Re-raises the call for SPS

As a sort of politician / geek, who went to a non-political career, I have been away from the space issue and its advocacy for some time. But, I do remember SSI in the days when Dr. O'Neill was still with us, and now here is an editorial that we are seeking placements for. Its general idea is to re-invigorate the call for SPS, solar power satellites. Any response from your part is a comment I will welcome here. Thank you / Best, --John Kusumi GUEST COLUMN, 1,000 words
February, 2003 Contact John Kusumi
(203) 640-2715 Space Advocates Propose
Practical Idealist Solution On NASA's mission, look to the politics of Practical IdealismCo-signatories noted below
The disastrous loss of the space shuttle Columbia has occasioned a debate that will shape the future of NASA; the direction and course of the space program; and, national space policy for years to come. The decision to have a space shuttle dates back to around the time of Apollo. Space advocates have well pointed out that in NASA's Columbia disaster, what recently failed is Apollo-era technology.
Space enthusiasts have long been frustrated in their efforts to prevail upon politicians. The 1970s displayed what can be done with Apollo leftovers. In the 1980s, we wanted a stronger space program than that slated. In the 1980s, we did not get that. The same can be said for the decade of the 1990s. Now, in the wake of Columbia's tragedy, many are asking, "How many people drive a car that is 22 years old?"
It can be said that the space shuttle was 22 years old, and the decision to have it was perhaps 33 years old. Leave it to American politicians to command technology, and yet to make scant use of it, achieving mere fractions of its potential. Could a large space program, of solar power satellites, deliver clean electricity to earth? Obviate nuclear energy? Yield a return on investment? Yes. Are politicians interested in the same? Seemingly not. Lobbies for oil and the nuclear power industry prefer the status quo, and buck against the deployment of newer technologies.
The proposal to loft solar power satellites (SPS) has been around before, indeed since Apollo days. Space buffs will remember dogfights with Congressional critics whom they would term visionless, if not small minded. Not having embraced the SPS initiative, Congress has clearly lacked "the vision thing." A natural temptation is to lay the Columbia disaster at the feet of the Senate budget committee.
And yet, the vision thing really needs to come from the top down. The politics of Practical Idealism were in part born from the advocacy, by John Kusumi in the early 1980s, for a stronger space program. Practical Idealism was his independent political platform in the 1984 federal election cycle, and included a strong plank on national space policy. That page out of Practical Idealism is the advocacy of this article.
In our view, NASA was under funded to begin with -- for about 25 years, now. In 1984, Practical Idealism called for solar power satellites. During intervening years, new technology, "thin film solar" has arisen; today, the solar power satellites could be built with one-tenth of the mass, one-tenth of the lifting, and one-tenth of the launch capacity, compared to requirements of 1984. It is now cheaper and easier to embrace the initiative -- these satellites would have the consistency of a kite.
In 2001, the September 11 attacks occasioned worries about terrorism, and an editorial from here, "Kusumi to U.S.: Nukes Offline." The observation was that nuclear energy plants constitute a juicy target for terrorism; hence a risk, hazard, and menace to public safety. The call was not only for decommissioning nuclear energy, but the editorial re-raised the call for solar power satellites (SPS). In common designs of our aerospace community, an SPS has output equivalent to five conventional power plants. The United States should replace 103 nuclear energy plants in this country, and could do so with 21 SPS installations.
The upshot is two new missions for NASA. First, to develop the next generation of launch vehicles, gaining the lifting capacity that would be required to loft SPS. Second, to develop and deploy the SPS installations themselves. Here, the energy returned offers financial value to the investment. The launch capacity can be cross utilized for NMD (National Missile Defense). Economically planning for the SPS program, once the launch system is a separate given, one can likely find a break even point in its operation, making its deployment not a cost, but an investment.
More SPS systems could be sold to other countries, perhaps at a discount if they will dismantle or forego any and all nuclear programs. This could become a way to fight nuclear proliferation, another great worry of the day.
The United States is now pressed by concerns of terrorism, homeland security, war, and WMD. Fiscal restraint cautions against bold initiatives. The cry by some is to retreat from outer space. Yet, that would slap the face, and dishonor the memories, of seven astronauts whom we are mourning today. Not one of them would ever sign off on a retrenchment from space exploration. Taking the space issue on its own merits, Practical Idealism has careful positioning -- a well chosen course for NASA. Countervailing concerns are based, not on the merits at hand, but rather on budget concerns and worries in other areas.
Those remain good concerns, but the advocacy here is not for a boondoggle. We do not now advise, for example, a mission to Mars. In fact, austerity now cautions against great new manned efforts. We know that manned missions are ever more expensive than the unmanned ones. Solar Power Satellites, in the end, are unmanned items. With a possible economic ROI (return on investment), an SPS mission for NASA would be far more fiscally responsible than a Mars mission. And, it may enable our future to move away from dangerous nuclear energy. If we experience a terrorist attack that creates an American Chernobyl, we will realize that today's suggestion from Practical Idealism concerned millions of lives.
We believe it is the right time to embrace the SPS initiative. With an interdisciplinary nature, it is not simply a space program. This cuts across national policies on energy, homeland security, and nuclear non-proliferation. It could be funded in part out of those budgets. The ultimate best argument for SPS is that, stacked against nuclear energy, SPS is a threat reduction. With more reason, and less cost than ever to adopt this solution, it seems easy to support politically. We urge space advocates to forward this matter to political leaders and news editors. SPONSORS: John Kusumi Originator of Practical Idealism as a political platform Former presidential candidate (Ind., '84) Founder/Executive Director, the China Support Network Dr. Paul Maas Risenhoover Yeshiva B'nai Noah of the B'nai Noah Religious Society, Taipei, Taiwan Board Member, Free China Movement Former Adjunct Assistant Professor of Aviation Law, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Tinker Air Force Base Campus at the Naval Readiness Center