They produce enough extra juice they actually sell it back to the local utility. Note the bill/resource usage for February, 2000 posted on the main page. If this can be done in a latitude as far north as Maine, it should be viable for most of north America. The only real factor involved would be cost of building and upkeep.
Thanks! It's good to know I didn't sleep through everything in high school:-)
I was thinking more along the lines of the upcoming Mars mission and the satelite coverage that this will necessitate. Too bad Mars is "fieldless" as this would save on energy in a spot so far from home and resupply.
Of course, once TMA-1 is dug up and activated (leading us to TMA-2) there should be plenty of cheap high intensity solar power out that way;-)
I'm wondering though, since this deals with physics involving the Earth's magnetic field, what about future space exploration? If I remember correctly Mars (and possibly the moon as well) have no magnetic fields to speak of.
...until a more efficient means of getting payload into orbit is developed. The last time I read up on this technology the info given made it clear that this propulsion was useless inside a gravity well. Until we can get to the point where the cost for payload launched into orbit costs hundreds of dollars per pound (or less)instead of thousands of dollars this is academic. We need what has been envisioned but not delivered for the last 30 years, namely the "space bus". The shuttle was initially supposed to be a first step in this direction: a cheap, efficient, reusable means of getting cargo and people into orbit. Once we have some type of vehicle that doesn't require tons of solid/liquid fuel at enormous cost and risk to reach orbit then the moon, mars or even farther destinations are much more likely to be reached within the next 20 years.
Also, on the environmentalist side of things; from what I understand of most of the arguments made by environmentalists against nukes in the space program are it's the launching of nuclear material and not the use in space that they are against. If the worst should happen and NASA loses a nuclear payload in near earth vicinity the fallout could be devastating. Once you're actually in "space" (ie - beyond earth's magnetic field) radiation is pretty much all that there is! Spacecraft will have to be designed with heavy shielding in mind for a mars trip, otherwise one solar flare could conceivably endanger an entire mission.
Slashdot Mirror
Quicktime & AVI player, MP3 player, animated icon support, full integrated internet and networking support, suite of Iomega tools......
What the hell kind of C64 did you have anyway??? And why the hell aren't you selling it on ebay?!?!
-Pastey
They produce enough extra juice they actually sell it back to the local utility. Note the bill/resource usage for February, 2000 posted on the main page. If this can be done in a latitude as far north as Maine, it should be viable for most of north America. The only real factor involved would be cost of building and upkeep.
-Pastey
Numbers don't mean much. I was a lurker here for quite a while until I read something that compelled me enough to get a sign in. -Pastey
Thanks! It's good to know I didn't sleep through everything in high school :-)
;-)
I was thinking more along the lines of the upcoming Mars mission and the satelite coverage that this will necessitate. Too bad Mars is "fieldless" as this would save on energy in a spot so far from home and resupply.
Of course, once TMA-1 is dug up and activated (leading us to TMA-2) there should be plenty of cheap high intensity solar power out that way
This is pretty exciting stuff.
I'm wondering though, since this deals with physics involving the Earth's magnetic field, what about future space exploration? If I remember correctly Mars (and possibly the moon as well) have no magnetic fields to speak of.
...until a more efficient means of getting payload into orbit is developed. The last time I read up on this technology the info given made it clear that this propulsion was useless inside a gravity well. Until we can get to the point where the cost for payload launched into orbit costs hundreds of dollars per pound (or less)instead of thousands of dollars this is academic.
We need what has been envisioned but not delivered for the last 30 years, namely the "space bus". The shuttle was initially supposed to be a first step in this direction: a cheap, efficient, reusable means of getting cargo and people into orbit. Once we have some type of vehicle that doesn't require tons of solid/liquid fuel at enormous cost and risk to reach orbit then the moon, mars or even farther destinations are much more likely to be reached within the next 20 years.
Also, on the environmentalist side of things; from what I understand of most of the arguments made by environmentalists against nukes in the space program are it's the launching of nuclear material and not the use in space that they are against. If the worst should happen and NASA loses a nuclear payload in near earth vicinity the fallout could be devastating. Once you're actually in "space" (ie - beyond earth's magnetic field) radiation is pretty much all that there is! Spacecraft will have to be designed with heavy shielding in mind for a mars trip, otherwise one solar flare could conceivably endanger an entire mission.