shynung

Whoops.

Most likely, yes. Other than the occasional communication satellites, spaceflight is of interest primarily for research purposes. Not only that, the market for space launch vehicles is already quite saturated: SpaceX, ULA, and Arianespace are only a few out of many organizations that offers launch services. All that, fighting for a relatively small market for communication satellites (the most common payload), and a few government/military space projects.

That's definitely not a small knock.

I fail to see why would placing a PV panel in GEO would magically increase their power generation density by a factor of 5. Is the atmospheric absorption really that much?

Generally, satellites are built to withstand occasional micrometeoroid impacts, so small knocks on the ground should cause little serious problems, if at all. They all look like the SPOT 7 depicted (more or less), because satellites don't need to be smooth, sleek, or aerodynamic; internally, they are built to last, since no repair missions are usually expected.

If they're made with glass, it'd still be heavy. Of course, being arrays of small mirrors, building it with more launches seemed more practical.

I was thinking of a silver-coated polymer material rather than a typical glass mirror. It would have problems holding a consistent focal point, though, if it weren't being held in tension. Also, gigantic GEO mirrors could be used as energy weapons, similar to burning ants with a magnifying glass. Not exactly a good idea, politically speaking.

Looks interesting. But there is still the problem of bringing a solar-power satellite into GEO; bigger and more fragile than the ISS, but in much a farther orbit. That'll be the SLS' problem, I suppose. Though, I just thought: why not leave the PV panels on the ground, and launch mirrors to GEO instead? The mirrors would simply reflect and focus sunlight into the ground receiving station, where the actual PV panels are.

Uhh, Dyson spheres? That's a really long way away, probably centuries if we're lucky.

This happens only if the malfunction happened after the satellite in question has left the launcher, which has placed it in the proper transfer orbit to GEO. In this case, the launcher has done its job.

No, you haven't elaborated it. We're not Gods. We humans obtain knowledge by observation, experimentation, deduction, and calculation. Even when asked by such a 'being', I would never recommend simply guessing a random large number and be done with it. That's just a sick joke. MHD Generators.

How does one assess deaths resulting from DNA damage several years into the future? Moreover, how does one determine this damage occurs from the exposure of the person's ancestor to nuclear-accident-related radiation, and not from his own exposure to the environment(UV exposure from the sun can cause skin cancer)? Or, from the DNA replication mistakes that sometimes occur in otherwise healthy humans? After all is done, how would I arrive at the 40K number, were I to perform the same estimation? Please do elaborate.

Please do note that on a long enough time scale, the death toll becomes 100%(nobody is immortal, as of today). We are at the point where people who were at their late 30s in 1986 were starting to die naturally (they'd be in their 70s by now), regardless of their participation or exposure to anything that has any connection to the Chernobyl incident. Even if we reach the 40K people mark after a few years, that fact alone would be useless to estimate Chernobyl-caused deaths; it'd be too noisy with data from other deaths.

Considering that astronauts had some velcro patch inside their helmet just to scratch their nose, I'd say a lot.

Reprocessing it into new fuel (most likely plutonium) and reacting it inside another reactor (generating more power in the way) would be one way to do it. Even if some spent fuel remains useless (fission products), this would reduce the amount of nuclear waste needed to be stored/disposed of. Problem is, plutonium is useful for nuclear weapons, so care has to be taken regarding where the technology is implemented. But I digress.

He graduated from University of Edinburgh with a Master's degree in Science, in the year 2010.Seriously, do you have even the slightest idea? Anyway, is it feasible to use waste-to-energy plants as base-load generators on its own? If not, how much is it lacking in terms of production?

Strawman confirmed.

Which is why I wrote 'space and weight requirements permitting'. The idea of a mothership lander charging station, though, is quite appealing.

We could heat a molten-salt working fluid with any working heat source (coal, oil, nuclear, solar thermal, geothermal, etc.), and run this high-pressure molten salt through a standard rocket nozzle, followed by the MHD generator. Molten salt is a conductive fluid, so theoretically, this configuration should work. I must add: It's not a power source on its own, it's a generator. It must be driven by something else.

Anyone here have any info on MHD generators? They look rather promising, according to Wikipedia. EDIT: I know that this is not a power source in and of itself, but since we're talking about energy sources, it seemed like improving the efficiency of current designs is also of interest.

I agree that burning electronics are a bad idea (heavy metals inside), but there are some plastics that can't be recycled easily. These plastics are usually just sent to the incinerator anyway; why not burn it to make electricity? Also, another idea: ferment biowaste into gas, and burn the resulting gas in a gas turbine generator.

It's possible to have peaceful, productive discussion about alternative energy sources, as long as things like these don't come up: This statement riles people up very quickly. No offense, but you may need to think twice before throwing accusations around. ======================================= Now, continuing the discussion, I propose burning trash to generate electricity. The air pollution is still problematic, but at the same time, it's a waste management solution. Two birds with one stone, I'd say.

That's 2 separate spacecrafts, intended to work as one, moving away from each other at about 157 m/s (correct me if I am wrong). A maneuver to make them meet each other again should take at least that much delta-v. That may eat into the mission's delta-v budget enough to impair the mission.

Hydroelectric power, given a reliable water source, could be a base load generator. However, not all countries have access to these; think of those living in desert-like environments where there are very little water around. An ideal power source in that context must be usable practically everywhere, and be powerful and reliable enough to be used as base load generator. As one user in this thread posted before, renewable energy solutions must be tailored to the specific resources a nationstate/region has at hand. Power storage solutions must have enough capacity to cover the times when the primary source is inactive, which means having to design the system to match the power source capabilities. Excluding non-renewable, weather/climate/environment-independent generators (such as fossil fuels and nuclear sources), power generation solutions isn't a one-size-fits-all affair. By the way, I'm somewhat surprised no one has mentioned waste-to-energy plants as of this post.

It would need to lower its power production, otherwise the dam would run out of water pretty fast. Also, lack of rain does not always mean the sun is shining. In winter conditions, both the sun and the rain would be incapable to be used as a power source.