Aucbvax.5580
fa.space
utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!space
Sun Dec 27 03:18:56 1981
SPACE Digest V2 #71
>From OTA@S1-A Sun Dec 27 03:06:21 1981
SPACE Digest Volume 2 : Issue 71
Today's Topics:
North Pole
Cables to an SPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Saturday, 26 December 1981 15:13-CST
From: Jon A. Webb <CS.WEBB AT UTEXAS-20>
To: Space at MC
Subject: North Pole
cc: cs.webb at UTEXAS-20, REM at MC
I guess it's not immediately obvious that skyhooks can only be attached
to the equator, not to the north pole, since geosynchronous orbit is
possible only in the plane of the equator.
Jon
------------------------------
Date: 26 Dec 1981 00:05:43-EST
From: p-btempl at CCA-UNIX (Brad Templeton)
To: space at Mit-mc
Subject: Cables to an SPS
It occurs to me that even aiming at a reception station just above the
atmosphere for cable transmission down to earth would not stop the
complainers - it might cause them to complain more.
If the SPS is at geosync orbit, then a station a few hundred miles up is
effectively on the earth for most of the rotation cycle, so there would
be lots of earth beyond the path of the beam, and worst of all, not just
one place (like the desert) Instead a whole circle of danger is sweeped
out if any leakage occurs.
What are the figures on how much power can be stored in how much mass
of chemical fuel? For example, is it practical at all to use SPS power
to create fuel cells from (say lunar) raw materials, by things such
as the electrolization of water? Could this fuel then be dumped right
onto the earth for parachute pickup, or is the container cost too high?
If the container cost is high, then perhaps the power canisters could
be fired (safely, assuming we can catch them easily) to the top of
a small (200 km high or so) skyhook, and sent down to Earth for whatever
use. (ie. reconverted to electricity (somewhat inefficient) or pumped
down in fuel form) Anyway, the canisters, and even the raw materials can
then be shot back up to the SPS for re-use.
On the ion lifted skyhook, I think this is pretty unlikely. Even if
you cut the weight in half, you don't save much in taper, and you need
the power from your engines capable of supporting what you wanted to
support with your strong material. Probably easier to lift everything
up by STS!
Besides, might there not be an effect from the constant stream of energy
going along the cable?
I think with our current technology, the low orbit rotating hook is the
only way we can go right now. It's a good stepping stone to the
geosyncronous one.
A hook is much preferable to a linacc, since the linacc is only of
use to cargo, and people are forced to take something like the STS up.
This means that most of us, who want to go up (at least for a visit)
might not get the chance before we buy it.
------------------------------
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.
