Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Tias
May 25, 2008

Pictured: the patron saint of internet political arguments (probably)

This avatar made possible by a gift from the Religionthread Posters Relief Fund

CommieGIR posted:

I'm saying pouring MEGAWATTS of energy through the atmosphere is a terrible idea, regardless of giant metal rods or giant tubes.

The current satellites in orbit generate maybe 400-500 watts on average for their payloads. Even the ISS generates only about 84 Kilowatts from its massive solar panels. You are wanting to generate Megawatts, and then pass those through an atmosphere. Ivanpah generates ~320 MW and covers THOUSANDS of acres. So to get to the scale you want to be at, we'd need an orbiting solar panel thousands of acres in size.

This. A sustainable model of star energy collection was already proposed back in the sixties by way of Dyson Spheres/Swarms: Fucktons of radiation panels put up close to and around a star (in our case, the sun), but the technology to do so still eludes us. Especially since, if we blocked off the sun, we'd have to go live on the habitat we'd build around it, and that's kinda hard too.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

  • Locked thread