<html><body><div style="color:#000; background-color:#fff; font-family:times new roman, new york, times, serif;font-size:14pt"><div><span>I wrote:</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>> Back in 2006 I ran some numbers using the data from<br>> radiators used on the International Space Station to<br>> see what was required for a 3,000 megawatt space<br>> station [Ice_Station on yahoogroups].</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Keith Henson wrote:<br><br>> If you still have the numbers I would be very interested in seeing<br>> them. 3 GW is up in power satellite scale.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span><a href="http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ice_Station/message/56">http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/Ice_Station/message/56</a></span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>Unfortunately one of the links has died. I only did a direct</span></div><div><span>scale up of
numbers from an ISS panel as a ballpark figure.</span></div><div><span>I wanted to use what was already known.</span></div><div><span></span> </div><div><span>You might look back through Ice_Station to see how the</span></div><div><span>general concepts evolved and why things were sized</span></div><div><span>as they were.</span></div><span><div><br>Keith Henson wrote:</div><div></span><span>> Might I suggest the cooling an industrial facility in space by<br>> evaporating volatiles isn't the best use of volatiles?<br></div></span><div>I agree but you never know what the economics might be</div><div>at some particular time in the future. In some locations and</div><div>situations there may be such an excess of volitiles that</div><div>saving them is impractical.<var id="yui-ie-cursor"></var></div><div> </div><div>Dennis May<br><br></div></div></body></html>