The Pentagon Endorses Space Based Solar Power

Charlie Siegrist wrote:
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!

That's what we're here for, hanging on for the occasional great link.

On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:23:25 +0000, Monte Davis wrote:

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.

Do tell? I'd love to hear what you're inferring to yourself. You might
know what's rattling around in your head, but I don't. Likewise, you
don't know what's rattling around inside mine, unless I clearly state
such. It's been posited that as much as 40% of the written word can be
misunderstood, even when presented coherently. Hence, scientists use
mathematic formulas to convey ideas, since the language of mathematics is
precise.

So, since the topic of the thread is solar space power, I will take a
leap of the imagination, and guess that you believe a solar space power
project is grandiose, while I consider it innovative. As far as I can
see, that's all that can be reasonably inferred from the comments. Am I
close?

Charlie Siegrist wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 15:23:25 +0000, Monte Davis wrote:

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.

Do tell? I'd love to hear what you're inferring to yourself. You might
know what's rattling around in your head, but I don't. Likewise, you
don't know what's rattling around inside mine, unless I clearly state
such. It's been posited that as much as 40% of the written word can be
misunderstood, even when presented coherently. Hence, scientists use
mathematic formulas to convey ideas, since the language of mathematics is
precise.

Actually, no, it isn't. It's just gibberish like all the rest of them.

It's just made more precise than other languages by design, and has an
analytic foundation.

So, since the topic of the thread is solar space power, I will take a
leap of the imagination, and guess that you believe a solar space power
project is grandiose, while I consider it innovative. As far as I can
see, that's all that can be reasonably inferred from the comments. Am I
close?

Grandiose, but necessary. Believing that one could melt rock was
grandiose, building kilns and smelters was innovative. You now have
opportunities to observe grandiose ideas become reality through
innovation, in real time, live. For instance : Apollo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Age

Space solar power won't be any different.

November 22, 2007. Watch for it.

VSE and ESAS are dead.

The Stick is dead.

Charlie Siegrist wrote:

Do tell? I'd love to hear what you're inferring to yourself...
since the topic of the thread is solar space power, I will take a
leap of the imagination, and guess that you believe a solar space power
project is grandiose, while I consider it innovative.

Your earlier post had cited a "choice of two directions" between "the
solar power idea" and "manned missions to Mars." Joe Strout replied
that as NASA isn't doing either one, there must be a third option.

I added that such a third option might involve "no grandiose projects
at all." By that I meant that

1) SSP absolutely positively won't happen without much cheaper access
to space (CATS). While in theory manned Mars missions *could* happen
without it, I very much doubt they will. IMHO they shouldn't, since
without it they're bound to be Apollo Part Deux: a few thrilling flags
& footprints moments, followed by many years of "gee, what happened to
the Dream?"

2) History, and a clear-eyed look at where we stand, strongly suggest
that neither the grandiose Apollo model (commit to a Big Inspiring
Mission) nor the grandiose Shuttle model (commit to a Revolutionary
Serves-All-Missions Vehicle) is a very promising route to CATS.

3) To the extent that NASA *could* contribute directly to progress
toward CATS, it's most likely to happen through more modest and
incremental R&D work -- e.g., as I argued in the "Discovery TPS
problem" thread on sci.space.history two weeks ago, through actually
*doing* the work needed to come up with a sturdier, low-maintenance
metallic skin for RLVs re-entering at 7 to 12 kps.

That was one of quite a few challenges that we hoped c.1970 would be
solved "along the way" to the Revolutionary SAMV... and guess what
happened? For that as for many of the other challenges, we got not
only a far-from-satisfactory half-solution, but a vehicle so expensive
to operate that there hasn't been money ever since to pursue better
ones.

Oh, since Columbia there's been endless criticism of those dumb
fragile tiles and those dumb brittle RCC panels. And since long before
Columbia there've been many grandiose plans for a NASP and a
VentureStar and other Revolutionary SAMVs, all of which would solve
that nagging TPS issue "along the way."

What there*hasn't* been is much, umm, y'know... I hate to be such a
cranky nit-picker... *progress* in the sequence from materials science
through fabrication to subscale flight testing that would actually
yield a solution. Ditto for aerospikes and other engine ideas, ditto
for reusable liquid strap-on boosters, exotic lightweight internal
tanks, and a bunch of other ideas which collectively might get us a
lot closer to CATS.

Most have remained "promising candidates" for a long time because ever
since the 1960s NASA (and too many of us) would rather focus on a
Great Leap Forward, like SSP or Mars, than on the small, piecemeal,
*innovative* steps -- not Missions, not Vehicles, just material X or
fabrication technique Y or design Z that would yield more performance
for the same $, or the same performance for less $.

That's what I meant by the difference betwen "innovative" and
"grandiose." As long as discussion of what NASA should be doing takes
the form of your workplace discussion -- "which of these grandiose
goals should they set, the unaffordable one or the unsustainable one?"
-- we're likely to be as impatient and frustrated 35 years from now as
we are today. But if we were willing to focus on innovation in smaller
bites, we might actually get somewhere.

Monte Davis wrote:

1) SSP absolutely positively won't happen

That's so weird how thrust can't work in a vacuum, and man will never
walk on the moon. These solar power advocates should give up right now.

On Nov 11, 12:52 pm, Monte Davis wrote:
Charlie Siegrist wrote:
Do tell? I'd love to hear what you're inferring to yourself...
since the topic of the thread is solar space power, I will take a
leap of the imagination, and guess that you believe a solar space power
project is grandiose, while I consider it innovative.

Your earlier post had cited a "choice of two directions" between "the
solar power idea" and "manned missions to Mars." Joe Strout replied
that as NASA isn't doing either one, there must be a third option.

I added that such a third option might involve "no grandiose projects
at all." By that I meant that

1) SSP absolutely positively won't happen without much cheaper access
to space (CATS). While in theory manned Mars missions *could* happen
without it, I very much doubt they will. IMHO they shouldn't, since
without it they're bound to be Apollo Part Deux: a few thrilling flags
& footprints moments, followed by many years of "gee, what happened to
the Dream?"

China already has CATS nailed. The moon's L1 is next on their
shopping list.
--
Brad Guth

In article ,
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...

I guess that makes four directions -- the one you pointing out being the
one NASA wandered in for most of the last 30 years.

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

In article ,
Monte Davis wrote:

Charlie Siegrist wrote:

Do tell? I'd love to hear what you're inferring to yourself...
since the topic of the thread is solar space power, I will take a
leap of the imagination, and guess that you believe a solar space power
project is grandiose, while I consider it innovative.

Your earlier post had cited a "choice of two directions" between "the
solar power idea" and "manned missions to Mars." Joe Strout replied
that as NASA isn't doing either one, there must be a third option.

Which was meant as irony, since I thought it was obvious: the third
option is extended missions to the Moon, perhaps leading to a
permanently staffed lunar outpost. I.e., the direction they're actually
headed in at the moment (or trying to, anyway).

I added that such a third option might involve "no grandiose projects
at all." By that I meant that

1) SSP absolutely positively won't happen without much cheaper access
to space (CATS).

Agreed, though it's entirely possible that a commitment to SSP would
lead to CATS.

2) History, and a clear-eyed look at where we stand, strongly suggest
that neither the grandiose Apollo model (commit to a Big Inspiring
Mission) nor the grandiose Shuttle model (commit to a Revolutionary
Serves-All-Missions Vehicle) is a very promising route to CATS.

True.

3) To the extent that NASA *could* contribute directly to progress
toward CATS, it's most likely to happen through more modest and
incremental R&D work -- e.g., as I argued in the "Discovery TPS
problem" thread on sci.space.history two weeks ago, through actually
*doing* the work needed to come up with a sturdier, low-maintenance
metallic skin for RLVs re-entering at 7 to 12 kps.

That would help, though I suspect it may not be the easiest or best way
for NASA to contribute to progress toward CATS. Another way would be to
provide a large, stable market for CATS services (or at least ATS
services, such that the cheaper the access, the more profit the service
provider can make).

A commitment to SSP would probably provide such a market, though so
would any robust cislunar activity.

That's what I meant by the difference betwen "innovative" and
"grandiose." As long as discussion of what NASA should be doing takes
the form of your workplace discussion -- "which of these grandiose
goals should they set, the unaffordable one or the unsustainable one?"
-- we're likely to be as impatient and frustrated 35 years from now as
we are today. But if we were willing to focus on innovation in smaller
bites, we might actually get somewhere.

I agree with the general sentiment. Though I think developing a
sustainable lunar infrastructure is of the latter sort -- innovation in
smaller bites, leading to sustainable activity in cislunar space.
Industry R&D should be just as good as NASA R&D, and probably much
better, if it becomes clear that there is real profit to be had.

Best,
- Joe

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

On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 08:44:06 -0700, in a place far, far away, Joe
Strout made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Monte Davis wrote:

Charlie Siegrist wrote:

Do tell? I'd love to hear what you're inferring to yourself...
since the topic of the thread is solar space power, I will take a
leap of the imagination, and guess that you believe a solar space power
project is grandiose, while I consider it innovative.

Your earlier post had cited a "choice of two directions" between "the
solar power idea" and "manned missions to Mars." Joe Strout replied
that as NASA isn't doing either one, there must be a third option.

Which was meant as irony, since I thought it was obvious: the third
option is extended missions to the Moon, perhaps leading to a
permanently staffed lunar outpost. I.e., the direction they're actually
headed in at the moment (or trying to, anyway).

Actually, there are many more options than three. Including nothing
at all...

Rand Simberg wrote:

Actually, there are many more options than three. Including nothing
at all...

Perhaps we can reverse time and the last seven years would have been
different.