...IT'S ALIVE....PENTAGON to Study Space Solar Power Program.

SSP Rises from the dead!
Incredible! Just incredible!

And the calvary rides in to save the day
....just in the nick of time.

l just love this country.



Pentagon Considering Study on Space-Based Solar Power
Thursday, April 12, 2007

By Jeremy Singer

The Pentagon's National Security Space Office (NSSO) may begin a study in
the near future on the possibility of using satellites to collect solar
energy for use on Earth, according to Defense Department officials.

The officials said the study does not mean that the military plans to
demonstrate or deploy a space-based solar power constellation. However, as
the Pentagon looks at a variety of alternative energy sources, this could be
one possible method of supplying energy to troops in bases or on the
battlefield, they said.

The military's work in this area also could aid development of a system that
could provide energy to non-military users as well, according to Lt. Col.
Michael Hornitschek, chief of rated force policy on the Air Force staff at
the Pentagon.

Hornitschek, who has been exploring the concept of space-based solar power
in his spare time, recently briefed the NSSO on the concept of space-based
solar power, and stimulated interest in conducting a formal study, according
to Lt. Col. M.V. "Coyote" Smith, chief of future concepts at the NSSO. The
NSSO would need to find the financial resources and available manpower to
conduct the study, Smith said.


John Mankins, president of the Space Solar Power Association in Washington,
said space-based solar power could offer a massive improvement over
terrestrial solar collection devices because constant exposure to the sun
avoids the nighttime periods where terrestrial systems cannot collect solar
energy.

The ability to constantly gather solar energy would allow a space-based
system to avoid safety concerns to other satellites or people on the ground
by constantly transmitting energy to Earth at a level that is high enough to
be useful but low enough so as not to cause any damage, said Mankins, a
former NASA official who previously served as manager of advanced concept
studies at NASA headquarters before leaving the agency in 2005.

Jeff Kueter, president of the Marshall Institute, a Washington think tank,
said it is too early to determine if space-based solar power is viable, but
said that if the concept is successful, it could be a potential "game
changer" for energy use.

The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet the desires
both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign energy sources,
as well as liberals who are looking for an environmentally friendly source
of energy, Kueter said.

While space-based solar power may sound like a high-risk proposal, it is
worth investing several million dollars in the near term to study the
concept because of the potential high payoff, Kueter said. If the studies
indicated that the concept might be feasible, it would be worthwhile for the
Pentagon to conduct flight demonstrations to prove out the technology in
space, he said.

If the Pentagon chose to pursue flight demonstrations or deployment of a
space-based solar power system, it could share costs by partnering with
NASA, the Department of Energy and other government agencies, Kueter said.

The concept of space-based solar power might appear to threaten traditional
energy industries, Kueter said. However, the rapidly increasing demands for
energy and diminishing supply of natural resources means that traditional
energy companies may need to find new ways of doing business in the future,
and they could likely find a way to be a part of the space-based solar power
effort through ways like contributing expertise in areas like energy
distribution, he said.

The NSSO would likely ask experts from industries like electrical power to
be involved in the study if it chooses to conduct it to draw on their
experience with power distribution, Smith said.

If the NSSO initiates the study on space-based solar power, it would likely
be the first time that the Pentagon has looked at the concept, Hornitschek
said.

Smith said he hoped the study could create a repository of information about
space-based solar power that may have been conducted by other agencies, as
well as any that may have existed within the military.

Hornitschek said it is too early to estimate the likely constellation size,
types of orbits or cost of a space-based solar-power constellation. However,
the satellites would likely feature very large, powerful solar arrays. In
addition, the cost of launching a constellation of such large satellites
with the types of launch vehicles available today would be a challenge,
Hornitschek said.

Mankins said a large constellation could demonstrate a significant launch
opportunity to industry, and could provide the stimulus needed for industry
to bring reusable launch concepts to fruition.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265380,00.html


Copyright © 2007 Imaginova Corp. All Rights Reserved. This material may not
be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Of course, it'll be the military that ends up building
the space infrastructure needed to save the future.
It just dawned on me, the ideal solution is always
found in the union of opposite extremes.

So I decided to google the system specific opposite
extremes ..solar powered space weapons...and up
came this article.

Up came the path to our future salvation.


"...but said that if the concept is successful, it could be a
potential "game changer" for energy use."

I TOLD YOU!

"Hornitschek, who has been exploring the concept of space-based
solar power in his spare time, recently briefed the NSSO on the
concept of space-based solar power, and stimulated interest in
conducting a formal study"

I TOLD YOU!...to have faith in the better idea, with the internet
today it'll 'find a way' to get around.


"The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet the
desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign
energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking for an environmentally
friendly source of energy, Kueter said."


I TOLD YOU! ...it's a better idea due to the universal support
this idea should generate.


"Mankins said a large constellation could demonstrate a significant
launch opportunity to industry, and could provide the stimulus needed
for industry to bring reusable launch concepts to fruition."


I'm not saying it again, but oh hell...I TOLD YOU THIS TOO g



....that SSP is the path to the best possible future.



s

On Apr 29, 6:55 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
Of course, it'll be the military that ends up building
the space infrastructure needed to save the future.
It just dawned on me, the ideal solution is always
found in the union of opposite extremes.

So I decided to google the system specific opposite
extremes ..solar powered space weapons...and up
came this article.

Up came the path to our future salvation.

"...but said that if the concept is successful, it could be a
potential "game changer" for energy use."

I TOLD YOU!

"Hornitschek, who has been exploring the concept of space-based
solar power in his spare time, recently briefed the NSSO on the
concept of space-based solar power, and stimulated interest in
conducting a formal study"

I TOLD YOU!...to have faith in the better idea, with the internet
today it'll 'find a way' to get around.

"The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet the
desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign
energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking for an environmentally
friendly source of energy, Kueter said."

I TOLD YOU! ...it's a better idea due to the universal support
this idea should generate.

"Mankins said a large constellation could demonstrate a significant
launch opportunity to industry, and could provide the stimulus needed
for industry to bring reusable launch concepts to fruition."

I'm not saying it again, but oh hell...I TOLD YOU THIS TOO g

...that SSP is the path to the best possible future.

s

I laughed over this one:

""The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet
the
desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign
energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking for an
environmentally
friendly source of energy, Kueter said."

Hah! As if there were no liberals seeking greater energy
independence, and no conservatives interested in more environmentally
friendly sources of energy.

As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
Since SPS is probably uninteresting (and somewhat overkill) if used
solely for improving military logistics responsiveness, any such
system would probably find interesting civilian uses in applications
where the needs are similar: where you'd like to quickly lay down some
infrastructure that requires electricity. Little as some people might
like it, prospecting for, and extracting, fossil fuels in remote areas
might be one of thos application areas -- companies using SPS instead
of burning fossil fuels for these activities might even be eligible
for carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol. Perhaps even certain
marine applications are possible, if you can put rectennas on pontoons
(or could rectennas even be slightly below the ocean surface, if the
microwave frequencies are right?)

-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com

In article .com,
Michael Turner wrote:

As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.

Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
their natural resources, and have a lot more economic pressure we can
apply when necessary, at least to countries that import our energy.
That's a much stabler and stronger situation than we're in now, even
though this sort of strength isn't military in nature.

A good long-term plan would be to produce (and somehow monopolize on)
these SPS farms, and get the rest of the world addicted to our cheap
energy streaming down from space. Maybe we can even give away the first
hit free...

Cheers,
- Joe

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:08:53 -0600, 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 .com,
Michael Turner wrote:

As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.

Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
their natural resources,

Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:08:53 -0600, 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 .com,
Michael Turner wrote:

As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
their natural resources,

Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.

Don't worry, Rand, the redneck hillbillies and Christian evangelical
fundamentalists are still on your side, so you're still good to go.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html

"Michael Turner" wrote in message
oups.com...

I laughed over this one:

""The concept could find broad bipartisan support as it could meet
the
desires both of conservatives seeking to end dependence on foreign
energy sources, as well as liberals who are looking for an
environmentally
friendly source of energy, Kueter said."




Hah! As if there were no liberals seeking greater energy
independence, and no conservatives interested in more environmentally
friendly sources of energy.


So ...both sides of the aisle like ...both reasons for studying SSP.
Not just one or the other? That conclusion only strengthens
the reasoning.



As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.
Since SPS is probably uninteresting (and somewhat overkill) if used
solely for improving military logistics responsiveness,


One of the most vulnerable aspects of our society to
terrorists is an electrical grid. Having an independent
source difficult for a terrorist to attack might be
a large advantage.

In this paper they explore that aspect in detail.

The New Viability of Space Solar Power: Global
Mobilization for a Common Human Endeavor

Synopsis

"While space solar power has not been economically
viable in the past, new technologies make this
renewable energy source a promising countermeasure
to terrorist sabotage of U.S. and global energy grids.
This paper will also discuss the potential diplomatic
advantage that investment in space solar power
might have for U.S. relations with countries
in the developing world."
http://www.homeplanetdefense.org/Spa...r%20Power1.pdf




any such
system would probably find interesting civilian uses in applications
where the needs are similar: where you'd like to quickly lay down some
infrastructure that requires electricity.


Like in Iraq? Or in space? It seems any large scale use of space
requires an energy infrastructure. But we have to have a reason to
build that infrastructure. Going to the moon doesn't give
us one. The world energy situation does. Besides
any make-work program like the Vision is hard
to justify suge huge expenditures. SSP isn't make-work
since it has huge potential returns for everybody.

Early commercial aviation needed the US mail to
get things rolling. I think SSP can play that very
same role for space exploitation.

Space exploration is for robots.
Exploitation is for manned missions.

At least, that's the way it should be imo.


Little as some people might
like it, prospecting for, and extracting, fossil fuels in remote areas
might be one of thos application areas -- companies using SPS instead
of burning fossil fuels for these activities might even be eligible
for carbon credits under the Kyoto Protocol. Perhaps even certain
marine applications are possible, if you can put rectennas on pontoons
(or could rectennas even be slightly below the ocean surface, if the
microwave frequencies are right?)


Just extropolate computer technology into the future a bit.
Once we have the constellation of SSP satellites, in
whatever form they may take, it should be conceivable
to power individual cars and such from space. Pay your
bill, or like cable tv now, the car just shuts off~

God only knows what our best and brightest might invent
if given a long term research committment. Like that
hundred billion over twenty years for the moon?
More moon rocks or SSP? In an honest debate
SSP would win going away. It's a concept that
could win the funding, the moon has yet to do
that. I bet the Pentagon could take just a small
portion of NRO slush money and fund the whole
damn SSP program.

I mean, just think of the geopolitical implications
of having the US go from a country slowly being
strangled by the oil cartels that mostly hate us.
And to a US that in a few decades will OWN the
world energy market through SSP.

If the world simply believes we are changing our
future so dramatically, it'll have effects right away
long before any SSP program is up and running.




-michael turner
http://www.transcendentalbloviation.blogspot.com

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:08:53 -0600, 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 .com,
Michael Turner wrote:

As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.

Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
their natural resources,

Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.

I think Iraq was mostly about the world oil market. Keeping people
like Saddam from controlling it, and with it the world economy.
Keeping the world oil market secure and free is a completely
legitimate reason for invading Iraq. So it's about oil, but
not stealing it, keeping it available for everyone.

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 21:09:02 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 10:08:53 -0600, 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 .com,
Michael Turner wrote:

As for the military logistics application, I suppose GPS and the
eventual liberation of the higher-accuracy signals from encryption,
for civilian use, is a small-scale but plausibly-parallel precedent.

Another way to look at the defense implications might be: if we can, as
a country, be a net energy exporter rather than importer, then we
simultaneously have much less need to go invade other countries for
their natural resources,

Regardless of how much you irrationally hate George Bush, we haven't
been invading any countries for their natural resources. We buy them.

I think Iraq was mostly about the world oil market. Keeping people
like Saddam from controlling it, and with it the world economy.
Keeping the world oil market secure and free is a completely
legitimate reason for invading Iraq. So it's about oil, but
not stealing it, keeping it available for everyone.

That was a minor factor, but if it were the only one, we would also
have invaded Venezuela, Iran, Nigera, Saudi Arabia, Norway, the UK,
etc.

Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzt...

Sorry, but you get a fifty-dollar consolation prize.

But not from me.

Rand Simberg wrote:

Sorry, but you get a fifty-dollar consolation prize.

But not from me.

No, but some of your fascist friends :

http://www.samizdata.net/blog/~pdeh/rand_perry.JPG

So, for a consolation prize, we get to look at your ****face.

Now we know who to spit on.

--
Get A Free Orbiter Space Flight Simulator :
http://orbit.medphys.ucl.ac.uk/orbit.html