wow! and I thought I was a big space nerd.<br /> Discussions of orbital mechanics, space industry, beeming solar energy, you all rock! <br />ok my 2 cents....I've recently read about new flexible sheet solar panels, which can be mass produced at low cost. I think these can really expand the use of solar energy, but here on the ground. The same article indicated that about 40 sq miles of panels on the ground could power the USA. It seems like alot but it would be much cheaper than orbital generation and distribution.<br /> The bottem line for me is this: individualized power generation via solar/wind is the future i.e. you power you own house/buisness. There are however industrial applications (aluminum production as an example, or hydogen seperation from H2O if you want to go that route for cars) that require terawatts. If we can't have the 40sq miles of panels, which does seem unlikely, then the answer is fusion. I know, I know; they have been promising fusion since 1970 but IT IS COMMING! I believe it is the future and inevitable. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> <font color="#0000ff"> www.watchnasatv.com</font></p><p> ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </p> </div>
- Status
I'd like to see the SPS option kept open because mining the Moon or asteroids will bring the price way down.<br /><br />As long as this is shipped up by hydrogen/kerosene/LOX rockets it's economically quite impossible. That's what Peter Glaser's SPS system proposed to use.
mikeemmert,<br /><br />The way that I see things, low Earth orbit is only going to be a desirable area for operations for a short time, relatively speaking, because radiation shielding will be perfected which will allow space stations to be placed in orbits high enough to avoid atmospheric drag. But dealing with space debris will be a problem for many years to come, and solutions will be found. Perhaps using lasers to slow small objects sufficently enough to cause them to re-enter will be practical. A craft in a highly ellipictical orbit could snare larger debris, and haul it to a storage orbit, where it could be salvaged at some time. Remember, every gram of mass in orbit has an energy value!<br /><br />Energy is going to have to be used much more efficently, especially in the United States, no matter what technologies we develop. To dump 3/4's of what we consume back into the environment is suicide, in the long run. The space program has been responsible for the development of insulation far superior to fiberglass or foam, and incorporating that into all housing in the U. S. would have a substantial impact on energy consumption. Accepting the use of mass transit for routine travel, and high speed rail for transcontinental trips, two areas the U. S. is way behind in, would alter the energy consumption pattern dramatically. We have become used to the most inefficient methods known for getting around, the automobile and the aircraft, because the use of them has benefited certain parties financially.<br /><br /><br />Remember, folks, a new Congress will be seated in January. We need to make sure that they continue funding for our future, by burying them in letters. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
You'd have to bring the price way, way, way down. Mining celestial bodies wouldn't make a big enough difference.<br /><br />But the option to build an SPS is always open. You can start at any point and don't have to make special arrangements to preserve the possibility.
Thor06,<br /><br />Welcome to the SDC!<br /><br />I am surprised at the figure of 40 square miles of solar panels being adequate to power the USA, but I am aware that the efficiency is improving.<br /><br />And I understand that ground has been broken for the first experimental fusion reactor in Europe. This is not a research reactor, but a prototype of a commercial unit, if I remember correctly. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
halman,<br />thanks for the welcome! I'm impressed with the tech savy of this forum, and really enjoying it.<br /><br />let's see...Yes that was the figure they gave 40sq mi. I'm suprised you think it's too small. My reaction was the opposite....it woun't get built, too big, enviro concerns etc.<br /><br />I did a quick search on the fusion reator and it was dissapointing.<br />"When will the first commercial fusion reactor be built?<br /><br />Not for a long time. Experimental fusion reactors like the Joint European Torus (Jet) at Culham in the UK currently use more energy than they release.<br /><br />There are therefore many major scientific and engineering hurdles to overcome before the technology becomes commercially viable. A commercial reactor is not expected before 2045 or 2050 - if at all. Indeed, there is no guarantee that Iter will succeed.<br /><br />The running joke is that fusion has been "just decades away" for several decades. "<br /><br />from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4627237.stm<br /><br />bummer huh? <br />damn.<br /><br />Well, I still have the cheap solar panels to look forward to, and maybe taking my home off the grid. 
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> <font color="#0000ff"> www.watchnasatv.com</font></p><p> ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </p> </div>
<div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> <font color="#0000ff"> www.watchnasatv.com</font></p><p> ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </p> </div>Again,<br /><br />Welcome to the forum Thor06.<br /><br />Yes, we are a group of prime nerds over here.<br /><br />Most of the people who post here are fabulous and they really know their stuff. Expect to get your brain<br />stretched.<br /><br />As for the 40 square miles that does seem a little small.<br /><br />Let's see.<br /><br />1 square mile = 2,589,988 square meters.<br /><br />So 40 square miles = 103,600,000 square meters.<br /><br />Now the solar constant is 1000 watts per square meter <br />at seal level on the equator with the sun directly<br />overhead.<br /><br />Giving a max input of 103,600,000,000 watts of power.<br /><br />Or 103.6 Terrawatts. This does not account for clouds,<br />solar cell inefficiency, or the sun not being directly<br />overhead.<br /><br />In North America the average insolation lies between 125 and 375 W/square meter.<br /><br />Let's use 300 W/square meter as a baseline.<br /><br />Now the solar input is 31 Tera Watts.<br /><br />Given a solar cell efficiency of 25% we are down to<br />7.77 TeraWatts! That's a lot of power!!!<br /><br />The total Global electrical power consumption is 1.7 teraWatts<br /><br />The total Global power consumption all sources is 13.5 TeraWatts.<br /><br />Hey, that number is in the ballpark. Maybe solar power is doable.... I didn't realize that it would only take a mere 40 square miles. That's impressive.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
<font color="yellow">"Giving a max input of 103,600,000,000 watts of power. <br /><br />Or 103.6 Terrawatts. This does not account for clouds, <br />solar cell inefficiency, or the sun not being directly <br />overhead. "</font><br /><br />Watt<br />KiloWatt<br />Megawatt<br /><i>Gigawatt</i><br />Terawatt<br /><br />Oops. You meant 103 Gigawatts, not Terawatts.<br /><br />Following the rest of the equation, results in 7.77 Gigawatts. 40 square miles won't cut it.
Thor06,<br /><br />Perhaps the figure you have is for the average consumption, which is significantly lower than the peak consumption. Because electrical generators will burn up if too much load is placed upon them, peak loads have to be accommodated. These generally occur about 7 AM local time, when water heaters are running full bore. In some countries, timers are installed on water heaters to prevent them from running during peak load periods, to spread the load out over the day.<br /><br />Strategies such as these have a significant impact on the required generating capacity, which could be lowered even more if the there were an efficient national electrical grid. Or even a national electrical grid.<br /><br />Congress is facing a multitude of demands for funding, from replacing bridges which are falling apart, to buying new armor for troops being deployed to Iraq. But we must keep reminding our representatives that we will have no future if we do not invest in it, and the space program has been shown over and over again to be the best investment we can make.<br /><br />Let your Congressional delegation know that you believe the current level of funding for the Vision for Space Exploration is inadequate, and that our investment in space exploration should be increased to a level equal to 1 percent of the federal budget. That would at least give us a chance for building the hardware we need to go back to the Moon before China gets there, especially if China decides to invest heavily in Russian space technology. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
BarryKirk,<br /><br />Well, some of us don't really know very much, but we enjoy hanging out with people who are making the future more than just video games and imported cars. (I drive a Chevrolet that was built in Japan by Toyota because General Motors has been having problems selling their own cars for over 20 years now. I call my rig a Chevota.) It is also fun to learn more about the serious business of space exploration, as well as watching some of the flame wars that go on. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
40 sqm is not that much, especially if there mounted as small sun following treas along hytension powerline routes.
Thank you for pointing out that error in my calcs.<br /><br />That 40 square mile number didn't seem right to me.<br /><br />So, really we would need 40,000 square miles of solar<br />cells. That makes much more sense.<br /><br />If it was 40 square miles of solar cells, the big question<br />would be, why are we still burning fossil fuels and<br />uranium.<br /><br />At 40,000 square miles, solar is way too expensive to be<br />used for most of our power needs.<br /><br />
mrmorris,<br /> Good catch, I'm still looking for the article I read that gave that 40sq mi #, it was a while ago. We will just say I botched it for now. In the process I found this nugget:<br /><br />Current cost of solar energy, per watt: $4-$5<br /><br />Average cost of energy from traditional fossil fuel sources, per watt: $1<br /><br />Estimated cost of energy from nanotech solar panels, per watt: $2<br /><br />Total energy-generating capacity of the United States: 950,000 megawatts<br /><br />Potential total rooftop solar energy capacity in the United States: 710, 000 megawatts<br /><br />Source: Energy Foundation <br /><br />http://www.wanttoknow.info/050818solarenergynanotechnology<br /><br />Honestly, I like this better, individualized power generation vs. exxon's 40,000 sq mi supermega solar array or whatever!<br /><br />Power for the people by the people! <br /><br />On topic: halman,<br /> I agree 100% with you on the funding increase for NASA. Here is my approach on how to get it:<br /> I have been writting/barking at NASA for years about the lack of production value/viewablity of NASA TV. Hell I'm a big fan and I have trouble sitting through a gallery/history/video file hour 4hr block....yikes!<br /> So, improve the quality of NASA TV advertise the "new NASA TV". Increased viewership, yields more support/pressure on government, yields more funding. More funding leads to a better NASA/NASA TV leads to increased viewership goto 20!<br /><br />This is a loop I think we can all deal with. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> <font color="#0000ff"> www.watchnasatv.com</font></p><p> ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </p> </div>
<br /><br />On topic: halman,<br /> I agree 100% with you on the funding increase for NASA. Here is my approach on how to get it:<br /> I have been writting/barking at NASA for years about the lack of production value/viewablity of NASA TV. Hell I'm a big fan and I have trouble sitting through a gallery/history/video file hour 4hr block....yikes!<br /> So, improve the quality of NASA TV advertise the "new NASA TV". Increased viewership, yields more support/pressure on government, yields more funding. More funding leads to a better NASA/NASA TV leads to increased viewership goto 20!<br /><br />This is a loop I think we can all deal with. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> <font color="#0000ff"> www.watchnasatv.com</font></p><p> ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </p> </div>Thor06,<br /><br />Numbers are such slippery things, sometimes, because, unless the exact definition of the number is included, it can give totally erroneous impressions. For instance, are the numbers you stated for costs of various power sources the cost per watt including the construction of the infrastructure needed to generate the power? I would hope so, because electricity is sold to the public by the kilowatt-hour, which is a load of 1,000 watts for one hour. (A typical water heater will consume around 2.5 kilowatt hours to recover from being drained.) Here in the Northwest, a kilowatt hour costs around 4 cents. In the Northeast U. S., a kilowatt hour goes for about 33 cents.<br /><br />So the figures you give per watt are extremely high, as far as I can tell.<br /><br />Factors that affect the lifetime cost of a power source are things like maintenance, environmental costs, and installation costs. Solar cells are basically maintenance free, and I think that the their lifetime is currently estimated at about 50-75 years. So the lifetime costs of solar cells are much lower than, say, a coal fired power plant, which must be shut down for maintenance periodically, as well as constant maintenance on pollution control equipment. But because the homeowner has to pay the entire cost of purchasing and installing the solar cells, they are less attractive to many because no such costs are required for using fossil fuel energy from the grid. But this is changing, as governments intercede on the part of the homeowner to finance the solar cells. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
33 cents per KWH is rather a high estimate.<br />I pay 20 c per KWH in the summer. LIPA rates (I believe the highest in the nation) are in that range, certainly no more than 25.<br /><br />That doesn't change your point, however. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
MeteorWayne, et al,<br /><br />Here is a letter which I will be sending to all members of the Congress. I urge you to copy it and do the same, or, at least, to write a letter in your own words expressing support for our off planet activities.<br /><br /><br /> Nothing makes me more proud to be an American than reflecting on our space program. Our country has worked together to create an enterprise which challenges the Cosmos, repeatedly achieving a difficult and dangerous goal. We have a the most advanced spacecraft ever built, and we have used it to create a toehold beyond the surface of this planet. Our future as a species will be shaped and determined by how we utilize off planet resources, I believe, because those resources are endless. America has already taken the first steps on another world, which used to be the symbol of inaccessibility.<br /><br /> No other endeavor has the promise of wealth and plenty that off planet exploration holds, and no other investment has paid us back as well as that we have made in traveling beyond this world. American leadership in opening up this new arena of human activity is undisputed, bringing us admiration from all peoples. Our exploits off planet have benefited all inhabitants of Earth, and I can hold them up as an example of the true spirit of America. They do not threaten harm or hardship, do not divide any belief, or take away from anyone. We have learned more about where we live by looking at it from a distance than all of our previous efforts to understand our world. And we now know our true place in the Cosmos, and how fragile that home is.<br /><br /> Continuing this bold assault on the boundaries of our existence requires unswerving dedication, unrelenting resolve, and the knowledge that sacrifice will always be rewarded. Danger will always be a part of pushing back the limits of what is known, but we press forward assured that others will follow. This effort demands the best that our country can give, and tax <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
Hi, halman;<br /><br />Blunt political fact. It's too long. Congressmen get thousands of letters everyday. OK? Now, I'm not trying to be a wet towel or something, but not even the secretary to the aide to the page is going to read this. Even with 50,000 signatures, but people who get 50,000 signatures have experience and wouldn't write something half as long.<br /><br />Sorry. Try again. Please don't get <img src="/images/icons/mad.gif" /> I'm trying to help.
That is true, it is a bit long. Members of Congress are more apt to read a one paragraph letter, or postcard, otherwise, it just gets tossed aside.<br /><br />Here is a sample letter, one that I have sent:<br /><br />Dear Representative/Senator (fill in the name):<br /><br />I am writing to you to express my support for NASA's Vision for Space Exploration (VSE) that was outlined in January 2004. I beleive that it is imperative to the future of our nation that the United States pursue manned space exploration, specifically the exploration of the Moon, Mars, and Near-Earth asteroids. In order to accomplish these goals, as outlined in the VSE, I am asking for your support of Project Orion (the Crew Exploration Vehicle), and the launch infrastructure needed to fly this vehicle which will return the US to the Moon, and further our nations reach into space. <br /><br />Sincerely:<br />your name <br />your address
breif,<br /> that's the one, well said. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p> <font color="#0000ff"> www.watchnasatv.com</font></p><p> ONE PERCENT FOR NASA! </p> </div>
breif,<br /><br />Members of Congress don't read letters, nor do their aides. They only tally up the totals. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
<font color="yellow">"Members of Congress don't read letters, nor do their aides. They only tally up the totals. "</font><br /><br />You're close, but not quite cynical enough.<br /><br />The statement about them only tallying up the totals would be 100% correct... if you're referring to totalling those numbers after the dollar sign on a campaign contribution check.
Perhaps your Congressman or Senator does just tally the totals, and if so, why is he/she still in Congress? However, I have met mine (Rep. Steve Chabot (Oh District 1)), and he could recall, without being reminded, a letter that I had written to him about another issue. My Senator was just like you stated, and he is not returning to the Senate.
breif,<br /><br />I am amazed that your Rep. could remember a letter written by an individual! I have always thought that they got mail by the bag full. That is one of the reasons why my letter is the way that it is, because I hope that if they do read it, they will remember it. I wanted to express not only my support for the space program, but the shame I feel at having to do over again what we have done before. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> The secret to peace of mind is a short attention span. </div>
While I agree with what you said, cutting it down would probably be a good idea. See what you condense. It's a fine line between succintness and being too long to be digested seriously, since the thought is correct that all letters are screened nowadays.<br />My grandfather, who wrote to a half dozen presidents, always wrote two letters. One short and sweet, and one with the full 5 page detailed expressions of his opinions. Since I was 6 years old, I didn't appreciate the effort. Now I know he was a master at getting his message across, usefully. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>
- Status
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 189
-
-
This Christmas Eve, humans will try to embrace a star
- Started by Admin
- Replies: 1
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 38
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram