2 ms·

This was the proposal to begin with. Nothing is being hidden. Or did you think that a 1-10kW/m^2 beam didn't involve a 1-10kW/m^2 beam for some reason?

throwanem 4y ago
No, but I think there's a reason you aren't touching at all upon the mechanics of its generation or direction. Given that even under absurdly generous assumptions you need around five square kilometers, or about 2 ISS' worth, of solar panel area per beam, this omission is not surprising.
- Schroedingersat 4y ago
  Again, this was the entire premise. The receiver was cited as being the impossible part. I was pointing out the flaws in that argument, not claiming the entire concept was economic. By turning around and crying that I didn't say something unrelated you're being completely disingenuous.
  - throwanem 4y ago
    You made an argument that sounds like it was meant in support of the concept and I responded to it as such. It sounds like you're now saying you meant it to read as something akin to sarcasm, which is fair as far as it goes, but it is a bit rich in that case to call me disingenuous for responding in earnest to disingenuity too deeply buried or poorly executed or both for me to recognize.
    - Schroedingersat 4y ago
      Yet again, you raised the base premise as if it were some sneaky hidden thing and made the first accusation. Now you're trying to rewrite the entire conversation so that it was somehow relevant or productive. This on top of me explicitly saying the economics of the problem are probably terrible. Only an idiot or someone acting in bad faith or both would say "Aha! You need a beam with n megawatts to receive a beam with n megawatts!" Of course you do. That same solar array exists in the syn fuel scenario too (except 3-10x bigger and on the ground). Raising it as if you found a gotchya is not just disingenuous but also incredibly stupid.
      - throwanem 4y ago
        I'm having a pointless argument with someone a billion subthreads deep on Hacker News. Of course it's neither relevant not productive. Stupid I'll grant you, but I've had an annoying morning and this is apparently how I'm choosing to waste a few minutes before I go on to the next thing. Presumably I'm getting something out of it, but God alone knows what. So it goes.

throwanem 4y ago

No, but I think there's a reason you aren't touching at all upon the mechanics of its generation or direction. Given that even under absurdly generous assumptions you need around five square kilometers, or about 2 ISS' worth, of solar panel area per beam, this omission is not surprising.

Schroedingersat 4y ago
Again, this was the entire premise. The receiver was cited as being the impossible part. I was pointing out the flaws in that argument, not claiming the entire concept was economic. By turning around and crying that I didn't say something unrelated you're being completely disingenuous.
- throwanem 4y ago
  You made an argument that sounds like it was meant in support of the concept and I responded to it as such. It sounds like you're now saying you meant it to read as something akin to sarcasm, which is fair as far as it goes, but it is a bit rich in that case to call me disingenuous for responding in earnest to disingenuity too deeply buried or poorly executed or both for me to recognize.
  - Schroedingersat 4y ago
    Yet again, you raised the base premise as if it were some sneaky hidden thing and made the first accusation. Now you're trying to rewrite the entire conversation so that it was somehow relevant or productive. This on top of me explicitly saying the economics of the problem are probably terrible. Only an idiot or someone acting in bad faith or both would say "Aha! You need a beam with n megawatts to receive a beam with n megawatts!" Of course you do. That same solar array exists in the syn fuel scenario too (except 3-10x bigger and on the ground). Raising it as if you found a gotchya is not just disingenuous but also incredibly stupid.
    - throwanem 4y ago
      I'm having a pointless argument with someone a billion subthreads deep on Hacker News. Of course it's neither relevant not productive. Stupid I'll grant you, but I've had an annoying morning and this is apparently how I'm choosing to waste a few minutes before I go on to the next thing. Presumably I'm getting something out of it, but God alone knows what. So it goes.