Aucbvax.4340
fa.space
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space
Fri Oct 9 04:42:17 1981
SPACE Digest V2 #9
>From OTA@SU-AI Fri Oct 9 04:36:40 1981
SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 9
Today's Topics:
Energy & SPS
Finite energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 8 Oct 1981 1132-PDT
From: DIETZ at USC-ECL
Subject: Energy & SPS
To: space at MIT-MC
Another problem with SPS is the incredibly long lead time. This is the same
problem with nuclear plants also (although some of the dealy may be caused
by the anti-techs and government regulations). Freeman Dyson has pointed
out that the best engineering projects are those with a lead time of less
than 5 years, because after you pass this point the problems begin changing
faster than the solutions. Also, it becomes very difficult to correct
mistakes (like using scaled up SUBMARINE reactors (!) for nuclear plants).
This is the crux of the matter. Who is going to invest in SPS when it is
(admit it) so risky? There's a good chance that some other inexpensive
energy source (dirt cheap solar cells, fusion, bacteria that make gasoline)
will be developed before it's even off the ground.
J.P. suggests using solar power in military missions. Wouldn't a solar
powered military satellite be very vulnerable to attack?
Finally, I had the impression that it's hard to use lot of power in space
because of problems in disappating waste heat (only radiation, no convection).
Is this correct? It wouldn't be a problem with a SPS (the thing is large
enough to cool easily) but might be a problem with, say, refining metals
in large quantities. Here's a question for the physically minded: how
long does a 1 kg. spherical piece of molten aluminum take to cool to
a reasonable temperature? 1000 kg.?
-------
------------------------------
Date: 8 Oct 1981 23:02:53-PDT
From: E.jeffc at Berkeley
To: v:space@mit-mc
Subject: Finite energy
Actually, what is all this talk about limited energy anyway? Ok, we'll
run out of oil soon, and nuclear power has been made uneconomical by
the lunatics in our society, but what about fusion energy???????
I say we should develope that as fast as possible. It is superior
to SPS anyway for very good reasons. First, it will not be as capital
intensive. Second, it permits much higher energy densities to be
realized. The problem with solar power in any form is that it is
deluted. Sure, you can collect as much energy as you want with a
large enough collector, but the density of that energy is rather low
compared to that provided by a fusion reaction. In order to run our
every increasingly technological society, we will not only need more
energy, but in higher densities as well. This would be true even in
a space environment. A spaceship of the future will obviously have
a fusion drive, if possible, and a large space station, or city if
you want, will need simply too much energy to be feasibly supplied
by a solar collector. I believe that solar power is good for running
a eco-system, and transitor radios, and very little else.
------------------------------
End of SPACE Digest
*******************
-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <
[email protected]>
of
http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/
This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:
1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.
2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:
The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.
