<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_21_1846235</id>
	<title>Astrium Hopes To Test Grabbing Solar Energy From Orbit</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1264099680000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>goldaryn writes <i>"Word from the BBC today is that Europe's biggest space company is seeking partners to help get a <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/8467472.stm">satellite-based solar power trial</a> into orbit:
'<a href="http://www.astrium.eads.net/">EADS Astrium</a> says the satellite system would collect the Sun's energy and transmit it to Earth via an infrared laser, to provide electricity. Space solar power has been talked about for more than 30 years as an attractive concept because it would be 'clean, inexhaustible, and available 24 hours a day.' However, there have always been question marks over its cost, efficiency and safety. But Astrium believes the technology is close to proving its maturity.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>goldaryn writes " Word from the BBC today is that Europe 's biggest space company is seeking partners to help get a satellite-based solar power trial into orbit : 'EADS Astrium says the satellite system would collect the Sun 's energy and transmit it to Earth via an infrared laser , to provide electricity .
Space solar power has been talked about for more than 30 years as an attractive concept because it would be 'clean , inexhaustible , and available 24 hours a day .
' However , there have always been question marks over its cost , efficiency and safety .
But Astrium believes the technology is close to proving its maturity .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>goldaryn writes "Word from the BBC today is that Europe's biggest space company is seeking partners to help get a satellite-based solar power trial into orbit:
'EADS Astrium says the satellite system would collect the Sun's energy and transmit it to Earth via an infrared laser, to provide electricity.
Space solar power has been talked about for more than 30 years as an attractive concept because it would be 'clean, inexhaustible, and available 24 hours a day.
' However, there have always been question marks over its cost, efficiency and safety.
But Astrium believes the technology is close to proving its maturity.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849526</id>
	<title>Re:Global Warming</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1264105080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Assuming this can be done efficiently enough to take large scale, wouldn't this actually contribute to global warming?</p></div></blockquote><p>  It's better than burning billions of tons of dirty coal to produce the same amount of power.  Any extra warming from making use of this energy is completely dwarfed by several orders of magnitude by the warming caused by the CO2 produced by burning an amount of coal to replace the power from the solar power station.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming this can be done efficiently enough to take large scale , would n't this actually contribute to global warming ?
It 's better than burning billions of tons of dirty coal to produce the same amount of power .
Any extra warming from making use of this energy is completely dwarfed by several orders of magnitude by the warming caused by the CO2 produced by burning an amount of coal to replace the power from the solar power station .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming this can be done efficiently enough to take large scale, wouldn't this actually contribute to global warming?
It's better than burning billions of tons of dirty coal to produce the same amount of power.
Any extra warming from making use of this energy is completely dwarfed by several orders of magnitude by the warming caused by the CO2 produced by burning an amount of coal to replace the power from the solar power station.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849340</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30853682</id>
	<title>send something LIGHT into orbit instead</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264076100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>why not send up mirrors instead of panels?  The mirrors can be relatively lightweight and conventional ground stations can be used as recievers.  They could be aimed at existing ground stations to give them power during the night.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>why not send up mirrors instead of panels ?
The mirrors can be relatively lightweight and conventional ground stations can be used as recievers .
They could be aimed at existing ground stations to give them power during the night .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>why not send up mirrors instead of panels?
The mirrors can be relatively lightweight and conventional ground stations can be used as recievers.
They could be aimed at existing ground stations to give them power during the night.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850376</id>
	<title>Re:This DOES NOT COMPUTE</title>
	<author>BJ\_Covert\_Action</author>
	<datestamp>1264065300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Launch costs are dropping and will continue to do so as SpaceX, Orbital Sciences, and other commercial vendors start to compete in the industry. I don't know that the savings will be enough. But it is worth keeping in mind that space is going to become quite a bit more accessible in the next five to ten years. Also, if you took the time to assemble the orbital solar panels in a modular manner, the way it was done with the ISS (but using more robotic construction techniques in place of human ones), you could piggy back your component launch costs with other payloads thus further reducing launch costs. It may not be affordable right now, but again, never rule out the future.
<br> <br>
Also, doing this type of thing at least once or twice would be interesting from an R&amp;D and proof of concept standpoint alone. Perhaps the conclusion would be, "Right now it costs too much, we will need future technology to make something like this work." But, trying it out will give you much more hard data on what that future technology is and, possibly, how to develop it later. It will also force you to take those kinds of requirements into your mission design from the get go, thus providing valuable experience, knowledge, and science.
<br> <br>
In short, the concept is not a total waste of time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Launch costs are dropping and will continue to do so as SpaceX , Orbital Sciences , and other commercial vendors start to compete in the industry .
I do n't know that the savings will be enough .
But it is worth keeping in mind that space is going to become quite a bit more accessible in the next five to ten years .
Also , if you took the time to assemble the orbital solar panels in a modular manner , the way it was done with the ISS ( but using more robotic construction techniques in place of human ones ) , you could piggy back your component launch costs with other payloads thus further reducing launch costs .
It may not be affordable right now , but again , never rule out the future .
Also , doing this type of thing at least once or twice would be interesting from an R&amp;D and proof of concept standpoint alone .
Perhaps the conclusion would be , " Right now it costs too much , we will need future technology to make something like this work .
" But , trying it out will give you much more hard data on what that future technology is and , possibly , how to develop it later .
It will also force you to take those kinds of requirements into your mission design from the get go , thus providing valuable experience , knowledge , and science .
In short , the concept is not a total waste of time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Launch costs are dropping and will continue to do so as SpaceX, Orbital Sciences, and other commercial vendors start to compete in the industry.
I don't know that the savings will be enough.
But it is worth keeping in mind that space is going to become quite a bit more accessible in the next five to ten years.
Also, if you took the time to assemble the orbital solar panels in a modular manner, the way it was done with the ISS (but using more robotic construction techniques in place of human ones), you could piggy back your component launch costs with other payloads thus further reducing launch costs.
It may not be affordable right now, but again, never rule out the future.
Also, doing this type of thing at least once or twice would be interesting from an R&amp;D and proof of concept standpoint alone.
Perhaps the conclusion would be, "Right now it costs too much, we will need future technology to make something like this work.
" But, trying it out will give you much more hard data on what that future technology is and, possibly, how to develop it later.
It will also force you to take those kinds of requirements into your mission design from the get go, thus providing valuable experience, knowledge, and science.
In short, the concept is not a total waste of time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30851566</id>
	<title>Re:Makes no sense</title>
	<author>noidentity</author>
	<datestamp>1264069140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>But even for this why would you want to build a big heavy satellite with huge solar panels? Just build a satellite that picks up power from a base station and beams it back down. Simpler, cheaper and more reliable.</p></div>
</blockquote><p>Wait, you're suggesting that it's simpler to generate the power on Earth, beam it up to a satellite, then beam it back down to Earth? How are you going to have a small satellite that picks up this beamed power without losing alignment?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>But even for this why would you want to build a big heavy satellite with huge solar panels ?
Just build a satellite that picks up power from a base station and beams it back down .
Simpler , cheaper and more reliable .
Wait , you 're suggesting that it 's simpler to generate the power on Earth , beam it up to a satellite , then beam it back down to Earth ?
How are you going to have a small satellite that picks up this beamed power without losing alignment ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But even for this why would you want to build a big heavy satellite with huge solar panels?
Just build a satellite that picks up power from a base station and beams it back down.
Simpler, cheaper and more reliable.
Wait, you're suggesting that it's simpler to generate the power on Earth, beam it up to a satellite, then beam it back down to Earth?
How are you going to have a small satellite that picks up this beamed power without losing alignment?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30854012</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see how this can be efficient ...</title>
	<author>hardburn</author>
	<datestamp>1264077420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Efficiency" is the wrong term. You should be thinking in terms of absolute energy amounts. Which one gets you more power: 10W of input harnessed at 90\% efficiency, or 100W of input harnessed at 10\% efficiency?</p><p>Yes, there are parasitic losses. IIRC, solar panels themselves are slightly less efficient in space (but I wasn't able to quickly track down a reference), and then you have beam and collector losses. The gain is that you automatically get almost double the energy from not being in the Earth's shadow for roughly 12 out of 24 hours, then add in energy otherwise absorbed or reflected by the atmosphere.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Efficiency " is the wrong term .
You should be thinking in terms of absolute energy amounts .
Which one gets you more power : 10W of input harnessed at 90 \ % efficiency , or 100W of input harnessed at 10 \ % efficiency ? Yes , there are parasitic losses .
IIRC , solar panels themselves are slightly less efficient in space ( but I was n't able to quickly track down a reference ) , and then you have beam and collector losses .
The gain is that you automatically get almost double the energy from not being in the Earth 's shadow for roughly 12 out of 24 hours , then add in energy otherwise absorbed or reflected by the atmosphere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Efficiency" is the wrong term.
You should be thinking in terms of absolute energy amounts.
Which one gets you more power: 10W of input harnessed at 90\% efficiency, or 100W of input harnessed at 10\% efficiency?Yes, there are parasitic losses.
IIRC, solar panels themselves are slightly less efficient in space (but I wasn't able to quickly track down a reference), and then you have beam and collector losses.
The gain is that you automatically get almost double the energy from not being in the Earth's shadow for roughly 12 out of 24 hours, then add in energy otherwise absorbed or reflected by the atmosphere.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30855990</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see how this can be efficient ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264091520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let's also remember that the earth only gets an incredibly small amount of the light emitted by the sun. If we could build solar collectors which can collect energy and beam it back which are not orbiting around the world, we could gather far more of the sun's energy.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson\_sphere<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev\_scale</p><p>It could be our first step to fashioning a dyson sphere or swarm which, in turn, would be our first step to becoming a Type II civilization. We aren't even a Type I civilization yet, but hey. Small victories, eh?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let 's also remember that the earth only gets an incredibly small amount of the light emitted by the sun .
If we could build solar collectors which can collect energy and beam it back which are not orbiting around the world , we could gather far more of the sun 's energy.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson \ _spherehttp : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev \ _scaleIt could be our first step to fashioning a dyson sphere or swarm which , in turn , would be our first step to becoming a Type II civilization .
We are n't even a Type I civilization yet , but hey .
Small victories , eh ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let's also remember that the earth only gets an incredibly small amount of the light emitted by the sun.
If we could build solar collectors which can collect energy and beam it back which are not orbiting around the world, we could gather far more of the sun's energy.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson\_spherehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev\_scaleIt could be our first step to fashioning a dyson sphere or swarm which, in turn, would be our first step to becoming a Type II civilization.
We aren't even a Type I civilization yet, but hey.
Small victories, eh?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849360</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this loading more heat onto Earth?</title>
	<author>sznupi</author>
	<datestamp>1264104420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It will certainly add much less "heat" to Earth then the majority of ways in which we are obtaining energy, for given energy amount.</p><p>The reason is that in case of such satellite system (or pretty much any "renewable" energy source), the added energy comes only from losses or the final work done with the energy.</p><p>Whereas in the case of fossil fuels the most significant, by far, addition of energy to Earth comes <i>not</i> from losses or work output, but from changing the atmosphere, in a way that it captures more heat from the Sun.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It will certainly add much less " heat " to Earth then the majority of ways in which we are obtaining energy , for given energy amount.The reason is that in case of such satellite system ( or pretty much any " renewable " energy source ) , the added energy comes only from losses or the final work done with the energy.Whereas in the case of fossil fuels the most significant , by far , addition of energy to Earth comes not from losses or work output , but from changing the atmosphere , in a way that it captures more heat from the Sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It will certainly add much less "heat" to Earth then the majority of ways in which we are obtaining energy, for given energy amount.The reason is that in case of such satellite system (or pretty much any "renewable" energy source), the added energy comes only from losses or the final work done with the energy.Whereas in the case of fossil fuels the most significant, by far, addition of energy to Earth comes not from losses or work output, but from changing the atmosphere, in a way that it captures more heat from the Sun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30851206</id>
	<title>Kind of a waste</title>
	<author>WindBourne</author>
	<datestamp>1264068060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If EADS and the others had a brain, they would skip the beaming of power down, and instead developed  a means of sending power to orbit first (useful for sending power to the ISS or other sats; it will require ultra caps up there), AND develop a way to relay the energy. The relay would be useful on a plane for the DOD (sending power to forward bases) as well as for disaster areas. FOr example, think Haiti. Think Katrina. Think Ca last week. By being able to put a drone up with infrared sending power to it, and then beam it down via multiple signals, it would allow real power tools to be brought in. We have seen the walking skeletons (aka alien), and the ability to lift things. Think of how useful that concept would be in Haiti right now. <br> <br>
Once you get beaming of power around, THEN, it becomes useful to put solar cells into space. Personally, I would put it around mars and the moon first. Have 2 or three sats providing power, to beam down to missions with ultra-caps.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If EADS and the others had a brain , they would skip the beaming of power down , and instead developed a means of sending power to orbit first ( useful for sending power to the ISS or other sats ; it will require ultra caps up there ) , AND develop a way to relay the energy .
The relay would be useful on a plane for the DOD ( sending power to forward bases ) as well as for disaster areas .
FOr example , think Haiti .
Think Katrina .
Think Ca last week .
By being able to put a drone up with infrared sending power to it , and then beam it down via multiple signals , it would allow real power tools to be brought in .
We have seen the walking skeletons ( aka alien ) , and the ability to lift things .
Think of how useful that concept would be in Haiti right now .
Once you get beaming of power around , THEN , it becomes useful to put solar cells into space .
Personally , I would put it around mars and the moon first .
Have 2 or three sats providing power , to beam down to missions with ultra-caps .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If EADS and the others had a brain, they would skip the beaming of power down, and instead developed  a means of sending power to orbit first (useful for sending power to the ISS or other sats; it will require ultra caps up there), AND develop a way to relay the energy.
The relay would be useful on a plane for the DOD (sending power to forward bases) as well as for disaster areas.
FOr example, think Haiti.
Think Katrina.
Think Ca last week.
By being able to put a drone up with infrared sending power to it, and then beam it down via multiple signals, it would allow real power tools to be brought in.
We have seen the walking skeletons (aka alien), and the ability to lift things.
Think of how useful that concept would be in Haiti right now.
Once you get beaming of power around, THEN, it becomes useful to put solar cells into space.
Personally, I would put it around mars and the moon first.
Have 2 or three sats providing power, to beam down to missions with ultra-caps.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849646</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this loading more heat onto Earth?</title>
	<author>Muros</author>
	<datestamp>1264105500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't imagine it would be a problem. Humans use a very small portion of the energy that we get from the sun, thus even replacing all current power requirements with a scheme like this is only slightly increasing the earths total energy input. And, the more energy there is sloshing around, the more the earth radiates back into space. The problem with greenhouse gasses, as you said, is that they trap radiation, and they are merely a byproduct of fossil fuel consumption. We will have the same amount of energy entering the atmosphere either way, as the energy stored chemically in fossil fuels doesn't affect climate in any way when it's buried underground.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't imagine it would be a problem .
Humans use a very small portion of the energy that we get from the sun , thus even replacing all current power requirements with a scheme like this is only slightly increasing the earths total energy input .
And , the more energy there is sloshing around , the more the earth radiates back into space .
The problem with greenhouse gasses , as you said , is that they trap radiation , and they are merely a byproduct of fossil fuel consumption .
We will have the same amount of energy entering the atmosphere either way , as the energy stored chemically in fossil fuels does n't affect climate in any way when it 's buried underground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't imagine it would be a problem.
Humans use a very small portion of the energy that we get from the sun, thus even replacing all current power requirements with a scheme like this is only slightly increasing the earths total energy input.
And, the more energy there is sloshing around, the more the earth radiates back into space.
The problem with greenhouse gasses, as you said, is that they trap radiation, and they are merely a byproduct of fossil fuel consumption.
We will have the same amount of energy entering the atmosphere either way, as the energy stored chemically in fossil fuels doesn't affect climate in any way when it's buried underground.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30854914</id>
	<title>More power on earth == more heat generated</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264082460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Am I the only one that considers it *bad* to harness as much solar power as possible, store it, and use it in ways that generates excess heat *inside* our atmosphere where it would have otherwise bounced off instead?</p><p>Doesn't the essentially *increase* global warming?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Am I the only one that considers it * bad * to harness as much solar power as possible , store it , and use it in ways that generates excess heat * inside * our atmosphere where it would have otherwise bounced off instead ? Does n't the essentially * increase * global warming ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Am I the only one that considers it *bad* to harness as much solar power as possible, store it, and use it in ways that generates excess heat *inside* our atmosphere where it would have otherwise bounced off instead?Doesn't the essentially *increase* global warming?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850494</id>
	<title>And why not nuclear?</title>
	<author>damasterwc</author>
	<datestamp>1264065720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There is a high-tech way to have clean, cheap energy. Everything was going great until hysteria set in in the 70s. Explain to me why a 1GW plant (with a 92\% uptime unlike solar or wind) running on 7 lbs of thorium per day is not a universally accepted bipartisan plan? Why aren't we mass producing <a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=LFTR&amp;ie=utf-8&amp;oe=utf-8&amp;aq=t&amp;rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&amp;client=firefox-a" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">LFTRs</a> [google.com] globally?? The LFTR, breeders, and other types of 4th generation reactors ARE the solution. Mass producing them and getting the technology ready is a lot more likely to happen than a "renewable" future or orbit solar energy. If the billions wasted in "alternative energy" research and subsidies were wisely invested into 4th gen nuclear technology things would look <b>a lot</b> better today.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a high-tech way to have clean , cheap energy .
Everything was going great until hysteria set in in the 70s .
Explain to me why a 1GW plant ( with a 92 \ % uptime unlike solar or wind ) running on 7 lbs of thorium per day is not a universally accepted bipartisan plan ?
Why are n't we mass producing LFTRs [ google.com ] globally ? ?
The LFTR , breeders , and other types of 4th generation reactors ARE the solution .
Mass producing them and getting the technology ready is a lot more likely to happen than a " renewable " future or orbit solar energy .
If the billions wasted in " alternative energy " research and subsidies were wisely invested into 4th gen nuclear technology things would look a lot better today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a high-tech way to have clean, cheap energy.
Everything was going great until hysteria set in in the 70s.
Explain to me why a 1GW plant (with a 92\% uptime unlike solar or wind) running on 7 lbs of thorium per day is not a universally accepted bipartisan plan?
Why aren't we mass producing LFTRs [google.com] globally??
The LFTR, breeders, and other types of 4th generation reactors ARE the solution.
Mass producing them and getting the technology ready is a lot more likely to happen than a "renewable" future or orbit solar energy.
If the billions wasted in "alternative energy" research and subsidies were wisely invested into 4th gen nuclear technology things would look a lot better today.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849130</id>
	<title>uhh...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264103400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr></p><div class="quote"><p>...would collect the Sun's energy and transmit it to Earth via an infrared laser, to provide electricity.</p> </div><p>Can someone give a safety analysis please? It's my understanding infrared energy can be refracted by the atmosphere or diffused when there is particulate -- and if the beam strength is high enough, there's the potential for it to scatter and hit an unintended target. You know, like your skull.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>...would collect the Sun 's energy and transmit it to Earth via an infrared laser , to provide electricity .
Can someone give a safety analysis please ?
It 's my understanding infrared energy can be refracted by the atmosphere or diffused when there is particulate -- and if the beam strength is high enough , there 's the potential for it to scatter and hit an unintended target .
You know , like your skull .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ...would collect the Sun's energy and transmit it to Earth via an infrared laser, to provide electricity.
Can someone give a safety analysis please?
It's my understanding infrared energy can be refracted by the atmosphere or diffused when there is particulate -- and if the beam strength is high enough, there's the potential for it to scatter and hit an unintended target.
You know, like your skull.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849620</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see how this can be efficient ...</title>
	<author>natehoy</author>
	<datestamp>1264105440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, yes and no.  They are going to have SOME parasitic losses, but certainly not the same ones.</p><p>Let's assume they do this in the desert somewhere, where there are only exceptionally rare clouds in the way and parasitic losses are relatively low (both for land-based solar and orbital solar).  The parasitic losses attributable to the atmosphere would be approximately the same, except that the satellite doing the actual transmission to Earth would likely be in a geosynchronous orbit exactly over the receiving target, which means you'll have minimal atmospheric interference.  I'm not an atmospheric expert, but I thought there was also some benefit to having a stronger/denser beam trying to penetrate the atmosphere (tended to have lower loss than a less-coherent beam).</p><p>Add to that the fact that the actual collector (or collectors) can be in a different orbit where there is no loss of sunlight, ever, and can be positioned so that the solar panels are getting maximum solar efficiency continuously.  The best of Earth-based solar arrays need some sort of motorized mechanism to keep them pointed at the Sun during the course of the day, and will get maybe 10-11 hours of decent sun and only a few hours of peak sun in a given day.  You easily double, or more, your yield from such a system as opposed to building it on Earth.  Solar collector arrays can be built with almost no support materials and can be made FAR larger than you could possibly do practically on Earth.  And, other than a collecting station here and there, no one has to give up viable, farmable, or environmentally sensitive land.</p><p>Sure, it's going to be expensive to put the little devils in orbit, but you can build them using fewer materials, they'll run at peak capacity continuously, and no one ever complained that the Great Left-Pawed Spotted Marmaset was found only at Lagrange-2 so you'll have to stop construction.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , yes and no .
They are going to have SOME parasitic losses , but certainly not the same ones.Let 's assume they do this in the desert somewhere , where there are only exceptionally rare clouds in the way and parasitic losses are relatively low ( both for land-based solar and orbital solar ) .
The parasitic losses attributable to the atmosphere would be approximately the same , except that the satellite doing the actual transmission to Earth would likely be in a geosynchronous orbit exactly over the receiving target , which means you 'll have minimal atmospheric interference .
I 'm not an atmospheric expert , but I thought there was also some benefit to having a stronger/denser beam trying to penetrate the atmosphere ( tended to have lower loss than a less-coherent beam ) .Add to that the fact that the actual collector ( or collectors ) can be in a different orbit where there is no loss of sunlight , ever , and can be positioned so that the solar panels are getting maximum solar efficiency continuously .
The best of Earth-based solar arrays need some sort of motorized mechanism to keep them pointed at the Sun during the course of the day , and will get maybe 10-11 hours of decent sun and only a few hours of peak sun in a given day .
You easily double , or more , your yield from such a system as opposed to building it on Earth .
Solar collector arrays can be built with almost no support materials and can be made FAR larger than you could possibly do practically on Earth .
And , other than a collecting station here and there , no one has to give up viable , farmable , or environmentally sensitive land.Sure , it 's going to be expensive to put the little devils in orbit , but you can build them using fewer materials , they 'll run at peak capacity continuously , and no one ever complained that the Great Left-Pawed Spotted Marmaset was found only at Lagrange-2 so you 'll have to stop construction .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, yes and no.
They are going to have SOME parasitic losses, but certainly not the same ones.Let's assume they do this in the desert somewhere, where there are only exceptionally rare clouds in the way and parasitic losses are relatively low (both for land-based solar and orbital solar).
The parasitic losses attributable to the atmosphere would be approximately the same, except that the satellite doing the actual transmission to Earth would likely be in a geosynchronous orbit exactly over the receiving target, which means you'll have minimal atmospheric interference.
I'm not an atmospheric expert, but I thought there was also some benefit to having a stronger/denser beam trying to penetrate the atmosphere (tended to have lower loss than a less-coherent beam).Add to that the fact that the actual collector (or collectors) can be in a different orbit where there is no loss of sunlight, ever, and can be positioned so that the solar panels are getting maximum solar efficiency continuously.
The best of Earth-based solar arrays need some sort of motorized mechanism to keep them pointed at the Sun during the course of the day, and will get maybe 10-11 hours of decent sun and only a few hours of peak sun in a given day.
You easily double, or more, your yield from such a system as opposed to building it on Earth.
Solar collector arrays can be built with almost no support materials and can be made FAR larger than you could possibly do practically on Earth.
And, other than a collecting station here and there, no one has to give up viable, farmable, or environmentally sensitive land.Sure, it's going to be expensive to put the little devils in orbit, but you can build them using fewer materials, they'll run at peak capacity continuously, and no one ever complained that the Great Left-Pawed Spotted Marmaset was found only at Lagrange-2 so you'll have to stop construction.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30861148</id>
	<title>There is no Death Star</title>
	<author>whitroth</author>
	<datestamp>1264184160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nearly thirty years ago, I spoke to someone at a meeting from the Space Sciences Inst, I believe it was. IN THE EARLY EIGHTIES, he told me that the environmental impact study had already been done several years before.</p><p>What he also told me was that they were NOT talking about megawatts/meter^2, but *watts*/m^2. That's not enough to cook a buzzard flying over it. They were talking about large arrays of receivers.</p><p>But that's too complicated, and you can't make movies with laser beams flashing through vacuum with it, so I guess some of the turkeys who post here can't deal with it....</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; mark "where do I sign up to go to orbit as a mechanic?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nearly thirty years ago , I spoke to someone at a meeting from the Space Sciences Inst , I believe it was .
IN THE EARLY EIGHTIES , he told me that the environmental impact study had already been done several years before.What he also told me was that they were NOT talking about megawatts/meter ^ 2 , but * watts * /m ^ 2 .
That 's not enough to cook a buzzard flying over it .
They were talking about large arrays of receivers.But that 's too complicated , and you ca n't make movies with laser beams flashing through vacuum with it , so I guess some of the turkeys who post here ca n't deal with it... .                     mark " where do I sign up to go to orbit as a mechanic ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nearly thirty years ago, I spoke to someone at a meeting from the Space Sciences Inst, I believe it was.
IN THE EARLY EIGHTIES, he told me that the environmental impact study had already been done several years before.What he also told me was that they were NOT talking about megawatts/meter^2, but *watts*/m^2.
That's not enough to cook a buzzard flying over it.
They were talking about large arrays of receivers.But that's too complicated, and you can't make movies with laser beams flashing through vacuum with it, so I guess some of the turkeys who post here can't deal with it....
                    mark "where do I sign up to go to orbit as a mechanic?
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849270</id>
	<title>Working out the bugs</title>
	<author>Nebulious</author>
	<datestamp>1264104060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>"Critics, though, have always pointed to multiple hurdles - to the cost of launching and assembling large solar stations in orbit, to the losses in efficiency in conversion, and to the safety issues surrounding some wireless transmission methods, particularly those that use microwaves.<br> <br>

Astrium says the latter can be addressed by using infrared lasers which, if misdirected, would not risk "cooking" anyone in their path."<br> <br>

I got a great laugh out of that one.  A+ journalism!</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Critics , though , have always pointed to multiple hurdles - to the cost of launching and assembling large solar stations in orbit , to the losses in efficiency in conversion , and to the safety issues surrounding some wireless transmission methods , particularly those that use microwaves .
Astrium says the latter can be addressed by using infrared lasers which , if misdirected , would not risk " cooking " anyone in their path .
" I got a great laugh out of that one .
A + journalism !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Critics, though, have always pointed to multiple hurdles - to the cost of launching and assembling large solar stations in orbit, to the losses in efficiency in conversion, and to the safety issues surrounding some wireless transmission methods, particularly those that use microwaves.
Astrium says the latter can be addressed by using infrared lasers which, if misdirected, would not risk "cooking" anyone in their path.
" 

I got a great laugh out of that one.
A+ journalism!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850996</id>
	<title>Popcorn</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264067460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you have any idea how much popcorn the world's armed forces eat each year!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you have any idea how much popcorn the world 's armed forces eat each year !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you have any idea how much popcorn the world's armed forces eat each year!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30852852</id>
	<title>ummm....</title>
	<author>Charliemopps</author>
	<datestamp>1264073040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>So wait... we're going to let some company put a giant, solar powered, petawatt laser into orbit and just wait around for some evil genius to figure out they just need to aim that thing at a nuclear reactor or something? Hell that wouldn't take an evil genius I just thought of it.

Not saying I don't want orbital solar power... just saying the delivery method could be safer.</htmltext>
<tokenext>So wait... we 're going to let some company put a giant , solar powered , petawatt laser into orbit and just wait around for some evil genius to figure out they just need to aim that thing at a nuclear reactor or something ?
Hell that would n't take an evil genius I just thought of it .
Not saying I do n't want orbital solar power... just saying the delivery method could be safer .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So wait... we're going to let some company put a giant, solar powered, petawatt laser into orbit and just wait around for some evil genius to figure out they just need to aim that thing at a nuclear reactor or something?
Hell that wouldn't take an evil genius I just thought of it.
Not saying I don't want orbital solar power... just saying the delivery method could be safer.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30852988</id>
	<title>Re:Why use lasers?</title>
	<author>budgenator</author>
	<datestamp>1264073580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It probably is, if people didn't get emotionally over-wrought at the thought of it being Evil(tm) food-nuking radiation and go all NIMBY on you. All they have to do is keep the power-density low enough so that any critters that stray into the power-beam can radiate the heat-gain away. The antenna is tuned so it absorbs the energy from the power beam, yet only shades a small percentage of the sunlight; my guess is the area under the antenna will become a de facto wildlife refuge for small animals shielded from raptors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It probably is , if people did n't get emotionally over-wrought at the thought of it being Evil ( tm ) food-nuking radiation and go all NIMBY on you .
All they have to do is keep the power-density low enough so that any critters that stray into the power-beam can radiate the heat-gain away .
The antenna is tuned so it absorbs the energy from the power beam , yet only shades a small percentage of the sunlight ; my guess is the area under the antenna will become a de facto wildlife refuge for small animals shielded from raptors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It probably is, if people didn't get emotionally over-wrought at the thought of it being Evil(tm) food-nuking radiation and go all NIMBY on you.
All they have to do is keep the power-density low enough so that any critters that stray into the power-beam can radiate the heat-gain away.
The antenna is tuned so it absorbs the energy from the power beam, yet only shades a small percentage of the sunlight; my guess is the area under the antenna will become a de facto wildlife refuge for small animals shielded from raptors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850468</id>
	<title>Re:Makes no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264065600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if you have no available land area for a massive solar farm? Like, say, Japan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if you have no available land area for a massive solar farm ?
Like , say , Japan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if you have no available land area for a massive solar farm?
Like, say, Japan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849346</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30863008</id>
	<title>Re:This DOES NOT COMPUTE</title>
	<author>VeNoM0619</author>
	<datestamp>1264152180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming we require rocket fuel...? Perhaps the next rockets that go up would require electrical energy that is provided by the already sent up unlimited/free energy devices we sent out initially?
<br> <br>
Electricity isn't "expensive" but can be costly in other ways. Besides, this provides potential for unlimited energy, imagine what projects could be done where energy was not a design concern?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming we require rocket fuel... ?
Perhaps the next rockets that go up would require electrical energy that is provided by the already sent up unlimited/free energy devices we sent out initially ?
Electricity is n't " expensive " but can be costly in other ways .
Besides , this provides potential for unlimited energy , imagine what projects could be done where energy was not a design concern ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming we require rocket fuel...?
Perhaps the next rockets that go up would require electrical energy that is provided by the already sent up unlimited/free energy devices we sent out initially?
Electricity isn't "expensive" but can be costly in other ways.
Besides, this provides potential for unlimited energy, imagine what projects could be done where energy was not a design concern?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849434</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this loading more heat onto Earth?</title>
	<author>pixelpusher220</author>
	<datestamp>1264104660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>As you say, the problem is not extra energy being added to Earth, but the reduction in the amount of heat energy being allowed to leave earth.
<br> <br>
If by adding the energy in the proposed manner we can stop the extra CO2 from being added to the atmosphere, then likely the extra energy would just radiate into space.  <br> <br>
And since you're wondering, the amount of extra energy being grabbed pales in comparison to the amount of energy already hitting the earth.  These panels aren't going to be even a tiny fraction of the size of the earth.</htmltext>
<tokenext>As you say , the problem is not extra energy being added to Earth , but the reduction in the amount of heat energy being allowed to leave earth .
If by adding the energy in the proposed manner we can stop the extra CO2 from being added to the atmosphere , then likely the extra energy would just radiate into space .
And since you 're wondering , the amount of extra energy being grabbed pales in comparison to the amount of energy already hitting the earth .
These panels are n't going to be even a tiny fraction of the size of the earth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As you say, the problem is not extra energy being added to Earth, but the reduction in the amount of heat energy being allowed to leave earth.
If by adding the energy in the proposed manner we can stop the extra CO2 from being added to the atmosphere, then likely the extra energy would just radiate into space.
And since you're wondering, the amount of extra energy being grabbed pales in comparison to the amount of energy already hitting the earth.
These panels aren't going to be even a tiny fraction of the size of the earth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30851492</id>
	<title>Free energy or Solar powered weapon ?</title>
	<author>Latinhypercube</author>
	<datestamp>1264068900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Seriously is this Free energy or a Solar powered weapon ?
How about transmitting the energy to Earth via powerful radio transmission ?
So only a receiver at the correct frequency will absorb power, Tesla style...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Seriously is this Free energy or a Solar powered weapon ?
How about transmitting the energy to Earth via powerful radio transmission ?
So only a receiver at the correct frequency will absorb power , Tesla style.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Seriously is this Free energy or a Solar powered weapon ?
How about transmitting the energy to Earth via powerful radio transmission ?
So only a receiver at the correct frequency will absorb power, Tesla style...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849950</id>
	<title>Re:Isn't this loading more heat onto Earth?</title>
	<author>jhfry</author>
	<datestamp>1264106760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I started to do the calculations, and the numbers became so huge that I decided just to put it this way...</p><p>Such an enormous amount of solar energy strikes the earth already, that you could beam our entire energy supply in and it would be absorbed by a rounding error when calculating the increase in solar energy caused by the technology.  And it would be easily offset by the reduction in energy released by fossil fuel use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I started to do the calculations , and the numbers became so huge that I decided just to put it this way...Such an enormous amount of solar energy strikes the earth already , that you could beam our entire energy supply in and it would be absorbed by a rounding error when calculating the increase in solar energy caused by the technology .
And it would be easily offset by the reduction in energy released by fossil fuel use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I started to do the calculations, and the numbers became so huge that I decided just to put it this way...Such an enormous amount of solar energy strikes the earth already, that you could beam our entire energy supply in and it would be absorbed by a rounding error when calculating the increase in solar energy caused by the technology.
And it would be easily offset by the reduction in energy released by fossil fuel use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849282</id>
	<title>This DOES NOT COMPUTE</title>
	<author>Maury Markowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1264104120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just do the math, it doesn't work. The cost of launch utterly WIPES OUT any hope of income. Look, rockets are expensive, electricity isn't. That's all there is to it.</p><p>Want numbers? Fine:</p><p>http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/space-power/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just do the math , it does n't work .
The cost of launch utterly WIPES OUT any hope of income .
Look , rockets are expensive , electricity is n't .
That 's all there is to it.Want numbers ?
Fine : http : //matter2energy.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/space-power/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just do the math, it doesn't work.
The cost of launch utterly WIPES OUT any hope of income.
Look, rockets are expensive, electricity isn't.
That's all there is to it.Want numbers?
Fine:http://matter2energy.wordpress.com/2009/06/12/space-power/</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849222</id>
	<title>What will they do at night?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264103820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>When their line of sight is obscured by the polish air force landing on the sun?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>When their line of sight is obscured by the polish air force landing on the sun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When their line of sight is obscured by the polish air force landing on the sun?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849394</id>
	<title>Re:This DOES NOT COMPUTE</title>
	<author>Darth Sdlavrot</author>
	<datestamp>1264104540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At $5000 per pound maybe. How about at $250 per pound?</p><p><a href="http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/16/0015238/A-Space-Cannon-That-Might-Actually-Work?from=rss" title="slashdot.org" rel="nofollow">http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/16/0015238/A-Space-Cannon-That-Might-Actually-Work?from=rss</a> [slashdot.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At $ 5000 per pound maybe .
How about at $ 250 per pound ? http : //science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/16/0015238/A-Space-Cannon-That-Might-Actually-Work ? from = rss [ slashdot.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At $5000 per pound maybe.
How about at $250 per pound?http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/01/16/0015238/A-Space-Cannon-That-Might-Actually-Work?from=rss [slashdot.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849194</id>
	<title>Why use lasers?</title>
	<author>NotBornYesterday</author>
	<datestamp>1264103700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I thought microwave transmission was the way to go, and they had worked out how to avoid accidentally frying non-target stuff on the ground.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought microwave transmission was the way to go , and they had worked out how to avoid accidentally frying non-target stuff on the ground .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought microwave transmission was the way to go, and they had worked out how to avoid accidentally frying non-target stuff on the ground.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849474</id>
	<title>Re:I don't see how this can be efficient ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264104780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Part of the reasoning is that if you place it in the right orbit you can get on your panels for 24 hours a day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Part of the reasoning is that if you place it in the right orbit you can get on your panels for 24 hours a day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Part of the reasoning is that if you place it in the right orbit you can get on your panels for 24 hours a day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849192</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30851680</id>
	<title>Space Station Power</title>
	<author>DanielRavenNest</author>
	<datestamp>1264069440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would use the same solar panels they have there now, but since the Station is in the earth's shadow 40\% of the time, they don't generate power currently during part of the orbit.  And by bypassing the batteries on the truss, you also gain from not having the battery conversion losses, so its possible to get around a 2x total power increase.</p><p>@LehiNephi - The Space Station is a big enough target that atmospheric distortion is not a problem.  At that altitude you would be able to see a target about 1.5m across without adaptive optics, and the station is a lot larger than that.</p><p>@TheKidWho - yes, a single ground station does not provide coverage of much of the Station's ground track.  But remember that each of the 4 solar arrays on the station cost $300million, even a small increase in power would pay for a lot of overgrown searchlights.  Because the target is so large, your optics on the ground does not have to be as good as a telescope, somewhat better than those big searchlights they use for store openings will work.</p><p>The space station is typically 1 arc minute across when seen from the ground, which is about the same resolution as the human eye, or about 1/30 the width of the moon, its a big target.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would use the same solar panels they have there now , but since the Station is in the earth 's shadow 40 \ % of the time , they do n't generate power currently during part of the orbit .
And by bypassing the batteries on the truss , you also gain from not having the battery conversion losses , so its possible to get around a 2x total power increase .
@ LehiNephi - The Space Station is a big enough target that atmospheric distortion is not a problem .
At that altitude you would be able to see a target about 1.5m across without adaptive optics , and the station is a lot larger than that .
@ TheKidWho - yes , a single ground station does not provide coverage of much of the Station 's ground track .
But remember that each of the 4 solar arrays on the station cost $ 300million , even a small increase in power would pay for a lot of overgrown searchlights .
Because the target is so large , your optics on the ground does not have to be as good as a telescope , somewhat better than those big searchlights they use for store openings will work.The space station is typically 1 arc minute across when seen from the ground , which is about the same resolution as the human eye , or about 1/30 the width of the moon , its a big target .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would use the same solar panels they have there now, but since the Station is in the earth's shadow 40\% of the time, they don't generate power currently during part of the orbit.
And by bypassing the batteries on the truss, you also gain from not having the battery conversion losses, so its possible to get around a 2x total power increase.
@LehiNephi - The Space Station is a big enough target that atmospheric distortion is not a problem.
At that altitude you would be able to see a target about 1.5m across without adaptive optics, and the station is a lot larger than that.
@TheKidWho - yes, a single ground station does not provide coverage of much of the Station's ground track.
But remember that each of the 4 solar arrays on the station cost $300million, even a small increase in power would pay for a lot of overgrown searchlights.
Because the target is so large, your optics on the ground does not have to be as good as a telescope, somewhat better than those big searchlights they use for store openings will work.The space station is typically 1 arc minute across when seen from the ground, which is about the same resolution as the human eye, or about 1/30 the width of the moon, its a big target.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849534</id>
	<title>Re:This DOES NOT COMPUTE</title>
	<author>pixelpusher220</author>
	<datestamp>1264105080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>well electricity is only 'not expensive' if you don't account for the 'cost' of the CO2 (and other pollutants) being released.  Just like if I dump my waste into the river, the 'cost' isn't borne by me, but by anyone downstream.  To me it's cheap.

<br> <br>
What is the cost of global warming?  How much do you amortize against the fossil fuels?  We frankly don't know yet, but many indications are that it's going to be a massively significant amount.   If 400 million people need to relocate because of sea-level rise, you want to put a cost estimate on that?  Or just take Florida if that's easier to understand, how much to relocate 1/2 the state?</htmltext>
<tokenext>well electricity is only 'not expensive ' if you do n't account for the 'cost ' of the CO2 ( and other pollutants ) being released .
Just like if I dump my waste into the river , the 'cost ' is n't borne by me , but by anyone downstream .
To me it 's cheap .
What is the cost of global warming ?
How much do you amortize against the fossil fuels ?
We frankly do n't know yet , but many indications are that it 's going to be a massively significant amount .
If 400 million people need to relocate because of sea-level rise , you want to put a cost estimate on that ?
Or just take Florida if that 's easier to understand , how much to relocate 1/2 the state ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>well electricity is only 'not expensive' if you don't account for the 'cost' of the CO2 (and other pollutants) being released.
Just like if I dump my waste into the river, the 'cost' isn't borne by me, but by anyone downstream.
To me it's cheap.
What is the cost of global warming?
How much do you amortize against the fossil fuels?
We frankly don't know yet, but many indications are that it's going to be a massively significant amount.
If 400 million people need to relocate because of sea-level rise, you want to put a cost estimate on that?
Or just take Florida if that's easier to understand, how much to relocate 1/2 the state?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849282</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849320</id>
	<title>What's to test?</title>
	<author>Darth Sdlavrot</author>
	<datestamp>1264104300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We know we can collect/generate electricity from the Sun -- PV or steam driven turbine.</p><p>And we know we can transmit it (electricity) across long distances using microwave and/or infrared.</p><p>Isn't this just adding "from space" to the equation?</p><p>Not unlike adding "with a computer" or "over the internet" to a patent?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We know we can collect/generate electricity from the Sun -- PV or steam driven turbine.And we know we can transmit it ( electricity ) across long distances using microwave and/or infrared.Is n't this just adding " from space " to the equation ? Not unlike adding " with a computer " or " over the internet " to a patent ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We know we can collect/generate electricity from the Sun -- PV or steam driven turbine.And we know we can transmit it (electricity) across long distances using microwave and/or infrared.Isn't this just adding "from space" to the equation?Not unlike adding "with a computer" or "over the internet" to a patent?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849856</id>
	<title>Re:This idea seems really dumb for many reasons</title>
	<author>Maury Markowitz</author>
	<datestamp>1264106460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Space Garbage: Do we really need more junk in geosynchronous orbit? Launching satellites may create space junk.</p><p>I did this calculation too. For every 100 kWp you launch, you have a 40\% chance of causing a Kessler Syndrome.</p><p>Maury</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Space Garbage : Do we really need more junk in geosynchronous orbit ?
Launching satellites may create space junk.I did this calculation too .
For every 100 kWp you launch , you have a 40 \ % chance of causing a Kessler Syndrome.Maury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Space Garbage: Do we really need more junk in geosynchronous orbit?
Launching satellites may create space junk.I did this calculation too.
For every 100 kWp you launch, you have a 40\% chance of causing a Kessler Syndrome.Maury</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849584</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30853090</id>
	<title>Shoop da Whoop</title>
	<author>EinZweiDrei</author>
	<datestamp>1264073940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>In Soviet Russia, your lazor 'a'charges you!</htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , your lazor 'a'charges you !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, your lazor 'a'charges you!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30852094</id>
	<title>Sacrificial Light</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264070640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see some hundred or two hundred years in the future, bands of nomadic mutants push a captured maiden from the Vault into the "beam of light" to be purified....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see some hundred or two hundred years in the future , bands of nomadic mutants push a captured maiden from the Vault into the " beam of light " to be purified... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see some hundred or two hundred years in the future, bands of nomadic mutants push a captured maiden from the Vault into the "beam of light" to be purified....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849192</id>
	<title>I don't see how this can be efficient ...</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1264103700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why is it that we can put something in orbit to avoid the atmosphere losses, but then beam it down through the same atmosphere they are avoiding in order to use it on the ground.</p><p>Seems to me like you're going to have the same parasitic losses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why is it that we can put something in orbit to avoid the atmosphere losses , but then beam it down through the same atmosphere they are avoiding in order to use it on the ground.Seems to me like you 're going to have the same parasitic losses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why is it that we can put something in orbit to avoid the atmosphere losses, but then beam it down through the same atmosphere they are avoiding in order to use it on the ground.Seems to me like you're going to have the same parasitic losses.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849346</id>
	<title>Makes no sense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264104360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've said it before and I'll say it again: orbital solar makes no economic sense. You get 4 times the power capacity for a given amount of solar panel surface area, compared to building in a desert somewhere, at a mere thousand times the cost! Maybe someday it will make sense, but not any time soon.</p><p>Now there is an exception to this: if you've got an efficient system for sending power down to a ground station then there is potential for power distribution to remote sites. The US military would love this, as it would eliminate much of the insatiable thirst for diesel in places like Afghanistan and simplify their logistics enormously. But even for this why would you want to build a big heavy satellite with huge solar panels? Just build a satellite that picks up power from a base station and beams it back down. Simpler, cheaper and more reliable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've said it before and I 'll say it again : orbital solar makes no economic sense .
You get 4 times the power capacity for a given amount of solar panel surface area , compared to building in a desert somewhere , at a mere thousand times the cost !
Maybe someday it will make sense , but not any time soon.Now there is an exception to this : if you 've got an efficient system for sending power down to a ground station then there is potential for power distribution to remote sites .
The US military would love this , as it would eliminate much of the insatiable thirst for diesel in places like Afghanistan and simplify their logistics enormously .
But even for this why would you want to build a big heavy satellite with huge solar panels ?
Just build a satellite that picks up power from a base station and beams it back down .
Simpler , cheaper and more reliable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've said it before and I'll say it again: orbital solar makes no economic sense.
You get 4 times the power capacity for a given amount of solar panel surface area, compared to building in a desert somewhere, at a mere thousand times the cost!
Maybe someday it will make sense, but not any time soon.Now there is an exception to this: if you've got an efficient system for sending power down to a ground station then there is potential for power distribution to remote sites.
The US military would love this, as it would eliminate much of the insatiable thirst for diesel in places like Afghanistan and simplify their logistics enormously.
But even for this why would you want to build a big heavy satellite with huge solar panels?
Just build a satellite that picks up power from a base station and beams it back down.
Simpler, cheaper and more reliable.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850052</id>
	<title>Re:Why use lasers?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264107240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I thought microwave transmission was the way to go, and they had worked out how to avoid accidentally frying non-target stuff on the ground.</i></p><p>You are looking at it the wrong way. You want to work out a way to purposefully fry things on the ground, and then get the military to fund it. Anything accurate enough to fry things is accurate enough to keep away from them, with several orders of magnitude of safety built in.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I thought microwave transmission was the way to go , and they had worked out how to avoid accidentally frying non-target stuff on the ground.You are looking at it the wrong way .
You want to work out a way to purposefully fry things on the ground , and then get the military to fund it .
Anything accurate enough to fry things is accurate enough to keep away from them , with several orders of magnitude of safety built in .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I thought microwave transmission was the way to go, and they had worked out how to avoid accidentally frying non-target stuff on the ground.You are looking at it the wrong way.
You want to work out a way to purposefully fry things on the ground, and then get the military to fund it.
Anything accurate enough to fry things is accurate enough to keep away from them, with several orders of magnitude of safety built in.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849846</id>
	<title>Re:Why use lasers?</title>
	<author>Salgak1</author>
	<datestamp>1264106340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Who says you need light to do it ? A sufficiently-focused microwave beam would do the trick, AND be invisible.  All you have to do is package it as the Orbital Death-Ray, and . . .  Profit!!!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Who says you need light to do it ?
A sufficiently-focused microwave beam would do the trick , AND be invisible .
All you have to do is package it as the Orbital Death-Ray , and .
. .
Profit ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who says you need light to do it ?
A sufficiently-focused microwave beam would do the trick, AND be invisible.
All you have to do is package it as the Orbital Death-Ray, and .
. .
Profit!!!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849882</id>
	<title>Re:Why use lasers?</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1264106580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wouldn&rsquo;t it be better, to just shoot a huge parabolic mirror into space? Weighs less, easily replaced, and if properly focused (perhaps with a lightweight fresnel lens at the right position, it could e.g. heat a large bulb of water on earth, or something like that.</p><p>But, yes, I don&rsquo;t know how much the athmosphere would filter them.<br>But I also don&rsquo;t know it the sun actually emits other types of waves too, that are strong enough to be used. Because it doesn&rsquo;t have to be a mirror for <em>light</em>, does it?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wouldn    t it be better , to just shoot a huge parabolic mirror into space ?
Weighs less , easily replaced , and if properly focused ( perhaps with a lightweight fresnel lens at the right position , it could e.g .
heat a large bulb of water on earth , or something like that.But , yes , I don    t know how much the athmosphere would filter them.But I also don    t know it the sun actually emits other types of waves too , that are strong enough to be used .
Because it doesn    t have to be a mirror for light , does it ?
: )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wouldn’t it be better, to just shoot a huge parabolic mirror into space?
Weighs less, easily replaced, and if properly focused (perhaps with a lightweight fresnel lens at the right position, it could e.g.
heat a large bulb of water on earth, or something like that.But, yes, I don’t know how much the athmosphere would filter them.But I also don’t know it the sun actually emits other types of waves too, that are strong enough to be used.
Because it doesn’t have to be a mirror for light, does it?
:)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849542</id>
	<title>Safety</title>
	<author>DanielRavenNest</author>
	<datestamp>1264105140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its about as dangerous as the inside of a coal fired plant boiler - ie not a good place to stand, if they used a high intensity beam.  They probably wont though.  Although some solar cells on the ground receiving end can take 400 suns intensity, they require active cooling or they melt (very much the same as CPUs in computers, and roughly the same energy per area).  If your cooling failed, you would damage your reciever, so it would be an expensive repair.</p><p>The point of solar from space is that you get around 5x as much sunlight to work with up there (less nighttime, clouds, and atmosphere absorption).  So if the extra costs of putting it up there are less than 5x as high, you are ahead by putting it in space.  If not, you are better off putting it on the ground.</p><p>For certain uses like the military, even an expensive, but *steerable* power source is a big win over using trucks carrying fuel.</p><p>And since power in space is currently a lot more valuble than on the ground, a first experiment should be to beam power *up*, for example to add extra power to the Space Station, or to test out that nifty VASIMR plasma thruster, they eat lots of power.  Power on board the Space station runs $140/kWh, around 1000x what it sells for on the ground, so sending it *up* makes economic sense.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its about as dangerous as the inside of a coal fired plant boiler - ie not a good place to stand , if they used a high intensity beam .
They probably wont though .
Although some solar cells on the ground receiving end can take 400 suns intensity , they require active cooling or they melt ( very much the same as CPUs in computers , and roughly the same energy per area ) .
If your cooling failed , you would damage your reciever , so it would be an expensive repair.The point of solar from space is that you get around 5x as much sunlight to work with up there ( less nighttime , clouds , and atmosphere absorption ) .
So if the extra costs of putting it up there are less than 5x as high , you are ahead by putting it in space .
If not , you are better off putting it on the ground.For certain uses like the military , even an expensive , but * steerable * power source is a big win over using trucks carrying fuel.And since power in space is currently a lot more valuble than on the ground , a first experiment should be to beam power * up * , for example to add extra power to the Space Station , or to test out that nifty VASIMR plasma thruster , they eat lots of power .
Power on board the Space station runs $ 140/kWh , around 1000x what it sells for on the ground , so sending it * up * makes economic sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its about as dangerous as the inside of a coal fired plant boiler - ie not a good place to stand, if they used a high intensity beam.
They probably wont though.
Although some solar cells on the ground receiving end can take 400 suns intensity, they require active cooling or they melt (very much the same as CPUs in computers, and roughly the same energy per area).
If your cooling failed, you would damage your reciever, so it would be an expensive repair.The point of solar from space is that you get around 5x as much sunlight to work with up there (less nighttime, clouds, and atmosphere absorption).
So if the extra costs of putting it up there are less than 5x as high, you are ahead by putting it in space.
If not, you are better off putting it on the ground.For certain uses like the military, even an expensive, but *steerable* power source is a big win over using trucks carrying fuel.And since power in space is currently a lot more valuble than on the ground, a first experiment should be to beam power *up*, for example to add extra power to the Space Station, or to test out that nifty VASIMR plasma thruster, they eat lots of power.
Power on board the Space station runs $140/kWh, around 1000x what it sells for on the ground, so sending it *up* makes economic sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849420</id>
	<title>space power</title>
	<author>wizardforce</author>
	<datestamp>1264104660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It costs roughly 10,000$/kg to launch all the materials used in these orbital solar power stations.  There is simply no way that it is cheaper to launch solar panels into orbit at that cost than to build a set of mirrors to focus solar energy on to solar panels or using it to crack water using one of the many thermochemical cycles that exist and using that to make fuel or run the produced Hydrogen through a fuel cell.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It costs roughly 10,000 $ /kg to launch all the materials used in these orbital solar power stations .
There is simply no way that it is cheaper to launch solar panels into orbit at that cost than to build a set of mirrors to focus solar energy on to solar panels or using it to crack water using one of the many thermochemical cycles that exist and using that to make fuel or run the produced Hydrogen through a fuel cell .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It costs roughly 10,000$/kg to launch all the materials used in these orbital solar power stations.
There is simply no way that it is cheaper to launch solar panels into orbit at that cost than to build a set of mirrors to focus solar energy on to solar panels or using it to crack water using one of the many thermochemical cycles that exist and using that to make fuel or run the produced Hydrogen through a fuel cell.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30852638</id>
	<title>Re:Ooh, scary</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264072380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Only 30\% of the Earth's surface is land</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm not really sure what that has to do with anything.  Are you suggesting that the chance for this project causing some sort of economic damage is quite low, based on that?  Or are you suggesting that the test receiver could be placed on the ocean?</p><blockquote><div><p>I'll take my chances. Let's see what this tech can actually do.</p></div></blockquote><p>I'm always amused by this.  What you're actually saying is "I'm going to dismiss the concerns of all other people as if I knew their backgrounds and knowledge on the topic, I shall assume that what I think is correct because I think it, and expect that we should continue without delay."  Why not just come out and say "All people who disagree with me are stupid and should not be allowed to have an opinion that conflicts with mine!"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only 30 \ % of the Earth 's surface is landI 'm not really sure what that has to do with anything .
Are you suggesting that the chance for this project causing some sort of economic damage is quite low , based on that ?
Or are you suggesting that the test receiver could be placed on the ocean ? I 'll take my chances .
Let 's see what this tech can actually do.I 'm always amused by this .
What you 're actually saying is " I 'm going to dismiss the concerns of all other people as if I knew their backgrounds and knowledge on the topic , I shall assume that what I think is correct because I think it , and expect that we should continue without delay .
" Why not just come out and say " All people who disagree with me are stupid and should not be allowed to have an opinion that conflicts with mine !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only 30\% of the Earth's surface is landI'm not really sure what that has to do with anything.
Are you suggesting that the chance for this project causing some sort of economic damage is quite low, based on that?
Or are you suggesting that the test receiver could be placed on the ocean?I'll take my chances.
Let's see what this tech can actually do.I'm always amused by this.
What you're actually saying is "I'm going to dismiss the concerns of all other people as if I knew their backgrounds and knowledge on the topic, I shall assume that what I think is correct because I think it, and expect that we should continue without delay.
"  Why not just come out and say "All people who disagree with me are stupid and should not be allowed to have an opinion that conflicts with mine!
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849188</id>
	<title>Ooh, scary</title>
	<author>Deosyne</author>
	<datestamp>1264103700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know how so many people are able to drive in traffic, given how scared people get by the most unlikely things. Only 30\% of the Earth's surface is land, and we only inhabit a fraction of that. I'll take my chances. Let's see what this tech can actually do.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know how so many people are able to drive in traffic , given how scared people get by the most unlikely things .
Only 30 \ % of the Earth 's surface is land , and we only inhabit a fraction of that .
I 'll take my chances .
Let 's see what this tech can actually do .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know how so many people are able to drive in traffic, given how scared people get by the most unlikely things.
Only 30\% of the Earth's surface is land, and we only inhabit a fraction of that.
I'll take my chances.
Let's see what this tech can actually do.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849364</id>
	<title>Re:Why use lasers?</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1264104420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is easier to get bonus grant money from the War industry if you have the possibility of repurposing your power plant into a ship-sinking, building-burning space laser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is easier to get bonus grant money from the War industry if you have the possibility of repurposing your power plant into a ship-sinking , building-burning space laser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is easier to get bonus grant money from the War industry if you have the possibility of repurposing your power plant into a ship-sinking, building-burning space laser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850022</id>
	<title>Re:Safety</title>
	<author>TheKidWho</author>
	<datestamp>1264107060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Except for the fact that it's rather difficult to send power to a satellite that is orbiting at LEO... You know, orbital mechanics and all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Except for the fact that it 's rather difficult to send power to a satellite that is orbiting at LEO... You know , orbital mechanics and all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Except for the fact that it's rather difficult to send power to a satellite that is orbiting at LEO... You know, orbital mechanics and all.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849542</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30864476</id>
	<title>Re:maturity?</title>
	<author>Jeprey</author>
	<datestamp>1264159500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Have to disagree on maturity critique.  Maybe because I used to work in space system architecture and design.  Mostly military: I'll leave it to the imagination which programs - actually it was most of them - so never mind.<p>

The biggest assumption made in costing is that semiconductor photovoltaics would be used.  Well, those aren't the only solution or even the best.  Semiconductor photovoltaics suffer from radiation hardness issues.  They do have overhead costs in manufacturing - though that's not really a problem right this moment - plenty of capacity exists already. </p><p>

An obvious alternative is <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermionic\_converter" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">thermionic power generation</a> [wikipedia.org] which would be a far better choice: it's simpler to manufacture and operate, has better reliability (especially for radiation hardness) and has a broader spectrum (of energy convertibility) than simple light-based photovoltaics because they are heat-driven.</p><p>

Beaming the power back with better matured microwave-based transmission would be better than using lasers.  You get far better beam-forming control with microwaves than with light and the attenuation is lower.  You'd use a phased array antenna to transmit the microwaves with retro-reflecting alignment on the ground for beam correction feedback to the satellites.  Pin-point beam accuracy with real-time correction is pretty trivial. </p><p>

And frankly, with Peak Oil now combined with Peak Credit, satellite power is the only technology with the energy density to really replace oil/gas-from-the-ground and assure continuation of civilization and its current pace of technology advancement.  I'm an engineer; I think it's important.  As much as I've love to see alternative energy take off, they can never really substitute well - world economies still have to decline far more to reach an energy cost-benefit trade-off level that can work well with alternative sources.</p><p>

So pick your poison: do a satellite system which <b>is</b> practical with current off-the-shelf satellite, electronics and launch technologies, or simply slip back into a Dark Age worse than the post-Roman Empire era.</p><p>

It's clear we should have been working harder on this during the 1970s when these ideas were first brought up seriously after the Arab Oil Embargo, but the United States, perhaps predictably, completely blew it.  Today it really is debatable if the United States has the capital and manufacturing to do the job itself or even as a partner to a larger prime.  China could do it - no problem.  If you want VC money that's the only place you'll be finding it right now - I know from personal experience.  I'd consider joining up with a program for something like this.  It's only humanity itself that is at risk.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have to disagree on maturity critique .
Maybe because I used to work in space system architecture and design .
Mostly military : I 'll leave it to the imagination which programs - actually it was most of them - so never mind .
The biggest assumption made in costing is that semiconductor photovoltaics would be used .
Well , those are n't the only solution or even the best .
Semiconductor photovoltaics suffer from radiation hardness issues .
They do have overhead costs in manufacturing - though that 's not really a problem right this moment - plenty of capacity exists already .
An obvious alternative is thermionic power generation [ wikipedia.org ] which would be a far better choice : it 's simpler to manufacture and operate , has better reliability ( especially for radiation hardness ) and has a broader spectrum ( of energy convertibility ) than simple light-based photovoltaics because they are heat-driven .
Beaming the power back with better matured microwave-based transmission would be better than using lasers .
You get far better beam-forming control with microwaves than with light and the attenuation is lower .
You 'd use a phased array antenna to transmit the microwaves with retro-reflecting alignment on the ground for beam correction feedback to the satellites .
Pin-point beam accuracy with real-time correction is pretty trivial .
And frankly , with Peak Oil now combined with Peak Credit , satellite power is the only technology with the energy density to really replace oil/gas-from-the-ground and assure continuation of civilization and its current pace of technology advancement .
I 'm an engineer ; I think it 's important .
As much as I 've love to see alternative energy take off , they can never really substitute well - world economies still have to decline far more to reach an energy cost-benefit trade-off level that can work well with alternative sources .
So pick your poison : do a satellite system which is practical with current off-the-shelf satellite , electronics and launch technologies , or simply slip back into a Dark Age worse than the post-Roman Empire era .
It 's clear we should have been working harder on this during the 1970s when these ideas were first brought up seriously after the Arab Oil Embargo , but the United States , perhaps predictably , completely blew it .
Today it really is debatable if the United States has the capital and manufacturing to do the job itself or even as a partner to a larger prime .
China could do it - no problem .
If you want VC money that 's the only place you 'll be finding it right now - I know from personal experience .
I 'd consider joining up with a program for something like this .
It 's only humanity itself that is at risk .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have to disagree on maturity critique.
Maybe because I used to work in space system architecture and design.
Mostly military: I'll leave it to the imagination which programs - actually it was most of them - so never mind.
The biggest assumption made in costing is that semiconductor photovoltaics would be used.
Well, those aren't the only solution or even the best.
Semiconductor photovoltaics suffer from radiation hardness issues.
They do have overhead costs in manufacturing - though that's not really a problem right this moment - plenty of capacity exists already.
An obvious alternative is thermionic power generation [wikipedia.org] which would be a far better choice: it's simpler to manufacture and operate, has better reliability (especially for radiation hardness) and has a broader spectrum (of energy convertibility) than simple light-based photovoltaics because they are heat-driven.
Beaming the power back with better matured microwave-based transmission would be better than using lasers.
You get far better beam-forming control with microwaves than with light and the attenuation is lower.
You'd use a phased array antenna to transmit the microwaves with retro-reflecting alignment on the ground for beam correction feedback to the satellites.
Pin-point beam accuracy with real-time correction is pretty trivial.
And frankly, with Peak Oil now combined with Peak Credit, satellite power is the only technology with the energy density to really replace oil/gas-from-the-ground and assure continuation of civilization and its current pace of technology advancement.
I'm an engineer; I think it's important.
As much as I've love to see alternative energy take off, they can never really substitute well - world economies still have to decline far more to reach an energy cost-benefit trade-off level that can work well with alternative sources.
So pick your poison: do a satellite system which is practical with current off-the-shelf satellite, electronics and launch technologies, or simply slip back into a Dark Age worse than the post-Roman Empire era.
It's clear we should have been working harder on this during the 1970s when these ideas were first brought up seriously after the Arab Oil Embargo, but the United States, perhaps predictably, completely blew it.
Today it really is debatable if the United States has the capital and manufacturing to do the job itself or even as a partner to a larger prime.
China could do it - no problem.
If you want VC money that's the only place you'll be finding it right now - I know from personal experience.
I'd consider joining up with a program for something like this.
It's only humanity itself that is at risk.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30853134</id>
	<title>Re:uhh...</title>
	<author>goldaryn</author>
	<datestamp>1264074060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>there's the potential for it to scatter and hit an unintended target. You know, like your skull.</p></div><p>
Not if you purchase my "goldytron" laser repellent tinfoil-based cranial apparel! Now available for the low low price of $250, because "peace of mind is priceless"!</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's the potential for it to scatter and hit an unintended target .
You know , like your skull .
Not if you purchase my " goldytron " laser repellent tinfoil-based cranial apparel !
Now available for the low low price of $ 250 , because " peace of mind is priceless " !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's the potential for it to scatter and hit an unintended target.
You know, like your skull.
Not if you purchase my "goldytron" laser repellent tinfoil-based cranial apparel!
Now available for the low low price of $250, because "peace of mind is priceless"!
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849340</id>
	<title>Global Warming</title>
	<author>Ogive17</author>
	<datestamp>1264104360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Assuming this can be done efficiently enough to take large scale, wouldn't this actually contribute to global warming?  We're taking energy that normally would not hit the planet, beaming it down to use as a cheap source of electricity, which then gets turn into heat.<br>
<br>
Right?  Or would we radiate enough heat out of the atmosphere if we could stop using fossil fuels to negate it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Assuming this can be done efficiently enough to take large scale , would n't this actually contribute to global warming ?
We 're taking energy that normally would not hit the planet , beaming it down to use as a cheap source of electricity , which then gets turn into heat .
Right ? Or would we radiate enough heat out of the atmosphere if we could stop using fossil fuels to negate it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Assuming this can be done efficiently enough to take large scale, wouldn't this actually contribute to global warming?
We're taking energy that normally would not hit the planet, beaming it down to use as a cheap source of electricity, which then gets turn into heat.
Right?  Or would we radiate enough heat out of the atmosphere if we could stop using fossil fuels to negate it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849584</id>
	<title>This idea seems really dumb for many reasons</title>
	<author>rcb1974</author>
	<datestamp>1264105260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why this is still a dumb idea:<ol>
<li> <b>Cost/kWh</b>:  From the article "We have reached a point where, in the next five years, we could build something which is in the order of 10-20 kW to transmit useful energy to the ground."  Are you kidding me?  10-20kW?  Pfft.  That is very little power -- thats like powering 3 or 4 houses.  The cost of the energy, materials, and time to design, build, launch, maintain (ground based monitoring, ground based photodiodes used to capture the laser light), a system like this would probably all cost at least 150 million dollars.  I doubt a satellite like this would last more than 50 years.  150 million bucks for 10-20kW?  What kind of a joke is that.  Ground based solar/wind would me much more cost effective and just as clean.</li><li> <b>Space Garbage</b>:  Do we really need more junk in geosynchronous orbit?  Launching satellites may create space junk.</li><li> <b>Safety</b>:  Do we really want a high powered laser beam (10-20kW) continuously aimed at earth?  What happens if the devices on the satellite that control orientation fail?  Then the beam might hit something else if it wasn't immediately powered off.  I don't care what wavelength of light is used -- microwaves, infrared, UV, whatever  -- if it is sufficiently concentrated by the time it reaches the Earth's surface, it can be harmful/unsafe.  This technology has military applications.</li><li><p>
Venture Capitalists, don't let yourselves be fooled...</p></li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why this is still a dumb idea : Cost/kWh : From the article " We have reached a point where , in the next five years , we could build something which is in the order of 10-20 kW to transmit useful energy to the ground .
" Are you kidding me ?
10-20kW ? Pfft .
That is very little power -- thats like powering 3 or 4 houses .
The cost of the energy , materials , and time to design , build , launch , maintain ( ground based monitoring , ground based photodiodes used to capture the laser light ) , a system like this would probably all cost at least 150 million dollars .
I doubt a satellite like this would last more than 50 years .
150 million bucks for 10-20kW ?
What kind of a joke is that .
Ground based solar/wind would me much more cost effective and just as clean .
Space Garbage : Do we really need more junk in geosynchronous orbit ?
Launching satellites may create space junk .
Safety : Do we really want a high powered laser beam ( 10-20kW ) continuously aimed at earth ?
What happens if the devices on the satellite that control orientation fail ?
Then the beam might hit something else if it was n't immediately powered off .
I do n't care what wavelength of light is used -- microwaves , infrared , UV , whatever -- if it is sufficiently concentrated by the time it reaches the Earth 's surface , it can be harmful/unsafe .
This technology has military applications .
Venture Capitalists , do n't let yourselves be fooled.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why this is still a dumb idea:
 Cost/kWh:  From the article "We have reached a point where, in the next five years, we could build something which is in the order of 10-20 kW to transmit useful energy to the ground.
"  Are you kidding me?
10-20kW?  Pfft.
That is very little power -- thats like powering 3 or 4 houses.
The cost of the energy, materials, and time to design, build, launch, maintain (ground based monitoring, ground based photodiodes used to capture the laser light), a system like this would probably all cost at least 150 million dollars.
I doubt a satellite like this would last more than 50 years.
150 million bucks for 10-20kW?
What kind of a joke is that.
Ground based solar/wind would me much more cost effective and just as clean.
Space Garbage:  Do we really need more junk in geosynchronous orbit?
Launching satellites may create space junk.
Safety:  Do we really want a high powered laser beam (10-20kW) continuously aimed at earth?
What happens if the devices on the satellite that control orientation fail?
Then the beam might hit something else if it wasn't immediately powered off.
I don't care what wavelength of light is used -- microwaves, infrared, UV, whatever  -- if it is sufficiently concentrated by the time it reaches the Earth's surface, it can be harmful/unsafe.
This technology has military applications.
Venture Capitalists, don't let yourselves be fooled...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850284</id>
	<title>Re:Why use lasers?</title>
	<author>bughunter</author>
	<datestamp>1264065000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <i>Why use lasers?</i></p> </div><p>Conversion efficiency.  Lifetime.  Environmental suitability.  Potential for technology insertion and incremental improvements.</p><p>The magnetron, while efficient at converting electrical power to microwave, is being surpassed by the VECSEL solid-state IR laser in efficiency.  Both are about 70-75\% efficient, but magnetrons are a rather old, very mature technology whereas solid state lasers are still maturing.  Magnetrons are at their limit; solid-state lasers still have room for improvement.</p><p>And solid state devices can more easily be made to have a long service lifetime and to tolerate being shaken nearly to death on top of a rocket than magnetrons can.  These are satellite applications, so reliability, service life and ruggedness are very important requirements.</p><p>For conversion back to electrons, I'm not so sure of that trade, but I trust they factored that in.  IR is quite suitable mainly because a microwave transducers have some fundamental drawbacks.  A microwave receiver is a bolometer, or bolometer array, which works best when incident power is focused on a nonlinear element, so some sort of refractive "lens" element will be needed, most likely an array of refractive concentrators.  In the infrared, however, photovoltaic cells can be distributed over a wide area - and again, they are a maturing technology that is getting cheaper and more efficient with time...  all in all I'm not surprised they chose IR.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why use lasers ?
Conversion efficiency .
Lifetime. Environmental suitability .
Potential for technology insertion and incremental improvements.The magnetron , while efficient at converting electrical power to microwave , is being surpassed by the VECSEL solid-state IR laser in efficiency .
Both are about 70-75 \ % efficient , but magnetrons are a rather old , very mature technology whereas solid state lasers are still maturing .
Magnetrons are at their limit ; solid-state lasers still have room for improvement.And solid state devices can more easily be made to have a long service lifetime and to tolerate being shaken nearly to death on top of a rocket than magnetrons can .
These are satellite applications , so reliability , service life and ruggedness are very important requirements.For conversion back to electrons , I 'm not so sure of that trade , but I trust they factored that in .
IR is quite suitable mainly because a microwave transducers have some fundamental drawbacks .
A microwave receiver is a bolometer , or bolometer array , which works best when incident power is focused on a nonlinear element , so some sort of refractive " lens " element will be needed , most likely an array of refractive concentrators .
In the infrared , however , photovoltaic cells can be distributed over a wide area - and again , they are a maturing technology that is getting cheaper and more efficient with time... all in all I 'm not surprised they chose IR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Why use lasers?
Conversion efficiency.
Lifetime.  Environmental suitability.
Potential for technology insertion and incremental improvements.The magnetron, while efficient at converting electrical power to microwave, is being surpassed by the VECSEL solid-state IR laser in efficiency.
Both are about 70-75\% efficient, but magnetrons are a rather old, very mature technology whereas solid state lasers are still maturing.
Magnetrons are at their limit; solid-state lasers still have room for improvement.And solid state devices can more easily be made to have a long service lifetime and to tolerate being shaken nearly to death on top of a rocket than magnetrons can.
These are satellite applications, so reliability, service life and ruggedness are very important requirements.For conversion back to electrons, I'm not so sure of that trade, but I trust they factored that in.
IR is quite suitable mainly because a microwave transducers have some fundamental drawbacks.
A microwave receiver is a bolometer, or bolometer array, which works best when incident power is focused on a nonlinear element, so some sort of refractive "lens" element will be needed, most likely an array of refractive concentrators.
In the infrared, however, photovoltaic cells can be distributed over a wide area - and again, they are a maturing technology that is getting cheaper and more efficient with time...  all in all I'm not surprised they chose IR.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849194</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849294</id>
	<title>weapon</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264104180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sounds to me like the EU's attempt to get a weapon in space.</p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die\_Another\_Day: The North Koreans already did it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sounds to me like the EU 's attempt to get a weapon in space.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die \ _Another \ _Day : The North Koreans already did it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sounds to me like the EU's attempt to get a weapon in space.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Die\_Another\_Day: The North Koreans already did it!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849158</id>
	<title>maturity?</title>
	<author>Lord Ender</author>
	<datestamp>1264103520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It may be close to proving is viability, but there's no way anyone has any business calling this not-even-prototyped tech "mature."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It may be close to proving is viability , but there 's no way anyone has any business calling this not-even-prototyped tech " mature .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It may be close to proving is viability, but there's no way anyone has any business calling this not-even-prototyped tech "mature.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849588</id>
	<title>Re:Why use lasers?</title>
	<author>skine</author>
	<datestamp>1264105260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>mmm...popcorn...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>mmm...popcorn.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>mmm...popcorn...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849364</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850814</id>
	<title>Re:What's to test?</title>
	<author>Lithdren</author>
	<datestamp>1264066860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah!  Same deal with going to 'Mars' or whatever that red blight in the sky is called.  I mean, we've landed on the moon, its not like we got anything else to prove at this point, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah !
Same deal with going to 'Mars ' or whatever that red blight in the sky is called .
I mean , we 've landed on the moon , its not like we got anything else to prove at this point , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah!
Same deal with going to 'Mars' or whatever that red blight in the sky is called.
I mean, we've landed on the moon, its not like we got anything else to prove at this point, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849320</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849358</id>
	<title>Trusting a municpal power generator to space??</title>
	<author>filesiteguy</author>
	<datestamp>1264104420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Though it seems like a cool idea, I cannot see how getting a power source in an unregulated (no laws) area like space would be beneficial.<br><br>Who's gonna be the first bean counter to get fired because he/she signed up for this new service then was unable to perform normal duties when the system was accidentally hit by a rock and there's no backup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Though it seems like a cool idea , I can not see how getting a power source in an unregulated ( no laws ) area like space would be beneficial.Who 's gon na be the first bean counter to get fired because he/she signed up for this new service then was unable to perform normal duties when the system was accidentally hit by a rock and there 's no backup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Though it seems like a cool idea, I cannot see how getting a power source in an unregulated (no laws) area like space would be beneficial.Who's gonna be the first bean counter to get fired because he/she signed up for this new service then was unable to perform normal duties when the system was accidentally hit by a rock and there's no backup.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849134</id>
	<title>Ring around the Earth!!!!</title>
	<author>jameskojiro</author>
	<datestamp>1264103400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would like a Ring around the earth like they had in the series Gundam 00.    With three main towers to beyond Geo sync, and fricking huge!!!   Of course if one of the towers should fail....    LOOK OUT BELOW!!!!</p><p>Don't build cities in the orbital direction of the towers on the ground, cause it sucks to be them.....</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would like a Ring around the earth like they had in the series Gundam 00 .
With three main towers to beyond Geo sync , and fricking huge ! ! !
Of course if one of the towers should fail.... LOOK OUT BELOW ! ! !
! Do n't build cities in the orbital direction of the towers on the ground , cause it sucks to be them.... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would like a Ring around the earth like they had in the series Gundam 00.
With three main towers to beyond Geo sync, and fricking huge!!!
Of course if one of the towers should fail....    LOOK OUT BELOW!!!
!Don't build cities in the orbital direction of the towers on the ground, cause it sucks to be them.....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849624</id>
	<title>Re:This DOES NOT COMPUTE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264105440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; How about at $250 per pound?</p><p>DO THE MATH. Sheesh.</p><p>The panels I use are 20 kg for 200 to 220 watts. That's 10 watts per kg, or 5 watts per pound.</p><p>In Toronto, you get 1250 kWh per year 1000 kW installed. So about 1.2 wh per w.</p><p>So that's about 6 wh per pound.</p><p>I get paid the utterly ridiculous price of 80 cents a kWh for this power. That's 0.08 cents per wh.</p><p>So that's just under 50 cents a year per pound.</p><p>With me so far? Ok, let's keep going...</p><p>On Earth I have an expected lifetime of at least 20 years, and 25 is more common. So each pound of panel will generate 10 dollars over its lifetime.</p><p>In space I get about 5 times the power, but losses are higher, and panel lifetime is about 12 years. I use 4 times as much power as an Earth based panel as a good estimate. So that means that same pound of panels will generate a whopping 25 dollars over its lifetime.</p><p>Sooo, does 25 dollars pay off the 250 dollar launch costs?</p><p>Does that answer your question?</p><p>Maury</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; How about at $ 250 per pound ? DO THE MATH .
Sheesh.The panels I use are 20 kg for 200 to 220 watts .
That 's 10 watts per kg , or 5 watts per pound.In Toronto , you get 1250 kWh per year 1000 kW installed .
So about 1.2 wh per w.So that 's about 6 wh per pound.I get paid the utterly ridiculous price of 80 cents a kWh for this power .
That 's 0.08 cents per wh.So that 's just under 50 cents a year per pound.With me so far ?
Ok , let 's keep going...On Earth I have an expected lifetime of at least 20 years , and 25 is more common .
So each pound of panel will generate 10 dollars over its lifetime.In space I get about 5 times the power , but losses are higher , and panel lifetime is about 12 years .
I use 4 times as much power as an Earth based panel as a good estimate .
So that means that same pound of panels will generate a whopping 25 dollars over its lifetime.Sooo , does 25 dollars pay off the 250 dollar launch costs ? Does that answer your question ? Maury</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; How about at $250 per pound?DO THE MATH.
Sheesh.The panels I use are 20 kg for 200 to 220 watts.
That's 10 watts per kg, or 5 watts per pound.In Toronto, you get 1250 kWh per year 1000 kW installed.
So about 1.2 wh per w.So that's about 6 wh per pound.I get paid the utterly ridiculous price of 80 cents a kWh for this power.
That's 0.08 cents per wh.So that's just under 50 cents a year per pound.With me so far?
Ok, let's keep going...On Earth I have an expected lifetime of at least 20 years, and 25 is more common.
So each pound of panel will generate 10 dollars over its lifetime.In space I get about 5 times the power, but losses are higher, and panel lifetime is about 12 years.
I use 4 times as much power as an Earth based panel as a good estimate.
So that means that same pound of panels will generate a whopping 25 dollars over its lifetime.Sooo, does 25 dollars pay off the 250 dollar launch costs?Does that answer your question?Maury</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849394</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30853880</id>
	<title>Re:uhh...</title>
	<author>izomiac</author>
	<datestamp>1264076880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm a little curious as to what happens to a bird that tries to fly through the beam...  Although I suppose that could be a selling point if marketed correctly, like in New York.  Too far north for conventional solar, not enough land for a lot of options, you get the power right where it's needed, nearly zero risk of terrorism, and people get to see the "sky rats" catch fire mid-flight.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a little curious as to what happens to a bird that tries to fly through the beam... Although I suppose that could be a selling point if marketed correctly , like in New York .
Too far north for conventional solar , not enough land for a lot of options , you get the power right where it 's needed , nearly zero risk of terrorism , and people get to see the " sky rats " catch fire mid-flight .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a little curious as to what happens to a bird that tries to fly through the beam...  Although I suppose that could be a selling point if marketed correctly, like in New York.
Too far north for conventional solar, not enough land for a lot of options, you get the power right where it's needed, nearly zero risk of terrorism, and people get to see the "sky rats" catch fire mid-flight.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30856460</id>
	<title>Re:uhh...</title>
	<author>LandGator</author>
	<datestamp>1264096500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Put a ring of reflectors on the outer periphery, and watch the output from the satellite with multiple systems. If any of the observation systems fails, unfocus the beam immediately (quicker than a safe shutdown), so no one point on the ground gets any more radiation than 50\% of normal sunshine.

All that was worked out by O'Neill in the 80's. Old news.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Put a ring of reflectors on the outer periphery , and watch the output from the satellite with multiple systems .
If any of the observation systems fails , unfocus the beam immediately ( quicker than a safe shutdown ) , so no one point on the ground gets any more radiation than 50 \ % of normal sunshine .
All that was worked out by O'Neill in the 80 's .
Old news .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Put a ring of reflectors on the outer periphery, and watch the output from the satellite with multiple systems.
If any of the observation systems fails, unfocus the beam immediately (quicker than a safe shutdown), so no one point on the ground gets any more radiation than 50\% of normal sunshine.
All that was worked out by O'Neill in the 80's.
Old news.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849130</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849218</id>
	<title>Isn't this loading more heat onto Earth?</title>
	<author>presidenteloco</author>
	<datestamp>1264103820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ok, I know this would displace some fossil fuel energy use (that<br>is increasing the greenhouse effect and trapping heat on Earth.)</p><p>But beaming electromagnetic energy (infrared, microwaves, whatever)<br>from part of the Sun's radiation that was going to miss Earth in the<br>first place seems to be adding energy to the Earth (and thus eventually<br>adding heat to the Earth, as the organized EM energy degrades<br>(gets used and entropized).</p><p>Has anyone done the calculations to make sure that the GHG emission<br>replacement factor of this new energy (thus its reduction of heat trapping)<br>is more than the brand new heat it is adding to the Earth system?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ok , I know this would displace some fossil fuel energy use ( thatis increasing the greenhouse effect and trapping heat on Earth .
) But beaming electromagnetic energy ( infrared , microwaves , whatever ) from part of the Sun 's radiation that was going to miss Earth in thefirst place seems to be adding energy to the Earth ( and thus eventuallyadding heat to the Earth , as the organized EM energy degrades ( gets used and entropized ) .Has anyone done the calculations to make sure that the GHG emissionreplacement factor of this new energy ( thus its reduction of heat trapping ) is more than the brand new heat it is adding to the Earth system ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ok, I know this would displace some fossil fuel energy use (thatis increasing the greenhouse effect and trapping heat on Earth.
)But beaming electromagnetic energy (infrared, microwaves, whatever)from part of the Sun's radiation that was going to miss Earth in thefirst place seems to be adding energy to the Earth (and thus eventuallyadding heat to the Earth, as the organized EM energy degrades(gets used and entropized).Has anyone done the calculations to make sure that the GHG emissionreplacement factor of this new energy (thus its reduction of heat trapping)is more than the brand new heat it is adding to the Earth system?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849162</id>
	<title>Umm....</title>
	<author>ExE122</author>
	<datestamp>1264103580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>system would collect the Sun's energy and transmit it to Earth via an infrared laser, to provide electricity</p></div><p>To "provide electricity" or to "discuss the location of the hidden rebel base"?
<br> <br>
Is anyone else scared?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>system would collect the Sun 's energy and transmit it to Earth via an infrared laser , to provide electricityTo " provide electricity " or to " discuss the location of the hidden rebel base " ?
Is anyone else scared ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>system would collect the Sun's energy and transmit it to Earth via an infrared laser, to provide electricityTo "provide electricity" or to "discuss the location of the hidden rebel base"?
Is anyone else scared?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850272</id>
	<title>Tsk, tsk.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1264065000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You really think it's about energy?</p><p>Maybe I buy a new tin-foil hat... this time with a mirror-like finishing...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You really think it 's about energy ? Maybe I buy a new tin-foil hat... this time with a mirror-like finishing.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You really think it's about energy?Maybe I buy a new tin-foil hat... this time with a mirror-like finishing...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849282</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849534
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30863008
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30852638
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850996
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849588
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849882
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30853134
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30853880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30852988
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849646
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850376
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849474
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849620
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850814
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849320
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849360
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849340
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849434
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849218
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850052
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30855990
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850468
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850022
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30851680
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849542
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849846
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849364
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30864476
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849158
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850284
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849194
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30851566
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849346
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30856460
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849130
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850272
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849624
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849394
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849282
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30854012
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_21_1846235_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849340
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30853682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850494
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30864476
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849320
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850814
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30852638
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849584
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850996
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849856
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849346
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850468
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30851566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849130
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30853134
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849542
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30851680
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30856460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30853880
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849282
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850272
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30863008
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850376
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849394
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849624
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849882
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850284
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849364
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849588
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849846
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30850052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30852988
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30851206
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849360
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849434
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849646
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30855990
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849620
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30854012
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849474
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_21_1846235.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_21_1846235.30849134
</commentlist>
</conversation>
