A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old September 29th 09, 06:49 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
somefools
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!

Sylvia Else wrote in
:

somefools wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote in
:

jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:
Who on the planet would not
benefit from reversing the current energy trend, and creating a
trend of ever more abundant, cleaner and cheaper energy over
time?
I'm afraid I can't agree about the space solar power concept. I
just can't see how the economics pan out compared with surface
based solar power.
The economics are irrelevant, it's the trend reversal that matters.

Those are two different things. Compare the economics with a
world of fifteen billion people which is almost /entirely
industrialized/. The current solution they are moving to is coal,
not solar btw. Those are two very ominous trends. Combine that
with the realization that the current estimates of oil reserves are
highly inflated. Due to OPEC basing annual quotas on estimated
reserves, the more a country /claims/ to have in the ground, the
more they can pump. There is roughly half the oil left than is
currently estimated.

The recent spike in oil from $40 to $160 is a non-linear response
characteristic of a stressed or thin system. Where a minor
disruption on the in put side, creates a massive response on the
output. This is the sign of a system wide breaking or tipping
point. We are ALREADY AT THE TIPPING POINT for fossil fuels
and few seem to appreciate it.

A small disturbance, at a tipping or critical point, say the
impending sanctions on Iran, can cascade into a massive panic
situation overnight. A panic situation so well displayed by the
recent stock market crash. The mathematics of such panics are my
hobby as they form the basis of my trading strategy.

And the oil CRASH will happen as quickly as the stock market crash,
overnight. We can recover from the stock market crash, since it was
essentially a hoarding of cash.where people sold everything and
waited it out.

But when the oil crash hits, that will be something entirely
different as the sudden overnight hoarding of oil will bring down
the industrialized world...overnight. How about a generation
returned against their will to a pre- industrial state? The world
wide collapse of our cities. It's going to happen overnight someday
soon unless a new source of energy, even an expensive one, even a
pipe-dream enters the market with the p r o m i s e ....of .... e
n d l e s s g r o w t h.

It is that PERCEPTION of a new endless source that will prevent
The Next Great Crash. Panics are not started by FACTS, they are
started by FEARS amidst a thin or critically behaving system.

We need that promising new source and we need it soon.

The decision itself, the commitment alone is enough to
avert a panic situation, as markets based their decisions
on what will be, not what is. They anticipate.

The world needs to believe our energy future is bright.
They need to be convinced by a dedicating ourselves
to that goal. That perception is needed, and soon.

The oil crash can be averted without building single
solar powered satellite. The economics, the details
don't matter right now.

We need a new direction. What solutions are finally settled
on down the road will take care of themselves, it' the...
NEW TREND which has the ability to change the world.

Combine at that with the simple fact NASA itself needs a
new direction, a new reason for being. I mean, the world
is there for the saving.

It's right there waiting to be saved.
I fear I'm not succeeding in making my point properly. Nothing new
there.

If a point is reached, or has been reached, at which the use of
fossil fuels, or the increased use thereof, is not acceptable
because of the effects on the evironment, and/or climate, then an
alternative needs to be found.

But that doesn't mean that because space based solar power is an
alternative, that it's what must be used.

Land based solar power is also an alternative. Fusion power is also
possibly an alternative, but it's twenty five years away, and always
has been.

But of the acceptable alternatives, you want to use the cheapest. To
do otherwise involves throwing money away. I don't see how space
based solar power can be cheaper than land based solar power, even
after you've address the particular issues that the latter has.


No clouds. No night. No degradation/corrosion. No atmospheric losses.
No overheating of the cells.


Why no overheating?


Because it's very cold in the shadows.

There are many advantages to space based solar power.

The only disadvantage is launch costs. The space elevator concept
could solve that for us by making geosynchronous orbit a (long)
elevator ride away.


The only disadvantage? Other than bringing the down on cables
supported by the space elevator (which requires materials of strengths
we don't possess), you'd need some sort of power beaming technology


We have both, and not just in the lab. There have been demonstrations of
the needed tech and improvements are made every year.

What of the scope for a nation threatening to beam its power at an
adversory rather than at the ground stations intended to receive the
power? What about that happening by accident?

What happens to birds that fly through the beams?


The micro wave beams could be made so dispersed as to be harmless to
birds or in the extremely unlikely event the array could be re-purposed
somehow (ala Dr Evil).

But the most important thing to recognize is that "costs" are a funny
game. Depending on where you draw you system boundaries, the "costs"
of not doing space based solar power may far outstrip the
competition.

How do you account for the cost of the two Iraq wars, for instance?
Those were a cost-of-doing-business expense in order to maintain our
oil addiction. A cost that could have been avoided, if it were not
for our addiction to dinosaur juice.


The dicussion here is not about whether we should stick to fossil
fuels. It's about whether ground based solar is cheaper than space
based, even after the issues with it are addressed.


Cheaper is in the eye of the beholder... that was my point.

Or how do you put a dollar value on the loss of habitat and species?


Ground based solar isn't going to cause that.


It already has. Just getting the permits to let cooling water evaporate
is a big deal, let alone the vast amount land that will be covered by
mirrors... permanently changing the micro climate of the area under
them.

What about the costs of human disease cased by pollution?

If all these things were taken into account some how, fossil fuels
would likely rank lower on the cost effective scale, as would nuclear
once the cost of containment over a 100 thousand years is factored
into it.


It doesn't cost much in the scheme of things to contain fuel for 100
thousand years. Look up discounted cash flow and net present value.


In the grand scheme of things we are all going to be extinct...


  #52  
Old September 29th 09, 03:50 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!

somefools wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote in
:

somefools wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote in
:

jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:
Who on the planet would not
benefit from reversing the current energy trend, and creating a
trend of ever more abundant, cleaner and cheaper energy over
time?
I'm afraid I can't agree about the space solar power concept. I
just can't see how the economics pan out compared with surface
based solar power.
The economics are irrelevant, it's the trend reversal that matters.

Those are two different things. Compare the economics with a
world of fifteen billion people which is almost /entirely
industrialized/. The current solution they are moving to is coal,
not solar btw. Those are two very ominous trends. Combine that
with the realization that the current estimates of oil reserves are
highly inflated. Due to OPEC basing annual quotas on estimated
reserves, the more a country /claims/ to have in the ground, the
more they can pump. There is roughly half the oil left than is
currently estimated.

The recent spike in oil from $40 to $160 is a non-linear response
characteristic of a stressed or thin system. Where a minor
disruption on the in put side, creates a massive response on the
output. This is the sign of a system wide breaking or tipping
point. We are ALREADY AT THE TIPPING POINT for fossil fuels
and few seem to appreciate it.

A small disturbance, at a tipping or critical point, say the
impending sanctions on Iran, can cascade into a massive panic
situation overnight. A panic situation so well displayed by the
recent stock market crash. The mathematics of such panics are my
hobby as they form the basis of my trading strategy.

And the oil CRASH will happen as quickly as the stock market crash,
overnight. We can recover from the stock market crash, since it was
essentially a hoarding of cash.where people sold everything and
waited it out.

But when the oil crash hits, that will be something entirely
different as the sudden overnight hoarding of oil will bring down
the industrialized world...overnight. How about a generation
returned against their will to a pre- industrial state? The world
wide collapse of our cities. It's going to happen overnight someday
soon unless a new source of energy, even an expensive one, even a
pipe-dream enters the market with the p r o m i s e ....of .... e
n d l e s s g r o w t h.

It is that PERCEPTION of a new endless source that will prevent
The Next Great Crash. Panics are not started by FACTS, they are
started by FEARS amidst a thin or critically behaving system.

We need that promising new source and we need it soon.

The decision itself, the commitment alone is enough to
avert a panic situation, as markets based their decisions
on what will be, not what is. They anticipate.

The world needs to believe our energy future is bright.
They need to be convinced by a dedicating ourselves
to that goal. That perception is needed, and soon.

The oil crash can be averted without building single
solar powered satellite. The economics, the details
don't matter right now.

We need a new direction. What solutions are finally settled
on down the road will take care of themselves, it' the...
NEW TREND which has the ability to change the world.

Combine at that with the simple fact NASA itself needs a
new direction, a new reason for being. I mean, the world
is there for the saving.

It's right there waiting to be saved.
I fear I'm not succeeding in making my point properly. Nothing new
there.

If a point is reached, or has been reached, at which the use of
fossil fuels, or the increased use thereof, is not acceptable
because of the effects on the evironment, and/or climate, then an
alternative needs to be found.

But that doesn't mean that because space based solar power is an
alternative, that it's what must be used.

Land based solar power is also an alternative. Fusion power is also
possibly an alternative, but it's twenty five years away, and always
has been.

But of the acceptable alternatives, you want to use the cheapest. To
do otherwise involves throwing money away. I don't see how space
based solar power can be cheaper than land based solar power, even
after you've address the particular issues that the latter has.
No clouds. No night. No degradation/corrosion. No atmospheric losses.
No overheating of the cells.

Why no overheating?


Because it's very cold in the shadows.

There are many advantages to space based solar power.

The only disadvantage is launch costs. The space elevator concept
could solve that for us by making geosynchronous orbit a (long)
elevator ride away.

The only disadvantage? Other than bringing the down on cables
supported by the space elevator (which requires materials of strengths
we don't possess), you'd need some sort of power beaming technology


We have both, and not just in the lab. There have been demonstrations of
the needed tech and improvements are made every year.

What of the scope for a nation threatening to beam its power at an
adversory rather than at the ground stations intended to receive the
power? What about that happening by accident?

What happens to birds that fly through the beams?


The micro wave beams could be made so dispersed as to be harmless to
birds or in the extremely unlikely event the array could be re-purposed
somehow (ala Dr Evil).


That means the receiver stations are bigger, and no doubt more expensive.

Why is it unlikely the array could be repositioned? Arrays would need
positioning anyway just to keep then on station. I'm not suggesting
criminal takeovers AKA James Bond, but governments using them as weapons
of war or cooercion.


But the most important thing to recognize is that "costs" are a funny
game. Depending on where you draw you system boundaries, the "costs"
of not doing space based solar power may far outstrip the
competition.

How do you account for the cost of the two Iraq wars, for instance?
Those were a cost-of-doing-business expense in order to maintain our
oil addiction. A cost that could have been avoided, if it were not
for our addiction to dinosaur juice.

The dicussion here is not about whether we should stick to fossil
fuels. It's about whether ground based solar is cheaper than space
based, even after the issues with it are addressed.


Cheaper is in the eye of the beholder... that was my point.


Not very well made, IMHO.

Or how do you put a dollar value on the loss of habitat and species?

Ground based solar isn't going to cause that.


It already has. Just getting the permits to let cooling water evaporate
is a big deal, let alone the vast amount land that will be covered by
mirrors... permanently changing the micro climate of the area under
them.

What about the costs of human disease cased by pollution?

If all these things were taken into account some how, fossil fuels
would likely rank lower on the cost effective scale, as would nuclear
once the cost of containment over a 100 thousand years is factored
into it.

It doesn't cost much in the scheme of things to contain fuel for 100
thousand years. Look up discounted cash flow and net present value.


In the grand scheme of things we are all going to be extinct...


What has that to do with it?

Sylvia.
  #53  
Old September 29th 09, 04:02 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Sylvia Else
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,063
Default NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!

jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:


I fear I'm not succeeding in making my point properly. Nothing new there.



I understand your point of view. It's a bit like a debate between
the single "Big Fix" vs. a wide diversity of smaller fixes. And I
agree that your preference is far more practical and market friendly.
But those kinds of solutions will take care of themselves
in the normal course of a free market. So I don't see it as
an either an .Either/Or situation. I assume your view will happen.

The question is, will that be enough?


I can't see why not. The incident radiation in sunlight at mid-day is
about 1kW per square metre at the equator. A square kilometer gives you
a GW. Say 10% efficiency, and you need 10 square kilometres per GW. It's
not really very much. But collecting the power from such areas is
expensive. But it would be expensive in space as well.

What we really need is low cost to orbit, so we have the possibility
of using space as a solution to any future problems. So any NASA goal
should have low cost to orbit as the very first and most important
prerequisite. I really don't care what comes after that, except that is
somehow connects to providing an abundant clean energy source for
the future.


Well, I've said myself that NASA should concentrate on low cost
launching as a technology enabler. I'd certainly not object to that
(particular since I wouldn't be paying for it anyway, not being a US
taxpayer).


Land based solar power is also an alternative.


And the price of land does what over time?


Not much unless it's near towns. In our Australian drought (which may
turn out actually to be its normal climate), land could be had at very
reasonable prices.

There's been virtually no money spent on SSP research. I've read NASA
papers suggesting that laser transmission is probably not far off, with
receiving rectennas as small as a meter...the size of a car (hint).


Buy at what power density? Put a significant amount of power into a
square metre, and you'e better have a very high conversion efficiency,
or the receiver will melt.

Sylvia.
  #54  
Old September 29th 09, 04:53 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
somefools
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6
Default NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!

Sylvia Else wrote in
:

somefools wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote in
:

somefools wrote:
Sylvia Else wrote in
:

jonathan wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:
Who on the planet would not
benefit from reversing the current energy trend, and creating a
trend of ever more abundant, cleaner and cheaper energy over
time?
I'm afraid I can't agree about the space solar power concept. I
just can't see how the economics pan out compared with surface
based solar power.
The economics are irrelevant, it's the trend reversal that
matters.

Those are two different things. Compare the economics with a
world of fifteen billion people which is almost /entirely
industrialized/. The current solution they are moving to is coal,
not solar btw. Those are two very ominous trends. Combine that
with the realization that the current estimates of oil reserves
are highly inflated. Due to OPEC basing annual quotas on
estimated reserves, the more a country /claims/ to have in the
ground, the more they can pump. There is roughly half the oil
left than is currently estimated.

The recent spike in oil from $40 to $160 is a non-linear response
characteristic of a stressed or thin system. Where a minor
disruption on the in put side, creates a massive response on the
output. This is the sign of a system wide breaking or tipping
point. We are ALREADY AT THE TIPPING POINT for fossil fuels
and few seem to appreciate it.

A small disturbance, at a tipping or critical point, say the
impending sanctions on Iran, can cascade into a massive panic
situation overnight. A panic situation so well displayed by the
recent stock market crash. The mathematics of such panics are my
hobby as they form the basis of my trading strategy.

And the oil CRASH will happen as quickly as the stock market
crash, overnight. We can recover from the stock market crash,
since it was essentially a hoarding of cash.where people sold
everything and waited it out.

But when the oil crash hits, that will be something entirely
different as the sudden overnight hoarding of oil will bring down
the industrialized world...overnight. How about a generation
returned against their will to a pre- industrial state? The world
wide collapse of our cities. It's going to happen overnight
someday soon unless a new source of energy, even an expensive
one, even a pipe-dream enters the market with the p r o m i s e
....of .... e n d l e s s g r o w t h.

It is that PERCEPTION of a new endless source that will prevent
The Next Great Crash. Panics are not started by FACTS, they are
started by FEARS amidst a thin or critically behaving system.

We need that promising new source and we need it soon.

The decision itself, the commitment alone is enough to
avert a panic situation, as markets based their decisions
on what will be, not what is. They anticipate.

The world needs to believe our energy future is bright.
They need to be convinced by a dedicating ourselves
to that goal. That perception is needed, and soon.

The oil crash can be averted without building single
solar powered satellite. The economics, the details
don't matter right now.

We need a new direction. What solutions are finally settled
on down the road will take care of themselves, it' the...
NEW TREND which has the ability to change the world.

Combine at that with the simple fact NASA itself needs a
new direction, a new reason for being. I mean, the world
is there for the saving.

It's right there waiting to be saved.
I fear I'm not succeeding in making my point properly. Nothing new
there.

If a point is reached, or has been reached, at which the use of
fossil fuels, or the increased use thereof, is not acceptable
because of the effects on the evironment, and/or climate, then an
alternative needs to be found.

But that doesn't mean that because space based solar power is an
alternative, that it's what must be used.

Land based solar power is also an alternative. Fusion power is
also possibly an alternative, but it's twenty five years away, and
always has been.

But of the acceptable alternatives, you want to use the cheapest.
To do otherwise involves throwing money away. I don't see how
space based solar power can be cheaper than land based solar
power, even after you've address the particular issues that the
latter has.
No clouds. No night. No degradation/corrosion. No atmospheric
losses. No overheating of the cells.
Why no overheating?


Because it's very cold in the shadows.

There are many advantages to space based solar power.

The only disadvantage is launch costs. The space elevator concept
could solve that for us by making geosynchronous orbit a (long)
elevator ride away.
The only disadvantage? Other than bringing the down on cables
supported by the space elevator (which requires materials of
strengths we don't possess), you'd need some sort of power beaming
technology


We have both, and not just in the lab. There have been demonstrations
of the needed tech and improvements are made every year.

What of the scope for a nation threatening to beam its power at an
adversory rather than at the ground stations intended to receive the
power? What about that happening by accident?

What happens to birds that fly through the beams?


The micro wave beams could be made so dispersed as to be harmless to
birds or in the extremely unlikely event the array could be
re-purposed somehow (ala Dr Evil).


That means the receiver stations are bigger, and no doubt more
expensive.


Yes, they would cover more land and there may be some costs associated
with that. Sometimes it cost money to reduce safety hazards. Money well
spent IMHO.

Why is it unlikely the array could be repositioned? Arrays would need
positioning anyway just to keep then on station. I'm not suggesting
criminal takeovers AKA James Bond, but governments using them as
weapons of war or cooercion.


Station keeping in geosynchronous orbits require only small thrusters
and are not likely going to be robust enough to go aiming the beams in
off-target directions. And again if the beams are so weak that they
can't inflict damage, they would make a pretty poor weapon. Much easier
to launch a space based laser if you really want to do some damage.

The real risk of coercion and political quagmire comes from the enormous
cost of such a system (likely requiring a world wide effort), and then
trying to work out a fair distribution of energy produced. That is were
the battles will be fought.

But the most important thing to recognize is that "costs" are a
funny game. Depending on where you draw you system boundaries, the
"costs" of not doing space based solar power may far outstrip the
competition.

How do you account for the cost of the two Iraq wars, for instance?
Those were a cost-of-doing-business expense in order to maintain
our oil addiction. A cost that could have been avoided, if it were
not for our addiction to dinosaur juice.
The dicussion here is not about whether we should stick to fossil
fuels. It's about whether ground based solar is cheaper than space
based, even after the issues with it are addressed.


Cheaper is in the eye of the beholder... that was my point.


Not very well made, IMHO.


I’m saying we have to first agree on the system boundary before we can
compare costs between tech.

Or how do you put a dollar value on the loss of habitat and
species?
Ground based solar isn't going to cause that.


It already has. Just getting the permits to let cooling water
evaporate is a big deal, let alone the vast amount land that will be
covered by mirrors... permanently changing the micro climate of the
area under them.

What about the costs of human disease cased by pollution?

If all these things were taken into account some how, fossil fuels
would likely rank lower on the cost effective scale, as would
nuclear once the cost of containment over a 100 thousand years is
factored into it.
It doesn't cost much in the scheme of things to contain fuel for 100
thousand years. Look up discounted cash flow and net present value.


In the grand scheme of things we are all going to be extinct...


What has that to do with it?


That's what I was going to ask
  #55  
Old September 30th 09, 01:57 AM posted to alt.global-warming,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
jonathan[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!

Timing is everything; An Example of the Lowest Form
of Science.

NASA finds ice on the moon
http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...36167620090924

This 'Big Discovery' comes just as the Augustine Report on NASA's future
is being released. A report which is /very harsh/ on the notion of returning
men to the Moon. See below.

What curious timing? One might just think this 'science' is nothing more
than a politically motivated show, 'politico-science'...call it, only meant
as a last-ditch effort to save the dying idea of building a Moon Colony.

An idea even Tom Hanks considers without reason......

"I think in the history of the human race, the moon has been
the first place we've gone to and said, 'OK, we don't need
to go back there again.'" Hanks said.

"And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.

"Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in881421.shtml

Moon Water is .."THE REASON WHY". A drop of moon water per liter
of lunar soil..Wow! FORGET GLOBAL WARMING, we need to be
mining water on the flippin' moon for a Trillion Dollar Colony instead.

ARE THEY LUNATICS? (literally speaking....yes they are)

AMERICA'S SINGLE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM
for the next fifty years, a Gilded Safari to the Moon!
That's incredibly sad, if not tragic, considering what the world
will soon become due to fossil fueled climate change.

WHILE THE WORLD BURNS these 'scientists' hold a press conference
that's nothing more than a political dog-and-pony show.
To justify an immoral waste of taxpayer funds.
They should be fired.

And let "Moon Water" serve as the fitting epitaph for America's
manned space program.

Jonathan



Moon-Water-Factory or Space Solar Power?
Which makes sense?

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


SUMMARY REPORT
of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight

"The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an
unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice
of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources."
http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/press_...tineforweb.pdf



s


  #56  
Old September 30th 09, 02:17 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
jonathan[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!


"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...
jonathan wrote:



The question is, will that be enough?



I can't see why not.



We better be ...sure, else the future of humanity is dim.
With abundant energy, the sky is the limit.

We can do nothing and hope for the best, or we
can act and make sure. And considering the fact it
would give NASA a new reason for being it badly
needs, would require low cost to orbit and jump start
the commercial launch industry, I think it's a good idea
for many other reasons aside from a simple cost
analysis.

And I haven't even mentioned the patriotic and military
reasons. Which are plenty.





  #57  
Old September 30th 09, 03:29 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
jonathan[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 31
Default NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!


"Sylvia Else" wrote in message
...

Given the quantities they're talking about, and the amount of material that
would have to be processed to get a useful amount of water, I suspect that
shipping water from Earth would still be cheaper than putting the necessary
equipment onto the moon.



Thanks for replying. I would think the same thing. That any mining
would come at the very end of a long and expensive train of hardware.
A couple of generations.

Don't get me wrong. I also believe that moving into space is
the path to a better future. If not our ultimate salvation.
The logical progression that ...first we must move into space
and then we can find a way to 'save the world' so to speak
is fine. I agree with that intuition and logic completely.

But I try to look at this from the political perspective, as in
how best to sell such a program to the public.

Trying to sell a...long ..costly program where the benefits come in
the distant future and can only be /vaguely imagined/ now is a tough sell.
In that way you maximize the perceived expense and difficulty, while
minimizing the tangible benefits in the eyes of the public and Congress.
No one can see that far into the future to say what benefits exactly
will follow.And everyone can see just how expensive and difficult it will be.

That is the very /worst way/ possible to make a case for exploiting space.
If that is the very worst way, then the reverse must be the very best.
So, instead of moving into space in order to 'save the world'.
We should 'save the world' in order to move into space.

And now you maximize the tangible benefits, while minimizing the
difficulty in the public's eye.

So the question merely becomes, how can NASA 'save the world'?
The elephants in the room for the near future of humanity are clearly
climate change and fossil fuels. How can you connect NASA with
those two global anxieties? Space Solar Power is a path to
simultaneouslly solving both.

But more importantly, Space Solar Power requires all the things that
will allow the exploitation of space. A vibrant commercial launch
industry, space ports and especially low cost to orbit. All that
basic infrastructure must come first. Before SSP can become
reality. And only a world-saving goal can justify all that infrastructure.
And by then who knows what form exactly the Space Solar Power
might become, that doesn't matter. What matters in the committment
to solve those problems through space.

NASA must create a goal to Save the World, not leave it behind.

Who on this planet would not benefit from a program which
promises to establish a trend of an endless supply of ever cheaper
and cleaner energy? Left, right, green or military? Domestic or foreign?
All on the planet would benefit, perhaps the third world the most.
Everyone would immediately be able to imagine the tangible
benefits, maximizing the support. And since the concept of SSP
is simple to convey, and the technology is also familiar to the
public, it minimizes the /perceived/ difficulty and expense.

The current goal of colonizing has almost zero support. It's time
to think this through from a different perspective. As I believe
next year will be a golden opportunity. I believe the hurricanes
will return next year ( I live in Miami) and with it the calls
for action on global warming should intensify.

When that kind of public uproar happens, whoever
comes up with the solution, gets the money.

Timing is everything.


Jonathan



Sylvia.




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


s



  #58  
Old October 3rd 09, 04:41 AM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
BradGuth
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 21,544
Default NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!

On Sep 29, 6:17*pm, "jonathan" wrote:
"Sylvia Else" wrote in message

...

jonathan wrote:


The question is, will that be enough?


I can't see why not.


We better be ...sure, else the future of humanity is dim.
With abundant energy, the sky is the limit.

We can do nothing and hope for the best, or we
can act and make sure. And considering the fact it
would give NASA a new reason for being it badly
needs, would require low cost to orbit and jump start
the commercial launch industry, I think it's a good idea
for many other reasons aside from a simple cost
analysis.

And I haven't even mentioned the patriotic and military
reasons. Which are plenty.


I agree, however the one thing this nation is not in surplus of, is
energy. At least affordable clean energy is not available, and in
some cases the grid is so unreliable that even the available energy
can't be safely or fully utilized.

~ BG
  #59  
Old October 3rd 09, 01:43 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Scotius
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4
Default NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 11:14:51 +1000, Sylvia Else
wrote:

jonathan wrote:
Timing is everything; An Example of the Lowest Form
of Science.

NASA finds ice on the moon
http://www.reuters.com/article/scien...36167620090924

This 'Big Discovery' comes just as the Augustine Report on NASA's future
is being released. A report which is /very harsh/ on the notion of returning
men to the Moon. See below.

What curious timing? One might just think this 'science' is nothing more
than a politically motivated show, 'politico-science'...call it, only meant
as a last-ditch effort to save the dying idea of building a Moon Colony.

An idea even Tom Hanks considers without reason......

"I think in the history of the human race, the moon has been
the first place we've gone to and said, 'OK, we don't need
to go back there again.'" Hanks said.

"And maybe we should do it again?" Axelrod asks.

"Well," Hanks says, "the question would be why?"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...in881421.shtml

Moon Water is .."THE REASON WHY". A drop of moon water per liter
of lunar soil..Wow! FORGET GLOBAL WARMING, we need to be
mining water on the flippin' moon for a Trillion Dollar Colony instead.

ARE THEY LUNATICS? (literally speaking....yes they are)

AMERICA'S SINGLE GREATEST SCIENTIFIC PROGRAM
for the next fifty years, a Gilded Safari to the Moon!
That's incredibly sad, if not tragic, considering what the world
will soon become due to fossil fueled climate change.

WHILE THE WORLD BURNS these 'scientists' hold a press conference
that's nothing more than a political dog-and-pony show.
To justify an immoral waste of taxpayer funds.
They should be fired.

And let "Moon Water" serve as the fitting epitaph for America's
manned space program.

Jonathan



Moon-Water-Factory or Space Solar Power?
Which makes sense?

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


SUMMARY REPORT
of the Review of U.S. Human Space Flight

"The U.S. human spaceflight program appears to be on an
unsustainable trajectory. It is perpetuating the perilous practice
of pursuing goals that do not match allocated resources."
http://www.ostp.gov/galleries/press_...tineforweb.pdf


Given the quantities they're talking about, and the amount of material
that would have to be processed to get a useful amount of water, I
suspect that shipping water from Earth would still be cheaper than
putting the necessary equipment onto the moon.

Sylvia.


Except that the moon is also filled with helium 3, which can
be fused much more easily than hydrogen. Putting reactors up there
would allow the astronauts an almost unlimited supply of energy.
Certainly more than enough to move the material to get water, if they
had to.
I don't think they'd have to though. I think there are plenty
of places on the moon where there are outcroppings of ice that would
provide an easy source of water.
  #60  
Old October 3rd 09, 03:25 PM posted to sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.policy,alt.politics
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)[_426_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1
Default NASA: "Water on the Moon!" This is the Shameless Science!

"Scotius" wrote in message
...

Except that the moon is also filled with helium 3, which can
be fused much more easily than hydrogen. Putting reactors up there
would allow the astronauts an almost unlimited supply of energy.


Yeah, once we actually you know, build WORKING ones. In the meantime there
are far easier and cheaper ways to power a lunar base.

Certainly more than enough to move the material to get water, if they
had to.
I don't think they'd have to though. I think there are plenty
of places on the moon where there are outcroppings of ice that would
provide an easy source of water.


Based on what? Wishful thinking?



--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
15 answers to nonsense being spread by "creation science,""intelligent design," and "Expelled" Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names[_1_] Amateur Astronomy 1 April 29th 08 01:29 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.