I've heard two options for electicity - nuclear and solar panels.

What is it that the nuclear power must do that the solar manels don't
do?

Ideas, anyone?

George

Nuclear is much cheaper for high power output.

Nuclear requires far less space and mass on the craft.

Nuclear works when there is no light.

These are enough reasons to use nuclear power on many spacecraft.

There are other options for power, like Fuel Cells.

--- George Perkins wrote:

There are certain places where you can argue for nuclear, example the
moon. But all the places where I can think of where nuclear is
feasible are all niche areas where for one reason or another solar
power or beamed power is impractical.

Also don't get into the image of solar panels. They are not the best
method of producing electricity from solar power. They are just
preferred today for space applications because of their simplicity.

Bill

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "George Perkins" wrote:
>
> I've heard two options for electicity - nuclear and solar panels.
>
> What is it that the nuclear power must do that the solar manels
don't

I disagree with pretty much all of these answers.

> Nuclear is much cheaper for high power output.

Nuclear is cheaper than coal and oil in the long run maybe, but solar
power has a high initial cost and almost zero maintenance cost. Even
if you go with the rankine cycle system (generator) a solar oven is a
hell of a lot cheaper than a nuclear reactor.

In fact all the costs of a rankine cycle system would have to be part
of a nuclear solution.

>
> Nuclear requires far less space and mass on the craft.

A nuclear reactor, even a small one, will need a lot of shielding.
Solar needs none. As for space, why do you think this is a concern? Is
there a reason to believe the power system needs to be physically
enclosed?

>
> Nuclear works when there is no light.

The inner solar system is pretty much bathed in light. The few times a
ship would be in a shadow, it won't stay there long.

>
> These are enough reasons to use nuclear power on many spacecraft.

None of these reasons are enough to use nuclear power.

Bill

Right. I agree.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Bill" wrote:
>
> There are certain places where you can argue for nuclear, example
the

And, of course, don't over look practicality. Solar panels are just plain
worthless after a certain distance. Cassini, the Saturn probe, uses Nuclear
power - it has to.

James
From: George Perkins [mailto:spacework@...]
Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 4:44 AM
To: spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: How to make electricity.

Right. I agree.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Bill" wrote:
>
> There are certain places where you can argue for nuclear, example
the
> moon. But all the places where I can think of where nuclear is
> feasible are all niche areas where for one reason or another solar
> power or beamed power is impractical.
>
> Also don't get into the image of solar panels. They are not the best
> method of producing electricity from solar power. They are just
> preferred today for space applications because of their simplicity.
>
> Bill
>
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., "George Perkins" wrote:
> >
> > I've heard two options for electicity - nuclear and solar panels.
> >
> > What is it that the nuclear power must do that the solar manels
> don't
> > do?
> >
> > Ideas, anyone?
> >
> >
> >
> > George

James
From:
George Perkins [mailto:spacework@hotmail.com]
Sent:
Monday, August 13, 2001 4:44 AM
To:
spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com
Subject:
[spacesettlers] Re: How to make electricity.
Right. I agree.
--- In spacesettlers@y..., "Bill"
>
> There are certain places where you can argue for nuclear, example
the
> moon. But all the places where I can think of where nuclear is
> feasible are all niche areas where for one reason or another solar
> power or beamed power is impractical.
>
> Also don't get into the image of solar panels. They are not the best
> method of producing electricity from solar power. They are just
> preferred today for space applications because of their simplicity.
>
> Bill
>
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., "George Perkins"
>
> > I've heard two options for electicity - nuclear and solar panels.
> >
> > What is it that the nuclear power must do that the solar manels
> don't
> > do?
>
> > Ideas, anyone?
> >
> > George
.

Thanks for pointing that out, James.

The thing is, this is not allowed to non-government pioneers unless
we can get permission from the governments concerned. This would be
difficult because we're talking about nuclear material.

Now we can get this stuff (Uranium) at your local iron-rich asteroid,
but we're still under earth's watch (or should be).

We could cast an asteroid down on earth and harvest Uranium for our
own military usage. I think earth's military (in most cases) knows
this. They would want to monitor us. I say let them monitor us then
nuclear power becomes a quicker reality because they can see what
we're doing.

Meanwhile, we need transportation to get up there and it ainta gonna
be nuclear except in the back seat of a gov-bus.

George

Help build a city in space.
http://cygo.com/

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Jim Jones wrote:
> And, of course, don't over look practicality. Solar panels are just
plain
> worthless after a certain distance. Cassini, the Saturn probe, uses
Nuclear
> power - it has to.
>
> James
> From: George Perkins [mailto:spacework@h...]
> Sent: Monday, August 13, 2001 4:44 AM
> To: spacesettlers@y...
> Subject: [spacesettlers] Re: How to make electricity.
>
> Right. I agree.
>
> --- In spacesettlers@y..., "Bill" wrote:
> >
> > There are certain places where you can argue for nuclear,
example
> the
> > moon. But all the places where I can think of where nuclear is
> > feasible are all niche areas where for one reason or another
solar
> > power or beamed power is impractical.
> >
> > Also don't get into the image of solar panels. They are not the
best
> > method of producing electricity from solar power. They are just
> > preferred today for space applications because of their
simplicity.
> >
> > Bill
> >
> > --- In spacesettlers@y..., "George Perkins"
> > >
> > > I've heard two options for electicity - nuclear and solar
panels.
> > >
> > > What is it that the nuclear power must do that the solar
manels
> > don't
> > > do?
> > >
> > > Ideas, anyone?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > George
>
Service.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., "George Perkins" wrote:
> [snip] We could cast an asteroid down on earth and harvest Uranium
for our own military usage. [snip]

Once we start tossing asteroids around, nuclear weapons become rather
moot. :-)

++JohnWheeler

I just can't see any reason during the next 100 years or so for going out
beyond 1.9 AU from the Sun, and solar energy will work just fine out to
that distance. There are an estimated 200,000 NEOs with diameters larger
than 100m, and there are millions of asteroids in the first big clump of of
the Main Belt (the Hungarias, at average distance 1.9 AU). I just can't
think of compelling reasons why civilization will really need to go beyond
that in the next 100 years with sooooooo much easily available resources
within 1.9 AU of the Sun.

(Nuclear is nice if you can get it --- I'm not anti-nuke. But we can
successfully develop space without nuclear energy if that option is not
available for political reasons.)

Ron Menich

Jim Jones
net> cc:
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: How to make electricity.
08/13/01 10:33
AM
Please respond
to
spacesettlers

And, of course, don't over look practicality. Solar panels are just plain
worthless after a certain distance. Cassini, the Saturn probe, uses Nuclear
power - it has to.

James