[RealJoe]

Considered the obvious military and weaponry applications of this technology? Like setting fires to forests, croplands, population centers and industrial installations. These concepts if actually launched, may prove to be a relatively inexpensive weapon of mass destruction.

Still, any idea that could conceivably keep a human presence in space should be supported. I recently talked to a scientifically illiterate who believed we will eventually be terraforming Mars. I tried to get across the obstacle of the gravity well of the Earth and how much energy and applied resources need to be invested to launch any payload into space, to no avail.

When the government's budget tightens up and energy costs go up, there is no way. A real pity this reality. I believed so deeply when I was a youth that we would have lunar colonies by this time, that the truth was a bitter, bitter pill.

[clv101]

The space industry is one of the most energy intensive, energy expensive things we do. It's not something to promote when facing a lower energy future.

At best it will provide a source of energy... so human civilisation will just hit the next buffer be it pollution, water, dieses etc. A techno solution is not and can not be a long term solution. It just delays the inevitable, delays the point when growth has to stop. The longer we manage to patch up the existing system the bigger the problems will be in the future.

At worst (and far more likely in my opinion) it will divert scarce resources, energy, brain power etc from useful projects concerned with the transition to sustainable civilisation.

I've said it many times on the site, the worse thing we can do is to try and maintain exiting civilisation against the odds. It's fundamentally unsustainable, the sooner we recognise this and act accordingly the better.

Massively complex technology based endeavours are not the future!

This coming from an engineer with a masters degree in computational physics - I'm no technophobe.

[JohnDenver]

The space industry is one of the most energy intensive, energy expensive things we do.

Actually, its energy use is quite modest. Fuel costs are a neglible part of overall launch costs, and space equipment generates its own energy.

It's not something to promote when facing a lower energy future.

We're getting to the stage where it doesn't need to be promoted. Today, launching is a business which people engage in for the money. Space is now where the internet was in the early 90s. It's a cloistered academic environment, originally developed for defense purposes, which is being increasingly invaded by a circus of profit-seeking interests. Space tourism is one example. Undoubtedly, the purists are going to gripe a lot about the commercialism, just like they did with the internet.

At best it will provide a source of energy... so human civilisation will just hit the next buffer be it pollution, water, dieses etc.

If energy were plentiful enough, you could clean up all the pollution, and distill as much water as you want, to 100% purity if you want. You could also mine minerals from the sea. Gold would become as cheap as dirt.

Consider your argument shuffled around. "If we keep curing diseases, it would be horrible. We'd just hit the next buffers: energy, pollution and water. Therefore, we should hope that "Peak Cure" comes soon to bring us back to our senses. Developing cures for diseases is just making the problem worse, causing the population to balloon, and making the inevitable crash more severe. Complex medical technologies are not a sustainable solution."

A techno solution is not and can not be a long term solution. It just delays the inevitable, delays the point when growth has to stop.

The longer we manage to patch up the existing system the bigger the problems will be in the future.

I asked John Markos, but I'll ask you too. Would you be in favor of legislation to prevent the development of techno solutions? You seem to be saying that technology is the gun that civilization is going to shoot itself with. Wouldn't it be immoral to stand by and let that happen? Shouldn't you prevent the worse outcome by halting the development of techno energy solutions, as quickly as possible? That would seem to be a logical way to achieve powerdown: illegalize the development of new energy technology.

Massively complex technology based endeavours are not the future!

I don't think the space mirror idea is that complex. In fact, it's the low-tech simplicity of it that makes it appealing.

This coming from an engineer with a masters degree in computational physics - I'm no technophobe.

I don't know. I'm not trying to provoke you, but I think it would be fair to say that your ideas have a strong luddite influence.

[clv101]

One word, sustainability.

I asked John Markos, but I'll ask you too. Would you be in favor of legislation to prevent the development of techno solutions? You seem to be saying that technology is the gun that civilization is going to shoot itself with.

Not legislation to prevent the development of techno solutions but legislation to prevent the continued growth of a fundamentally unsustainable system. For the last few centuries technology has propelled human civilisation to where it is today, consuming the resources and filling the pollution sinks of the world at almost three times the sustainable rate, causing species to become extinct at the faster rate than has ever occurred before, causing changes to the atmosphere which have the possibility to make life on this planet all but imposable.

The current behaviour of our species is unsustainable, peak oil looks to be the 1st physical barrier that we're going to come against. Anything that somehow mitigates the effect of peak oil allowing us to carry on the status quo is a bad thing because the status quo is a bad thing.

[Devil]

Why not light them up all night with mirrors?

Prithee, how are you going to stock the light for use on a cloudy night?

[JohnDenver]

Not legislation to prevent the development of techno solutions but legislation to prevent the continued growth of a fundamentally unsustainable system.

But how will you stop growth if you don't stop technology? If you let technology run unchecked, won't growth and environmental devastation continue to occur?

Anything that somehow mitigates the effect of peak oil allowing us to carry on the status quo is a bad thing because the status quo is a bad thing.

Right on. Thanks for speaking frankly. Reasonable people can look at the scientific evidence and come to differing conclusions as to whether "the status quo is a bad thing". It's a value judgment, not a scientific fact. The problems you speak of are certainly reasons for concern, but, on the whole, I personally feel they are outweighed by the positive aspects and future potential of the status quo.

[Frank]

Space mirrors?

We've already got more than enough sunlight falling on the planet every day to meet all our needs - why in the world would we need space mirrors?

[johnmarkos]

I asked John Markos, but I'll ask you too. Would you be in favor of legislation to prevent the development of techno solutions? You seem to be saying that technology is the gun that civilization is going to shoot itself with. Wouldn't it be immoral to stand by and let that happen? Shouldn't you prevent the worse outcome by halting the development of techno energy solutions, as quickly as possible? That would seem to be a logical way to achieve powerdown: illegalize the development of new energy technology.

My ears were burning. For the record, I think that contrary to making research into new technology illegal, we should go all out researching new sources of energy.

JohnDenver, you have some good points about what we could do if we found an unlimited source of energy. On the other hand, human instinct seems to be to use excess energy in destructive ways (buying larger and larger SUVs and upstairs fridges and such). Perhaps if there were some inherent characteristic of the energy that made it impossible to waste...

Anyway, I think, "What if we found a cheap, unlimited source of energy?" is the sort of absurd hypothetical that doesn't apply very much to the present situation (my bad for bringing it up). Because of this, I don't lose sleep over the possibility that maybe some researcher is running a cheap, energy positive fusion reaction in some lab somewhere. That space mirror thing sounds like pie in the sky to me (almost literally) but I say go for it if it'll help. Have fun getting funding.

But then again, I'm a weird peaker, a wannabe scientist. I love data and I'm dazzled by technology. So my views are definitely not representative of your average doomer.

[TrueKaiser]

*falls out of his chair laughing at this suggestion*
this is a really really dumb idea. not only are you going to screw up the local plant life, you are going to do the same to the animals. most of all the extra sunlight in what ever area you focus this on will really screw with the weather, you /do/ know that the heat from the sunlight help regulate the weather? by artificially increasing the amount of sunlight a area gets you not only warm it up, you will also dry it out.

[Liamj]

I agree TrueKaiser, but we all need a laugh now and then. My fav is JDs response here:

The space industry is one of the most energy intensive, energy expensive things we do.

Actually, its energy use is quite modest. Fuel costs are a neglible part of overall launch costs, and space equipment generates its own energy.

Nonsense in 2 parts.

Actually, its energy use is phenomenal. As you'd expect, getting anything from 2 (small satlt) 2000 (space shuttle) tonnes up to a speed 27,000km/hr (orbital velocity). The acoustic energy alone released by a space shuttle launch = 8 million stereo's, to absorb which 300,000 gallons of water are pumped onto the launch pad during liftoff.
http://www.kennedyspacecenter.com/press ... pressId=13
I am in a position however to offer JD the opportunity to invest in some exciting new technology, a wind powered satellite launch vehicle... get in at the ground floor (warning - may stay there).

Space equipment generates most of its operational energy IN space (definitively offgrid , but i'll bet they go up with batteries charged) , but certainly nothing like that reqd to create its parts, grow astros food etc. Want an unmanned network of satellites in space? you'll need space shuttle to service em. Check out above link for some of the other massive capital infrastructure reqd just at SS launch:
"Crawler Transporters – Marvels of engineering ingenuity, the Space Center’s two crawlers – Hercules and Hermes – have been transporting vehicles to launch pads since the Apollo moon missions. Weighing in at six million pounds each, the Crawler Transporters are serious gas guzzlers, getting 35 feet per gallon of diesel fuel. "

'Quite modest'?!?

[JohnDenver]

Why not light them up all night with mirrors?

Prithee, how are you going to stock the light for use on a cloudy night?

I imagine the first stopgap solution would be to flip on the light switch, as usual, on cloudy nights.

Anyway, I don't think the cloud problem is a valid reason to reject this particular technology. All forms of terrestrial solar power have the cloud problem. Are you opposed to solar power in general because it sometimes gets obstructed by clouds?

[JohnDenver]

Space mirrors?

We've already got more than enough sunlight falling on the planet every day to meet all our needs -

Then why are we using oil? Peak oil wouldn't seem to be a problem if we already have enough solar energy to meet all our needs.

why in the world would we need space mirrors?

To get the first leg up on tapping solar energy more intensively. It's the best long-term solution because it's clean, won't deplete, and has plenty of room for growth.

[JohnDenver]

*falls out of his chair laughing at this suggestion*
this is a really really dumb idea. not only are you going to screw up the local plant life, you are going to do the same to the animals. most of all the extra sunlight in what ever area you focus this on will really screw with the weather, you /do/ know that the heat from the sunlight help regulate the weather? by artificially increasing the amount of sunlight a area gets you not only warm it up, you will also dry it out.

There are many places on the earth, such as Alaska, where the SUN shines 24 hours a day for months at a time. The plants there do just fine. In fact, they grow faster and larger. Same for the animals. They're as healthy and normal as anywhere else, even though they live in cycles of perpetual night vs. perpetual day. Animals are adaptable. Furthermore, there aren't many animals in urban areas in the first place.

As for the weather -- I haven't heard of any deadly weather phenomena due to the endless summer up north.

As for drying -- I don't think illuminating cities to the level of ordinary streetlights would cause any significant drying (at least not anymore than the streetlights themselves). For that matter, have we sufficiently considered the morbid effects of streetlamps on urban wildlife? How many innocent moths have been lured to their death already by the ugly artificial "moons" we call streetlights?

[Liamj]

There are many places on the earth, such as Alaska, where the SUN shines 24 hours a day for months at a time. The plants there do just fine. In fact, they grow faster and larger. Same for the animals. They're as healthy and normal as anywhere else, even though they live in cycles of perpetual night vs. perpetual day. Animals are adaptable. Furthermore, there aren't many animals in urban areas in the first place.

Plants & animals are adaptable, on ecological timescales (1000s-10,000s yrs), less with considerable human effort & luck. The plants & animals in THE VERY LIMITED areas with continuous sunlight for PART of year are not the same plants & animals we know in more temperate latitudes, have adapted to burst of growth & long stagnation.
Not quite what we want from a crop. You ever hear of arctic wheat? arctic apples? alaskan mangos? No, no & no.

All organisms usually use multiple signals for growth & reproduction, not just light, so e.g. having more daylight but still cold will cause stress & higher mortality, not higher production.

Do you have any references or evidence for "In fact, they grow faster and larger", or shall we file it with the ridiculous claim of "quite modest" energy demands of space tech?

[JohnDenver]

Actually, its energy use is phenomenal. As you'd expect, getting anything from 2 (small satlt) 2000 (space shuttle) tonnes up to a speed 27,000km/hr (orbital velocity). The acoustic energy alone released by a space shuttle launch = 8 million stereo's, to absorb which 300,000 gallons of water are pumped onto the launch pad during liftoff.

Sure the rate of energy use is phenomenal. The amount is peanuts. A single space shuttle launch uses about the same amount of fuel as a few 747 flights. It flies infrequently, and when it does fly, the burns are measured in seconds.

Space equipment generates most of its operational energy IN space (definitively offgrid , but i'll bet they go up with batteries charged) , but certainly nothing like that reqd to create its parts, grow astros food etc. Want an unmanned network of satellites in space? you'll need space shuttle to service em.

Why not just make them disposable, like most satellites? When one poops out, you just deorbit it, and launch another.

Check out above link for some of the other massive capital infrastructure reqd just at SS launch:
"Crawler Transporters – Marvels of engineering ingenuity, the Space Center’s two crawlers – Hercules and Hermes – have been transporting vehicles to launch pads since the Apollo moon missions. Weighing in at six million pounds each, the Crawler Transporters are serious gas guzzlers, getting 35 feet per gallon of diesel fuel. "

How far do these monsters travel? A few thousand feet, a few times a year? Even if they go a mile, that's only 150 gallons of diesel. I'm sure there are individual people who have used more fuel in their personal car than those crawlers have use in their entire period of service.

'Quite modest'?!?

Yah, quite modest. The fuel NASA uses to launch rockets is an infinitesimal fraction of the entire energy budget of the US. If you have any evidence to suggest otherwise, please share it.

[JohnDenver]

The plants & animals in THE VERY LIMITED areas with continuous sunlight for PART of year are not the same plants & animals we know in more temperate latitudes, have adapted to burst of growth & long stagnation.

Alaskans grow ordinary vegetables in constant sun.

Not quite what we want from a crop. You ever hear of arctic wheat? arctic apples? alaskan mangos? No, no & no.

Alaskan vegetables are famous (see below). They also have a world famous export herb called Matanuska Thunderf-ck. Google if you're curious.

All organisms usually use multiple signals for growth & reproduction, not just light, so e.g. having more daylight but still cold will cause stress & higher mortality, not higher production.

Do you have any references or evidence for "In fact, they grow faster and larger"

"The [Matanuska] valley is renowned for the annual Alaska State Fair, where local farmers produce award winning vegetables. Best known are the incredibly large vegetables grown in the almost constant summer sunlight, including 75 pound cabbages, ten pound onions and 125 pound pumpkins."
http://www.alaskarails.org/route-map/palmer.html

"Many gardeners will try their luck at growing Alaska's famous giant vegetables. Not all vegetable varieties grow to be giants under the midnight sun. Long daylengths, cool summer temperatures, good growing conditions, and the plant's genetic makeup combine to produce the giant size. The famous giant cabbage is the variety, 'O-S Cross' or 'Flat Top'. The record cabbage grown in the Tanana Valley was entered in the 1988 Tanana Valley State Fair by Victor La Jiness. It weighed 63.5 pounds (28.5 kilograms)! Because of hotter and shorter growing season, Interior gardeners don't match the state record of 99 pounds for a cabbage grown in the Matanuska Valley just north of Anchorage.
Another Giant is 'Shogun' broccoli, a late-maturing variety that produces dinnerplate-sized heads (14-inch; 35 centimeters diameter) and weighs up to 4 pounds (1.8 kilograms). Other vegetables become large because they are left in the garden until they are over-mature. Zucchinis larger than baseball bats and soccer ball-sized turnips, rutabagas and kohlrabi are often grown as novelties for the Tanana Valley State Fair held annually in Fairbanks."
http://www.uaf.edu/salrm/gbg/pubs/Notes/27.html

[TrueKaiser]

*falls out of his chair laughing at this suggestion*
this is a really really dumb idea. not only are you going to screw up the local plant life, you are going to do the same to the animals. most of all the extra sunlight in what ever area you focus this on will really screw with the weather, you /do/ know that the heat from the sunlight help regulate the weather? by artificially increasing the amount of sunlight a area gets you not only warm it up, you will also dry it out.

There are many places on the earth, such as Alaska, where the SUN shines 24 hours a day for months at a time. The plants there do just fine. In fact, they grow faster and larger. Same for the animals. They're as healthy and normal as anywhere else, even though they live in cycles of perpetual night vs. perpetual day. Animals are adaptable. Furthermore, there aren't many animals in urban areas in the first place.

As for the weather -- I haven't heard of any deadly weather phenomena due to the endless summer up north.

As for drying -- I don't think illuminating cities to the level of ordinary streetlights would cause any significant drying (at least not anymore than the streetlights themselves). For that matter, have we sufficiently considered the morbid effects of streetlamps on urban wildlife? How many innocent moths have been lured to their death already by the ugly artificial "moons" we call streetlights?

*laughs again* the very fact that you used the arctic as a example of how this would not harm anything shows you at the very least failed high school science because thats all you need to know to know this would seriously screw things up.

[JohnDenver]

*laughs again* the very fact that you used the arctic as a example of how this would not harm anything

I don't think it would be completely harmless. On the other hand, failing to develop new energy sources is definitely going to kill a few billion people, so I think we'll have to factor that into the cost-benefit analysis. Sure space solar power may cause some serious screwups, just like nuclear power, but I can't imagine any of those screwups being anywhere near as bad as a few billion people croaking in a "die-off". We're trying to save lives here. Suboptimal measures may be necessary.

[bentstrider]

Denver, got to hand it to you on this thread.
I never found space travel to be such a fuel waste.
Launches only occur ever so frequently, and I'm pretty sure NASA would have allocated fuel reserves to get it's job done.
I say we should only use fuel to keep the population from going apeshit on each other.
Personal vehicles and everything that takes down alot of fuel for nothing important should be hauled off to the scrap yard.

[Liamj]

... Sure space solar power may cause some serious screwups, just like nuclear power, but I can't imagine any of those screwups being anywhere near as bad as a few billion people croaking in a "die-off". We're trying to save lives here. Suboptimal measures may be necessary.

Ah and now we have JD saying the dieoff is possible? I thought it was only 'doomers' who did that? That its the doomers fault is no surprise.

But as usual, JD has it backwards: by wasting resources on pie in the sky possibles (that incidentally guarantee $ & status to tech heads like..) we can avoid doing what we KNOW will work: using less, using different, working, sharing & thinking more.
But humility doesn't seem to be a trick for old dogs.

Can't help but notice i'm drifting off the supposed details of how this space mirror gig is supposed to work, one day, but JD quoting exceptions doesn't convince me that critical depletion of multiple resources is now okay. Energy is not the problem. The problem is humans failure to grasp real & round planet thing, & its implication that resources are inevitably limited.