Talk:Space-based solar power/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Space-based solar power. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Article Cleanup
Hi everyone, having the history/timeline section up front (in my opinion) is really distracting from the readability of this article. I am moving it to the back of the article. This could be a really great article if it was cleaned up and made more readible. TANSTAAFL (talk) 17:44, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
space solar power in fiction
wath do you think about moving this part in another page ? half of it talks about catastrophes or weapons, it makes sps looks bad--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 21:29, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
- I don't think there's enough for a page alone. I also don't think moving as a way to sanitize is a good idea. I do think this section is mostly trivia; except, perhaps, "Die Another Day", none of these have had a huge cultural impact & IMO should be removed. TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 21:54, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
mankins view in 2011
mankins report march 2011 at iaa 273 pages http://iaaweb.org/iaa/Scientific%20Activity/Study%20Groups/SG%20Commission%203/sg311/sg311finalreport.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 12:38, 20 June 2011 (UTC)
let's make this page more graphical with video links
--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 15:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
images
created wikimedia commons can we add the mass driver picture on the o neill section ?, and robonaut for the teleoperated part (project m)? integrate some pictures like shimizu dream page could help too (see lunar ring) wath do you think ? mit have some image with deployment / maintenance bots too also ikaros pictures ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 10:29, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
sbsp template
key people, organisation, key technology, and the like could be a good thing,--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2011 (UTC) a new category that we use to tag other related pages too — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 16:19, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
baseload/peak - sbsp and fusion
hi everyones, a paragraph on baseload/peak power potential, plus why it can be considered a green/renewable enery,comparaison with other sources of power, plus sbsp vs fusion ( its seems iter will produce nuclear waste ) and why sbsp is interesting because it does not need physics breaktrougth ?--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 09:16, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Article on space transport for power satellites
If anyone wants to mine this,http://www.theoildrum.com/node/7898 be my guest. The Oil Drum is one of the few blogs that has responsible editing and can be quoted on wikipedia.
Keith Henson (talk) 04:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
move criswell to the building from asteroid /moon ?
new detailled building from space section building from asteroid, building on or with the help of the moon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 10:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
orbital location
leo/meo/geo/lagrangian point (landis proposal and maybee others) to give another perspective — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 10:45, 30 June 2011 (UTC) --Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 10:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
comparaison table
| Location | Launch Technique | year of publication | estimated cost | TRL | Header text |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LEO | rocket | 1968 | ? | ? | Example |
| Example | Example | Example | Example | Example | Example |
how about a comparaison table ?, we can add other tables for every subject that need comparaison, it will help make it clear wath challenges this concept is facing,on a separate page as a sub project
--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 11:39, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
Predicting the future
I've reverted some recent changes to the intro that seem to introduce a degree of finality to the SBSP concept that isn't really warranted yet.
We can say that the plan to make certain things possible, and achieve certain benefits, do sound very feasible, but in the end this really hasn't been extensively tested, so we can't say for sure how it "will" end up working. SBSP is still just a theory, no matter how likely it might seem, and will stay that way by definition until it's been thoroughly proven in practice. Equazcion (talk) 17:40, 6 Jul 2011 (UTC)
- yes, i just wanted to find the right word to describe his benefits.--Beaucouplusneutre (talk) 19:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I'm just being vigilante in curbing the temptation to say how great this WILL be, when we don't really know yet. Equazcion (talk) 23:40, 6 Jul 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your objectives, but "could" in this context leaves the impression these things aren't demonstrably true. The issue is, no SPS has been built, not that, frex, collection is highter or SPS is unaffected by weather. I'd rather say something like, "If built, it would..." TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- We can't say "if it's built we would have these benefits", because we really don't know that for sure. If it's built, or as we approach building it, we could find out that we were wrong about one or several of these projected benefits actually resulting from SBSP. The fact that all these benefits WOULD result from SBSP is not demonstrable, so the sentence introducing the benefits of SBSP should be worded as "could", IMO.
- Individual demonstrable aspects ARE already worded appropriately so in their list items, eg. collection in space "is" higher, and weather "would" not be an issue.
- We're hoping all these demonstrable properties will result from SBSP, but we don't know that they all will yet. I hope this is clearer. Equazcion (talk) 03:08, 7 Jul 2011 (UTC)
- You're introducing doubt where there isn't any. Saying "it could have these benefits" effectively says the fact of, frex, greater insolation isn't a fact. All the enumerated items are demonstrably true, in fact have been demonstrated true in other contexts. The only place they aren't proven is together, in an SPS. I get your aim, & IMO saying the combined benefits aren't proven is covered by "if built". Or do you mean to say the individual factors are, in fact, still in doubt? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that the benefits haven't been demonstrated in an actual SBSP scenario is cause to avoid any definitive language. When speaking of a technology that doesn't exist yet, a respectable publication takes pains in keeping the language relatively humble. Just because it seems like all these benefits would come from SBSP doesn't mean they will, no matter how much it seems that they will. As a far-out example I could say perhaps NASA will discover down the line that certain live vegetation could play some role on an SPS, and controlling its growth would become a factor -- so plant encroachment actually wouldn't be entirely avoided by SBSP, making that listed benefit wrong in the end. Again it's a far-out example but either way we shouldn't be making definitive predictions about how it will work if built, or what benefits it will have if built. As much as it seems we do know, we don't know enough to write that "if it's built, it will have these benefits". That's arrogant language for a respectable information source describing a technology that doesn't exist yet. Equazcion (talk) 12:28, 7 Jul 2011 (UTC)
- Over the many designs and project, the only problem seems the cost, maybee there is a sense making the comparaison to fusion and other forms of energy, that existed on the sps old page ans seems to have vanished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- "The fact that the benefits haven't been demonstrated" I'd agree with most of that. My trouble is, as said, is that the chosen wording suggests the individual factors are untrue or in doubt, & they're not. What is, & remains, in doubt is the combination. That an SPS might someday have gardens doesn't make the greater insolation in orbit untrue now. What about "Expected (projected?) benefits are"? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Projected" seems like an improvement. Feel free to tweak my implementation. Equazcion (talk) 13:30, 8 Jul 2011 (UTC)
- I think that's got it. Thx. Good doing business with you. :D TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 00:05, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
- "Projected" seems like an improvement. Feel free to tweak my implementation. Equazcion (talk) 13:30, 8 Jul 2011 (UTC)
- "The fact that the benefits haven't been demonstrated" I'd agree with most of that. My trouble is, as said, is that the chosen wording suggests the individual factors are untrue or in doubt, & they're not. What is, & remains, in doubt is the combination. That an SPS might someday have gardens doesn't make the greater insolation in orbit untrue now. What about "Expected (projected?) benefits are"? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- Over the many designs and project, the only problem seems the cost, maybee there is a sense making the comparaison to fusion and other forms of energy, that existed on the sps old page ans seems to have vanished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beaucouplusneutre (talk • contribs) 13:46, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that the benefits haven't been demonstrated in an actual SBSP scenario is cause to avoid any definitive language. When speaking of a technology that doesn't exist yet, a respectable publication takes pains in keeping the language relatively humble. Just because it seems like all these benefits would come from SBSP doesn't mean they will, no matter how much it seems that they will. As a far-out example I could say perhaps NASA will discover down the line that certain live vegetation could play some role on an SPS, and controlling its growth would become a factor -- so plant encroachment actually wouldn't be entirely avoided by SBSP, making that listed benefit wrong in the end. Again it's a far-out example but either way we shouldn't be making definitive predictions about how it will work if built, or what benefits it will have if built. As much as it seems we do know, we don't know enough to write that "if it's built, it will have these benefits". That's arrogant language for a respectable information source describing a technology that doesn't exist yet. Equazcion (talk) 12:28, 7 Jul 2011 (UTC)
- You're introducing doubt where there isn't any. Saying "it could have these benefits" effectively says the fact of, frex, greater insolation isn't a fact. All the enumerated items are demonstrably true, in fact have been demonstrated true in other contexts. The only place they aren't proven is together, in an SPS. I get your aim, & IMO saying the combined benefits aren't proven is covered by "if built". Or do you mean to say the individual factors are, in fact, still in doubt? TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 04:07, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- I agree with your objectives, but "could" in this context leaves the impression these things aren't demonstrably true. The issue is, no SPS has been built, not that, frex, collection is highter or SPS is unaffected by weather. I'd rather say something like, "If built, it would..." TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 01:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
- No problem. I'm just being vigilante in curbing the temptation to say how great this WILL be, when we don't really know yet. Equazcion (talk) 23:40, 6 Jul 2011 (UTC)