It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by bobs_uruncle
What happens if a plane flew through the beam or birds? What if the satellite beam tracking went askew and crossed a major city or 10? The path of destruction would be incredible.
Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by bobs_uruncle
A geostationary orbit is 24,000 miles above the equator. The satellite only produces power when it is in sunlight (on the day side of the Earth). The satellite intercepts sunlight which would have fallen on Earth. The satellite casts a "shadow" over the location where it is situated.
The sunlight intercepted by the satellite never makes it to the atmosphere or the surface below the satellite, it is instead converted to electrical energy then transmitted to the surface. If the satellite is not there the energy (70% of it) is absorbed by the surface and atmosphere. The net heat gain is the same in either scenario.
Hmmm. Come to think of it, the solar panels would have to be 70% efficient. I had it backwards.
Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by IAF101
But the cost of maintenance on nuclear vs the cost of maintenance of a space based solar array is apples and oranges. Could imagine having to send a manned crew up to the solar array every time something needed fixed?
The problem is most of the "greens" have no concept of economics or feasibility the planet comes first above everything and anything. These are not the people I want making economic decisions.
Originally posted by Hastobemoretolife
reply to post by IAF101
But the cost of maintenance on nuclear vs the cost of maintenance of a space based solar array is apples and oranges. Could imagine having to send a manned crew up to the solar array every time something needed fixed?
The problem is most of the "greens" have no concept of economics or feasibility the planet comes first above everything and anything. These are not the people I want making economic decisions.
Originally posted by IAF101
Their hypothetical worst case scenarios are laughable compared to the reality of our present day, where millions of children die each week due to starvation or neglect. People who live all their lives without access to clean drinking water or even electricity etc.
Originally posted by IAF101
It would be much more wiser to invest in controlled fusion reactors
Originally posted by ProRipp
Originally posted by Amaterasu
First... "Carbon emmissions" are nothing this planet needs to worry about. The whole scare was manufactured to bring us into a state of willingness to be taxed and controled.
I agree that GW is being used as a stick to beat us with but i think carbon emissions pose health problems for man ! Inhaling all that sh1t can't be good for you !