What is Digg?Sponsored by openforum.com
5 Potential Business Uses for the iPad view!
openforum.com - Does the iPad provide value that a computer or an iPhone doesn't?
36 Comments
- allnuts, on 12/17/2009, -0/+21Creative desicion in a large industry ... that is progress!
- Kwashiorkor, on 12/17/2009, -1/+17If they aim it wrong, will it melt my car?
- DrPeer, on 12/18/2009, -0/+13Remember Sim City and that microwave satellite dish..
- aikimann, on 12/17/2009, -1/+13I wouldn't want to be in the airplane that was unfortunate enough to pass between this satellite and the receiver.
- eternaltree, on 12/18/2009, -0/+12I used to build these in Sim City.
- ChronicColonic, on 12/17/2009, -0/+8That is what happens when Orbit doesn't make the monthly payment. Solaren is a collection agency.
- EnderSaveUs, on 12/18/2009, -1/+9Dugg for NPR.
- RudeTurnip, on 12/18/2009, -0/+5You're worried about your car? It would make that one scene in Indiana Jones look like a healthy tan.
- 1Bad, on 12/18/2009, -0/+5But the challenges are huge. How do you get all the components in space and connect them once they're there? Scientists have spent decades trying to figure that out.
It means there is a glitch in the matrix. They changed something. - Barackalypse, on 12/18/2009, -4/+8I guess that's the definitive answer to the question "how can we make solar power even less economical?"
- kb9vgr, on 12/18/2009, -0/+4yeah and if you didn't have disasters turned off you paid for it later
wait we don't have a disasters off setting in real life do we - gmiley, on 12/18/2009, -0/+3That's a lot of dessert... I never thought of putting solar panels on my delicious after dinner treats before.
On a more serious note, it might actually be a lot easier to maintain a satellite than a huge array of desert based panels. A lot less dust to wipe off in space. Besides, space is totally way more awesome than a desert. Hopefully they have this thought out. - linagee, on 12/18/2009, -0/+3Solar powered death ray? :-(
- JoeHague, on 12/18/2009, -0/+2You have to wonder what kind of security they are going to initiate to protect their investment. Actually this could be dangerous if the wrong people get their hands on it.
My suggestion- Giant, flying, bipedal robots with massive machine guns, lasers and an appropriately sized light saber- piloted by an angst filled Japanese teenager. - linagee, on 12/18/2009, -0/+2Post your lat/long and say that...
- Berkana, on 12/18/2009, -0/+2My gut feeling estimate is that the benefits of 24-hour exposure of satellites is nullified by the cost of sending it into orbit if the additional expense is more than the cost of building extra capacity on earth along with a facility to store the excess energy from the day for use at night, like they do in Seville's solar tower:
http://www.inhabitat.com/2007/05/21/sevilles-solar ... - Berkana, on 12/18/2009, -0/+2There is a lot to maintain.
In space, you have
- a sort of weather from the sun: solar flares and solar wind, and weather on earth will still influence the ability of the receiver to harvest energy being beamed down.
- space debris and trash, some of it flying around at high speeds, and annual meteor showers full of pebbles flying at bullet speeds
- earthquakes and animal droppings (presumably bird droppings are the type you're thinking about) are not an issue in desert based solar arrays.
If you put an object in stable orbit, and a piece of debris hits it or a solar flare knocks it out, damages it, or disorients it, it will cost millions of dollars to fix, and even to upgrade. Solar flares and space debris are not trivial problems; existing satellites have already experienced serious problems with these. With all these considerations, we should invest in terrestrial solar power to its full potential before investing in something as risky as a space based array. - BananaGrabber, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1What? I didn't know you could transfer power wirelessly.
- ChuyMatt, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1really? the degradation of the solar energy would be less w/o atmosphere and the ability to transmit the power directly instead of over power lines (imagine being able to refocus on another receiver site that needs power with a push of a button) would be awesome. What about 24/7 solar power? What about the lack of weatherization that you would have to do? Just make it well the first time and the maintenance would be a once a decade type thing.
Yes, it is going to be expensive on the front end, but isn't every starting tech? Being unwilling to venture into new directions is nothing but death to the mind and progress. - hayj, on 01/14/2010, -0/+1I saw this on Slashdot today:
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-01/i ... - hayj, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1I'm all for putting solar panels is space. Definitely a good way to overcome the huge inefficiencies with current photocells. It seems to me that biggest problem here wouldn't be the cost or maintenance but the issues with national security. Obviously it wouldn't be the only source of power but these things would basically be out there alone and vulnerable.
- kb9vgr, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1if disaster were on you had a death ray in waiting
- jgzman, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1A) it is ecologicly unsound to simply pave over dessert to build solar panels. I admit, I'd like to see SOME desert paved over to build solar panels.
B) Orbital solar collectors, properly designed, could collect energy damn near 100% of the time, rather than only during the day, and when it's not cloudy.
C) Damn, I guess we'll just have to make it cheap and easy to get to orbit, won't we? - oriondr, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1And this is their website:
http://www.solarenspace.com/
Check it, it's got a mouse-over and everything! - Barackalypse, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1NASA says the satellite measured average solar radiation constant is 1368 w/m^2, compared to the 1,000 w/m^2 on the surface of the Earth on a clear day. In a place like California they figure something like an average of 5 peak sun hours per day year round, so lets combine those two and say your space panels are on average 8 times more efficient than ones on Earth However, it costs around $10,000 per pound to toss something up into orbit, plus you're going to experience absolutely massive transmission losses using radio frequencies to beam energy over 20,000 mile distances. On net, I don't see how that works out cheaper.
http://edmall.gsfc.nasa.gov/inv99Project.Site/Page ... - ChuyMatt, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1well put, but what use were the first satellites? This is a new tech and we will go nowhere without investment.
- publiclurker, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1considering that the array is 22,000 miles up in space, it should be fairly safe from most attacks. It's not like you can just sneak up on it.
- Berkana, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1By the way, particle radiation from the sun slowly degrades photovoltaic material, especially when the photovoltaic material is outside of the protection of our atmosphere. Those PV panels won't remain pristine for millions of years in outer space simply because they're exposed to much more intense radiation. Add that to the maintenance bill.
(I do renewable energy research; bury me if you feel embarrassed, but I actually know what I'm talking about here.) - jgzman, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1Gut feelings are a good start. You may well be right.
I mostly hope for C - jobobo, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1reminds me of irobot (not the movie)
- gossumx, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1yea, I liked the original idea more though.
It would create thousands of jobs......in space. - rkthoadan, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1Unfortunately power is still a national and local problem. Japan is the main country I have read showing an interest in orbital solar power. They have very limited real estate and no barren deserts to utilize. I can see it making some sense in their case. On a planetary scale you are absolutely right, but we aren't able to operate at that level yet.
- sniffymcdougle, on 12/17/2009, -0/+1Severin Borenstein bringing the house down. Great advancement but little on business plan.
- transfire, on 12/18/2009, -0/+1Just another junk project to suck money out of real alt energy.
- Berkana, on 12/18/2009, -2/+3Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the cost of doing orbital solar be able to do a lot more on the ground, while making maintenance way cheaper?
I contend that until every square mile of barren dessert is utilized by terrestrial solar power generation, we shouldn't even be thinking about using orbital solar plants. On a dollar-per-watt of capacity metric, it just doesn't make sense to put panels up where you can't easily maintain them. - YawehsDead, on 12/18/2009, -1/+1good point! I too, will digg it!
