[Frank]

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.

We're obviously using oil because it's more convenient and it's energy density is extremely high. As far as tapping solar energy more intensively, I can think of a lot of ways to do that more effectively!

I love technology but there are times IMO when people come up with an idea then look for some problem it might be applied against. This is one of them.

[Doly]

I wonder what is the EROEI of putting a mirror in space, considering the enormous amount of energy needed to get anything on orbit.

[Devil]

Easy to answer that question.

When there are thick clouds, it is identical to a PV installation, zero.

[0mar]

or even less!

[eric_b]

Easy to answer that question.

When there are thick clouds, it is identical to a PV installation, zero.

Forget this crazy idea. John's been watching startrek too much.
Jeeze, at least do your homework before you start spewing.

Fully loaded, between the SRB's and the ET, the shuttle contains
about 4 million pounds of fuel (propellant) -- this is easily as
much fuel weight as ten fully loaded 747s. And you cant really
compare the cost, as the fuels used in the shuttle are much more
expensive (aluminum and liquid hydrogen and oxygen) than jet
fuel. It takes a huge amount of energy to get a small amount
of weight into orbit.

The entire infrastructure just to keep the damn shuttles flying is
obscene.

Forget about the technical problems with this idea. Let's consider
the aesthetic cost of this scheme. All those large space based
mirrors would potentially contribute a huge amount of light
pollution to the night sky. Much brighter than the full moon.
The moon has an albedo similiar to bleached asphalt - it's
pretty dark.

As an amateur astronomer, already it's hard enough to find
a good dark sky in north america. Between the increasing amounts
of haze and air pollution, and all the light pollution from streetlights
at night, I doubt most people under 20 have ever seen the milky
way, which can be bright enough to cast a shadow under a truly
dark sky.

Those bright mirrors would also severly fuck with the sensitive
eyes of nocturnal animals, which are already on the defensive.

If such a thing were ever launched, I'd probably have to
go jihadi and shoot it down down for aesthetic reasons alone.

-Eric B

[bentstrider]

As an amateur astronomer, already it's hard enough to find
a good dark sky in north america. Between the increasing amounts
of haze and air pollution, and all the light pollution from streetlights
at night, I doubt most people under 20 have ever seen the milky
way, which can be bright enough to cast a shadow under a truly
dark sky.Those bright mirrors would also severly fuck with the sensitive
eyes of nocturnal animals, which are already on the defensive.
If such a thing were ever launched, I'd probably have to
go jihadi and shoot it down down for aesthetic reasons alone.
-Eric B

Nicely put eric_b. BTW, where's Rakim?
As for satellites, we should keep enough fuel resources to keep a few communications satellites up in the sky and to maintain them.
'Cause if I'm riding a horse in the next five years, I still want to at least have a cell phone and DirecTV!!!

[JohnDenver]

Forget about the technical problems with this idea.

There aren't any technical problems with the idea. A working prototype was demonstrated by the Russians, 12 years ago.

Let's consider the aesthetic cost of this scheme.

In a life-threatening energy crunch, aesthetics is going to be our least concern.

As an amateur astronomer, already it's hard enough to find
a good dark sky in north america. Between the increasing amounts
of haze and air pollution, and all the light pollution from streetlights
at night, I doubt most people under 20 have ever seen the milky
way, which can be bright enough to cast a shadow under a truly
dark sky.

There shouldn't be much harm in blotting something out which most people have never seen anyway. I'm sure many municipalities would be delighted to have new, brightly lit "art" in their skies to spice things up a bit, and save energy. It might even be a good tourist attraction. It's just a question of developing a good marketing campaign to sell it to the public.

Yes, some people like yourself may have to change hobbies, but serious astronomy will continue, on even better footing, using space mirrors more advanced than the one in Hubble.

Those bright mirrors would also severly fuck with the sensitive
eyes of nocturnal animals, which are already on the defensive.

The proposal calls for lighting up urban areas, where there are very few useful nocturnal animals in the first place. We don't need to protect stray dogs, pets, rats, flies and moquitoes. Furthermore, those animals which are present are already getting their sensitive eyes fucked with by street lamps.

If such a thing were ever launched, I'd probably have to go jihadi and shoot it down down for aesthetic reasons alone.

Hmmm... Now you're considering terrorist attacks on the infrastructure? You know, you don't have to wait for space mirrors to become a religious fanatic. I know some butt ugly coal-fired plants and refineries you could shoot up tomorrow.

[eric_b]

(...)

There shouldn't be much harm in blotting something out which most people have never seen anyway. I'm sure many municipalities would be delighted to have new, brightly lit "art" in their skies to spice things up a bit, and save energy. It might even be a good tourist attraction. It's just a question of developing a good marketing campaign to sell it to the public.

lol <shakes head>

John, there's no hope for you.

[Liamj]

Another wonder of space exploration

Perchlorate found in breast milk / Discovery fuels debate over pollution from rocket launches.
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050221/ ... 21-13.html

[Devil]

I feel, using the test of reasonableness, that there is unlikely to be cause and effect between the use of perchlorate in rocket fuels and the increase of perchlorates in tissues.

Firstly, they are used only in solid fuel rockets, such as the shuttle boosters. The fuel is a mixture of a rubbery compound, aluminium powder and ammonium perchlorate and looks and feels like a dark red rubber. Ammonium perchlorate, NH4ClO4, is the oxidant and it decomposes at temperatures of the order of 100°C. As all the fuel in a rocket, during combustion, by far exceeds this temperature, there is no way that any perchlorate ions could escape, before, during or after firing.

Secondly, perchlorates are the least stable of all the chlorates and uncontrolled contact with any organic matter can result in spontaneous combustion. At the best, it will be reduced to chloride very fast indeed. The perchlorate ion has a free lifetime of seconds or minutes in contact with organic matter. As its salts are deliquescent, it is very mobile in nature. This implies that the ions must be sequestered by some means or other, if they are to survive any length of time.

Thirdly, do they have uses other than in rocket boosters? The answer is yes! The major use is in fireworks, where coloured fire is produced by a mixture of sodium perchlorate and metallic salts, such as strontium for red. As the conditions are much less controlled, I would say, as a gut feeling, that this would be a much more likely source of the anion, generalised over a large area on 4 July in the USA. It is also possible that some "designer explosives" may contain some, but I have no information on that. Finally, it is conceivable that chlorate (ClO3-) weedkillers may contain a very small quantity of ClO4- anions as an impurity, although I have no data on this. If this speculation is correct, then it could be scattered on the ground.

Coming back to the shuttle boosters, in the unlikely event of their being responsible, there would be two regions where the effect could be marked, N. Utah, where they are manufactured and the fuel is mixed and cast, and E. Florida, where they are launched. If the perchlorate loading in breast milk were significantly higher in one or both of these two regions, then we may have a suspicion of cause and effect. But the study took samples from women in 18 states, implying uniformity, so this does not seem to be a likely cause.

[Liamj]

I feel, using the test of reasonableness, that there is unlikely to be cause and effect between the use of perchlorate in rocket fuels and the increase of perchlorates in tissues.

Uh huh, thats nice, must be comforting to be so sure of yourself.

I read (most of) the journal paper, which proves different..
http://pubs.acs.org/cgi-bin/asap.cgi/es ... 48118t.pdf

Coming back to the shuttle boosters, in the unlikely event of their being responsible, there would be two regions where the effect could be marked, N. Utah, where they are manufactured and the fuel is mixed and cast, and E. Florida, where they are launched. If the perchlorate loading in breast milk were significantly higher in one or both of these two regions, then we may have a suspicion of cause and effect. But the study took samples from women in 18 states, implying uniformity, so this does not seem to be a likely cause.

Current concerns began with the discovery of perchlorate in
Lake Mead in 1997 (2), followed by similar findings in Lake
Havasu, Arizona; California Central Valley via the California
Aqueduct and independent locations in Utah (3). The current
picture of known U.S. perchlorate releases is far broader (for
a current map, see ref 4), and the influence may extend far
beyond the region of release. The entire lower Colorado is
contaminated (5), ostensibly from the manufacturing of
NH4ClO4, the preferred oxidant component missile/rocket
propellants. Water from the Colorado River irrigates more
than 1.8 million acres of landsproducing some 15% of the
nation’s crops and about 13% of its livestock (6).

Just 2 sites huh Devil? Its amazing what looking at the evidence can show ya eh?
If i lived in the US i'd be interested in the map at
http://www.epa.gov/fedfac/documents/per ... nalmap.htm
which was in the refs of the paper.

[JohnDenver]

The Concept:

It is technically and economically feasible to provide at least 100,000 GWe of solar electric energy from facilities on the Moon. The Lunar Solar Power (LSP) System can supply to Earth power that is independent of the biosphere and does not introduce CO2, ash, or other material wastes into the biosphere. Inexhaustible new net electrical energy provided by the LSP System enables the creation of new net material wealth on Earth that is decoupled from the biosphere. Given adequate clean electric power, humanity's material needs can be acquired from common resources and recycled without the use of depletable fuels [4, 5]. LSP power increases the ability of tomorrow's generations to meet tomorrow's needs, and enables humanity to move beyond simply attempting to sustain itself within the biosphere to nurturing the biosphere.

LINK


Graph showing LSP overcoming the Hubble curve:


2003 Congressional Testimony on this idea:

Like hydroelectric dams, every power receiver on Earth can be an engine of clean economic growth. Gross World Product can increase a factor of 10. The average annual per capita income of Developing Nations can increase from today's $2,500 to ~$20,000. Economically driven emigrations, such as from Mexico and Central America to the United States, will gradually decrease.

Increasingly wealthy Developing Nations will generate new and rapidly growing markets for American goods and services. Lunar power can generate hydrogen to fuel cars at low cost and with no release of greenhouse gases. United States payments to other nations for oil, natural gas, petrochemicals, and commodities such as fertilizer will decrease. LSP industries will establish new, high-value American jobs. LSP will generate major investment opportunities for Americans. The average American income could increase from today's ~$35,000/y-person to more than $150,000/y-person.

By 2050, the LSP System would allow all human societies to prosper while nurturing rather than consuming the biosphere.

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10926

[Doly]

Why would the moon be any better than a satellite? When it comes to it, why would a satellite be any better than having solar panels on Earth?

[aahala]

(Ala Guiness commercial)

Moonbeams! BRILLIANT!

[Devil]

This is clearly for lunar-tics. It is just so bloody stupid as to be pathetic.

1. Everyone will agree that the same side of the moon faces the earth all the time ± a few degrees. Therefore, if such a station is put plonk in the centre of the disc we see, it is in darkness from decreasing half-moon to increasing half-moon. As there would be effective illumination for, say, 10 or 11 days per lunar cycle, what are we supposed to do for the remaining 17 or 18 days?

2. As the earth rotates under the moon, then only one continent (roughly) at a time can get power, say for a max of 8 hours/day, so the power converters on earth will not be operating for 16 hours/day. This assumes the transmitter on the moon is capable of orienting its beam to the required place with sufficient accuracy and then suddenly switch to the next one, taking into account all the wobbles and changes of refraction..

3. What would happen when solar storms saturate the receivers, even if it were possible?

4. What technology would you use for beaming the power to earth? We do not have anything that would allow the generation of a CW of more than a few hundred kW.

5. Who would do the necessary maintenance? How much would it cost? Remember there is no atmosphere, so the temperature excursions from full solar exposure to no solar exposure would be in the hundreds of degrees. The wear and tear would be extreme for anything supposed to last a month or two.

6. The capital cost would be even more astronomic than the moon itself and the energy required to put all the material and living quarters for the crew would literally be out of this world.

Think a little and get real before posting such bullshit.

[JohnDenver]

Why would the moon be any better than a satellite?

Because you could build most of the equipment on the moon, using materials mined from the moon. That would eliminate the cost of launching all those satellites. You would launch a factory to the moon, instead of the finished panels. That reduces launch weight by a factor of 100 to 1000. Also, the moon is a very quiet environment, with no corrosion, weather, space junk etc. It's easier to move large heavy objects on the moon.

When it comes to it, why would a satellite be any better than having solar panels on Earth?

1) Solar panels on earth cannot provide constant base power due to night and the weather. The only other non-carbon method for base power is nuclear, which will involve large environmental/security costs.
2) The intensity of solar radiation is much lower on the surface of the earth. You need less panel in space.
3) Solar panels on the earth take up too much real estate, which we should reserve for crops and wilderness.

[Aaron]

Then how about selling advertising on the moon?

Great big neon tubes spelling out stuff visible from Earth.

We could get Mitsubishi to make a gigantic TV up there, and broadcast full video.

Imagine watching the Super bowl on the moon!

We could make a fortune on those commercials.

----------------------------------------------------------

I actually might have access to someone who could comment on this as an authority. As the former director for NASA's lunar colonization research program, it would be interesting to have his opinion.

I'll forward this and see what we get.

[JohnDenver]

This is clearly for lunar-tics. It is just so bloody stupid as to be pathetic.

You're so cranky, Devil! Are you constipated?

<snip usual drivel: Why don't you read the material before you waste everybody's time with issues the engineers have already addressed?>

[Mercani]

This is one of the most stupid energy generation method that I have ever heard!

JD, can you address Devil's points please?

How does that factory on the moon work? Do you drill moon for oil? or do you use solar power to construct mirrors?

[JohnDenver]

Imagine watching the Super bowl on the moon!

Score: Broncos 28, Texans 3

I actually might have access to someone who could comment on this as an authority. As the former director for NASA's lunar colonization research program, it would be interesting to have his opinion.
I'll forward this and see what we get.

Aaron, I noticed that the guy working on this is in Houston:

Dr. David R. Criswell
Institute for Space Systems Operations, University of Houston
Houston, TX U.S.A.

Maybe you could do an interview like you did with Dr. Smalley.