It is trivially easy to mechanically design the transmitting antenna so that the beam when it reaches the earth has a minimum diameter. The design being discussed has an intensity at the ground of 1/4 sun.
Although the costs are hard to tie down, your citation seems to imply a disadvantage of space solar over ground of at least 4X, and some of the assumptions are open to challenge. Substantial improvements in a variety of technologies would be needed for space to be as practical as ground.
Still, I like the idea of at least doing some trial to work out bugs and make a standard for future experiments to be compared against.
Although it may not be economical, there are significant advantages in space vs ground. Average daily insolation is at least 4X better. Because putting the space panels in place is so expensive, the fractional increase in cost of using high-tech panels is smaller: a 60% power/area (power/mass) improvement over single-crystal silicon.
As long as the solar pressure on the installation is less than the Earth's gravitational pull, it should be possible to design an orbit that will keep it in place. After all, when the installation is nearer to the sun than the Earth, the sun's radiation is pushinf it toward the Earth.
Fructose is about twice as sweet as other common sugars. If you're preparing your own foods, you can use half as much to achieve the same amount of sweetness.
Insurance costs can easily exceed the price of a car over its lifetime. It's time to get rid of this obsolete tyranny, the mandatory cowardice of transportation nannies.
3) auto ride control
Auto ride control has been a feature on several performance cars for over a decade, with the driver able to choose smooth or performance settings.
The U.N. is significantly worse than you say. As the majority of member states are thief-nations, they use the U.N. to weaken and steal from the U.S.A..
Much of the extended period of helplessness is made possible by extreme medical procedures. The helpless period is not inherently linked to solving aging.
You need to catch up on current technology. Stem cells are already being used to repair hearts.
The number-of-heartbeats limit on lifespan is based on observing animals in nature and humans in conditions little better (biologically speaking) than a benign natural environment. The possibility of optimum conditions, scientifically optimized conditions, technically advanced conditions, is conspicuous by its absence. Furthermore, no mechanism is proposed for wearout of the heart.
Even given your figures, a person with an abnormally low heartrate of 40 could live to be over 200.
Making an evolutionary argument and invoking mankind's heavy use of resources is a non sequitur. Man has not significantly evolved during the brief period of heavy resource use.
Historically, most of the people over 40 are/were aged. It remains to be demonstrated that being over 40, rather than being aged, is the cause of reduced productivity. If it's the latter, then fixing aging fixes the problem of diminished creativity.
Most people not dumbasses can already do a great deal to minimize aging, if they put their minds to it, and money won't fix people who abuse their bodies.
But your jealousy of people who are better than you has blinded you to that obvious fact.
we have too many people already, hence the lack of employment
That is just too stupid. More people also means more people who want stuff. That's more demand, which requires more production to fulfill. More production means more people producing, more jobs.
The desire of people for goods and services is far beyond the limit of any currently available production processes. The biggest stumbling block to fuller employment is government meddling, including minimum wage laws and a host of other messes.
Sex slavery is a rather rare condition, compared to aging which affects anyone who doesn't die young. By sheer force of numbers, solving aging is a greater good than ending sex slavery (which is not meant to belittle that hideous abuse.)
Solving the aging problem involves solving autoimmune diseases and cancer, they are inseparable. Food, shelter, health care are multifaceted issues each of which would be in some manner helped by defeating aging, and each of which, at its current status and taken separately, would not represent as great an improvement as ending aging.
I can only think of one issue which would be more important, and that is ending all forms of tyranny (that encompasses the women's issues you are so concerned about). Ending tyranny, alas, is not a simple problem, nor is it one which most people could even identify.
Slashdot Mirror
It is trivially easy to mechanically design the transmitting antenna so that the beam when it reaches the earth has a minimum diameter. The design being discussed has an intensity at the ground of 1/4 sun.
Although the costs are hard to tie down, your citation seems to imply a disadvantage of space solar over ground of at least 4X, and some of the assumptions are open to challenge. Substantial improvements in a variety of technologies would be needed for space to be as practical as ground.
Still, I like the idea of at least doing some trial to work out bugs and make a standard for future experiments to be compared against.
Although it may not be economical, there are significant advantages in space vs ground. Average daily insolation is at least 4X better. Because putting the space panels in place is so expensive, the fractional increase in cost of using high-tech panels is smaller: a 60% power/area (power/mass) improvement over single-crystal silicon.
As long as the solar pressure on the installation is less than the Earth's gravitational pull, it should be possible to design an orbit that will keep it in place. After all, when the installation is nearer to the sun than the Earth, the sun's radiation is pushinf it toward the Earth.
Gee, don't you think the designers would plan for something like ground control failure?
How can there be a reference clock to test the new clock against, when the new clock is orders of magnitude better?
Fatty meat isn't worth a whole lot. Maybe $2 per pound.
Go ahead, ignore the facts, you'll sweep in the suckers.
Legal ownership of guns reduces crime.
Fructose is about twice as sweet as other common sugars. If you're preparing your own foods, you can use half as much to achieve the same amount of sweetness.
Insisting that people work more efficiently is one of the most effective ways of increasing their stress level.
Insurance costs can easily exceed the price of a car over its lifetime. It's time to get rid of this obsolete tyranny, the mandatory cowardice of transportation nannies.
3) auto ride control Auto ride control has been a feature on several performance cars for over a decade, with the driver able to choose smooth or performance settings.
There are gears in the Prius, and they're pretty damn lossy.
Because I know my car won't be full of dead fish, explosives, or drugs.
The U.N. is significantly worse than you say. As the majority of member states are thief-nations, they use the U.N. to weaken and steal from the U.S.A..
Much of the extended period of helplessness is made possible by extreme medical procedures. The helpless period is not inherently linked to solving aging.
You need to catch up on current technology. Stem cells are already being used to repair hearts.
The number-of-heartbeats limit on lifespan is based on observing animals in nature and humans in conditions little better (biologically speaking) than a benign natural environment. The possibility of optimum conditions, scientifically optimized conditions, technically advanced conditions, is conspicuous by its absence. Furthermore, no mechanism is proposed for wearout of the heart.
Even given your figures, a person with an abnormally low heartrate of 40 could live to be over 200.
Making an evolutionary argument and invoking mankind's heavy use of resources is a non sequitur. Man has not significantly evolved during the brief period of heavy resource use.
Historically, most of the people over 40 are/were aged. It remains to be demonstrated that being over 40, rather than being aged, is the cause of reduced productivity. If it's the latter, then fixing aging fixes the problem of diminished creativity.
Most people not dumbasses can already do a great deal to minimize aging, if they put their minds to it, and money won't fix people who abuse their bodies.
But your jealousy of people who are better than you has blinded you to that obvious fact.
Society be damned. I have use for a long life, and you have no right to deny it to me.
A person is valuable to himself as long as he lives.
Many tree species last many generations. Your view of nature is silly at best.
It's common is poor areas to be aged at 40 years, to be worn out from hard labor and disease. Improved resistance to aging helps them also.
Shouldn't the breeders be the ones who have to leave? They're the ones who are allegedly causing population density to be a problem.
That is just too stupid. More people also means more people who want stuff. That's more demand, which requires more production to fulfill. More production means more people producing, more jobs.
The desire of people for goods and services is far beyond the limit of any currently available production processes. The biggest stumbling block to fuller employment is government meddling, including minimum wage laws and a host of other messes.
Sex slavery is a rather rare condition, compared to aging which affects anyone who doesn't die young. By sheer force of numbers, solving aging is a greater good than ending sex slavery (which is not meant to belittle that hideous abuse.)
Solving the aging problem involves solving autoimmune diseases and cancer, they are inseparable. Food, shelter, health care are multifaceted issues each of which would be in some manner helped by defeating aging, and each of which, at its current status and taken separately, would not represent as great an improvement as ending aging.
I can only think of one issue which would be more important, and that is ending all forms of tyranny (that encompasses the women's issues you are so concerned about). Ending tyranny, alas, is not a simple problem, nor is it one which most people could even identify.