NASA's New Goal, Asteroid by 2025, Mars by 2035....Huh!

" The only thing I can see these days that qualifies would
be a solution to climate change before it becomes irreversible.
There's a broad consensus on climate change, it's an urgent
problem, they say some thirty years or so before it's too late.
And the result would be a new, clean and endless supply
of energy.

I couldn't think of a problem where a solution could create
so much good for the future.


Climate change is without a doubt real. At one time the glaciers extended
down to the northern shore of Long Island, New York. Today they're in far
northern Canada. Things have warmed up, and continue to. Just the glacier, a
white surface going away, provides positive feed back.

But we seem to concentrate on finding a human blame that we can somehow
trade and produce fortunes for non-technical folks like Al Gore - the
inventor of the internet. Yet I see no real causal relationship being
proved, and all sorts excuses why the developing world can't be held
responsible for the 60% they're credited with.

Maybe we should stop pointing fingers and assigning blame - and just realize
it's happening - we're not really sure why, but we have to stop or reverse
it. Is it excess C02 - can we do something to remove it. Is it less white
reflecting surface - can we make more clouds or shield the Earth with dust
or mirrors in space. Once your house is on fire you stop worrying about
overloaded wall plugs and start thinking about hoses and water, and maybe
the fire was really caused by a squirrel hiding a stolen lit cigar in the
basement, but who cares you still have to put it out.

Is this a job for NASA - maybe not. NASA assumes a space related solution,
so right here you've limited your options. Maybe it's a task for NOAA and
let them find the help from other sectors.

BTW one thing seems to have disappeared from the whole global warming
arguement. Back in the 1970s, some groups argued that simple energy use and
the resulting heat released would soon be unacceptable. So whether the
additional energy came from fossil fuel plants, fission plants, fusion
plants, wind mills, or space based solar units - the extra thermal residue
on the ground - independent of source was unacceptable and would lead to
overall global warming. The itent here was to reduce energy use - period!
This even argues against SSP.


Val Kraut

"Val Kraut" wrote in message
...

" I choose to think of the current 'aimless' NASA era as an opportunity
to start over from scratch, and get it right this time. NASA needs
a new reason for being. Asteroids aint it.


Many argue that robots can do things better - in general I don't agree -


I'd agree manned exploration would produce better results.
But using manned flights adds roughly a zero to the cost and
more to the point, a zero to the time it takes. A slow plodding
robot is better than nothing at all in my lifetime.


however asteroids has to be the one clear case where a manned mission
seems a total waste of time - not to mention uninspiring to the tax payers
who will foot the bill.


It appears the prerequisite for the new NASA goal is manned flight.
The other details like why, where and how don't seem all that
important anymore. An hugely expensive jobs program to nowhere
in the middle of a recession, would be the worst way to attract
support and funding I would think.

But NASA doesn't seem to have a very good sense of
reality anymore.



We should Remember why Apollo succeeded so well.
It solved a dramatically urgent problem, with an equally
urgent deadline.

There was another basic difference - NASA was more of a manager and
monitor - industry did the actual design, fabrication, integration work.
As an example the Grumman team that developed the Electrical Power
Subsystem had jusr finished design and implementation of a similar
subsystem for the Gulfstream I aircraft. They had real hardware experience
on past jobs. NASA didn't have the real hardware and manufacturing
background. On Constellation NASA wanted to do more work in-house with a
work force that didn't have any depth of experience with real systems.
They also spread tasks across multiple centers that created duplication of
efforts and additional interfaces and coordination between remote groups.


I believe when properly motivated, just about anything is possible.
People will find a way to get it done if they want or need it
badly enough. Apollo inspired people on many levels.
Beating the Soviets was literally a matter of survival
back then. Turning our very wasteful cold-war competition
into a technology race to the Moon was brilliant. Let the
animosity and mutual fear get channeled towards good.

Today, what are the biggest global anxieties for the near future?
And how could they be wrapped up into a new NASA goal?

Many polls will list the greatest future threats something like this.

1) Wars
2) Poverty
3) Overpopulation
4) Environment
5) Economy

A new, clean and abundant energy source not only
connects very strongly with ...all of them, but also with
a new goal for NASA.

If the 'equation' for a goal is to achieve the greatest
amount of change in the shortest period of time, then
Space Solar Power would win that contest by leaps
and bounds. The technology exists, more energy for
the future is sorely needed and they can be flying
in years, not decades.

And most importantly reverse the trend with energy
from getting more expensive, dirtier and scarcer.
To getting cheaper, cleaner and more abundant
over time.




Val Kraut

"David Spain" wrote in message
...
Jonathan wrote:
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER
EXPLORATORY RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1



I think this is a worthy goal starting as a technology demonstrator and
then moving up to say a small constellation of 50kW-100kW SPS's for
military applications.

Space-Based Solar Power
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
National Security Space Office
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/li...release-01.pdf


Space Energy Inc
http://spaceenergy.com/


I know *they* say this is not a big leap. But for SPS in the GW to TW
ranges needed for large scale commercial power applications capable of
supplying baseline load to major cities in the US, I beg to differ. The
cost compared to terrestrial alternatives has to be carefully weighed.


I'm not so sure the costs are important at first. And this is because
SSP can provide baseload power to places not possible now.
Terrestrial solar, or any other green source can't provide
continuous baseload power due to their storage problems.

Especially to rural areas not part of a major grid. Due to the
ease and low cost on the...receiving...end, since rectennas
are little more than chicken wire, SSP can travel to anyplace
on Earth. For instance, roughly a fourth of crops spoil for
lack of refrigeration. And would a disaster area like Japan
or a war zone quibble over a few cents per kw/h?
If it was the difference between electricity or not?

The huge advance of AC power transmission over DC
was it's ability to travel. SSP is every bit that huge an
advance over AC because of it's global (rural) reach.

A third world or rural country doesn't have to build
a massive conventional or nuclear power plant to
become part of the modern world with SSP.

And not to mention, SSP is a business with essentially
zero operating costs. It doesn't have to pay for a
constant stream of ever more expensive oil, gas or coal
to operate. Or have the clean-up costs of nuclear.

And if technology improves and laser transmission
becomes possible, SSP won't need the massive
mile-sized solar panels, but far smaller mirrors.

As fossil fuels go up in price and technology increases
Space Solar Power becomes more cost effective
every day. It's only a matter of time, not costs, not
technology, not need.


Just time.





Dave

On Nov 3, 4:38Â*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
On the front page of today's Miami Herald it says
the biggest reason for this new NASA long range
goal is...planet defense! It seems NASA thinks
...'the end is nigh'.

To quote NASA asteroid expert Paul Abell...

"Twenty percent of near-Earth asteroids are
considered hazardous," Abell said. "Dinosaurs were
wiped out by a big asteroid 65 million years ago.
We don't know when or where it will happen
again, and it would be nice to be prepared for
that event."

Unquote!

So let me get this right, America's premiere pure
research agency will have as it's Flagship Goal
becoming prepared for an event that happens
no less than every 65 MILLION YEARS!

Or is it longer?

HOW F'ING OUT OF TOUCH MUST ONE BE
TO PLAN FOR AN EVENT MILLIONS
OF YEARS AWAY!!!

It's just too absurd to believe!

Of course, they say in hushed tones that the
near-Earth asteroid they visit might not be
much larger than a football field. And men on Mars!
Oh yes, that's men ...around Mars only, not on.
Will the last one out the door at NASA please
turn out the lights.

Could I be the only one that thinks this goal
makes far more sense?

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

Space-Based Solar Power
As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
National Security Space Officehttp://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/final-sbsp-interim-assessme...

Space Energy Inchttp://spaceenergy.com/

Jonathan

s

What good is accomplishing an asteroid landing or even Mars if the
local minerals or raw elements can’t first be identified and
quantified via gamma spectrometry?

According to William Mook, asteroids are extremely valuable, but
exactly what elements are we talking about other than common iron
which we’re not running out of as of anytime in the foreseeable
future. Perhaps extracting loads of titanium could be sufficient to
mine and process for return to Earth, although it seems other rare
elements would be a whole lot better to go after.

The metallicity of Vesta by way of gamma spectrometry should be
telling us exactly what substances we’re looking at, just like our
Apollo era in close-up living colors along with their gamma
spectrometry should have mapped sufficient portions of that physically
dark surface and even telling of what deeper minerals of those common
and rare elements exist, as of decades ago.

Is the gamma spectrometer of Dawn broken?
“Gamma Ray and Neutron Detector (GRaND) — This instrument is based on
similar instruments flown on the Lunar Prospector and Mars Odyssey
space missions. It will be used to measure the abundances of the major
rock-forming elements (oxygen, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, calcium,
titanium, and iron) in Vesta and Ceres, as well as potassium, thorium,
uranium, and water (inferred from hydrogen content)�

Is the visual + IR color (7 band) spectrometry of Dawn also broken?
“Framing camera (FC) — The framing camera uses 20 mm aperture, f/7.5
refractive optical system with a focal length of 150 mm. A frame-
transfer charge-coupled device (CCD), a Thomson TH7888A, at the focal
plane has 1024 × 1024 sensitive 93-μrad pixels, yielding a wide field
of view. An 8-position filter wheel permits panchromatic (clear
filter) and spectrally selective imaging (7 narrow band filters). The
broadest filter allows imaging from about 400 to 1050 nm.�

Of course, just like imaging of our moon, whereas the closer we get
the physically darker it’ll look to the same camera and film, or CCD
imager. Naturally CCD imagers get to clear each and every FOV before
each brief exposure, thereby greatly minimizing the buildup of gamma
and X-ray hits, whereas Kodak film has to record everything of gamma
and X-rays regardless of the optical exposure.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet�

On Nov 5, 4:15*am, "Val Kraut" wrote:
"

"PASADENA, Calif. -- New observations by NASA's Wide-field
Infrared Survey Explorer, or WISE, show there are significantly fewer
near-Earth asteroids in the mid-size range than previously thought.
The findings also indicate NASA has found more than 90 percent
of the largest near-Earth asteroids, meeting a goal agreed to with
Congress in 1998."

"None of them represents a threat to Earth in the next few centuries."

I think we all have one basic problem with what's happening - we all say
NASA as if we're talking about a single entity - 10 NASAs forming a somewhat
disfunctional family might be a better model. While one center finds there
is no problem, another center is out to solve it anyway. Comes down to zero
central leadership, no clear overall goals and a president that simply
wishes it would all go away - but has to fund somethings to keep some
senators or representatives happy. How many centers were building prototype
lunar surface vehicles, none of which looked anything like another and at
least one of which violated the recommendations of published engineering
reports on such designs. Then you want to really have fun - try to get
something done that requires cooperation not only by the NASAs, but DARPA,
the various branches of the military, and maybe throw in the DOE..

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Val Kraut

Those 10+ NASAs are good at toying with us, and they see nothing wrong
with failing to breakeven or much less show any profit from our
investments.

A Presidential Executive Order to consolidate most of them into a
somewhat less dysfunctional group, seems too much to ask for.

There should be a space research pentagon like facility with a common
public accessible hub, whereas 5 agencies including the USAF along
with 4 collective NASA groups (including DARPA) must work as a
collective. This SRP(science research pentagon) can be expanded in
volume in order to suit, but never accommodating more than 5 primary
groups. The central hub representing roughly 10% of the volume needs
to remain as common service and data area including public accessible
at all times.

http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth, Brad_Guth, Brad.Guth, BradGuth, BG / “Guth Usenet”

they should begin by building lower cost heavy lift to orbit for space
solar power, then use the same heavy lift for exploring some asteroids
and going back to moon before attempting mars.....

people might be more ready to support space activities if they could
see some real benefits back here on earth.

the heavy lift capacity would also help as a planet protector in case
a asteroid comes calling.....

"Brad Guth" wrote in message
...


What good is accomplishing an asteroid landing or even Mars if the
local minerals or raw elements can't first be identified and
quantified via gamma spectrometry?


What NASA goal would make Big Aero the most money?

Competing with many other companies to launch small
robotic science missions? Or shiny new Saturn V's stuffed
with astronauts and hi-tech landers no one else can supply?

It's the difference between a cost conscious civilian contract.
Or a high margin military type contract where over-runs and
mistakes are simply passed on, no matter what.

This new NASA goal isn't about what's best for us.


Jonathan


s


s

On Nov 7, 6:46*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

they should begin by building lower cost heavy lift to orbit for space
solar power,

To be economically viable, that 'lower cost' would have to be as cheap
as long haul freight trucking.

Sadly, SPS isn't viable as a driving technology for heavy lift.



give the heavy lift challenge to private industry

On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 17:22:05 -0800 (PST), bob haller
wrote:

On Nov 7, 6:46*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

they should begin by building lower cost heavy lift to orbit for space
solar power,

To be economically viable, that 'lower cost' would have to be as cheap
as long haul freight trucking.

Sadly, SPS isn't viable as a driving technology for heavy lift.



give the heavy lift challenge to private industry

It is always going to be cheaper to just put those solar cells on
people's roofs.

Brian

On Nov 8, 3:00*am, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:
On Nov 7, 6:46*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
bob haller wrote:

they should begin by building lower cost heavy lift to orbit for space
solar power,

To be economically viable, that 'lower cost' would have to be as cheap
as long haul freight trucking.

Sadly, SPS isn't viable as a driving technology for heavy lift.

give the heavy lift challenge to private industry

Who won't take it because it is economically not viable.

Which part of that is it that's confusing you?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
*territory."
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * --G. Behn

if global warming is man made, then its impertive that we do
everything possible to minimize it.....

if we dont know why global warming is occuring then better safe than
sorry should be the approach....