I'm still chuckling over this article. I swear, I didn't cook this
up. They actually wrote it.

http://solstice.crest.org/articles/static/1/995469913_2.html#types

Why don't we build a solar plant on the moon and beam the energy
back to Earth?

We don't do this for the same reason we don't cover North Dakota
with wind turbines to supply the whole country with electricity;
transmission costs. Disregarding the insanely expensive cost of
building a solar plant on the moon, transmitting this energy back
would be technically impossible. In addition, with the rotation of
the moon and the earth as they are, the transmission cables would
quickly become terribly tangled.

"Beaming" electricity is not quite the same as beaming Scotty up to
the Enterprise. Electricity travels along transmission cables that
are inefficient and very expensive: high voltage cables can cost
thousands of dollars per mile. [42] If we could devise a way to
efficiently "beam" electricity without transmission cables, we would
be utilizing this technology first to connect earthbound power
plants with various earthbound consumers.

Perhaps a better idea would be to build solar plants on the earth
and then just keep the energy here. It is true that the sunlight on
the moon's surface can be more intense than on the earth's surface,
due to its lack of atmosphere, but this greater intensity does not
justify the R&D effort that would be required to pursue extra-
terrestrial capture of solar energy for use on earth. Furthermore
since most industrialized countries experience power losses of about
10% between the generating plant and the customer, which is only at
most in the hundreds of kilometers, there is no way the energy would
be still coursing through the transmission cables after the 384,400
kilometers it would have to travel from the moon to the earth. [43]
[44]

--- victoriatangoman wrote:
> I'm still chuckling over this article. I swear, I didn't cook this
> up. They actually wrote it.
>
> http://solstice.crest.org/articles/static/1/995469913_2.html#types
>
> Why don't we build a solar plant on the moon and beam the energy
> back to Earth?

Completely stupid. There is absolutely no point in beaming the energy from the
moon to the earth when we can beam it from GEO to the earth and get around
those pesky rotation problems whilst also having to beam it a shorter distance.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ryan Healey wrote:
>
> --- victoriatangoman wrote:
> > I'm still chuckling over this article. I swear, I didn't cook
this
> > up. They actually wrote it.
> >
http://solstice.crest.org/articles/static/1/995469913_2.html#types
> >
> > Why don't we build a solar plant on the moon and beam the energy
> > back to Earth?
>
> Completely stupid. There is absolutely no point in beaming the
energy from the
> moon to the earth when we can beam it from GEO to the earth and
get around
> those pesky rotation problems whilst also having to beam it a
shorter distance.
>

True. But I thought the funny part was advocating transmission wires
from the moon to the earth.

I don't buy into Criswell's theory that the moon is the ideal
location for solar farms. Glaser's SPS solution is more elegant and
they way to go, but only without transmission wires from the SPS's
to the earth :)

I don't think the wires would be strong enough if you did try high tension
wires whether it's from GEO to earth or the Moon to earth.

--- victoriatangoman wrote:

I don't think the wires would be strong enough if you did try high tension
wires whether it's from GEO to earth or the Moon to earth.

--- victoriatangoman wrote:

Ryan Healey wrote:

> I don't think the wires would be strong enough if you did try high tension
> wires whether it's from GEO to earth or the Moon to earth.

That would be similar to a space elevator. Actually wires could
do it, but they'd need to be many miles thick in the middle to
avoid snapping. The cost would be astronomical though.

> --- victoriatangoman wrote:
>
>>True. But I thought the funny part was advocating transmission wires
>>from the moon to the earth.
>>
>>I don't buy into Criswell's theory that the moon is the ideal
>>location for solar farms. Glaser's SPS solution is more elegant and
>>they way to go, but only without transmission wires from the SPS's
>>to the earth :)
>>
>

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding
technological civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill

Probably require more mass then the earth. Plus you have the problem of
resistance.

--- Ian Woollard wrote:

Come on guys. I posted this thread to illustrate a website that is
absurdly bound by conventional thinking, not as a serious topic of
discussion. Doesn't anybody else find it funny? How come no one has
come through with a suggestion on where we would place the
transmission towers in space? After all they'd be floating and not
securely anchored. That would bring too much sway into the
transmission wires scenario.

--- In spacesettlers@y..., Ryan Healey wrote:
> Probably require more mass then the earth. Plus you have the
problem of
> resistance.
>
> --- Ian Woollard wrote:
> > Ryan Healey wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think the wires would be strong enough if you did try
high tension

From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]

I don't buy into Criswell's theory that the moon is the ideal
location for solar farms. Glaser's SPS solution is more elegant and
the way to go,

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who feels that way. Criswell became
aware of some critical comments I made about LSP in my Space Settlement FAQ
and contacted me about it. He was kind enough to send me a big pile of his
published papers on the topic. I saw all kinds of comparisons with
Earth-launched SPS and ground-based solar power, but never the comparison I
was looking for: with Gerard O'Neill's GEO SPS from lunar resources
proposal. Nonetheless, I did go back to my FAQ and made a couple of
modifications to make it slightly more supportive of LSP.

I always felt that Criswell's proposal was a solution to the wrong problem.
If there was some tremendous difficulty with lifting lunar resources from
the surface into high orbits around the Earth, I might could see us going
the Criswell route and just eating the technical difficulties of inconstant
sunlight. But I think O'Neill demonstrated that lifting lunar resources
will be relatively easy. It's getting off the Earth in the first place
that's the hard part in need of solution.

but only without transmission wires from the SPS's
to the earth :)

Unless said wires are also strong enough to support an elevator or two. :)

My wife is only somewhat knowledgeable about space development due to
occasional difficulties in getting me to shut up. At the dinner table last
night, I shared with her that website's comments about the moon-Earth cables
getting tangled up. She went, "Ooohh....kayyyyy....". So we can take
comfort that even a person not particularly into space development can
recognize a ridiculous argument when they see it.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]
I don't buy into Criswell's theory that the moon is the ideal
location for solar farms. Glaser's SPS solution is more elegant and
the way to go,

I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who feels that way. Criswell became aware of some critical comments I made about LSP in my Space Settlement FAQ and contacted me about it. He was kind enough to send me a big pile of his published papers on the topic. I saw all kinds of comparisons with Earth-launched SPS and ground-based solar power, but never the comparison I was looking for: with Gerard O'Neill's GEO SPS from lunar resources proposal. Nonetheless, I did go back to my FAQ and made a couple of modifications to make it slightly more supportive of LSP.

I always felt that Criswell's proposal was a solution to the wrong problem. If there was some tremendous difficulty with lifting lunar resources from the surface into high orbits around the Earth, I might could see us going the Criswell route and just eating the technical difficulties of inconstant sunlight. But I think O'Neill demonstrated that lifting lunar resources will be relatively easy. It's getting off the Earth in the first place that's the hard part in need of solution.

but only without transmission wires from the SPS's
to the earth :)

Unless said wires are also strong enough to support an elevator or two. :)

My wife is only somewhat knowledgeable about space development due to occasional difficulties in getting me to shut up.
At the dinner table last night, I shared with her that website's comments about the moon-Earth cables getting tangled up. She went, "Ooohh....kayyyyy....". So we can take comfort that even a person not particularly into space development can recognize a ridiculous argument when they see it.
Regards,
Mike Combs

Mike Combs wrote,

"Unless said wires are also strong enough to support an elevator or two. :)"

That's quite a vision. I usually don't like speculating about things that
far in the future, but it is an appealing thought to think of riding up
the elevator towards a huge complex "anchored" at GEO. As the elevator
climbs, we begin to see the vast solar panels stretching out above us...

Ron
*****

"Combs, Mike"
02/12/02 08:52 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: "'spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com'"
cc:
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Transmission wires from the Moon to Earth -
Believe it ! ! ! !

From: victoriatangoman [mailto:tango_dancer@...]

I don't buy into Criswell's theory that the moon is the ideal
location for solar farms. Glaser's SPS solution is more elegant and
the way to go,
I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one who feels that way. Criswell became
aware of some critical comments I made about LSP in my Space Settlement
FAQ and contacted me about it. He was kind enough to send me a big pile
of his published papers on the topic. I saw all kinds of comparisons with
Earth-launched SPS and ground-based solar power, but never the comparison
I was looking for: with Gerard O'Neill's GEO SPS from lunar resources
proposal. Nonetheless, I did go back to my FAQ and made a couple of
modifications to make it slightly more supportive of LSP.

I always felt that Criswell's proposal was a solution to the wrong
problem. If there was some tremendous difficulty with lifting lunar
resources from the surface into high orbits around the Earth, I might
could see us going the Criswell route and just eating the technical
difficulties of inconstant sunlight. But I think O'Neill demonstrated
that lifting lunar resources will be relatively easy. It's getting off
the Earth in the first place that's the hard part in need of solution.
but only without transmission wires from the SPS's
to the earth :)
Unless said wires are also strong enough to support an elevator or two. :)

My wife is only somewhat knowledgeable about space development due to
occasional difficulties in getting me to shut up. At the dinner table
last night, I shared with her that website's comments about the moon-Earth
cables getting tangled up. She went, "Ooohh....kayyyyy....". So we can
take comfort that even a person not particularly into space development
can recognize a ridiculous argument when they see it.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From: rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]

Mike Combs wrote,

"Unless said wires are also strong enough to support an elevator or two. :)"

That's quite a vision. I usually don't like speculating about things that
far in the future, but it is an appealing thought to think of riding up
the elevator towards a huge complex "anchored" at GEO. As the elevator
climbs, we begin to see the vast solar panels stretching out above us...

Yes, I too can't view orbital elevators as anything other than in a very
distant future indeed.

When I'm arguing with Mars settlement advocates, I usually bring out the
gravity well argument. Sometimes they come back with, "So what, after we
built the orbital elevator up from Mars, the gravity well of Mars will no
longer be of consequence". I must grant that such an elevator would be an
easier proposition for Mars than for Earth (which is a shame, since getting
off the Earth is problem number one), but I still can't see elevators to
orbit in as near-term a future as human settlements in orbit. At least I
can argue that the latter can happen within the limits of current
engineering materials.

Regards,

Mike Combs

From:
rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]
Mike Combs wrote,
"Unless said wires are also strong enough to support an elevator or two. :)"
That's quite a vision. I usually don't like speculating about things that
far in the future, but it is an appealing thought to think of riding up
the elevator towards a huge complex "anchored" at GEO. As the elevator
climbs, we begin to see the vast solar panels stretching out above us...
Yes, I too can't view orbital elevators as anything other than in a very distant future indeed.

When I'm arguing with Mars settlement advocates, I usually bring out the gravity well argument. Sometimes they come back with, "So what, after we built the orbital elevator up from Mars, the gravity well of Mars will no longer be of consequence". I must grant that such an elevator would be an easier proposition for Mars than for Earth (which is a shame, since getting off the Earth is problem number one), but I still can't see elevators to orbit in as near-term a future as human settlements in orbit. At least I can argue that the latter can happen within the limits of current engineering materials.

Regards,
Mike Combs

I agree wholeheartedly.

Ron
******

"Combs, Mike"
02/12/02 09:19 AM
Please respond to spacesettlers

To: "'spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com'"
cc:
Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Transmission wires from the Moon to Earth -
Believe it ! ! ! !

From: rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]

Mike Combs wrote,

"Unless said wires are also strong enough to support an elevator or two.
:)"

That's quite a vision. I usually don't like speculating about things that

far in the future, but it is an appealing thought to think of riding up
the elevator towards a huge complex "anchored" at GEO. As the elevator
climbs, we begin to see the vast solar panels stretching out above us...
Yes, I too can't view orbital elevators as anything other than in a very
distant future indeed.

When I'm arguing with Mars settlement advocates, I usually bring out the
gravity well argument. Sometimes they come back with, "So what, after we
built the orbital elevator up from Mars, the gravity well of Mars will no
longer be of consequence". I must grant that such an elevator would be an
easier proposition for Mars than for Earth (which is a shame, since
getting off the Earth is problem number one), but I still can't see
elevators to orbit in as near-term a future as human settlements in orbit.
At least I can argue that the latter can happen within the limits of
current engineering materials.

Regards,

Mike Combs

Current materials may be closer than you think.

The needed strength for an elevator is 62.5 Gpa
for a 20 tonne elevator.

- The theoretical strength of nanotubes is 130 Gpa.
- The current strongest single fiber is 63 Gpa.
- The current strongest rope is 6 Gpa.

However, splicing typically only loses 20%; so we may
soon be seeing 50+ Gpa ropes. This is pretty close;
only 30% extra strength might be enough.

The breakthrough could be next week, next year or next
century, or never. But it's very close.

Cost does not seem to be a big issue- space is so expensive
right now that almost any alternative could probably
be funded.

rmenich@... wrote:

> I agree wholeheartedly.
>
> Ron
> ******
>
> "Combs, Mike"
> 02/12/02 09:19 AM
> Please respond to spacesettlers
>
> To: "'spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com'"
> cc:
> Subject: RE: [spacesettlers] Re: Transmission wires from the Moon to Earth -
> Believe it ! ! ! !
>
> From: rmenich@... [mailto:rmenich@...]
>
> Mike Combs wrote,
>
> "Unless said wires are also strong enough to support an elevator or two.
> :)"
>
> That's quite a vision. I usually don't like speculating about things that
>
> far in the future, but it is an appealing thought to think of riding up
> the elevator towards a huge complex "anchored" at GEO. As the elevator
> climbs, we begin to see the vast solar panels stretching out above us...
> Yes, I too can't view orbital elevators as anything other than in a very
> distant future indeed.
>
> When I'm arguing with Mars settlement advocates, I usually bring out the
> gravity well argument. Sometimes they come back with, "So what, after we
> built the orbital elevator up from Mars, the gravity well of Mars will no
> longer be of consequence". I must grant that such an elevator would be an
> easier proposition for Mars than for Earth (which is a shame, since
> getting off the Earth is problem number one), but I still can't see
> elevators to orbit in as near-term a future as human settlements in orbit.
> At least I can argue that the latter can happen within the limits of
> current engineering materials.
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
>

--
- Ian Woollard (ian.woollard@...)

"Is a planetary surface the right place for an expanding
technological civilization?"
- Gerard O'Neill