SPS doubts

--- In ssi_list@... Lucio de Souza Coelho
> > I believe you are, alas, correct I fear. Barring some sort of
acceptence of
> > a Kyoto like agreement that ends up tipping the price per KW in
or near in
> > favor of SPS. Other than that, it seems like a long way down the
road for
> > terrestial power.
>
> Artificial price twists never work in the long range, I think. They
are
> not "sustainable", borrowing a word from the Environmentalists and
> applying it into an economic context.
>
> > Of course, that may not be so with lunar colonies and space
habitats in the
> > possibly near future.
>
>But without SPSs we have few economic justifications for orbital
>and
>lunar colonies, except perhaps space tourism. Or, if we are lucky,
>asteroid mining.

Well, should people try to come up with new ideas? I think the one of
the biggest problems with space settlements (or what we call them) it
that there only one economic reason people give for it: SPS. If SPS
falls, so do the space habitats. Its put your eggs in one basket.

>> Perhaps these will find need of such a power source,
>> which then may be applied to planet side endeavors.
>
> That will certainly be true for space colonies. But maybe an
eventual
> Lunatic civilization will prefer to mine thorium and uranium and
use
> nukes :-). No, I don't think that it is likely to happen - just
being a
> devil's advocate for a while.

I think there no chance for a lunar civilization to devlop. The moon
is too barren to support anything beyond a single base or town.
Lunarians will always depend on Terrans, Martians and space settlers.

> And, oh, there is always a twisted hope that SPSs will eventually
>be
> developed - but for military purposes. It would be *the* energy
>source
> for a space-based death ray.

The greatest terraformation tool ever: just point at pole, click and
BURN. Talk about shock and awe! LOL :)