....A Quote From Len Cormier...and yet another rant!

[jonathan]

In the recent discussions of the passing of Len Cormier, the
reasons for the demise of the space ng's seem to keep
coming up. Of course, most simply blame it on the kooks
or various others that are rude or disagree with the
party line. Or people like me that qualify on all those
counts~

But I think most know the truth, which I
believe to be....

The day the Vision was announced, was the day
....'the music died'.

And with it these ngs died also.

To quote Len....

"That is why some of us have suggested that one of the best
things that government might do is to guarantee markets:
"If you will build it, we will come."

"I don't really recommend funding the dumping of a bunch of raw
material in orbit. It should definitely have some value and
usefulness. However, its main usefulness may be as a demonstration
that CATS is possible. Once CATS is shown to be possible, then
a lot of applications become possible -- including SDI; manned
planetary missions; space solar power stations..."

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_thread/thread/be2c2749cf3a4ac7/70f56865e622daba?lnk=gst&q=+have+been+trying+to+figure+out+what+would+be+the+cheapest+and+most+#70f56865e622daba


All that died when President Bush canceled the Space Solar Power
program and replaced it with the Vision.

With the death of SSP, so died the idea of spaceports (remember those?).
And so died govt payloads jump starting commercial launch industry
and bringing cheap access.

NASA itself is dying with the Vision. As anyone with a whit of political
sense knows such a wasteful and useless make-work program
designed only to benefit large contractors and missile defense
is doomed in a high deficit recession environment.

Such a corrupt goal as the Vision is doomed under any circumstances.
Blame others if you like for the demise of these ng's or of NASA, but
the truth lies within.

And if the Vision is dropped...what then becomes of NASA?


However.....

It's time to Dream Again, and go back to the future.
And insist NASA returns to the goals established
before President Bush ...Laid Waste...to our space future.

Space Solar Power (SERT) was the source of all those dreams.
Govt payloads driving commercial launches, providing needs for
spaceports, then cheap access and the sky becomes the limit.

I'm not leaving these ng's until that dream becomes reality
once again. If I have to I intend to will it back into existence
myself with endless rhetoric, browbeating, shaming, flaming
guilt-trips or whatever it takes to build a new consensus
that SSP is the path to a better future.

A goal that solves two greatest threats to this planet.
Energy shortages and global warming.
While securing American prosperity and independence
for the rest of the century by becoming the next
energy 'Saudi Arabia'.

A goal specifically designed to be....popular...
with EVERYONE. From the greenies to the
military to the greedy. Everyone outside the
Middle East that is....

ALL THAT is within our grasp....RIGHT NOW.

Nothing less than saving the planet from itself
while creating a shining future for America.

With a drifting NASA, a new idealistic administration, and the
onset of peak oil and global warming, the time to focus, agree
and press for a new goal is NOW.

Not next year, not next decade NOW DAMMIT!

Call me a kook if you like, but I think ...your heroes
would agree with me. There's one thing about reality
most seem to forget. If enough people holler about something
it can happen.

A few determined people can 'Save/change the World'
...all we have to do is /want it/ badly enough.

Am I asking too much?


What's perhaps the most timeless question of all?
How can an old man be reborn again?


The Bone that has no marrow;
What ultimate for that?
It is not fit for table,
For beggar, or for cat.

A bone has obligations,
A being has the same;
A marrowless assembly
Is culpabler than shame.

But how shall finished creatures
A function fresh obtain?-
Old Nicodemus' phantom
Confronting us again!


A worthy 'cause' is the answer.
I'll never grow old.


Poetic Guilt-trip by E Dickinson


Jonathan


s

[Ian Parker]

Post by jonathan
In the recent discussions of the passing of Len Cormier, the
reasons for the demise of the space ng's seem to keep
coming up. Of course, most simply blame it on the kooks
or various others that are rude or disagree with the
party line. Or people like me that qualify on all those
counts~
But I think most know the truth, which I
believe to be....
     The day the Vision was announced, was the day
                   ....'the music died'.
And with it these ngs died also.
To quote Len....
"That is why some of us have suggested that one of the best
"If you will build it, we will come."
"I don't really recommend funding the dumping of a bunch of raw
material in orbit.  It should definitely have some value and
usefulness.  However, its main usefulness may be as a demonstration
that CATS is possible. Once CATS is shown to be possible, then
a lot of applications become possible -- including  SDI; manned
planetary missions; space solar power stations..."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_thread/thread/...
All that died when President Bush canceled the Space Solar Power
program and replaced it with the Vision.
With the death of SSP, so died the idea of spaceports (remember those?).
And so died govt payloads jump starting commercial launch industry
and bringing cheap access.
NASA itself is dying with the Vision. As anyone with a whit of political
sense knows such a wasteful and useless make-work program
designed only to benefit large contractors and missile defense
is doomed in a high deficit recession environment.
Such a corrupt goal as the Vision is doomed under any circumstances.
Blame others if  you like for the demise of these ng's or of NASA, but
the truth lies within.
And if the Vision is dropped...what then becomes of NASA?
However.....
It's time to Dream Again, and go back to the future.
And insist NASA returns to the goals established
before President Bush ...Laid Waste...to our space future.
Space Solar Power (SERT) was the source of all those dreams.
Govt payloads driving commercial launches, providing needs for
spaceports, then cheap access and the sky becomes the limit.
I'm not leaving these ng's until that dream becomes reality
once again. If I have to I intend to will it back into existence
myself with endless rhetoric, browbeating, shaming, flaming
guilt-trips or whatever it takes to build a new consensus
that SSP is the path to a better future.
A goal that solves two greatest threats to this planet.
Energy shortages and global warming.
While securing American prosperity and independence
for the rest of the century by becoming the next
energy 'Saudi Arabia'.
A goal specifically designed to be....popular...
with EVERYONE. From the greenies to the
military to the greedy. Everyone outside the
Middle East that is....
ALL THAT is within our grasp....RIGHT NOW.
Nothing less than saving the planet from itself
while creating a shining future for America.
With a drifting NASA, a new idealistic administration, and the
onset of peak oil and global warming, the time to focus, agree
and press for a new goal is NOW.
Not next year, not next decade NOW DAMMIT!
Call me a kook if you like, but I think ...your heroes
would agree with me.  There's one thing about reality
most seem to forget. If enough people holler about something
it can happen.
A few determined people can 'Save/change the World'
...all we have to do is  /want it/  badly enough.
Am I asking too much?
What's perhaps the most timeless question of all?
How can an old man be reborn again?
      The Bone that has no marrow;
        What ultimate for that?
      It is not fit for table,
        For beggar, or for cat.
      A bone has obligations,
        A being has the same;
      A marrowless assembly
        Is culpabler than shame.
      But how shall finished creatures
        A function fresh obtain?-
      Old Nicodemus' phantom
        Confronting us again!
A worthy 'cause' is the answer.
I'll never grow old.
Poetic Guilt-trip by E Dickinson
Jonathan
s

The paradox of the situation is that the weight per unit of power
generated continues to go down. This is particularly true if you
concentrate solar energy by the use of mirrors. However weight is not
the only factor. SSP has not only to be generated, it has to be
transmitted to Earth in a safe (and seen to be safe) way.

I believe that phase coherence and SSP generated by a large number of
phase locked units is the way forward. I feel that although we can the
way in which the technology might work we are still some distance
away. What I think William Mook, and others of a like mind, have to
concentrate on is working out a set of viable intermediate stages.
This is why I would attach great important to things like LISA which
demonstrate phase locking over considerable distances.

One thing which I feel should be pointed out SSP requires phase
locking, it does not need heavy indivisible loads. What is needed is
the most economical way of getting to LEO with ion propulsion going to
the final destination. After all an SSP program will have plenty of
energy to accelerate Xenon/Mercury to 100km/s.

William Mook has talked about NIR for photovolaics on Earth. We could
perhaps direct some power, preferably at night, to existing
terrestrial solar power installations.


- Ian Parker

[Rand Simberg]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:20:51 -0400, in a place far, far away,

Post by jonathan
In the recent discussions of the passing of Len Cormier, the
reasons for the demise of the space ng's seem to keep
coming up. Of course, most simply blame it on the kooks
or various others that are rude or disagree with the
party line. Or people like me that qualify on all those
counts~
But I think most know the truth, which I
believe to be....
The day the Vision was announced, was the day
....'the music died'.
And with it these ngs died also.
To quote Len....
"That is why some of us have suggested that one of the best
"If you will build it, we will come."
"I don't really recommend funding the dumping of a bunch of raw
material in orbit. It should definitely have some value and
usefulness. However, its main usefulness may be as a demonstration
that CATS is possible. Once CATS is shown to be possible, then
a lot of applications become possible -- including SDI; manned
planetary missions; space solar power stations..."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_thread/thread/be2c2749cf3a4ac7/70f56865e622daba?lnk=gst&q=+have+been+trying+to+figure+out+what+would+be+the+cheapest+and+most+#70f56865e622daba
All that died when President Bush canceled the Space Solar Power
program and replaced it with the Vision.

This never happened, you loon. There was no "Space Solar Power
program" to cancel, and it wasn't "replaced" with anything.

[Ian Parker]

Post by Rand Simberg
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:20:51 -0400, in a place far, far away,

Post by jonathan
In the recent discussions of the passing of Len Cormier, the
reasons for the demise of the space ng's seem to keep
coming up. Of course, most simply blame it on the kooks
or various others that are rude or disagree with the
party line. Or people like me that qualify on all those
counts~
But I think most know the truth, which I
believe to be....
    The day the Vision was announced, was the day
                  ....'the music died'.
And with it these ngs died also.
To quote Len....
"That is why some of us have suggested that one of the best
"If you will build it, we will come."
"I don't really recommend funding the dumping of a bunch of raw
material in orbit.  It should definitely have some value and
usefulness.  However, its main usefulness may be as a demonstration
that CATS is possible. Once CATS is shown to be possible, then
a lot of applications become possible -- including  SDI; manned
planetary missions; space solar power stations..."
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.space.policy/browse_thread/thread/...
All that died when President Bush canceled the Space Solar Power
program and replaced it with the Vision.

This never happened, you loon.  There was no "Space Solar Power
program" to cancel, and it wasn't "replaced" with anything.- Hide quoted text -

There have been studies done

http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html

A report has been produced.

http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf

It would seem that the current NASA conclusion (first reference) very
much echos my general approach. It advocates investigating terrestrial
transmission. I think you know the basic Physics is known and has been
demonstrated.

As I keep saying my objection to all these references is that they are
all wedded to rigid structures.


- Ian Parker

[Rand Simberg]

On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:55:12 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,

Post by Ian Parker

Post by Rand Simberg
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:20:51 -0400, in a place far, far away,

Post by jonathan
All that died when President Bush canceled the Space Solar Power
program and replaced it with the Vision.

This never happened, you loon.  There was no "Space Solar Power
program" to cancel, and it wasn't "replaced" with anything.- Hide quoted text -

There have been studies done
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html
A report has been produced.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf

Neither a study, or a report, are a "program." And that report was
produced without a single dime of government money. And it happened
long after VSE was announced.

[Ian Parker]

Post by Rand Simberg
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 05:55:12 -0700 (PDT), in a place far, far away,

Post by Ian Parker

Post by Rand Simberg
On Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:20:51 -0400, in a place far, far away,

Post by jonathan
All that died when President Bush canceled the Space Solar Power
program and replaced it with the Vision.

This never happened, you loon.  There was no "Space Solar Power
program" to cancel, and it wasn't "replaced" with anything.- Hide quoted text -

There have been studies done
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_0...
A report has been produced.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf

Neither a study, or a report, are a "program."  And that report was
produced without a single dime of government money.  And it happened
long after VSE was announced.- Hide quoted text -

True. In point of fact the advocates of terrestrial solar power, in
particular the people who are printing silicon onto glass and other
materials are saying that what they want from government is not
subsidies but a level playing field. An end to subsidies for other
routes, in particular for wind power.

SSP should, of course, aim to be competitive without subsidy. SSP
should save X barrels of oil which will finance it. It is however
heavily dependent of the GOODWILL of government. It will need a lot of
infrastructure to get off the ground.

It also needs to operate in an environment where the costs and
benefits are shared between a number of nations. The construction of
such an environment is something which government alone can do. As I
have repeatedly said space seems to be viewed as a national virility
symbol. This attitude will have to change.


- Ian Parker

[jonathan]

"Ian Parker" <***@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:20b49ec4-bcaa-4c15-8cb3-

SSP should save X barrels of oil which will finance it. It is however
heavily dependent of the GOODWILL of government. It will need a lot of
infrastructure to get off the ground.

Right, that's the point. It'll need low cost to orbit first and
foremost. Once we have low cost to orbit, we can have
.....ANYTHING.

SSP, colonies, missile defense. Whatever we decide to do
in space will become practical once low cost to orbit
is achieved.

If we were to set the goal as merely 'low cost to orbit'.
People would want to know "what for"?
You have to have a goal that's built around the
'what for' part.

What's the best possible reason? Saving the world
of course. We should want a program to have it's best
chance for success.

It also needs to operate in an environment where the costs and
benefits are shared between a number of nations.

The best way for that is of course 'Saving the World'.



s



- Ian Parker

[jonathan]

Post by Rand Simberg
Neither a study, or a report, are a "program." And that report was
produced without a single dime of government money. And it happened
long after VSE was announced.

SERT spent $22 million in 99 and 2000.
http://www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/jusps/KA-2.pdf
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/mankins9-7.html


I can tell you rarely get past the first paragraph before responding.
Please read a little further~


Statement of John C. Mankins
Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies
Office of Space Flight
September 7, 2000

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee,

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak with you today concerning the
topic of space solar power. During the past 5 years, NASA has examined the
viability of large-scale space solar power (SSP) systems through a series of
studies and preliminary technology research activities.

Very briefly, our results and findings to date can be summarized as follows:

.................................................................................................
b. A technology roadmap has been developed that lays out potential paths
for achieving all needed advances
.................................................................................................

"ALL NEEDED ADVANCES"

http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/mankins9-7.html


For Chissakes, the debate /right now/ between Obama
and McCain is about offshore drilling being 'The Big Answer'.

No it isn't. The 'Big Debate' for this election needs to be
pointed in NASA's direction.

I'm not saying SSP is going to be easy, in fact, the difficulty is a
HUGE benefit to selling it to Congress and the American
people.

WHY?


"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and
do the other things, not because they are easy, but
because they are hard, because that goal will serve
to organize and measure the best of our energies
and skills, because that challenge is one that we
are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to
postpone, and one which we intend to win..."


I'm telling you folks, I've been studying the mathematics
of how things take on a life of their own. Of how to
start something than can't fail to achieve great things.

The power of connecting opposite extremes

1) You /connect/ the most difficult problem possible
with the very simplest idea possible.

Kennedy /connected/ one extreme of the very scary Cold War
with the inspiring opposite of the dreams of technology
and exploration.

With one word....the Moon.

It was a mathematical work of art.

Connect one of the greatest horrors, and the greatest inspiration.
With a simple idea anyone can understand.

Get to the Moon by a date certain.
Somehow, some way, figure it out along the way.

OR

End the looming energy and global warming nightmares, while
inspiring the Trekkian dreams of unlimited energy.
With one easy idea ANYONE can grasp.

SSP by a date certain or else.
Before global warming becomes irreversible
or the oil runs out. Take your choice.

Connect the opposite extremes of greatest harm
and greatest good, with the simplest idea.
Such a goal will benefit (attract) the most people
possible.

And let the final product emerge /as it will/ from
the problem solving system set in motion. This is an
....evolutionary approach. To sit there and say we have
to have all the technical answers...before...proceeding
is the path to insignificance and failure.

In the end, SSP easily ranks highest, and in all categories
of anything else I can think of... well...next to China
going to democracy maybe.

I can't decide which is easier or has the greater
potential effect.

And here's the beauty, BOTH are converging
towards their own critical points at the same time.
A system's critical point is when change the system
is at it's most sensitive and /a few/ can make
a difference.

With a little luck, during those Olympics the 'winds'
will bring in the famous pollution of coal-fired
Beijing.

And all the world....at once...might become repulsed
at the Olympic Spectacle of ultra-repression and
ultra-pollution.

And the PEOPLE will decide...right then and there
during the most Internet connected global event /ever/
....what must be done.

All signs point to this being 'The Summer' when the
human race takes it's largest single evolutionary step.
As large a step as from here to the moon.

From a man-made hell, towards a natural paradise.

With a little luck, as little as a simple change of winds
Nature could reassert herself, and rule the world
once again.



Jonathan


"The Missing All prevented me
From missing minor things.
If nothing larger than a World's
Departure from a hinge,
Or Sun's extinction be observed,
'T was not so large that I
Could lift my forehead from my work
For curiosity."


By E Dickinson

s

[Rand Simberg]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:00:28 -0400, in a place far, far away,

Post by jonathan

Post by Rand Simberg
Neither a study, or a report, are a "program." And that report was
produced without a single dime of government money. And it happened
long after VSE was announced.

SERT spent $22 million in 99 and 2000.
http://www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/jusps/KA-2.pdf
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/mankins9-7.html

A completely trivial amount of money for a "program." And again, it
has nothing do to with what happened in 2004.

Post by jonathan
I can tell you rarely get past the first paragraph before responding.
Please read a little further~
Statement of John C. Mankins
Manager, Advanced Concepts Studies
Office of Space Flight
September 7, 2000

As a former project manager of SPS at a major aerospace corporation, I
know John Mankins quite well.

None of this supports your insane and ignorant contention that Bush
killed SPS and replaced it with VSE.

[OM]

Post by Rand Simberg
None of this supports your insane and ignorant contention that Bush
killed SPS and replaced it with VSE.

...Speaking of killing, Rand, can I request once again that you
killfile "jonathan"? Please? Enough's enough, and I'm asking *very*
politely on this one.

OM

[jonathan]

Post by Rand Simberg
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:00:28 -0400, in a place far, far away,

Post by jonathan
SERT spent $22 million in 99 and 2000.
http://www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/jusps/KA-2.pdf
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/mankins9-7.html

A completely trivial amount of money for a "program." And again, it
has nothing do to with what happened in 2004.

It is a small amount. Imagine what advances might occur
with SSP if some money /were spent/ researching
the needed breakthroughs?

Post by Rand Simberg
As a former project manager of SPS at a major aerospace corporation, I
know John Mankins quite well.
None of this supports your insane and ignorant contention that Bush
killed SPS and replaced it with VSE.

Are you saying Bush didn't kill SERT? Then who did?
Are you saying Bush didn't create the Vision? Then who did?
Are you feeling ok?

Why is the couple of years important? When we needed a new
energy policy, what did Cheney do???

You know what he did, everyone knows, he invited all the big oil execs
and asked them "what policies do you want". And now the oil companies
have profits that exceed anything in human history.

After Columbia, when we needed a new space policy, do you really
think it was any different???

...................................................................
ARE YOU THAT NAIVE?
..................................................................

Why was the X-33 canceled? Was it the fuel tanks? Pahlease.
Do you think Lockheed wanted to build something that would
take them out of the launch business, and give it to
someone else???

Just like Big Oil, Big Aero and the military got just what they
wanted with Bush. Instead of small cheap launchers, we get
just the opposite....Shiny New Saturn 5's. Instead of
SSP, we get a new moon base for missile defense.

Like that commercial, I can see the Corporate Monkeys
turning the chart 90 degrees to show it going up instead
of down, giggling and puffing on cigars made of money.

I don't know what makes me sadder, that NASA, the
American people and our future have been sold out
by a crony-driven administration, or that no one seems
to give a damn.

Don't bother replying, I wouldn't want OM to blow a gasket.
One more response to me and I fear a big fat vein in his forehead
might start to throb..and..throb and go....POP!

After all, this is OM's ng, and he should have the final
say over who says what to who and how.

No wonder Bush rolled over you NASA types
without giving it a second thought.
You're so naive.

Ya know, when Richard Nixon picked John Dean to
be his personal attorney, do you know what Dean's
resume looked like? Dean had just been fired from
his first job out of college after only a few months.
Dean then went to DC for the /only reason/ because
he couldn't pass the bar exam in any other state.
DC was known to be the easiest, and it took him
four tries to pass. He applied all over town and not
a single call came from anyone, and he concluded his law
career was probably over. Needless to say, he didn't
think to apply at the White House. Duh!

But lo and behold, he got a call from the White House
offering him the job without so much as an interview.
In fact, the caller said show up at the White House
/tomorrow/ and you're hired. He showed up an
hour early!

Why?

Nixon got a flunky that so desperately wanted the job, that
he'd do anything at all (legal or not) to keep it.

Now you know how the current NASA head got his job, same
corrupt tactics. He wasn't even on the original short list of
candidates. I bet he didn't even apply for the job.

When those two /jr White House staffers/ were tasked to outline
a new space policy, who do you think was 'advising' them???


Jonathan


s

[Rand Simberg]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:23:13 -0400, in a place far, far away,

Post by jonathan

Post by Rand Simberg
None of this supports your insane and ignorant contention that Bush
killed SPS and replaced it with VSE.

Are you saying Bush didn't kill SERT?

No. SERT wasn't SPS. There was no program.

Post by jonathan
Are you saying Bush didn't create the Vision?

No. But it wasn't a replacement for SPS.

Post by jonathan
Are you feeling ok?

Fine, thanks.

<rest of paranoid delusions from "jonathan" snipped>

[Ian Parker]

Post by Rand Simberg
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:23:13 -0400, in a place far, far away,

Post by Rand Simberg
None of this supports your insane and ignorant contention that Bush
killed SPS and replaced it with VSE.

Are  you saying Bush didn't kill SERT?

No.  SERT wasn't SPS.  There was no program.

Are you saying Bush didn't create the Vision?

No.  But it wasn't a replacement for SPS.

Are you feeling ok?

Fine, thanks.
<rest of paranoid delusions from "jonathan" snipped>

This is what I have always been saying in the thread on "rubbish
postings". you do not talk about "phosphors on monitors" at scientific
conferences, and theis seems to be built into every reply - to anyone.


- Ian Parker

[jonathan]

Post by Rand Simberg
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 22:23:13 -0400, in a place far, far away,

Post by jonathan
Are you saying Bush didn't kill SERT?

No. SERT wasn't SPS. There was no program.

Which of the following words do you not understand?


"NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY
RESEARCH AND TECHNOLOGY PROGRAM (SERT)

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Space
Solar Power (SSP) Exploratory Research and Technology
(SERT) program was charged to develop technologies
needed to provide cost-competitive ground baseload electrical
power from space-based solar energy converters."
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1


Of course, they use the acronym SSP, when I use SPS.
...tomato-tamahto. Is that the crux of your 'argument'?
Please tell me that's not it?

Post by Rand Simberg

Post by jonathan
Are you saying Bush didn't create the Vision?

No. But it wasn't a replacement for SPS.

Ok ....o n e c a m e a f t e r t h e o t h e r.

Post by Rand Simberg

Post by jonathan
Are you feeling ok?

Fine, thanks.

I'm reserving judgment on your sanity for now~

Post by Rand Simberg
<rest of paranoid delusions from "jonathan" snipped

...rest is .../documented/ below.

That's why Cheney appealed all the way to the Supreme
Court (and lost) to keep secret the people that he
met with in creating our energy policy? That's why
the oil execs lied to Congress they were at those
meetings? Because they have nothing to hide?

The environmentalists were brought in after
the energy policy had already been written
and decided. It was much the same for the
Vision and NASA. It's how they do business.
Read for yourself


Papers Detail Industry's Role in Cheney's Energy Report

By Michael Abramowitz and Steven Mufson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Wednesday, July 18, 2007; Page A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/17/AR2007071701987.html?nav=rss_politics

[OM]

Post by Rand Simberg
<rest of paranoid delusions from "jonathan" snipped>

...Now, if only you'd killfile him.

OM

[kT]

Post by jonathan

Post by Rand Simberg
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:00:28 -0400, in a place far, far away,

Post by jonathan
SERT spent $22 million in 99 and 2000.
http://www.rish.kyoto-u.ac.jp/jusps/KA-2.pdf
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/mankins9-7.html

A completely trivial amount of money for a "program." And again, it
has nothing do to with what happened in 2004.

It is a small amount. Imagine what advances might occur
with SSP if some money /were spent/ researching
the needed breakthroughs?

Post by Rand Simberg
As a former project manager of SPS at a major aerospace corporation, I
know John Mankins quite well.
None of this supports your insane and ignorant contention that Bush
killed SPS and replaced it with VSE.

Are you saying Bush didn't kill SERT? Then who did?
Are you saying Bush didn't create the Vision? Then who did?
Are you feeling ok?
Why is the couple of years important? When we needed a new
energy policy, what did Cheney do???
You know what he did, everyone knows, he invited all the big oil execs
and asked them "what policies do you want". And now the oil companies
have profits that exceed anything in human history.
After Columbia, when we needed a new space policy, do you really
think it was any different???
...................................................................
ARE YOU THAT NAIVE?
..................................................................
Why was the X-33 canceled? Was it the fuel tanks? Pahlease.
Do you think Lockheed wanted to build something that would
take them out of the launch business, and give it to
someone else???
Just like Big Oil, Big Aero and the military got just what they
wanted with Bush. Instead of small cheap launchers, we get
just the opposite....Shiny New Saturn 5's. Instead of
SSP, we get a new moon base for missile defense.
Like that commercial, I can see the Corporate Monkeys
turning the chart 90 degrees to show it going up instead
of down, giggling and puffing on cigars made of money.
I don't know what makes me sadder, that NASA, the
American people and our future have been sold out
by a crony-driven administration, or that no one seems
to give a damn.
Don't bother replying, I wouldn't want OM to blow a gasket.
One more response to me and I fear a big fat vein in his forehead
might start to throb..and..throb and go....POP!
After all, this is OM's ng, and he should have the final
say over who says what to who and how.
No wonder Bush rolled over you NASA types
without giving it a second thought.
You're so naive.
Ya know, when Richard Nixon picked John Dean to
be his personal attorney, do you know what Dean's
resume looked like? Dean had just been fired from
his first job out of college after only a few months.
Dean then went to DC for the /only reason/ because
he couldn't pass the bar exam in any other state.
DC was known to be the easiest, and it took him
four tries to pass. He applied all over town and not
a single call came from anyone, and he concluded his law
career was probably over. Needless to say, he didn't
think to apply at the White House. Duh!
But lo and behold, he got a call from the White House
offering him the job without so much as an interview.
In fact, the caller said show up at the White House
/tomorrow/ and you're hired. He showed up an
hour early!
Why?
Nixon got a flunky that so desperately wanted the job, that
he'd do anything at all (legal or not) to keep it.
Now you know how the current NASA head got his job, same
corrupt tactics. He wasn't even on the original short list of
candidates. I bet he didn't even apply for the job.
When those two /jr White House staffers/ were tasked to outline
a new space policy, who do you think was 'advising' them???
Jonathan

Jonathon's on a roll.

Keep your eye on the horizon down there this summer, eh?

[jonathan]

Post by kT
Jonathon's on a roll.

Am I wrong? I think that's the way the Bush administration
works. They genuinely feel they have a right to use the various
agencies as giant pay-back machines. And giant favor-machines
for the firms they wish employment with...after leaving office.

Post by kT
Keep your eye on the horizon down there this summer, eh?

I love politics, how could anyone not love it?
It's like saying you hate the air we breathe!

[kT]

Post by jonathan

Post by kT
Jonathon's on a roll.

Am I wrong? I think that's the way the Bush administration
works. They genuinely feel they have a right to use the various
agencies as giant pay-back machines. And giant favor-machines
for the firms they wish employment with...after leaving office.

I don't really judge your stuff right or wrong, I just read it.

Post by jonathan

Post by kT
Keep your eye on the horizon down there this summer, eh?

I love politics, how could anyone not love it?
It's like saying you hate the air we breathe!

I like sunlight as well. But only in moderation.

[Ian Parker]

There is one or twi things in the report to pick up on.

Power Management and Distribution. Power management and distribution continues to be a major challenge for >large-scale SSP systems. A major feature of the 1979 SPS Reference System was the presumption of very high >solar array voltages (e.g., 40,000 volts) that would largely eliminate the requirement for massive power >management for the system. The findings of the SERT Program suggest that this feature is not technically >feasible for reasons of interactions with the space environment at these voltages and that lower voltages must be >used. However, a great disparity exists between the cost of terrestrial voltage converters (about $0.20 per watt) >compared to voltage converters in space (about $20 per watt). Studies are continuing to better understand the >reasons for these differences and to formulate affordable and effective power management and distribution >concepts for large-scale SSP systems. Also during the SERT Program, an option identified during the SSP Fresh >Look Study--the use of superconducting power cabling at lower voltages--has resurfaced as one potential >solution.

If you go for my suggestion of phased arrays you do not need a power
management system. You simply have each transmitter giving a kilowatt
or less. Voltages need be no higher than TTL (Transistor to Transistor
Logic). You do though need a computing system though.

Beauty of this too is that the beam can be turned instantaneously from
point to point. You can focus it on the ISS when it is in darkness, or
somewhere else when it is not. If you want non nuclear propulsion you
have to follow a spacecraft. You may even want to power 2 at the same
time.

To assure beam safety, "center-of-beam" power intensities have been limited to the general range of 100-200 >watts/m2 during the SERT Program for both microwave and visible light transmission (corresponding to between >10% and 20% of the intensity of normal noon time summer sunlight). Good progress has been made and no show->stoppers have been identified - although resolution of potential spectrum management issues associated with >power beaming applications with appropriate U.S. and international organizations continues to be an important >issue.

This is OK as an intermediate step. However I feel that higher power
levels will be needed in the future. The issue of safety can be
addressed by having a sort failing system and having an instruction to
go to random phase. Random phase is, of course, like banging cadmium
rods in a nuclear reactor. A last ditch safety measure that shuts the
thing down.

The cost of getting material to LEO is a major factor. This may well
be "chicken and egg". I propose mixing finely divided soot (order of λ/
4) with liquid hydrogen and having an intensity (optical/NIR) of
gigawatts m^2. The Nerva engine (nuclear) was designed to deliver 9 km/
s in its exhaust. I think we could get to 10km/s fairly easily. This
would be the logical route to LEO.


- Ian Parker

[Ian Parker]

I used to be able to paste in with Google Translaste. I meant lambda/
4. I went to Google Translate, treanslated "sea" into Greek
(thalassa). Lambda is the normal letter used for wavelength. Why can't
Google give us a proper mathematical font?


- Ian Parker

[c***@yahoo.com]

Post by Ian Parker
The cost of getting material to LEO is a major factor. This may well
be "chicken and egg". I propose mixing finely divided soot (order of ë/
4) with liquid hydrogen and having an intensity (optical/NIR) of
gigawatts m^2. The Nerva engine (nuclear) was designed to deliver 9 km/
s in its exhaust. I think we could get to 10km/s fairly easily. This
would be the logical route to LEO.
- Ian Parker

wrong, NERVA was never meant for access to LEO

[Pat Flannery]

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Ian Parker
The cost of getting material to LEO is a major factor. This may well
be "chicken and egg". I propose mixing finely divided soot (order of ë/
4) with liquid hydrogen and having an intensity (optical/NIR) of
gigawatts m^2. The Nerva engine (nuclear) was designed to deliver 9 km/
s in its exhaust. I think we could get to 10km/s fairly easily. This
would be the logical route to LEO.
- Ian Parker

wrong, NERVA was never meant for access to LEO

The follow-on Timberwind nuclear rocket engine system was though.

Pat

[Ian Parker]

Post by c***@yahoo.com

Post by Ian Parker
The cost of getting material to LEO is a major factor. This may well
be "chicken and egg". I propose mixing finely divided soot (order of ë/
4) with liquid hydrogen and having an intensity (optical/NIR) of
gigawatts m^2. The Nerva engine (nuclear) was designed to deliver 9 km/
s in its exhaust. I think we could get to 10km/s fairly easily. This
would be the logical route to LEO.
  - Ian Parker

wrong, NERVA was never meant for access to LEO

This is really irrelevant. The point is that we need approx 8km/sec to
reach LEO. If our exhaust velocity is 10 we wiill have a payload +
deadweight of exp(-0.8) of total weight. In other words about 55% of
the take off weight will be fuel.

I was never claiming that NERVA was designed for LEO. I was simply
comparing exhaust velocities. LH with soot in it should be rather
better than a nuclear reactor. The lasers are directly heating the
soot. There is no radioactive material so LEO is perfectly possile.
Beyond LEO we have ion propulsion. A nuclear reactor starting off NOT
in orbit would be incredibly dangerous. Lasers and soot imply no
radioactive material and are suitable for LEO. In fact I would
advocate something likre an aircraft wiith air breathing LH motors
carrying you up to 15km and (possibly) Mach 3. The turbo/scram jets
will separate and fly back to Earth. You need to go to 10km to clear
the Earth.

With an aircraft about 50% will be fuel as we will be travellling at
some 800m/s before rocket power kicks in.


- Ian Parker

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Ian Parker
In fact I would
advocate something likre an aircraft wiith air breathing LH motors
carrying you up to 15km and (possibly) Mach 3. The turbo/scram jets
will separate and fly back to Earth. You need to go to 10km to clear
the Earth.

For only Mach 3 you don't need scramjets...for that matter you don't
even need ramjets; LH2-powered expander cycle turbojets will get you up
to that speed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-400_Suntan
Although it might be a lot simpler to go with more conventional
turbo-ramjets like the SR-71 used to hit Mach 3.2.
Now, if you meant Mach _13_...then you are well into scramjet or ducted
rocket territory, and the ducted rocket might be the simpler way to go;
as it gives you the ability to take off from a runway on pure rocket
power, or at least using off-the-shelf turbojet or turbofan engines, to
get you up to around Mach 2.5 before you fire up the ducted rocket.

Pat

[Ian Parker]

Post by Pat Flannery

Post by Ian Parker
In fact I would
advocate something likre an aircraft wiith air breathing LH motors
carrying you up to 15km and (possibly) Mach 3. The turbo/scram jets
will separate and fly back to Earth. You need to go to 10km to clear
the Earth.

For only Mach 3 you don't need scramjets...for that matter you don't
even need ramjets; LH2-powered expander cycle turbojets will get you up
to that speed:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_CL-400_Suntan
Although it might be a lot simpler to go with more conventional
turbo-ramjets like the SR-71 used to hit Mach 3.2.
Now, if you meant Mach _13_...then you are well into scramjet or ducted
rocket territory, and the ducted rocket might be the simpler way to go;
as it gives you the ability to take off from a runway on pure rocket
power, or at least using off-the-shelf turbojet or turbofan engines, to
get you up to around Mach 2.5 before you fire up the ducted rocket.

There are in fact quite a large number of permutations and
combinations. You might want to use a scramjet at a lower speed than
you might otherwise as if your "combustion zone" was visible from
space you might not need fuel, only lambda/4 soot.

The figures for total fuel load show a remarkable similarity to
Concorde. I think the deadweight could be sent well below Concorde.
Fares BTW were something like $5,000 for a 2 way flight across the
Atlantic. British Airways towards the end promoted Concorde as a
luxury product and the fares approached $10,000. Here the analogy
ends, this is a cargo plane predominantly.


- Ian Parker

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Ian Parker
The figures for total fuel load show a remarkable similarity to
Concorde. I think the deadweight could be sent well below Concorde.
Fares BTW were something like $5,000 for a 2 way flight across the
Atlantic. British Airways towards the end promoted Concorde as a
luxury product and the fares approached $10,000. Here the analogy
ends, this is a cargo plane predominantly.

That sounds like this thing: http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html

Pat

[Ian Parker]

Post by Ian Parker
The figures for total fuel load show a remarkable similarity to
Concorde. I think the deadweight could be sent well below Concorde.
Fares BTW were something like $5,000 for a 2 way flight across the
Atlantic. British Airways towards the end promoted Concorde as a
luxury product and the fares approached $10,000. Here the analogy
ends, this is a cargo plane predominantly.

That sounds like this thing:http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/lapcat.html

BTW M5 = about 1500m/s giving a rocket LEO impulse of 6.5km/s. Going
down all the time.


- Ian Parker

[Ian Stirling]

Post by Ian Parker
There is one or twi things in the report to pick up on.

<snip>

Post by Ian Parker
If you go for my suggestion of phased arrays you do not need a power
management system. You simply have each transmitter giving a kilowatt
or less. Voltages need be no higher than TTL (Transistor to Transistor
Logic). You do though need a computing system though.
Beauty of this too is that the beam can be turned instantaneously from
point to point. You can focus it on the ISS when it is in darkness, or
somewhere else when it is not. If you want non nuclear propulsion you
have to follow a spacecraft. You may even want to power 2 at the same
time.

Unfortunately.
Broadly, you can't assume that 1000 1w transmitters spread over a 1Km
circle are the same as a nice full dish.
If you have a total area as large as 10% of the 1Km dish, spread over a
1Km circle, then you have a point-spread-function that approaches, perhaps
closely the 1Km dish.

However, all this means is that the central lobe is as tight as the 1Km
dish, it says nothing about its intensity.

The rest of the input power (90% in this case) sprays 'everywhere'
(within the beamwidth of the individual antennas.)

As a simple reason why this is so - consider focussing a beam from a large
antenna made up from 1000 little antennas onto a near diffraction limited
spot.

Now, all radio antennas work equally as well backwards and forwards.
So, place a transmitter at the spot, that

[Ian Parker]

Post by Ian Stirling

Post by Ian Parker
There is one or twi things in the report to pick up on.

<snip>

Post by Ian Parker
If you go for my suggestion of phased arrays you do not need a power
management system. You simply have each transmitter giving a kilowatt
or less. Voltages need be no higher than TTL (Transistor to Transistor
Logic). You do though need a computing system though.
Beauty of this too is that the beam can be turned instantaneously from
point to point. You can focus it on the ISS when it is in darkness, or
somewhere else when it is not. If you want non nuclear propulsion you
have to follow a spacecraft. You may even want to power 2 at the same
time.

Unfortunately.
Broadly, you can't assume that 1000 1w transmitters spread over a 1Km
circle are the same as a nice full dish.
If you have a total area as large as 10% of the 1Km dish, spread over a
1Km circle, then you have a point-spread-function that approaches, perhaps
closely the 1Km dish.
However, all this means is that the central lobe is as tight as the 1Km
dish, it says nothing about its intensity.
The rest of the input power (90% in this case) sprays 'everywhere'
(within the beamwidth of the individual antennas.)
As a simple reason why this is so - consider focussing a beam from a large
antenna made up from 1000 little antennas onto a near diffraction limited
spot.
Now, all radio antennas work equally as well backwards and forwards.
So, place a transmitter at the spot, that

You are quite right in assuming that a sparse 1km disc is not the same
as a filled in dish. There is in fact something of a principle of
duality here. Total laser area will translate into diffraction limited
optics. There are some permutations on this. Suppose we are in a
desert and we decide to lay out (terrestrial) solar installations in a
grid pattern. We also want them to provide power at night as well. If
we lay out a diffraction grating in space we can do this with a sparse
array. We have a diffraction grating at source which provides a grid
pattern at the destination.

Suppose we have a pattern that departs from a grid. Here life gets a
little bit complicated. Our pattern gives a pattern in space. There
will be homotopic relations governing what we can have on the ground.
This is quite interesting pure maths.

However the thrust of my argument in my earlier posings was not
precise details of homotopic relations in sparse grids but the fact
that we can have low voltages and no superconducting cable. Provided
our total area is the same we can have the same diffraction pattern.


- Ian Parker

[Pat Flannery]

Post by Ian Parker
There have been studies done
http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/solar_power_sats_011017-1.html
A report has been produced.
http://www.acq.osd.mil/nsso/solar/SBSPInterimAssesment0.1.pdf
It would seem that the current NASA conclusion (first reference) very
much echos my general approach. It advocates investigating terrestrial
transmission. I think you know the basic Physics is known and has been
demonstrated.
As I keep saying my objection to all these references is that they are
all wedded to rigid structures.

Japan is getting into the concept in a operational form:
http://inventorspot.com/articles/space_based_solar_power_lights_j_10628

Pat

[jonathan]

Post by Rand Simberg

Post by jonathan
All that died when President Bush canceled the Space Solar Power
program and replaced it with the Vision.

This never happened, you loon. There was no "Space Solar Power
program" to cancel, and it wasn't "replaced" with anything.

I'm sorry, maybe you were distracted by the Impeachment fiasco, but
the language is clear. NASA was charged with ...developing....not studying
the technology needed to start up a very ambitious SSP program.


Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM

"SERT program" and "SERT effort" refer to both the 2-year Space
Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology (SERT) program
during FY 1999 and 2000 and the follow-on effort in FY 2001, the
SSP Research and Technology (SSP R&T) program."

The first year Bush had control of OMB they immediately cancelled
it outright. A year later or so came the Vision. Which I documented
here was initiated by a couple of White House jr staffers that designed
the basic outline of the Vision /before/ involving anyone at NASA.
NASA and the 'experts' were brought in afterwards and
....told... about it.

These jr. political hacks had as their mission to please Pres Bush's favorite
corp...Lockheed et al...and to please Cheney's favorite corp...the US Military.
Their answer....the Vision.

Wake up and take a whiff of how big-time politics work.
NASA was carved up like a turkey while the nation
focused on 9/11 and Iraq.

Maybe that's why you folks seem so mystified over this.
It's the husband that's the last to know the truth....they say.



"The National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Space
Solar Power (SSP) Exploratory Research and Technology (SERT)
program was charged to develop technologies needed to provide
cost-competitive ground baseload electrical power2 from
space-based solar energy converters. In addition, during its 2-year
tenure, the SERT program was also expected to \provide a roadmap
of research and technology investment to enhance other space,
military, and commercial applications such as satellites operating
with improved power supplies, free-flying technology platforms,
space propulsion technology, and techniques for planetary surface
exploration."

"The SERT program was established in FY 1999 and continued
through FY 2000 by U.S. congressional appropriation. An additional
appropriation was also funded for SSP Research and Technology
(SSP R&T) for FY 2001. Decisions on internal NASA budget
allocations for FY 2002 were pending during review and publication
of this report."
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

Now, what changed between 2001 and 2002??? The first
year Bush gained control of OMB they cut the funds off.

And if that program had been continued, if Gore had won, the
projected timeline was.....


TABLE 2-1 NASA's SERT Program-
(MSC) Model System Category Definitions


2006-2007
MSC 1 ~100 kW Free flyer
LEO-to-Earth power beaming research platform
Solar power plug in space
Cryogenic propellant depot
"Mega-commsat" demonstrator

2011-2012
MSC 1.5 ~1 MW GEO-to-Earth solar power satellite (SPS)
demonstrator
Lunar exploration SPS platform
Earth neighborhood transportation system

2016-2017
MSC 3 ~10MW Free flyer GEO-based SPS demonstration platforms
for wireless power transmission,
solar power generation,
power management and distribution, and
solar electric propulsion
Interplanetary transportation system


2021+
MSC 4 ~1 GW Commercial space full-scale solar power satellite




s

[Rand Simberg]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:43:21 -0400, in a place far, far away,

Post by jonathan

Post by Rand Simberg

Post by jonathan
All that died when President Bush canceled the Space Solar Power
program and replaced it with the Vision.

This never happened, you loon. There was no "Space Solar Power
program" to cancel, and it wasn't "replaced" with anything.

I'm sorry, maybe you were distracted by the Impeachment fiasco, but
the language is clear. NASA was charged with ...developing....not studying
the technology needed to start up a very ambitious SSP program.
Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
"SERT program" and "SERT effort" refer to both the 2-year Space
Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology (SERT) program
during FY 1999 and 2000 and the follow-on effort in FY 2001, the
SSP Research and Technology (SSP R&T) program."
The first year Bush had control of OMB they immediately cancelled
it outright.

That was 2002, a year before Columbia was lost.

Post by jonathan
A year later or so came the Vision.

The vision came out in 2004, a year after Columbia was lost. There
was no SPS program, even a minimal R&T program, to cancel at that
point.

The vision was a result of the Columbia loss. Anyone familiar with
the history of space policy knows this. It had absolutely nothing to
do with SPS. To think otherwise is to be monumentally ignorant of
space policy history, or nuts.

Or both.

[jonathan]

Post by Rand Simberg
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 20:43:21 -0400, in a place far, far away,

Post by jonathan

Post by Rand Simberg

Post by jonathan
All that died when President Bush canceled the Space Solar Power
program and replaced it with the Vision.

This never happened, you loon. There was no "Space Solar Power
program" to cancel, and it wasn't "replaced" with anything.

I'm sorry, maybe you were distracted by the Impeachment fiasco, but
the language is clear. NASA was charged with ...developing....not studying
the technology needed to start up a very ambitious SSP program.
Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH
AND TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
"SERT program" and "SERT effort" refer to both the 2-year Space
Solar Power Exploratory Research and Technology (SERT) program
during FY 1999 and 2000 and the follow-on effort in FY 2001, the
SSP Research and Technology (SSP R&T) program."
The first year Bush had control of OMB they immediately cancelled
it outright.

That was 2002,

That's right, that's when he cancelled it.

a year before Columbia was lost.

Post by Rand Simberg

Post by jonathan
A year later or so came the Vision.

The vision came out in 2004, a year after Columbia was lost. There
was no SPS program, even a minimal R&T program, to cancel at that
point.

Ya, because he cancelled it just as soon as he took office.
So what? Bush cancelled SSP and gave us the Vision.

My point is we should reverse that. I don't understand
you're point a bit.

Post by Rand Simberg
The vision was a result of the Columbia loss. Anyone familiar with
the history of space policy knows this. It had absolutely nothing to
do with SPS. To think otherwise is to be monumentally ignorant of
space policy history, or nuts.

Where did I ever say he came up with the Vision because of SSP?
And why does it matter? Except for the cold thought they took
advantage of a tragedy to rape the taxpayers with a program
designed to benefit the /fewest possible/ while waisting the
/most money/ possible.

Your arguments are rather curious. The point is, what's best
for NASA, for America and our the future of this planet.


Kicking around some more moon rocks.

OR

Developing a new energy source?
Slowing global warming?
Ending future wars over oil?
Keeping America independent and
prosperous?


Which is better?

Post by Rand Simberg
Or both.

Or nothing?


s