figure is often used
to 'prove'
> that a $10/kW coal power station will 'naturally' produce cheaper
> electricity than a $20/kW green station.
>
> > > SSPS win over nukes because they come with massive fringe
benifits,
> > > because they don't produce waste, and because they can be
easily
> > > recycled on an on going basis (the material doesn't have to be
> > > launched a *second* time) and hence can last effectively
forever.
> >
> > Hadn't thought of that, but yeah, I can't think of any reason
that
> > isn't right.
>
> Radiation would cause some transmutation of material, but I don't
see that
> significantly affecting material strength after it goes through
solar
> furnaces and it recast.
>
> > > It's a case of $100B in, $300B+ out.
> >
> > Which brings us back to the question: why isn't anybody doing it?
>
> To beat an old drum, it's all NASA's fault. (Or so I believe at
any rate.
> Them and Hollywood.) Their unmanned probes and satellites do good
work that
> is and rightly should be admired.
>
> But for thirty years they locked themselves into an 'launchers
might look
> like aeroplanes' mindset. In stamping down on all of the more
sensible
> designs (and with today's materials, anything that's *not* a space
plane is
> a more sensible design) they have conditioned lots of people into
thinking
> that capsules can only be small things suitable for reentry and
not much
> else. Other things like a blinkered obsession with SSTO, a
preferences for
> experimental designs which were demonstratably impossibly with
known
> material science (mostly so they could *try* and advance material
science)
> and political considerations, especially regarding their
workforce, hasn't
> helped. So I believe at any rate.
>
> Films and Video Games have sexy space planes, or awe inspiring
space
> elevator designs, and hence this is the way the public believes it
must be.
> People think Mars is a good idea because they're told it is, and
because
> they are not offered alternatives.
>
> > "the oil companies would never let you do it."
>
> I'm not sure I believe that. SSPS doesn't pose a threat to oil as
far as I
> can see. Even if we launched one tomorrow, planes and cars would
still run
> on the black stuff. That's pretty much their core market, and will
take a
> long time to change.
>
> Though I'm sure there are a lot of interests in many governments
that don't
> want it revealed that space is actually very easy. Put aside the
problems of
> home built satellites being a nightmare to police, and a threat to
important
> commercial and military ones. And, for that matter, put aside that
America
> has a history of stamping viciously on anything that might
threaten it's
> strategic power; in space or down here.
>
> Would you want North Korea to suddenly find out that all they can
build a
> missile that can hit any city in North America using wielded
steel, a small
> power plant, and a five year old laptop? They might not be the
most advanced
> nation in the world, but even they have access to 18th century
technology.
>
> In the 17th centaury the Catholic Church lost control of
much 'secret
> information' (like the actual contents of the bible) because
ordinary people
> discovered the power of the printing press. In the last few years
the
> internet has caused a similar loss of control over other
information that
> authorities would like to keep secret. Information like 'how to
easily kill
> an Abrams tank' or 'ten fun things to do with a hijacked 767'
or 'high
> schools are a target rich environment and no one there has the
power to stop
> you' or access to the ten thousand books written on the subject of
how to
> conduct the one kind of war that western armies cannot win.
>
> This is one conspiracy theory why the western world might want
space to be
> seen as difficult, complex, and expensive.
>
> John
>
to use" The Wall Street Journal
# 9880 byrah@... on April 26, 2007, 9 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
At 1:02 AM +0000 4/25/07, Xenophile wrote:
>they did a show on solar power.
I got curious enough about this to torrent it down, and I just finished
watching it.
It wasn't about solar power. It was about solar power politics, mostly.
Subsidizing substandard technology "until the technology matures",
hysterical hortatorations about hypothetical hotness, and all that rot.
And, while we're at it, let's paint a halo round the head of every picture
of His Jimmy-ness, not to mention One More Recitation of the Gospel
According to Saint Avory, speaking of iguanas, and "lizarding".
Sheesh.
"The stoical scheme of supplying our wants by lopping off our
desires is like cutting off our feet when we want shoes."
-- Jonathan Swift
BTW, notice that they did talk about the only *working* solar technology,
viz, the boil-the-oil plant that's been chugging away in Nevada somewhere.
Speaking of which, and dragging the the topic of this micro-rant back to
space settlement, it was my understanding that Glaser, O'Neill, et al.,
were mostly talking about boiling stuff with mirrors for electricity
anyway, weren't they?
Finally, I think that whatever power that's generated in space will be used
up there, because it'll be too wasteful to send it downstairs. After all,
you can *build* stuff up there with it. Or extract stuff, or grow stuff, or
whatever.
Cheers,
RAH
--
R. A. Hettinga
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
# 9881 byxenophile2002@... on April 26, 2007, 9:12 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Great. Just great. We've now gone from powersats to "we must forsake
liberalism." Next we'll here about how, no, it's the conservatives
that screw everything up. Then we'll hear about how wonderful
everything would be if we didn't have government. Then we'll hear
that life just isn't possible without government.
of power beaming, or about whether or not a habitat should have
rotating mirrors with skylights or should bring the light in with
fiber optics (my own favored method).
Makes our discussion of AI look like the most on-topic words ever
typed anywhere. To tell you the truth, I have very strong political
opinions, about Bush, Clinton, feminism, pornography, and what
happened to the Indians/Amerinds/Native Americans. But you know what?
On this particular list I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANY OF THAT!
Bush is a saint.
Bush is the Anti-Christ.
Communists.
Socialists.
Libertarians.
Conservatives.
Liberals.
Democrats.
Republicans.
Greens.
I DON'T CARE!!
Can we talk about space?
# 9882 byjoe@... on April 26, 2007, 9:24 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
On Apr 26, 2007, at 21:11 UTC, Xenophile wrote:
> of power beaming, or about whether or not a habitat should have
> rotating mirrors with skylights or should bring the light in with
> fiber optics (my own favored method).
Don't forget option 3, which is to use artificial lights -- my favored
method in most cases, since I assume energy is abundant but heat
rejection is a nuisance.
Best,
- Joe
P.S. It's the conservatives who screw everything up. :)
Joe Strout -- joe@...
# 9883 bylrobinson54@... on April 27, 2007, 1:24 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
lrobinson54@... had a stroke March 12th and is still in a coma and will not be back on the computer for a long time. Please remove him from your list. Thank you
# 9884 bycsmyth@... on April 27, 2007, 2:21 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophile"
>
> Great. Just great. We've now gone from powersats to "we must forsake
> liberalism." Next we'll here about how, no, it's the conservatives
> that screw everything up. Then we'll hear about how wonderful
> everything would be if we didn't have government. Then we'll hear
> that life just isn't possible without government....
>
> Can we talk about space?
>
I'll second that motion
Chris
# 9885 bymikecombs@... on April 27, 2007, 1:32 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
From: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of R.A. Hettinga
to
> space settlement, it was my understanding that Glaser, O'Neill, et
al.,
> were mostly talking about boiling stuff with mirrors for electricity
> anyway, weren't they?
O'Neill spent plenty of time talking about PV, and making PV from lunar
materials. But I still have a letter from him where he commented that
if using space resources, system weight becomes less of an issue, and in
that case solar thermal might be a better choice. I always had the
impression he was open-minded to either approach.
> Finally, I think that whatever power that's generated in space will be
used
> up there, because it'll be too wasteful to send it downstairs. After
all,
> you can *build* stuff up there with it. Or extract stuff, or grow
stuff, or
> whatever.
I'm sure you're describing the biggest part of the economy of the
future. But in the present, every customer in existence lives on the
surface of the Earth. The attraction of SPS beaming to Earth is that
they're serving an existing market. Right now, there are no markets to
serve in space because nobody is yet living there. A massive SPS
construction program might well lead to that. But we have to get to
there from here.
Regards,
Mike Combs
# 9886 bydougmay@... on April 27, 2007, 5:01 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
I really don't know if solar-power satellites will work or not, and I'm not sure how to effectively test it without actually deploying one at enormous expense. My sense is that it will work better than the naysayers fear, but not as good as the ardent advocates suggest. The problem I have is that it seems we are relying on one unproven technology. In a sense, we are putting all our eggs in one unproven basket, and it is perfectly understandable that people are unwilling to invest billions (trillions?) in it.I think if we intend to pull in investment dollars to support colonization, we will need multiple demonstrated industries to draw people. SPS will require a large upfront investment, so that will be a difficult sell early on. Not that we shouldn't sell it, but other, smaller industries have to be emphasized as well.
What other ideas do we have for early industries that are reasonably affordable and can be used to create an economy in space? One of the keys to consider is that in order to create an economy, you need lots of people. Industries that can be performed primarily by robot will not generate large economies.
Douglas May
CWA Local 6215 - Steward
From: "Combs, Mike"
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 8:29:59 AM
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] On the PBS show "Nova" tonight...
From: spacesettlers@ yahoogroups. com
[mailto:spacesettlers@ yahoogroups. com] On Behalf Of R.A. Hettinga
> Speaking of which, and dragging the the topic of this micro-rant back
to
> space settlement, it was my understanding that Glaser, O'Neill, et
al.,
> were mostly talking about boiling stuff with mirrors for electricity
> anyway, weren't they?
O'Neill spent plenty of time talking about PV, and making PV from lunar
materials. But I still have a letter from him where he commented that
if using space resources, system weight becomes less of an issue, and in
that case solar thermal might be a better choice. I always had the
impression he was open-minded to either approach.
> Finally, I think that whatever power that's generated in space will be
used
> up there, because it'll be too wasteful to send it downstairs. After
all,
> you can *build* stuff up there with it. Or extract stuff, or grow
stuff, or
> whatever.
I'm sure you're describing the biggest part of the economy of the
future. But in the present, every customer in existence lives on the
surface of the Earth. The attraction of SPS beaming to Earth is that
they're serving an existing market. Right now, there are no markets to
serve in space because nobody is yet living there. A massive SPS
construction program might well lead to that. But we have to get to
there from here.
Regards,
Mike Combs
# 9887 bydante_feditech@... on April 27, 2007, 6:39 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
> From: DOUG MAY
> What other ideas do we have for early industries that are
> reasonably affordable and can be used to create an economy in
> space?
Hubble knock offs and sell telescope time. With a five year waiting period
for HST, there's definately a market here. If some of them can point down at
Earth without burning out their CCDs then Google might rent one full time to
fill in gaps in GoogleEarth. Enviromental groups and otehr too. NASA has
demonstrated semi-smart automated satellites. Reduce ground staff to a few
people per satellite and you should be able to make a profit.
Knick Knacks. Bring 10kg of asteroid rock back, cut it into a million
pieces, and sell them for $100 each. Sell the resulting dust at $200 per
milligram and claim it has medicinal properties. You never know. Someone
might fall for it. If you launch at $90M then you make...
Hypersonic flight test bed. At present sounding rockets are the only way to
reliably test things at mach 5-12. Of course we already know that *rockets*
work quite happily at these speeds, but few people are more willing to stick
their fingers in their ears than research scientists. This can be a side by
side market with space tourism.
Persoanlly I think the best market would be selling 'utility' reusable
launch vehicles the same way Boeing sells 747s. Many nations would buy
simply to keep up with the jones. Others would buy for R&D. Others would buy
for the utility of not being dependent on foreign powers for space access.
If the launch system doesn't cost much to run ($100M a year or so) many
groups would want one. At say $500M each that could bring in a lot of money.
Sell ten and that's $5B, twenty and that's $10B. How much are development
costs again?
John
# 9888 bycsmyth@... on April 28, 2007, 12:34 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "ANTIcarrot"
> > From: DOUG MAY
> > What other ideas do we have for early industries that are
> > reasonably affordable and can be used to create an economy in
> > space?
>
Dear ANTIcarrot,
Good ideas all. It seems to me that we're in somewhat the same
position as the deamers about air flight were in 1903. At that time I
expect most people thought flying in an airplane was a kind of weird
hobby for rich folks and eccentrics (like the Wright brothers). I
suspect most people, seeing the flimsy airplanes being built and
proposed (with their enemic motors)wondered what practical use these
flying things would ever be. More importantly, I'm sure only a
handful of people in the world at that time imagined that airplanes
could form the basis for any sort of meaningful business enterprise.
I truly believe that my grandchildren - or perhaps their
grandchildren - will live to see spaceports, that they'll go into
space on business trips routinely and take vacations in space. I
believe there will space, lunar, and Mars colonies engaged in
commerce the likes of which we cannot even imagine, because the
things they will be buying and selling haven't even been thought
about yet. I think we're like a 1903 midwest farmer trying to imagine
300 people flying at 450 MPH from New York to London talking on their
cell phones and surfing the internet on their laptop computers.
The thing tht worries me about this scenario is that most of the
miraculous technology we enjoy today is largely the product (directly
or indirectly) of two world wars and a decades long cold war. Human
conflict (or the threat of conflict) has a way of accelerating
technological progress. I hope our future generations don't have to
justify the the tremendous cost of developing space technologies by
arguing that the investment is the only way we can ensure our ability
to more efficiently devastate our enemies (whoever they may be at the
time).
Chris
# 9889 bysqorpo@... on April 28, 2007, 1:54 p.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
These are good points.. But I think also, Progress can come from
necessity as well.. We can look back to the 70s and the "Oil Crisis"
(here in the states)bringing about the Alaskan Pipeline (Which many
thought was impossible to build and maintain).. Or the 30s with the
"Depression" and the huge political changes that brought about a boom
in civil construction projects and industrial growth around the world..
"Energy Crisis" on a larger scale than ever before.. And if anyone
thinks that the U.S. is the only one thinking about the security of
their energy resources, they must be crazy.. China and India alone
will have energy needs soon, far exceeding anything known before..
Probably exceeding the whole rest of the world combined.. We're going
to need so much energy over the next 25 to 30 years, we better do
something or we'll all be fighting over the last few drops of oil..
--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Smyth" wrote:
# 9890 bysraj99@... on April 29, 2007, 4:43 a.m.
Member since 2021-10-03
Xenophile,
good for any list to deviate say 30% of the time into other issues. Makes
for more creativity.
Best
Selvaraj
On 27/04/07, Xenophile wrote: