The real obstacle to building solar power satellite systems is
diplomatic, and international. Any solar power satellite system that
can deliver power reliably to the ground can also deliver power
reliably to a "target", i.e. it can be used as a weapon.
timers... sooner or later the price of energy will rise high enough,
and the price of technology will drop low enough, that it will make
/economic/ sense.
The problem is, that unless the world gets a HECK of a lot more
peaceful, it won't make DIPLOMATIC sense. No one country can afford
to piss off the whole rest of the world by developing and deploying
yet another weapon of mass destruction; Nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons pale in comparison to the threat of ORBITAL weaponry.
The real obstacle to building solar power satellite systems is
diplomatic, and international. Any solar power satellite system that
can deliver power reliably to the ground can also deliver power
reliably to a "target", i.e. it can be used as a weapon.
timers... sooner or later the price of energy will rise high enough,
and the price of technology will drop low enough, that it will make
/economic/ sense.
The problem is, that unless the world gets a HECK of a lot more
peaceful, it won't make DIPLOMATIC sense. No one country can afford
to piss off the whole rest of the world by developing and deploying
yet another weapon of mass destruction; Nuclear, biological, and
chemical weapons pale in comparison to the threat of ORBITAL weaponry.
On 8/26/05, Wallach, Mark mwallach@... wrote: There is no reason why international cooperation can't be negotiated to permit something of such obvious benefit to the entire planet.
Space is probably the one theater where such cooperation has been the rule, rather than the exception.
Only because we have (mostly) refrained from putting actual weapons up there.
Once the economics are there, I think it is important that the technology be ready to go; with the price of oil starting to skyrocket as the Chinese industrial machine begins to drink deeply, that may be sooner than we expect. The technology will come when the economics are there, that's how that ALWAYS goes. No effort is required on that front, I think.
On 8/26/05, Wallach, Mark mwallach@... wrote: There is no reason why international cooperation can't be negotiated to permit something of such obvious benefit to the entire planet.
Space is probably the one theater where such cooperation has been the rule, rather than the exception.
Only because we have (mostly) refrained from putting actual weapons up there.
Once the economics are there, I think it is important that the technology be ready to go; with the price of oil starting to skyrocket as the Chinese industrial machine begins to drink deeply, that may be sooner than we expect. The technology will come when the economics are there, that's how that ALWAYS goes. No effort is required on that front, I think.
diplomatic, and international. Any solar power satellite system that
can deliver power reliably to the ground can also deliver power
reliably to a "target", i.e. it can be used as a weapon. Please do not repeat this oft-repeated but thoroughly-wrong canard. The microwave beam from an SPS would have zero usefulness as a weapon. For one thing, the power density per unit area is far too low (at or below the level of sunlight). For another, as a weapon it would be one requiring the active cooperation of the target. (I'm referring to the rectenna pilot beam, which is the only thing that makes the phased-array transmission possible.)
Mike Combs
> Behalf Of *Fred
>
> The real obstacle to building solar power satellite systems is
> diplomatic, and international. Any solar power satellite system that
> can deliver power reliably to the ground can also deliver power
> reliably to a "target", i.e. it can be used as a weapon.
>
> Please do not repeat this oft-repeated but thoroughly-wrong canard. The
> microwave beam from an SPS would have zero usefulness as a weapon. For
> one thing, the power density per unit area is far too low (at or below
> the level of sunlight). For another, as a weapon it would be one
> requiring the active cooperation of the target. (I'm referring to the
> rectenna pilot beam, which is the only thing that makes the phased-array
> transmission possible.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
weapon is what will matter, as illustrated here.
Facts are important but perception is (sadly) what counts most.
Brian Dunbar
System Administrator
Liftport
brian.dunbar@...
aim: bdunbar1967
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks
>
> Saudi Arabia is not really a factor here, since they lack any orbital
> capability. Obviously, China is a major factor, but as the largest
> prospective consumer of energy on the planet they have every reason to be
> supportive. It seems to me that they ought to be brought into any planned
> solar power satellite planning, allowed to help pay for it, and expected to
> share the benefits.
negotiating this deal. Here's what I'd require:
1> I'd want access to all of the technology (schematics, programs,
etc) being used in the project, so that I could make sure that
backdoors were not being installed that would allow a hostile power
(US or Russia) to take command of the satellite to use it against me.
2> I'd want the manufacturing to be done under similar conditions, for
the same reason.
Otherwise, there's no way I can green-light the project. Anything
else, and I'm going to start making noise in the UN and elsewhere
about the militarization and balkanization of space.
Would someone else like to play the role of the US SecDef, or Russian
counterpart?
How hard is it to refocus a square-kilometer power beam into a
ten-square-meter weapon beam?
done by technology?
weapon is what will matter, as illustrated here.
Regards,
Mike Combs
ten-square-meter weapon beam? Harder than you apparently think. Please study the SPS proposal in a bit more detail. It almost seems as though you might be visualizing the "focusing" of this microwave beam as beingsomehow analogous to the focusing of a beam of light with lenses or mirrors, resulting in concentrations. The actual technology proposed involves a phased-array transmitting antenna about a mile across. The most that can be achieved in anidealworldis a beam which is imperfectly parallel. Ask any technologist; can you ever prove that something can NOT be
done by technology? Proving a negative is notoriously impossible; I won't be drug into such an attempt. It's up to someone who insists that the microwave beam from an SPS can be used as a weapon to plausibly demonstrate how that could be so; not for someone who disagrees to prove an impossibility.
Mike Combs
wanting to see all design blueprints etc. may be one consideration to approvalby china/russia ...another is the old kindergarten system for dividing up a piece of cake... one of the parties cuts the pieces, the other choses which one to take. In this way the first person insures they 'cut ' the cake fairly, because the next person would decide to take the best piece if not truly equal. So...one country designs, another builds from that design, a third launches it , a forth operates it. The cross check insure to everyone that no "hidden" items are involved since they had a hand in checking in along the way. :-)
I'll take the "build" piece, and I'll object if anyone else says THEY
have to have the "build" piece.
Delivery of power from space requires a wavelentgh
that redily penetrates the H2O ,O2,N2,CO2 laden
atmosphere, meaning those very elements that comprise
living tissue, are the very substances we must
transmit thru, without absorbtion. Since most such
microwave transmitters are tuned waveguides cut to a
precise fraction of the transmitted wavelength,ie,
(1/4,1/2 wavelength) they are not much use
transmitting outside their designed wavelength and
would therefore make lousy weapons!
> Behalf Of *Fred
>
> How hard is it to refocus a square-kilometer power beam into a
> ten-square-meter weapon beam?
>
= 1 million sq m) you would either have to increase the size of the
transmitting area by a factor of 100,000, or replace all the
beam-production equipment with something that produces electromagnetic
waves 320 times shorter in wavelength.
This is forced by the physics of wave diffraction, given the wavelengths
and distances involved; pretty easy to prove. That's assuming the design
is one of the microwave-based approaches to power transmission. For
laser transmission there are similar coherence issues but those are more
engineering constraints than physical ones (nobody has built an optical
telescope that's a kilometer across yet, but there's no physical reason
to say it's impossible...)
That said, there's no need to invoke weapons concerns to explain why we
don't have SPS (in fact, if there was real potential for military
application it would likely hasten development given current US and
other national attitudes). The sad fact is with current launch, space
construction, and solar cell technology SPS would be orders of magnitude
too expensive, and we don't have practical experience with any of the
proposed methods of lowering those costs. I wish people could see the
potential, but it may take some real demonstrations to get there.
Arthur
I'll take the "build" piece, and I'll object if anyone else says THEY
have to have the "build" piece.
Then I want to be the one who chooses who does what! "I cut, you choose" seems simple but it isn't universally applicable.
have to have the "build" piece.
On 8/26/05, panamabob@...
Then I want to be the one who chooses who does what! "I cut, you choose" seems simple but it isn't universally applicable.
have to have the "build" piece.
On 8/26/05, panamabob@...
The alternative is what happens every day in diplomatic circles... proposal and counterproposal, threats and cajoling, brinksmanship and tumbles over the cliff.
I'll take the "build" piece, and I'll object if anyone else says THEY
have to have the "build" piece.
On 8/26/05, panamabob@...
The alternative is what happens every day in diplomatic circles... proposal and counterproposal, threats and cajoling, brinksmanship and tumbles over the cliff.
I'll take the "build" piece, and I'll object if anyone else says THEY
have to have the "build" piece.
On 8/26/05, panamabob@...
The world is a very conservative place. They'd rather see nothing happen, than risk something Very Very Bad happening.
Then I want to be the one who chooses who does what! "I cut, you choose" seems simple but it isn't universally applicable.
I'll take the "build" piece, and I'll object if anyone else says THEY
have to have the "build" piece.
On 8/26/05, panamabob@...
I think it's been shown here that SSPS makes a lousy weapon, and so I
don't think that the whole "IT'S A WEAPON!!!" concern will matter with
diplomats and such, who can read and do simple math (a lot better than
I can!). The problem may be with the general public, who can be made
to believe anything. Yes, I know that that sounds elitist and
arrogant and so on, but it's the bleedin' truth.
weapon, but it probably can be shown that it would be easier and
cheaper to build your orbital death ray from scratch. Which brings me to:
If I'm Mr. World-Conquering Despotic National-Leader Guy (MWCDNLG),
and I decide that conquering the world would be a lot easier if I just
had an orbiting beam weapon, I'm going to build my orbiting beam
weapon. MWCDNLG isn't going to look around, see the lack of
beneficial SSPS-produced energy (with attendant rises in standards of
living, drops in pollution, etc.), and decide that he doesn't really
want to conquer the world after all.
Doing without the benefits of SSPS won't protect us against a MWCDNLG.
Could someone Please post the damn SPS proposal ???
done by technology? Proving a negative is notoriously impossible; I won't be drug into such an attempt. It's up to someone who insists that the microwave beam from an SPS can be used as a weapon to plausibly demonstrate how that could be so; not for someone who disagrees to prove an impossibility.
Regards,
Mike Combs
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNIKHILOPQRAKTALESTUVWXYZ @ LNCT BHOPAL
Could someone Please post the damn SPS proposal ???
done by technology? Proving a negative is notoriously impossible; I won't be drug into such an attempt. It's up to someone who insists that the microwave beam from an SPS can be used as a weapon to plausibly demonstrate how that could be so; not for someone who disagrees to prove an impossibility.
Regards,
Mike Combs
ABCDEFGHIJKLMNIKHILOPQRAKTALESTUVWXYZ @ LNCT BHOPAL
> If I'm Mr. World-Conquering Despotic National-Leader Guy (MWCDNLG),
> and I decide that conquering the world would be a lot easier if I just
> had an orbiting beam weapon, I'm going to build my orbiting beam
> weapon. MWCDNLG isn't going to look around, see the lack of
> beneficial SSPS-produced energy (with attendant rises in standards of
> living, drops in pollution, etc.), and decide that he doesn't really
> want to conquer the world after all.
think all the OTHER leaders are would-be-world-conquerors.
> Behalf Of *Brian Dunbar
>
> If I may - he is half right. The perception that it can be used as a
> weapon is what will matter, as illustrated here.
>
> Facts are important but perception is (sadly) what counts most.
>
> I certainly take your point. But it's bitterly unfair that in addition
> to all of it's real problems, SPS has to overcome imaginary problems as
> well. The solution to ignorance should be education. What can we all
> do to overcome such ignorance where SPS is concerned?
>
> Regards,
>
> Mike Combs
profound ignorance in how things work combined with an unwillingness to
integrate new data into a world view. You can't change this - you can
only enlist bigger lawyers than whomever your opposition is and make it
so. This will be considered (by whomever loathes your project) to be
unfair. Hard cheese, says I.
Perhaps I'm being pessimistic. We have a similar problem WRT space
elevators. It's too costly - it won't work - it can't work it's against
natural laws x, y and z. Same issues over and over again. Our course
of action is dictated by our modest financial means as much as our
preference. Lay out the facts, good and bad. Explain the issues in a
reasonable tone and say - in effect - here it is John Public. You're an
adult, make up your own mind. We'll be over there bending metal, let us
know if you have any questions.
Brian Dunbar
System Administrator
Liftport
brian.dunbar@...
aim: bdunbar1967
Remember.
But move forward, too. Light a candle, yes. But also drive a rivet.
~Lileks