will our space shuttle discovery and our international space station be safe from the space trash that the US and other counries earlier left up there?

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote in message
news

And look at those projects, how many of THOSE would meet the criteria you set
above.


Well I don't know. I think all of us want pretty much the same thing.
Which is a far better funded NASA with plenty of popular and
Congressional support. I want to figure out a way to make that
happen. And I believe there's two distinctly different ways of going
about it.

The standard way seems to be for a group of insiders/thinkers to lay
out a 'Grand Plan' of what our space future...should be. For instance
a low cost shuttle, leading to a space station which enables Moon and
Mars bases etc., a logical progression that in fifty years or so should
deliver all kinds of benefits. Then go out and try to sell it and fund
this 'Conquest of Space'.

The downsides to that approach are almost impossible to overcome.

For starters, how can people get all excited, or place a high priority on
a program which most will not live to see finished? Let alone ever see
any real tangible benefits in a reasonable (political) time frame?

Another is it transcends administrations which tend to want their
own new shiny program they can call their own. And naturally
won't spend much political capital cleaning up someone else's mess.

A long term, very expensive and back-loaded program ends up
getting minimum funding at best, reducing support even more while
piling on new problems from one compromise after another to shave
costs and time etc etc. And all that before any pork barrel effects
come into play.

All I see is a viscous cycle creating more public apathy, or even
derision over time with laying out a roadmap of space conquest.

We should be doing the....inverse...of all that.
Instead of planning the Conquest of Space in order to Save the World.
We should be planning to Save the World in order to Conquer Space.

We should be designing a goal which solves an /urgent problem/ that exists
/right now/ or the very near future.

Look what happens when the nation is confronted by an emergency
of such proportions that few stand in the way of dramatic action.
Like 9/11, or Iraq or more recently an economic calamity.

BLANK CHECK!

If someone can make such an emergency go away, the money flows
like water and virtually the next day. Soon there will come a day
where some energy or environmental catastrophe will blast it's way
to the front pages. Say...the largest Saudi oil field just started spouting
sea water. Or some natural disaster widely seen as a result of climate change.
A day like that is bound to occur before long, and NASA needs to be ready
to seize the opportunity. NASA needs to have a plan ready for that day.

When the day comes when the world asks..."Who will save us from this?"
Then NASA needs to be able to say...."We can". We just need to build and
launch enough of them, we can start tomorrow."

So lets derive a new goal for NASA by connecting it to the greatest global
problems possible. Let's have NASA come up with a program to make
those problems go away. So the question now needed to be answered
to set such a goal would be...

"Find the point at which the greatest problems of the planet and
NASA's potential capabilities intersect."

All the opinion polls show pretty much the same thing when it
comes to national priorities.

1) Economy/jobs
2) Terrorism/wars in Middle East
3) Health Care
4) Energy and Climate change
http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm

Space Solar Power potentially solves ALL OF THE ABOVE.

1) Economy/jobs
An entirely new high tech (high paying) industry....launching hundreds
of SSP satellites by all kinds of new commercial launchers.

2) Terrorism/wars
Abundant energy means less international conflict and a
more stable world economy. Less wars, more prosperity
and less terrorism.

3) Health Care
How do you think the oil producers would react to America
announcing it's planning on dominating the future energy market
via SSP? It would react the same way any market would when
a new competitor steps up. The oil producers would try to become
more competitive and undermine the new competitor. That translates
cheaper oil right away, before the first satellite even hits the
blackboard.

The rest of the world just might want to join the competition also.
The different approach is to stop thinking smaller, cheaper and faster.
And start thinking BIG. Come up with a plan to....

SAVE THE WORLD

To save NASA, and move into space.
I mean just look at all the bullet points which a 'salesman'
should just drool over. From patriotic appeals, to sticking it
to the Middle East, to helping the environment. From the greenies
to the hawks. From the economic pragmatists to the dreamers.
From social justice to helping the third world. And the military
applications is another rant all by itself.

And SSP is a program which starts small, little funding at first.
Then grows only once it's able to deliver the goods, at which
point the Big Money takes it over for the Big Profits.
SSP starts out as expensive energy in niche markets, but
gets cheaper over time. The opposite trend of today.

I want a future where not only our energy falls from the sky.
But also our prosperity. So that we can afford to dream again.

And I don't see any insurmountable hurdles at all. Because we live
in a new age. Where if enough people want something bad enough, it can
become reality.


Jonathan

s




















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