quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

Farg, Nasa did not write the paper you quoted, but the paper you qouted used a NASA feasability study.

quote:


Yeah I remember those unamned probes chrashing into Mars, working perfectly.

quote:


In my opinion this is one of those ideas like the Space Shuttle or the Solar sail. The ION engine makes the entire Solar Sail Idea a huge waste of money, which was stupid from day one, but has a romantic appeal. So trillions of dollars got spent on the retarted thing.

You have never adressed, my question of how you would defend the thing.

quote:


And you never adressed the fact that it would be an offensive weopon, and the rest of the world might have a problem with us doing that.

quote:


And I still feel that a distrubuted system with several different sources is better, most simply for the all the eggs in one basket idea.

quote:


Also huge amounts of power would be lost in transmission from the ground stations to the end users. It is a massive problem now, which would only get worse under your plan.

quote:


Before you said we could already have it, but your article says the exact opposite. Could be a neat idea for a moon base, but as they have already found hydrogen on the moon not needed.

quote:


Let go of the hate and think clearly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I don't see what dropping a ball bearing on a laser will do. And a sattalite can only hold so many ball bearings.

quote:


So we would have just as many ground stations as we do now? That is not how they seem to be laying it out to me. And with fewer stations there would father to travel, hence more energy loss. But as I already stated, it is currently a huge problem, which a decentralised system would improve.

quote:


Youu know I never bothered to read all 75 pages of a FLAT EARTH SOCIETY WEB site either. I assumed that you being the expert and introducing it, would cite me the relevant parts. Which you haven't. Either you want to hold the knowledge from me and everyone else in an attempt to make me waste 15 minutes, or its not actually there.

quote:


I looked at the table of contents and there isn't a chapter on the security of the things. The idea that a several Mw microwave laser(after atmospheric dissipation at the ground level, where the beam is recieved) could not be used as an offensive weopon is nonsense.

quote:


FINDING: The SBSP Study Group found that when people are first introduced to this subject, the key
expressed concerns are centered around safety, possible weaponization of the beam, and vulnerability
of the satellite, all of which must be addressed with education.

· Because the microwave beams are constant and conversion efficiencies high, they can be
beamed at densities substantially lower than that of sunlight and still deliver more energy per
area of land usage than terrestrial solar energy. The peak density of the beam is likely to be
significantly less than noon sunlight, and at the edge of the rectenna equivalent to the leakage
allowed and accepted by hundreds of millions in their microwave ovens. This low energy
density and choice of wavelength also means that biological effects are likely extremely small,
comparable to the heating one might feel if sitting some distance from a campfire.

quote:


· The physics of electromagnetic energy beaming is uncompromising, and economies of scale
make the beam very unsuitable as a "secret" weapon. Concerns can be resolved through an
inspection regime and better space situational awareness capabilities. The distance from the
geostationary belt is so vast that beams diverge beyond the coherence and power
concentration useful for a weapon. The beam can also be designed in such a manner that it
requires a pilot signal even to concentrate to its very weak level. Without the pilot signal the
microwave beam would certainly diffuse and can be designed with additional failsafe cutoff
mechanisms. The likelihood of the beam wandering over a city is extremely low, and even if
occurring would be extremely anticlimactic.
· Certainly both the rectenna and satellite are vulnerable to attack, just like every other type of
energy infrastructure. However, it takes significantly more resources and sophistication to
attack an asset in geostationary orbit than it does to attack a nuclear power plant, oil refinery
or supertanker on Earth. The satellite is also very large and constructed of a number of similar
redundant parts, so the attack would need to be very precise. An attack on the receiving
antenna would probably be the least valueadded attack, since it is a diffuse and distributed
array of identical modular elements that can be quickly repaired while the receiving station
continues to operate. Nevertheless, the best routes to security are a diversity and redundancy
of clean energy sources, and a cooperative international regime where those who are capable
of damaging a SBSP system also have an interest in preserving the new infrastructure for their
own benefit.

quote:


So you want to change what I said to a scientology term

quote:


You do not even bother to attempt to have any internal consistency to your argument. You said it was 1987 technology, yet cite an article that says the 100% opposite. You said we could have this system now if we had not gone to Iraq, again your source disputes this. Did you just find this source durring the course of our argument. You said our kids won't go to space except as chinese workers, and you say your kids will be selling the tickets.

quote:


You said the Solar sat system could be used as a weopon, now you say otherwise. You say the article covers security and vulnerability of the system, yet there is no chapter on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I don't see what dropping a ball bearing on a laser will do.  And a sattalite can only hold so many ball bearings.

I figured since the NASA study was about the feasability of the project, and we are discussing the feasability of the system, it was releveant, you don't.  OK.

So we would have just as many ground stations as we do now?  That is not how they seem to be laying it out to me.  And with fewer stations there would father to travel, hence more energy loss.  But as I already stated, it is currently a huge problem, which a decentralised system would improve.

Youu know I never bothered to read all 75 pages of a FLAT EARTH SOCIETY WEB site either.  I assumed that you being the expert and introducing it, would cite me the relevant parts.  Which you haven't.  Either you want to hold the knowledge from me and everyone else in an attempt to make me waste 15 minutes, or its not actually there.  I looked at the table of contents and there isn't a chapter on the security of the things.  The idea that a several Mw microwave laser(after atmospheric dissipation at the ground level, where the beam is recieved) could not  be used as an offensive weopon is nonsense. 

So you want to change what I said to a scientology term and argue against that, yet another concession on your part.

I really do not see what we are arguing about.  You think that Hate is a good thing to run on.  I don't.  I have already conceeded that it is a subjective thing, so I can't prove I am right.  I do see the hoops you are jumping around and the personal attacks as proof tht your reliance on Hate doesn't work.  Feel Free to disagree. 

You do not even bother to attempt to have any internal consistency to your argument.  You said it was 1987 technology, yet cite an article that says the 100% opposite.  You said we could have this system now if we had not gone to Iraq, again your source disputes this.  Did you just find this source durring the course of our argument.  You said our kids won't go to space except as chinese workers, and you say your kids will be selling the tickets.  You said the Solar sat system could be used as a weopon, now you say otherwise.  You say the article covers security and vulnerability of the system, yet there is no chapter on it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

"Concerns can be resolved through an
inspection regime and better space situational awareness capabilities."

Consider what that means. Better Space situational awareness capabilities means militarizing Orbit and siezing control of it. Just like I said. The world would go Apeshit.

quote:


It would require breaking several treaties,

quote:


and likely causing a hot war.

quote:


Do you honestly think the Chinese or Russians would allow us to sieze Legal and millitary controll of Space?

quote:


And we at the same time would open everything to a full inspections regiem?

quote:


But it gets even better.

"Nevertheless, the best routes to security are a diversity and redundancy
of clean energy sources, and a cooperative international regime where those who are capable
of damaging a SBSP system also have an interest in preserving the new infrastructure for their
own benefit."

quote:


So untill we set up "A Cooperative International regiem", this thing isn't secure, according to your source.

quote:


Again the paper you cite disagrees with you completley,

quote:


I always thought that if you dropped something in Zero gravity, it just floated along, & wouldn't 6# bbs just burn up in the atmosphere?

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1

I'm not sure where you got the impression that that paper was ever intended to represent and support 100% of MY position regarding the topic.

I didn't I simply pointed out that it disagreed with your position on virtually every aspect.

quote:


Just because some sci fi has come true does not mean it all will.

Technically we could build this thing, but there is no reason to. And there are several reasons not to. And that your source actually agrees with me, not you, about the reasons not to build it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

now, sattelites and warheads and missles and all the shit in space is made of lite shit, has enhancers (solar panels, collectors and circuit boards) and rather than throw a pumpkin slingerslug at the shit, you blast it with birdshot..........

Ah, fuck it............

That is how the chinese can lob up an old rocket and take out a specific sattelite, the thing is if the net is in the air, you only have to cripple (non-specifically) som one, two or three major nodes, and it is the difference between trojans and xian zhuing condoms up your ass.

SunZi-------------------------------asymetrical(LOL, as facechair didn't get)