NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:

Who on the planet would not
benefit from reversing the current energy trend, and creating a trend
of ever more abundant, cleaner and cheaper energy over time?

I'm afraid I can't agree about the space solar power concept. I just can't see
how the economics pan out compared with surface based solar power.

The economics are irrelevant, it's the trend reversal that matters.

Those are two different things. Compare the economics with a
world of fifteen billion people which is almost /entirely industrialized/.
The current solution they are moving to is coal, not solar btw.
Those are two very ominous trends. Combine that with the realization
that the current estimates of oil reserves are highly inflated. Due to
OPEC basing annual quotas on estimated reserves, the more
a country /claims/ to have in the ground, the more they can pump.
There is roughly half the oil left than is currently estimated.

The recent spike in oil from $40 to $160 is a non-linear response
characteristic of a stressed or thin system. Where a minor disruption
on the in put side, creates a massive response on the output.
This is the sign of a system wide breaking or tipping point.
We are ALREADY AT THE TIPPING POINT for fossil fuels
and few seem to appreciate it.

A small disturbance, at a tipping or critical point, say the impending
sanctions on Iran, can cascade into a massive panic situation overnight.
A panic situation so well displayed by the recent stock market crash.
The mathematics of such panics are my hobby as they form the basis
of my trading strategy.

And the oil CRASH will happen as quickly as the stock market crash, overnight.
We can recover from the stock market crash, since it was essentially a
hoarding of cash.where people sold everything and waited it out.

But when the oil crash hits, that will be something entirely different
as the sudden overnight hoarding of oil will bring down the industrialized
world...overnight. How about a generation returned against their will
to a pre- industrial state? The world wide collapse of our cities.
It's going to happen overnight someday soon unless a new
source of energy, even an expensive one, even a pipe-dream enters
the market with the p r o m i s e ....of .... e n d l e s s g r o w t h.

It is that PERCEPTION of a new endless source that will prevent
The Next Great Crash. Panics are not started by FACTS, they are
started by FEARS amidst a thin or critically behaving system.

We need that promising new source and we need it soon.

The decision itself, the commitment alone is enough to
avert a panic situation, as markets based their decisions
on what will be, not what is. They anticipate.

The world needs to believe our energy future is bright.
They need to be convinced by a dedicating ourselves
to that goal. That perception is needed, and soon.

The oil crash can be averted without building single
solar powered satellite. The economics, the details
don't matter right now.

We need a new direction. What solutions are finally settled
on down the road will take care of themselves, it' the...
NEW TREND which has the ability to change the world.

Combine at that with the simple fact NASA itself needs a
new direction, a new reason for being. I mean, the world
is there for the saving.

It's right there waiting to be saved.



Jonathan


s

"lorad" wrote in message
...
On Sep 25, 11:51 am, "Bob Myers" wrote:


Your assumptions are incorrect..
The container could be a lightweight polymer - perhaps even mylar..
maybe 10 pounds.
The heating mechanism even less.. mylar films placed on a hyperbolic
fiberglass frame serving as a solar still.. maybe 8 pounds.


That first glass of water will cost $300 billion dollars and take twenty years
As that's the estimates for placing a temporary shelter for six on the moon.
And the Space Station has shown, six people does NOT make a colony
capable of any production facilities. Those six people are plenty busy
just maintaining the shelter, coming and going.

So any production of water on the moon will have to wait until
a much larger permanent colony is built. How much more than
$300 billion will that cost?

At the end of this rainbow sits a Trillion Dollar glass of water.
Amidst a distant and airless desert.

Is that the best we imagine anymore? Is it even rational goal?

At the end of the dream below sits an unlimited and completely clean
source of energy, easily beamed to places all over the world where it never
could reach before. Energy which someday falls from the sky as our
cable and phone signals do now. Making American the energy "Saudia Arabia"
for the entire century, bringing a new level of prosperity, while ending
the prospect of more wars over oil..

Unlimited and clean energy means maximum potential and endless hope.

Choosing a build a trillion dollar glass of water just isn't sane by comparison.
It's the literal definition of Lunacy.
IMHO.

Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1



Jonathan


s

jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:

Who on the planet would not
benefit from reversing the current energy trend, and creating a trend
of ever more abundant, cleaner and cheaper energy over time?
I'm afraid I can't agree about the space solar power concept. I just can't see
how the economics pan out compared with surface based solar power.

The economics are irrelevant, it's the trend reversal that matters.

Those are two different things. Compare the economics with a
world of fifteen billion people which is almost /entirely industrialized/.
The current solution they are moving to is coal, not solar btw.
Those are two very ominous trends. Combine that with the realization
that the current estimates of oil reserves are highly inflated. Due to
OPEC basing annual quotas on estimated reserves, the more
a country /claims/ to have in the ground, the more they can pump.
There is roughly half the oil left than is currently estimated.

The recent spike in oil from $40 to $160 is a non-linear response
characteristic of a stressed or thin system. Where a minor disruption
on the in put side, creates a massive response on the output.
This is the sign of a system wide breaking or tipping point.
We are ALREADY AT THE TIPPING POINT for fossil fuels
and few seem to appreciate it.

A small disturbance, at a tipping or critical point, say the impending
sanctions on Iran, can cascade into a massive panic situation overnight.
A panic situation so well displayed by the recent stock market crash.
The mathematics of such panics are my hobby as they form the basis
of my trading strategy.

And the oil CRASH will happen as quickly as the stock market crash, overnight.
We can recover from the stock market crash, since it was essentially a
hoarding of cash.where people sold everything and waited it out.

But when the oil crash hits, that will be something entirely different
as the sudden overnight hoarding of oil will bring down the industrialized
world...overnight. How about a generation returned against their will
to a pre- industrial state? The world wide collapse of our cities.
It's going to happen overnight someday soon unless a new
source of energy, even an expensive one, even a pipe-dream enters
the market with the p r o m i s e ....of .... e n d l e s s g r o w t h.

It is that PERCEPTION of a new endless source that will prevent
The Next Great Crash. Panics are not started by FACTS, they are
started by FEARS amidst a thin or critically behaving system.

We need that promising new source and we need it soon.

The decision itself, the commitment alone is enough to
avert a panic situation, as markets based their decisions
on what will be, not what is. They anticipate.

The world needs to believe our energy future is bright.
They need to be convinced by a dedicating ourselves
to that goal. That perception is needed, and soon.

The oil crash can be averted without building single
solar powered satellite. The economics, the details
don't matter right now.

We need a new direction. What solutions are finally settled
on down the road will take care of themselves, it' the...
NEW TREND which has the ability to change the world.

Combine at that with the simple fact NASA itself needs a
new direction, a new reason for being. I mean, the world
is there for the saving.

It's right there waiting to be saved.

I fear I'm not succeeding in making my point properly. Nothing new there.

If a point is reached, or has been reached, at which the use of fossil
fuels, or the increased use thereof, is not acceptable because of the
effects on the evironment, and/or climate, then an alternative needs to
be found.

But that doesn't mean that because space based solar power is an
alternative, that it's what must be used.

Land based solar power is also an alternative. Fusion power is also
possibly an alternative, but it's twenty five years away, and always has
been.

But of the acceptable alternatives, you want to use the cheapest. To do
otherwise involves throwing money away. I don't see how space based
solar power can be cheaper than land based solar power, even after
you've address the particular issues that the latter has.

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote in
:

jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:

Who on the planet would not
benefit from reversing the current energy trend, and creating a
trend of ever more abundant, cleaner and cheaper energy over time?
I'm afraid I can't agree about the space solar power concept. I just
can't see how the economics pan out compared with surface based
solar power.

The economics are irrelevant, it's the trend reversal that matters.

Those are two different things. Compare the economics with a
world of fifteen billion people which is almost /entirely
industrialized/. The current solution they are moving to is coal, not
solar btw. Those are two very ominous trends. Combine that with the
realization that the current estimates of oil reserves are highly
inflated. Due to OPEC basing annual quotas on estimated reserves, the
more a country /claims/ to have in the ground, the more they can
pump. There is roughly half the oil left than is currently estimated.

The recent spike in oil from $40 to $160 is a non-linear response
characteristic of a stressed or thin system. Where a minor disruption
on the in put side, creates a massive response on the output.
This is the sign of a system wide breaking or tipping point.
We are ALREADY AT THE TIPPING POINT for fossil fuels
and few seem to appreciate it.

A small disturbance, at a tipping or critical point, say the
impending sanctions on Iran, can cascade into a massive panic
situation overnight. A panic situation so well displayed by the
recent stock market crash. The mathematics of such panics are my
hobby as they form the basis of my trading strategy.

And the oil CRASH will happen as quickly as the stock market crash,
overnight. We can recover from the stock market crash, since it was
essentially a hoarding of cash.where people sold everything and
waited it out.

But when the oil crash hits, that will be something entirely
different as the sudden overnight hoarding of oil will bring down the
industrialized world...overnight. How about a generation returned
against their will to a pre- industrial state? The world wide
collapse of our cities. It's going to happen overnight someday soon
unless a new source of energy, even an expensive one, even a
pipe-dream enters the market with the p r o m i s e ....of .... e n
d l e s s g r o w t h.

It is that PERCEPTION of a new endless source that will prevent
The Next Great Crash. Panics are not started by FACTS, they are
started by FEARS amidst a thin or critically behaving system.

We need that promising new source and we need it soon.

The decision itself, the commitment alone is enough to
avert a panic situation, as markets based their decisions
on what will be, not what is. They anticipate.

The world needs to believe our energy future is bright.
They need to be convinced by a dedicating ourselves
to that goal. That perception is needed, and soon.

The oil crash can be averted without building single
solar powered satellite. The economics, the details
don't matter right now.

We need a new direction. What solutions are finally settled
on down the road will take care of themselves, it' the...
NEW TREND which has the ability to change the world.

Combine at that with the simple fact NASA itself needs a
new direction, a new reason for being. I mean, the world
is there for the saving.

It's right there waiting to be saved.

I fear I'm not succeeding in making my point properly. Nothing new
there.

If a point is reached, or has been reached, at which the use of fossil
fuels, or the increased use thereof, is not acceptable because of the
effects on the evironment, and/or climate, then an alternative needs
to be found.

But that doesn't mean that because space based solar power is an
alternative, that it's what must be used.

Land based solar power is also an alternative. Fusion power is also
possibly an alternative, but it's twenty five years away, and always
has been.

But of the acceptable alternatives, you want to use the cheapest. To
do otherwise involves throwing money away. I don't see how space based
solar power can be cheaper than land based solar power, even after
you've address the particular issues that the latter has.

No clouds. No night. No degradation/corrosion. No atmospheric losses. No
overheating of the cells.

There are many advantages to space based solar power.

The only disadvantage is launch costs. The space elevator concept could
solve that for us by making geosynchronous orbit a (long) elevator ride
away.

But the most important thing to recognize is that "costs" are a funny
game. Depending on where you draw you system boundaries, the "costs" of
not doing space based solar power may far outstrip the competition.

How do you account for the cost of the two Iraq wars, for instance?
Those were a cost-of-doing-business expense in order to maintain our oil
addiction. A cost that could have been avoided, if it were not for our
addiction to dinosaur juice.

Or how do you put a dollar value on the loss of habitat and species?

What about the costs of human disease cased by pollution?

If all these things were taken into account some how, fossil fuels would
likely rank lower on the cost effective scale, as would nuclear once the
cost of containment over a 100 thousand years is factored into it.

somefools wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote in
:

jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:
Who on the planet would not
benefit from reversing the current energy trend, and creating a
trend of ever more abundant, cleaner and cheaper energy over time?
I'm afraid I can't agree about the space solar power concept. I just
can't see how the economics pan out compared with surface based
solar power.
The economics are irrelevant, it's the trend reversal that matters.

Those are two different things. Compare the economics with a
world of fifteen billion people which is almost /entirely
industrialized/. The current solution they are moving to is coal, not
solar btw. Those are two very ominous trends. Combine that with the
realization that the current estimates of oil reserves are highly
inflated. Due to OPEC basing annual quotas on estimated reserves, the
more a country /claims/ to have in the ground, the more they can
pump. There is roughly half the oil left than is currently estimated.

The recent spike in oil from $40 to $160 is a non-linear response
characteristic of a stressed or thin system. Where a minor disruption
on the in put side, creates a massive response on the output.
This is the sign of a system wide breaking or tipping point.
We are ALREADY AT THE TIPPING POINT for fossil fuels
and few seem to appreciate it.

A small disturbance, at a tipping or critical point, say the
impending sanctions on Iran, can cascade into a massive panic
situation overnight. A panic situation so well displayed by the
recent stock market crash. The mathematics of such panics are my
hobby as they form the basis of my trading strategy.

And the oil CRASH will happen as quickly as the stock market crash,
overnight. We can recover from the stock market crash, since it was
essentially a hoarding of cash.where people sold everything and
waited it out.

But when the oil crash hits, that will be something entirely
different as the sudden overnight hoarding of oil will bring down the
industrialized world...overnight. How about a generation returned
against their will to a pre- industrial state? The world wide
collapse of our cities. It's going to happen overnight someday soon
unless a new source of energy, even an expensive one, even a
pipe-dream enters the market with the p r o m i s e ....of .... e n
d l e s s g r o w t h.

It is that PERCEPTION of a new endless source that will prevent
The Next Great Crash. Panics are not started by FACTS, they are
started by FEARS amidst a thin or critically behaving system.

We need that promising new source and we need it soon.

The decision itself, the commitment alone is enough to
avert a panic situation, as markets based their decisions
on what will be, not what is. They anticipate.

The world needs to believe our energy future is bright.
They need to be convinced by a dedicating ourselves
to that goal. That perception is needed, and soon.

The oil crash can be averted without building single
solar powered satellite. The economics, the details
don't matter right now.

We need a new direction. What solutions are finally settled
on down the road will take care of themselves, it' the...
NEW TREND which has the ability to change the world.

Combine at that with the simple fact NASA itself needs a
new direction, a new reason for being. I mean, the world
is there for the saving.

It's right there waiting to be saved.
I fear I'm not succeeding in making my point properly. Nothing new
there.

If a point is reached, or has been reached, at which the use of fossil
fuels, or the increased use thereof, is not acceptable because of the
effects on the evironment, and/or climate, then an alternative needs
to be found.

But that doesn't mean that because space based solar power is an
alternative, that it's what must be used.

Land based solar power is also an alternative. Fusion power is also
possibly an alternative, but it's twenty five years away, and always
has been.

But of the acceptable alternatives, you want to use the cheapest. To
do otherwise involves throwing money away. I don't see how space based
solar power can be cheaper than land based solar power, even after
you've address the particular issues that the latter has.

No clouds. No night. No degradation/corrosion. No atmospheric losses. No
overheating of the cells.

Why no overheating?


There are many advantages to space based solar power.

The only disadvantage is launch costs. The space elevator concept could
solve that for us by making geosynchronous orbit a (long) elevator ride
away.

The only disadvantage? Other than bringing the down on cables supported
by the space elevator (which requires materials of strengths we don't
possess), you'd need some sort of power beaming technology

What of the scope for a nation threatening to beam its power at an
adversory rather than at the ground stations intended to receive the
power? What about that happening by accident?

What happens to birds that fly through the beams?


But the most important thing to recognize is that "costs" are a funny
game. Depending on where you draw you system boundaries, the "costs" of
not doing space based solar power may far outstrip the competition.

How do you account for the cost of the two Iraq wars, for instance?
Those were a cost-of-doing-business expense in order to maintain our oil
addiction. A cost that could have been avoided, if it were not for our
addiction to dinosaur juice.

The dicussion here is not about whether we should stick to fossil fuels.
It's about whether ground based solar is cheaper than space based, even
after the issues with it are addressed.


Or how do you put a dollar value on the loss of habitat and species?

Ground based solar isn't going to cause that.


What about the costs of human disease cased by pollution?

If all these things were taken into account some how, fossil fuels would
likely rank lower on the cost effective scale, as would nuclear once the
cost of containment over a 100 thousand years is factored into it.

It doesn't cost much in the scheme of things to contain fuel for 100
thousand years. Look up discounted cash flow and net present value.

Sylvia.

On Sep 26, 8:38*pm, "jonathan" wrote:
"lorad" wrote in message

...
On Sep 25, 11:51 am, "Bob Myers" wrote:

Your assumptions are incorrect..
The container could be a lightweight polymer - perhaps even mylar..
maybe 10 pounds.
The heating mechanism even less.. mylar films placed on a hyperbolic
fiberglass frame serving as a solar still.. maybe 8 pounds.

That first glass of water will cost $300 billion dollars and take twenty years

No it won't. As I said the materials would cost less than $100 dollars
for one unit.
And it could have been done twenty years ago. One hundred bucks per
lunar solar water still.

As that's the estimates for placing a temporary shelter for six on the moon.
And the Space Station has shown,

By whose figures?
NASA wants something like $38 Billion dollars and twenty years to
deliver a new heavy lift vehicle.

Bigelow Aerospace has offered to do it for $4 Billion in four years.

Seems like NASA should stick with what it has done best over the last
ywenty years or so... suppressing information, doctoring old
videotape, and running military projects - and leave real advances
for the new innovators like Bigelow.
NASA definitely ain't what it used to be.

six people does NOT make a colony

No one said anything about any colony.
We just need research and launch facilities on the moon.

capable of any production facilities. Those six people are plenty busy
just maintaining the shelter, coming and going.

Depends on what they are tasked to do.
Radio-astronomy would be easy.

So any production of water on the moon will have to wait until
a much larger permanent colony is built.

No it won't.

How much more than
$300 billion will that cost?

Total cost per each water extraction unit could be lass than $100
dollars.
We could send the rest of your $299.999 Billion back to the
treasurey.

At the end of this rainbow sits a *Trillion Dollar *glass of water.
Amidst a distant and airless desert.

Cut back on your imagination.. it makes your proclamations too silly
to understand.

Is that the best we imagine anymore? *Is it even rational goal?

Getting to the moon and exploiting resources, low gravity, and
location? Sure.

At the end of the dream below sits an unlimited and completely clean
source of energy, easily beamed to places all over the world where it never
could reach before. Energy which someday falls from the sky as our
cable and phone signals do now. Making American the energy *"Saudia Arabia"
for the entire century, bringing a new level of prosperity, while ending
the prospect of more wars over oil..

Yeah yeah yeah..
That energy is already being beamed free of charge.
It's called the Sun... which can be used to extract water from lunar
regolith... like I was saying.. remember?

Unlimited and clean energy means maximum potential and endless hope.

Choosing a build a trillion dollar glass of water just isn't sane by comparison.
It's the literal definition of Lunacy.
IMHO.

What are you on about now?
Do turn down the weirdness a notch.. and explain what has driven you
to incoherent lunacy.

Yes it IS curious how 'reality' is changing and the media message PR
wise that the fight for $$$ between war and space means that space
needs better PR.

NASA has sucked at PR for so long since Apollo 11 because of the
lies.

In the following article about the Water...notice AFTER the article I
do an Administrative Note that shows a map the source article didn't
show.

http://mycommonsensepolitics.net/ind...moon&Itemid=55

There is MORE water concentrated at the Moon's NORTH pole than the
South pole.

THAT is a brutal truth fact their own maps show.

So...why is LCROSS going to impact the SOUTH pole where there is the
LEAST amount of H2O?

Is it because as I showed with the Lunar Prospector (which did NOT
'officially' have a regular eye wavelength visable light camera) that
the data collection was "relying" on Clementine Data for visable
corraboration of readings at each long-lat collection point in the
orbit.

So see that Lunar Prospector "mosaic" image under it as it flies over
the North Pole on it's track? (This was on-line and OFFICIAL Lunar
Prospector fed 'track projections' onto the Clementine Mosiac of the
entire Moon. That's a screen shot when it went over the North Pole.
See any "ruins", Pyramids, or even possibly ACTIVE artificial-looking
formations?

Bob...

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
lorad wrote:


Getting the cost of design manfufacture, shipping, and installation down to a
point where it's a cheaper way of getting water on the moon is likely to be a
big ask.


A bigger task than the Vision currently plans to accomplish. I don't see how
the proponents of going back to the Moon expect to reinvigorate the idea
by dramatically upping the cost and scale of the goal. What are they thinking
by pushing the discovery now? It's an act of desperation.

And one has to ask, when we can produce large quantities of water on the Moon
what then? For what? To provide for a colony and fuel is the answer. To do
what exactly? The answer is to mine water. A circular goal with no purpose
but it's own existence. Which leads to the next question, what is the real
or ulterior motive for a Moon base? There's only one logical answer, for
the military and missile defense. Didn't anyone notice that Pres Bush started
a missile defense arms race with the Chinese?

You can't track rocket plumes in low earth orbit from the ground.
Only from space, and the best place to track orbital plumes just
happens to be the same place NASA wants to go, the south pole
of the moon. Odd coincidence...eh?

I mean come on folks?
Are we that gullible?

Only the military really wants, and can use, a moon base.
The whole ...destiny...or mining the heavens... stuff is for
sci-fi plots.

Repeating one of the greatest mistakes in history, another
long, expensive and dangerous cold-war, is something that
needs to be nipped in the bud.

Jonathan

Sylvia.

Sylvia Else wrote:
jonathan wrote:

(blather)

I fear I'm not succeeding in making my point properly. Nothing new there.

http://thinkexist.com/quotation/never_try_to_teach_a_pig_to_sing-it_wastes_your/218581.html

"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:


I fear I'm not succeeding in making my point properly. Nothing new there.


I understand your point of view. It's a bit like a debate between
the single "Big Fix" vs. a wide diversity of smaller fixes. And I
agree that your preference is far more practical and market friendly.
But those kinds of solutions will take care of themselves
in the normal course of a free market. So I don't see it as
an either an .Either/Or situation. I assume your view will happen.

The question is, will that be enough?

Or is the Big (long term) Fix also needed ? The big fix is needed
in this case because market forces tend to be reactionary and
short term in perspective.

While the problems of climate change, fossil fuel shortages
and increased coal burning are twenty or thirty years in the
future. I'm a day trader as a second job, and markets are
very good at anticipating, but not for that far out. They look
a couple of years out, farther and no one reasonably can
predict outcomes. A market approach will adapt, but not
far enough in advance for the problems we face. By the time
the markets reacts, it'll be TOO LATE with climate change
and fossil fuels.

And remember, market panics are all alike. Just like the stock
market crash last year, a stressed system takes but a good rumor
for confidence to be lost. And overnight 'The Panic' happens.
They can come out of nowhere and POOF...goes stock prices
cut in half overnight. With the oil crash, it'll be POOF goes
half the world's standard of living overnight, and with it
the industrialized world for a generation or two.

Unless we maintain a sufficient excess in capacity to maintain
confidence. As Saudia Arabia has served to stabilize the oil
market by being such a large player. Soon, the oil market will
lose that kind of stabilizing excess, and then almost anything
can cause a panic, or hoarding.

We need a NEW energy source, a new large player capable
of cushioning whatever short term disturbances that might
come along. We won't have that in twenty years or so
unless we go out and start building it right now.

It doesn't have to be cheap by today's standards.

It has to be perceived by the market as something that is credible
and will exist in the near future. We need that kind of confidence
and soon. Or any minor disturbance will cause one tripling of
oil prices after another, preventing action, until it finally crashes.


If a point is reached, or has been reached, at which the use of fossil fuels,
or the increased use thereof, is not acceptable because of the effects on the
environment, and/or climate, then an alternative needs to be found.

But that doesn't mean that because space based solar power is an alternative,
that it's what must be used.


What we really need is low cost to orbit, so we have the possibility
of using space as a solution to any future problems. So any NASA goal
should have low cost to orbit as the very first and most important
prerequisite. I really don't care what comes after that, except that is
somehow connects to providing an abundant clean energy source for
the future.



Land based solar power is also an alternative.

And the price of land does what over time?
Not a favorable trend for more than short term
or limited applications.


Fusion power is also possibly an alternative, but it's twenty five years away,
and always has been.

Fusion is a monstrous pipe-dream. Makes nuclear look cheap and easy
by comparison.



But of the acceptable alternatives, you want to use the cheapest. To do
otherwise involves throwing money away. I don't see how space based solar
power can be cheaper than land based solar power, even after you've address
the particular issues that the latter has.


There's been virtually no money spent on SSP research. I've read NASA
papers suggesting that laser transmission is probably not far off, with
receiving rectennas as small as a meter...the size of a car (hint).

Given the world that satellite communication has given us, just
imagine for a moment what the world could become if our energy
fell from the sky, like a cell phone signal does today.

Anywhere, to anyone on the planet. Clean and endless energy.
Dial it up!

That kind of future is out there just waiting to be created.
If we want it bad enough, it can happen.


Jonathan




Sylvia.