"Totorkon" wrote in message
...


I don't see any evidence of broad public support.

The public hasn't been given a chance to have a say
on the matter. But they have spoken on going back to the
moon, and it's rather negative. And being a Texas oilman, it
seems rather obvious why Bush would want the entire concept
of SSP to just go away. Have you heard any senior NASA official
even mention the word in the last seven years?

I think the term 'banished' best fits current policy on SPS.



When I first read about SPSs, the comparative limitations of
terrestrial solar power stood out. It requires storage, heliostats,
two to three times the area and PV modules and material structure to
resist wind and gravity. That was back when the aerospace giants and
SPS enthusiasts believed the cost to leo would be around $25/lb.


Considering virtually NO money has been spent of SSP research, and
yet some are already presenting concepts where directly solar pumped
lasers replace microwaves, and rectenna sizes as small as three
meters, about the size of a car. If some real research money were
dedicated who knows what advances might happen?

Switching to SSP means NASA would have to spend all that
moon-money on low cost to orbit. Does the new hardware
give even a rat's-ass about low cost to orbit?


The best that I hope for......

That sentiment is NASA's middle name these days.

Unless the folks inside NASA grow a backbone, and start ADVISING
the White House, instead of just following the party line, then we'll
have to endure another wasted generation or two of half-ass goals
and half-ass funding.

I mean how much have we really accomplished since Apollo?
I don't see any reason why the next twenty or thirty years
will be any different given the current goal.

s