Re: 4 October 1957
- From: "Jonathan" <write@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 21:12:33 -0400
"Neil Gerace" <geracen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1191327704.964367.251430@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
With computers, there are ways to get more computing power next year
with the same budget as this year.
There are no ways to get a little bit further into orbit next year
with the same amount of money as this year, because you're either in
orbit or you're not. But there may be ways to get to the planets in
100 years with the same amount of money it takes to get to orbit this
year. I am thinking about 'punctuated equilibrium' rather than steady
improvement. I think bringing down the cost of space travel will
require a Next Big Thing. Something as dramatically different as the
steam engine or the telegraph.
Like this?
MIT Space Solar Power Workshop
"In the past, launch costs have been prohibitive.
However, recent advances in technology coupled with
the risings costs of conventional energy sources suggest
that it is time to reevaluate space solar power."
http://web.mit.edu/space_solar_power/
NASA Glenn Research Center
Space Solar Power Concept And Technology Maturation Program
Technical Interchange Meeting
http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/publications/sctm/
KSC Next Gen Site
Space Solar Power - An Earth to Orbit Challenge
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/nexgen/space_solar_power_main.htm
.
- References:
- Re: 4 October 1957
- From: Neil Gerace
- Re: 4 October 1957
- Prev by Date: Re: THE GREAT MOON LANDING HOAX
- Next by Date: Re: Lois Maxwell RIP
- Previous by thread: Re: 4 October 1957
- Next by thread: Re: 4 October 1957
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|