Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!columbia!rutgers!clyde!cuae2!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy
From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Powersats
Message-ID: <1312@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 11-Nov-86 20:54:06 EST
Article-I.D.: ttrdc.1312
Posted: Tue Nov 11 20:54:06 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 12-Nov-86 04:48:29 EST
References: <8611032037.AA00701@s1-b.arpa> <7278@utzoo.UUCP> <1310@ttrdc.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T, Computer Systems Division, Skokie, IL
Lines: 22

In article <1310@ttrdc.UUCP>, levy@ttrdc.UUCP (thats'a me) writes:
>In article <7278@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>(The reasons to use microwaves from powersats rather than just settling
>>for normal sunlight are (a) much higher conversion efficiencies, and
>>(b) the powersat beam is there day and night and largely ignores clouds.)
>
>There day and NIGHT?  Where does it get its night power (I am presuming
>a solar power source)?  It would have to be in a pretty durn high orbit
>( :-), and synchronous orbits are kinda low, aren't they? ) for the earth
>not to block the sun from the powersat at night!

Oh, boy.  Matt Crawford pointed out the fallacy of that one to me right quick.
I'm chowing down on the ol' crow here, people.  Synchronous-orbit satellites
ARE high enough to get the sun most of the time.
-- 
 -------------------------------    Disclaimer:  The views contained herein are
|       dan levy | yvel nad      |  my own and are not at all those of my em-
|         an engihacker @        |  ployer or the administrator of any computer
| at&t computer systems division |  upon which I may hack.
|        skokie, illinois        |
 --------------------------------   Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
	   go for it!  			allegra,ulysses,vax135}!ttrdc!levy