| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Jonathan
Guest
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:37 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
 |
|
"John Schilling" <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote in message
news:vcj963lp1o6ilgkti6m5jn46sskgpsm5oj@4ax.com...
| Quote: |
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:35:34 -0400, "Jonathan" <write@bellsouth.net> wrote:
So you're saying that global warning, oil prices and the war are
NOT urgent political issues? You are the delusional one to
think they are not. SSP connects strongly to them all and many
more.
Only in ill-thought propaganda.
SSP doesn't connect to oil prices, because SSP generates electricity and
oil is almost exclusively used in applications where electricity is *not*
an adequate substitute. You're thinking about "energy" as if it were a
fungible commodity; it's not. There are two almost completely independant
energy markets, one for fixed power and one for motor vehicle fuel.
|
Fixed power uses mostly coal, natural gas and oil. Aren't you aware of that?
Two of those sources have exploded in price the last five years. While the
third source emits gobs of greenhouse gasses.
From the US govt.
"Despite the rapid growth projected for biofuels and other
nonhydroelectric renewable energy sources and the expectation
that orders will be placed for new nuclear power plants for the
first time in more than 25 years, oil, coal, and natural gas still
are projected to provide roughly the same 86-percent share
of the total U.S. primary energy supply in 2030 that they did in 2005"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview.html
86%
By 2030, if we continue to rely almost exclusively on coal, natural gas
and oil for our energy production ...86% of it... the US will be emitting
EIGHT THOUSAND MILLION TONS of carbon dioxide each year.
That's 8000000000 tons of greenhouse gasses....TONS.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/figure_8.html
And just as global warming becomes irreversible, we'll have
this trend to deal with.
"Total primary energy consumption, including energy for electricity
generation, grows by 1.1 percent per year from 2005 to 2030
in the reference case (Figure 34). Fossil fuels account for 87 percent
of the growth. The increase in coal use occurs mostly in the
electric power sector, where strong growth in electricity demand
and favorable economics under current environmental policies
prompt coal-fired capacity additions. About 61 percent of the
projected increase in coal consumption occurs after 2020, when
higher natural gas prices make coal the fuel of choice for
most new power plants."
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/demand.html
Coal, puts out TWICE the amount of carbon dioxide as oil, SIX times
the amount of carbon monoxide as oil and TWICE the amount
of sulfur dioxide as oil.
So, your vision of our energy future is what? To depend on coal
and screw the environment...right?
We need a replacement for fossil fuels, that simple fact is glaringly
obvious.
| Quote: |
SSP is doubly irrelevant to the war because A: see above, and B: SSP can
not possibly be brought on line in significant quantity until the war is
long since won or lost.
|
I was referring to future potential wars over diminishing energy resources.
We're in the middle of a war right now that oil is at least a significant
factor.
| Quote: |
And SSP is somewhat relevant to global warming, but mostly to the extent
that it replaces Chinese coal-fired power plants and blast furnaces. But
any plan to devote Sagans of American taxpayer dollars to building new and
better power plants for the Chinese, is an absolute political non-starter.
|
Ya know, I don't think Saudi Arabia gives a hoot who they sell their
energy to. If the US dominated the future electricity market I don't
see why that matters even a bit. In fact, I like the idea of a future
where China and other major powers become reliant on us the
way we are dependent on the Middle East now.
| Quote: |
Furthermore, SSP is *percieved* as being absolutely completely totally
irrelevant to anything in the real world, on account of being a hopelessly
unrealistic fantasy.
|
Really, so that is why Congress instructed NASA to PRODUCE
....not study, but produce the technologies needed for a large scale
SSP program just before Bush came into office. With funding and flight
timelines all laid out in detail. In fact if Bush didn't cancel the
program
we would already have our first SSP demonstrator flying.
Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309075971
"Technology flight demonstrations (referred to by NASA as MSCs) are
scheduled in FY 2006-2007, FY 2011-2012, and FY 2016."
From 2002 to 2006 the funding request for SSP was respectively
$88million
$124million
$211million
$282million
$312million
| Quote: |
If you propose to change that perception, note that
people have spent thirty-odd years trying to change that perception, with
zero success. What do you propose to do that they haven't already done?
|
I'm trying every angle I can think of quite frankly. Some reasons are
better or worse than others. I'm hoping for some constructive criticism
to help refine the message. But I believe the patriotic and geopolitical
consequences of a credible SSP program have yet to be properly
presented. Remeber, it was a Texas oil man with very close ties
to the Saudis that killed SSP. A large scale SSP program was just
about to become policy in 2001.
And l...since then...oil prices have shot up some 25%, we're in a large
Middle East conflict and Katrina has bolted global warming to a new
high as an issue. Time is on the side of SSP.
Every year the reasons for SSP become stronger, while our supplies
of fossil fuels decrease and our planet warms.
The trends are pretty clear.
| Quote: |
Which SSP may not offer, and even if it does, how do you propose to get
it? Shouting for massive government spending to develop SSP technology,
however you propose to structure the program this time, *will not work*.
And damn few of us will join you on that fool's errand.
|
The folks over at Cambridge seem to think different
New Research is being conducted, for instance,
just a couple weeks ago at MIT with NASA help.
http://web.mit.edu/space_solar_power/
One of NASA's better known researchers and sci-fi writers
attended that conference.
http://mit.edu/aeroastro/www/people/landis/landis.html
Pentagon Considering Study on Space-Based Solar Power
Thursday, April 12, 2007
By Jeremy Singer
"The Pentagon's National Security Space Office (NSSO) may begin
a study in the near future on the possibility of using satellites to
collect solar energy for use on Earth, according to Defense
Department officials."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265380,00.html
Is NASA, MIT the Pentagon fools also?
What about the former Chairman of the House Space and
Aeronautics committee? Another fool?
Chairman Rohrabacher opened the hearing by stating that
space solar power (SSP) is "precisely what NASA as an
agency should be all about" - He stated that NASA's lack
of preparation to follow up on SSP, a concept that, he claimed,
"cries out for further research," may be because NASA wants
to focus on human space flight, "in hopes of reclaiming the
glory days of Apollo." He wants NASA to take the next measured
step in research, and believes that this visionary approach would
reap huge public support for NASA ."
Hearing on "Space Solar Power: A Fresh Look" before the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House
Committee on Science, October 24, 1997.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/solar.html
| Quote: |
If that's all you've got, then you are not going to get what you need.
So your time would be better spent figuring out how to do without.
|
And read that article from the Pentagon, and the reasons it gives for SSP.
The reasons they give are virtually identical to the reasons I've
been posting for months. A potential "Game Changer" they call it.
But maybe you're correct, spending the next twenty years
to build a shelter for four people on the moon is a better
use of NASA funds, time and expertise.
But those two alternative goals, more moon rocks and a potential
replacement for fossil fuels, side by side. Look at each, which
is better for our future?
| Quote: |
--
*John Schilling * "Anything worth doing, *
*Member:AIAA,NRA,ACLU,SAS,LP * is worth doing for money" *
*Chief Scientist & General Partner * -13th Rule of Acquisition *
*White Elephant Research, LLC * "There is no substitute *
*schillin@spock.usc.edu * for success" *
*661-718-0955 or 661-275-6795 * -58th Rule of Acquisition * |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 5:57 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
"Joe Strout" <joe@strout.net> wrote in message
news:joe-ECDE19.10113105062007@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
| Quote: |
In article <vcj963lp1o6ilgkti6m5jn46sskgpsm5oj@4ax.com>,
John Schilling <schillin@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
|
| Quote: |
Furthermore, SSP is *percieved* as being absolutely completely totally
irrelevant to anything in the real world, on account of being a
hopelessly
unrealistic fantasy.
No argument there. Of course if it were demonstrated, even on a small
scale, people would stop laughing. But as long as they're laughing,
it's hard to demonstrate.
|
If Bush had not killed SSP, we would ALREADY have a demonstrator
flying. This was not another study, it was Congress telling NASA
to start building an ambitious large scale SSP program.
Bush killed it.
Executive Summary
NASA'S SPACE SOLAR POWER EXPLORATORY RESEARCH AND
TECHNOLOGY (SERT) PROGRAM
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309075971
"Technology flight demonstrations (referred to by NASA as MSCs) are
scheduled in FY 2006-2007, FY 2011-2012, and FY 2016."
From 2002 to 2006 the funding request for SSP was respectively
$88million
$124million
$211million
$282million
$312million
I didn't see Congress laughing at this idea, quite the opposite.
Chairman Rohrabacher opened the hearing by stating that
space solar power (SSP) is "precisely what NASA as an
agency should be all about" - He stated that NASA's lack
of preparation to follow up on SSP, a concept that, he claimed,
"cries out for further research," may be because NASA wants
to focus on human space flight, "in hopes of reclaiming the
glory days of Apollo." He wants NASA to take the next measured
step in research, and believes that this visionary approach would
reap huge public support for NASA ."
Hearing on "Space Solar Power: A Fresh Look" before the
Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics of the House
Committee on Science, October 24, 1997.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/legaff/solar.html
| Quote: |
This is the classic problem space development
has faced over and over, occasionally with success (e.g. space tourism).
We need clean solutions to global warming and fossil fuels.
Which SSP may not offer, and even if it does, how do you propose to get
it? Shouting for massive government spending to develop SSP technology,
however you propose to structure the program this time, *will not work*.
And damn few of us will join you on that fool's errand.
True. About the only hope I have for SSP is for some visionary business
leader to do it -- maybe Richard Branson, who has deep pockets and an
obvious interest in both space development and clean energy. But I
don't imagine that there's much we can do here to have any influence on
it at all.
|
Nonsense, a democratic Congress will eventually return NASA to
the idea of SSP. I'm hoping by the next general election the idea
takes hold enough to become a campaign issue.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jonathan
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:05 am Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
"Henry Spencer" <henry@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:JJ6DM1.2uB@spsystems.net...
| Quote: |
You can't realistically hope to build and
operate powersats with the sort of space transportation we've got now --
it's a whole new order of magnitude -- so the current situation, in which
access to space is difficult and infrequent, simply isn't relevant.
|
You guys just don't get it. We need a /reason/ to make space
transportation cheap. SSP is the /reason/ to fund low cost
to orbit. We need a goal that has as a prerequisite building
the space infrastructure needed to truly exploit and colonize
space.
Once we can do SSP {even if it never happens"} then we
.....can do anything in space.
Our goal cannot be to build space infrastructure, or low
cost to orbit. Because people will ask 'WHY', and no one
will have an answer.
Have any of you ever watched a greyhound race?
Think of SSP as that little rabbit that makes the race go.
Jonathan
s
| Quote: |
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |
henry@spsystems.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Fred J. McCall
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:58 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
"alain245@sympatico.ca" <alain245@sympatico.ca> wrote:
:On Jun 5, 11:54 pm, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> wrote:
:> Joe Strout <j...@strout.net> wrote:
:>
:> :In article <vcj963lp1o6ilgkti6m5jn46sskgpsm...@4ax.com>,
:> : John Schilling <schil...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
:
:
:> :> And SSP is somewhat relevant to global warming, but mostly to the extent
:> :> that it replaces Chinese coal-fired power plants and blast furnaces. But
:> :> any plan to devote Sagans of American taxpayer dollars to building new and
:> :> better power plants for the Chinese, is an absolute political non-starter.
:> :
:> :China is certainly important, but the US is at the top of total CO2
:> :emissions at least as of 2003:
:> : http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_tp20.htm
:> :
:>
:> Get current. China is now at the top of the list.
:
:I don't think so. I think China's annual increase in CO2 output is the
:worlds greatest. But I think they still lag US CO2 emissions by a lot.
:
What you think doesn't matter. Reality is what it is and China now
outputs more CO2 than the US.
:> :Of course I realize that what matters is current and near-future
:> :emissions, not total past emissions. But the U.S. is at the head of
:> :that "current" list too, at least as of 2005:
:> : http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/CO2/2006_data.htm
:> :
:>
:> Again, get current. It's not 2005, either. It's 2007 and China just
:> screamed past us in the last few months (a good year or two ahead of
:> the projections).
:
:Cite?
:
Is it that you just don't pay attention to the news or do you simply
ignore anything you don't want to hear? See statements by Fatih Birol
of the IEA and many others.
:> :Granted, China's got a lot of power coming online in the near future,
:> :but it's extreme head-in-the-sand-ism to say that US emissions don't
:> :matter. We're responsible for over 20% of the CO2 emitted on the
:> :planet. That's huge.
:> :
:>
:> And we're responsible for over 25% of the global product. When we're
:> producing a bigger share of CO2 than we are global output, THEN we're
:> the problem. Until then folks like India and China are the problem.
:
:Why should that be the metric?
:
Because other ways of measuring impact are simply silly unless your
goal is for us all to move back into caves.
:
:Why not CO2 production per capita?
:(where
:the West lags way behind China and India.) Shouldn't everyone be
:treated
:equally?
:
Yes, they should, and that treatment should be based on how much
output they get for how much carbon they emit to get it. It's the
same rule for everyone, not biased to encourage everyone being dragged
down to the lowest common denominator.
:If some use their share of CO2 production inefficiently and
:don't
:make much with that is their problem,
No, it's EVERYONE'S problem, since if you measure on a per capita
basis and believe the disaster scenarios for global warming that
essentially says that one of two things happens:
1) The planet gets an economic death spiral, as total output must fall
in a system biased to favour the less economically efficient
contributors to the problem, or
2) We all die from global warming.
:
:but shouldn't the poor have the
:same
:polution rights as the rich?
:
It's not about some 'right' to emit carbon on a per head basis. It's
about maximizing welfare of everyone by getting the most output for
the least amount of carbon.
:
:If not it might be difficult for them to
:get out of
:poverty.
:
Why is that? Your way, it is not only difficult for them to get out
of poverty but it ensures that the rest of us will be dragged down
into it with them.
You don't consider overpopulation to be pollution? Your way says that
everyone must be dragged down to the poorest level. My way says that
everyone should be encouraged to move up to better conditions.
--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Monte Davis
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
"Mike Combs" <mikecombs@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> wrote:
| Quote: |
I guess the only advantage of a LEO SPS over ground-based solar is no
interruptions due to cloud cover.
|
Forgetting for a moment the cost of getting anything there, the
supporting structure could be much less massive without gravity and
wind loads. (OTOH, without air to convect waste heat away you need
more radiator -- but I doubt that would be as much as you'd save on
"framing.") |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Monte Davis
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:10 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
"Paul F. Dietz" <dietz@dls.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
And to DISPLACE existing dirty sources, you have to be cheaper
than the MARGINAL cost of those existing sources...
|
I certainly agree with the over-all thrust of your post, but this
third step is probably beating a sickly horse. By the time SSP could
become significant, little of the plant existing today will still be
in use -- so the appropriate comparison is new investment to new
investment.
IMHO, the *only* way to make it look even remotely like a business
case is to argue that the very act of going for it -- of committing to
tens or hundreds of thousands of tonnes in orbit -- will start driving
down launch costs, by justifying the investments in serious
reusability, serious quantity production, and genuinely routine ground
ops that haven't been worthwhile over the last fifty years.
That will be a hard sell. "It's too expensive to do much of it, so we
need to do a whole lot more of it" is deeply counterintuitive -- but
it's also the course of every big, initially expensive technology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
On Wed, 6 Jun 2007 22:05:08 -0400, in a place far, far away,
"Jonathan" <write@bellsouth.net> made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
"Henry Spencer" <henry@spsystems.net> wrote in message
news:JJ6DM1.2uB@spsystems.net...
You can't realistically hope to build and
operate powersats with the sort of space transportation we've got now --
it's a whole new order of magnitude -- so the current situation, in which
access to space is difficult and infrequent, simply isn't relevant.
You guys just don't get it. We need a /reason/ to make space
transportation cheap.
|
We already have one, and people are making the investment now. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
goanna
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 4:31 pm Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
In <JJ6DM1.2uB@spsystems.net> henry@spsystems.net (Henry Spencer) writes:
| Quote: |
robert casey <wa2ise@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
[...]
It's probably a lot cheaper to just build the solar power plant on the
ground (like in a desert in Arizona), even though it can only work
during the daytime. But power consumption does peak during the daytime...
Unfortunately, even Arizona gets clouded out at times, and atmospheric
absorption cuts available power early and late in the day (a particular
annoyance for the latter, since that's when the highest demand peak is).
And there is quite a bit of 24x7 base load to be supplied, and there'll
be much more of that if electricity is used to manufacture or replace
petroleum-derived liquid fuels.
|
True for photovoltaic, but recent developments in fairly low tech
solar thermal employ effective thermal storage to enable baseline
power without flywheels, pumped hydro or the like. For example,
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9719858-7.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Mike Combs
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 10:10 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
"Jonathan" <write@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:SlJ9i.84$R9.82@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
| Quote: |
But maybe you're correct, spending the next twenty years
to build a shelter for four people on the moon is a better
use of NASA funds, time and expertise.
But those two alternative goals, more moon rocks and a potential
replacement for fossil fuels, side by side. Look at each, which
is better for our future?
|
Maybe we need to convince NASA that SPS is the best way of getting us on the
moon in a major way; i.e. to economically develop its resources. If
proposing SPS at such a scale as to make any impact on global markets or
make any kind of dent in global warming, you almost have to be talking about
SPS constructed from nonterrestrial materials.
--
Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
By all that you hold dear on this good Earth
I bid you stand, Men of the West!
Aragorn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Rand Simberg
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:54 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
On Thu, 7 Jun 2007 13:10:14 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Mike
Combs" <mikecombs@nospam.com_chg_nospam_2_ti> made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
| Quote: |
"Jonathan" <write@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:SlJ9i.84$R9.82@bignews6.bellsouth.net...
But maybe you're correct, spending the next twenty years
to build a shelter for four people on the moon is a better
use of NASA funds, time and expertise.
But those two alternative goals, more moon rocks and a potential
replacement for fossil fuels, side by side. Look at each, which
is better for our future?
Maybe we need to convince NASA that SPS is the best way of getting us on the
moon in a major way; i.e. to economically develop its resources.
|
Why do you assume that NASA has a goal of getting us on the moon in a
major way? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Paul F. Dietz
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 6:10 am Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
Derek Lyons wrote:
| Quote: |
Not true - as current assumptions are built around the electric
vehicle charging at night, precisely when solar isn't available (and
normal electric demand is at it's lowest). Charge them during the
day, and they compete for power rather than serving a load leveling
function.
|
For PHEVs to provide the load leveling function with unreliable
power sources, they'd have to have smart charging systems that
can respond to external pricing signals, and you'd want to keep
them connected even during the day, when possible. In the worst
case, you use the fuel burning motor when sufficient electricity
is not available. In effect, the motors of the PHEVs are the peaking
power sources of last resort, available at no extra capital cost.
Paul |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Jim Davis
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 8:03 am Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
Mike Combs wrote:
| Quote: |
If
proposing SPS at such a scale as to make any impact on global
markets or make any kind of dent in global warming, you almost
have to be talking about SPS constructed from nonterrestrial
materials.
|
Mike, how could we possibly know that at this juncture? While it
might work out that way (who can say?), I see no particular reason
why possible reductions in earth to space transportation couldn't
offset the greater costs of extraterrestrial construction.
Jim Davis |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Derek Lyons
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 11:51 am Post subject: Re: powersats (was Re: Bush and VSE) |
|
|
"Paul F. Dietz" <dietz@dls.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
Derek Lyons wrote:
Not true - as current assumptions are built around the electric
vehicle charging at night, precisely when solar isn't available (and
normal electric demand is at it's lowest). Charge them during the
day, and they compete for power rather than serving a load leveling
function.
For PHEVs to provide the load leveling function with unreliable
power sources,
|
It's not that the sources are unreliable - it's that adding a large
number of EV's to the equations changes the load curves considerably
from the current norm.
| Quote: |
they'd have to have smart charging systems that can respond to external
pricing signals, and you'd want to keep them connected even during the
day, when possible.
|
There's some billing issues there, but nothing too horrible with
modern tech. (Swipe a smart card in the parking meter? A smart
interface in the car that stores your billing info? Details.)
| Quote: |
In the worst case, you use the fuel burning motor when sufficient
electricity is not available. In effect, the motors of the PHEVs are the
peaking power sources of last resort, available at no extra capital cost.
|
No capital cost - but considerable potential life cycle cost.
D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.
-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alex Terrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:23 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
On 5 Jun, 03:52, John Schilling <schil...@spock.usc.edu> wrote:
| Quote: |
On Sun, 3 Jun 2007 11:35:34 -0400, "Jonathan" <w...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Rand Simberg" <simberg.interglo...@org.trash> wrote in message
news:4672d887.33918772@news.giganews.com...
And how can this sad situation be changed?
Almost certainly it can't be. Space isn't politically important, and
never has been. The political support for NASA's brief surge of glory in
the 60s came from Cold War politics and gross insolence by the Soviets
not a belief that it was important to invest in the country's long-term
future. "There's progress, and then there's Congress."
Yes, as long as people continue to not understand this, and yearn for
byegone glory days when Space Was Important, and delude themselves
that they can return to them, they'll continue to be disappointed.
So you're saying that global warning, oil prices and the war are
NOT urgent political issues? You are the delusional one to
think they are not. SSP connects strongly to them all and many
more.
Only in ill-thought propaganda.
SSP doesn't connect to oil prices, because SSP generates electricity and
oil is almost exclusively used in applications where electricity is *not*
an adequate substitute. You're thinking about "energy" as if it were a
fungible commodity; it's not. There are two almost completely independant
energy markets, one for fixed power and one for motor vehicle fuel.
SSP is doubly irrelevant to the war because A: see above, and B: SSP can
not possibly be brought on line in significant quantity until the war is
long since won or lost.
And SSP is somewhat relevant to global warming, but mostly to the extent
that it replaces Chinese coal-fired power plants and blast furnaces. But
any plan to devote Sagans of American taxpayer dollars to building new and
better power plants for the Chinese, is an absolute political non-starter.
Furthermore, SSP is *percieved* as being absolutely completely totally
irrelevant to anything in the real world, on account of being a hopelessly
unrealistic fantasy. If you propose to change that perception, note that
people have spent thirty-odd years trying to change that perception, with
zero success. What do you propose to do that they haven't already done?
Perhaps if we take a longer term view of things. |
SSP is not going to help in the next two decades. Here in the UK we
need to build a new generation of nuclear power plants or rely on
Russian gas. The US is also building new nukes. These are going to be
on line until about 2075-2090. Meanwhile, the advanced nations at the
G8 summit have just committed themselves to a 50% cut in greenhouse
gas emissions by 2050. Add in to the mix that we don't know how long
oil will last for, because we have no unbiased estimates of reserves,
and you might conclude that SSP is something we want coming on stream
in 2050 to be major by 2075 (when the nukes are retired) and dominant
by 2100.
This is a long term goal, but then so is a 50% cut in emissions by
2050. Why not set NASA on this path?
At this stage, the architecture required is similar for a return to
the moon (whether what's chosen is right or wrong is another matter).
But lets add in the long term goal of unlimited clean energy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Alex Terrell
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:27 pm Post subject: Re: Bush and VSE (was Re: Breaking News! NASA Astronaut Mars |
|
|
On 5 Jun, 17:14, Joe Strout <j...@strout.net> wrote:
| Quote: |
In article <FMKdnd_dj4UP0PjbnZ2dnUVZ_qemn...@dls.net>,
"Paul F. Dietz" <d...@dls.net> wrote:
John Schilling wrote:
SSP doesn't connect to oil prices, because SSP generates electricity and
oil is almost exclusively used in applications where electricity is *not*
an adequate substitute.
And to the degree that electricity can better become a substitute for
petroleum (for example, by improvements in batteries for vehicles)
then SSP isn't needed, or even particularly helpful. Huge numbers of
PHEVs could be charged on the US power grid with existing capacity
(mostly during off-peak times) before they would require new capacity
additions.
It's not just about adding new capacity as needed -- it's about reducing
existing emissions, by replacing existing fossil-fuel-burning plants.
But maybe I'm missing the point here, which was merely about oil prices.
For that I agree, widespread electric vehicles alone would reduce oil
prices without SSP.
On oil prices, we don't know what is going to happen to future supply. |
Without accurate data when peak oil happens can't be acurately
predicted.
On emissions, PHEVs don't do much in the USA given the predominance of
coal in the generating mix (in France, in contrast, a PHEV emits less
than 10% of the CO2 of a normal car). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
215 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
