I have no problem with this idea. It is intriguing.
My problem is with the energy system of America as a whole. The fossil fuel market is drawing quickly to a close. Now many people want to replace their gas with hydrogen. I completely disagree with hydrogen for three reasons. First hydrogen is more volatile than gasoline and it has serious storage problems (Ask the Hindenburg). Secondly, electricity is wasted in the electrolysis process (electrolysis is around 66% efficient). Lastly and most importantly it is exactly what oil companies want. They want an infrastructure they can control. A battery/ electric car is in my view undeniably the best option. Don't let any corporations catch you saying that though.
I think renewable energy is a great idea in the short run. But growing energy needs will ultimately eclipse renewable energy. Or at least there will be some minimum that energy will always cost more than
In 2005 a nuclear reactor in Arizona produced more energy than all solar and wind plants that year. About 10% of American power in nuclear power. In the United States for the past 30 year since Three Mile Island there has been a public schizophrenia of nuclear power. Only one new reactor has been approved since 1979. France is the world's leading energy exporter and about 75% of their energy is nuclear energy. They have employed new technology that reduces nuclear waste by 90%. Really nuclear waste is benign. The amount of toxic waste created by producing solar cells for renewable energy eclipses the amount of nuclear waste generated. As for nuclear meltdowns, the temperature of a uranium powered critical reactor regardless of design will never eclipse a certain temperature. The casings of the reactor can withstand this temperature. Persons living next door to a reactor encounter less radiation from the reactor each year than they do from continental plane flight. Contrary to popular belief nuclear power is both safe and economical.
Ultimately nuclear power is the key especially when considering space travel within the solar system. If you are familiar with antimatter, it is not an available resource, but can be created. Eventually in many years antimatter will be the only viable option for interstellar travels.
Space travel is something that would stimulate the economy. Every dollar spent by NASA makes seven times its value in GDP. There are trillions of dollars of natural resources on a single asteroid. The moon contains Tritium that is almost a purely burning nuclear fuel. So space is worth the effort.
This is off topic. But replacing nuclear power I don't think is wise. I do believe that this satellite solar beam technology is worth pursuing.
Frankly I have little faith in NASA. I'm sure there's going to be some attempt to go to somewhere in space someday somehow (their "new" space shuttle is having serious problems and not to mention it a mock up it of the Saturn rocket used decades ago). I believe that the private realm of business will become dominant over NASA in the coming years. There is definitely potential for profit in space and NASA is too concerned about analytical science to figure out how to answer the entrepreneurial aspects of space. For example on the moon an isotope of helium could be used to create pure burning fuel for nuclear reactors. It's been estimated that the amount of platinum on certain asteroids would have market value in the trillions. NASA is too busy fighting a stubborn bureaucracy to really tap space's potential. They are never going to make bring space to the common person. Rather, I believe that private industry will take over as the dominant space explorers. NASA should fill in as a watchdog over the private space industry. I believe NASA should foster the growth of the space industry.
Well, if extraterrestrials were able to see earth using electromagnetic radiation (ie light, radio waves, ect) depending on their distance they would not see a modern earth. If they were over 5 billion light years away then if they looked at this solar system the Sun and the Earth would just be forming. This is because light speed is too slow. By the time the light reaches the extraterrestrials a large amount of time would have passed. They would have to use something other than a telescope to see a modern life sustaining Earth.
Slashdot Mirror
Don't drink and derive! Unless you have a designated philosophy major.
I have no problem with this idea. It is intriguing. My problem is with the energy system of America as a whole. The fossil fuel market is drawing quickly to a close. Now many people want to replace their gas with hydrogen. I completely disagree with hydrogen for three reasons. First hydrogen is more volatile than gasoline and it has serious storage problems (Ask the Hindenburg). Secondly, electricity is wasted in the electrolysis process (electrolysis is around 66% efficient). Lastly and most importantly it is exactly what oil companies want. They want an infrastructure they can control. A battery/ electric car is in my view undeniably the best option. Don't let any corporations catch you saying that though. I think renewable energy is a great idea in the short run. But growing energy needs will ultimately eclipse renewable energy. Or at least there will be some minimum that energy will always cost more than In 2005 a nuclear reactor in Arizona produced more energy than all solar and wind plants that year. About 10% of American power in nuclear power. In the United States for the past 30 year since Three Mile Island there has been a public schizophrenia of nuclear power. Only one new reactor has been approved since 1979. France is the world's leading energy exporter and about 75% of their energy is nuclear energy. They have employed new technology that reduces nuclear waste by 90%. Really nuclear waste is benign. The amount of toxic waste created by producing solar cells for renewable energy eclipses the amount of nuclear waste generated. As for nuclear meltdowns, the temperature of a uranium powered critical reactor regardless of design will never eclipse a certain temperature. The casings of the reactor can withstand this temperature. Persons living next door to a reactor encounter less radiation from the reactor each year than they do from continental plane flight. Contrary to popular belief nuclear power is both safe and economical. Ultimately nuclear power is the key especially when considering space travel within the solar system. If you are familiar with antimatter, it is not an available resource, but can be created. Eventually in many years antimatter will be the only viable option for interstellar travels. Space travel is something that would stimulate the economy. Every dollar spent by NASA makes seven times its value in GDP. There are trillions of dollars of natural resources on a single asteroid. The moon contains Tritium that is almost a purely burning nuclear fuel. So space is worth the effort. This is off topic. But replacing nuclear power I don't think is wise. I do believe that this satellite solar beam technology is worth pursuing.
Frankly I have little faith in NASA. I'm sure there's going to be some attempt to go to somewhere in space someday somehow (their "new" space shuttle is having serious problems and not to mention it a mock up it of the Saturn rocket used decades ago). I believe that the private realm of business will become dominant over NASA in the coming years. There is definitely potential for profit in space and NASA is too concerned about analytical science to figure out how to answer the entrepreneurial aspects of space. For example on the moon an isotope of helium could be used to create pure burning fuel for nuclear reactors. It's been estimated that the amount of platinum on certain asteroids would have market value in the trillions. NASA is too busy fighting a stubborn bureaucracy to really tap space's potential. They are never going to make bring space to the common person. Rather, I believe that private industry will take over as the dominant space explorers. NASA should fill in as a watchdog over the private space industry. I believe NASA should foster the growth of the space industry.
Well, if extraterrestrials were able to see earth using electromagnetic radiation (ie light, radio waves, ect) depending on their distance they would not see a modern earth. If they were over 5 billion light years away then if they looked at this solar system the Sun and the Earth would just be forming. This is because light speed is too slow. By the time the light reaches the extraterrestrials a large amount of time would have passed. They would have to use something other than a telescope to see a modern life sustaining Earth.