• Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    That makes sense. In space you need to deal with free bodies and a harsh environment. What’s worse is that you need a way to send it all the way back to earth.

    Solar on earth can sit near a city and is fixed.

  • Lugh@futurology.todayOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    I’ve never understood some people’s fascination with space-based solar. Why go to all that over-engineered trouble to do something you can do on Earth anyway, except in an orders of magnitude simpler way.

    Also, I love to see people devote efforts to space development, but it depresses me to see people do it and waste their time. I know it’s a simplistic way of looking at things, but I wish they’d devote their time to something useful, like creating a commercial space station.

    • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      11 months ago

      I think it makes sense in a Kardashev scale sort of way.

      In the distant future, human energy demand may exceed what we can gather from terrestrial solar, especially since we wouldn’t devote the entire Earth to solar panels.

      But it makes no sense in this century.

      • KevonLooney@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        11 months ago

        It doesn’t even make sense in the future. Not only have power requirements decreased over the past two decades, fusion would be a much smaller and denser power generation method than space-based solar.

        If solar power improves and power requirements are reduced, eventually you might just slap a few solar cells on every electronic item and call it a day. Solar powered calculators were very popular.

        • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          11 months ago

          Sorry, but I need some evidence for your claim that human energy use has declined in the last 20 years because it contradicts what I’ve heard from everyone else.

                • Malgas@beehaw.org
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  Per the source you linked:

                  Total U.S. energy consumption has increased, but energy consumption per capita has decreased

          • cm0002@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            11 months ago

            We use more things, but each thing has become vastly more efficient.

            Cities have more street lights these days, but each street light is likely some form of LED now which is vastly more efficient than the street lights in the 80s

            Computers in the 90s were horribly inefficient for the computational capacity they had, now we have smartphones that are 50x more powerful while their power usage is practically 0 in comparison

            • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              So you’re agreeing that human energy use has increased despite efficiency gains.

              • cm0002@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                No, you’ve missed the point entirely

                I don’t think you fully understand just how efficient things have become.

                An iMac G3 with it’s 400MHz processor in 1998 consumed about 100 watts of power just running.

                In comparison an iPhone 15 pro max with it’s 3.7 GHz processor draws about 14 watts at maximum load and like <2 just idling

                That’s just the consumer end use electronics, power supplies themselves have gotten A SHIT TON better in the last 20 years. Through the 80s and 90s power supplies just were not efficient at all and a ton of power was… just lost…converting from AC to DC.

                On top of that my statement of we use more things might not actually be even true, after I thought about it, we replaced a ton of gadgets from the early 2000s with a singular efficient power-sipping device. We don’t carry MP3 players, CD players, PDAs, Digital Cameras etc any more nor do we really listen to a dedicated radio or stereo setup anymore (Audiophiles excluded).

                So no, I agree with the other poster (who actually provided solid evidence, where’s yours?) Total power usage is trending downwards thanks to efficiency advancements

                • deegeese@sopuli.xyz
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  I’m not debating that efficiency has improved.

                  Total energy use by humans has increased and shows no sign of reversing. IDK what faffing around debating ancient CPUs is supposed to prove.

        • echo64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          You probably want a comparison to something other than fusion, which is and seemingly will forever be 20 years away.

          It can make sense also, for example, in parts of the world that aren’t a good fit for solar power. I’d argue for more nuclear before space solar, but it’s not like there’s zero sense in it.

          • Windex007@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Despite being perpetually “20 years away”, I still think we’ll crack it before we run out of room on the planet for more solar panels.

            • echo64@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              It can make sense also, for example, in parts of the world that aren’t a good fit for solar power. I’d argue for more nuclear before space solar, but it’s not like there’s zero sense in it.

              wild how people literally can’t read more than one sentence before replying.

              • Windex007@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                I thought based on your first sentence which implied fusion was a pipe dream, that the second paragraph suggesting “more nuclear” would be referring to fission. “More” implies some already exists, and as you’ve already noted, there is no fusion in use.

                • echo64@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  before we run out of room on the planet for more solar panels

                  I’m responding to this, there’s potential uses outside of “we ran out of room on earth”

                  It can make sense also, for example, in parts of the world that aren’t a good fit for solar power.

    • PrincessLeiasCat@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      11 months ago

      You say this like NASA doesn’t also do everything on your wishlist. And like discoveries in one area doesn’t enable progress in another.

      No one is wasting their time by doing this research.

      Our view of what’s “useful” also varies - a commercial space station is not that appealing IMO given that corporations will own the research as opposed to it being publicly funded & transparent.

      Did this particular research yield the outcome you desired? No - lots of research doesn’t. That doesn’t mean it’s useless.

    • echo64@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 months ago

      What’s a commercial space station going to do? Maybe if there was a bunch of solar panels to maintain and build out in space, but otherwise, it’s just a boring ultra wealthy hotel.

        • echo64@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Seems weird to complain about one over engineered useless thing only to be saying we should be doing another ;)

          • GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            “Why ever would we move to North America when everything we need is right here?”

            All the reasons people came to America will eventually be valid reasons to move to space. I don’t expect it will happen in my lifetime but, provided humanity continues to exist, it will happen.

            • echo64@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              11 months ago

              ah yes, to exploit the peoples who cultivated mars and enslave people from earth

  • Hypx@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    No one has ever explained how the energy is suppose to come back to Earth in a non-crazy fashion. Until then, this will always come off as an impossible idea.