/sci/ - Science & Math

People are too busy with their politics, religion and other equally pointless bullshit.

conservatism happened

>>2615758
>>2615765

These, basically. And the fact that the public lost interest.

>>2615758
>>2615765
>>2615772

All fucking bullshit. We need to get our shit together, it's not that damned hard. We just get this shit going, wow the public, swim in money and energy, and live in the god damned future. It's 2011, and we're still weighed down by gravity.

simply put?
we don't need to yet.

>Solar Power Satellites
We already have those. Unless you meant satellites which send power back to the surface of Earth, which was far from "feasible" in the 70s. Solar panels today are only ~20% efficient, they were probably 3% efficient at the most in the 70's. And 90% of the energy would be absorbed by the atmosphere if sent back to Earth, which means such satellites would only be 0.3% efficient.

>Space-based Infrastructure
Because humanity is fucking retarded, feels bad man, etc.

>Lagrange Colonization
Because humanity is fucking retarded, feels bad man, etc.

>>2615782
If we wait until we need to, we won't be able to.

>Economically viable with relatively quick return on investment

AHAHAHAH

>>2615789

i don't think so.

>>2615787
Incorrect. 20% Efficiency of Photovoltaic Cells gives us about 1367w/m2 * .2 = 273.4 watts of energy per square meter in Earth Orbit. At roughly 85% efficiency of transfer via microwaves (which is the accurate figure) that's 232.39 watts of energy per square meter, continuously, for 24 hours a day, beamed to anywhere on the planet.

In addition, Microwave Energy Transfer efficiencies through the atmosphere of 95% have been achieved.

>>2615789

not really, we could probably do it when we need to.
and we'd be able to do it more easily.

>>2615818
As a group we are losing our ability to launch payloads into space, and space becomes more and more cluttered each day. Each passing moment we lose more and more fossil fuels and attempt to make up for it with expensive green technologies that don't mesh well with existing power grids due to their on-and-off power generation. The USA is bankrupting itself and the private Space Industry can't yet stand on its own to do more than an occasional satellite launch.

Just because we _can_ wait, doesn't mean we should.

>>2615828

that may be true, but it's not the way the mob mind works.
you asked for the reason, not if it's right

>>2615839
True, but you said you think we can afford to wait, that we will be able to when we need to.

I humbly disagree.

>>2615801
>. At roughly 85% efficiency of transfer via microwaves
Including electricity to microwave and microwave to electricity efficiencies? [citation needed]
Also, what is the estimated weight of a system and how much man-hours would be needed to deploy and maintain it? What is the estimated price of a Kilowatt-hour of electricity? Provide sources for all your numbers.

>>2615844
Go fuck yourself

A microwave beam from space transmitting MW levels of power actually scares me more than nuclear.

Quick grab-and-dash economic mentality happened.

It seems that if something doesn't produce results tomorrow, or next week at the most, it's not producing ANY results, NEVER EVER, and all the investments got spent for nothing.

Oh, also gravity is the air pushing you towards earth and pens float on the moon.

BECAUSE THAT'S JUST COMMON KNOWLEDGE AMIRITE

>>2615844
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?reload=true&arnumber=1132833

79-85% wireless transfer efficiency, 1969-1974

>>2615853
They would transmit at power levels safe for human exposure. Shit doesn't scare me at all; we have weapons that can reach any point on the planet and obliterate it in a matter of minutes.

>>2615843

well there is coal, there is oil for the next couple of decades.
there are other renewable resources and other such things.

but when it comes to space and lunching satellites and other such things, oil isn't really a factor, nor is coal, or most other non-renewable resources.

also the amount of power that can be delivered to the earth right now is only at around... 30% efficiency.

this isn't bad, but it can double in about 40 years.

First off, I'm fucking tired of you people who know nothing about space exploration except for that one article or entry-level book you read, yet you think you can decide what's best for a space program.

Second, this is more or less what NASA has been trying to achieve ever since the Apollo landings were over. Trying to prove to the skeptical investors that you can uphold an effective, cheap orbital facility for manufacturing and research (With the ISS), and the possibility of routine, safe, cheap orbital acess (With the shuttle). They've more or less been trying to create an infrastructure and to prove that you can make dosh in space.

It's just that they haven't done it very well.

>>2615758
Nuclear Pulse Propulsion

The army wanted it Liberalism pushed for the Outer Space and SATLTs which ended project orion.

We could have had nuclear propelled battleships in space. Fuck.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071022133749rn_1/www.mfbb.net/nuclearrockets/nuclearrockets-about12.htm
l

Welcome to the Age of Inanity.

>>2615853

that shit is nothing.
read about the way sony found to transfer electricity wirelessly.

basically it can turn anyplace with conductive material to a malestorm of electricity.

>>2615879
It's been stated in the thread that efficiencies of 79-95% is what we would experience in the wireless transmission.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=new-solar-cell-efficiency-record-se-2009-08-27

2009 article detailing cells that would be used in space at 41% conversion efficiency. That means 560 watts generated in orbit, 476 reaching Earth at 85% transmission efficiency.

>>2615866
>They would transmit at power levels safe for human exposure.
>Implying we know what that level is.

>>2615936
http://permanent.com/p-sps-bm.htm

>>2615945
Firstly, what the fuck is that site, and secondly,
>Studies to date have showed the 2.45 GHz prototype beam to be safe.
just what I wanted, more interference with wireless communication.

>Solar Power Satellites
>Feasible with 1970's technology
>Nope

We better hurry the fuck up and figure out this space thing soon or our rare earths are going to be all gone.

>>2615960
>Didn't read The High Frontier

http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_fresh_look_at_space_solar_power_new_architectures_concepts_and_
technologies.shtml

>All feasible with 1970s technology

Nope.

>Economically viable with relatively quick return on investment

Nope.

>Quite literally "free" energy

Nope.

>>2615977
NASA developed a reference design in the 70s.
6 years of initial investment provides a near-inexhaustible source of energy with no upkeep cost.

>>2615985
>near-inexhaustible source of energy with no upkeep cost.
>no upkeep cost
lolno.

>>2615994
What upkeep would there be?

In a way, whether solar satellites are effective is irrelevant. With a functional infrastructure and investors willing to spend money on space business whether solar satellites are profitable can simply be tested in a normal capitalistic environment. If they are, great, if they're not, well then it's just another failed business venture, no biggie.

>>2615997
Not the guy you're replying to, but there's various costs. Station keeping fuel usage, babysitters for the whole installation through mission control and various specialists needed on the ground are two big-ish things.

>>2615997
Everything requires upkeep. To say there won't be is naive.

>>2616009
No real station-keeping required; they'd be out in Geosynchronous orbit.

>>2615758

Nope, liberalism happens. We need to feed Shaaneeqas seven kids who also need college money cause thy are all going to become Einsteins.

We made it so that the economy is now incapable to do 'anything' for us while we have to do 'everything' for the economy.

>>2616003
>the best way to lessen the chances of human extinction is delayed
>just another failed business venture, no biggie
>no biggie

>>2616043
Oh, you completely missed the point, you silly billy,

According to your picture everything in the future will have an american flag on it.

im ok with this.

>>2616094
It has a lunar site, that's all. It's from a series of overly-patriotic space stuff.

>>2615758
Not these people
http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-hd-tv

We have the private industry taking over Space travel

We will have all of those by 2040 as least.

I would say we will be back on the moon by at least 2025 if not sooner

>>2616100
The moon already has the american flag on it

Also the private industry is american they will probably put flags everywhere as well

Elon musk is a libertarian and the only hope for cheep space travel is in the private industry

Thats right

Libertarianism is the best thing to ever happen to space