A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Militarization and The Moon-Mars Program: Another Wrong Turn in Space?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 23rd 07, 05:03 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Jim Oberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 434
Default 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  
Old January 24th 07, 05:55 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Jonathan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default 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  
Old January 24th 07, 06:32 AM posted to sci.space.policy
kT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,032
Default 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  
Old January 24th 07, 07:12 AM posted to sci.space.policy
frédéric haessig
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 97
Default 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  
Old January 24th 07, 04:06 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Paul F. Dietz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 599
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:59 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.