Defense Industry

Rand Simberg · Guest

On Tue, 05 Jun 2007 15:52:41 -0600, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout <joe@strout.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Scott Hedrick · Guest

"Henry Spencer" <henry@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:JJ6C0o.2Kq@spsystems.net...

Scott Hedrick · Guest

"Hyper" <hyperboreea@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181079128.135114.282920@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

Jorge R. Frank · Guest

Scott Hedrick wrote:

Scott Hedrick · Guest

"Jorge R. Frank" <jrfrank@ibm-pc.borg> wrote in message
news:-6KdnWAQDMNUYvjbnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@giganews.com...

Fred J. McCall · Guest

Joe Strout <joe@strout.net> wrote:

:In article <vcj963lp1o6ilgkti6m5jn46sskgpsm5oj@4ax.com>,
: John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
:
:> SSP doesn't connect to oil prices, because SSP generates electricity and
:> oil is almost exclusively used in applications where electricity is *not*
:> an adequate substitute. You're thinking about "energy" as if it were a
:> fungible commodity; it's not. There are two almost completely independant
:> energy markets, one for fixed power and one for motor vehicle fuel.
:
:This will cease to be true when/if motor vehicles run primarily on
:stored electricity. Try <http://www.google.com/search?q=Tesla+motors>
:for example.
:

Well, shortly after Hell freezes over, then. I'll watch the weather
reports.

:> And SSP is somewhat relevant to global warming, but mostly to the extent
:> that it replaces Chinese coal-fired power plants and blast furnaces. But
:> any plan to devote Sagans of American taxpayer dollars to building new and
:> better power plants for the Chinese, is an absolute political non-starter.
:
:China is certainly important, but the US is at the top of total CO2
:emissions at least as of 2003:
: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_tp20.htm
:

Get current. China is now at the top of the list. Worse yet (and
this is true of most of the developing world), its CO2 output per unit
of economic output is abysmally low by Western standards.

:
:Of course I realize that what matters is current and near-future
:emissions, not total past emissions. But the U.S. is at the head of
:that "current" list too, at least as of 2005:
: http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2006_data.htm
:

Again, get current. It's not 2005, either. It's 2007 and China just
screamed past us in the last few months (a good year or two ahead of
the projections).

Again, worse yet (and this is true of most of the developing world),
China's CO2 output per unit of economic output is abysmally low by
Western standards.

:
:Granted, China's got a lot of power coming online in the near future,
:but it's extreme head-in-the-sand-ism to say that US emissions don't
:matter. We're responsible for over 20% of the CO2 emitted on the
:planet. That's huge.
:

And we're responsible for over 25% of the global product. When we're
producing a bigger share of CO2 than we are global output, THEN we're
the problem. Until then folks like India and China are the problem.

:
:> Furthermore, SSP is *percieved* as being absolutely completely totally
:> irrelevant to anything in the real world, on account of being a hopelessly
:> unrealistic fantasy.
:
:No argument there. Of course if it were demonstrated, even on a small
:scale, people would stop laughing. But as long as they're laughing,
:it's hard to demonstrate. This is the classic problem space development
:has faced over and over, occasionally with success (e.g. space tourism).
:

No, they'd just switch to laughing at anyone foolish enough to
actually invest in it, since even with high fuel prices it's not
economically viable.

:> >We need clean solutions to global warming and fossil fuels.
:>
:> Which SSP may not offer, and even if it does, how do you propose to get
:> it? Shouting for massive government spending to develop SSP technology,
:> however you propose to structure the program this time, *will not work*.
:> And damn few of us will join you on that fool's errand.
:
:True. About the only hope I have for SSP is for some visionary business
:leader to do it -- maybe Richard Branson, who has deep pockets and an
:obvious interest in both space development and clean energy. But I
:don't imagine that there's much we can do here to have any influence on
:it at all.
:

It'll have to be REAL deep pockets, because SSP is a money loser
compared to other power sources. It's going to have to be someone
with trillions of dollars to spend to subsidize this indefinitely.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

Paul F. Dietz · Guest

Joe Strout wrote:

Paul F. Dietz · Guest

Henry Spencer wrote:

kT · Guest

Paul F. Dietz wrote:

Derek Lyons · Guest

"Paul F. Dietz" <dietz@dls.net> wrote:

Mike Combs · Guest

"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglobal@org.trash> wrote in message
news:4698e001.297976818@news.giganews.com...

alain245@sympatico.ca · Guest

On Jun 5, 2:20 pm, h...@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) wrote:

Henry Spencer · Guest

In article <95a79$4663c338$cef8887a$2989@TEKSAVVY.COM>,
John Doe <jdoe@doe.org> wrote:

alain245@sympatico.ca · Guest

On Jun 5, 7:18 pm, "Scott Hedrick" <dinehnmNOS...@yahoo.com> wrote:

alain245@sympatico.ca · Guest

On Jun 5, 11:54 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote: