| |
 |
|
|
Science Groups Forum Index » Space - Policy » On Moon Landing Anniversary: WANT TO EXPLORE OUTER WORLDS?
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
|
| Author |
Message |
| jonathan |
 Posted: Wed Jul 22, 2009 5:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Mike Dworetsky" <platinum198@pants.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:XtSdnaaQKKjP5vjXnZ2dnUVZ8kWdnZ2d@bt.com...
Quote: "jonathan" <Not@thistime.net> wrote in message
news:kYmdnfJleMIwlvjXnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
I'd rather see NASA help produce a replacement for fossil fuels and solve
the climate change problem. Making America the next energy Saudi Arabia.
Creating a future for America where we go from the largest energy user
to the largest world supplier. Turning America's greatest single weakness
into it's greatest future strength. Ending wars over oil, ending Middle East
dominance and building an energy source that could benefit the third
world in ways we can only imagine.
Quote: These are not NASA's job.
It could/should be NASA's job imho.
Quote: These activities and goals come under the Department of Energy.
It's obvious the Dept of Energy would be highly involved in Space Solar Power.
But I think NASA should be the primary agency for this reason. The technology
of solar power is fairly well established and , even in space, shouldn't be the
biggest hurdle. It's the large amount of cargo into orbit, building and
maintaining large structures in orbit, and so on which is the big hurdle.
If NASA can't or won't build low cost to orbit, SSP could still provide
the govt paid cargo to jump start commercial space flight.
Let's try to keep our eyes on the prize.
It's making space travel as practical and beneficial as possible
for as many as possible. Any NASA goal should have that as
it's first and foremost prerequisite. Since, having accomplished
that, then almost anything we chose to do, or need from space
becomes possible. Even something like Space Solar Power.
Or maybe by then it'll something else that we need to 'save the day'.
Don't you see, the perfectly designed goal renders it's ultimate success
entirely irrelevent. As the process set in motion is sufficient in itself.
Quote: Whatever happens, you will never get rid of the need for fossil fuels (or at
least hydrocarbon fuels) because nothing else works as well for commercial and
military aviation. Electric cars, maybe--electric planes, I doubt it.
In the real world, 'replacing' may merely mean an end to the market
dominance of that particular variable. Right now, the Middle East
sit fat and happy knowing in twenty years or so they'll be sitting
on gold, not just oil But how would they react if they suddenly
were made to believe America would have the sky flooded with
solar satellites in twenty years instead? Making them relatively minor
market players in comparison? The difference is night and day.
Quote:
NOAA is "in charge" of climate change science.
I think it's these guys now.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/about/default.htm
Out of the 13 agencies in the combined program, NASA
provides accounts for about a quarter of the budget.
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/ocp2009/ocp2009-budget-table2.htm
And it's NASA that gathers most of the data. anyway
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
But anyway, I'm talking about how things should be, not how
they are now.
Quote:
Do get your Government agencies right.
Ask yourself, if you're a fan of all things Star Trek/Sci-fi etc.
What is it that made the Utopian dreams of Star Trek go?
Prosperity and justice for all? It was that magical energy
source they called di-lithium crystals. Endless clean energy
made...ANYTHING...possible. Travel, equal justice and
security.
Ah, I see--solve all our problems by assuming that science fictional
doubletalk stuff is a step away from reality if only we work hard enough. And
solar power satellites will give us Truth, Justice, and the American Way?
So, a new clean and endless energy source, which should by any logic
get cheaper over time (more more scarce as oil)...is a bad thing?
Quote:
This is the NASA goal that was being started....before Bush
killed it for the Moon and Mars. And if you're into conspiracy
theories, when I first came to this ng and found out about this
program I started ranting loudly about it in favor. Just three
weeks after I started going on about it, NASA dropped their
space solar power webpage which had been up for many
years. 'They' don't want to talk about it.
Probably because it is far cheaper (though far from cheap at this time) and
more practical to capture, store, and distribute solar power on the ground.
Ground based have limitations which Space Solar Power could fill.
Such as the storage problem, isolated areas or spot markets
which all can sell at /peak/ prices. As modeled below
Reinventing the Solar Power Satellite
http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/library/2004-NASA-ReinventingTheSolarPowerSatellite.pdf
But it's the clearly different trends such a program would create with our
energy future. From more and more dependent on oil, to less and less
that's the benefit.
Pentagon Considering Study on Space-Based Solar Power
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265380,00.html
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Mike Dworetsky |
| Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 7:37 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"BradGuth" <bradguth@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:aeb64919-b5bc-40d6-9fe4-9c9b6b209b43@u38g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 21, 1:24 am, "Mike Dworetsky"
<platinum...@pants.btinternet.com> wrote:
Quote: "jonathan" <N...@thistime.net> wrote in message
news:kYmdnfJleMIwlvjXnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
"giveitawhirl2008" <giveitawhril2...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a84883dc-83d3-4c8e-9cd7-ce15643fc510@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
[snippage]
I'd rather see NASA help produce a replacement for fossil fuels and
solve
the climate change problem. Making America the next energy Saudi Arabia.
Creating a future for America where we go from the largest energy user
to the largest world supplier. Turning America's greatest single
weakness
into it's greatest future strength. Ending wars over oil, ending Middle
East
dominance and building an energy source that could benefit the third
world in ways we can only imagine.
These are not NASA's job. These activities and goals come under the
Department of Energy. Whatever happens, you will never get rid of the need
for fossil fuels (or at least hydrocarbon fuels) because nothing else
works
as well for commercial and military aviation. Electric cars,
maybe--electric planes, I doubt it.
You and others of your kind have such little faith in the regular laws
of physics.
The repulsive electric force between two electrons is 4.17e42 times
the attractive force of gravity.
~ BG
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brad, everyone knows you are not grounded in any sort of reality.
What is the energy content of (a) a litre of jet fuel and (b) the best
available storage battery of the same mass?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
Page 2 of 2 Goto page Previous 1, 2
All times are GMT
The time now is Fri Jul 30, 2010 10:25 am
|
|
|