Griffin stabs us in the 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 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
> >

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _