>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> Before anybody gets too excited, the source I read said "by 2040".
> Yes, unlike here in the states, the Japanese really do try to plan
> that far ahead.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>
>
> I hate to sound critical but...
> Saying that their going to build an SPS by 2040 is an empty boast. The US
> Government could say a similar thing at no cost to the present and for all
we
> know we could be right to. By pushing such a goal so far in the future they
> are passing on the obligation of implementing it to their descendents, It
> really is a cheap bit of rhetoric. When were ready to finally build an SPS
we
> should be able to build one in 10 years or less.
>
> Tom Kalbfus
> >>

Can't be more true. ( Sorry for the late answer)
I think a real project would include a path to the SPS, something as:

1/ Build back the Saturn V or Energya launcher.
2/Use the first flights to launch a ion engine powered tether.
3/Use that leo tether to boost the mass launched to 250 metric tons.
4/ Use that new capacity to launch a LEO to GTO and a LEO to LTO tethers.
5/Put an lunar orbit to Moon ground and ground to orbit tether.
6/ Build a LEO material processing facility. (May be tested on ISS).
7/Import raw material from the Moon to LEO and process them into SPS
structures.
8/ Launch solar cells from Earth in 250 t batches with the tether assisted
Saturn-like launcher.

The first steps in that direction would be:
A/ Test a processing facility on ISS.
B/ Test a big tether system in space.
C/ Test a large ion or plasma engine in space.

I see nothing of that, so I think everything about SPS is mere political
discourse with no content.

Yvan Bozzonetti.

I suggest SPS on the agenda for the next ProSpace March Storm. We need to start looking harder at more domestic power resource. The war gives us more justification. I have explained more detail to a board member.

What do you think.

Joe Russo (Ohio)

One replay was it would be cheaper to develop terrestrial solar and this is what I think about it. What do you think?

On the commercial end:

Yes, terrestrial solar is cheaper, however limitations to weather also is creating a problem. Additionally, having a factory in space of this type of energy, also means having the ability to sell it to other countries that will only have to develop a collector.

On the military end, and the real reason I bring this up, but did not before because I did not want my twist to the SPS be muddied up right of the bat with humanity issues:

According to my research and verified by a NASA Official, modified hardware with a deadly beam can cook out dug in soldiers on the hill side or mountain. This can appear to be somewhat none humanistic, however may be a last resort option to people that are a threat and have no concern for humanistic values in the first place. We are looking at laser technologies instead, or possible lasers on airplanes which NASA has developed. I work with NASA officials each week on this project. I can not disclose who or who I am currently working for too. What is nice about the SPS is that the cost to build one would go to National Defense and also be used on a commercial market to create a safe free energy or low cost energy for humanity. If we want SPS up in space, this threat (negative) on us can also turn out to be an opportunity (positive) on us. If the DoD wants to take up the cost to build SPS(s) for Defense purposes then later turn it into a commercial market, let them!

Lets push for it.

Also, I believe that since we humans need a threat of mass distraction over our heads to keep us in check, why build more missiles which are only good for blowing things up. Instead put the money into a solar power satellite that can be used for good instead. The threat of mass distraction is present, or weapons superiority over other countries, and a usefulness is made out of it.

My guess is that it will end up being used only for good, and if used as a weapon, then it was the only choice left anywise. Many top military people think I am twisted to bring this up as an option, however, after looking at the facts, are interested to but it in the budget.

HINT every, they are interested to put it in the budget, however, I am not sure if this has made it to the congressional level yet.

We, have already been implementing terrestrial solar, and now looking at doing more regardless of the poor cost to return on profit in some areas.

Some top military persons are approving more of the solar energy concepts, and we now, have the attention of SPS than ever before. A capital ventures, sticks on opportunities like that.

Joe Russo,

you might remember me when I used to
live in Cleveland, I was a member of Cuyahoga Valley
Space Society like you were.

>
> Yes, terrestrial solar is cheaper, however limitations to weather also is creating a problem. Additionally, having a factory in space of this type of energy, also means having the ability to sell it to other countries that will only have to develop a collector.
>

To say terrestrial solar power is cheaper is rather
meaningless.

The cost per watt of SPS could be less than for terrestrial solar power when integrated 24/7 over a year. Over most of the Earth, terrestrial solar power only provides 5% of the power of SPS.

> According to my research and verified by a NASA Official, modified hardware with a deadly beam can cook out dug in soldiers on the hill side or mountain. This
>

Well, it depends on what "modified" means.
The notion is really impractical, from GEO it would need
an antenna about 100 kilometres in diameter, depending on the power density you want. It is a darned expensive
solution. And microwaves cannot penetrate far through dirt, rock or simple shileding such as Aluminum foil.

=============
I work with NASA officials each week on this project. I can not disclose who or who I am currently working for
=============

Joe, this is a red flag, sorry. Have you signed a
non-disclosure agreement ?

You are in Cleveland, so that means you are near NASA Glenn Research Center, where there is a lot of
space energy research being done by folks such as Dr. Geoffrey Landis, who is a friend of mine. You should
at least talk to Geoff, if you are not already doing so.
He is one of the leaders of SPS research at NASA and his
identity is not secret.

too. What is nice about the SPS is that the cost to build one would go to National Defense and also be used

Joe, there are some good opportunities for synergy
with some defense applications for SPS technology,
but using an SPS as a power ray weapon is just plain daft.

The most interesting area for defense collaboration is in the area of large phased array transmitters. The
biggest of these are presently military radars, such as the Pave-PAWS ballitic missile detection system. This
technology is probably a good starting point for
designing an SPS transmitter antenna.

=================
on a commercial market to create a safe free energy or low cost energy for humanity. If we want SPS up in
=================

Joe, you have just scared everybody to death by claiming that SPS is a great sort of death ray thing,
now you want everybody to think it is safe.

Joe, the standard SPS design involves a beam of power
of less density than sunlight. It is bad enough trying
to convince people that sort of beam is safe, if you go around advertising SPS as a death ray, then you are
making it much more difficult to sell SPS to the public as safe.

> Lets push for it.
>

Let's not.

Please stop trying to sell SPS a a beam weapon. It is
no good for that purpose, it won't work, and it will
scare people unecessarily.

> Also, I believe that since we humans need a threat of mass distraction over our heads to keep us in check, why
>

What distraction are you referring to ?

Cheers,

Charles F. Radley

Yes, I remember you. It is nice to talk to someone that knows his stuff, and I will follow up on your leads. Thank you. Of all what others have said, you have made more creditable comments on why it is a bad idea to look at it a certian way. Since we have seen recently that certain advances on the Taliban Forces is working better than the Russians and others had tired, it may not be required to heat up an area which will also help set off bobby traps before one of our guys get into it. If it roasted some nuts along the way, oh well. Also, I will provide air laser web page links I have when I get back to work tomorrow.

Again, like before, you let the cat out of the bag.

A point I have to bring up now, some of my intention was to

"...you have just scared everybody to death by claiming that SPS is a great sort of death ray thing,..."

That along with some other stuff has helped scare some certain people I wanted too :) also, certain responces has been looked at in detail :) as you recall the way I am, I have a twisted way to get certain results that work.

Oh, if you can, do me a favor and help get me out of DoD to more aerospace work. Playing Army is great, but going bake to space is the choice.

Later

Joe

Charles

I forgot to make a note that I do not want ProSpace to push the issue to make SPS a weapon, just trying to stress the point to some ProSpace people that SPS is bing looked at in greater detail than ever, and it would be good to hit the subject while it is HOT. Also, some ProSpace members still think SPS economics are still in the traditional world, but do not see the new factors added to it after Sept. 11. To answere your other question, no, everyone keeps forgetting to have me sign any non-disclosure agreement, so, I use that to help others without hindering security levels.

> Charles
>
> I forgot to make a note that I do not want ProSpace to push the issue to make SPS a weapon, just trying to stress the point to some ProSpace people that SPS is bing looked at in greater detail than ever, and it would be good to hit the subject while it is HOT. Also, some >

Thanks for clarifying.

>ProSpace members still think SPS economics are still in >the traditional world, but do not see the new factors >added to it after Sept. 11. To answere your other

The main thing I see after Sept 11th is that some people
in the beltway are beginning to realize that for the
western world to be almost entirely dependent on OPEC
as their primary source of energy represents a serious
security problem.

Hence, more expensive high tech sources of energy,
e.g. SPS, would represent a significant improvement
for the security of western civilization.

Is that what you are referring to ?

Or is it something else ?

I am not sure whether that yet represents a majority view in the beltway, because Bush is from the Texas oil culture, and Cheney and his
friends are executives of oil companies, who want to
keep the world dependent on oil to their personal gain.

Are you planning to address that issue ?

How about this proposal:

The enormous cost of maintaining the US military,
which for the last couple of decades has been primarily deployed for preserving western sources of oil,
should be paid for by a surcharge on crude oil
imports.

That will more properly reflect the true cost of obtaining that oil, which at present is artificially
cheap because it ignores the military cost.

Cheers,

Charles R.

Dear Friend, my responce in ((((((((answer)))))))) format

>In a message dated Wed, 14 Nov 2001 7:09:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, moonmanjoe@... writes:
>
>> Charles
>>
>> I forgot to make a note that I do not want ProSpace to push the issue to make SPS a weapon, just trying to stress the point to some ProSpace people that SPS is bing looked at in greater detail than ever, and it would be good to hit the subject while it is HOT. Also, some >
>
>Thanks for clarifying.

(((((your welcome)))))))

>
>>ProSpace members still think SPS economics are still in >the traditional world, but do not see the new factors >added to it after Sept. 11. To answere your other
>
>The main thing I see after Sept 11th is that some people
>in the beltway are beginning to realize that for the
>western world to be almost entirely dependent on OPEC
>as their primary source of energy represents a serious
>security problem.
>
>Hence, more expensive high tech sources of energy,
>e.g. SPS, would represent a significant improvement
>for the security of western civilization.
>
>Is that what you are referring to ?

((((((YES, that is my main point)))))))

>
>Or is it something else ?
>
>I am not sure whether that yet represents a majority view in the beltway, because Bush is from the Texas oil culture, and Cheney and his
>friends are executives of oil companies, who want to
>keep the world dependent on oil to their personal gain.
>
>Are you planning to address that issue ?

((((((YES)))))))

>
>How about this proposal:
>
>The enormous cost of maintaining the US military,
>which for the last couple of decades has been primarily deployed for preserving western sources of oil,
>should be paid for by a surcharge on crude oil
>imports.
>
>That will more properly reflect the true cost of obtaining that oil, which at present is artificially
>cheap because it ignores the military cost.

((((((GREAT, thank you again)))))))))