Talk:Space-based solar power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Added Project Orion / Nuclear Pulse Propulsion to the list of unconventional launch options[edit]

The other low cost unconventional launch options involve substantial technological advances, I thought it worth adding a reference to Project Orion (nuclear populsion), as this came close to being built in the 1950s - a working model which used conventional explosives was successfully flown, and successful tests of engineering structures which could withstand a close proximity nuclear explosion were conducted. The Project Orion (nuclear propulsion) was finally abandoned due to the signing of the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, and growing concern about atmospheric Nuclear fallout -- Eric Worrall - 2013-08-06

No mentions of dangers in SBSS in article[edit]

I am not sure if mention about this belongs in the article.

An SBSS facility would only be useful if it provided large amounts of energy, which would be dangerous to life in case of malfunction or hijacking of a transmitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.249.66.155 (talk) 19:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the statement above, which makes me question who would be allowed access to this for maintenance? Aaronvoth (talk) 02:30, 17 October 2017 (UTC) 

i wonder if this new technology is capable to unite the world. decentralisation of the distribution of power provided as such is a political problem.

the powers that are at the moment wont allow it, unless they can benefit from it. also concider the loss of economics in power industry today. lots of people will lose their jobs worldwide.

ther will be much less use for feul and oil. the change in worldwide economics as a result from orbital power, is a scary aspect for the few who control energy today. an answer might be to start an international company that is financially maintained by a worldwide funding from tax and run by an international board.

quit a task to make such a movement happening, expect resistance from those who gain from nucliar power, like the monsantos and the rotschilds — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1812:2E1F:A900:91D:B93:DBCC:E87C (talk) 14:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Efectivity[edit]

"(55–60%) is lost on its way through the Earth's atmosphere by the effects of reflection and absorption. " Ehm.. wtf? In space it is 1350 w/m2, for example in centre of europe it is 400w/m2 in winter and 1000w/m2 in summer. In centre of europe we get 1 Mwh of sun light per year for m2. In space (permanently on sun) it can be 11,8 MWh/year per m2. On geo orbit it will be 40-50% less becouse shadow of earth. (Probably) So where come from 55-60%?

But cost.. make solar panel cost cca 34 dolars per m2, selling for 70-700 dolars per m2 (no kidding). Double efective panels cost 4x or more. (If you even can buy it) It weight is more then 1kg per 1kwp. Get 1kg to orbit cost cca 14 000 dolars. So 340 vs 14000 is 1:41 but top efective is only 1:11,8. This is reason why we hav 0 orbital solar powerplants. 91.221.212.116 (talk) 09:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

If we could get a source to this statistic maybe it would help clear up the confusion? Aaronvoth (talk) 02:11, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Political role[edit]

Maybe mention how the current world leaders view this idea and if there is any overall agreement Aaronvoth (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

could this potentially weaken bonds with other countries or could it create more conflict than we already have?Aaronvoth (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

if access to this amount of energy fell into the wrong hands would there be preventative measures taken to keep them from using it incorrectly?Aaronvoth (talk) 02:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Space-based solar power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

"Outer space"[edit]

I've always considered "outer space" to be, at the very least, interplanetary space, or space way, way beyond the Earth and the Moon. Really I generally consider outer space to be outside the solar system. I'm not sure whether it is a term which is completely scientific or not, perhaps having been used by many amateurs for so long. Not that I'm an expert!

I had thought that a generic word for what's just beyond our atmosphere was just "space". As in "space station" not "outer space station" and "interplanetary craft" or "space craft" not "outer space craft". Also the title of this article is "Space-based..." rather than "Outer Space-based..." Common dictionary definitions do seem to define "outer space" as anything above our atmosphere, but I'm just wondering if we should be a little more accurate with this term. 75.177.79.101 (talk) 01:03, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

♠Actually, in the trade (& among space & SF buffs), you almost never hear the term; it's usually reserved for uninformed news weenies...
♠In this instance, GEO or cislunar would be more apt. (I'm not sure Lagrange points qualify as GEO...). Or just use Lagrange point.
♠Beyond Luna's "interplanetary" space; beyond the heliopause, interstellar: both technically, "outer", but... TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 02:14, 21 January 2018 (UTC) (Post scriptum: Yes, I am showing off a bit.)
I'm in agreement. However, I understand that Wikipedia needs to cater somewhat to the everyone and that not everyone understands the nuances involved.
That being said, Wikipedia also seeks to inform people of facts. Therefore, in this instance, "outer space" is surely inappropriate. I would personally prefer to use the term "space". Unfortunately, I see that the disambiguation page for space points to an article titled "Outer space" which, by my understanding, describes the term a little erroneously. Perhaps we should move to change the title of the article Outer space, or at least make a note on the correct usage... assuming we can find academic or scientific citations? --75.177.79.101 (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
As peculiar as I find the use of "outer space" as a term, in encyclopedic usage, it's sensible to distinguish between astronomic & geographic. That being true, it's probably best not to tamper with "outer space" as a pagename; I'm not sure everyone defaults to it, so it may well not be the most likely-searched use of "space" (& that's the governing criteria for "primary article", which it would become). TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 09:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Space-based solar power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.


Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:27, 25 January 2018 (UTC)