> Perhaps limiting the funds spent within govt can start us down that
> road -- and with our donkeys all pointed in one direction, hopefully
> the right one.
money through private contractors -- is that currently, the results
developed by private contractors using public dollars are generally not
made available for free to the public and as a taxpayer I think this is
wrong (i.e. patents and copyrights are kept proprietary and need to be
paid for again by the public that paid to have them developed). Also the
culture of such contractors is often so short term coupled with insecure
positions that the only people in the system doing the long term
thinking or feeling secure enough to take risks are the government
staffers. Now, granted, security may also mean the staffer don't take
risks, as why bother (unless you really care about an issue)? So it's
not an easy problem. The bottom line is, the people doing the work need
to care -- they need the passion.
NASA also has a big problem in that people like me who might have worked
their butts off 24X7 to build space settlements (or might have before
having a kid, now it would be 8X5 :-) are discouraged by the
bureaucracy, low pay for locations in high cost of living areas, hiring
freezes, scientific or Mars focus instead of space habitat focus, horror
stories about the culture there, the need for a PhD, and so on. NASA
might have a great jump in productivity if it employed people via
telecommuting, so they could live where $50K a year might be a great
salary, not where it would probably mean an hour+ commute each way at
best. And working for NASA you are at risk your work will be
"privatized" and NASA won't even let you release it to the public!
I look at the NASA Jobs site periodically, and as far as space
settlement goes, for jobs for R&D in self-replicating technology, for
advanced information management systems for collaborative design tools,
or work designing space settlements, there just aren't any ever listed.
There are a few catchall ones sometimes (computer scientist) but even
the people I know of working at NASA having an interest in space
settlement (e.g. Al Globus) it sounds like the justification to NASA has
to be either education or just as a sideline to other "real" work they
do in "science" type things. Can you imagine the people running
Cassini-Huygens having to do it on the side after they do their daily
research on rocket propellants or whatever, or having to justify the
budget for Hubble as an educational toy for seventh graders? So why
aren't there 1000 peopel at NASA working directly on Space Settlement?
The thing is, despite what NASA policy says, they really aren't very
serious about space settlement from what I see; the space scientists get
the bucks and NASA has little interest following up their groundbreaking
research like:
"Advanced Automation for Space Missions"
http://www.islandone.org/MMSG/aasm/
such as their first cut there with studying a self-replicating machine
shop. It doesn't help that the Shuttle and the Space Station eat up all
the dollars left after space science. I can see why Gerry O'Neill
thought he needed SSI to do space settlement research as an alternative
to NASA in the 1980s -- and the culture doesn't seem to have changed.
Ultimately, I think the solution lies more along these lines:
http://www.deoxy.org/endwork.htm
when people do things because the believe them to be important (so in a
sense as a volunteer), rather than because they are paid to do them as
"work". But that is a whole change to our society. Because it is so
subjective to evaluate most aspects of most big projects, almost all
intellectual labor is volunteer anyway to a large extent because the
output quality is so variable, even if you get paid for it. Just imagine
the space shuttle -- yes it can blow up or not, but aside from that, how
does one evaluate if the designer of some locker door really made as big
an effort as they could have to make it excellent as opposed to
marginally functional? And why does the evaluator even bother themselves
to do a good job evaluating? So it's all volunteer in that sense. I can
plug my related SSI paper on space settlement volunteerism:
http://www.kurtz-fernhout.com/oscomak/SSI_Fernhout2001_web.html
but I'll admit that it would be a lot easier to get people to
"volunteer" on those sorts of collaborative space settlement projects if
they were paid NASA employees with their full-time job being "space
settlement R&D". :-)
In fact, studies have show financial motivation may actually have a
negative impact on creativity (acknowledging we all need a baseline
income from some source in today's economy in order to survive to be
creative).
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html
"In the laboratory, rats get Rice Krispies. In the classroom the top
students get A's, and in the factory or office the best workers get
raises. It's an article of faith for most of us that rewards promote
better performance. But a growing body of research suggests that this
law is not nearly as ironclad as was once thought. Psychologists have
been finding that rewards can lower performance levels, especially when
the performance involves creativity. A related series of studies shows
that intrinsic interest in a task - the sense that something is worth
doing for its own sake - typically declines when someone is rewarded for
doing it. If a reward - money, awards, praise, or winning a contest -
comes to be seen as the reason one is engaging in an activity, that
activity will be viewed as less enjoyable in its own right. With the
exception of some behaviorists who doubt the very existence of intrinsic
motivation, these conclusions are now widely accepted among
psychologists. Taken together, they suggest we may unwittingly be
squelching interest and discouraging innovation among workers, students
and artists."
What was different about the spirit of the Apollo project that everyone
made it work and no one wanted their part to be the one that failed? How
do we get that back at NASA in the area of Space Settlement?
--Paul Fernhout
Paul Fernhout wrote: What was different about the spirit of the Apollo project that everyone
made it work and no one wanted their part to be the one that failed? How
do we get that back at NASA in the area of Space Settlement?
Having been there from beginning to end, I would say the difference was: 1. Commitment and leadership. All levels 2. Well defined goals. 3. Challenge -- never done before -- told we could not!. 4. Political competition withSoviets. National patriotism at stake and all -- that was very very real. 5. Could notwait to get to work! Cannot get that commitment from NASA today -- no way -- forget it. I think a total commitment from the White House and Congress is a must -- chances -- slim and none seem optimistic. I believe it will take a dramatic event: perhaps Nationwide power rationing -- the country responds to emergencies. Perhaps when the Chinese, Japanese or Russians land and begin colonizing the moon. The discretionary funds of energyand power companies far exceed the govt discretionary funds. How do we motivate them and our (friends) in Washington? As we all know , Solar Power is nearly unlimited and non-polluting. The moon is a good place to generate it. A commitment by a foreign entity to land on or power the moon might galvanize us. Current NASA is, however, incapable of such a program. I think it improbable that Space Power will be developed by the U.S.. GARY
> As we all know , Solar Power is nearly unlimited and
> non-polluting. The moon is a good place to generate it.
bad.
Most of the moon only gets sunlight fourteen days a month. Having your
generator go down for two weeks at a time is a BAD thing.
The poles (the only place that gets sun 28 days a month) would require putting
your solar collectors up on big masts to get decent insolation. As such, the
area you could cover would be limited and expensive.
Beaming the power back to Earth from the moon would be much more difficult
than if the solar power was closer.
The moon's gravity well is shallow and small. The moon is MUCH better used as
a source of raw materials than it is a site for sunlight. The moon's best
use, is as a mine. Any solar power generated there will be for the mine's
use.
The best place to put a solar satellite is in EARTH orbit, as near to polar as
required to make sure that it receives sunlight all the time. This, however,
would require building multiple receivers on Earth; the first solar satellites
would probably be in a geosynchronous orbit so that it could maintain station
over its dedicated receiver.
> As we all know , Solar Power is nearly unlimited and
> non-polluting. The moon is a good place to generate it.
Fred Responded:
Most of the moon is a terrible place to generate it. Small parts are merely
bad.
generator go down for two weeks at a time is a BAD thing. Gary S --Fred; All the materials to construct solar systems except for perhaps the final high efficiency thin solar film coating exist on the moon. With automated and self replicating equipment (nano mfg.?) producing the system and transmitting systems I don't think any other approach can compete cost wise -- fab or maintenance. Placement of the transmittersnearthe moon horizon (as seen from earth) and collection systems each side of the horizon provides constant power except for a very brief monthly down time (Earth shadow passing by). Use the moon local resources --on the moon. This approach requires relatively (compared to other systems) little earth launched payloads once the seed systems are in place -- and a relatively few man visits. Eventually, enough power can be generated to meet all of earth's needs. Combine it with a manned colony if desired? Respectively, Gary S.
while I agree that solar power is a goood alternative
for clean systems if it could be developed to uyilize
in a more efficient way the resulting sun rays, the
way it is presented is still as a centralised system,
like most of the existing energy genaratuion
centralized systems needs distribution, lose effciency
in the distance, create pollution and needs land ,
cause urban blight and many other negative side
effects
the future is towards a decentralized reusable energy
system.
This menas that every energy needed item should be
capable to generate locally its own energy, if
possible through renewable sources
solar , wind, temperature variation could be some of
the sources
the technology is still not there but i will not be
amazed if some years down the road each of us will
carry on our clothing some energy generating source to
power our cell phones or other portable devices we may
need
for space the same reasoning
local power generation system avoiding the big
centralized ones
you use what you need when you need
where you need
what we need?
the necessary technology--- glbriley
> > As we all know , Solar Power is nearly unlimited and
> > non-polluting. The moon is a good place to generate it.
>
> Fred Responded:
> Most of the moon is a terrible place to generate it. Small parts are merely
> bad.
>
> Most of the moon only gets sunlight fourteen days a month. Having your
> generator go down for two weeks at a time is a BAD thing.
>
> Gary S --Fred;
> All the materials to construct solar systems except for perhaps the final
> high efficiency thin solar film coating exist on the moon. With automated
> and self replicating equipment (nano mfg.?) producing the system and
> transmitting systems I don't think any other approach can compete cost wise
> -- fab or maintenance. Placement of the transmitters near the moon horizon
> (as seen from earth) and collection systems each side of the horizon
> provides constant power except for a very brief monthly down time (Earth
> shadow passing by).
sunlight followed by 14 days of darkness every month. The exceptions are the
poles.
Still don't believe me? Do a little thought experiment. Pick a spot on the
moon... let's say, Tycho crater. Imagine what the moon will look like for the
next 28 days. New moon/waxing crescent/half moon/waxing gibbous/full
moon/waning gibbous/half moon/waning crescent/new moon - Tycho crater (since
it's nearly smack in the middle) will be in sunlight from half moon to half
moon... half the time. The rest of the time, it's in shadow. Or pick a
location on one of the limbs... it'll be in sunlight from full moon to new
moon, or vice versa.
> Use the moon local resources --on the moon.
I'm not arguing this point at all. Using moon materials for building is
definitely the way to go. But the moon's gravity well is *so* shallow, you're
better off putting your solar collectors in orbit.
sunlight followed by 14 days of darkness every month. The exceptions are the
poles. No, he's not denying this. He's just saying that two power plants on the moon for every one in GEO is no big deal. As do seemingly all LPS advocates.
Mike Combs
> This menas that every energy needed item should be
> capable to generate locally its own energy, if
> possible through renewable sources
> solar , wind, temperature variation could be some of
> the sources
> the technology is still not there but i will not be
> amazed if some years down the road each of us will
> carry on our clothing some energy generating source...
translates to "economie di massa" but I have no idea if that makes any sense.
Pretty much any technology that is efficient at the small scale is more
efficient at a larger scale, certain chemical processes aside.
And Giorgio, you DO carry around an electrical generation source. The
batteries that power your cell phone generate electricity, in a conversion
from chemical energy.
>
> Check your astronomy again. Most of the Moon's surface receives
> 14 days of
> sunlight followed by 14 days of darkness every month. The
> exceptions are the
> poles.
>
> No, he's not denying this. He's just saying that two power plants on
> the moon for every one in GEO is no big deal. As do seemingly all LPS
> advocates.
ignorance.
Another thing to consider is that because the lunar system is rotating with
respect to the sun, it doesn't receive 100% insolation the entire "day"...
most of the time, the sunlight is striking it at an angle and therefore is
less efficient. Hm... a little napkin calculation says that the efficiency of
a fixed lunar solar power station will be something like 30% of that of an
orbital SPS. Given that a SPS can track the sun with almost no moving parts,
whereas every collector element in an LPS will need some kind of motor to do
that, a movable lunar-surface solar power system would be a lot more
troublesome to operate.
respect to the sun, it doesn't receive 100% insolation the entire "day"...
most of the time, the sunlight is striking it at an angle and therefore is
less efficient. Hm... a little napkin calculation says that the efficiency of
a fixed lunar solar power station will be something like 30% of that of an
orbital SPS. Given that a SPS can track the sun with almost no moving parts,
whereas every collector element in an LPS will need some kind of motor to do
that, a movable lunar-surface solar power system would be a lot more
troublesome to operate. And in fact the Criswell design embraces the simplicity of fixed arrays flat to the surface, and simply eats the loss of efficiency. But as you correctly point out, an orbital array can have the best of both worlds.
Mike Combs
fred
i want to make you a small example of waht i am
talking about
today, in the traditional way, to power a house for,
say 100W, you need a distant power plant, maybe
powered by a dam and turbines or nuclear, miles of
power lines dotting the territory, substation to
transform the power, lines to your house.
An entire costly and unnecesssary infrastructure for
your 100W if you could produce it locally, from free,
clean and renewable sources like sun , wind or
whatever more technology will propose.
This is the entire concept o f decentralisation
and right i carry my battery in my cell phone.
But is still a battery that I must recharge each day
i am talking about a personal power generating system
from renewable sources that walks with you
is very differnt than to carry a battery
Don't you think is better, cheaper and wth greater
benefits for all of us?
> capable to generate locally its own energy, if
> possible through renewable sources
> solar , wind, temperature variation could be some of
> the sources
> the technology is still not there but i will not be
> amazed if some years down the road each of us will
> carry on our clothing some energy generating
source...
Giorgio, please look up the concept "economies of
scale". Babelfish says it
translates to "economie di massa" but I have no idea
if that makes any sense.
Pretty much any technology that is efficient at the
small scale is more
efficient at a larger scale, certain chemical
processes aside.
And Giorgio, you DO carry around an electrical
generation source. The
batteries that power your cell phone generate
electricity, in a conversion
from chemical energy.
protection around
Fred Wrote: No wonder I didn't understand his point; I was assuming a reasonable level of
ignorance. This ignorant fool is trying to keep options open as technologies develop. We cannot say at this juncture which technologies, most probably unknown today,as they develop will favor what approach or system. I am well aware of space based systems and they probably will, ultimately prevail. If the past has told me any thing it is -- keep your mind and options open. A dumb idea today might, with something new available, prove to be brilliant tomorrow. I suppose it is reassuring to be so absolutely so sure of your position that it is a certainty that it will prevail, that nothing else can be considered. Gary S.
Fred Wrote: Check your astronomy again. Most of the Moon's surface receives 14 days of
sunlight followed by 14 days of darkness every month. The exceptions are the
poles. Read my post again Fred. Each transmitter views the earth all the time. Each Transmitter has two Solar arrays, placed so that one of them is always lit by the sun. Gary S.
> Fred Wrote:
>
> Check your astronomy again. Most of the Moon's surface receives 14 days of
> sunlight followed by 14 days of darkness every month. The exceptions are
> the
> poles.
>
> Read my post again Fred. Each transmitter views the earth all the time.
> Each Transmitter has two Solar arrays, placed so that one of them is always
> lit by the sun.
sun, is to place them on opposite sides of the moon. How does the power get
from the arrays to the transmitter?
> fred
> i want to make you a small example of waht i am
> talking about
> today, in the traditional way, to power a house for,
> say 100W, you need a distant power plant, maybe
> powered by a dam and turbines or nuclear, miles of
> power lines dotting the territory, substation to
> transform the power, lines to your house.
> An entire costly and unnecesssary infrastructure for
> your 100W if you could produce it locally, from free,
> clean and renewable sources like sun , wind or
> whatever more technology will propose.
maintain it when it breaks down, etc. If you have a 10kW (more likely than
100W) power station, and I have one, and the guy down the street, we'll end up
paying less if the three of us get together and buy a 30kW power station
together. And if 100 of us get together for a 1mW power station, even less.
> This is the entire concept o f decentralisation
I know what it is. I'm saying that in the field of power generation it's
inefficient.
> and right i carry my battery in my cell phone.
> But is still a battery that I must recharge each day
At a cost of pennies a month.
> i am talking about a personal power generating system
> from renewable sources that walks with you
So you're going to walk around with a windmill or solar array on your head?
It may be a useful fashion statement, to publicise renewable energy, but
impractical for actually generating power.
Insolation at ground level, on a sunny day, is usually around 1kW per square
meter, at noon. If you have a 10cmx10cm sun-tracking solar cell on top of
your head, operating at 100% efficiency, you'll get about 10 watts of power
out of it, minus whatever it takes to run your sun-tracker. If you walk
outside two hours a day, you'll generate 20 Watt-hours per day. If your rig
includes a .2-kg lithium battery, you'll charge it up to full power in less
than four days; you'll have 70 watt-hours of power.
With a more realistic efficiency (rather than the completely impossible 100%)
it would take SIXTEEN days to charge the battery.
That'll run your computer you're sitting at for no more than 20 minutes. The
value of the power, if you got it from your wall socket, would be less than a
penny.
If the rig cost you ten dollars to build, it would take you more than ten
years to pay it off... FIFTY if your solar cell had a realistic efficiency
rather than our fantastic 100% value. And that's the break-even mark.
Wind power would generate even less than 10 watts, unless it was larger than
about a meter, and you were in a really windy place.
> fred
> i want to make you a small example of waht i am
> talking about
> today, in the traditional way, to power a house for,
> say 100W, you need a distant power plant, maybe
> powered by a dam and turbines or nuclear, miles of
> power lines dotting the territory, substation to
> transform the power, lines to your house.
topic? It was back in Nov/Dec 03 wasn't it?
Giorgio,
If you are keen on decentralized power you really need to address
sustained load generation. You can't use your decentralized power
system when it is sunny out and then in the winter rely on the
electric utility. All of that utility company infrastructure has to be
paid for year round, not just for the few months that you would use
it. This means that if you rely on your decentralized power system for
8 months of the year, your power savings won't be 8/12 of your annual
bill, but more like10% or so, because all the power company saves by
not supplying you is the fuel cost. All of their infrastructure costs
still have to be paid for, as well as power plants that can handle
everyone who comes onto their system during the low months of the year.
If you're going to go completely off the grid then you need to
overbuild your system so that it can provide you with your power needs
at the least efficient time of year. The capital cost of doing this is
insane.
If you're going to store your surplus power in peak season and draw
from it in the low season, then how are you going to store the power?
If you're thinking of a flywheel, where are you going to put a couple
of tons of spinning flywheel? If it's hydrogen that you're going to
create for your fuel cell, which local gov't is going to allow each
family to store cryogenic fuels willy nilly throughout a neighborhood
and how much power are you going to need to minimize boil-off?
Perhaps you're thinking you'll just use batteries to store your power?
How much mining, fabrication and transportation cost is involved and
how about the toxic waste that'll be created from the batteries?
TangoMan
yours is a good point if we insist on existing
technology
I never mentioned solar power only
there is wind power, used for centuries in the
nettherlands and other countries including the US, and
the potential utilization of temperature difference as
an alternative technology to be developed.
The whole idea here is the following:
1-We need decentralize power generating systems
at the source
2-power from renewable and non polluting sources
3-if possible free after paying for the installation
we don't have it yet but the goals are clear and well
defined certainly more feasible than enormous and
unfeasible economically and ecologically monsters in
GEO or in the Moon transmitting energy to Earth based
structures causing further radation and ecologycal
disasters
but what I defined can be a possibility
they are developing energy generating painting
nanotech possibilities are just around the corner
many other alternatives are under development
we must solve here on earth our earth generated
problems with creativity and ingenuity and not hoping
that non tested solutions may come from space
fantasies or utopian technological systems, and we
must also never forget that any space initiative must
be technically feasible and economically viable.
Without that it will only be wishful thinking
Space must be utilized to help solving earth problems
but will not solve any of them by itself.
(By the way i have been and am a space enthusiast
since sputnik 1)
It will create new ones , new challenges for all of us
and we must be ready to face them.
If we are unable to solve earth problems we will never
be able to face the more complicated and unknown
problems that we w ill face in space, it will only
remain an escapist dream
> fred
> i want to make you a small example of waht i am
> talking about
> today, in the traditional way, to power a house for,
> say 100W, you need a distant power plant, maybe
> powered by a dam and turbines or nuclear, miles of
> power lines dotting the territory, substation to
> transform the power, lines to your house.
Hey Paul, do you remember the start date for our go
around on this
topic? It was back in Nov/Dec 03 wasn't it?
Giorgio,
If you are keen on decentralized power you really need
to address
sustained load generation. You can't use your
decentralized power
system when it is sunny out and then in the winter
rely on the
electric utility. All of that utility company
infrastructure has to be
paid for year round, not just for the few months that
you would use
it. This means that if you rely on your decentralized
power system for
8 months of the year, your power savings won't be 8/12
of your annual
bill, but more like10% or so, because all the power
company saves by
not supplying you is the fuel cost. All of their
infrastructure costs
still have to be paid for, as well as power plants
that can handle
everyone who comes onto their system during the low
months of the year.
If you're going to go completely off the grid then you
need to
overbuild your system so that it can provide you with
your power needs
at the least efficient time of year. The capital cost
of doing this is
insane.
If you're going to store your surplus power in peak
season and draw
from it in the low season, then how are you going to
store the power?
If you're thinking of a flywheel, where are you going
to put a couple
of tons of spinning flywheel? If it's hydrogen that
you're going to
create for your fuel cell, which local gov't is going
to allow each
family to store cryogenic fuels willy nilly throughout
a neighborhood
and how much power are you going to need to minimize
boil-off?
Perhaps you're thinking you'll just use batteries to
store your power?
How much mining, fabrication and transportation cost
is involved and
how about the toxic waste that'll be created from the
batteries?
TangoMan
> yours is a good point if we insist on existing
> technology
> I never mentioned solar power only
> there is wind power, used for centuries in the
> nettherlands and other countries including the US, and
> the potential utilization of temperature difference as
> an alternative technology to be developed.
> The whole idea here is the following:
> 1-We need decentralize power generating systems
> at the source
kilowatts are far more expensive than ten plants that generate megawatts,
generally speaking. For example, a wind generator on the roof of every home
is less efficient than a wind farm in an optimal location.
> 2-power from renewable and non polluting sources
This is agreed,
> 3-if possible free after paying for the installation
For photovoltaics, this is possible, but the cost per watt for photovoltaics
is still quite high. Other types, such as solar furnaces, wind power, etc.
require maintenance.
> we don't have it yet but the goals are clear
No they're not, if they were clear we wouldn't be arguing about them.
> and well
> defined certainly more feasible than enormous and
> unfeasible economically and ecologically monsters in
> GEO or in the Moon transmitting energy to Earth based
> structures causing further radation and ecologycal
> disasters
You have to weigh one set of ecological damage against another. Which does
more ecological damage, a ten megawatt coal fired power plant, or ten
megawatts worth of orbital solar power?
> but what I defined can be a possibility
It's certainly possible. Just because it's possible doesn't mean it's the
best or only solution.
> they are developing energy generating painting
> nanotech possibilities are just around the corner
> many other alternatives are under development
> we must solve here on earth our earth generated
> problems with creativity and ingenuity and not hoping
> that non tested solutions may come from space
> fantasies or utopian technological systems,
It's odd that you would say this, after proposing an untested utopian
technological system, that is, nanotechnology.
fred
I am glad that we agreed on something
i still believe that we need new technology to
generate power locally and that it would be less
costly and less polluting that the centralize
technology.
Not only windmills were clean power sources but in
many countries, such as Israel, solar panels for
heating and other needs are part of the landscape
since every home have one.
As far as nanotechnology, while still in its infancy,
it can really change our entire thinking and
manufacturing activities, as well as health and
medical, more than the pc earlier and the web later
changed our way of working and communicating.
New designed materilas with nanotech will allow us to
obttain designed materials for our needs, reducing
weight, being more resistent, aand more functional for
specific needs.
And finally the promise of molecular assembly, sould
be an invaluable tool in our future space initiatives
since they will be capable of ransforming the raw
materials found in a particular body and transform it
in a needed component and product.
asteroid or the Moon is an easy example.
> yours is a good point if we insist on existing
> technology
> I never mentioned solar power only
> there is wind power, used for centuries in the
> nettherlands and other countries including the US,
and
> the potential utilization of temperature difference
as
> an alternative technology to be developed.
> The whole idea here is the following:
> 1-We need decentralize power generating systems
> at the source
Why? Decentralized power is inefficient. Ten
thousand plants that generate
kilowatts are far more expensive than ten plants that
generate megawatts,
generally speaking. For example, a wind generator on
the roof of every home
is less efficient than a wind farm in an optimal
location.
> 2-power from renewable and non polluting sources
This is agreed,
> 3-if possible free after paying for the installation
For photovoltaics, this is possible, but the cost per
watt for photovoltaics
is still quite high. Other types, such as solar
furnaces, wind power, etc.
require maintenance.
> we don't have it yet but the goals are clear
No they're not, if they were clear we wouldn't be
arguing about them.
> and well
> defined certainly more feasible than enormous and
> unfeasible economically and ecologically monsters in
> GEO or in the Moon transmitting energy to Earth
based
> structures causing further radation and ecologycal
> disasters
You have to weigh one set of ecological damage against
another. Which does
more ecological damage, a ten megawatt coal fired
power plant, or ten
megawatts worth of orbital solar power?
> but what I defined can be a possibility
It's certainly possible. Just because it's possible
doesn't mean it's the
best or only solution.
> they are developing energy generating painting
> nanotech possibilities are just around the corner
> many other alternatives are under development
> we must solve here on earth our earth generated
> problems with creativity and ingenuity and not
hoping
> that non tested solutions may come from space
> fantasies or utopian technological systems,
It's odd that you would say this, after proposing an
untested utopian
technological system, that is, nanotechnology.
> Hey Paul, do you remember the start date for our go around on this
> topic? It was back in Nov/Dec 03 wasn't it?
for $87 billion ?"
I learned a lot from it; it was very thought provoking.
I think the deepest insight emerging from it which our discussed prodded
me towards was realizing that either we solve the problem of
closed-cycle production and recycling of all products with almost zero
emissions (which woudl then makes PV and batteries viable despite any
current complaints) or even with endless cheap energy from space we will
just bury ourselves in consumer waste and pollution sooner or later
anyway. :-)
Unrelated:
It's a bummer people didn't relabel this thread "Lunar Power" since it
has nothign to do with my original point there. :-(
And also I see my words recently have been misattributed twice to others
(Fred and Valens) by two different people doing sloppy cutting and pasting!
--Paul Fernhout
> fred
> I am glad that we agreed on something
> i still believe that we need new technology to
> generate power locally
or do you have some kind of logic that backs it up?
> and that it would be less
> costly and less polluting that the centralize
> technology.
Why do you believe that? What is the reasoning behind it?
> Not only windmills were clean power sources but in
> many countries, such as Israel, solar panels for
> heating and other needs are part of the landscape
> since every home have one.
I will agree with you that solar power, in some locations (such as Israel, and
the American southwest) in some applications (home heating) is a technology
that works well on the small scale but would not on the large scale. Most of
the time, however, large scale implementations are more efficient.
> As far as nanotechnology, while still in its infancy,
> it can really change our entire thinking and
> manufacturing activities, as well as health and
> medical, more than the pc earlier and the web later
> changed our way of working and communicating.'
No doubt there.
> And finally the promise of molecular assembly, sould
> be an invaluable tool in our future space initiatives
> since they will be capable of ransforming the raw
> materials found in a particular body and transform it
> in a needed component and product.
Nanotech assembly has some pretty scary downsides, too.
1900's: Industrial age: Folks get exposed to industrial chemicals..
1950's: Nuclear age: Folks get exposed to nuclear radiation.
2000's: Genetic age: I'm expecting genetic accidents any day now.
2050's: Nanotech age: Folks get exposed to nanomachines and have their bodies
rebuilt around them, either by accident or on purpose. Now THAT is scary.
> Automatic unmanned equipment to produce fuel in an
> asteroid or the Moon is an easy example.
You don't need nanotech to do that; if you had a reason to do so, you could
design and build a macrotech fuel-extractor that could travel to near-earth
asteroids and comets RIGHT NOW. All that's lacking is a mission profile that
actually needs one badly enough that it's worth the expense to build it.
> I never mentioned solar power only
> there is wind power, used for centuries in the
> nettherlands and other countries including the US, and
> the potential utilization of temperature difference as
> an alternative technology to be developed.
kind enough to actually dig up the message that started the whole 1-2
month debate. The whole thread is saturated with information. I would
suggest that, at your leisure, you read your way through that thread
and if you have *new* information to add then I think you'd find a
very eager and interested audience.
> The whole idea here is the following:
> 1-We need decentralize power generating systems
> at the source
Simply stating a position is not convincing. Why do we need to do
this? As it is now, this is simply preference or green ideology.
> 2-power from renewable and non polluting sources
Such as?
> 3-if possible free after paying for the installation
How does this work? Do you have any examples of free energy?
> we don't have it yet but the goals are clear and well
> defined certainly more feasible than enormous and
> unfeasible economically and ecologically monsters in
More feasible? Do tell. I suspect that you haven't really thought
through these issues and are simply talking from a point of preference.
> GEO or in the Moon transmitting energy to Earth based
> structures causing further radation and ecologycal
> disasters
What radiation and ecological damage is done by SPS?
> but what I defined can be a possibility
> they are developing energy generating painting
> nanotech possibilities are just around the corner
And Men From Mars are just around the corner too. It's not a very
convincing debate tactic to simply state your favored position and
think that it convinces people.
> many other alternatives are under development
> we must solve here on earth our earth generated
> problems with creativity and ingenuity and not hoping
Why must Earth energy supply problems be solved on Earth? This sounds
an awful lot like Greenpeace inspired local community - back to nature
philosophy - we must live in balance with Mother Earth.
> that non tested solutions may come from space
> fantasies or utopian technological systems,
You mean like the tested nanotech paint that you're dreaming of?
That's not a fantasy or a utopian technological system?
and we
> must also never forget that any space initiative must
> be technically feasible and economically viable.
Just like we must never forget that a windmill, solar etc system must
also be technologically feasible and economically viable, and further
must also be built to provide baseload power because people don't like
brown-outs occuring multiple times per day.
> Without that it will only be wishful thinking
You mean like Green inspired renewable senergy schemes that are
already causing problems in Denmark?
> Space must be utilized to help solving earth problems
> but will not solve any of them by itself.
Again, this is a statement that is without an supporting argument. You
can't simply argue a position of faith. It is entirely unconvincing.
> If we are unable to solve earth problems we will never
> be able to face the more complicated and unknown
> problems that we w ill face in space, it will only
> remain an escapist dream
Why does solving Earth problems with Earth-based solutions serve as
any prerequisite for development of space.
This is the same thing as saying that we must solve humanity's
propensity towards disease by teaching the body how to fight disease
on its own and that we can't turn to drugs developed outside of a
person's body to fight the disease.
TangoMan
> we don't have it yet but the goals are clear and well
> defined certainly more feasible than enormous and
> unfeasible economically and ecologically monsters in
> GEO or in the Moon transmitting energy to Earth based
> structures causing further radation and ecologycal
> disasters
> but what I defined can be a possibility
> they are developing energy generating painting
> nanotech possibilities are just around the corner
And Men From Mars are just around the corner too. It's not a very
convincing debate tactic to simply state your favored position and
think that it convinces people. I find curious a viewpoint that views satellites a few miles across as unfeasible, but useful machines the size of molecules as just around the corner.
Regards,
Mike Combs
> I find curious a viewpoint that views satellites a few miles across as
> unfeasible, but useful machines the size of molecules as just around
> the corner.
Let me add my own. Is it better to have the mining and pollution here
on Earth or in orbit?
http://www.faultline.org/place/2002/04/toxictech.html
"In 1993, Texas Instruments estimated the resources required and
waste produced in the manufacture of a single six-inch semiconductor
wafer. (In the intervening nine years, production has likely become
more efficient, but more recent industry-wide estimates are
unavailable.) Producing one wafer required 3200 cubic feet of bulk
gases, 22 cubic feet of hazardous gases, and 20 pounds of chemicals,
along with 285 kilowatt-hours of electrical power (enough to power a
refrigerator around the clock for several months) and 2,275 gallons
of water (enough for over 70 bathtubs). Each wafer's production
generated seven pounds of hazardous waste, 25 pounds of sodium
hydroxide, and 2840 gallons of waste water."
TangoMan
--- In ssi_list@... "victoriatangoman"
> kind enough to actually dig up the message that started the whole 1-2
> month debate. The whole thread is saturated with information. I would
> suggest that, at your leisure, you read your way through that thread
> and if you have *new* information to add then I think you'd find a
> very eager and interested audience.
>
If you're not inclined to read 2 months worth of debate :) you could
look at my summation of that debate and the criticisms of the
summation that followed. Don't let the snarkiness fool you, . . I
think Paul and I get along fabulously these days :)
TangoMan