Actions from LongTymelurqrMovable Type Pro 5.22015-10-01T08:45:48Zhttp://www.antipope.org/mt/mt-cp.cgi?__mode=feed&_type=actions&blog_id=1&id=5900Commented on The sky's gone dark in Charlie's Diarytag:www.antipope.org,2015:/charlie/blog-static//1.3912#19819322015-10-01T07:45:48ZLongTymelurqr
Late to the Party, but did read up to #150 so far. The question seems like a non-issue to me. Why? What do we really NEED orbital access for? Energy generation by beaming microwaves down from solar array farms? Didn't happen so far. Fabrication of fancy stuff in microgravity, like superpure semiconductor crystals or pharmacological molecules? Neither. Loss of the "big picture" in meteorology and climate science? Doesn't have to be so, neither for astronomy. When you combine this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_laser_gyroscope or this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_optic_gyroscope with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-altitude_platform and something like this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorgon_Stare for the "big picture", what capability would actually be lost in reality? Especially when you had many of those HAPs, maybe gridlike over the whole earth, arranged in a pattern like an oldfashioned football? These HAPs could communicate with each other, via laser, microwaves, in realtime. So what you lack in staring down from on high, you could stitch together like a mosaic. Seems too expensive? Satellites are cheaper? How long do they last? HAPs could be landed and serviced, while the standby takes over. Sounds more sustainable to me. Aren't Google, Facebook & Sons planning things very similar, but on a smaller scale? AFAIU they plan to introduce the things in regions with poor infrastructure first. So even the point that developing countries, unstable regions would fall back to black holes on the global awareness map is moot.
]]>