Thanks, Christi and Mark, for your interest and Joe for your comments. For a thumbnail sketch on the direction in which I am heading, my first objective is to get the web site LowEarthOrbitNow.org up and running with the first page entitled The Maine Solution to Global Warming. The information included will introduce the nascent Dirigo Energy Institute as a Maine-based research and development IRS tax deductible 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization concentrating on regenerative energy with one project being solar powered satellites. The scope of the SPS project will include designing a five gigawatt SPS; evaluating SPS parts launch to LEO methods of electromagnetic, slingatron, laser, pulsed microwave, and other possibilities so as to decide upon a specific approach best suited to the SPS design selected; conceptualize an infrastructure in LEO to assemble the launch parts using robotics, with astronaut assist, into a complete SPS with the launch projectiles being a part of the SPS structure; devise a method of transporting the completed SPS from LEO to its permanent station in GEO, develop a receiving station on Earth for either land or water placement, and design a high voltage and/or hydrogen distribution system for transmission of the power from the receiving station to customers. One half of one per cent of the revenues from power sales will be used to develop an elevator to GEO for SPS maintenance, and other purposes determined by the market for entry into space. An associated task will be to prepare a kook position paper. There are articles on the internet claiming solar powered satellites will cause problems from the extremes of increasing global warming to boiling the seas and killing all life in them. The assignment will be to find and rebut this misinformation. The Phoenix Power Company will also be introduced as a nascent Maine-based profit seeking company that will be the business arm of solar powered satellite parts fabrication, launch to and assembly in LEO, transport to GEO, receiving station construction, transmission devices placement, generated power marketing, and long term growth to an ideal form of one thousand, which can have individual SPS capacity increased so as to have a capability to provide all the world's power needs in a cost effective and environmentally benign manner. This leads to an objective to publicize this method as widely as possible and then finance the design and construction of the SPS system through two primary sources: donations by foundations, businesses, and the general public to the Dirigo Energy Institute and an IPO by the Phoenix Power Company. Recall that Amazon went through a very successful IPO, based almost exclusively on customer confidence because it had never shown a profit prior to, and for sometime after, the IPO. Also, in that the Chunnel was a private venture, there is precedence for funding a mega engineering project in this manner. There is a third possible source of financing, which I will also investigate. My strategy is to write a Letter to the Editor of the Maine Sunday Telegram (I have had several letters published in the past on the subject of energy generation), put together a Power Point position presentation and give it to any and all clubs and organizations in Maine willing to listen, get such a broad base of support in Maine that the Maine Congressional delegation will be forced to pay attention, and introduce the possibility of creating a new nation with two specific purposes: generating cost effective and environmentally benign energy and building a highway to space with both the energy and the highway made available to all other nations on an open and equitable basis. Given the Low Earth Orbit Now title of the web site, for discussion purposes this new nation will be called LEON . The United Nations and some of its member nations would then give foreign aid so LEON could set up facilities at many global locations (selected as determined by the nation giving the foreign aid) to build a LEO infrastructure operated by LEON astronauts. My full name is Leon John Neihouse. I have changed the name to which I will respond from Leon to L. John or El Jay, so I can pay attention to those questions that are intended for me personally and not to those discussing the proposed new nation under discussion. Of course, I recognize that many will call me a kook for making this proposal but I will just fire back that I am a member of MENSA, Admiral Rickover qualified me as Chief Engineer of a nuclear powered submarine, and I served as Officer of the Deck (driver) on what was at the time the most powerful warship in recorded history (the USS Simon Bolivar SSBN641, the submarine to which I was assigned, carried the latest and most powerful version of nuclear tipped missiles and was the first ballistic missile submarine to also carry nuclear tipped torpedoes) and let them know that kook is a subjective term, meaning anyone who disagrees with the person making the charge, and politely ask them to please reassess exactly who is the kookier. About the only question I have not addressed - when do I submit the papers to claim the Bronson Prize? Best regards, L. John Neihouse
> This leads to an objective to publicize this method as widely as
> possible and then finance the design and construction of the SPS
> system through two primary sources: donations by foundations,
> businesses, and the general public to the Dirigo Energy Institute and
> an IPO by the Phoenix Power Company.
to succeed, either, given the scale of financing required).
> There is a third possible source of financing, which I will also
> investigate... introduce the possibility of creating a
> new nation with two specific purposes: generating cost effective and
> environmentally benign energy and building a highway to space with
> both the energy and the highway made available to all other nations
> on an open and equitable basis. Given the Low Earth Orbit Now title
> of the web site, for discussion purposes this new nation will be
> called LEON.
This is the kooky part. You're proposing creating a new nation, and
moreover, naming it after yourself (or so it will seem to observers).
This looks like simple megalomania and is easily dismissed, along with
whatever else the advocate of this idea might have to say. It's in
this that you do more harm to our cause than good.
> Of course, I recognize that many will call me a kook for making this
> proposal but I will just fire back that I am a member of MENSA,
> Admiral Rickover qualified me as Chief Engineer of a nuclear powered
> submarine, and I served as Officer of the Deck (driver) on what was
> at the time the most powerful warship in recorded history (the USS
> Simon Bolivar SSBN641, the submarine to which I was assigned, carried
> the latest and most powerful version of nuclear tipped missiles and
> was the first ballistic missile submarine to also carry nuclear
> tipped torpedoes) and let them know that kook is a subjective term,
> meaning anyone who disagrees with the person making the charge, and
> politely ask them to please reassess exactly who is the kookier.
Not a good argument; it won't convince anyone, nor should it. Let's
break it down:
1. First, you're arguing by authority, claiming that your credentials
make you unlikely to be a kook. This doesn't hold up well since even
the most well-credentialed person may go off the deep end from time to
time. Further, if you make any progress at all, you'll soon be talking
to people with even better credentials than you. (FWIW, I'm a Mensa
member too, or was until I let it lapse.)
2. Second, you're arguing for relativism, i.e., that there is no such
thing as subjective nonsense. This is itself a nonsensical position;
any regular person knows that some things are reasonable and true while
other things are unreasonable or false. By arguing otherwise, you just
lump yourself in with all the conspiracy theorists, flat-Earthers,
free-energy nuts, and so on who all agree that they're right and
everyone else (*especially* the scientific establishment!) is wrong.
Now, you do write coherently and what you're trying to accomplish is
certainly valid, so I don't personally think you've gone off the deep
end -- but I do think you may be a bit out of touch with people if you
think you can propose to create a new nation, that happens to share
your first name, and not be laughed out of the building.
My recommendations, for what they're worth:
1. Drop the bit about forming a new nation. It's ridiculous.
2. Also drop the bit about building a space elevator with the initial
profits. That's asking people to swallow too many improbable things at
once.
To most people, the idea of collecting power in space and beaming it
down to Earth -- and doing so *economically*, no less, given the
astronomical cost of doing anything in space today -- is very
far-fetched in itself. To have any hope of success at all, you need to
both eliminate any other far-fetched aspects of the project, and then
convince the listener that this one piece (the one we really care
about) is, perhaps, just maybe, possible. That's the hard part; don't
take on any additional hard parts to make your job any harder.
(Then, of course, once you've convinced them that it may be possible,
you have to convince them that it's worth the investment to try --
another hard job you can't avoid.)
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
Thanks, Joe, for that response. As you might or might not have guessed by now, I make outlandish proposals in the hopes of getting someone out there to say something - anything. As the Navy likes to say - DO SOMETHING, even if it's wrong - with the logic being that it is then possible to make adjustments along the way. I more or less agree with everything you say - except for one point on which we are just going to have to agree to disagree. I think the one part of my proposal that will have the greatest effect over the long haul for the welfare of life on Earth is to start a new nation with the specific purpose to act as a servant to all the other nations in that it will provide them with cost effective, environmentally benign energy and access to space on an open and equitable basis. As I said, LEON was one possibility that I introduced for discussion purposes only. Dirigo (meaning "I Lead" and the motto of the state of Maine) is a name I like much, muchbetter for such a new nation but, if this ever succeeds, the name chosen will be selected by those "Movers and Shakers," whoever they happen to be, that acts to set this idea into motion. Thanks again, Joe. Whatever I finally put up on the web site will certainly incorporate your comments. Leon
You may find this interesting Leon.
http://www.thespaceshow.com
Friday, March 9, 2007, 9:30-11:30 AM Pacific:
Darel Prepble, chair of the Space Solar Power Workshop
which is the central activity of the Space Solar Power
Institute.
Ed
I agree with Joe's points.
thinking pattern as President Bush's concept of what the war in Iraqi
would be like: Victorious soldiers marching down the street being
thronged as liberators by adoring commoners after the soldiers had just
terminated the lives of thousands of their young men. It doesn't take
into account that 99.99% of the people on this planet put personal
interests ahead of the welfare of their neighbors, put local interests
ahead of national interests, and put national interests head of the
world's interests.
Creating a nation state is a way of establishing a method of creating
and maintaining SPSs. It has some good points and some very bad
points. But its implementation would only work if the parties involved
came to this conclusion themselves after extensive bargaining. An
international corporation with contributing member states as
shareholders and board members would be a much more likely alternative.
Yes the USA may contribute the two islands you mentioned and it is not a
bad idea to point out that these islands would be very useful.
Having a nation state is really not germane to the core concept. It is
sometimes best not to get the cart before the horse. It is also wise
not to present ideas in such a way the the automatic kick-back against
the idea is overly strong.
We are still establishing a need for SPS's in the minds of the people
with the money. They are not ready for a search of detailed
implementation alternatives. You should concentrate on establishing the
need for SPSs. Present information on possible implementation
alternatives to people who might be interested, like at ISDC 2007 or on
this list.
Mitchell James
--snip-
>
> My recommendations, for what they're worth:
>
> 1. Drop the bit about forming a new nation. It's ridiculous.
tastes has been an underlying motivation for mass migration into
space, and in several celebrated episodes of terrestrial history. Our
civilization is becoming such an over regulated and crowded affair
that people able and willing to take responsability for taking their
own course in a society, at varience with that from which they
emerged, will either have to conform willingly or otherwise or seek to
escape to a new land. The space colony idea offers the possibility of
new lands to be constructed and populated by new societies.
>
> 2. Also drop the bit about building a space elevator with the initial
> profits. That's asking people to swallow too many improbable things at
> once.
The space elevator idea is intriguing and possibly mid way in
difficulty between a million person space colony and a manned
interstellar vessel capable of a large percentage of light speed. It
is another powerful dream of Biblical dimensions we dare to ponder
which may or may not be realized.
>
> To most people, the idea of collecting power in space and beaming it
> down to Earth -- and doing so *economically*, no less, given the
> astronomical cost of doing anything in space today -- is very
> far-fetched in itself. To have any hope of success at all, you need to
> both eliminate any other far-fetched aspects of the project, and then
> convince the listener that this one piece (the one we really care
> about) is, perhaps, just maybe, possible.
Power requirements are a long term issue which will eventually
justify what might now look like impractical and desperate measures.
The trick is not to wait too long until the energy costs make such
large heroic projects impractical.
The passions which can bring about social movement toward a goal,
however, draw upon widely felt feelings of dissatisfaction about their
lives and some collective ideas of what can be done to create a better
situation. People marched against war and civil rights abuses 40 years
ago and changed the course of their collective destinies. If enough
people beleive that something needs to happen in order to change
current and likely terrible things, movement will occur in that
direction.
Attempts to create a tiny model society are regarded with suspicion
by authorities, even attempts by states to taylor their laws to the
wishes of their local voters are repressed by the Federal government.
I don't know how much longer the very idea of starting a new society
will survive, but I think such motivations will be a factor so long
as governments continue to try to over regulate peoples lives while
they also have access to various ways of thinking through alternative
voices to the corporate run media.
Don
Thanks, Ed
hopes of establishing a dialogue.
Leon
> I respectfully disagree. Forming a new nation and society to ones
> tastes has been an underlying motivation for mass migration into
> space, and in several celebrated episodes of terrestrial history. I don't think anybody on this list will disagree with this. But I think the point is that the time to start talking about creating new and better nations will be after a number of orbital settlements have achieved physical and economic independence, which will come quite some years after the first O'Neill-type habitats are built, which will only come after the point that several tens of thousands of people are working permanently in space, which will only happen years after space resources are applied to a massive SPS construction program, which will only come after the first SPS is up there and successfully generating power, which will only happen after a pound to LEO declines to 1/20 or 1/50 current prices. We are currently trying to get onto square one.
Mike Combs
> I respectfully disagree. Forming a new nation and society to ones
> tastes has been an underlying motivation for mass migration into
> space, and in several celebrated episodes of terrestrial history. I don't think anybody on this list will disagree with this. But I think the point is that the time to start talking about creating new and better nations will be after a number of orbital settlements have achieved physical and economic independence, which will come quite some years after the first O'Neill-type habitats are built, which will only come after the point that several tens of thousands of people are working permanently in space, which will only happen years after space resources are applied to a massive SPS construction program, which will only come after the first SPS is up there and successfully generating power, which will only happen after a pound to LEO declines to 1/20 or 1/50 current prices. We are currently trying to get onto square one.
Mike Combs
Mark makes a good point. Over the years I've come to accept that the problem is not that we don't do more in space because it's so expensive. It's soexpensive because we're not doing more in space. In my current thinking, the government could find much worse ways to spenda few billionthan to say, "We're going to fund the first demonstrator SPS, whether the first one is profitable or not, and irregardless of present launch costs. On the other hand, the launch contracts will be awarded competitively, and to more than one competitor at a time. The percentages of who gets how much of the businesswill be constantly adjusted in accordance with who is delivering on cost reduction." (I originally wrote "cost reduction and reliability" but itshould be up to each competitor to determine for themselveswhat reliability level confers the bestcost reduction.) If a guaranteed market suddenly opened up for a launch a week, and then a few years down the road even a launch a day, entrepreneurs would promptlybuild the launch systems to support it, and we would then see the cost reductions we all yearn for. It's not the implementation of this or that new technology, it's the traffic model. SPS systems "like" to be big. Some researchers have viewed this as aproblem which needs to be solved (searching for a terraced approach), but in the above scenario, being big is a good thing.
Mike Combs
Are there no comments about the launch ring being
studied by the Air Force with Launch Point
Technologies in Goleta, Calif?
could go a long way toward proving the technology and
cost effectiveness of magnetic launch devices.
One small step for the Air Force,,,
Gary 7
> Are there no comments about the launch ring being
> studied by the Air Force with Launch Point
> Technologies in Goleta, Calif?
>
> If they're actually allowed to build the thing, it
> could go a long way toward proving the technology and
> cost effectiveness of magnetic launch devices.
it's nothing to get excited about unless we get some reason to think
they might actually build it.
Best,
- Joe
Joe Strout -- joe@...
> Are there no comments about the launch ring being
> studied by the Air Force with Launch Point
> Technologies in Goleta, Calif?
I myself have tremendous affection for EM launchers (I even wrote a novella about one), but the fact that you brought one up kind of illustrates the point I was making when I said it's not this or that new tech, it's the traffic model. More recently, some commentators have been criticizing the notion that eitherEM launchersor space elevators are our salvation. They point out that the only way such mega-projects could amortize their enormous up-front costs would be with extremely-frequent launches, and point out that such launch frequencies would alsohave a profound affect on the economics of plain old rockets. For example, the system cited talked about 300 launches a year, and then later 3000 launches a year, with predicted costs/kg. But is it really fair to compare costs between one technology launching at the rate of 3000 a year, and another doing perhaps 3? What would the chemical rocket launch costs look like if they were fired off at the rate of8 or 9a day?
Mike Combs
I haven't the vaugest idea but I do know that
expending 90% of your initial launch mass is not the
most cost effective means of getting a payload to
orbit, regardless of the number of launches. Some
critisize electric drive for cars because it's
technology that needs to be scaled up to make it
competitive with IC engines but electric is
intrinsically more efficient than IC engines, with
only one moving part and that going in only one
direction so comparing one technology to another
really requires looking at the relative thermodynamic
efficiencies involved. Leaving the energy source on
the ground is inherently more efficient than lifting
the power source against one gravity.
of Launch Point Tech. who pointed out that with a much
cheaper alternative to rockets a dramatic increase in
total number of launches was highly probable. I
suggested they address the possible disposal of
radioactive waste into a million year orbit as one way
of guarenteeing a significant number of launches
annually. In the early days of commercial aviation,
the government provided a guarenteed income to
aircraft manufacturers via the postal service. It was
quid pro quo. Both received value and we (the
consumer) received a greatly accelerated technology
development. I don't see why we can't have something
similar with nuc. waste disposal??? Launch point is
hoping to build a proof of concept, 30 to 50 meter
diameter unit in the next year or so. The 2 km unit is
a single , albeit useful, baby step in the right
direction and small is financially feasible. I wish I
was rich. I'd do the Man Who Sold the Moon
routine,,,(Heinlien). But I am certain this has real
world viability,,,
Gary 7
> I haven't the vaugest idea but I do know that
> expending 90% of your initial launch mass is not the
> most cost effective means of getting a payload to
> orbit, regardless of the number of launches. Despite the "A Rocket a Day Keeps the High Costs Away" paper, I'd agree that for any system launching daily or more, reusability would be a must. I've heard commentators say that reusability may confer no particular advantage at low launch rates, but significant advantage at higher rates. It's certainly true that the Shuttle wound up being no less expensive than the Saturn 5. NASA's early arguments that the Shuttle would reduce launch costs were predicated on a much greaterlaunch ratethan was ever achieved in reality. Regards,
Mike Combs