On Wed, 1 Aug 2001, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> Solar power satellites could make a great energy source - if only it
> were economical to deploy them. Being able to get stuff into space
It is going to be economical soon after we'll establish a teleoperated
bridgehead on the Moon. So, the real problem for deploying cheap cheap
energy everywhere is about developing industrial processes in a hard
vacuum, and packaging that into a boostrap sequence deployable with
current or near-future technologies. So, somebody build a lunar simulator
(cum teleoperation latency) the size of a tennis court, allocate a budget,
and let smart people play with it.
> cheaply might make this possible. It'd also open up a lot of
> potentially cheaper material resources (asteroid/lunar mining), with
> similar benefits.
The launch problem is really tough. It is really more interesting working
with what you have.
> If things take a turn for the much worse, we could set up a refuge in
> space with very little possibility of those who would hunt us down
> being able to touch us once we are there.
You, personally? ExI? Excuse me, by definition you're asking for resources
which few 0.1% of the world command. What makes you think you're going to
wind up one of the 'leet?
> It has been theorized that low gravity may retard natural aging, or at
> least make it easier to sustain life for hearts and lungs and similar
> organs that have deteriorated due to age.
This is bogus, of course. Staying in LEO damages you, and not only due to
the noise and the chemical contamination. Monkeys are not built for space,
not even microgravity.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:01 MDT