|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program: Another Wrong Turn in Space?
Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program: Another Wrong Turn in Space?
by Richard C. Cook http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t icleId=4554 Global Research, January 22, 2007 The way NASA has started its new moon-to-Mars exploration program, the October 2006 White House announcement of a new national space policy, and subsequent statements by the State Department raise grave concerns about whether a new push to militarize space has begun. Events are pointing to an aggressive extension of U.S. supremacy beyond the stratosphere reminiscent of Reagan administration actions in the 1980s. Then it was the militarization of the space shuttle and the start-up of the Strategic Defense Initiative-"Star Wars"-which were gaining momentum until space weapons technology testing halted with the space shuttle Challenger disaster. snip Richard C. Cook was the NASA analyst who testified on the dangers of the solid rocket booster O-ring seals after the Challenger disaster. His book, Challenger Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age, has been published by Thunder's Mouth Press. Currently he is an independent writer and consultant, his website is at www.richardccook.com. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program: Another Wrong Turn in Space?
"Jim Oberg" wrote in message ... Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program: Another Wrong Turn in Space? by Richard C. Cook http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t icleId=4554 Global Research, January 22, 2007 I don't agree with his conclusion that the money would be better spent on domestic issues. I don't have a problem with a national program designed to boost the aerospace industry. Only that the goal they set for this 'bail-out' program a return to the moon, has so few tangible benefits to the taxpayers, which would only serve to further undermine public confidence and support for Nasa and space exploration. If the reverse were true, and the program delivered benefits to society and the future that were real and inspirational, such as a space solar power program, then the public just might demand ...more... funding for Nasa. To support a program that could potentially solve some of our most pressing global needs such as a replacement for fossil fuels and climate change. While addressing one of this nations most vulnerable weaknesses, our dependence on foreign oil. The public could certainly rally around a goal that could address all these issues, while transforming America from the biggest importer of oil, to the largest exporter of energy for the future. The goal is the thing. If it inspires and has legs, we'll find a way of solving the technical challenges even if they're many and difficult. Only a faith in science is required to fulfill such a goal. If the goal does the opposite, inspire apathy or even contempt, it doesn't have a prayer even if the technical challenges have been reduced to a minimum. Why did we stop space solar power, and the X-33? Because they weren't quick and easy bucks for the builders. Not because they aren't possible, but because they were hard. Which is what makes them worthwhile. Nasa - Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/20...004-212743.pdf Nasa technical interchange on SSP http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/publications/sctm/ SPS 2000 http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/s... lities.shtml The case for SSP http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.html KSC Next Gen Site- SSP http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...power_main.htm s The way NASA has started its new moon-to-Mars exploration program, the October 2006 White House announcement of a new national space policy, and subsequent statements by the State Department raise grave concerns about whether a new push to militarize space has begun. Events are pointing to an aggressive extension of U.S. supremacy beyond the stratosphere reminiscent of Reagan administration actions in the 1980s. Then it was the militarization of the space shuttle and the start-up of the Strategic Defense Initiative-"Star Wars"-which were gaining momentum until space weapons technology testing halted with the space shuttle Challenger disaster. snip Richard C. Cook was the NASA analyst who testified on the dangers of the solid rocket booster O-ring seals after the Challenger disaster. His book, Challenger Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age, has been published by Thunder's Mouth Press. Currently he is an independent writer and consultant, his website is at www.richardccook.com. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program: Another Wrong Turnin Space?
Jonathan wrote:
"Jim Oberg" wrote in message ... Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program: Another Wrong Turn in Space? by Richard C. Cook http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...t icleId=4554 Global Research, January 22, 2007 I don't agree with his conclusion that the money would be better spent on domestic issues. I don't have a problem with a national program designed to boost the aerospace industry. Only that the goal they set for this 'bail-out' program a return to the moon, has so few tangible benefits to the taxpayers, which would only serve to further undermine public confidence and support for Nasa and space exploration. If the reverse were true, and the program delivered benefits to society and the future that were real and inspirational, such as a space solar power program, then the public just might demand ...more... funding for Nasa. To support a program that could potentially solve some of our most pressing global needs such as a replacement for fossil fuels and climate change. While addressing one of this nations most vulnerable weaknesses, our dependence on foreign oil. The public could certainly rally around a goal that could address all these issues, while transforming America from the biggest importer of oil, to the largest exporter of energy for the future. The goal is the thing. If it inspires and has legs, we'll find a way of solving the technical challenges even if they're many and difficult. Only a faith in science is required to fulfill such a goal. If the goal does the opposite, inspire apathy or even contempt, it doesn't have a prayer even if the technical challenges have been reduced to a minimum. Why did we stop space solar power, and the X-33? Because they weren't quick and easy bucks for the builders. Not because they aren't possible, but because they were hard. Which is what makes them worthwhile. Nasa - Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite http://gltrs.grc.nasa.gov/reports/20...004-212743.pdf Nasa technical interchange on SSP http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/publications/sctm/ SPS 2000 http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/s... lities.shtml The case for SSP http://www.spacedaily.com/news/ssp-03b.html KSC Next Gen Site- SSP http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/...power_main.htm s The way NASA has started its new moon-to-Mars exploration program, the October 2006 White House announcement of a new national space policy, and subsequent statements by the State Department raise grave concerns about whether a new push to militarize space has begun. Events are pointing to an aggressive extension of U.S. supremacy beyond the stratosphere reminiscent of Reagan administration actions in the 1980s. Then it was the militarization of the space shuttle and the start-up of the Strategic Defense Initiative-"Star Wars"-which were gaining momentum until space weapons technology testing halted with the space shuttle Challenger disaster. snip Richard C. Cook was the NASA analyst who testified on the dangers of the solid rocket booster O-ring seals after the Challenger disaster. His book, Challenger Revealed: An Insider's Account of How the Reagan Administration Caused the Greatest Tragedy of the Space Age, has been published by Thunder's Mouth Press. Currently he is an independent writer and consultant, his website is at www.richardccook.com. I agree. Even a small demonstration solar power satellite in geosynchronous orbit, using the power on the spot instead of beaming it, would go a long way to inspire me. Imagine what we could do in a space station in geosynchronous orbit with almost unlimited power available. I think I could get small crews up there and back using the Delta IV. However, we'll still need a very big booster to pull that off, so we may as well just try the Ares IV, now that we've determined it is compatible with future propulsion developments. The whole problem is the stick. Imagine very large open pressurized spaces with unlimited power. Imagine the amount of hydroponics you could get going. -- The Tsiolkovsky Group : http://www.lifeform.org My Planetary BLOB : http://cosmic.lifeform.org Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator : http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program: Another Wrong Turn in Space?
"kT" a écrit dans le message de news: ... snip I agree. Even a small demonstration solar power satellite in geosynchronous orbit, using the power on the spot instead of beaming it, would go a long way to inspire me. Imagine what we could do in a space station in geosynchronous orbit with almost unlimited power available. IIRC, Japan has a small ( 100 kW ) SSP demonstrator planned for launch in about a dozen years. Unfortunately, I cannot remember the detail right now. Anyone has a link? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program: Another Wrong Turnin Space?
frédéric haessig wrote:
IIRC, Japan has a small ( 100 kW ) SSP demonstrator planned for launch in about a dozen years. If it's planned for launch in about a dozen years, they don't 'have it'. I admit they probably have powerpoint slides describing it. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
News: Russian space official proposes $ 2-billion manned moon landing program | Rusty | History | 22 | December 5th 05 06:27 PM |
Do We Have The Political Will To Support Bush's Moon/Mars Exploration Program? | [email protected] | Policy | 14 | September 22nd 05 04:27 PM |
Observing: 5/29/04 - Will somebody PLEASE turn down that moon? | Mark Smith | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | May 31st 04 06:43 PM |
Chances of Bush moon-Mars program surviving | Henry Spencer | Policy | 65 | February 15th 04 11:14 AM |
How to do a NEW moon to mars program RIGHT! | Hallerb | History | 6 | December 9th 03 03:42 AM |