Since the subject first came up, I have always thought global warming was caused by the Sun and increase in carbon dioxide was the result of this warming and not its cause. But when those with even the best scientific credentials try to introduce a similar view, they are simply shouted down by the many zealots in support of man made carbon dioxide as the primary cause.
But I do recognize that this set of circumstance gives a cubic centimeter of opportunity to promote opening the space frontier through building solar powered satellites and I intend to do all in my power to exploit it.
I sent a letter identical to the one below to Senator Collins from Maine and the Representative from my District in Maine. I also sent similar letters to former Presidents Carter, Bush, and Clinton. Not a single letter might get by their Palace Guards, or if they do, not a single one might be interested.
As a fail-safe position, sometime in the next two or three weeks I am going to put the same information on a web site I started at www.LowEarthOrbitNow.org. If you should visit this site now all you will see is a sign saying "Under Construction." My computer is old, antiquated, slow, has limited storage capacity, and can not accommodate the support programs Yahoo has created to build the site. I am ordering a new computer and should be able to have the site up and running within two or three weeks. Then I will set up the introductory page highlighting the site as introducing "The Maine Solution to Global Warming" and discuss the approach outlined below.
From that starting position I hope to get picked up by the blogger network and see what happens. If I do succeed in getting publicity two of my first stops will be at Space Studies Institute to decide upon a specific SPS design and at Space Islands Group to determine the extent to which they would like to collaborate on setting up an infrastructure in LEO to assemble SPSs and then get them to GEO.
Best regards,
Leon John Neihouse
2 March 2007
Senator Olympia Snowe
154 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-0001
Dear Senator Snowe:
For background information, I have a degree in Physics, a MBA, served seven years in the U.S. Navy's nuclear powered submarine program, worked seven years in commercial nuclear power, and at the close of business on 5 June will have been employed for 30 years with a naval architect and marine engineering firm in Bath, Maine.
As introduced in the first attachment below, I incorporated The Dirigo Energy Institute to develop the options discussed in the attachment but that organization is now dormant. I am trying to resurrect the ideas, but this time through a business I am calling The Phoenix Power Company, as named in the second attachment. As seen in Attachment Three, solar powered satellite and nuclear power options are in a R&D status.
I need to find a person with appropriate credentials to serve as President of a prospective new nation with characteristics described in Attachment Four. LEON is the name given but that is proposed for discussion purposes only - any alternate acceptable to all concerned would work. I have identified Al Gore, George Mitchell, and Tony Blair as three candidates with the requisite credentials. I respectfully request that you assist me in wording an appropriate invitation for participation to be sent to these three.
In the event that my proposal to incorporate a new nation proves to be unsupportable, I respectfully request that you assist me in getting U.S. permission for The Phoenix Power Company to use the uninhabited U.S. possessions of Howland Island and Baker Island in the Phoenix Island group for use as described in Attachment Four.
Thank you for any attention you can give to this request.
Leon Neihouse
24 Oak Grove Avenue
Bath, ME 04530
Attachments:
1. A MENSA Bulletin Letter to the Editor that summarizes long term involvement with addressing the energy issue.
2. A name reservation with the State of Maine for The Phoenix Power Company.
3. An outline for The Phoenix Power Company to develop regenerative, cost effective, and environmentally benign sources of power.
4. A proposal to set up an independent nation called Low Earth Orbit Now, or LEON, to export regenerative, cost effective, and environmentally benign power for purchase by all nations on an open and equitable basis. Attachment Four Low Earth Orbit Now A Prospective New Member of the United Nations 2 March 2007
As a result of Al Gore's documentary "An Inconvenient Truth," many believe the planet is in a state of peril close to the one that existed when Hitler was threatening global domination. Stricter emission laws, carbon dioxide sequestering, and a reduction in our economic output are programs that might elicit political support so as to counter global warming but renewable energy programs should also be given serious consideration. In fact, since their implementation will cause an economic expansion, they are a prime candidate to be the number one weapon used to fight the battle looming on the horizon.
As outlined in the information provided by The Phoenix Power Company, a nascent Maine based business, there are many regenerative options. Two possible sources of funds for the tens of billions of dollars that will be needed to develop regenerative options to combat global warming are aid from member nations of the UN and private investment in not only the proven options but also the solar powered satellite (SPS) R&D program of The Phoenix Power Company. For a third source, donations/grants will be sought from foundations, businesses, and the general public. Given the objective to remove energy from the world peace equation so as to make the world a safer place in which to raise our children as well as to delete man made carbon dioxide as a factor in the global warming equation, if this option were to be promoted through an effective public relations program, it could well turn out to be the major source of funding.
The one with perhaps the best potential to combat global warming in a publicly acceptable manner is solar powered satellites placed in geosynchronous earth orbit (GEO). Granted this is an R&D program but, if it were to be adequately funded, it could within 20 years remove forever the specter of global warming caused by man made carbon dioxide emissions. In fact, off the shelf scale models to complete this process have already been developed; these only need to be taken to the full scale stage and an appropriate coordination and control program initiated so as to assemble component parts into a SPS in low earth orbit (LEO) and propel it to GEO, from where it would beam microwave power to receiving stations on Earth.
To make this happen, a new nation called Low Earth Orbit Now, or LEON for simplicity, is proposed to be started. In this scenario, the United States would cede Howland Island and Baker Island (two uninhabited U.S. possessions near the equator in the Pacific) to LEON, which would use its status as an independent nation to get accepted as a member in good standing with the United Nations. One way to then proceed would be to build an airport on Howland Island designed specifically to accept SPS component parts, transport the parts by high speed ferry or heavy lift helicopter across the 68 kilometers to Baker Island, on which would be set up one or more launchers sending the SPS component parts to LEO. A robotic infrastructure in LEO, assisted by astronauts, would assemble the parts into completed satellites and send them on to their permanent home in GEO.
The overarching problem is to develop launchers that will get the component parts of a SPS into LEO. Four possible approaches already on the drawing board are electromagnetic, slingatron, laser, and microwave beamed launch. It will also be necessary to develop a large orbital infrastructure that can guide these payloads (a hundred per day for seven months is one projected order of magnitude to build a five gigawatt station) to a central location and then devise a robot network in LEO, with astronaut assist, to assemble the parts into a complete satellite. This is easily the biggest unknown in the recommended approach but certainly our existing science and technology is much closer to solving this problem then we were at the beginning of the Second World War when we first decided to develop the atomic bomb. If United Nations, USA, Russia, Europe, Japan, China, and all other nations able to bring scientific and technical talent to the problem were to undertake a public Manhattan-type project today, the first five gigawatt solar powered satellite could be in place three to five years from today and, within 20 years, enough satellites could be in place to remove forever the man made carbon dioxide factor from the equation for global warming.
Ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) plants would provide power for all aspects of the pacific leg of this endeavor. Floating housing for those operating and servicing the equipment on Baker Island, the airport on Howland Island, and the OTEC plants would be set up near Howland Island. For the case of electromagnetic or slingatron launch, this separation from Baker Island would ensure the noise pollution caused by launches breaking the sound barrier on a 24/7 basis would not effect the OTEC operating crew or airport personnel. If other launch modes were used, the system to get to LEO could be set up at alternate global locations, both within and outside of the United States.
A parallel requirement would be to design, build, operate, and maintain a satellite receiving station for each SPS. Power would be transmitted to customers from the receiving station through high voltage transmission lines to the grid and/or through electrolysis of water with hydrogen sent through a distribution system to provide a power source to population centers in the area of the receiving station.
As a final provision, profits would be reinvested to design, build, operate, and maintain space elevators to GEO so as to provide for long term satellite maintenance.
Space Studies Institute (www.ssi.org), a scientific and technical organization founded by the late Dr. Gerard K. O'Neill, is very knowledgeable on solar powered satellites. Anyone interested in investigating this approach in more depth and detail can begin the due diligence process at SSI.
The first President of LEON, whoever that turns out to be, would invite former Presidents Jimmy Carter, George Bush, and Bill Clinton to serve as Goodwill Ambassadors. Ensuring independent access to cost effective and environmentally benign energy for all nations will remove one of the major causes for global conflict so it will be hard for any of these former Presidents to turn down a credible invitation. In addition, if an ideal form of 1,000 solar powered satellites were set, former President Bush would finally have a logical platform from which to promote his thousand points of light.
Hi Leon,
like a kook. (As does your backwards interpretation of global warming,
for that matter.) Because of this, your letters and websites will not
only be ignored, but actually do more harm to the advancement of space
solar power than good.
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Hi Joe. Nice to hear from you again.
look like a kook but it seems to be working for him.
I do not mind being thought kooky but I would not want it to bring harm
to the concept of solar power. So tell me, anyone, on line or off, how
can I present the concept of solar powered satellites in a manner that
will find public acceptance?
Leon
>
> Hi Leon,
>
> With apologies, someone must point out that your letter makes you
sound
Well, to start with, you can join up with those of us who have been trying to do the same thing for some time, and have the scientific backing of the Space Solar Power Workshop behind us. Darel Preble and his scientific colleagues have built up a considerable stock of analysis and evidence which ought not to be left out of any discussion on the subject. I incorporated the Space Solar Power Association last year to act as the lobbying affiliate for SSPW. I have approached a number of individuals in the government and outside it, and plan to make a visit to Washington this spring to speak to more. This will not happen in any one person's ad hoc project, but requires educating the public, public officials, and the media to take space solar power seriously. Ultimately, government-supplied funding will be necessary to get space solar power started, as it has been for so many capital-intensive projects over the decades.
--Mark Wallach
Cc:
Hi Joe. Nice to hear from you again.
I should mention that I believe "An Inconvenient Truth" makes Al Gore
look like a kook but it seems to be working for him.
I do not mind being thought kooky but I would not want it to bring harm
to the concept of solar power. So tell me, anyone, on line or off, how
can I present the concept of solar powered satellites in a manner that
will find public acceptance?
Leon
>
> Hi Leon,
>
> With apologies, someone must point out that your letter makes you
sound
Hi Mark,
I would love to open a dialogue with you but I do not have your email address. I know you tried to give it but the only thing that came through was mwallach@... You can get to me by sending me an off-line message at ljan910 @... Notice I had to leave a space or my email address would not have transmitted properly just one of the quirks of Yahoo
In this respect I want to highlight the comments I received from another space interest web site as a result of the practically identical post I send to this group. This is some of the best information I could ever have hoped to receive as a result of the post.
Best regards,
Leon Neihouse
(snip)
Consider the following:
1. Though it is not being widely spread by the Anthropomorphic Caused Global Warming (ACGW-aka: Human Caused) community, one of the 'major supporting' documents they have been using to 'prove' global warming is mans' fault ACTUALLY says the opposite in its conclusions section:
_http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRelea
ses/2004/pressRelease20040802/_
(http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRelease\
s/2004/pressRelease20040802/)
global warming by asking if the Sun isn't the 'main' component of climate
change.
The 'answer' usually being that the Max Planck Institute study sited in this
new release shows "No solar" increase since 1940, or that the "data does not
show the sun to be a contributor to the global rise in temperature" etc.
Which is 'true' except that these statements are both taken out of context AND
edited.
What the report says is that using satellite based solar observations, (now
considered THE only source of accurate solar data since becoming available
over 30 years ago has shown HUGE inaccuracies in previous data) the MPI and a Finnish solar observatory group were able to accurately model solar
contribution to Global Climate change and apply that model to factors available through historical sun spot data, (found to be very accurate) and radioactive isotopes from ice core samples as well as some other indicators. With this model and data they have been able to accurately trend solar contribution to the global climate back almost 11,400 years. (To the end of the last Ice Age) This article, (not mentioned on the ACGW sites and is a follow up to the study that IS mentioned)
_http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRelea
ses/2004/pressRelease20041028/index.html_
(http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRelease\
s/2004/pressRelease20041028/index.
html)
Clearly shows that the current trend of global warming IS caused by
increasing solar activity which, as of 2004, was at it's HIGHEST levels in the
last 800 years!
The model clearly shows that the Sun, not human activity is responsible for
Global Warming, however, (big however here) the model with the sun as the
major factor does NOT match global temperature rise along the curve over the
last 30-43 bringing into question what has caused THIS rise. The report concludes with this statement:
"However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar
radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit
the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase
in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within
this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present
global warming.
These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between
variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point
of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly
as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the
emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal,
gas, and oil. "Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since,
according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field,
the significant increase in the Earths temperature since 1980 is indeed to be
ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."
The second report concludes with this statement: "Because the brightness of the Sun varies slightly with solar activity, the new reconstruction indicates also that the Sun shines somewhat brighter today than in the 8,000 years before. Whether this effect could have provided a significant contribution to the global warming of the Earth during the last century is an open question. The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stressthe fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time. On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years) indicates that the relation between the Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research."
Adding to this 'problem' with the conclusions is the fact the 'contested'
period includes the Challenger disaster which significantly delayed a solar
observation satellites replacement launch by almost 10 years in which data was 'gathered' through vastly inferior and questionable 'secondary' satellites.
Since the Human Caused Global Warming period shrinks from the 'beginning of the industrial revolution' to only the last 30 years, (maybe) this calls into
question a HUGE amount of the 'catastrophe' Global Warming models which
predict any sort of 'tipping' point as expounded upon by Mr. Gore and others
who seek government intervention due to human cause on Climate Change.
2. The 'controversy' over Human effect on Global Climate is far from over or
settled in any manner. The problem with Mr. Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" is
that it ALSO ignores several 'inconvenient' sets of data that seem to imply
that Global Climate change is occurring on other planets of the Solar System as
well as Earth, that there have been higher concentrations of CO2 in that
atmosphere than currently, that the actual contribution of CO2 to 'greenhouse'
warming is in question, that the historical CO2 record both shows that CO2
emission can proceed or follow global temperature change by up to 800 years,
that 'natural' emissions of CO2 are a huge part of the 'overall' quoted CO2
total yet the 'charge' is that the high CO2 level is solely man-made, that the
'consensus' on Human Caused Global Warming is no such thing, and for every
institution that 'supports' Human Caused Global Warming, there are a significant portion of scientists IN those organizations that support NO such conclusion?
I could go on. Add to this a world wide movement to 'prove' and 'correct' Global Warming no matter the actual science, (as displayed by the United Nations Report On Climate Change which is on public record as having to have its science 'adjusted' to fit the conclusions presented by the politically motivated panelin a summery written before the report was even finished) and the political climate is NOT going to be condusive to the type of program your proposing.
3. Kicker here, the model that has accuratly showed the Sun to be the major
contributor to Global Warming has ANOTHER use in that it accuratly shows the solar activity cycles over the last 11,400 years. Again from the follow up
study let me highlight this:
"Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades."
Meaning that solar activity is going into a DECREASING period, possibly far
enough to be looking at the begining of a new Ice Age in a matter of
centuries. The model is not a predictor of future solar activity, but the
cyclic nature of such activity CAN be used to model future activity. We don't have enough accurate data on solar process' at this point to tell if this will be a
long-term (Ice Age) or a short term (Middle Ages "Little Ice Age" solar
minimum) down turn. Some estimates put the beginning of Global Cooling as close as 2012.
_http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_13.html_
(http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_13.html)
_http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooling.html_
(http://motls.blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooling.html)
(snip)
If you haven't already I suggest you 'google' Solar Power Satellites and
Global Warming and look for some of the (currently) more radical ACGW pages. You'll easily find very well written articles 'citing' obscure and hard to
confirm 'studies' that show that microwave beaming of power from such
satellites will cause everything from massively increased global warming to vaporizing the oceans killing all life on the planet. You and I may know that this is bull, but science and rational debate are not on the current agenda. (For either side it seems)
5. (snip) there are a lot of other options, many which don't generate 'thousands' of Gs acceleration. Modular Laser Launch Systems are one that is very scaleable and economic:
_http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/mar04/897Kare.pdf_
(http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/mar04/897Kare.pdf)
_http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/897Kare.pdf_
(http://www.niac.usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/897Kare.pdf)
Microwave Beamed Launch is another possibility, here is a comparison of the
two launch methods:
_http://monolith.caltech.edu/Papers/Kare_Parkin_ISBEP-4.pdf_
(http://monolith.caltech.edu/Papers/Kare_Parkin_ISBEP-4.pdf)
_http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5349/01/KARaipcp06.pdf_
(http://authors.library.caltech.edu/5349/01/KARaipcp06.pdf)
Both of these are readily 'scaleable' from a small initial suborbital test
launch set up to a full scale high-rate launcher, whereas an EM launcher or
Sling-A-Tron must be built to full scale in one shot. Something to consider.
(One thing to remember about all these launch systems so far mentioned is that their payloads PER LAUNCH is going to be quite small, @... for most, and they are going to be required to put dozens or even hundreds of payloads a day into orbit in order to build even the smallest test SPS. This is going to
require in and of itself a large orbital infrastructure and the ability to
'chase-down' and capture most of these payloads in various orbits to return to a central location for building the SPS systems.)
Another possibility is 'parterning' with another company/organization that
is pursuing the same goals as you to increase your leverage. You mentioned
needing a 'construction' shack in LEO, and had suggested the ISS. (snip) has
pointed out several flaws in this idea, I need to point out another: Your
suggested launch site would find it VERY difficult to launch parts to the ISS
due to the orbital plane the ISS is currently in. You might consider a more 'conventional' approach to launch services by teaming with the Space Islands Group:
_http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/home.html_
(http://www.spaceislandgroup.com/home.html)
Their goals and yours are very similar and they have had interest shown
already by international partners. Though the proposed use of a Shuttle Derived Vehicle is in doubt due to NASAs decision to design and operate the VERY NOT Shuttle Derived Ares-I/V, there is always the possibility of getting private funding. (The Group already has written contracts for leasing the Vandenburg Shuttle Launch pad) Even figuring into the equation 'conventional' launch services have been found to be 'economical' to use for SPS construction given the 'correct' global economic situation. Companies like Space-X, or even Lockheed-Martin might be able to provide cost effective launch systems.
(snip)
While most of the parts needed for an SPS CAN be EM launched, your also
going to be having to launch the supplies to implement and support the large
orbital infrastructure required but not mentioned in your proposal as well. (snip)
Here is a presentation presented by Dr. Jordin Kare at the 2003 Space
Elevator Conference that shows just SOME of the hurdles and bumps that could come up along the way:
_http://www.isr.us/Spaceelevatorconference/pdf/Kare/Workshop2_kare.pdf_
(http://www.isr.us/Spaceelevatorconference/pdf/Kare/Workshop2_kare.pdf)
You might want to give it a look over before you get to deep into planning.
(snip)
One of the things we always seem to have 'lurking' on the list is a good
amount of intelligent, creative, and well-read individuals that can help flesh
out your plan. (snip)
Well, I'll try the same trick. My email address is mwallach @... Did that work?
Hi Mark,
I would love to open a dialogue with you but I do not have your email address. I know you tried to give it but the only thing that came through was mwallach@... .. You can get to me by sending me an off-line message at ljan910 @... Notice I had to leave a space or my email address would not have transmitted properly just one of the quirks of Yahoo
In this respect I want to highlight the comments I received from another space interest web site as a result of the practically identical post I send to this group. This is some of the best information I could ever have hoped to receive as a result of the post.
Best regards,
Leon Neihouse
(snip)
Consider the following:
1. Though it is not being widely spread by the Anthropomorphic Caused Global Warming (ACGW-aka: Human Caused) community, one of the 'major supporting' documents they have been using to 'prove' global warming is mans' fault ACTUALLY says the opposite in its conclusions section:
_http://www.mpg. de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRelea
ses/2004/pressRelease20040802/_
(http://www.mpg. de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRelease\
s/2004/pressRelease20040802/)
This is used as part of the 'answer' to those who 'doubt' human caused
global warming by asking if the Sun isn't the 'main' component of climate
change.
The 'answer' usually being that the Max Planck Institute study sited in this
new release shows "No solar" increase since 1940, or that the "data does not
show the sun to be a contributor to the global rise in temperature" etc.
Which is 'true' except that these statements are both taken out of context AND
edited.
What the report says is that using satellite based solar observations, (now
considered THE only source of accurate solar data since becoming available
over 30 years ago has shown HUGE inaccuracies in previous data) the MPI and a Finnish solar observatory group were able to accurately model solar
contribution to Global Climate change and apply that model to factors available through historical sun spot data, (found to be very accurate) and radioactive isotopes from ice core samples as well as some other indicators. With this model and data they have been able to accurately trend solar contribution to the global climate back almost 11,400 years. (To the end of the last Ice Age) This article, (not mentioned on the ACGW sites and is a follow up to the study that IS mentioned)
_http://www.mpg. de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRelea
ses/2004/pressRelease20041028/index.html_
(http://www.mpg. de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressRelease\
s/2004/pressRelease20041028/index.
html)
Clearly shows that the current trend of global warming IS caused by
increasing solar activity which, as of 2004, was at it's HIGHEST levels in the
last 800 years!
The model clearly shows that the Sun, not human activity is responsible for
Global Warming, however, (big however here) the model with the sun as the
major factor does NOT match global temperature rise along the curve over the
last 30-43 bringing into question what has caused THIS rise. The report concludes with this statement:
"However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar
radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit
the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase
in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within
this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present
global warming.
These findings bring the question as to what is the connection between
variations in solar activity and the terrestrial climate into the focal point
of current research. The influence of the Sun on the Earth is seen increasingly
as one cause of the observed global warming since 1900, along with the
emission of the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, from the combustion of coal,
gas, and oil. "Just how large this role is, must still be investigated, since,
according to our latest knowledge on the variations of the solar magnetic field,
the significant increase in the Earths temperature since 1980 is indeed to be
ascribed to the greenhouse effect caused by carbon dioxide."
The second report concludes with this statement: "Because the brightness of the Sun varies slightly with solar activity, the new reconstruction indicates also that the Sun shines somewhat brighter today than in the 8,000 years before. Whether this effect could have provided a significant contribution to the global warming of the Earth during the last century is an open question. The researchers around Sami K. Solanki stress the fact that solar activity has remained on a roughly constant (high) level since about 1980 - apart from the variations due to the 11-year cycle - while the global temperature has experienced a strong further increase during that time. On the other hand, the rather similar trends of solar activity and terrestrial temperature during the last centuries (with the notable exception of the last 20 years) indicates that the relation between the Sun and climate remains a challenge for further research."
Adding to this 'problem' with the conclusions is the fact the 'contested'
period includes the Challenger disaster which significantly delayed a solar
observation satellites replacement launch by almost 10 years in which data was 'gathered' through vastly inferior and questionable 'secondary' satellites.
Since the Human Caused Global Warming period shrinks from the 'beginning of the industrial revolution' to only the last 30 years, (maybe) this calls into
question a HUGE amount of the 'catastrophe' Global Warming models which
predict any sort of 'tipping' point as expounded upon by Mr. Gore and others
who seek government intervention due to human cause on Climate Change.
2. The 'controversy' over Human effect on Global Climate is far from over or
settled in any manner. The problem with Mr. Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" is
that it ALSO ignores several 'inconvenient' sets of data that seem to imply
that Global Climate change is occurring on other planets of the Solar System as
well as Earth, that there have been higher concentrations of CO2 in that
atmosphere than currently, that the actual contribution of CO2 to 'greenhouse'
warming is in question, that the historical CO2 record both shows that CO2
emission can proceed or follow global temperature change by up to 800 years,
that 'natural' emissions of CO2 are a huge part of the 'overall' quoted CO2
total yet the 'charge' is that the high CO2 level is solely man-made, that the
'consensus' on Human Caused Global Warming is no such thing, and for every
institution that 'supports' Human Caused Global Warming, there are a significant portion of scientists IN those organizations that support NO such conclusion?
I could go on. Add to this a world wide movement to 'prove' and 'correct' Global Warming no matter the actual science, (as displayed by the United Nations Report On Climate Change which is on public record as having to have its science 'adjusted' to fit the conclusions presented by the politically motivated panel in a summery written before the report was even finished) and the political climate is NOT going to be condusive to the type of program your proposing.
3. Kicker here, the model that has accuratly showed the Sun to be the major
contributor to Global Warming has ANOTHER use in that it accuratly shows the solar activity cycles over the last 11,400 years. Again from the follow up
study let me highlight this:
"Based on a statistical study of earlier periods of increased solar activity, the researchers predict that the current level of high solar activity will probably continue only for a few more decades."
Meaning that solar activity is going into a DECREASING period, possibly far
enough to be looking at the begining of a new Ice Age in a matter of
centuries. The model is not a predictor of future solar activity, but the
cyclic nature of such activity CAN be used to model future activity. We don't have enough accurate data on solar process' at this point to tell if this will be a
long-term (Ice Age) or a short term (Middle Ages "Little Ice Age" solar
minimum) down turn. Some estimates put the beginning of Global Cooling as close as 2012.
_http://ff.org/ centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_13.html_
(http://ff.org/ centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060920/20060920_13.html)
_http://motls. blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooling.html_
(http://motls. blogspot.com/2007/01/peer-reviewed-global-cooling.html)
(snip)
If you haven't already I suggest you 'google' Solar Power Satellites and
Global Warming and look for some of the (currently) more radical ACGW pages. You'll easily find very well written articles 'citing' obscure and hard to
confirm 'studies' that show that microwave beaming of power from such
satellites will cause everything from massively increased global warming to vaporizing the oceans killing all life on the planet. You and I may know that this is bull, but science and rational debate are not on the current agenda. (For either side it seems)
5. (snip) there are a lot of other options, many which don't generate 'thousands' of Gs acceleration. Modular Laser Launch Systems are one that is very scaleable and economic:
_http://www.niac. usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/mar04/897Kare.pdf_
(http://www.niac. usra.edu/files/library/meetings/fellows/mar04/897Kare.pdf)
_http://www.niac. usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/897Kare.pdf_
(http://www.niac. usra.edu/files/studies/final_report/897Kare.pdf)
Microwave Beamed Launch is another possibility, here is a comparison of the
two launch methods:
_http://monolith. caltech.edu/Papers/Kare_Parkin_ISBEP-4.pdf_
(http://monolith. caltech.edu/Papers/Kare_Parkin_ISBEP-4.pdf)
_http://authors. library.caltech.edu/5349/01/KARaipcp06.pdf_
(http://authors. library.caltech.edu/5349/01/KARaipcp06.pdf)
Both of these are readily 'scaleable' from a small initial suborbital test
launch set up to a full scale high-rate launcher, whereas an EM launcher or
Sling-A-Tron must be built to full scale in one shot. Something to consider.
(One thing to remember about all these launch systems so far mentioned is that their payloads PER LAUNCH is going to be quite small, @... for most, and they are going to be required to put dozens or even hundreds of payloads a day into orbit in order to build even the smallest test SPS. This is going to
require in and of itself a large orbital infrastructure and the ability to
'chase-down' and capture most of these payloads in various orbits to return to a central location for building the SPS systems.)
Another possibility is 'parterning' with another company/organization that
is pursuing the same goals as you to increase your leverage. You mentioned
needing a 'construction' shack in LEO, and had suggested the ISS. (snip) has
pointed out several flaws in this idea, I need to point out another: Your
suggested launch site would find it VERY difficult to launch parts to the ISS
due to the orbital plane the ISS is currently in. You might consider a more 'conventional' approach to launch services by teaming with the Space Islands Group:
_http://www.spaceisl andgroup.com/home.html_
(http://www.spaceisl andgroup.com/home.html)
Their goals and yours are very similar and they have had interest shown
already by international partners. Though the proposed use of a Shuttle Derived Vehicle is in doubt due to NASAs decision to design and operate the VERY NOT Shuttle Derived Ares-I/V, there is always the possibility of getting private funding. (The Group already has written contracts for leasing the Vandenburg Shuttle Launch pad) Even figuring into the equation 'conventional' launch services have been found to be 'economical' to use for SPS construction given the 'correct' global economic situation. Companies like Space-X, or even Lockheed-Martin might be able to provide cost effective launch systems.
(snip)
While most of the parts needed for an SPS CAN be EM launched, your also
going to be having to launch the supplies to implement and support the large
orbital infrastructure required but not mentioned in your proposal as well. (snip)
Here is a presentation presented by Dr. Jordin Kare at the 2003 Space
Elevator Conference that shows just SOME of the hurdles and bumps that could come up along the way:
_http://www.isr. us/Spaceelevatorconference/pdf/Kare/Workshop2_kare.pdf_
(http://www.isr. us/Spaceelevatorconference/pdf/Kare/Workshop2_kare.pdf)
You might want to give it a look over before you get to deep into planning.
(snip)
One of the things we always seem to have 'lurking' on the list is a good
amount of intelligent, creative, and well-read individuals that can help flesh
out your plan. (snip)
Hi Leon, I've also thought on this question...how to package solar power for the 21st century. Consider your target market, what motivates them? How will they benefit? Personally I think money is a big motivator. Selling energy to the masses. The first in space with solar is going to have the edge. Power, pride. Middle American just wants to use as much electricity as they can afford, forget the "conserve" hogwash. Middle American wants a better "everything" for their children, a clean safe world, ipods,play stationsand hairdryers. Bam, unlimited juice from the sun and oh it's not spitting noxious gases. How sexy is that? That's right, it's damm sexy. Once middle American catches on to this concept there will be no stopping it. Wish I hadanswers howeverI do laud your efforts and have been following this dialogue with great interest. Respectfully, Christi Ohrmund
I should mention that I believe "An Inconvenient Truth" makes Al Gore
look like a kook but it seems to be working for him.
I do not mind being thought kooky but I would not want it to bring harm
to the concept of solar power. So tell me, anyone, on line or off, how
can I present the concept of solar powered satellites in a manner that
will find public acceptance?
Leon
>
> Hi Leon,
>
> With apologies, someone must point out that your letter makes you
sound
A link would be handy ;)
On Mon Mar 5 2:47 , 'Wallach, Mark' sent:
Well, to start with, you can join up with those of us who have been trying to do the same thing for some time, and have the scientific backing of the Space Solar Power Workshop behind us. Darel Preble and his scientific colleagues have built up a considerable stock of analysis and evidence which ought not to be left out of any discussion on the subject. I incorporated the Space Solar Power Association last year to act as the lobbying affiliate for SSPW. I have approached a number of individuals in the government and outside it, and plan to make a visit to Washington this spring to speak to more. This will not happen in any one person's ad hoc project, but requires educating the public, public officials, and the media to take space solar power seriously. Ultimately, government-supplied funding will be necessary to get space solar power started, as it has been for so many capital-intensive projects over the decades.
If you want to help the cause along, check out the SSPW website, or write to me at mwallach@... We need all the allies we can find.
--Mark Wallach
Cc:
Hi Joe. Nice to hear from you again.
I should mention that I believe "An Inconvenient Truth" makes Al Gore
look like a kook but it seems to be working for him.
I do not mind being thought kooky but I would not want it to bring harm
to the concept of solar power. So tell me, anyone, on line or off, how
can I present the concept of solar powered satellites in a manner that
will find public acceptance?
Leon
>
> Hi Leon,
>
> With apologies, someone must point out that your letter makes you
sound
> like a kook. (As does your backwards interpretation of global warming,
> for that matter.) Because of this, your letters and websites will not
> only be ignored, but actually do more harm to the advancement of space
> solar power than good.
>
> Best,
> - Joe
>
> --
> Joe Strout -- joe@...
>
Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
To change settings online go to:
To change settings via email:
ssi_list-digest@...
ssi_list-fullfeatured@...
Greetings L. John Neihouse,
global warming rather than to figure out it's root
cause or causes. Below is a copy of a speech I gave
at a Toastmaster's meeting about a month ago. If you
think it has any merit, please add it to your website.
I too plan to send copies to politicians and would be
very interested in seeing some parts of it started.
I am glad you got your website up, it's very
interesting.
kind regards,
Dave Handwerk
Global Warming Revisited
Toastmaster Club # 111
Presented by: David Handwerk
February 7th, 2008
Did anyone here watch the story on the History
Channel, on Sunday evening 01/27/2008, on Global
Warming? It was sobering. There are not many of us
who dont believe Global Warming is real, although we
may not agree on exactly what is causing it. Does it
really matter if it is caused be Greenhouse gasses,
increased solar radiation or by some other cause(s)?
Well, maybe a little so that we can try to reverse it.
However the results of Global Warming make it
irreversible. Let me explain. The melting of the
Tundra in Siberia, Alaska and Canada is releasing
Methane from frozen hydrate in and under the ground
and lakes. Methane is a Greenhouse gas 5 times more
potent than Carbon Dioxide. Further Methane hydrates
in the ocean, will boil off as the oceans warm. This
and other rational, in my opinion make this an
irreversible, chain reaction that will increase Global
Warming (whatever its initial cause), until all the
frozen Methane is in the atmosphere. This chain
reaction will speed up over the years; I guestimate a
60-foot sea-level rise in the next 100 years. Make no
mistake, this is serious, and it may lead to the
extinction of life on earth, other than a few
'Extremophile' single cell lifeforms. This is just my
estimate based on an average of what I have read, it
could be much sooner, or later. So since nothing on
heaven or earth can stop it, I recommend selling your
beachfront home and buying in the mountains.
WAIT, did I say on heaven or earth? Lets look at it
one more time from heaven. Global Warming occurs
because sunlight from our slightly variable sun passes
through 93,000,000 miles of space, then strikes the
earth and is partially absorbed by the earths land,
oceans and atmosphere. There doesnt appear to be
much we can do at the earth end, but might it be
possible to attenuate some of the sunlight between the
Sun and the Earth?
What do you think of this idea? We put up a partial
reflector at the Sun-Earth-L1-Lagrange-Orbit (Ill
just call it
L-1). L-1 is a very stable location that stays
between the earth and the Sun with very little effort.
So what will it take to do this?
To accomplish this remediation (and to provide at
least 2/3rds of Earths Energy needs) in the next 20
years, with my estimated Sea-level rise of 4 to 5
feet, we must do the following steps:
1. Realize that we will be able to resolve these
problems from space, and to spread the word.
2. Quickly develop the political will to make this
happen.
3. Increase the space budget by a factor of 11 or
more, to $2B / year (about what the Iraq War costs).
4. Persuade other nations to join in this effort,
(Perhaps we could remind them of the costs that
sea-level rise will have on their nations) and begin
updating our space program.
As money becomes available here is what NASA, or
whoever runs the project should do:
A. Improve our launch capability tonnage by a factor
of 1,000 while lowering the cost to orbit by a factor
of 1,000. This could be done be adopting various
Electromagnetic & Tether Launch Systems, in as little
as 5 years.
B. Establish a dozen or two Lunar Colonies to Strip
Mine lunar regolith from the Moons surface then to
electromagnetically launching it in a stream of
buckets to L-1 (as defined above).
C. Establish a dozen Solar Powered Space Factories at
L-1, to process this dust and cause it to form a
controllable cloud to attenuate the sunlight headed
for Earth.
D. Allow commercial interests access to space to build
Space Solar Power Satellites to provide at least
2/3rds of Earths Energy needs. The rest could be
provided by on-earth Solar, Wind, Fusion, Geothermal,
etc. (Access to low fixed cost supply of electricity
could further persuade other nations to join in this
effort.)
E. This needs to be studied and acted upon as quickly
as possible. If we could get the entire system
operational in 20 years, plus another year or so to
cause actual reversal, sea-level rise may max out at
only 4 5 feet. Cities could build dikes and the
land loss may be acceptable.
The scientific and engineering effort is huge; we have
a lot of work to do. This includes:
i. Quickly developing various ElectroMagnetic Launch
Systems(EMLSs).
ii. Test the suitability and properties of lunar
regolith for this purpose and design machinery to
re-powder and disseminate the compacted lunar soil.
iii. Rapidly develop lunar colony and mining plans.
iv. Rapidly develop Solar Powered Space Factory plans.
v. Automate the entire project, as it may need to
operate for decades or centuries.
This huge project has other benefits that may not be
obvious. Very fast, very low cost transportation
between points on earth and/or space destinations.
The relocation of many polluting mining and
manufacturing plants to space. The opening of vast
energy sources, vast material resources and vast new
land areas in space. Adventure, exploration,
expansion, and colonization of the solar system and
eventually the galaxy.
I for one think this project is extremely important
and plan to spend my remaining life on its
realization.
Thank you.