Griffin stabs us in the back (and shoots himself in the foot) regarding
Global warming.

Solar power satellites and Helium-3 are the strongest reasons for going
to the Moon, because both of these technologies can eliminate
greenhouse gases.

But NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin, recently interviewed said, " I
am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle
with".

Thanks Michael, I guess we should just sit here on this rock and burn
fossil fuels forever.

Here are the details:

http://www.earthtoday.net/news/viewpr.html?pid"729

What is he supposed to do? Rewrite the NASA charter
to include even more stuff? Global Warming is NOT
NASA's responsibility. The NOAA maybe, but not NASA.

And solar power satellites and He3 have never been
given as reasons for going back to the moon. We don't
even know if He3 fusion can be made to produce more
energy than is required to confine the reaction.

NASA definitely has a PR problem though. Check this
out:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/05/petty_politics.html
and in particular read the absolutely scathing
assessment written by some guy on the 9th floor of
NASA HQ.

Ed

Thanks for the response.

In my pinion, the most important and useful thing NASA could be
working on TODAY is to develop and deploy a solar power satelite
demonstrator to beam power to a base on the Moon.

If I were NASA administrator, I would cancel all other porjects, and
focus the agency's objectives entirely on that one mission.

That is how NASA can (and should) help resolve the problem of global
wamring, and indeed take a worldwide lead to achieving the solution
via space solar power (and possibly lunar He3).

Without a powerful economic incentive, such as space solar power or
He3, the entire NASA VSE effort could be cancelled overnight on a
political whim.

Thanks and best regards,

Charles R.

Hi Charles,

I disagree with some of your statements but agree with
your overall view that Space Solar Power Satellites
(SSPSs) are one of the most important things we can
build.

I don't think NASA should cancel all their projects,
in fact they should add more and cancel the two most
expensive ones (Orion and the Heavy Lift Vehicle).

NASA should seek companies to propose both SSPS
demonstrators and alternatives for getting people to
the moon. NASA shouldn't build anything or even
specify what to build. NASA should simply contract
out work to American companies to solve problems such
as going to the moon or fixing global warning from
space. Then, after several ideas were proposed, pier
review could select the best two or three for funding.
The first one completed would receive an additional
bonus or prize. This would save the tax-payer money,
and help build a real space industry in the U.S.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

Dave

>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> In my pinion, the most important and useful thing
> NASA could be
> working on TODAY is to develop and deploy a solar
> power satelite
> demonstrator to beam power to a base on the Moon.
>
> If I were NASA administrator, I would cancel all
> other porjects, and
> focus the agency's objectives entirely on that one
> mission.
>
> That is how NASA can (and should) help resolve the
> problem of global
> wamring, and indeed take a worldwide lead to
> achieving the solution
> via space solar power (and possibly lunar He3).
>
> Without a powerful economic incentive, such as space
> solar power or
> He3, the entire NASA VSE effort could be cancelled
> overnight on a
> political whim.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
>
> Charles R.
>
> --- In ssi_list@... Ed Minchau
> >
> > What is he supposed to do? Rewrite the NASA
> charter
> > to include even more stuff? Global Warming is NOT
> > NASA's responsibility. The NOAA maybe, but not
> NASA.
> >
> > And solar power satellites and He3 have never been
> > given as reasons for going back to the moon. We
> don't
> > even know if He3 fusion can be made to produce
> more
> > energy than is required to confine the reaction.
> >
> > NASA definitely has a PR problem though. Check
> this
> > out:
> >
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/05/petty_politics.html

I'll admit I am torn between the political realities Michael Griffin is facing and my desire to see NASA advance SSPS. There are big questions in my mind how easy it is to get significant water on the moon. Without verification, you are forced to bet a significant part of your credibility advancing SSPS at the expense of other popular programs. Astronomy alone has a huge following that cannot be ignored. Next you have cell phones all around the world in a near trillion dollar business. This was unforeseen in the origional design of SSPS and poses a quandryof how to free up the needed spectrum to make SSPS work really well. Rush this and you will likely pay a trillion dollars or more in restitution. Wait 40 years and cell phones will likely be replaced by a totally different technology that does not interfere with SSPS. In every meeting I have had with politicians, there seems to be an awareness that the technical problems of today may just go away if you wait. If this assessment is correct then the goal is to perfect SSPS for the day when it can actually be used. As for fighting Global warming, I don't have illusions that even SSPS could be developed in time. The Northern Polar regions are forecast to show striking melting of the ice this year and that is end game for the opportunities of humans to make small changes in their environment. The kind of SSPS that would change this fate still looks50 years off or more. - Thor

Dave Handwerk wrote: Hi Charles,

I disagree with some of your statements but agree with
your overall view that Space Solar Power Satellites
(SSPSs) are one of the most important things we can
build.

I don't think NASA should cancel all their projects,
in fact they should add more and cancel the two most
expensive ones (Orion and the Heavy Lift Vehicle).

NASA should seek companies to propose both SSPS
demonstrators and alternatives for getting people to
the moon. NASA shouldn't build anything or even
specify what to build. NASA should simply contract
out work to American companies to solve problems such
as going to the moon or fixing global warning from
space. Then, after several ideas were proposed, pier
review could select the best two or three for funding.
The first one completed would receive an additional
bonus or prize. This would save the tax-payer money,
and help build a real space industry in the U.S.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

Dave

>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> In my pinion, the most important and useful thing
> NASA could be
> working on TODAY is to develop and deploy a solar
> power satelite
> demonstrator to beam power to a base on the Moon.
>
> If I were NASA administrator, I would cancel all
> other porjects, and
> focus the agency's objectives entirely on that one
> mission.
>
> That is how NASA can (and should) help resolve the
> problem of global
> wamring, and indeed take a worldwide lead to
> achieving the solution
> via space solar power (and possibly lunar He3).
>
> Without a powerful economic incentive, such as space
> solar power or
> He3, the entire NASA VSE effort could be cancelled
> overnight on a
> political whim.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
>
> Charles R.
>
> --- In ssi_list@... s.com, Ed Minchau
> >
> > What is he supposed to do? Rewrite the NASA
> charter
> > to include even more stuff? Global Warming is NOT
> > NASA's responsibility. The NOAA maybe, but not
> NASA.
> >
> > And solar power satellites and He3 have never been
> > given as reasons for going back to the moon. We
> don't
> > even know if He3 fusion can be made to produce
> more
> > energy than is required to confine the reaction.
> >
> > NASA definitely has a PR problem though. Check
> this
> > out:
> >
http://www.nasawatc h.com/archives/ 2007/05/petty_ politics. html
> > and in particular read the absolutely scathing
> > assessment written by some guy on the 9th floor of
> > NASA HQ.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > > Griffin stabs us in the back (and shoots himself
> in
> > > the foot) regarding
> > > Global warming.
> > >
> > > Solar power satellites and Helium-3 are the
> > > strongest reasons for going
> > > to the Moon, because both of these technologies
> can
> > > eliminate
> > > greenhouse gases.
> > >
> > > But NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin,
> recently
> > > interviewed said, " I
> > > am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a
> > > problem we must wrestle
> > > with".
> > >
> > > Thanks Michael, I guess we should just sit here
> on
> > > this rock and burn
> > > fossil fuels forever.
> > >
> > > Here are the details:
> > >
> http://www.earthtod ay.net/news/ viewpr.html? pid"729
> > >
> > Be smarter than spam. See how smart
> SpamGuard is at giving
> >

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

Message
I'm sorry; the idea that saving the planet, and much of human civilization, is to be held hostage to those accursed life- and meeting-interrupters is really not acceptable. If some of our planetary priorities have be altered, then so be it. We need more than a vision: we need leadership.

Attorney at Law
216.622.8344
mwallach@...

Dear ssi yahoo group,

You know I've loved the idea of SSPSs since I first heard of them years ago. The idea of an almost unlimited supply of energy from a billion year stable fusion power source is just awesome! Just yesterday I got my survey form from NSS and what upsets me is there was no a single reference to what I believe space program truly needs.

What our space program needs is what the orginal space shuttle system was supposed to do. Be a reuseable system that was going to reduce the cost of putting a payload in LEO. The Shuttle program was sabotaged by Richard Nixon because he believed the space program was a DEM party project. The orginal idea was a manned first stage that would fly back and land like a plane and the second stage shuttle which would go into space, everything resused. If we go back to creating a system to, at the minimum ,putting material into LEO as cheaply as possible then hundreds of uses for space are made possible.

Now there are possible technologies like the space elevator, space tethers, maglev systems, laser boost systems which could really bring the price down.

Do I sound bitter? Damn straight! I grew up in the 60s, as a child I had expectations that there would be a permant lunar base and space station (like 2001) twenty years ago! I planned to live my adult life in space with millions of other americans. And now plans are at best to get back to the moon by 2020. Great I'll be 65 and still wouldn not have a chance to see my life change by the tremendous resources that space technology has to offer.

This nation needs to find an inexpensive system to put materal into LEO, then a million of commercial things will be possible.
Sorry for the rant, I know I'm preaching to choir here.
BestRegards,
Pete

Dave Handwerk wrote: Hi Charles,

I disagree with some of your statements but agree with
your overall view that Space Solar Power Satellites
(SSPSs) are one of the most important things we can
build.

I don't think NASA should cancel all their projects,
in fact they should add more and cancel the two most
expensive ones (Orion and the Heavy Lift Vehicle).

NASA should seek companies to propose both SSPS
demonstrators and alternatives for getting people to
the moon. NASA shouldn't build anything or even
specify what to build. NASA should simply contract
out work to American companies to solve problems such
as going to the moon or fixing global warning from
space. Then, after several ideas were proposed, pier
review could select the best two or three for funding.
The first one completed would receive an additional
bonus or prize. This would save the tax-payer money,
and help build a real space industry in the U.S.

Anyway, that's my opinion.

Dave

>
> Thanks for the response.
>
> In my pinion, the most important and useful thing
> NASA could be
> working on TODAY is to develop and deploy a solar
> power satelite
> demonstrator to beam power to a base on the Moon.
>
> If I were NASA administrator, I would cancel all
> other porjects, and
> focus the agency's objectives entirely on that one
> mission.
>
> That is how NASA can (and should) help resolve the
> problem of global
> wamring, and indeed take a worldwide lead to
> achieving the solution
> via space solar power (and possibly lunar He3).
>
> Without a powerful economic incentive, such as space
> solar power or
> He3, the entire NASA VSE effort could be cancelled
> overnight on a
> political whim.
>
> Thanks and best regards,
>
> Charles R.
>
> --- In ssi_list@... s.com, Ed Minchau
> >
> > What is he supposed to do? Rewrite the NASA
> charter
> > to include even more stuff? Global Warming is NOT
> > NASA's responsibility. The NOAA maybe, but not
> NASA.
> >
> > And solar power satellites and He3 have never been
> > given as reasons for going back to the moon. We
> don't
> > even know if He3 fusion can be made to produce
> more
> > energy than is required to confine the reaction.
> >
> > NASA definitely has a PR problem though. Check
> this
> > out:
> >
http://www.nasawatc h.com/archives/ 2007/05/petty_ politics. html
> > and in particular read the absolutely scathing
> > assessment written by some guy on the 9th floor of
> > NASA HQ.
> >
> > Ed
> >
> > > Griffin stabs us in the back (and shoots himself
> in
> > > the foot) regarding
> > > Global warming.
> > >
> > > Solar power satellites and Helium-3 are the
> > > strongest reasons for going
> > > to the Moon, because both of these technologies
> can
> > > eliminate
> > > greenhouse gases.
> > >
> > > But NASA Administrator, Michael Griffin,
> recently
> > > interviewed said, " I
> > > am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a
> > > problem we must wrestle
> > > with".
> > >
> > > Thanks Michael, I guess we should just sit here
> on
> > > this rock and burn
> > > fossil fuels forever.
> > >
> > > Here are the details:
> > >
> http://www.earthtod ay.net/news/ viewpr.html? pid"729
> > >
> > Be smarter than spam. See how smart
> SpamGuard is at giving
> >

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

greetings,

Mark, I am glad to see someone as passionate about
SSPSs as you. Maybe you should run for congress on
this issue.

It is certainly a worthwhile thing for humans to do.
I'm just not sure that it should be done by
government. I think industry would be better able to
handle the task, perhaps with a little seed money to
get it started.

Another problem that I see as at least an equal
threat, is the total extinction of all life on earth
(and maybe the galaxy) should a large asteroid collide
into our planet.

And Thor,

Your comment on cellphones is quite right, they are
using more and more of the bandwidth in the 2 GHz band
(correct me if I'm wrong) that can easily penetrate
the atmosphere, even in moderate rain. I'm not sure
exactly how the spectrum is allocated worldwide, but I
think the FCC auctions off portions of the various
bands to the highest bidder, reserving some for
military and other agencies. However note that if say
Pakistan put up a SSPS and beamed the power down to a
Rectannae Farm 30 miles outside of it's capital. That
SSPS's frequency would be 10^8 to 10^12 times more
powerful than cellphones, so there is really no
contest. Even with very pure frequency control, and
very narrow beams with null side-lobes, a good portion
of band will be lost to communications. Cellular
would have to use a different band in that region of
the world. And once the first SSPS started
transmission of power, many other counties, power
companies, consortium, etc., would rapidly want a
piece of the pie. So what is the FCC or the UN's FCC
to do?

Dave

>
> I'm sorry; the idea that saving the planet, and much
> of human
> civilization, is to be held hostage to those
> accursed life- and
> meeting-interrupters is really not acceptable. If
> some of our planetary
> priorities have be altered, then so be it. We need
> more than a vision:
> we need leadership.
>
> http://mm1.lettermark.net/calfee/card/PKDL_8.map>
>
> This electronic mail transmission may contain
> confidential and legally
> privileged information from the law firm of Calfee,
> Halter & Griswold
> LLP intended only for the use of the individual(s)
> identified as
> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient,
> you are hereby
> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
> or the taking of any
> action in reliance on the contents of this
> electronic mail transmission
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> transmission in error,
> please notify me by telephone immediately. Nothing
> contained herein or
> in any attachment hereto is intended to be used, or
> can be used, to
> avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue
> Code.
>
> [mailto:ssi_list@... On
> Behalf Of Thor Olson
> back regarding
> Global warming.
>
> I'll admit I am torn between the political realities
> Michael Griffin is
> facing and my desire to see NASA advance SSPS.
> There are big questions
> in my mind how easy it is to get significant water
> on the moon. Without
> verification, you are forced to bet a significant
> part of your
> credibility advancing SSPS at the expense of other
> popular programs.
> Astronomy alone has a huge following that cannot be
> ignored.
>
> Next you have cell phones all around the world in a
> near trillion dollar
> business. This was unforeseen in the origional
> design of SSPS and poses
> a quandry of how to free up the needed spectrum to
> make SSPS work really
> well. Rush this and you will likely pay a trillion
> dollars or more in
> restitution. Wait 40 years and cell phones will
> likely be replaced by a
> totally different technology that does not interfere
> with SSPS. In
> every meeting I have had with politicians, there
> seems to be an
> awareness that the technical problems of today may
> just go away if you
> wait.
>
> If this assessment is correct then the goal is to
> perfect SSPS for the
> day when it can actually be used. As for fighting
> Global warming, I
> don't have illusions that even SSPS could be
> developed in time. The
> Northern Polar regions are forecast to show striking
> melting of the ice
> this year and that is end game for the opportunities
> of humans to make
> small changes in their environment. The kind of
> SSPS that would change
> this fate still looks 50 years off or more.
>
> - Thor
>
> Hi Charles,
>
> I disagree with some of your statements but agree
> with
> your overall view that Space Solar Power Satellites
> (SSPSs) are one of the most important things we can
> build.
>
> I don't think NASA should cancel all their projects,
> in fact they should add more and cancel the two most
> expensive ones (Orion and the Heavy Lift Vehicle).
>
> NASA should seek companies to propose both SSPS
> demonstrators and alternatives for getting people to
> the moon. NASA shouldn't build anything or even
> specify what to build. NASA should simply contract
> out work to American companies to solve problems
> such
> as going to the moon or fixing global warning from
> space. Then, after several ideas were proposed, pier
> review could select the best two or three for
> funding.
> The first one completed would receive an additional
> bonus or prize. This would save the tax-payer money,
> and help build a real space industry in the U.S.
>
> Anyway, that's my opinion.
>
> Dave
>
> --- "Charles F. Radley" > com>
>
> > Thanks for the response.
> >
> > In my pinion, the most important and useful thing
> > NASA could be
> > working on TODAY is to develop and deploy a solar
> > power satelite
> > demonstrator to beam power to a base on the Moon.
> >
> > If I were NASA administrator, I would cancel all
> > other porjects, and
> > focus the agency's objectives entirely on that one
> > mission.
> >
> > That is how NASA can (and should) help resolve the
> > problem of global
> > wamring, and indeed take a worldwide lead to
> > achieving the solution
> > via space solar power (and possibly lunar He3).
> >
> > Without a powerful economic incentive, such as
> space
> > solar power or
> > He3, the entire NASA VSE effort could be cancelled
> > overnight on a
> > political whim.
> >
> > Thanks and best regards,
> >
> > Charles R.
> >
> > --- In ssi_list@...
> s.com,
> Ed Minchau
> > >
> > > What is he supposed to do? Rewrite the NASA
> > charter
> > > to include even more stuff? Global Warming is
> NOT
> > > NASA's responsibility. The NOAA maybe, but not
> > NASA.
> > >
> > > And solar power satellites and He3 have never
> been
> > > given as reasons for going back to the moon. We
> > don't
> > > even know if He3 fusion can be made to produce
> > more
> > > energy than is required to confine the reaction.
> > >
> > > NASA definitely has a PR problem though. Check
> > this
> > > out:
> > >
> http://www.nasawatc
>
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/05/petty_politics.html>
> h.com/archives/2007/05/petty_politics.html
> > > and in particular read the absolutely scathing
> > > assessment written by some guy on the 9th floor
> of
> > > NASA HQ.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >

The fish are biting.

> Your comment on cellphones is quite right, they are
> using more and more of the bandwidth in the 2 GHz band
> (correct me if I'm wrong) that can easily penetrate
> the atmosphere, even in moderate rain.

This is an interesting point - and possibly a stumbling block in the SSPS
design. Mobile phones are short range devices. They only need to reach a few
hundred meters to the nearest mast after all. Anything that causes
interference outside of that range is not going to affect them. Their
apparent successor, wireless computing (IP phones etc) is similarly a short
range technology. This means a comparatively weak transmission signal -
which is potentially vulnerable to SSPS interference.

However...

The signal from a SSPS is going to be very constant. There is already
technology to send very weak network signals over live mains wiring. If we
can filter out the 120/140V AC and listen to the computer messages, there's
no reason a mobile couldn't do the same. An SSPS signal is also going to be
coming from a very fixed direction. It's fairly simple to filter on this
basis too.

The original plans for SSPS say that planes shouldn't fly through the beams.
It said nothing about the beams interfering with radio communication.

A military commander might be interested in spending money on SSPS research,
if it might give him or her a weapon that can turn off his enemy's
communications. Even over short range though such jammer are horribly power
intensive, so I'm not sure it will be an option for them, or an issue for
us.

Finally, the SSPS will be designed to beam as much of its power as possible
onto the rectenna. Any energy that goes elsewhere is wasted. Given the
levels of transmission usually banded about, I can't see the wasted signal
as having as much power to have the effect Thor fears it might.

> exactly how the spectrum is allocated worldwide, but I
> think the FCC auctions off portions of the various
> bands to the highest bidder, reserving some for
> military and other agencies.

Pretty much the same thing world wide - except that where possible the
agencies negotiate with each other for common standards.

> However note that if say
> Pakistan put up a SSPS and beamed the power down to a
> Rectannae Farm 30 miles outside of it's capital. That
> SSPS's frequency would be 10^8 to 10^12 times more
> powerful than cellphones,

100,000,000 to 1,000,000,000,000?
I assume you're not talking about the capital?

Even if they're accurate for right next to the rectenna, that doesn't
matter. The important relationship would be mobile phone range in comparison
to distance from the rectenna's edge. If mobile phones will work reliably
500m from the edge, then it probably won't be an issue for the
telecommunication companies.

John

I'm afraid that passion doesn't get people elected to Congress, which is why I'm spending my time (and money) to lobby our elected officials instead. I agree that most of the work needs to be done by private industry, but I think that the Federal Government needs to start things off by funding R & D, and by funding initial efforts to create the demand which will trigger low cost launch vehicle availability. There are private groups out there--e.g. The Space Island Group--trying to do space solar power without government assistance, but so far that doesn't seem to be working.

I'm a professional persuader--that is, I'm a corporate and government litigator. What I know how to do is convince people of things that I believe in. I need as much help--technical, conceptual, strategic--as I can get from those of you who are scientifically trained and industry professionals. Give me a good program to sell, and I will get people in the upper reaches of government and/or industry to pay attention.

Cc:

greetings,

Mark, I am glad to see someone as passionate about
SSPSs as you. Maybe you should run for congress on
this issue.

It is certainly a worthwhile thing for humans to do.
I'm just not sure that it should be done by
government. I think industry would be better able to
handle the task, perhaps with a little seed money to
get it started.

Another problem that I see as at least an equal
threat, is the total extinction of all life on earth
(and maybe the galaxy) should a large asteroid collide
into our planet.

And Thor,

Your comment on cellphones is quite right, they are
using more and more of the bandwidth in the 2 GHz band
(correct me if I'm wrong) that can easily penetrate
the atmosphere, even in moderate rain. I'm not sure
exactly how the spectrum is allocated worldwide, but I
think the FCC auctions off portions of the various
bands to the highest bidder, reserving some for
military and other agencies. However note that if say
Pakistan put up a SSPS and beamed the power down to a
Rectannae Farm 30 miles outside of it's capital. That
SSPS's frequency would be 10^8 to 10^12 times more
powerful than cellphones, so there is really no
contest. Even with very pure frequency control, and
very narrow beams with null side-lobes, a good portion
of band will be lost to communications. Cellular
would have to use a different band in that region of
the world. And once the first SSPS started
transmission of power, many other counties, power
companies, consortium, etc., would rapidly want a
piece of the pie. So what is the FCC or the UN's FCC
to do?

Dave

>
> I'm sorry; the idea that saving the planet, and much
> of human
> civilization, is to be held hostage to those
> accursed life- and
> meeting-interrupters is really not acceptable. If
> some of our planetary
> priorities have be altered, then so be it. We need
> more than a vision:
> we need leadership.
>
> rk.net/calfee/card/PKDL_8.map>
>
> This electronic mail transmission may contain
> confidential and legally
> privileged information from the law firm of Calfee,
> Halter & Griswold
> LLP intended only for the use of the individual(s)
> identified as
> addressee(s). If you are not the intended recipient,
> you are hereby
> notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution
> or the taking of any
> action in reliance on the contents of this
> electronic mail transmission
> is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
> transmission in error,
> please notify me by telephone immediately. Nothing
> contained herein or
> in any attachment hereto is intended to be used, or
> can be used, to
> avoid penalties imposed under the Internal Revenue
> Code.
>
> [mailto:ssi_list@... s.com] On
> Behalf Of Thor Olson
> back regarding
> Global warming.
>
> I'll admit I am torn between the political realities
> Michael Griffin is
> facing and my desire to see NASA advance SSPS.
> There are big questions
> in my mind how easy it is to get significant water
> on the moon. Without
> verification, you are forced to bet a significant
> part of your
> credibility advancing SSPS at the expense of other
> popular programs.
> Astronomy alone has a huge following that cannot be
> ignored.
>
> Next you have cell phones all around the world in a
> near trillion dollar
> business. This was unforeseen in the origional
> design of SSPS and poses
> a quandry of how to free up the needed spectrum to
> make SSPS work really
> well. Rush this and you will likely pay a trillion
> dollars or more in
> restitution. Wait 40 years and cell phones will
> likely be replaced by a
> totally different technology that does not interfere
> with SSPS. In
> every meeting I have had with politicians, there
> seems to be an
> awareness that the technical problems of today may
> just go away if you
> wait.
>
> If this assessment is correct then the goal is to
> perfect SSPS for the
> day when it can actually be used. As for fighting
> Global warming, I
> don't have illusions that even SSPS could be
> developed in time. The
> Northern Polar regions are forecast to show striking
> melting of the ice
> this year and that is end game for the opportunities
> of humans to make
> small changes in their environment. The kind of
> SSPS that would change
> this fate still looks 50 years off or more.
>
> - Thor
>
> Hi Charles,
>
> I disagree with some of your statements but agree
> with
> your overall view that Space Solar Power Satellites
> (SSPSs) are one of the most important things we can
> build.
>
> I don't think NASA should cancel all their projects,
> in fact they should add more and cancel the two most
> expensive ones (Orion and the Heavy Lift Vehicle).
>
> NASA should seek companies to propose both SSPS
> demonstrators and alternatives for getting people to
> the moon. NASA shouldn't build anything or even
> specify what to build. NASA should simply contract
> out work to American companies to solve problems
> such
> as going to the moon or fixing global warning from
> space. Then, after several ideas were proposed, pier
> review could select the best two or three for
> funding.
> The first one completed would receive an additional
> bonus or prize. This would save the tax-payer money,
> and help build a real space industry in the U.S.
>
> Anyway, that's my opinion.
>
> Dave
>
> --- "Charles F. Radley" > com>
>
> > Thanks for the response.
> >
> > In my pinion, the most important and useful thing
> > NASA could be
> > working on TODAY is to develop and deploy a solar
> > power satelite
> > demonstrator to beam power to a base on the Moon.
> >
> > If I were NASA administrator, I would cancel all
> > other porjects, and
> > focus the agency's objectives entirely on that one
> > mission.
> >
> > That is how NASA can (and should) help resolve the
> > problem of global
> > wamring, and indeed take a worldwide lead to
> > achieving the solution
> > via space solar power (and possibly lunar He3).
> >
> > Without a powerful economic incentive, such as
> space
> > solar power or
> > He3, the entire NASA VSE effort could be cancelled
> > overnight on a
> > political whim.
> >
> > Thanks and best regards,
> >
> > Charles R.
> >
> > --- In ssi_list@...
> s.com,
> Ed Minchau
> > >
> > > What is he supposed to do? Rewrite the NASA
> > charter
> > > to include even more stuff? Global Warming is
> NOT
> > > NASA's responsibility. The NOAA maybe, but not
> > NASA.
> > >
> > > And solar power satellites and He3 have never
> been
> > > given as reasons for going back to the moon. We
> > don't
> > > even know if He3 fusion can be made to produce
> > more
> > > energy than is required to confine the reaction.
> > >
> > > NASA definitely has a PR problem though. Check
> > this
> > > out:
> > >
> http://www.nasawatc
>
h.com/archives/2007/05/petty_politics.html>
> h.com/archives/2007/05/petty_politics.html
> > > and in particular read the absolutely scathing
> > > assessment written by some guy on the 9th floor
> of
> > > NASA HQ.
> > >
> > > Ed
> > >

The fish are biting.

> Sorry for the rant, I know I'm preaching to choir here.

Sometimes the choir likes to hear it. Thanks.

Hi Ed,

While it it true that Global Warming is not in NASA's
charter right now, It should be. I'll add my 8 & 1/2
minute speech again, hoping someone will pass it along
to the Global Warming Administration. But to sum it
up in a sentance or two: We cannot reverse global
warming on earth, it is just too big a job and there
are too many people. If we put a machine that would
put a pertetual cloud of dust, between the Earth and
the Sun, just dense enough to reduce the solar
incidence by 10 to 15%, we could immediately reverse
global warming.

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,
in my opinion is 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 Extremeophilic 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.

Speech Outline:

History Channel
Why It doesnt it really matter
Can it be stopped? No, melting of the
Tundra releases Methane, causing an. irreversible,
chain reaction.
Chain reaction will speed up over the years;
anticipate a 60-foot sea-level rise in the next 100
years. (my guestimate)
This will continue at an ever increasing
rate.
Make no mistake, serious, may lead to the
extinction of life on earth, except for a few extreme
single cell life.
Nothing on heaven or earth can stop this
runaway chain reaction.
WAIT! 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.
Nothing to do at the earth end, but might it
be possible to attenuate some of the sunlight between
the Sun and the Earth?
Idea? We put up a partial reflector at the
Sun-Earth-L1-Lagrange-Orbit (L-1 for short). L-1 is a
very stabile location that stays between the earth and
the Sun with very little effort.
So what will it take?
The realization that we will be able to
resolve these problems from space, and to spread that
word.
Quickly develop the political will to make
this happen.
Increase the space budget by a factor of 11
or more, to $2T / year (about what the Iraq War
costs).
Persuade other nations to join in this
effort, and begin updating our space program. Perhaps
we could remind them of the costs of sea-level rise to
their nations.
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.
We need to accomplish this fix, in the next
20 years, so as to limit Sea-level rise of 4 to 5
feet.
As money becomes available we must 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 Launch Systems, and Tether Systems in
as little as 5 years.
Establish 1 or 2 dozen Lunar Colonies to
Strip Mine lunar regolith from the Moons surface
then to electromagnetically launch it in a stream of
buckets to L-1.
Establish a dozen Solar Powered Space
Factories at L-1, to process and disburse this dust
and cause it to form a controllable cloud to attenuate
the sunlight.
This needs to be studied and acted upon as
quickly as possible. If we could get the entire
system operational in 20 years, (the actual cooling
would be quite fast and easily controlled) then the
actual reversal, sea-level rise may max out at only 5
feet.
Cities could build dikes and land loss may be
acceptable and later reversible.
One in place this system could immediate cool
the planet and reverse problems, once the problem is
gone this system could be stored for hundreds or
thousands of years until needed again.
The scientific and engineering effort is
huge; we must quickly developing various EMLSs
Test the suitability and properties of lunar
regolith for this purpose and design machinery to
re-powder and disseminate the compacted lunar soil.
Rapidly develop lunar colony and mining plans
and deploy them.
Rapidly develop Solar Powered Space Factory
plans and deploy them.
Automate the entire project, as it may need
to operate for decades or centuries.
Other benefits include a 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.
In Summary: From whatever cause, we need
this Global Cooling Machine ASAP. Plus if we ever need
it again, it will be ready.
I for one think this project is extremely
important and plan to spend my remaining life on its
realization.
Thank you.

Approximately 8 minutes.

> What is he supposed to do? Rewrite the NASA charter
> to include even more stuff? Global Warming is NOT
> NASA's responsibility. The NOAA maybe, but not
> NASA.
>
> And solar power satellites and He3 have never been
> given as reasons for going back to the moon. We
> don't
> even know if He3 fusion can be made to produce more
> energy than is required to confine the reaction.
>
> NASA definitely has a PR problem though. Check this
> out:
>
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2007/05/petty_politics.html