Zubrin: Obama readies to blast NASA

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Oct 31, 3:31 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

I can't think of any other project that can do as much as
fast as Space Solar Power. Even if it wasn't limited
to the NASA and the space program, I still can't think
of a better solution to that equation given how far and
wide energy effects the planet.


But to make space solar power practical, one would need L-5 colonies.

Space Energy Inc claims they can have a gigawatt class SSP flying
in just five years or so once they have the funding. And once they
show a profit, funding one after another becomes as difficult
as funding a conventional power plant. Floating ten or fifteen
billion dollar bonds are routine in the energy industry.
They happen every week.

http://spaceenergy.com/About/Advisors.htm


That requires an immense investment -

Space Energy says $300 million for a scale demonstrator and
around $17 billion for the first gigawatt class satellite, which
compares to the costs of a single nuclear power plant of
similar output.

If NASA or the government does it all, the cost to the taxpayers
are immense. The idea of SERT was to build only a series of four
demonstrators, each larger, to jump start the commercial use of SSP.
With Space Energy Inc it would seem enough simply for the
government to provide some loan and technology assistance.

not a bad thing, necessarily,
since the result would be to open up the whole Solar System, allowing
such things as a manned landing on Mars to be thrown in as inexpensive
extras.

Space Solar Power would force, or allow, low cost to orbit
to finally become a reality from the large amounts of payloads.
Which would enable all kinds of future dreams.
But more importantly, SSP would build the electrical grid for space.
Allowing far larger and more ambitious satellites and
other space activities including colonies.

The power grid has to come first, before any ambitious space
activities can become reality.


But that means it's a visionary program - comparable to the quest for
fusion power.


There's no comparison between SSP and fusion. SSP technology
is pretty much already in place, most of it for decades now.
The challenge isn't the technology like with fusion, but the
engineering of a large, complicated and automated system in orbit.
And if a technology advance like laser transmission comes along
SSP costs could dwindle overnight. That could eliminate the need
for mile size solar panels and replace them with small mirrors that
generate laser power directly.


And the immediate energy needs can be addressed far more
simply: breeder reactors, and the Thorium breeder to increase our fuel
supply beyond the supply of Uranium. That will keep civilization going
long enough to do things like space solar power.

That still leaves the third world and rural areas left behind.
SSP travels well due to the fact to collect it on the ground
requires little more than laying sheets of chicken-wire down.

I don't think it's appreciated enough that the ability of SSP
to provide continuous baseload power /anywhere/ on Earth
even rural populations, is every bit the dramatic advance
as AC over DC. SSP is the difference between much of
the world having energy or not.

When only the ...rumor of a possible disruption sends oil prices
reeling, as during Iraq, that's the big clue the market doesn't know
how to quickly replace a disruption in supply. That volatility
is the sign of the onset of the so-called butterfly effect.

The lesson number one of the chaos and complexity sciences
is that when the butterfly effect rears it's head, it means
the system has been stressed far enough from equilibrium
to approach it's own tipping-point.

I don't think enough people appreciate this point that the oil market
can crash just like the stock market. All it takes is enough
....uncertainty about the future of energy to set off a panic.
Just as with the uncertainty in the mortgage industry set
off the stock market crash/panic.

"Nonlinear Science - Chaos Tamed"

"This phenomena is known as... the Butterfly Effect. It arises
because the errors that accumulate from each collision
do not simply add (as linear analyses assume), but increase
exponentially and this geometric progression rapidly diverges
any initial state to one that is unpredictably far from the estimate.
This behavior is responsible for what we call Chaos,...."
"The system is unstable, a small change leads to a massive reaction..."
http://www.calresco.org/nonlin.htm


The abstract 'equation' of panics is simple.

For any complex adaptive system, 'panics', or maximum
system volatility, becomes more likely as the total level
of system ...uncertainty approaches maximum.

Easy as 1,2 3!

Provided one knows how to quantify...uncertainty.
Classical approaches are all about...certainty btw.
My math hobby begins only where your classical
deterministic methods ..end.

Hint; take a good long look at the Mona Lisa. And try
to 'quantify' any of the primary system variables.
For instance, all of her facial features, eyes, mouth etc
are neither happy or sad, as far from defined as possible.
They are all left ...uncertain, at the one place that returns
the least amount of information about the state of
that variable.

This mean the observer, not the object, defines the system.
Each for themselves, allowing any observer
to see what they wish, peaking interest.

Uncertainty is the Great Attractor of the universe.
The source of all visible order whether physical
living or spiritual. And it can't be objectively known.

This is true whether the system...uncertainty is an
elegant balance between happy or sad, as in the
Mona Lisa.

As it is for the uncertainty of a cloud being either opposite
possibility of condensation or evaporation.

As it is for democracy, in the uncertainty whether the opposites
of the rule of law, or freedom determine the system behavior.

As it is Darwin, the uncertainty whether the future is
determined by the opposites of genetics or mutation.

Or an idea, when the opposites of facts and imagination
are intractably entangled, so that one can't tell which
dominates.

As in the duality of light, which is it really?
Well, depends on the observer if it's appears
as a wave or a particle. Now extend that concept
to life, the universe and everything.

When you can't determine...where there is no ability
to quantify...when two equal possibilities always exist.
When only the observer can subjectively decide, then
spontaneous order emerges. Evolution of the physical
living and spiritual universes finds their ultimate impetus
from an elegant cloud of...uncertainty.

For instance, the random disturbance of a large
interstellar cloud of gas and dust. And a solar
system is born. From the random disturbance of
a totally random system...from an elegant cloud
of complete uncertainty.


Jonathan


John Savard



s

Jonathan wrote:


"Quadibloc" wrote
On Oct 31, 3:31 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:

I can't think of any other project that can do as much as
fast as Space Solar Power. Even if it wasn't limited
to the NASA and the space program, I still can't think
of a better solution to that equation given how far and
wide energy effects the planet.

But to make space solar power practical, one would need L-5 colonies.

Space Energy Inc claims they can have a gigawatt class SSP flying
in just five years or so once they have the funding. And once they
show a profit, funding one after another becomes as difficult
as funding a conventional power plant. Floating ten or fifteen
billion dollar bonds are routine in the energy industry.
They happen every week.

http://spaceenergy.com/About/Advisors.htm

That requires an immense investment -

Space Energy says $300 million for a scale demonstrator and
around $17 billion for the first gigawatt class satellite, which
compares to the costs of a single nuclear power plant of
similar output.

If NASA or the government does it all, the cost to the taxpayers
are immense. The idea of SERT was to build only a series of four
demonstrators, each larger, to jump start the commercial use of SSP.
With Space Energy Inc it would seem enough simply for the
government to provide some loan and technology assistance.

not a bad thing, necessarily,
since the result would be to open up the whole Solar System, allowing
such things as a manned landing on Mars to be thrown in as inexpensive
extras.

Space Solar Power would force, or allow, low cost to orbit
to finally become a reality from the large amounts of payloads.
Which would enable all kinds of future dreams.
But more importantly, SSP would build the electrical grid for space.
Allowing far larger and more ambitious satellites and
other space activities including colonies.

The power grid has to come first, before any ambitious space
activities can become reality.


But that means it's a visionary program - comparable to the quest for
fusion power.


There's no comparison between SSP and fusion. SSP technology
is pretty much already in place, most of it for decades now.
The challenge isn't the technology like with fusion, but the
engineering of a large, complicated and automated system in orbit.
And if a technology advance like laser transmission comes along
SSP costs could dwindle overnight. That could eliminate the need
for mile size solar panels and replace them with small mirrors that
generate laser power directly.


And the immediate energy needs can be addressed far more
simply: breeder reactors, and the Thorium breeder to increase our fuel
supply beyond the supply of Uranium. That will keep civilization going
long enough to do things like space solar power.

That still leaves the third world and rural areas left behind.
SSP travels well due to the fact to collect it on the ground
requires little more than laying sheets of chicken-wire down.

I don't think it's appreciated enough that the ability of SSP
to provide continuous baseload power /anywhere/ on Earth
even rural populations, is every bit the dramatic advance
as AC over DC. SSP is the difference between much of
the world having energy or not.

When only the ...rumor of a possible disruption sends oil prices
reeling, as during Iraq, that's the big clue the market doesn't know
how to quickly replace a disruption in supply. That volatility
is the sign of the onset of the so-called butterfly effect.

The lesson number one of the chaos and complexity sciences
is that when the butterfly effect rears it's head, it means
the system has been stressed far enough from equilibrium
to approach it's own tipping-point.

I don't think enough people appreciate this point that the oil market
can crash just like the stock market. All it takes is enough
...uncertainty about the future of energy to set off a panic.
Just as with the uncertainty in the mortgage industry set
off the stock market crash/panic.

"Nonlinear Science - Chaos Tamed"

"This phenomena is known as... the Butterfly Effect. It arises
because the errors that accumulate from each collision
do not simply add (as linear analyses assume), but increase
exponentially and this geometric progression rapidly diverges
any initial state to one that is unpredictably far from the estimate.
This behavior is responsible for what we call Chaos,...."
"The system is unstable, a small change leads to a massive reaction..."
http://www.calresco.org/nonlin.htm


The abstract 'equation' of panics is simple.

For any complex adaptive system, 'panics', or maximum
system volatility, becomes more likely as the total level
of system ...uncertainty approaches maximum.

Easy as 1,2 3!

Provided one knows how to quantify...uncertainty.
Classical approaches are all about...certainty btw.
My math hobby begins only where your classical
deterministic methods ..end.

Hint; take a good long look at the Mona Lisa. And try
to 'quantify' any of the primary system variables.
For instance, all of her facial features, eyes, mouth etc
are neither happy or sad, as far from defined as possible.
They are all left ...uncertain, at the one place that returns
the least amount of information about the state of
that variable.

This mean the observer, not the object, defines the system.
Each for themselves, allowing any observer
to see what they wish, peaking interest.

Uncertainty is the Great Attractor of the universe.
The source of all visible order whether physical
living or spiritual. And it can't be objectively known.

This is true whether the system...uncertainty is an
elegant balance between happy or sad, as in the
Mona Lisa.

As it is for the uncertainty of a cloud being either opposite
possibility of condensation or evaporation.

As it is for democracy, in the uncertainty whether the opposites
of the rule of law, or freedom determine the system behavior.

As it is Darwin, the uncertainty whether the future is
determined by the opposites of genetics or mutation.

Or an idea, when the opposites of facts and imagination
are intractably entangled, so that one can't tell which
dominates.

As in the duality of light, which is it really?
Well, depends on the observer if it's appears
as a wave or a particle. Now extend that concept
to life, the universe and everything.

When you can't determine...where there is no ability
to quantify...when two equal possibilities always exist.
When only the observer can subjectively decide, then
spontaneous order emerges. Evolution of the physical
living and spiritual universes finds their ultimate impetus
from an elegant cloud of...uncertainty.

For instance, the random disturbance of a large
interstellar cloud of gas and dust. And a solar
system is born. From the random disturbance of
a totally random system...from an elegant cloud
of complete uncertainty.

I've been talking a lot lately about George Friedman's *The Next One
Hundred Years*. He thinks that space power will be our ultimate source,
and that the (US) military will provide the push toward developing it.
He sees it being critical in a Third World War around 2050 - though
plainly that's pretty speculative.

Dennis

"Dennis" wrote in message
. 4.11...


I've been talking a lot lately about George Friedman's *The Next One
Hundred Years*. He thinks that space power will be our ultimate source,
and that the (US) military will provide the push toward developing it.


A few years ago the Pentagon took another look at space solar power.

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


He sees it being critical in a Third World War around 2050 - though
plainly that's pretty speculative.

I think the only thing certain about the future of energy
is fossil fuels will steadily become more expensive and
less abundant. While Space Solar Power could reverse
that trend, and create a clean energy source that only gets
cheaper and more abundant over time.




Dennis

On Nov 2, 4:51*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Dennis" wrote in message

. 4.11...



I've been talking a lot lately about George Friedman's *The Next One
Hundred Years*. *He thinks that space power will be our ultimate source,
and that the (US) military will provide the push toward developing it.

A few years ago the Pentagon took another look at space solar power.

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

He sees it being critical in a Third World War around 2050 - though
plainly that's pretty speculative.

I think the only thing certain about the future of energy
is fossil fuels will steadily become more expensive and
less abundant. While Space Solar Power could reverse
that trend, and create a clean energy source that only gets
cheaper and more abundant over time.

SSP could have been started as of 4 decades ago, obviously upgraded
and enlarged or expanded to suit over time, whereas by now multiple
sustainable terawatts could have been established. Also, terrestrial
based solar farmed energy made into LH2, LOx, high quality synfuels
from coal and my HTP(h2o2), could have been fully established as of a
decade ago, with an all-inclusive clean and sustainable energy value
of 10+ TW, making America into an energy surplus and energy related
product exporter.

William Mook thinks he knows why this hasn't happened, and for much of
whatever reasons that Mook has interpreted, isn't too far from the
truth.

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

On 02/11/2011 23:51, Jonathan wrote:
wrote in message
. 4.11...


I've been talking a lot lately about George Friedman's *The Next One
Hundred Years*. He thinks that space power will be our ultimate source,
and that the (US) military will provide the push toward developing it.


A few years ago the Pentagon took another look at space solar power.

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


He sees it being critical in a Third World War around 2050 - though
plainly that's pretty speculative.

I think the only thing certain about the future of energy
is fossil fuels will steadily become more expensive and
less abundant. While Space Solar Power could reverse
that trend, and create a clean energy source that only gets
cheaper and more abundant over time.




Dennis


Forget Space Solar Power. It is too complex so it will always be too
expensive.
Go for Desert Solar Power. We have lots of desert.

Andrew Swallow

On Nov 2, 5:51*pm, Andrew Swallow wrote:
On 02/11/2011 23:51, Jonathan wrote:









*wrote in message
.4.11...

I've been talking a lot lately about George Friedman's *The Next One
Hundred Years*. *He thinks that space power will be our ultimate source,
and that the (US) military will provide the push toward developing it.

A few years ago the Pentagon took another look at space solar power.

Space-Based Solar Power
As an Opportunity
for Strategic Security
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/li...terim-assessme...

He sees it being critical in a Third World War around 2050 - though
plainly that's pretty speculative.

I think the only thing certain about the future of energy
is fossil fuels will steadily become more expensive and
less abundant. While Space Solar Power could reverse
that trend, and create a clean energy source that only gets
cheaper and more abundant over time.

Dennis

Forget Space Solar Power. *It is too complex so it will always be too
expensive.
Go for Desert Solar Power. *We have lots of desert.

Andrew Swallow

We should do both.

Since SSP returns more value than it takes to establish, it doesn't
matter how much its complexity is going to cost.

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

ET Derived Heavy Lift Reusable Launch Vehicle
http://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

ET Derived Heavy Lift Reusable Launch Vehicle
http://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

Inflatable concentrator powering Infrared Laser
http://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/S...-Satellite-GEO

Ballistic Transport
http://www.scribd.com/doc/54316434/Ballistic-Transport

Ballistic Transport
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33_-teBjZ4w

Sea Dragon Derived Heavy Lift Launcher
http://www.scribd.com/doc/45631474/S...rived-Launcher

The United States consumes 98.74e18 Joules of energy. This is
equivalent to 2.2 metric tons of hydrogen per person per year.

This is 3.12 trillion Watts - about 10,000 watts per person.

Each of the smaller Solar Power Satellites intercepts 29.6 GW of solar
power and beams 11.8 GW of continuous power to collectors on Earth.
Those collectors make hydrogen gas which are used to power stationary
power plants and drive hydrogen fueled vehicles.

To meet these needs requires 264 power satellites of this type on GEO
covers 26,400 km - a 100 km separation between the 5.25 km diameter
satellites.

A fleet of five of the ET derived launchers put a satellite per week,
and in five years, enough satellites are up to provide 100% of the
energy needs of the USA.

In fact, the 1.14 billion tons of coal is combined with an additional
95 million tons of hydrogen to make 7.75 billion barrels of liquid
fuels. Since America uses powered roadways and hydrogen for the bulk
of its transportation needs in this scenario, over 7 billion barrels
per year is exported. At $100 per barrel - this is $700 billion per
year. This has a present value of about $24 trillion. This without
charging anything for electricity and hydrogen use at home.

Since the infrastructure costs less than $2 trillion, this has a net
value of $22 trillion even if energy is free in the USA.

This fixes our economy, allows the USA to not spend *anything* on
energy, and sets the stage for a powerful future.

On Nov 3, 6:11*am, William Mook wrote:
ET Derived Heavy Lift Reusable Launch Vehiclehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

ET Derived Heavy Lift Reusable Launch Vehiclehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

Inflatable concentrator powering Infrared Laserhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/Solar-Power-Satellite-GEO

Ballistic Transporthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/54316434/Ballistic-Transport

Ballistic Transporthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33_-teBjZ4w

Sea Dragon Derived Heavy Lift Launcherhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/45631474/Sea-Dragon-Derived-Launcher

The United States consumes 98.74e18 Joules of energy. *This is
equivalent to 2.2 metric tons of hydrogen per person per year.

This is 3.12 trillion Watts - about 10,000 watts per person.

Each of the smaller Solar Power Satellites intercepts 29.6 GW of solar
power and beams 11.8 GW of continuous power to collectors on Earth.
Those collectors make hydrogen gas which are used to power stationary
power plants and drive hydrogen fueled vehicles.

To meet these needs requires 264 power satellites of this type on GEO
covers 26,400 km - a 100 km separation between the 5.25 km diameter
satellites.

A fleet of five of the ET derived launchers put a satellite per week,
and in five years, enough satellites are up to provide 100% of the
energy needs of the USA.

In fact, the 1.14 billion tons of coal is combined with an additional
95 million tons of hydrogen to make 7.75 billion barrels of liquid
fuels. *Since America uses powered roadways and hydrogen for the bulk
of its transportation needs in this scenario, over 7 billion barrels
per year is exported. *At $100 per barrel - this is $700 billion per
year. *This has a present value of about $24 trillion. *This without
charging anything for electricity and hydrogen use at home.

Since the infrastructure costs less than $2 trillion, this has a net
value of $22 trillion even if energy is free in the USA.

This fixes our economy, allows the USA to not spend *anything* on
energy, and sets the stage for a powerful future.

terrorists would attack the solar power sats

On Nov 3, 7:50*am, bob haller wrote:
On Nov 3, wrote:









ET Derived Heavy Lift Reusable Launch Vehiclehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/31261680/Etdhlrlv-Addendum

ET Derived Heavy Lift Reusable Launch Vehiclehttp://www.scribd.com/doc/30943696/ETDHLRLV

Inflatable concentrator powering Infrared Laserhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/35439593/Solar-Power-Satellite-GEO

Ballistic Transporthttp://www.scribd.com/doc/54316434/Ballistic-Transport

Ballistic Transporthttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33_-teBjZ4w

Sea Dragon Derived Heavy Lift Launcherhttp://www.scribd.com/doc/45631474/Sea-Dragon-Derived-Launcher

The United States consumes 98.74e18 Joules of energy. *This is
equivalent to 2.2 metric tons of hydrogen per person per year.

This is 3.12 trillion Watts - about 10,000 watts per person.

Each of the smaller Solar Power Satellites intercepts 29.6 GW of solar
power and beams 11.8 GW of continuous power to collectors on Earth.
Those collectors make hydrogen gas which are used to power stationary
power plants and drive hydrogen fueled vehicles.

To meet these needs requires 264 power satellites of this type on GEO
covers 26,400 km - a 100 km separation between the 5.25 km diameter
satellites.

A fleet of five of the ET derived launchers put a satellite per week,
and in five years, enough satellites are up to provide 100% of the
energy needs of the USA.

In fact, the 1.14 billion tons of coal is combined with an additional
95 million tons of hydrogen to make 7.75 billion barrels of liquid
fuels. *Since America uses powered roadways and hydrogen for the bulk
of its transportation needs in this scenario, over 7 billion barrels
per year is exported. *At $100 per barrel - this is $700 billion per
year. *This has a present value of about $24 trillion. *This without
charging anything for electricity and hydrogen use at home.

Since the infrastructure costs less than $2 trillion, this has a net
value of $22 trillion even if energy is free in the USA.

This fixes our economy, allows the USA to not spend *anything* on
energy, and sets the stage for a powerful future.

terrorists would attack the solar power sats

There are no terrorists. Its all a hoax. So, what you suggest would
never happen.

The banks are out of control, destroying our economy
http://rt.com/programs/keiser-report...04-max-keiser/

in advance of destroying us (taking our money before killing us)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o41EPQJ4hgY

And blaming it on some likely suspect
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/...terror-a-hoax/

So, we've first got to wake up from the media induced trance - before
taking real action to fix it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qlr0qf0eTHU

A world consuming 10,000 Watts of power per person and 8.41 billion
people totals 84.1 trillion watts. At 11.86 billion watts per
satellite this is 7,091 satellites. In GEO this allows 38.26 km
between each of the 5.25 km diameter satellites.

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

These satellites support a global system of transport and production
radically increasing living standards

http://www.schillerinstitute.org/economy/maps/maps.html

To bring about this transformation in 20 years requires a five year
development cycle, and 15 years to deploy. This is 472 launches per
year. An ET derived launcher requires a week to be refurbished and
reused after every flight. So, 9 ships, each consisting of 7 flight
elements, a total of 42 flight elements, are required. A grand total
of 50 flight elements are needed in the fleet, to provide spare
capacity, and for testing. At $200 million per element, this is a $10
billion effort. Another $5 billion for improved launch infrastructure
and support.

A similar amount must be invested to expand production rate of
satellites and satellite processing to this same level, along with
creating a global power beaming center.

A grand total of $30 billion to build the supply chain.

Each satellite costs $2.3 billion (including ground station) and
produces 11.86 billion with minimal recurring costs and no fuel costs
or emissions.

Total cost for the global power grid is $16.3 trillion. Total cost
for the global rail and pipeline and factory farming housing network
to use this much power, $12.0 trillion. $38.3 trillion total.

With a 30 year lifespan and an 8% discount rate this costs each year
$1.62 trillion. The system produces/consumes 737.2 Quadrillionwatt-
hours. The cost (including consuming equipment) is 0.22 cents per
kWh!

With energy and materials and tooling 4.5 billion people working full
time creating $200,000 per year the world domestic product is $900
trillion per year.

Where to start?

There are 406 coal fired power plants that have outputs of greater
than 1,000 MW. Their total capacity is 861.2 billion watts. To
replace all of these requires 73 satellites, and avoids 11.4 billion
tons of CO2 per year.

Sold at $0.06 per kWh ... gotta go, more later.