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

In article ,
"Jonathan" wrote:

"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.

You misunderstood, prolly because you can't read.

This is Usenet, after all.

--
Neolibertarian

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

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news

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



And all this has been known since 1976. Still no SPS.


Price of gas in 1976 was about 60 cents a gallon.
Price of jet fuel is four times higher today than in 2000.

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Jonathan" wrote:


"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
news

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


And all this has been known since 1976. Still no SPS.


Price of gas in 1976 was about 60 cents a gallon.
Price of jet fuel is four times higher today than in 2000.


And that's relevant how?


I'm sorry, but that's just a completely idiotic reply.

Are you going to sit there and claim the price of
fossil fuels has nothing to do with the economic
viability of other competing energy sources?

It's really important to think before you speak.
Else others might think you don't know how.




a

"Quadibloc" wrote in message
...

Thus, it's close to fusion
("burning the rocks" versus the deuterium in the world's oceans) in
its potential as a *long-term* energy source, if not a renewable one.

Even if thorium pans out, it's still just an incremental improvement
in nuclear power, a very dirty improvement. There isn't
really much of a shortage of fissile material. And since Japan
the future of nuclear power has taken a huge step backwards.

There's only one green source of energy that can provide continuous
24/7 baseload power to every point on Earth. No matter how
thinly populated, distant, rugged or far from the equator.

As a result SSP doesn't have to compete, it has all kinds of
market niches all too itself. Especially in the impoverished
third world. When will those distant places ever get
their nuclear or fusion power plants?

And if you watch this sales presentation, you'll see SSP already
is competitive with building a new nuclear power plant.

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

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




John Savard

On Nov 25, 2:21*am, "Jonathan" wrote:
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

One of the objections I have to SP is that it offers another
target of attack on a nation. An attack that could be both
crippling and deniable depending on security measures.

A lower tech approach would be better designed houses.
Super insulation with active ventilation plus a measure
of on the roof solar cells which is closer for servicing
than a high stationary orbit. For cold weather natural gas
or propane for cooking and drying would lower electricity loads.
And with a bit of designing and manufacturing frigs
can have non-electric compressors to circulate the
chlorofluorocarbons or whatever they using at the time.

I'll grant natural gas has larger downsides the the gas
folks will admit.

I am not rejecting the SSP I am just not sure of it.

Your point of about to directing power to isolated region
of global might offer all manner of new ways of
exploitation of resources. Like enough electric power
to strip mine the ocean floor or perhaps enough power
to melt a glacier or ice sheet section for fresh water.
If multiple directions are possible this would really
expand the possibilities. And if it make power cheap enough
the heat from this source could be used to extract and
extend such hydrocarbon source as oil shale and tar sands.
Also possible enabling extract from now less concentrated
shale and sands thus enlarging the resource as well.

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

On Nov 27, 12:04*pm, Fred J. McCall wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:

Nope. Thorium breeders are close enough to fusion as a source of
energy ...

What? *That statement makes absolutely zero sense.

I'm sorry, I should have expanded. Thorium supplies are somewhat
larger than Uranium supplies, even just counting the most obvious
mineral reserves. However, Thorium is also found in dilute but usable
quantities in common forms of rock. Thus, it's close to fusion
("burning the rocks" versus the deuterium in the world's oceans) in
its potential as a *long-term* energy source, if not a renewable one.

John Savard

::: Nope. Thorium breeders are close enough to fusion as a source of
::: energy ...

:: What? That statement makes absolutely zero sense.

: Quadibloc
: I'm sorry, I should have expanded. Thorium supplies are somewhat
: larger than Uranium supplies, even just counting the most obvious
: mineral reserves. However, Thorium is also found in dilute but usable
: quantities in common forms of rock. Thus, it's close to fusion
: ("burning the rocks" versus the deuterium in the world's oceans) in
: its potential as a *long-term* energy source, if not a renewable one.

By those criteria, uranium breeders and seawater are also "close enough to
fusion", and you even extract it from seawater so the analogy is better.
Plus, the technology is slightly more masture, both in terms of the
nucleonics, and the practical extraction of the fissionables (and/or
protofissionables). Of course, as a technology, fission of *any*thing
is *vastly* more mature than fusion of anything for power production.

So all in all, at any reasonable level of abstraction, might just as well
have just come out and said "fission is a cromulent source of energy"
(or some veriation on that theme). Mentioning breeders and speculative
technology like fusion is somewhat irrelevant.

wrote in message
...


Plus the array panels would be really large. A large target I think
for
both the universe and man.

The idea is to put them in geostationary orbit. But there's
speculation that soon a huge advance will come along and
dramatically improve the system. In NASA's last small scale
study, they theorized that instead of mile-sized solar panels
collecting the sunlight and converting it to microwaves.
The sunlight could be collected by far smaller mirrors which
would convert it directly in a laser beam. The mirrors
would be in geostationary orbit, and they would use
the lasers to transfer the power to small low orbit satellites
which would then microwave it down in the conventional way.

They even speculated that the receiving rectenna could be as small
as 3 square meters. About the size of a ...car. And if you
simply extrapolate how fast all things computerized and
electronic are advancing it's not hard to envision a future
where cars and all kinds of consumer products are powered
directly from space.

Space Solar Power is essentially...wireless...power transmission.
Electricity falling from the sky like cable TV.

How many safe beams add up to a city popping zapper?

The military has decided to keep the laser weapons on the
ground and then use a constellation of orbiting mirrors to
hit various places on the ground. Like with this place...

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

The Chinese asat shoot down showed anything in orbit
is vulnerable to a first strike. So the important and
expensive stuff stays on the ground.


s

On Nov 26, 4:55*am, "Jonathan" wrote:
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 Securityhttp://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 Consultantshttp://www.spaceenergy.com/s/TechnicalAdvisors.htm

Perhaps they can be designed so they wouldn't be weaponized.
Once they are up at least with current tech altering and weapons
would seem difficult.

It seems to me space power plants require geostationary orbits.
I certainly would not want a low earth orbit. Look at the ISS when
it goes over during the night, if it were a power station it might
provide power a couple minutes a night.

Indeed, a space based power station my need to weaponized with
an energy beam of some sort just to protect itself. To zap an
incoming explosive bolt fragment or some tiny piece of creation's
leftovers.

And as I understand it and this is one of the big ones as objections
go, what sort of launch cost to high orbit or even low orbit need to
be?
100 dollars per kilogram? What are those numbers now, 2 or 20 thousand
dollars per kg?

Then the issue is replacement time. How long do the chips last up
there
in the harsh light of space perhaps 10 years?, 7 years?, 15 years?

Plus the array panels would be really large. A large target I think
for
both the universe and man.

How many safe beams add up to a city popping zapper? Even if it
didn't kill it could drive the population away or indoors. Say Syria
had 5 SSP so it stops taking power for industry and
then uses the power to immobilize a city until the troops are
in place for a purge. Or someone hacks the 30 SPP of the
Greater North American Confederate States to zap the great city of New
Amsterdam or the complaining city of Montreal.

a constelation of low earth orbiting solar power plants could cover
the entire planet as they go round and round.

lets say solar plants replace coal and other fossil fuels for electric
power, and coal to gasoline plants are built..

just the announcement would drive down the price of oil