Pentagon Study: Power From Space

[Ender]

Thoughts on Ares V, Ender?

Still uses reusable boosters, IIRC, and one point raised in the book was how poor those were for lowering costs. Dollars per kilo Saturn V and Energia would be cheaper than the reusable boosters because the servicing costs to make sure the boosters can be reused are just stupid.

[K. A. Pital]

Do they still make those?

No. But then, engineering designs from "Energia" are still in use, you can reinstate production if you want to. The V-H Energia configuration could lift up up to 175 tons in orbit.

[phongn]

Thoughts on Ares V, Ender?

Still uses reusable boosters, IIRC, and one point raised in the book was how poor those were for lowering costs. Dollars per kilo Saturn V and Energia would be cheaper than the reusable boosters because the servicing costs to make sure the boosters can be reused are just stupid.

The whole Ares family will use "reusable" 5-segment SRBs. NASA's probably trying to conserve on development costs again.

[Adrian Laguna]

There's only so much uranium in the ore, that given total ore reserves, it's enough for 1500 years only. Currently discovered reserves allow for 70 years use with current intensity only. The extraction from unconventional sources is only speculated, technically we have not hit that possible barrier yet.

There's fucktons in seawater. I've seen figures that with re-processing and breeding the uranium in the Earth that's accessible to us (there's probably a lot in the core, but we can't get to it) is enough for some ridiculous number of years. Current nuclear technology is only an intermediary solution, yes, but current technology can't do solar panels in space either.

[Adrian Laguna]

current technology can't do solar panels in space either.

That should be "giant solar panels in space". Obviously I also mean to imply "that send the energy they collect back to Earth". I'm not so ignorant I don't know a good chunk of satellites, the Hubble Space Telescope, some probes we've sent around the solar system, and the ISS, run on space solar panels.

[K. A. Pital]

Obviously I also mean to imply "that send the energy they collect back to Earth".

Indeed. The question is, will we break nuclear material breeding limitations, or expand the ability to harness solar power? Both options should be considered, and put effort into.

[Jadeite]

Gerard O'Neill, will you yet be vindicated?

I will not die happy unless "The High Frontier" becomes reality, or is on its way to it. What people don't realize is that while launch costs may be massive, they can be dramatically reduced with an efficient system (Sea Dragon, for example), or by simply putting the manufacturing facilities into orbit and extracting the resources required from NEAs.

While the set-up costs would still be quite large, the amount of resources and energy available would make it seem like a pittance in comparison. The first nation to get a permanent presence into orbit that can exploit these resources will be like the Spanish in the New World; incredible wealth at their fingertips and they won't even need to slaughter any natives for it.

[wautd]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/

A new Pentagon study lays out the roadmap for a multibillion-dollar push to the final frontier of energy: a satellite system that collects gigawatts’ worth of solar power and beams it down to Earth.

Heh... someone has been playing Ogame

[Winston Blake]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/

A new Pentagon study lays out the roadmap for a multibillion-dollar push to the final frontier of energy: a satellite system that collects gigawatts’ worth of solar power and beams it down to Earth.

Heh... someone has been playing Ogame

Or... someone has been listening to the advocates of a complex of ideas that have been studied in detail for longer than most SDN members have existed.

[dragon]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21253268/

A new Pentagon study lays out the roadmap for a multibillion-dollar push to the final frontier of energy: a satellite system that collects gigawatts’ worth of solar power and beams it down to Earth.

Heh... someone has been playing Ogame

Or... someone has been listening to the advocates of a complex of ideas that have been studied in detail for longer than most SDN members have existed.

O'Neil has some great ideas, if you get a chance read his book The High Frontier. The first edition was published in 1971, and the third edition was published in 2000. I really should read it, it's been sitting on my book self for over a year now.

[Crown]

Of course it's not feasible currently. No one's tried to build one!

Jesus Christ, people are idiots sometimes. I'll walk you through it. It's a sound scientific principle. We know how to make solar collection generators. We know we can build honking huge ones in space that won't suffer from cloudy days or, if deployed right, even nighttime. We know we can move power 'downhill' to Earth.

The feasibility of doing it currently comes from one, simple, fact. You need to get the engineers to work to hammer away at the problem. No technology will ever be feasible without getting some brainy guys together and telling them to put their shoulder into it. It takes prototypes, failed attempts, and effort to make these things feasible.

But no. The idiot brigades ignore these beautiful chances because it's space, and apparently, sitting on Earth with our thumbs up our asses is smarter. Nevermind arrays like this could solve the energy crisis for the immediate future.

Seriously, stop watching Stargate. This isn't a problem whereby Carter/McKay can 'rewrite an algorithm to boost the Hyperdrive speed by 400%' in a 38min episode. At a $10k per Kilo cost of a launch, this isn't a simple problem, and proposals that could potentially cut this down by an order of magnitude (the first crucial step in even beginning to think we can make this feasible) aren't even on the horizon.

For the 'immediate future' we go nuclear. Cheaper to build. Cheaper to maintain. Long life of fuel. Plenty of fuel to meet our energy needs into way beyond our lifetimes. No need to build prototypes and failed attempts, we already have a sound understanding on how to make nuclear power plants work, and the infrastructure in place to do so.

[Mr. T]

Whether it's feasible on any meaningful time-scale to help with an upcoming energy crisis I wouldn't know. But I would say that it represents a good direction for the space program to be going in and obviously would give it alot of focus. For that reason I think it would be good to have as a mandate for the space program. Even if it never pans out, as long as it's decently funded it's sure to spark alot of innovations in things like launching payloads cheaply, power transmission etc. that could benefit humanity.

As cool as a mission to Mars would be, a project like this would perhaps be a better mandate.

[SirNitram]

Seriously, stop watching Stargate.<Snip vacuous irrelevencies>

Wow, I had no idea the concept of having to work on a project to ever see any progress was merely a sci-fi bit of wankitude. Clearly, in the real world, we wave our hands and these things fall from the fucking sky when the 'Time is right' or whatever other bullshit is called for.

Is the idea that you have to at least put some effort into something to make it feasible so alien to people? Or is it just a rabid, syphylis-induced mania against space technology? I expect better, Crown, than the insinuation that this is hand-waving and instant perfection. It'd take decades, probably, but it will remain the same distance away until, oh, someone starts working on it.

[Crown]

Seriously, stop watching Stargate.<Snip vacuous irrelevencies>

Wow, I had no idea the concept of having to work on a project to ever see any progress was merely a sci-fi bit of wankitude. Clearly, in the real world, we wave our hands and these things fall from the fucking sky when the 'Time is right' or whatever other bullshit is called for.

Is the idea that you have to at least put some effort into something to make it feasible so alien to people? Or is it just a rabid, syphylis-induced mania against space technology? I expect better, Crown, than the insinuation that this is hand-waving and instant perfection. It'd take decades, probably, but it will remain the same distance away until, oh, someone starts working on it.

Your post is meaningless.

I particularly love how you quoted one sentence and one sentence only. Let me phrase it in a way that leaves no doubt as to what 'not feasible at this time' means; Nuclear Fusion is a more feasible prospect at this time than this proposal. We have actually already got working prototypes up and running.

So if you think you can try and brow beat me into submission ... *yawn*

But please, don't let me get in your way of making a huge giant ass out of yourself, you've already provided me with a bundle of laughs in this thread, more couldn't hurt.

[SirNitram]

Your post is meaningless.

And your pathetic strawman had some meaning?

I particularly love how you quoted one sentence and one sentence only. Let me phrase it in a way that leaves no doubt as to what 'not feasible at this time' means; Nuclear Fusion is a more feasible prospect at this time than this proposal. We have actually already got working prototypes up and running.

Yep, there's never been a solar panel in space.

Oh, wait.

Perhaps, like so many others, you don't bother to read. You know, like where I just said it'd take decades. But nope, we're gonna continue this silly little thing where it's not feasible to do it right this second to solve power problems, so let's ignore it.

So if you think you can try and brow beat me into submission ... *yawn*

Why would I bother? I'll call you on your strawman, mock your misconceptions(Purposeful or powered only by ignorance and an unwillingness to read my words; don't matter to me which) and generally not give a crap if you're yawning.

But please, don't let me get in your way of making a huge giant ass out of yourself, you've already provided me with a bundle of laughs in this thread, more couldn't hurt.

Mmhmm. Says the one who starts off with a strawman and continues merrily along with it without even hesitating. Of course nukes are a better short term solution. The fact I mention their use for even the propulsion to get these things in the sky would suggest I know that. But to you, that's inconvenient to your 'YOU WATCH TOO MUCH SCI-FI!' strawman nonsense.

Run along.

[Adrian Laguna]

Obviously I also mean to imply "that send the energy they collect back to Earth".

Indeed. The question is, will we break nuclear material breeding limitations, or expand the ability to harness solar power? Both options should be considered, and put effort into.

Oh most definitely, I'm just saying that nuclear power should have higher priority for the time-being. Once we've attained some level of energy stability, which should be feasible with nuclear power, we can switch focus to harnessing the awesome power of the sun.

[Crown]

Your post is meaningless.

And your pathetic strawman had some meaning?

What strawman cuntface? You replied to a post that stated that this wasn't feasible with an emo rant on how it was people like that that kept holding development back. You of course side stepped the issue that this as a future power source (as the article suggested) was what was being discussed, not that we can actually launch things in da spaz!!!11Shift+1

Then in reply to my post you <snip> all the arguments which demonstrate the infeasible aspects of this proposal, arguments which handily demolish your claims that this proposal would; 'this could solve the energy crisis for the immediate future', which you have now handily back peddled to meaning 'decades', which is what - you know - we've been saying about fusion for, decades now.

Unless the English definition of 'immediate' has been changed and no one notified me, nuclear fission can do this today. And can solve our energy problems for centuries to come.

YI particularly love how you quoted one sentence and one sentence only. Let me phrase it in a way that leaves no doubt as to what 'not feasible at this time' means; Nuclear Fusion is a more feasible prospect at this time than this proposal. We have actually already got working prototypes up and running.

Yep, there's never been a solar panel in space.

Oh, wait.

Perhaps, like so many others, you don't bother to read. You know, like where I just said it'd take decades. But nope, we're gonna continue this silly little thing where it's not feasible to do it right this second to solve power problems, so let's ignore it.

Can you re-phrase that to English please? I also speak Greek, but moron speak is a bit hard for me.

YSo if you think you can try and brow beat me into submission ... *yawn*

Why would I bother? I'll call you on your strawman, mock your misconceptions(Purposeful or powered only by ignorance and an unwillingness to read my words; don't matter to me which) and generally not give a crap if you're yawning.

As long as you don't give a crap than;

YBut please, don't let me get in your way of making a huge giant ass out of yourself, you've already provided me with a bundle of laughs in this thread, more couldn't hurt.

Mmhmm. Says the one who starts off with a strawman and continues merrily along with it without even hesitating. Of course nukes are a better short term solution. The fact I mention their use for even the propulsion to get these things in the sky would suggest I know that. But to you, that's inconvenient to your 'YOU WATCH TOO MUCH SCI-FI!' strawman nonsense.

Have the courage to stand by your idiocy. You acted like an ass, you've been pwn'd, and you now back peddle. Don't trip over mate.

In every way your argument (and I use that word very liberally) can be applied to nuclear fusion. And guess what my old china? Fusion is leaps and bounds ahead of this game than this pie-in-the-sky (quite literally in the sky) proposal. Which is not feasible in any sense.

Run along.

People who are impressed by your self claimed victory; that way ->

[SirNitram]

'Emo rant', 'How dare you snip my gross ignoring of your words!', 'You've been pwned!', wow. Such cutting lack of wit and total failure of insight.

No doubt you will again whine and snap that I didn't quote you in total, but there's no point. You gleefully ignore that my point was blazingly, obviously apparent: That effort must be put into something for it to ever be viable. Instead, like dragon, you stamp around, try and act big, and offer no substance.

Fission will handle us for 'centuries'? As has already been covered in this thread, there's enough for seventy years.. At current usage. Fission taking over for everything else will slash that. Now, we can possibly get enough from seawater, but that's just prolonging the crisis, because it will run out. Then we'll need something else. Sure, we can pin our dreams on fusion.. But someone with a brain would realize you need to spread out your possibilities.

you've been pwn'd,

People who are impressed by your self claimed victory; that way ->

Ah, the irony. Of course, I don't speak 'Chatroom idiot l33t', so I can't translate the concept to you, but perhaps if you work really hard, you'll figure it out.

[Crown]

'Emo rant', 'How dare you snip my gross ignoring of your words!', 'You've been pwned!', wow. Such cutting lack of wit and total failure of insight.

Glad you liked it, you won't be I take it, crying or anything in the rest of this 'response'?

No doubt you will again whine and snap that I didn't quote you in total, but there's no point. You gleefully ignore that my point was blazingly, obviously apparent: That effort must be put into something for it to ever be viable. Instead, like dragon, you stamp around, try and act big, and offer no substance.

And no doubt you will miss the point that is also blazingly obvious; this 'proposal' is NOT a response to our 'energy crisis for the immediate future'. Fission is. Also, Fusion is leaps and bounds ahead of the game in being a permanent solution to our energy crisis. One that has been in development for some time now, with lots and lots of 'smart people' putting some 'effort' into solving. Or at least I think they have been, I haven't taken a survey or anything, but I think I'm okay to claim that, I hope it doesn't violate your DR6 or anything.... *shudder*

Fission will handle us for 'centuries'? As has already been covered in this thread, there's enough for seventy years.. At current usage. Fission taking over for everything else will slash that. Now, we can possibly get enough from seawater, but that's just prolonging the crisis, because it will run out.

No. Uranium will supply us for 75 years (as was the claim made in this thread), no mention of Thorium, breeder reactors, etc. To put it simply; all I've seen is people post 'IIRC' claims. Link to me these papers so I can read them, and don't make me drag it out of you kicking and screaming. Not that I have any reason to suspect someone of an outright lie, but it will be nice to see what considerations these papers have taken into account to reach this figure.

Then we'll need something else. Sure, we can pin our dreams on fusion.. But someone with a brain would realize you need to spread out your possibilities.

Which no one is arguing against. Only that out of all the possible 'out there' proposals to help us meet our growing need to have more energy, this is the least feasible. Fusion is (admittedly) the holy grail. We get that, and we won't need anything else, but a combination of fission and renewables (which are inferior, but already in play) are sufficient to cover us.

Furthermore, fusion, it terms of investment, and in infrastructure is leaps and bounds ahead of this proposal.

The major hurdle in this project is not something that can trivially be found overnight; launch cost. Your post was nothing more than some Sci-Fi wet dream 'throw money at it, and some smart people and we will over come!'. My friend, that is exactly what we've been doing with fusion.

So your argument applies for me, more than it does for you, since we've already been throwing money and smart people at fusion. Unless of course you'll agree that this is a nothing argument to begin with, and your initial post was nothing more than a little hissy fit that was a waste of bandwidth and my time reading (and now responding to). I could give a rat's ass how you've back peddled your initial arrogant stupidity to a more mollified reasoned position.

I could reword your initial post to make the same case for fusion, and be far more correct than you for the simple fact that the development phase for fusion being achieved is so bleeding close to success.

you've been pwn'd,

People who are impressed by your self claimed victory; that way ->

Ah, the irony. Of course, I don't speak 'Chatroom idiot l33t', so I can't translate the concept to you, but perhaps if you work really hard, you'll figure it out.

The irony of contradicting yourself while trying to claim a victory is making me all happy inside; 'l33t'.

[SirNitram]

Will you ever tire of that pathetic strawman of yours? At what point did I say 'Throw money at it! It'll be done tomorrow!'? The answer, because I know reading my posts would strain your underdeveloped brain, is that I never said such. I said, in a statement which is quite true, that you can't make progress without, you know, effort. You continually strawman this point, and we just get lots of sound and fury from you.. Signifying nothing.

[Crown]

Will you ever tire of that pathetic strawman of yours? At what point did I say 'Throw money at it! It'll be done tomorrow!'? The answer, because I know reading my posts would strain your underdeveloped brain, is that I never said such. I said, in a statement which is quite true, that you can't make progress without, you know, effort. You continually strawman this point, and we just get lots of sound and fury from you.. Signifying nothing.

Orly?

How else do you get; 'engineers to work to hammer away at the problem'? Pay them with sexual favours? Or 'prototypes'? With donuts? Or 'failed attempts'? With empty words? Or how do you go about 'mak[ing]e these things feasible' without money? For the immediate future?.

So will you 'ever tire' of your pathetic attempt to weasel out of your initial idiocy (or I could be generous and chalk it up to using the wrong fucking word)? No. Then, goodnight.

Oh, and when you finally can be arsed showing how fission won't be able to solve our energy needs for centuries (yes I know that 75 years claim wasn't made by you, but you cited it), let me know. I think that kind of behavior falls under a DR of some kind, I don't know, six or something, who can say?

[SirNitram]

Will you ever tire of that pathetic strawman of yours? At what point did I say 'Throw money at it! It'll be done tomorrow!'? The answer, because I know reading my posts would strain your underdeveloped brain, is that I never said such. I said, in a statement which is quite true, that you can't make progress without, you know, effort. You continually strawman this point, and we just get lots of sound and fury from you.. Signifying nothing.

Orly?

How else do you get; 'engineers to work to hammer away at the problem'? Pay them with sexual favours? Or 'prototypes'? With donuts? Or 'failed attempts'? With empty words? Or how do you go about 'mak[ing]e these things feasible' without money? For the immediate future?.

So will you 'ever tire' of your pathetic attempt to weasel out of your initial idiocy (or I could be generous and chalk it up to using the wrong fucking word)? No. Then, goodnight.

Oh, and when you finally can be arsed showing how fission won't be able to solve our energy needs for centuries (yes I know that 75 years claim wasn't made by you, but you cited it), let me know. I think that kind of behavior falls under a DR of some kind, I don't know, six or something, who can say?

Yes, exactly. When someone snaps off 'Fission will last hundreds of years, no need to research silly space tech', they should definitely provide evidence.

That'd be your post, BTW, where you brought up fission lasting for ages with no references. Instead, you will declare the burden is on me for not believing you.

You're twisting alot. You keep acting like I expect this tomorrow. I don't. I happen to see the immediate energy crisis as something that will last a while though. If you'd like to provide those thorium numbers, please, prove me wrong. Go on. Do it. Back up these words of yours:

Unless the English definition of 'immediate' has been changed and no one notified me, nuclear fission can do this today. And can solve our energy problems for centuries to come.

I'm waiting. Of course, you will run off now.

[Crown]

Yes, exactly. When someone snaps off 'Fission will last hundreds of years, no need to research silly space tech', they should definitely provide evidence.

That'd be your post, BTW, where you brought up fission lasting for ages with no references. Instead, you will declare the burden is on me for not believing you.

You're twisting alot. You keep acting like I expect this tomorrow. I don't. I happen to see the immediate energy crisis as something that will last a while though. If you'd like to provide those thorium numbers, please, prove me wrong. Go on. Do it. Back up these words of yours:

After I do this, will we see you try and 'defend' your 'immediate' idiocy or not? Just a question.

Unless the English definition of 'immediate' has been changed and no one notified me, nuclear fission can do this today. And can solve our energy problems for centuries to come.

I'm waiting.

'Sustainable Energy from Nuclear Fission Power by Marvin L. Adams a professor of nuclear engineering at Texas A&M University

Thus, as far as inputs are concerned, fission power has the potential to provide a large fraction of the world’s energy for many, many centuries. However, tapping the full potential energy of uranium and thorium resources will require changes from current fission-energy practice, including the use of "high-conversion" reactors and the recycling of fissionable isotopes.

As I said, the 75 years only smacks to me of economically viable Uranium, ignoring Thorium, and ignoring breeder and reprocessing. Would love to see your link ... but then again, you don't have one, now do you?

Here is a link (pdf) from the DoE, explaining the above paper in greater technical detail; i.e. 'more than 99 percent of the potential energy in the uranium is lost' when dealing with a 'once through' or 'single tier' nuclear cycle, which I again re-iterate is what I've heard used to analyse how much Uranium we can actually use.

A multi-tier cycle can extend the years we can run of fission for a far, greater length. So again, would love to see your proof. Who knows, I might actually learn something new.

Of course, you will run off now.

Maybe in the 'immediate future' as defined by you, but not quite yet.

[SirNitram]

That's better than most idiots who make unsourced claims to me then whine about DR6, only two posts. And I happen to concede. See how easy things go when you substantiate your claims, Crown? Maybe next time, you'll do it when you start in, before slinging around nonsense like 'emo rants' and 'pwnzed!'

[Crown]

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah And I happen to concede. Blah, blah, blah, blahblahblah, blah blah blah

After I do this, will we see you try and 'defend' your 'immediate' idiocy or not? Just a question.

So the answer is 'no' then, I take it?

Run along little man, find some new member and bluster up to them, you might actually get away with it!