The Pentagon Endorses Space Based Solar Power

The Pentagon's National Security Space Office has issued a report,
entitled "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic
Security." The report recommends that the US government enact policies
to encourage the building of solar power stations in space that would
collect sunlight and beam the power thus generated to receiving
stations on Earth.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...sed_solar.html

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:13:28 -0800, Mark R. Whittington wrote:

The Pentagon's National Security Space Office has issued a report,
entitled "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic
Security." The report recommends that the US government enact policies
to encourage the building of solar power stations in space that would
collect sunlight and beam the power thus generated to receiving stations
on Earth.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/430843/the_pentagon_endorses_space_based_solar.html

In a casual discussion in the workplace today, it was posited that NASA
has a choice of two directions based on budget. One, the solar power
idea. Two, manned mission to Mars. The prevailing, well, unanimous,
position of the work crew was that solar power is by far the best path to
pursue. I, for one, believe we are doing a good enough job with space
telescopes and robotic exploration to forgo manned exploration until
something indeed worth manned investigation is found via the other means
mentioned. So, whaddya think?

Charlie Siegrist wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:13:28 -0800, Mark R. Whittington wrote:

The Pentagon's National Security Space Office has issued a report,
entitled "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic
Security." The report recommends that the US government enact policies
to encourage the building of solar power stations in space that would
collect sunlight and beam the power thus generated to receiving stations
on Earth.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/430843/the_pentagon_endorses_space_based_solar.html

In a casual discussion in the workplace today, it was posited that NASA
has a choice of two directions based on budget. One, the solar power
idea. Two, manned mission to Mars. The prevailing, well, unanimous,
position of the work crew was that solar power is by far the best path to
pursue. I, for one, believe we are doing a good enough job with space
telescopes and robotic exploration to forgo manned exploration until
something indeed worth manned investigation is found via the other means
mentioned. So, whaddya think?

You'll need a better SSP - space solar power satellite capable rocket :

http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com...-power-system/

On Nov 4, 1:13 pm, "Mark R. Whittington"
wrote:
The Pentagon's National Security Space Office has issued a report,
entitled "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic
Security." The report recommends that the US government enact policies
to encourage the building of solar power stations in space that would
collect sunlight and beam the power thus generated to receiving
stations on Earth.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...tagon_endorses...

That's odd, there's not one honest or even an odd or bad word of our
WorldFactBook Willian Mook. How can that be?

I agree that a few of those multi-gigaWatt laser cannons are exactly
what we need. My plan of action was an array of 12 each 100 GW class
laser cannons, as tether-dipole element supported to within 2r of
Earth (that's 1.2 TW parked as close as merely 6378 km from the
surface of Earth).
--
Brad Guth

In article ,
Charlie Siegrist wrote:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:13:28 -0800, Mark R. Whittington wrote:

The Pentagon's National Security Space Office has issued a report,
entitled "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic
Security." The report recommends that the US government enact policies
to encourage the building of solar power stations in space that would
collect sunlight and beam the power thus generated to receiving stations
on Earth.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...dorses_space_b
ased_solar.html

In a casual discussion in the workplace today, it was posited that NASA
has a choice of two directions based on budget. One, the solar power
idea. Two, manned mission to Mars.

That's odd, since in reality, it isn't doing either one. There must be
a third option, no?

--
"Polywell" fusion -- an approach to nuclear fusion that might actually work.
Learn more and discuss via: http://www.strout.net/info/science/polywell/

Joe Strout wrote:
In article ,
Charlie Siegrist wrote:

On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:13:28 -0800, Mark R. Whittington wrote:

The Pentagon's National Security Space Office has issued a report,
entitled "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic
Security." The report recommends that the US government enact policies
to encourage the building of solar power stations in space that would
collect sunlight and beam the power thus generated to receiving stations
on Earth.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...dorses_space_b
ased_solar.html

In a casual discussion in the workplace today, it was posited that NASA
has a choice of two directions based on budget. One, the solar power
idea. Two, manned mission to Mars.

That's odd, since in reality, it isn't doing either one. There must be
a third option, no?

Sure there is - the Stick.

Too bad - NASA has no balls anymore.

Joe Strout wrote:

In a casual discussion in the workplace today, it was posited that NASA
has a choice of two directions based on budget. One, the solar power
idea. Two, manned mission to Mars.

That's odd, since in reality, it isn't doing either one. There must be
a third option, no?

Possibly -- sacrilege! -- a direction that involves no grandiose
projects at all...

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 07:57:13 +0000, Monte Davis wrote:

Joe Strout wrote:

In a casual discussion in the workplace today, it was posited that
NASA has a choice of two directions based on budget. One, the solar
power idea. Two, manned mission to Mars.

That's odd, since in reality, it isn't doing either one. There must be
a third option, no?

Possibly -- sacrilege! -- a direction that involves no grandiose
projects at all...

Well yes, I'm all too willing to believe that as a third option :-( After
all, the managers have to have their bonuses, so why waste budget on
innovative projects?

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:27:15 -0600, kT wrote:

Charlie Siegrist wrote:
On Sun, 04 Nov 2007 13:13:28 -0800, Mark R. Whittington wrote:

The Pentagon's National Security Space Office has issued a report,
entitled "Space-Based Solar Power as an Opportunity for Strategic
Security." The report recommends that the US government enact policies
to encourage the building of solar power stations in space that would
collect sunlight and beam the power thus generated to receiving
stations on Earth.

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/430843/
the_pentagon_endorses_space_based_solar.html

In a casual discussion in the workplace today, it was posited that NASA
has a choice of two directions based on budget. One, the solar power
idea. Two, manned mission to Mars. The prevailing, well, unanimous,
position of the work crew was that solar power is by far the best path
to pursue. I, for one, believe we are doing a good enough job with
space telescopes and robotic exploration to forgo manned exploration
until something indeed worth manned investigation is found via the
other means mentioned. So, whaddya think?

You'll need a better SSP - space solar power satellite capable rocket :

http://spacesolarpower.wordpress.com...-power-system/

great link, thanks!

Charlie Siegrist wrote:

Possibly -- sacrilege! -- a direction that involves no grandiose
projects at all...

Well yes, I'm all too willing to believe that as a third option :-( After
all, the managers have to have their bonuses, so why waste budget on
innovative projects?

Grandiose =/ innovative. That you substituted the latter for the
former in your response speaks volumes.