ajw@hou2h.UUCP (A.WIENERS) (08/09/84)
>> The real problem the originators had was whether the uWaves would effect the >> ionosphere (sp?). Subsequent testing (reported around 18 months ago?) showed >> no significant problems, although the details escape me. Anyone out there at >> Princeton/SSI (Space Studies Institute, i.e. G. K. O'Neill) to clarify this? >> (note: I'm not sure what the relationship between Princeton & the SSI is, and >> do NOT wish to imply any). >> >> art ihnp4!hou2h!ajw HO1B612 201/834-1142 (Earth) > None, that I know of between the Astrophysics Dept. here and the SSI. > -- > Bill Sebok Princeton University, Astrophysics > {allegra,akgua,burl,cbosgd,decvax,ihnp4,noao,princeton,vax135}!astrovax!wls Thanks for the feedback, but we're still looking for someone who knows where the SPS proposal went to (at least I am). I missed Space Day in Trenton a couple of weeks ago, thus missing both the SSI and L5 presentations. Did anyone "here" attend? Are we happy with the proposal and have proceeded to other matters? Have we determined infeasability? Another point in SunSat's (or whatever we're calling it) favor is that of all of our other alternatives, only Hydro dumps less waste heat into the biosphere. This may not seem critical yet, but there was a Science article approx 2 years ago which stated that 40% of the Antarctic cap (area) has melted in the last 30 years. Now, I found (find) that somewhat extreme, but the article didn't discuss the *arctic* cap's fate (a point in it's disfavor, to my mind - incompleteness) and I would think we would notice SERIOUS effects if 40% of the VOLUME of the cap had melted. Then again, Science is not what I would call an unreliable source. I DON'T want to start a discussion on the icecaps (yet). Can we get more info on the SunSats from someone first? art ihnp4!hou2h!ajw HO1B612 201/834-1142
ajw@hou2h.UUCP (A.WIENERS) (08/14/84)
<<>> >Ed Nather... >The sun shines 24 hours/day everywhere, not just out in space, but it may >be difficult to get a satellite far enough away from the earth so it never >passes through its shadow, particularly if it is in synchronous orbit, which >means it goes around once in 24 hours, and must therefore be at 25,000 miles >altitute. Clarke orbits generally have a 90-minute eclipse once a month, IF (notice preceding word) my memory serves correctly. >If the solar cells aren't there to convert the heat into electricity (i.e. >make some use of 15% of it) then it will *all* go into the earth's bioshphere >if it isn't reflected back into space. The "saved" 15% will presumably get >converted into work somewhere, which degrades into heat, which enters the >earth's biosphere. So where is the "waste?" um...where to start? solar constant 1 influx unit (IU - my unit for convienience) clarke insolation 1 IU ground insolation 0.16 IU (approx after atmos & night attenuation) clarke&ground efficiencies 15% (disregarding dust!) clarke generation .15 IU (waste heat -> space) ground generation .0225 IU, .1375 IU waste heat rectenna efficiency 70% (pessimisticly?) clarke biosphere waste heat = .03 IU, about 1/4 of ground solar. clarke delivered power = .1000 IU, .03/.1 = 30% waste/delivered ground delivered power = .0225 IU, .14/.02 = 700% waste/delivered <correction welcome if unaccompanied by flames, I hacked (!) the numbers in my head, so +/- 10% is to be expected> >If the Sunsat is put up it will be bright enough to rival the full moon, >just from reflected light alone (the moon reflects ~8%, is bigger but is >*much* farther away, and the inverse-square law does a bit of good) ... >which means ground-based astronomy goes out of business, since most of the >interesting observations of quasars, distant galaxies, black hole candidates >and vibrating stellar corpses are confined to "dark time," when the moon is >nearly aligned with the sun and the night sky is dark. I'll have to punt this one; it's been discussed in the literature but I don't want to mangle the defense - anyone want it? Of course, we may well obsolete the ground telescopes by then anyway! >If all astronomers become shoe salesmen or zoologists then who will be >watching when the Klingons come? obsolete AI programs, most likely (yes you, rich & dick!) (see, I DO have a sense of humor!) a. wieners (art) ihnp4!hou2h!ajw HO1B612 201/834-1142
jj@rabbit.UUCP (08/15/84)
>>If all astronomers become shoe salesmen or zoologists then who will be >>watching when the Klingons come? > >obsolete AI programs, most likely (yes you, rich & dick!) >(see, I DO have a sense of humor!) > >a. wieners (art) ihnp4!hou2h!ajw HO1B612 201/834-1142 Um, A.W., I don't think we want to start jokes about old AI projects in net.followup. ======================== Klingons? KLINGONS?? I've ALREADY seen Klingons! ======================== -- EVEN TEDDY BEARS LIKE COOKIES! "...On a pocket full of mumbles, such are promises." (allegra,harpo,ulysses)!rabbit!jj