Xref: utzoo sci.misc:1207 sci.space:5001
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att-cb!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!im4u!ut-sally!ut-emx!auscso!bigtex!james
From: james@bigtex.uucp (James Van Artsdalen)
Newsgroups: sci.misc,sci.space
Subject: Re: Power satellites (was greenhouse effect)
Summary: space debris impact tolerance
Message-ID: <1420@bigtex.uucp>
Date: 29 Mar 88 04:54:19 GMT
References: <34557@kestrel.ARPA> <2430@umd5.umd.edu> <2116@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <22089@bbn.COM> <35092@kestrel.ARPA> <22285@bbn.COM> <2963@sfsup.UUCP> <22670@bbn.COM> <4091@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: james@bigtex.UUCP (James Van Artsdalen)
Followup-To: sci.space
Distribution: na
Organization: F.B.N. Software, Austin TX
Lines: 21
Posted: Mon Mar 28 22:54:19 1988

IN article <4091@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>, jfc@athena.mit.edu (John F Carr) wrote:
> If we ever get a lot of energy out of them, we will need a cheaper launch
> system.  We will also use very large thin films to minimize weight and
> cost.  The SPS's will not be built if they are too expensive.  

I should think the cost of the SPS itself, and the cost of ongoing maintainence
in space, would be even more of a problem than launch costs.

> [...] Assuming international cooperation in space (else 
> the SPS is too vulnerable to attack) the SPS is more reliable than other
> systems, and has a greater thermal efficiency on earth.

I don't seriously consider a deliberate attack on a power sattellite a
likelyhood: that's an act of war.  But space debris would be a similar
problem.  These SPSs would be very large, and would have to have very long
operating lifetimes (>25 years?) due to cost.  Has there been any serious
efforts to consider problems & costs of building impact-tolerant sattellites?
Or is it not that bad (yet)?
-- 
James R. Van Artsdalen    ...!uunet!utastro!bigtex!james     "Live Free or Die"
Home: 512-346-2444 Work: 328-0282; 110 Wild Basin Rd. Ste #230, Austin TX 78746