How many 'excuses' for manned space flight has NASA offered?

US manned space program...

Originally the Soviet menace was the driving
reason for manned flight. Racing them to the
Moon and all that. Not a bad reason at all.

Then it became the Space Station and all those
earth-shattering discoveries from micro-gravity
research. How has that worked out?

Then it was going back to the Moon, and onto Mars
in the search for life elsewhere. But that didn't fly.

Next up was helium-3 on the Moon. That mythical
'unobtanium' which would power and save the future.
And then another reason which didn't pass the
laugh test ...water on the Moon. Making colonies
a cinch they said.

Now, as I type, a NASA talking head on CNN is explaining
how sending ...men to a football field sized ...asteroid will help
us learn how to blow them up with nuclear weapons.
And thus spare humanity from extinction. As one of the 'scientists'
just said, "if you don't think we're in danger, just ask
a dinosaur". The asteroid 'menace'.

How sending men to an asteroid will help blow one up is
beyond me, but as we see, any 'menace' will do.
What's next? Will it involve Elvis?

When will NASA propose a goal that sticks?

Here's one that makes a bit more sense to me....
What do you think?


NASA's Space Solar Power Research Program...SERT
(canceled by President George W Bush in his first budget)

Laying the Foundation for Space Solar Power (SERT)
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

Space Energy Inc
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/Default.htm

Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
(scroll down)
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm

Space Energy Inc Sales Presentation
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation

Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
(National Space Security Office)
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm



Jonathan


s









Jonathan


s

In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

US manned space program...

Originally the Soviet menace was the driving
reason for manned flight. Racing them to the
Moon and all that. Not a bad reason at all.

In the late 1950's, they realized that building a missile platform in
space was A) impractical with liquid fueled rockets, since LF rockets
require constant maintenance/replenishment and B) too provocative--there
is no plausible "defensive" reason to deploy nuclear weapons in
orbit--other than to directly threaten some or all the nations on earth.

With these things in mind, it was believed that the Moon is
"the ultimate high ground" as Jack Kennedy once called it. Atop a
powerful gravity well, the Soviet Union slid by underneath Moon once
every 25 hours. All things considered, the Moon seemed to be a practical
location for a Missile Base, since a colony of men could live there, and
could provide enough personnel to service the rockets round the clock.
The missiles, themselves, could be fairly small, since little fuel would
be needed for the "downhill" approach to earth. A missile base could
also have the cover of being a 'scientific outpost.' The first nation to
the Moon would presumably be the only nation there for quite some time.
You could build a missile base in complete secrecy, since no one else
could observe any of your actions. Perhaps even the threat that you
MIGHT build a missile base would be as effective as actually building
one, as long as you were the first.

The other aspect of the race to the Moon was this: as a super weapon,
the V-2 rocket could easily have forced England to sue for peace, but it
didn't.

The V-1 drone had proved too easy to intercept, of course. Britain had
radar, and its Spitfire pilots developed a practical method of
intercepting and eliminating them before they reached their targets.
However, there was no defense against the V-2. It came in from above the
stratosphere without warning. It even fell on target without a sound.
For Londoners, there couldn't have been a greater weapon of terror,
since the first warning that they were being attacked was the huge
explosion as the warhead detonated. No air raid siren, no chance to head
for shelter, no sound of an approaching bomber. Not even the scream of
bombs being dropped.

The reasons England wasn't forced to sign a peace treaty were
these--First, Germany deployed them too late in the war, and was never
able to produce or deploy enough. Second, the V-2 could not be precisely
targeted. It hit randomly, many times out in the countryside were its
warhead could do no damage. And a certain percentage of the rockets
never made it to Britain--they either exploded on the launch pad, or
fell into the channel when the guidance hardware failed.

Well, in the 1950's, the Soviets and the US were mainly working with V-2
rockets. There's lots of movie footage showing how often these rockets
failed to achieve flight. Just like at Peenemünde, the spectacular
failures on the US launch pads made many wonder if rocket flight would
ever be practical. Placing a nuclear warhead on such an unstable system
seemed worse than fool hardy.

Bombers were still the only practical delivery system, and bombers can
be shot down.

And this was the heart of the "Space Race." The first nation to
demonstrate dependable rocketry would be the first nation to possess the
ultimate terror weapon. The success of Sputnik was just such a
demonstration.

Having Alan Shepard and John Glenn splash down in the ocean where you
WANTED them to splash down was an even more powerful demonstration. It
was plain by the early 1960's that both the Soviets and the US were
getting close to having dependable, accurate rockets. Nuclear warheads
on intercontinental rockets were finally an effective deterrent. By
1969, the US had already perfected the Minute Man III solid fueled
rocket.

Missile bases on the Moon were no longer necessary. Silo-based missiles
in Iowa could hit their target on the other side of the globe within 45
minutes. A missile launched from the Moon is 250,000 from target, and
would take over a day to hit its target. Solid fuel rockets required far
less maintenance.

The idea of a Moon Base was no longer necessary by the time Neil
Armstrong misspoke those immortal words as he stepped off the Eagle's
ladder.

The US was already committed, so it went back to the Moon a few more
times. Astronauts played a few rounds of golf there, and never returned.
The Soviets never even really tried to send men there in the first place.

So, when you say "not a bad reason," I suppose you're correct. But it's
hardly a simple question to answer.

Then it became the Space Station and all those
earth-shattering discoveries from micro-gravity
research. How has that worked out?

You don't know what you'll find until you look.

Then it was going back to the Moon, and onto Mars
in the search for life elsewhere. But that didn't fly.

The reasons for "going back to the Moon" are obvious:

October 16, 2003:

"A Chinese space capsule touched down on an isolated patch of the Gobi
Desert Thursday, Oct. 16, successfully completing China's first manned
space mission and bringing back to Earth a new hero, Lt. Col. Yang
Liwei.

"Shenzhou 5, or Divine Vessel 5, landed at 6:23 a.m. after orbiting the
globe 14 times in a 21-hour mission, making China the third country
after Russia and the United States to send a man into space."

-------

From CNN:

November 29, 2003

China plans to land a human on the moon by 2020, the country's chief
space official said in comments broadcast by state television. "By 2020,
we will achieve visiting the moon," said Luan Enjie, director of the
National Aerospace Bureau. Luan used a verb that specifically describes
a human act.

Luan said that would follow the launch of a probe to orbit the moon by
2007 and an unmanned lunar landing by 2010.

-------

January 15, 2004

"BUSH UNVEILS VISION FOR MOON AND BEYOND

"President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding

"Bush: 'Much remains for us to explore and to learn.'

U.S. President Bush unveils the multi-billion dollar space initiative.
CNN's Miles O'Brien on NASA plans to ask for an incremental budget
increase. President Bush's space proposal includes a permanent presence
on the moon.

"WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saying "the desire to explore and understand is
part of our character," President Bush Wednesday unveiled an ambitious
plan to return Americans to the moon by 2020 and use the mission as a
steppingstone for future manned trips to Mars and beyond."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/01/14/bush.space/


Next up was helium-3 on the Moon. That mythical
'unobtanium' which would power and save the future.
And then another reason which didn't pass the
laugh test ...water on the Moon. Making colonies
a cinch they said.

Colonies on the Moon would never be a cinch, of course.

Now, as I type, a NASA talking head on CNN is explaining
how sending ...men to a football field sized ...asteroid will help
us learn how to blow them up with nuclear weapons.
And thus spare humanity from extinction. As one of the 'scientists'
just said, "if you don't think we're in danger, just ask
a dinosaur". The asteroid 'menace'.

How sending men to an asteroid will help blow one up is
beyond me, but as we see, any 'menace' will do.
What's next? Will it involve Elvis?

No, not Elvis. Bruce Willis and Ben Affleck:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iq6q2BrTino

When will NASA propose a goal that sticks?

Here's one that makes a bit more sense to me....
What do you think?


NASA's Space Solar Power Research Program...SERT
(canceled by President George W Bush in his first budget)

There's problems with this, as well.

But, sooner or later we're gonna become a Type 1 Civilization. Despite
everything.

--
Neolibertarian

"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."

On Nov 24, 4:23*am, "Jonathan" wrote:
US manned space program...

Originally the Soviet menace was the driving
reason for manned flight. Racing them to the
Moon and all that. Not a bad reason at all.


Shrug. Perhaps or not. It was the unmanned
developments in the form of spy sats that did
the heavy lifting of all the space programs.

Any way it looks like the next step is a "prayer based"
mannned space program as USA marches into a Hoover/Norquist/Newt
depression age Amerika.

Top bankers and their families need to be the test subjects
for the suborbital thrill ride systems....................Trig

wrote in message
...
On Nov 25, 5:09 pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Any way it looks like the next step is a "prayer based"
manned space program as USA marches into a Hoover/Norquist/Newt
depression age Amerika.

The current recession is a crying shame for so many reasons
the largest being it didn't have to happen. Only Wall Street's greed
surpassed our government's incompetence. A one-two punch
that set off a world-wide depression.

Top bankers and their families need to be the test subjects
for the suborbital thrill ride systems....................Trig

I think the plan is to fill those rides up with the rich-and-famous
being so pricey.

Naw the Money boys led the way over the edge and the Government
boys followed as they were paid off to remove the post-1930's reforms
over the decades.


Yep, I think we've had our fill of the deregulation mania for now.
Seeing how it's pretty much laid waste to the world economy
like nothing else since WW2.

I don't think we have to wonder when WW3 is gonna happen.
This is it.



It looks like Europe is rolling over the edge............and it will
suck others along. China is slowing. China may run blood red yet so
no China on the moon IMHO.


I think the recession has ended the prospect of another cold war
race to the Moon, this time it would've been with the Chinese
and over missile defense. In any event, the last thing we need
is a massive decades long arms race with the cash-rich Chinese.


The slaves may yet rise if they aren't used for spare parts.

Wall Street knew full well a single massive rescue bill would
set off a panic sell and give them an endless array of
cheap stock prices.

Wall Street is still laughing all the way to the bank as we speak.

The worst part is Wall Street set off this panic by convincing
our idiot government to ...shower them...with our money
with the rescue bill. That's just over the line in so many ways.
It's bad enough to be ripped off, but when we're conned
into...paying them...so they can rip us off, is just well...it's...
just too much to take.

I mean the great crash in Oct 08 came days after the big
rescue bill, and the recent one came two days after the
next rescue bill. WTF! The protesters are right, we need
an ...anti-Wall Street rescue bill.


The thrill ride won't fly enough unless the do something.
a profit .......or
If they could replace the Concord, maybe they'll make
not............................................... Trig

I think that's about right, at best these suborbital rides
will be another Concorde. A niche market for the wealthy.
Hardly a world-changing new technology.

That's what I like about Space Solar Power, it's not in
that tiny market, it's in the $2 trillion dollar a year energy
market. With plenty of niches that need to be filled.
For instance, think like an entrepreneur, SSP can deliver
/baseload/ green power 24 hours a day to any place on Earth
and in days or weeks, not years or decades as in
building a new power plant somewhere.

For instance in post earthquake Japan, an existing SSP
satellite could deliver gigawatt flows to the disaster area
in days or weeks. Or to any place too thinly populated,
distant or rugged, to troops in the field or to power larger
satellites in orbit. Quickly and easily, as it just takes
laying down nothing more than a large chicken-wire
fence to power a grid. On the receiving end, SSP is
dirt cheap. once the satellites are up and running.

I think what's lost in the debate is that SSP is essentially
....wireless..power transmission. Which greatly improves
the ability for the energy to travel to places it can't reach
now. SSP is very analogous to the huge advance of
AC power transmission over DC in that sense. SSP
can deliver baseload power where nothing else can.

SSP doesn't have to compete with conventional sources
as a result, it will have plenty of completely open markets
to fill all by itself.

And I don't see any other market that could potentially
afford the massive costs of space activities, or set off
a new gold rush for space. Energy is the second largest
market on Earth.


Jonathan


s

On Nov 24, 5:23*am, "Jonathan" wrote:

Here's one that makes a bit more sense to me....
What do you think?

NASA's Space Solar Power Research Program...

Nope. Thorium breeders are close enough to fusion as a source of
energy that space solar power is an obvious excuse too, not a
compelling reason.

John Savard

wrote in message
...

Any way it looks like the next step is a "prayer based"
manned space program as USA marches into a Hoover/Norquist/Newt
depression age Amerika.

The current recession is a crying shame for so many reasons
the largest being it didn't have to happen. Only Wall Street's greed
surpassed our government's incompetence. A one-two punch
that set off a world-wide depression.

Top bankers and their families need to be the test subjects
for the suborbital thrill ride systems....................Trig


I think the plan is to fill those rides up with the rich-and-famous
being so pricey.

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...
On Nov 24, 5:23 am, "Jonathan" wrote:

Here's one that makes a bit more sense to me....
What do you think?

NASA's Space Solar Power Research Program...

Nope. Thorium breeders are close enough to fusion as a source of
energy that space solar power is an obvious excuse too,


A good way to tell which of those sources of energy
are closer to becoming practical is to simply compare
cost and time estimates. A highly competent for profit
start-up corporation has published estimates that it'll cost
around $300 million for the first scale SSP demonstrator.
And around $17 billion for the first operational gigawatt
class satellite. And they estimate five to seven years to
complete both. Which compares in /time/ and expense
for building a similar output nuclear power plant.

Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm

Space Energy Inc Sales Presentation
http://www.spaceenergy.com/i/flash/ted_presentation


Now, would you show me the cost estimates for the
first thorium or fusion power plant? Show me the commercial
corporations that are planning on building one?
And the estimates for how long until the first profit-making
plant goes into commercial operation? Is it forty
or fifty years?

I showed you mine, now you show me yours
.....I'm waiting.

Space Solar Power is ALREADY practical.



Jonathan


s




not a
compelling reason.

John Savard

"Neolibertarian" wrote in message
news:306ae$4ece6882$18f556a5$11665@allthenewsgroup s.com...

From CNN:

November 29, 2003

China plans to land a human on the moon by 2020, the country's chief
space official said in comments broadcast by state television. "By 2020,
we will achieve visiting the moon," said Luan Enjie, director of the
National Aerospace Bureau. Luan used a verb that specifically describes
a human act.

Luan said that would follow the launch of a probe to orbit the moon by
2007 and an unmanned lunar landing by 2010.

-------

January 15, 2004

"BUSH UNVEILS VISION FOR MOON AND BEYOND

"President seeks $1 billion more in NASA funding



What was happening is that Bush was starting a brand
new arms race, this time with the Chinese to the Moon
for missile defense. Using the Moon for tracking and
surveillance and so on. Thankfully, President Obama
has nipped that in the bud. The last thing we need
is another decades long and very expensive cold war.

NASA needs a goal that does something for...us
for a change instead of the military industrial simplex.


s

On Nov 25, 5:09*pm, "Jonathan" wrote:
wrote in message

...

Any way it looks like the next step is a "prayer based"
manned space program as USA marches into a Hoover/Norquist/Newt
depression age Amerika.

The current recession is a crying shame for so many reasons
the largest being it didn't have to happen. Only Wall Street's greed
surpassed our government's incompetence. A one-two punch
that set off a world-wide depression.

Top bankers and their families need to be the test subjects
for the suborbital thrill ride systems....................Trig

I think the plan is to fill those rides up with the rich-and-famous
being so pricey.

Naw the Money boys led the way over the edge and the Goverment
boys followed as they were paid off to remove the post-1930's reforms
over the decades.

It looks like Europe is rolling over the edge............and it will
suck others along. China is slowing. China may run blood red yet so
no China on the moon IMHO.

The slaves may yet rise if they aren't used for spare parts.

The thrill ride won't fly enough unless the do something.
If they could replace the Concord, maybe they'll make
a profit .......or
not............................................... Trig

wrote in message
...

And finally the question comes as to how deadly could power
beams be made? I mean rather than seeking the safest mode
of transmission how about the opposite. So have with enemies
or a rebellion in a city or lower tech nation, just target and toast.
Popping all the popcorn at once so to speak? Is that practical?
Never again until next time so to speak.

a geometric solid has more than one angle....................Trig

The Pentagon wrote this paper on SSP publicly for the
express reason to show it couldn't be weaponized and
the overall effect should be to reduce the prospects of
future wars over oil and such.


Space-Based Solar Power As an Opportunity for Strategic Security
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/nsso.htm


And this start-up private company claims the most intense
part of the microwave beam is less than natural sunlight.
And they claim you can safely grow crops directly under
the receiving rectenna on the ground. Birds and planes
can safely fly through the beam also.

Space Energy Inc Technical Consultants
http://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm