Orbital Solar Power relies on the fact that the power would be transmitted to earth via microwave. Why not do the same with these solar power stations?
Since these require a lot of space, and the microwave receiver requires a large area to prevent harmful levels of radiation, they are made for one another. Simply put the mirrors on top of the microwave receiver, and you'll have the added benefit of not having to worry about covering the area with gravel to prevent plant growth. Though that may not be a problem in the desert.
Of course, the fact that they can generate power overnight makes this a very minor necessity.
I doubt it would be an event where you sit down and watch it. It would probably be televised, since the rockets are 100 miles up or moving at insane speeds high in the stratosphere.
Sounds like a good idea, but I'd much rather this be done more like the X-Prize and less like NASCAR or the Olympics. We're talking about extremely dangerous conditions, and amateur vehicles are prone to breaking down.
We don't want this to continue to give people the idea that space travel is dangerous just because Joe Blow built a rocket and used tin foil for a heat shield.
Define a "LOT." The space shuttle broke up over Texas, and nobody got hurt. I doubt a 12-foot tall sounding rocket will hurt anyone should there be an accident.
The study points out that NASA doesn't necessarily rule out far fetched ideas (Planet Colonization, Space Stations or Nuclear Interplanetary Vehicles) if they can forseeably become a reality when the technology and budget allows it.
The technology does allow it. We can go to Mars using the same technology we went to the moon with. The budget allows it, too. If we bring NASA's budget up by 7% (from about $14 billion to $15 billion) and hold it there for ten years, they'll have enough to go to Mars four or five times.
It's not the funding or the technology that's the problem; it's Congress and the President who don't understand that space, while difficult, is worth it. It's more valuable than any war, and you get a much greater political legacy for having started the human exploration of Mars than having killed people.
The ESA is going to spend money and time reading science fiction and talking about the neat stuff they do in it, and then they're gonna write a paper on it?
Why don't they develop a heavy lift booster? Or technologies that will help us live on the Martian surface? Or a project to sample the water ice that's been found under the soil on Mars and see what kind of volatile chemicals are present?
Looks like the ESA is gonna end up like NASA; bloated and going nowhere fast.
NASA is just fumbling in the dark. They have no goal, no plan. With the shock of the $400 billion price tag for NASA's reference mission, the next goal in space (Mars) was lost for a generation.
What NASA needs is a president and administrator who will set a goal and push for it to be achieved. NASA is an organization without a purpose, and it needs one before we lose our future in space.
While I agree that probes are beneficial for science, they don't seem to fit into a "Get People on Mars" strategy. NASA just seems to be launching these things in the hopes that they'll find life on their own, not to help bring people to the planet.
For example, a mission involving an orbiter and a few hundred micro-probes to land at various points on Mars and develop a climatological/meteorilogical profile would provide more practical data than a single, expensive probe designed to "find evidence of life." Or a rover designed to look for water, a key in human colonization and eventual terraforming. Or a series of orbiters to provide a GPS-like system for navigation and positioning on the surface. Or a communications orbiter to provide a link back to Earth for the astronauts and probes or weather stations.
This would be similar to the Apollo program. The Mercury and Gemini programs were precursors to it, and they helped build the procedural and technological foundations for the moon landings.
It seems to me that what NASA needs is a plan more than some rovers.
What about the two dozen or so nuclear submarines rotting away on the ocean floor? Nobody seems to have a problem with them.
Also, the amount of radiation from the amount of plutonium in the Cassini probe, should it have broken up in the earth's atmosphere for some reason, would be miniscule. (I don't have the exact figure, but my source is "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin.) However, RTGs have a very low power density, making nuclear reactors a much more attractive option. (For those who don't know, RTGs, or radioactive-thermal generators, produce energy from the heat from nuclear decay. Therefore, the more radioactive the material, the more energy for the probe.)
In America, we're very good at making sturdy, mobile nuclear reactors with our submarine experience, and since they won't even be started until they're far away from Earth, there's really no threat, since, as was stated, people regularly handle the fuel rods with just gloves.
People are better than robots at exploring a planet. We need to put people on Mars. Mars Direct will get them there. All we need is the will to do it.
And before you go arguing how it will be so expensive, bear in mind that it would only be a 7% increase in NASA's budget for the next 10 years, and that would give us 5 manned missions.
Is it me or did the above post make no sense at all?
Without RTG, how are we supposed to explore the outer planets, eh?
Without nuclear reactors, how are we supposed to send manned missions to the surface of Mars, Europa, and Titan, eh?
There's already radiation in space, a few small nuclear reactors won't hurt anybody.
Yes, but we're not pushing for a war in Liberia. It is a threat to the stability in the region and the lives of the people of Liberia. In Iraq, we usurped the authority of the UN to conduct inspections and forced a war.
And I agree that the causes of terrorism should be fought rather than the symptoms. Pull our troops out of the Mid East, end all support for Israel until they withdraw from Palestine, end support for the brutal regimes put in power during the cold war, especially the Saudi royal family, and provide economic development assistance to the governments chosen by the people of these nations.
We talk the talk of wanting to help people, but we don't walk the walk.
And I can understand why they're switching to spam and direct mail. They've convinced themselves that there are people who want to buy things, and you'd be suprised how easy it is to get people to buy from you, or at least listen to you. There are a lot of idiots out there.
I quit because I couldn't stand to be part of that industry. (When I started I really, really needed the money, and I couldn't find another job that fit into my schedule.) Not only do you do something that could get you killed, but the management at these places treat the workers like slaves; scheduled bathroom breaks, no food or drinks or reading materials at the cubicles, tied to the phone for eight hours a day, denied promotions that would take you off of the phones, and forced to be as annoying as possible because there was always someone listening. The management in this industry are the ones to blame, most of the telemarketers there were college kids or single moms trying to make a buck and getting dicked around if they did well.
The DNC list is the best thing to happen to this industry, but, like the scum they are, they're fighting the rights of people not to be swindled or bothered.
When I was there they told us that the main office, which we give the address and phone number of, is built like a fortress, so don't try to go postal on them, it won't work.
Well, considering an increase of 7% in NASA's budget would bring it up to the same level of spending as during the Apollo era, and that that increase could put a man on mars in 10 years, this couldn't be a bad thing.
I asked for my testicles back, but my fiancee gave me that look and asked why I needed them.
But seriously folks, I don't think that it's my inability to stand up for myself, but the fact that my atrocious interpersonal skills can't justify the expenditure to her. (While she goes off to Old Navy and buys $100 of the same shirt because she needs clothes.)
Now all we have to do is get those doofs at NASA off their asses and onto greater things.:D
How about we get the military to stop destroying billions in expensive hardware?
Anything that sets back the cause of science is a tragedy.
Losing a craft like this isn't waste; building a multi-million dollar cruise missile or JDAM for the express purpose of destroying it is waste.
Slashdot Mirror
- At 1MW per 10 acres
- Sahara Desert = 9,150,000 sq. km.
The total would be 226.101 terawatts. However, total human power consumption is 381.85 TW, but it's a good start.Want sources? Google.
Orbital Solar Power relies on the fact that the power would be transmitted to earth via microwave. Why not do the same with these solar power stations?
Since these require a lot of space, and the microwave receiver requires a large area to prevent harmful levels of radiation, they are made for one another. Simply put the mirrors on top of the microwave receiver, and you'll have the added benefit of not having to worry about covering the area with gravel to prevent plant growth. Though that may not be a problem in the desert.
Of course, the fact that they can generate power overnight makes this a very minor necessity.
I was thinking more along the lines of this:
Brain + AWOL = Bainwol
We hate buymusic.com because its DRM is too oppressive, not to mention it's based on sub-par Microsoft technology that's already been cracked.
We like the iTunes Music Store because it uses reasonable DRM and a good format.
See the difference?
I doubt it would be an event where you sit down and watch it. It would probably be televised, since the rockets are 100 miles up or moving at insane speeds high in the stratosphere.
Sounds like a good idea, but I'd much rather this be done more like the X-Prize and less like NASCAR or the Olympics. We're talking about extremely dangerous conditions, and amateur vehicles are prone to breaking down.
We don't want this to continue to give people the idea that space travel is dangerous just because Joe Blow built a rocket and used tin foil for a heat shield.
I want one. I like the flippy screen particularly.
Define a "LOT." The space shuttle broke up over Texas, and nobody got hurt. I doubt a 12-foot tall sounding rocket will hurt anyone should there be an accident.
The study points out that NASA doesn't necessarily rule out far fetched ideas (Planet Colonization, Space Stations or Nuclear Interplanetary Vehicles) if they can forseeably become a reality when the technology and budget allows it.
The technology does allow it. We can go to Mars using the same technology we went to the moon with. The budget allows it, too. If we bring NASA's budget up by 7% (from about $14 billion to $15 billion) and hold it there for ten years, they'll have enough to go to Mars four or five times.
It's not the funding or the technology that's the problem; it's Congress and the President who don't understand that space, while difficult, is worth it. It's more valuable than any war, and you get a much greater political legacy for having started the human exploration of Mars than having killed people.
The ESA is going to spend money and time reading science fiction and talking about the neat stuff they do in it, and then they're gonna write a paper on it?
Why don't they develop a heavy lift booster? Or technologies that will help us live on the Martian surface? Or a project to sample the water ice that's been found under the soil on Mars and see what kind of volatile chemicals are present?
Looks like the ESA is gonna end up like NASA; bloated and going nowhere fast.
But then again, who cares?
That's the Slashdot spirit!
YES!!! The Delta Clipper is wicked awesome. It's the only rocket in the world that can hover.
Space travel is really beyond us.
Coward.
NASA is just fumbling in the dark. They have no goal, no plan. With the shock of the $400 billion price tag for NASA's reference mission, the next goal in space (Mars) was lost for a generation.
What NASA needs is a president and administrator who will set a goal and push for it to be achieved. NASA is an organization without a purpose, and it needs one before we lose our future in space.
While I agree that probes are beneficial for science, they don't seem to fit into a "Get People on Mars" strategy. NASA just seems to be launching these things in the hopes that they'll find life on their own, not to help bring people to the planet.
For example, a mission involving an orbiter and a few hundred micro-probes to land at various points on Mars and develop a climatological/meteorilogical profile would provide more practical data than a single, expensive probe designed to "find evidence of life." Or a rover designed to look for water, a key in human colonization and eventual terraforming. Or a series of orbiters to provide a GPS-like system for navigation and positioning on the surface. Or a communications orbiter to provide a link back to Earth for the astronauts and probes or weather stations.
This would be similar to the Apollo program. The Mercury and Gemini programs were precursors to it, and they helped build the procedural and technological foundations for the moon landings.
It seems to me that what NASA needs is a plan more than some rovers.
Sorry, should have made that more clear. The 7% increase is a one-time thing, but it should probably be adjusted for inflation if necessary.
Incidentally, this would bring NASA's budget up to the level of spending during the Apollo program, adjusted for inflation, of course.
What about the two dozen or so nuclear submarines rotting away on the ocean floor? Nobody seems to have a problem with them.
Also, the amount of radiation from the amount of plutonium in the Cassini probe, should it have broken up in the earth's atmosphere for some reason, would be miniscule. (I don't have the exact figure, but my source is "The Case for Mars" by Robert Zubrin.) However, RTGs have a very low power density, making nuclear reactors a much more attractive option. (For those who don't know, RTGs, or radioactive-thermal generators, produce energy from the heat from nuclear decay. Therefore, the more radioactive the material, the more energy for the probe.)
In America, we're very good at making sturdy, mobile nuclear reactors with our submarine experience, and since they won't even be started until they're far away from Earth, there's really no threat, since, as was stated, people regularly handle the fuel rods with just gloves.
People are better than robots at exploring a planet. We need to put people on Mars. Mars Direct will get them there. All we need is the will to do it.
And before you go arguing how it will be so expensive, bear in mind that it would only be a 7% increase in NASA's budget for the next 10 years, and that would give us 5 manned missions.
Is it me or did the above post make no sense at all? Without RTG, how are we supposed to explore the outer planets, eh? Without nuclear reactors, how are we supposed to send manned missions to the surface of Mars, Europa, and Titan, eh? There's already radiation in space, a few small nuclear reactors won't hurt anybody.
Yes, but we're not pushing for a war in Liberia. It is a threat to the stability in the region and the lives of the people of Liberia. In Iraq, we usurped the authority of the UN to conduct inspections and forced a war. And I agree that the causes of terrorism should be fought rather than the symptoms. Pull our troops out of the Mid East, end all support for Israel until they withdraw from Palestine, end support for the brutal regimes put in power during the cold war, especially the Saudi royal family, and provide economic development assistance to the governments chosen by the people of these nations. We talk the talk of wanting to help people, but we don't walk the walk.
And I can understand why they're switching to spam and direct mail. They've convinced themselves that there are people who want to buy things, and you'd be suprised how easy it is to get people to buy from you, or at least listen to you. There are a lot of idiots out there. I quit because I couldn't stand to be part of that industry. (When I started I really, really needed the money, and I couldn't find another job that fit into my schedule.) Not only do you do something that could get you killed, but the management at these places treat the workers like slaves; scheduled bathroom breaks, no food or drinks or reading materials at the cubicles, tied to the phone for eight hours a day, denied promotions that would take you off of the phones, and forced to be as annoying as possible because there was always someone listening. The management in this industry are the ones to blame, most of the telemarketers there were college kids or single moms trying to make a buck and getting dicked around if they did well. The DNC list is the best thing to happen to this industry, but, like the scum they are, they're fighting the rights of people not to be swindled or bothered. When I was there they told us that the main office, which we give the address and phone number of, is built like a fortress, so don't try to go postal on them, it won't work.
Well, considering an increase of 7% in NASA's budget would bring it up to the same level of spending as during the Apollo era, and that that increase could put a man on mars in 10 years, this couldn't be a bad thing.
- How much is this going to cost and can I deduct it as a percentage of my taxes?
- I disagree entirely with the idea that the key to world peace is better, faster bombers, can I opt out?
- If I can't opt out, could I write off a donation to Amnesty International or Greenpeace?
- Will it be possible to move out of this beligerent nation in ten years, or will ShrubCo seize power and prevent people from leaving?
I don't hate America. I hate the war-mongering bastards in power.I asked for my testicles back, but my fiancee gave me that look and asked why I needed them. But seriously folks, I don't think that it's my inability to stand up for myself, but the fact that my atrocious interpersonal skills can't justify the expenditure to her. (While she goes off to Old Navy and buys $100 of the same shirt because she needs clothes.)
Now all we have to do is get those doofs at NASA off their asses and onto greater things. :D
How about we get the military to stop destroying billions in expensive hardware?
Anything that sets back the cause of science is a tragedy. Losing a craft like this isn't waste; building a multi-million dollar cruise missile or JDAM for the express purpose of destroying it is waste.