Hacker News Reader

>there’s really only one viable option: Space based solar power

Honestly that's crazy talk. Electrical generation supply is already growing way faster than demand for electricity, and nuclear energy is going to be cheap for a long, long, long time. Outer-space based electrical generation is great for things in outerspace, but would be prohibitively expensive and unreliable for ground based infrastructure to rely on. I have no idea how you consider it a viable option, let alone the only viable option.

>Beyond the inevitability factor

If there's one kind of prophecy I hate the most, it's self-fulfilling prophecy. Thinking something is going to happen is not a reason for making it happen. All space-based weapons should be banned, I am deeply ashamed my country is producing them.

The problem with nuclear power is that no one wants the plants anywhere near them. That severely limits how much power we can get out of that option (especially as the population continues to grow). At the same time they raise the fear of terrorist attacks which make them even less likely to be built (which is ironic since to the best of my knowledge no one's ever actually attacked a nuclear plant).

There's a reason why a new plant hasn't been approved for almost 30 years (though hopefully that will change with Georgia's planned new plants: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/17/business/energy-environmen...). I mean, let's be realistic here the state of Nevada created such a backlash against burying nuclear waste within a 100 miles of civilization that it actually became an issue in the Presidential debates.

As for being "deeply ashamed" of the U.S. putting weapons in space again I point out that space based weapons present no greater threat than Earth based ones and if we're going to put assets up in Space than we'll need to protect them.

The idea that there will never be weapons in space disappears as soon as Earth based missiles can attack assets in space.

>>...as soon as Earth based missiles can...

Can != Should.

> All space-based weapons should be banned, I am deeply ashamed my country is producing them.

What is your reason for opposing space-based weapons? I'm not saying I disagree - it's honestly not something I've ever thought about - but you seem to have very strong feelings about it.

Space is already militarized today. It has been for 6 decades. Firstly, every ICBM arsenal on Earth is implicitly militarizing space, all of those missiles will fly through space if and when they are launched on some (hopefully purely hypothetical) future doomsday. Secondly, anti-satellite weaponry has been developed, tested full-up (on orbit), and deployed since the 1950s. By the Soviets, by the US, by the Chinese, and others. The Soviet Almaz manned space stations, for example, were military purposed and armed with a 23mm automatic cannon. Thirdly, modern warfare is highly dependent on space borne assets: communications, intelligence gathering, and global positioning, without such assets warfighters would be significantly diminished in capability.

No direct, on orbit hostilities have occurred, yet, but that's the barest scrap of pretension keeping space from being declared officially militarized.

There's a difference between militarization and weaponization. As noted, space has been militarized for a long time. There's a crap load of military equipment floating up there. "True" weaponization of space would be putting orbital to surface or orbital-orbitcal weapon systems in orbit. You know, death lasers, nukes, KEMs, sat-killer sats, whatever.

People want to keep the weaponization down for two reasons. The first is more or less idealism. It would sure be nice not to fuck up everyplace we go with our nation-state rivalries. The second is because orbital weapons is just a huge game changer. You put a sat with a bunch of KEMs on an orbit that just happens to pass right over Beijing or Washington, or Moscow? Cost/energy effectiveness aside, the warning time for such a strike would be tiny (far less than sub launched nukes). Does the government just go nuts everytime the sat comes over the horizon?

Yeah, not pretty.

> "True" weaponization of space would be putting orbital to surface or orbital-orbitcal weapon systems in orbit.

Both have been going on for a long time. Russia has satellites in high orbit that carry nukes. Russia's very first step in WWIII, would be to detonate those nukes to create a huge EMP that would fry every unprotected electronic device in North America. It will also severely cripple the communication infrastructure. It will also be the first step because it can some without warning, as it only takes a couple of minutes to take effect. ICBMs will be launched simultaneously or right after the EMP attack. ICMBs can take up to half an hour to an hour to reach their targets.

> Russia has satellites in high orbit that carry nukes.

What? There is a treaty outlawing this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_weapon#Orbital_weaponry

The nature of the weapon is such that when deployed, treaties won't matter much after that. Before that, it is hard to check what each satellite has on-board.

Also, EMP waves are not designed to kill people, so I am not sure what they classification as far as any treaties are concerned.

The level to which our infrastructure is vulnerable to EMP has dramatically increased since the 60s. That means, there is a much larger incentives to deploy such weapons now.

You've been watching too many movies.

I don't think ICBM arsenal is militarizing space just because it will fly trough it. And placing nuclear or any WMD in space is prohibited by Outer Space Treaty.

China and US has shot down their own satellites though.

As it turns out, placing nuclear weapons in space is disadvantageous, aside from the prohibitions of the OST. It significantly limits the targets, in space or on Earth, that weapons are capable of hitting.

As to whether ICBM arsenals are militarizing space, I think you would have a different opinion if we were to change contexts. Airplanes are air craft, boats are sea craft, and ICBMs are space craft. That all these vessels begin and end their travels on land, in port, or on the Earth doesn't change their fundamental natures. If the major powers of the world all had massive navies which they almost always kept in port except for occasional training missions we would not be pretending that the oceans were unmilitarized.

> As it turns out, placing nuclear weapons in space is disadvantageous ... It significantly limits the targets, in space or on Earth, that weapons are capable of hitting.

That is only true if you think of traditional applications. There are other uses of nuclear weapons in space, one of which is to create massive EMP attacks. It will only take a couple of Russian satellites in high orbit over the North American continent to fry most of unprotected electronic devices on it. That type of attack will be very hard to prevent and warn against. It is also very effective as it is very disruptive -- imagine most vehicles, radios, cell phones, planes, power plants, water treatment plants being rendered inoperable. Basically if you see this happening, start heading for the closest nuclear bunker.

From who does the power grid in space need protection from? Aliens who like to bully lesser races around?

I don't see anyone attacking such a power grid. Those capable of doing so could just sent some collectors up themselves and call it a day. The outcome of shooting down such a device would be undesirable for both sides. One loses its power and the other will be frowned upon my the rest of earth.

Is space terrorism a realistic prospect at some time in the future? I honestly feel like a dirty tabloid headline writer for asking, but do you think it's a viable future probability?

If, by space terrorism, you mean that some crazy group tries to shoot down a power grid in space, no. I don't think so. There won't be a 'terror' aspect to it. It's unlikely that 100% of the power will come from this or there to be a major power downtime as a result. So people will just go: "Meh, what are they shooting satellites down for?" They'll be unaffected by it and that's not what terrorism is.

I wonder how hard it is to shoot a rocket into space and hit something up there.

We might have our share of space pirates though – if we don't blow ourselves back to the Stone Age. Me be one of em, Arrr!

> I’m not sure the danger posed by space based weapons (such as laser systems) is any more significant than future earth bound weapons.

I know this is a glib response but: have you ever read "The Day of the Triffids" (if not - you should, great book).

I would hope that, this time, we would have learned lessons from the world war, cold war and other conflicts and just go about our progression into a Space Faring world peacefully.

However precedent is a worrying thing; I expect we will see some kind of war over it at some point.

The cost is just hard to justify today when we have so many other real problems on Earth. Let's make sure people have access to clean drinking water, proper medical care, electricity, communications and whatnot before we start building the Death Star.

But that's exactly the point. If you assume civilization is going to move forward worldwide and that we will find a way to implement the goals you lay out than we're going to need massive amounts of power. Because third world countries that used little to no power are suddenly going to be approaching our levels of power consumption.

At the same time we will inevitably move forward ourselves with automations (most notably in robotics). So while all those other countries will be reaching our current levels we'll be doubling or tripling our power consumption to keep up with the automation.

Bottom Line: I can't imagine a scenario where we wouldn't exhaust our current ability to produce power

If we had a space elevator, we could just power the elevator via solar power, and use the elevator as a power line to transfer the additional solar energy back to earth!

This is bad juju. Think about it, we're talking about a 35,000 km cable. Imagine the line losses on that. Not to mention, in order to provide any amount of power you would need a massively heavy wire, likely heavier than the beanstalk itself. This is almost certainly true even for superconducting wire (due to the cooling requirements) but may even be true for hypothetical room-temperature superconducting wire.

Secondly, and more importantly, the electrodynamics of a 35,000 km conductor piercing through the Earth's magnetosphere are daunting to consider. Or consider the geodynamics of a lightning rod that spanned the ground through the stratosphere and beyond, it would constantly be discharging electric potential from the atmosphere. More than likely the result would include one or both of the beanstalk being dragged out of orbit or intense arcing along the beanstalk resulting in its destruction.

I'd rather have a space escalator that way it could never break, it would just become stairs.

@see Mitch Hedberg

The problem with that, and the reason current research is focusing on wireless microwave transmission, is that you don't want a satellite of solar panels in geostationary orbit. Because then it's wasting half the day in the dark. Ideally you want a satellite to collect power 24 hours a day and then transmits it down once you're in range.

The geostationary orbit is 36,000 km in radius, an order of magnitude larger that the radius of the Earth. That, and the obliquity of the ecliptic, means that the satellite is only shaded by the earth for a tiny fraction of the time when the orbit crosses the ecliptic during the solstice, basically with about the same frequency as a lunar eclipse. Shading is not a problem.

Well yes, I was more addressing the orbit-to-earth phase. You could put the power satellites wherever, then use microwave to beam power to the elevator, and transfer it down from there. If I remember right, part of the issue with microwave power is atmosphere interference (or something to do with atmosphere).