| > What if we started to redirect money from Atomic energy development
> into the development of space for energy (your could start with
> the $4.6 billion from Seabrook N.H). Is this a hopeless dream ?
> This might also be viewed as an environmental issue ... less pollution
> from radiations, acid rain, smog ... at the cost of a little excess
> heat.
I might point out that "excess heat" is now considered by quite a few
scientists to be a worse problem than a number of the others you
mentioned. Recent special on the tube mentioned the potential global
weather consequences of excess heat (loss of farmable croplands, raising
or lowering of ocean levels, etc.). Same problem applies to most other
current forms of energy production, especially fossil fuel and nuclear
fueled plants (fission, of course; but the potential heat pollution from
fusion plants is even greater).
*sigh*
ken
|
| Re: .1
I don't believe I saw this "TV special", but the general results
you described appear to on the scale of the so-called "Greenhouse
Effect".. The Greenhouse Effect is based primarily on the amount
of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. CO� (I know it's supposed to
be subscripted) traps infrared radiation which originates from the
sun and is normally radiated back into space.
Fossil fuels and "slash & burn" forest clearing techniques are the
prime contributors of excess CO� into the atmosphere (plus an
occasional volcano I suppose). Forest clearing has the double
effect of reducing plant matter - which converts CO� back into
oxygen.
I doubt very much that all the heat generated by nuclear fission
and/or fusion plants would add up to a drop in the bucket against
the amount of heat received by the sun. Fission and fusion plants
have their own set of problems, but I'd be surprised to learn that
thermal pollution was one of them (especially if they are properly
built). Fission plants (in the U.S. and apparently in the USSR)
tend to be too big, etc.
[I apologize for getting off the subject...]
- dave
|
| For now the most useful part of the space program after
communications is in the general area of looking down at earth.
The military applications are obvious. Weather satilites have
been doing this for a while. There is a new searies of photos
that appear in AWST every now and then (LANSAT in think) that
provide remarkable pictures of the surface and give clues as
to what is under the surface (i.e. water).
One set of photos from an early shuttle flight found what looked
like a system of rivers in West Egypt which is now all sand. The
river beds may have been several thousand years old which is
supported by some ancient but questionable documentation. These
photos are useful for locating natural resources and mapping.
The most promising use for space that has the best chance of
paying for itself is manufacturing. More perfectly shaped objects
can be made in a weightless lab. Experiments in this area have
been done with much success on shuttle space lab flights.
If anyone is interested in details, most of this is described
in Aviation Week which is in most of the DEC libraries. Check
issues that came out just before and after space lab flights.
The most encouraging use to me is the space telescope. Although
its lens is smaller than some on earth, its resolution will be
much better because it is above the atmosphere. When used, it will
give us the largest jump in resolution since Galililo first looked
into space.
George
|