Tuesday, November 08, 2011
Obvious solution!
NPR reports that NASA is running out of money to buy plutonium for its miniature nuclear power plants in spacecraft.
Well, they should follow the same rules that they force on us.
Switch to wind turbines, which were a NASA development in the first place!
Wind would make more sense ... or less nonsense ... in the vacuum of space than it does on land.
Wind turbines on earth are net consumers of power. Their sole function is to provide subsidies for favored corporations, and to provide pretty shiny Oh-Wow things for hippie-shits to look at.
In space, wind turbines wouldn't produce energy either, but at least they wouldn't kill birds and bats, and they wouldn't require a coal-powered supplementary generator to justify their subsidy.
= = = = =
Slightly more seriously, I've always wondered why NASA didn't make more use of solar wind, the strong stream of waves coming at all times from the sun. It's powerful enough to turn this gadget after passing through earth's atmosphere.
¶ 6:35 AM
Well, they should follow the same rules that they force on us.
Switch to wind turbines, which were a NASA development in the first place!
Wind would make more sense ... or less nonsense ... in the vacuum of space than it does on land.
Wind turbines on earth are net consumers of power. Their sole function is to provide subsidies for favored corporations, and to provide pretty shiny Oh-Wow things for hippie-shits to look at.
In space, wind turbines wouldn't produce energy either, but at least they wouldn't kill birds and bats, and they wouldn't require a coal-powered supplementary generator to justify their subsidy.
= = = = =
Slightly more seriously, I've always wondered why NASA didn't make more use of solar wind, the strong stream of waves coming at all times from the sun. It's powerful enough to turn this gadget after passing through earth's atmosphere.
¶ 6:35 AM
