On May 13, 4:20?pm, Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the SOS
crosses the sky,

The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the _SPS_
crosses the sky,
Building a SOS would be a Titanic undertaking. ;-)

Pat

The face of the SPS would always be orthagonal to the sun, it would
rotate 360 deg in 365.25 days. The transmitter would rotate 360 deg
every 24hrs. Still much simpler than the 'retargeting' every ten
miniutes or so that would be required in low orbit.

Totorkon <aertrion at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

On May 13, 4:20?pm, Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the SOS
crosses the sky,

The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the _SPS_
crosses the sky,
Building a SOS would be a Titanic undertaking. ;-)

Pat

The face of the SPS would always be orthagonal to the sun, it would
rotate 360 deg in 365.25 days. The transmitter would rotate 360 deg
every 24hrs. Still much simpler than the 'retargeting' every ten
miniutes or so that would be required in low orbit.


How about taking this thread to a science fiction newsgroup,
there isn't enough money in the whole world to put up 500 megawatt
system at 22,300 miles.

On May 14, 5:58 pm, Whata Fool <wh... at (no spam) fool.ami> wrote:



Totorkon <aertr... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
On May 13, 4:20?pm, Pat Flannery <flan... at (no spam) daktel.com> wrote:
Pat Flannery wrote:

The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the SOS
crosses the sky,

The downlink microwave transmitters don't have to move as the _SPS_
crosses the sky,
Building a SOS would be a Titanic undertaking. ;-)

Pat

The face of the SPS would always be orthagonal to the sun, it would
rotate 360 deg in 365.25 days. The transmitter would rotate 360 deg
every 24hrs. Still much simpler than the 'retargeting' every ten
miniutes or so that would be required in low orbit.

How about taking this thread to a science fiction newsgroup,
there isn't enough money in the whole world to put up 500 megawatt
system at 22,300 miles.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

If the shuttle were considered part of the payload, the program has
already delivered more than 10000 tons to orbit, the lower mass
estimate for a 5Gw SPS.

At $2000/Kg to leo, that mass could be delivered for $20B, a fifth the
price of the electricity it would generate over a 20yr lifetime.

Reducing the weight of solar arrays and the cost of launch should be
the primary goals of NASA. Power a new age of lunar and
interplanetary exploration with the sun and power satellites won't be
just sf anymore.

Whata Fool wrote:
azb at (no spam) aber.ac.uk (Andrew Robert Breen) wrote:
Why are you discussing an impossible system that needs microwave
energy transfer technology that has never been tested, and with the
parking of the Space Shuttles, access to space will be pitifully
inadequate to do much of anything?

Transfer megawatt power a hundred miles through air successfully,
then it still would not be viable, by the time it could be built, cells
and batteries will be so improved, the economics will never be there.

Sorry, no six figure job for you, spaceman.


As far as shooting microwaves down from GEO to the Earth's surface...
did you ever those dish thingies that people have on their houses to get
satellite TV? It's simply a matter of scaling the antenna size and
downlink microwave power up.

Now, rather than being three feet across, the antenna is three _miles_
across.

And despite that early 80's artwork that showed Shuttles near the
orbital assembly point for the SPS, it would need huge new launch
vehicles to accomplish. REALLY big rockets like this Boeing design from
back when the idea first came up:
http://bp0.blogger.com/_b1AE8x4eLKI/RregYoFZlWI/AAAAAAAABQY/YvWi3Jb3WoA/s1600/ssto75b2.jpg
Oh, I like this SOB already:
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/7948/1008/1600/jupiter31.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/7948/1008/1600/jupiter32.jpg
http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger2/7948/1008/1600/JupiterIII.jpg
Could the crawler transporter even move something of that weight?
Here's some goodies on it:
http://www.teamvisioninc.com/services-consulting-space-exploration-optimization.htm
The downloadable 104 MB pdf from that webpage is perfect for a vehicle
of this size.
It ranks right up there with the Soviet UR-900:
http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/ur900.htm
We're back into the grand ol' days of the Nova booster with the Jupiter
III.... where any booster that lifts off with less total energy being
generated per second than a volcanic eruption or small nuclear weapon
detonation is considered a sissy way of doing things. :-)

Pat

On May 16, 2:59 pm, BradGuth <bradg... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:



On May 16, 10:09 am, simberg.interglo... at (no spam) org.trash (Rand Simberg)
wrote:

On Fri, 16 May 2008 16:23:30 GMT, in a place far, far away,
richardcas... at (no spam) earthlink.net (Richard Casady) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

On Thu, 15 May 2008 23:02:37 -0700 (PDT), Totorkon
aertr... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:

Solar PV costs about $4000 per installed peak Kw.

Wind costs about a grand per Kw. Most wind generators produce one to
two megawatts and cost one to two million bucks. Five percent of the
juice in Iowa comes from wind generators and they are building more as
fast as they can. The only downside to wind is that it kills birds.

And not every place has it regularly.

Duh! what kind of intellectual and technological incest fuckology is
that statement of total nayism supposed to mean?

Is your entire family gene pool that far south (or north if you're
from Australia), meaning dumb and dumber past the point of no return?

Is your Zionist faith of superior assholism the best you and others of
your true Semitic brown-nosed kind can muster?

If not Hitler, what exactly is it about the systematic traumatizing
and starving folks to death that turns you on?
.
What does your anti-think-tank flatulence of “not every place has it
regularly” have to do with anything, other than promoting your genetic
incest cultivated spew of infowar/disinformation, as it continually
emerges from between your extremely white butt-cheeks?

Are you saying it’s not such a good idea putting a hydroelectric plant
in Death Valley, or that of a conventional multi-GW nuclear power
plant within NYC Central Park?

Are you saying that the Sahara desert or that of our Bonneville Salt
Flats wouldn’t be conducive to natural farming?
. - Brad Guth

We should do something with wind power. I certainly know there is
great power in a well done blow-job...

On Fri, 9 May 2008 17:49:44 -0700 (PDT), BradGuth <bradg... at (no spam) gmail.com
wrote:

My average 40 kw/m2 of tower footprint of energy density has been
technically doable. (yours?)

The footprint of a 2 MW wind generator is a fourteen foot diameter
circle. What is your point?

Casady

My average 40 kw/m2 of tower footprint of energy density has been
technically doable. (yours?)

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

Ah, get serious, 5Gw would require 25 million square feet of
good solar cells, that is a square mile.


Sounds good to me.



With amorphous flexible-strip cells that wouldn't even weigh all that
much in absolute terms, even using today's technology.
You could at least get that into LEO with Shuttles and a lot of flights.
But I think what's needed is something around 10 x 10 miles on a side

The shuttle can't even go to GEO, a square mile structure will
not stay in LEO, and a structure to hold the array in shape would weigh
10 times that much.


No one other than you is suggesting that the shuttle would be used to build
such a thing.


He's very big on the Shuttle concept isn't he?
Mind you, building the Super-Duper SPS booster ain't going to be cheap
by any stretch of the imagination, to put it mildly.
And you might want to stick its launch site out on Christmas Island,
because something like that going up is going to be like a minor
earthquake occurring, and you probably want it a hundred miles or so
from any cities.
In fact, you might want to go the Sealaunch route and have the whole
launch support team several miles away on a ship when the Big Red Button
gets pushed.
"Light fuze - get away fast!"
Sound advice for imported Chinese fireworks; sound advice for SPS
boosters also. :-D

Pat

What are you talking about? The Saturn 5 was right on the
border of material strength, anything bigger would be less efficient.

There will not be any bigger rockets, the trend is fixed for
20 or 30 years out. We are going back to 1960 technology in 2 years.

On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:44:45 -0500, in a place far, far away, Whata
Fool <whata at (no spam) fool.ami> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


How about taking this thread to a science fiction newsgroup,
there isn't enough money in the whole world to put up 500 megawatt
system at 22,300 miles.

Well, you certainly live up to your screen name.

And anybody that thinks putting a power station in space would
be economical is dumber than dirt.

Post a link showing where just one megawatt has been transmitted
through air or space.

Why?

Are you one of those people who believe that nothing can ever be done
for the first time?


Of course, but seeing if it can be done is a good idea before
spending Billions.

There is no reason to think it can't be done. It has been
demonstrated on a small scale, and there are no laws of physics to
indicate that it won't scale up.

Tesla tried it, but I think he tried it without a frequency
generator with a regular cycle. Maybe its possible, maybe not,
I have made paraboloid mirrors that could receive a focused beam,
the problem may be trying to focus more than 50 percent of the
radiating antenna into a beam.
Megawatt transmitters must have huge waveguides, and there
should be considerable data on how efficient they are, so if there
is data on any tests of power transmission, it would seem to be
important.

There is abundant data. Raytheon did a lot of work on this in the
sixties and seventies, with a demonstration at Goldstone.

On May 18, 3:47 pm, Whata Fool <wh... at (no spam) fool.ami> wrote:



simberg.interglo... at (no spam) org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2008 23:46:45 -0500, in a place far, far away, Whata
Fool <wh... at (no spam) fool.ami> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

simberg.interglo... at (no spam) org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sat, 17 May 2008 13:44:45 -0500, in a place far, far away, Whata
Fool <wh... at (no spam) fool.ami> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

How about taking this thread to a science fiction newsgroup,
there isn't enough money in the whole world to put up 500 megawatt
system at 22,300 miles.

Well, you certainly live up to your screen name.

And anybody that thinks putting a power station in space would
be economical is dumber than dirt.

Post a link showing where just one megawatt has been transmitted
through air or space.

Why?

Are you one of those people who believe that nothing can ever be done
for the first time?

Of course, but seeing if it can be done is a good idea before
spending Billions.

There is no reason to think it can't be done. It has been
demonstrated on a small scale, and there are no laws of physics to
indicate that it won't scale up.

There are many things that will not scale up.

Yes.

So?

This isn't one of them.

I tried to find a web site that talked about wireless power
transmission, the only thing I found was about using a type of
induction coils in homes for small appliances.

Tesla tried it, but I think he tried it without a frequency
generator with a regular cycle. Maybe its possible, maybe not,
I have made paraboloid mirrors that could receive a focused beam,
the problem may be trying to focus more than 50 percent of the
radiating antenna into a beam.
Megawatt transmitters must have huge waveguides, and there
should be considerable data on how efficient they are, so if there
is data on any tests of power transmission, it would seem to be
important.

There is abundant data. Raytheon did a lot of work on this in the
sixties and seventies, with a demonstration at Goldstone.

Thanks for the hints, but even with hundreds of rockets the
size of the Saturn 5, it could take many years to assemble any size
system that would provide more than a token amount of energy.

You've done the calculations, have you?

Not only that, I read the aviation news regularly,
and money issues has replaced the dreams.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

At the lower mass estimate of a 5Gw power satellite, it would take
fewer than 100 saturn v's to put the components into orbit. The
weight of kerosene in the first stage was just a bit over four times
the mass put into orbit (the LH2 of the second stage brought this to
about five times).

Put another way, if a car has 100000 miles on its odometer it has used
more than the amount of fuel it would require to put its weight into
orbit.

Even with a conservative mass estimate of 50000 tons, half the weight
of an aircraft carrier, 2kg/m2 or 10kg/Kw, a power satellite could put
a copy of itself in orbit in under three months.

Totorkon <aertr... at (no spam) gmail.com>  wrote:
On May 18, 3:47?pm, Whata Fool <wh... at (no spam) fool.ami> wrote:
? ? ?Thanks for the hints, but even with hundreds of rockets the
size of the Saturn 5, it could take many years to assemble any size
system that would provide more than a token amount of energy.

You've done the calculations, have you?

? ? ?Not only that, I read the aviation news regularly,
and money issues has replaced the dreams.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
At the lower mass estimate of a 5Gw power satellite,

     A 5Gw power satellite is not even worth launching,
the average power plant on Earth is 1Gw, this shows how clueless
any talk of replacing all fossil power plants is.

     The biggest reciprocating aircraft engine was about 7 megawatts,
and the biggest jet engine is about 80 megawatts.
     There are hydro plants bigger than 5Gw.

it would take
fewer than 100 saturn v's to put the components into orbit.  

      Try about 1000 or more, a large collector field would have to
weigh about 3 times as much as the ISS arrays per square foot to hold
rigidity against inertial accelerations during alignment, and inertial
accelerations are identical to gravitational accelerations.

The
weight of kerosene in the first stage was just a bit over four times
the mass put into orbit (the LH2 of the second stage brought this to
about five times).

     What about the weight of the oxidizer?    Kerosene takes about
what, about 2 or 3 times the weight in liquid oxygen.

Put another way, if a car has 100000 miles on its odometer it has used
more than the amount of fuel it would require to put its weight into
orbit.

     Poor relevance.

Even with a conservative mass estimate of 50000 tons, half the weight
of an aircraft carrier, 2kg/m2 or 10kg/Kw, a power satellite could put
a copy of itself in orbit in under three months.

     A rigid structure could not be built massing even 5 times those
numbers, as area is scaled up, the supporting structure mass is not a
linear increase, it may be an exponential function as great as 1.5
or more.

     The assembly is a big issue, when the shuttle is parked, it will
become very obvious how essential man in space is to any large project.

     Just feeding the world has become a problem, and that detracts
from the dreams of space projects.

On Mon, 19 May 2008 01:35:23 -0500, in a place far, far away, Whata
Fool <whata at (no spam) fool.ami> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

simberg.interglobal at (no spam) org.trash (Rand Simberg) wrote:

On Sun, 18 May 2008 17:47:27 -0500, in a place far, far away, Whata
Fool <whata at (no spam) fool.ami> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:


Tesla tried it, but I think he tried it without a frequency
generator with a regular cycle. Maybe its possible, maybe not,
I have made paraboloid mirrors that could receive a focused beam,
the problem may be trying to focus more than 50 percent of the
radiating antenna into a beam.
Megawatt transmitters must have huge waveguides, and there
should be considerable data on how efficient they are, so if there
is data on any tests of power transmission, it would seem to be
important.

There is abundant data. Raytheon did a lot of work on this in the
sixties and seventies, with a demonstration at Goldstone.

Thanks for the hints, but even with hundreds of rockets the
size of the Saturn 5, it could take many years to assemble any size
system that would provide more than a token amount of energy.

You've done the calculations, have you?

Not only that, I read the aviation news regularly,
and money issues has replaced the dreams.

In other words, no.

Is that your way of avoiding discussion?

Look at this image of the ISS, only about 240,000 square feet
of solar cells;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ISS_after_STS-123_in_March_2008_cropped.jpg

And realize it has taken over 100 space walks to get this far, with
another 100 or so space walks needed to complete.

Again, just like the nutty notion of thinking that we would use
Shuttle to build SPS, the notion that we would build SPS using the
same designs/techniques as we built ISS solar panels is crazy.

Space cells are a lot more expensive than terrestrial cells,

What does that mean? What is a "space cell," in this context?

I guess, simply put, is that efficiency and less degrading with
time and radiation is important when sending to where maintenance or
replacement is difficult or impossible.

If maintenance or replacement is difficult or impossible, SPS won't be
built.


Lets talk about it again after man has been in GEO for a few times.

SPS won't necessarily be in GEO.

It definitely could not be in low Earth orbit, and any Ln position
is out of the question.

It could be in a wide range of orbits.

Did you read where I claimed SPS of 5 Gigawatts is not worth any
effort at all, that much will be installed on Earth every year, and it
will increase as production increases.

Yes, we've read many of your nonsensical claims.

Score, January, 2008 SPS ZERO, Terrestrial 12.4 Gigawatts and
counting;


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics


Roof tops alone have enough area to supply all the electricity,
and batteries (also flow batteries) are improving rapidly.

NASA has no business building power plants for power companies,
the power companies need to do that themselves.