Designing SPS to accommodate tidal forces (was Nuke vs. SPS)

You are a troll and a dishonest debater. A troll is by definition someone who comes into a group, spacesettlers, to argue against space settlement. A troll also uses dishonesty when debating in order to continue debating or to 'just win' the arguement.

Examples:
As you can see below millions in development for each module became 'a million dollars isn't a lot of money.'

On detecting Oort cloud bodies you decided to use 1 km at 200,000 AU, the absolute outer edge of any estimate for the size of the Oort cloud.

Those are just two in the past couple of weeks. I'll go through this post but it's becoming obvious it is a waste of time to argue with someone not seeking truth but only winning arguements.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "hitssquad" wrote:
>
> --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "brooksn" wrote:
> > > > --- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "hitssquad" wrote:
> > The ISS is full of research, each module was different from any another, costing millions in development costs.
>
> A million dollars isn't very much money. The astronauts spend most of their time running the ISS as a power station, making it an SPS. If you want other SPS examples to exist, go ahead and fund one. The fact that there aren't other examples of "large" SPS's doesn't help make a business case for SPS.

Again dishonesty, the astronauts do not spend most their time running ISS as a power station. Just as my car doesn't spend most of its time running a cigarette lighter. Having people use the ISS as an example of an SPS and dishonestly inflating the cost of an SPS by extrapolating those costs to an SPS doesn't help make a business case for SPS.

> > You have no idea how much SPS costs.
>
> We know that the largest SPS ever built, the ISS, cost a quadrillion dollars per gigawatt. Maybe the reason there are no other examples of "large" SPS's is no one can afford to build one. That doesn't help make a business case for SPS.

See above and previous posts.

> > You also conveniently left out all other alternatives in deciding SPS is the most expensive energy of all energy options currently or theoretically available.
>
> The ISS actually exists and really does generate electricity. Nuclear actually exists. The former, per watt, actually did cost to build half a million times as much per watt as the latter is costing to build right now in China. That isn't a great way to build a business case for SPS.

See above and previous posts.

> > Again, of the current power used on Earth right now, nuclear is the most expensive to build.
>
> Adding power transmission to the ISS (so that it too could be part of the current power used on Earth right now) wouldn't make it cheaper. The fact that it doesn't even have that capability now doesn't help make a business case for SPS.

What are you talking about? That's like saying you bought a new bmw and you put a solar panel on the roof, that won't make it cheaper, why would it make it cheaper?

> > 'Tidal force arises because the gravitational force exerted by one body on another is not constant across its diameter.' So the Earth pulls on the part of the SPS platform closer to the Earth then the part of the platform further from the Earth. So when SPS is at these two parts of their orbit what I describe will eliminate the strain exerted by that stress.
>
> That's an irrelevant type of "strain" and isn't what we're talking about. Take a look at the moon. Notice the same face always faces the earth. Have you ever wondered why?

That's a tidal strain, part of tidal forces, I include both because both exist and unless you specified which affect you are refering to, I addressed both.

> > If there is tilting
>
> Why wouldn't there be tilting caused by tidal forces? You still don't seem to understand what we're talking about. Do you understand that the moon's rotation is locked to the earth because tidal forces stopped it from rotating independently? That's what were talking about. An SPS intended to constantly face the sun would be tugged into alternative rotations by the tidal forces exerted on it by the earth.

Put a weight, made from the slag of the asteriodal material used to make the SPS, toward the Earth so that the heaviest part of the structure will be closer to Earth.

> > then the same type of system can exist along the other axis facing the sun alowing a 'stair case' like shape to form during the orbit and the opposite shape on the other end of the orbit.
>
> Yes. How much does that cost? You're providing more evidence SPS doesn't benefit from economies of scale. Notice the ISS doesn't do any of the fancy things you're talking about. Perhaps, therefore, a 10-gigawatt SPS would cost more than $10 quadrillion.

You asked for a solution, that's one, the slag weight is another. You again dishonestly quote the ISS as a universal cost for an SPS.

> > It's also possible rotating the whole structure would also mitigate the problem.
>
> Yes, if you mean "spin up a gyro". As I pointed out, that requires a stronger structure and also requires a gyro. How much does that cost? The larger the structure, the more extra strength is required to overcome these SPS-destroying tidal forces. Hence, Earth-orbit SPS doesn't benefit from economies of scale.

Just another solution to the, in your mind, utterly impossible task of solving the potential tidal issues of SPS.
Brooks