Tax breaks everywhere but none for SPS. Why do you think this is?
TangoMan
Same reason no tax breaks were listed for
green/renewable energy. Congress is there to help
existing companies that employ their constituents.
SPS has no existing constituents or even political
spokesmen.
that it is feasible (not just conceptually like it did
in the late 70s). By this I mean it must first show
that power can be beamed back down safely which I
believe the Japanese are working towards. Even the
japanese though are taking their sweet time at it
(SPS-2000, for a 10 MW GEO SPS).
Since the last teim we talked about this. I was
googling on this and saw this pdf which gave a good
summary of each angle of sps currently being
concsidered:
http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/sctm/docs/SSPVUGRAPH_J_GREY.pdf
If the US wants to get serious about this, then a
joint NASA/DOE group needs to be created to tackle
this problem. To my knowledge, I haven't heard
anything of late being done for this. I'm sure Arthur
could elaborate what is being done in the US.
Ryan
> Same reason no tax breaks were listed for
> green/renewable energy. Congress is there to help
> existing companies that employ their constituents.
> SPS has no existing constituents or even political
> spokesmen.
> As we've gone over before, SPS needs to prove first
> that it is feasible (not just conceptually like it did
> in the late 70s). By this I mean it must first show
> that power can be beamed back down safely which I
> believe the Japanese are working towards. Even the
> japanese though are taking their sweet time at it
> (SPS-2000, for a 10 MW GEO SPS).
Is it worth pushing for a research appropriation at the expense of
giving up some other space endeavor?
> Since the last teim we talked about this. I was
> googling on this and saw this pdf which gave a good
> summary of each angle of sps currently being
> concsidered:
> http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/sctm/docs/SSPVUGRAPH_J_GREY.pdf
Thanks for the link. It was worth starting the post just to get this
info. :)
> If the US wants to get serious about this, then a
> joint NASA/DOE group needs to be created to tackle
> this problem. To my knowledge, I haven't heard
> anything of late being done for this. I'm sure Arthur
> could elaborate what is being done in the US.
>
> Ryan
I'd sure like to see something happen.
TangoMan
> > SPS has no existing constituents or even political
> > spokesmen.
>
> Too true! Who do you think the constituents should
> be?
>
This is the problem most inherent to the space
program. I've been working on a draft letter to my
congresswoman for the past few days and have been
thinking alot on these issues. Why should a
congressman lend support to a program which does not
directly benefit their constituents in the near
political future.
least 30 years out. Knowing space programs, multiply
that by 2 for a real date. Noone in congress is going
to expend their political capital on a program like
this. Especially when there is no large grassroots
campaign for it.
So far, the only way I can see this becoming an issue
is to have it make its way onto a party's platform.
While the major parties in the US are split on energy,
I do not think the democrats have the balls for
something as bold as SPS when it would alienate their
large support of unions working for energy companies.
Republicans are definitely not going to go for it as
they have a large energy lobby behind them (look at
Cheney's energy task force).
This leaves us with the minor parties, currently the
largest being the reform and green party. I think the
green's would go for as one of the cornerstones of
their party is renewable energy. However, I am a bit
worried about the green party image and associating
SPS too tightly with it. Alot of people I talk with
just see the green party as a newly refaced socialist
party (indeed many of their leaders have roots there).
This has some negative connotations to be sure.
As for the reform party, I have not given them much
thought yet and am not too sure of their political
future after last elections fiasco.
I'd be interested in hearing others thoughts on this
subject matter.
>
> Is it worth pushing for a research appropriation at
> the expense of
> giving up some other space endeavor?
>
depends on your perspective. if your looking at this
through your bootstrapping goggles, I would say yes.
However, many scientists would disagree with this.
>
http://space-power.grc.nasa.gov/ppo/sctm/docs/SSPVUGRAPH_J_GREY.pdf
>
> Thanks for the link. It was worth starting the post
> just to get this
> info. :)
>
glad you liked it. I was a bit disheartened to see so
little US projects in this link. However I do not
know if this information is elsewhere and just was not
included in this list.
Ryan Z
> --- victoriatangoman
> > > SPS has no existing constituents or even political
> > > spokesmen.
> >
> > Too true! Who do you think the constituents should
> > be?
> >
> This is the problem most inherent to the space
> program. I've been working on a draft letter to my
> congresswoman for the past few days and have been
> thinking alot on these issues. Why should a
> congressman lend support to a program which does not
> directly benefit their constituents in the near
> political future.
District as your Representative would you?
You could do worse than having the Democratic leader of the House be
an advocate.
I'd spin it as being an aerospace program. That's a big economic
sector that needs help right about now. Energy self-sufficiency has
got to be a plus considering US reliance on foreign sources. Find a
way to bring Bechtel on board. Eventually diminishing the Middle
Eastern influence in US politics. Being a world leader in a new
technology that has a high barrier to entry. This could positively
contribute to US trade balances. There would also be spin-off
technologies that would further develop US technological leadership.
This would give NASA a purpose. Lastly, clean energy is a crowd
pleaser.
> So far, the only way I can see this becoming an issue
> is to have it make its way onto a party's platform.
> While the major parties in the US are split on energy,
> I do not think the democrats have the balls for
> something as bold as SPS when it would alienate their
> large support of unions working for energy companies.
Aerospace unions have clout as well. Think of the spin offs.
Desaliination plants fed by bountiful electricity. They need
workers. Where do you find water in need of desalination. The
Pacific. You could pipe that water all over the Southwest. That
could be a huge industry for California. Think of all that salt, too!
> Republicans are definitely not going to go for it as
> they have a large energy lobby behind them (look at
> Cheney's energy task force).
Yeah, and they're pushing the Hydrogen economy, based on extracting
the hydrogen from natural gas.
>
> This leaves us with the minor parties, currently the
> largest being the reform and green party. I think the
> green's would go for as one of the cornerstones of
> their party is renewable energy. However, I am a bit
> worried about the green party image and associating
> SPS too tightly with it. Alot of people I talk with
> just see the green party as a newly refaced socialist
> party (indeed many of their leaders have roots there).
> This has some negative connotations to be sure.
I wouldn't go there.
TangoMan
However, I am a bit
worried about the green party image and associating
SPS too tightly with it. Alot of people I talk with
just see the green party as a newly refaced socialist
party (indeed many of their leaders have roots there).
This has some negative connotations to be sure. And this cuts the other way, too. I suspect if the greenparty ever does look at SPS, all they see are big corporations making big profits, and oppose if for that reason alone, without any consideration of the vast help SPS could represent in the fight against global warming.
Regards,
Mike Combs
By this I mean it must first show
that power can be beamed back down safely which I
believe the Japanese are working towards. Even the
japanese though are taking their sweet time at it
(SPS-2000, for a 10 MW GEO SPS). I was thinking that this effort had stalled out. At least their website went away. Am I wrong for classifying this effort as "moribund"?
Mike Combs
Consider who has both the most to lose AND the most to
gain from the development of SPS,,, energy producers
such as Saudi Arabia, Mobil, Exon, Shell, Standard
Oil, British Petroleum, etc. These are the people who
could gain the most from investment in SPS and have
the most to lose if any government puts a lock on
such. They are the ones who are most likely to see 40
years down the road, when there is no more oil or gas
to burn. It took about 120 years to develop our
current electric power generating systems. Can we
replace all those coal, oil and gas burning behemoths
in a mere 40 years, plus bring online another couple
of trillions watts of capacity to provide for all
those "me too" nations trying to come up to our level
of energy use? Maybe,,,