LIBERALS IN SPACE: A Modest Proposal

[Emperor_Norton_II]

There's something of a trend here on Democratic Underground to view the space program as something worthy of Fear and Loathing. Between oh-so-cynical sneering about the cost, paranoid ranting about PNAC Death Stars, and flip comments about Bush, nobody seems to really be interested in putting up a counterplan to the Bush Space Plan. Either we're stuck with it or we just kill NASA entirely, it seems.

I say fuck that static. We're supposed to be progressives, so let's think like progressives.

And with that, I would like to present:

The Imperial American Space Program
an attempt to get the best of both worlds
by J. A. Norton II, Emperor of the United States, Protector of Mexico & Canada, etc.
(with assistance from the Nuke Free Zone)

George W. Bush has slapped together a politically pretty but ultimately empty initiative for the manned exploration of space. His plan, essentially a retread of George H. W. Bush's 1989 Space Exploration Initiative (SEI), fails to take into account advances in space technology and materials science in both the theoretical and practical realms since the original SEI was formulated.

But SEI/Bushplan is not what we're here to discuss today. No. Instead, I - with the help of the Nuke Free Zone space corps - am going to outline a space program that will accomplish the following things to, if not total satisfaction, then a greater deal of satisfaction than has been achieved since the days of Jack Kennedy:

1) Setting up a well-funded unmanned space program with the primary goal of understanding exactly how the Earth and the Solar System work. We often forget the second word, and it's important; that big ball of radiation in the heart of the system is literally the source of all life on this planet, and the other worlds can tell us equally big things about how they evolved and why Earth is so different.

2) Setting up a well-funded manned space program with the primary goal of surveying the Solar System for purposes of future colonization and resource explotation. Let's face it, after all; the consumerist society isn't going away anytime soon, and the planet's resource base is dwindling. Some things we can't replace - the products of the Earth's biosphere most of all. Some things, however, like metals and energy, are abundant in space, and we should begin looking to them for our needs.

A lot of this comes down to what I think a "good" government is supposed to do. When you get right down to it, a government should be all about infrastructure. Provide for the common defense with police, fire and (when all else fails) the army. Support the common good through things like health care and the social safety net. Deliver the mail, regulate the utilities and build and maintain the roads and bridges. Government shouldn't be involved in raising sails and planting flags - it never ends well when under direct government control, and it's usually better to subcontract out.

So we're going to drop the flags and footprints, and go back to doing what government does best.

Building bridges.

First of all, we're gonna scale back ISS and the Shuttle. I love the project dearly, but we're going to need the shuttle fleet free in order to accomplish the major parts of our task and running ISS assembly at full-tilt puts the three we have left at greater risk. But station fans, don't fret overmuch; we'll maintain ISS for at least a few more years yet as a biological / environmental workshop, and all the hard work put into its construction will be incredibly valuable down the line.

Once the screamng from that bold maneuver has subsided, we're going to increase our unmanned science operations tenfold, using new techniques to build small, rugged and above all -cheap- satellites to give us real-time information about the Earth and the rest of the solar system. The Mission to Planet Earth gets a big shot in the arm and a dozen or so new earth observation platforms - little more than a solar cell, a few instruments and a transponder - to take measurements. We'll make them as close to assembly-line as possible, so if one fails we can stick two more onto a rocket the following Tuesday. Depending on what's left over in the budget maybe we can ressurect the Triana L1 webcam, putting a live image of Earth From Space out on the WWW to inspire a new generation of space geeks. It might even get Al Gore to crack a smile in public. (kidding! kidding!)

We'll put little robot buggies (like R/C cars with cameras) on the Moon and Mars - maybe farm this one out to a reality TV-drenched public; drive a car on the Moon! - to look for signs of water and helium and other things we'll need once we're Ready. But most importantly, we -will- have at least one Mars Sample Return mission and one Europa mission to see if we can't find a few cracks in that ice worth peeking into ready to go by 2010.

Meanwhile, the second half of our plan is taking off back on Earth. The groundside materials engineers, chemists, and physicists will get Funding. Lots of funding, for one primary goal: They have to make a ribbon of carbon nanotuce in any requested length, and they have to hold a very specific tensile strength. Oh, and we'll need them by 2015 if at all possible, thanks.

The board is set, the pieces are moving. As soon as the engineers in announce a success in getting what we requested, we're going to put in an order for 60,000 miles of high-tensile nanotube cable, a pair of study rocket engines, and a nice, stable platform on the Equator. The cable and rockets we ship up in the Shuttle - it's a big load, so it'll take a couple of flights to do it - and from low orbit it goes out to 60,000 miles above the Earth. Once there, we ever so slowly bring the leader on the cable back down to our equatorial platform.

Remember all those little robots we were throwing willy-nilly all over the place? They were spinoffs and testbeds for the little robots we now use to run cable. Ever see a suspension bridge go up? That's what we're doing here - endless back and forth, tying one narrow cable to another one to make a bigger, stronger cable.

When we're done, we'll have a cable ready for cars. These cars will be able to put things into orbit around the planet, or into orbit around other planets, for very little money per pound. A Mars mission, for example, could be hauled all the way out to the end of the line, 60,000 miles away, hooked up to its injection stage, and then just let go at the right moment; centrepital force would do most of the hard work, and the engine would only be required for course corrections.

("But," I hear you say, "what about the elevator cable? Wouldn't terrorists knock it down and destroy all life on Earth?" Well... no. A break in the cable at about the height where the WTC was hit (call it around 800 feet) would only serve to drop several tons of cable onto the surface anchor (which would suck if you were directly beneath it) and the remaining 60,000 miles would slowly drift away into space. The break could be anywhere from ground level to a hundred miles up and the effect would still be the same. If you were to break the cable up near the counterweight, the majority of the cable would burn up in the atmosphere.)

And there's your bridge. It's a road from America to the solar system. Anybody can use it - provided they can pay the toll (it's not much, and the elevator provides transport - think of it like a bus pass) - and go anywhere they think they can get with the tools at their disposal.

Imagine the National Geographic Society mission to provide a travelogue of the Apollo landing sites. Imagine the MIT Mars expedition. Imagine a joint Greenpeace/British Petroleum (yeah, yeah, I know, but roll with me here, okay?) operation to start unloading solar power satelites in geosynchronous orbit to replace aging and starving oil/gas/coal power plants.

It's a hell of a lot of work. It'll be fairly expensive; the elevator itself, barring materials development, will cost between $40 and $100 billion to deploy over five years. It won't have a lot of immediate benefits. It means that some of us are going to have to give up long-held demands for a payoff that we might not get to participate in. But it can be done, and it should be done.



I now open the floor to the general public.

[TheChibi]

1. Well...

I'm starting to wonder if Bush just doesn't plan on launching the Democrats to either the sun or Mars. It would be cool to send people to space, and I'd love to go, but being launched into the sun would stink.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

3. That's one...

Don't mind me, just taking count.

[pmbryant]

2. A lot to chew on

But I commend you for putting this proposal out there. There's something in there for everybody interested in space, both those of us interested in doing science, and those of us interested in travelling there personally.

Even better would be to propose diverting money from the Pentagon black hole and the Bush tax cuts black hole to fund it.

:-)

--Peter

[Emperor_Norton_II]

5. Like I like to say, it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game.

Just by the nature of politics, we're not gonna get everything we want - being a big man-in-space booster, I'm giving up manned travel for a full decade in return for a space elevator - but that's no reason to shut out one side entirely.

Now to beat some Democrats over the head with this until they get Religion....

[TheChibi]

7. Oh, well...

I'm afraid I've had some bad experiences with religion, so I tend to skirt away from it. You'll have to excuse me for taking a neutral stance on it. If I ever do choose one, I might lean towards Buddhism or something.

Back on topic. Space travel is a good idea. There's 6+ billion people on the earth. People aren't going to stop having kids. But, I think Bush's timing's a little off. Right in the midst of a *coughwarcough* on terrorism, yadda, with the deficit spiraling upwards faster than a 6 bottle rockets tied together is a lousy time to fund space programs.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

8. Religion and funding

My religion wavers between Deism and Militant Agnosticism. But that's a rant for another day...

Meanwhile, back at the ranch: Bush's timing is primarily tuned to make himself look good. Yeah, I know, big surprise there. Still, I don't think it's impossible to fund space programs even with all the rest of this shit going on. No less so than, say, President Unknown Democrat getting into office and setting up universal health care.

Think about it.

[Baclava]

4. Good idea...

But, wouldn't it be better to just let the aliens tell us what to do?

[Emperor_Norton_II]

6. That's two...

Don't mind me...

[bigtree]

9. Cost, paranoid ranting about PNAC Death Stars, flip comments about Bush

point up the reasons why we can't get a reasonable space program that works within our strained budget. I haven't heard a peep from responders about ending our seemingly benign ventures into space.

Rather, the concerns about PNAC, space-based lasers, and the motives of the defense industry's executive in chief are a synopsis of what stands in the way of your utopic visions of a rational, sustainable space program.

The main impetus behind our militarization of space through the introduction of space-based lasers is the Pentagon's desire to protect and defend our GPS (global positioning) satellites against an attack by a rouge nation (they presume China). They further want the capability to attack the Glosnass satellite positioning system which happens to be shared by China and Russia.

Also, their missile defense plans envision using space-based lasers to shoot down as many as 20 North Korean Taepo-Dong 2 missiles at a time that could reach any part of the U.S., and that missile is currently untested. Space-based lasers on permanent or floating platforms.

The (unproven) nuclear propulsion technology that future Mars/Jupiter missions will employ is intended to demonstrate in ground tests the technology required for space reactor power systems which would power the space lasers. The nuclear reactor would would utilize new blends of "recycled" uranium fuel.

China has just as much stake in its satellite system as we do ours. Russia will surely be sidelined by the U.S. in any of our military pursuits. Russia will likely align with China in any adversarial atmosphere. China's recent foray into manned missions may be a direct reaction to our plans for military dominance in space.

Remember, China or Russia don't have to be successful in reaching the Moon or Mars to pose the perceived threat that the Pentagon could use to escalate their militarism. That's the reason that American must insist that the administration present its aims in a way that doesn't suggest military dominion over space. The world may not stand still as we scramble for dominance. Our aggressive posture portends a new cold war in space.

We are unleashing a new, unnecessary fear between the nations of the world as we dissolve decades of firm understandings about an America power which was to be guileless in its unassailable defenses. The falseness of our diplomacy is revealed in our scramble for ‘usable', tactical nuclear missiles, new weapons systems, and our new justifications for their use.

To me, a new cold war in space seems inevitable if we continue to allow Bush to hide his ambitions for the militarization of the planets, the moons, and the heavens behind a seemingly benign program of space exploration.

Until he and his minions in NASA and the Pentagon are forced to level with the American people and the world about their true ambitions to dominate military space, we will further their deadly agendas with every seemingly benign mission we cheer for.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

10. You know, there is a simple solution to this problem.

That being remove Bush from office. No more Bush, no more PNAC influence where it counts.

Simple
As
That

...unless, of course, you think Bush is unbeatable?

[bigtree]

11. Good. We agree on something

Sean O'Keefe goes also.

NASA's new chief, former Navy Secretary Sean O'Keefe said soon after Bush appointed him to head the space agency that,

"I don't think we have a choice, I think it's imperative that we have a more direct association between the Defense Department and NASA. Technology has taken us to a point where you really can't differentiate between that which is purely military in application and those capabilities which are civil and commercial in nature."

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/nuclearspace-03b.html


Lockheed accomplices who have been planted in the Pentagon have to go too:

-Peter B. Teets, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, is the former president and chief operating officer of Lockheed Martin who retired from the company in late 1999.

Teets now serves as the director of the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) 65, Undersecretary of the Air Force, and chief procurement officer for all of military space, controlling a budget in excess of $65 billion, a figure that includes $8 billion a year for missile defense and $7 billion annually for NRO spying.

To date it is believed that the NRO has provided more than $500 million each to Lockheed-Martin and Boeing.

- Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and Director of Iraq Reconstruction is president and managing partner of former law firm, Feith & Zell; clients include Northrop-Grumman and Loral Space Communications

- Gordon England, Secretary of the Navy was a General Dynamics contractor and a former president of Lockheed.

-James G. Roche, Secretary of the Air Force is a former president of Northrop-Grumman, a subsidiary of Lockheed. "We have encouraged and exploited the rapid advancement and employment of innovative technologies and have taken significant action to implement the findings of the (Rumsfeld Star Wars) Space Commission in our new role as the executive agent for space," he said to a Senate committee in 2002.

and others . . .

[Emperor_Norton_II]

12. Yes, yes, they're all scum and bastards and will be ridden out of town...

Now, do you have anything positive that you would like to contribute to the discussion, or would you rather continue to ride your hobbyhorse and beat the drum over and over?

[bigtree]

13. unmanned space travel is a good compromise

There will also be a need for occasional manned flights to service our system of satellites. Thanks for listening.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

14. Not as much as you might otherwise think

Though I daresay there will be a market for disposal services...

By keeping the new generation of MtPE satellites or comsats or whatever as efficient and low-cost as possible it'd be a better solution to simply launch a replacement than to have to send up a manned mission for a repair job. Until something like an elevator (remember that? Half of the main goal for my proposal?) is in place it would continue to be too expensive to send a crew up for all but the most critical of service missions.

[flaminbats]

16. And I thought you were only joking about the space elevator..

This would make for great science-fiction, but a suspension bridge in space is just another funny pipe-dream. The laws of physics would prevent this from happening. Is it possible?...sure, just like anything else. But so is balancing an elephant at the tip of a pencil on top of your nose! Possible doesn't always mean practical.

Suspension bridges aren't built to endure such huge temperature differences, large changes in atmospheric pressure, and the never-ending strain of gravity on such a large mass.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

17. "The laws of physics would prevent this from happening"

Really? I suppose the laws of physics prevent things like, say, twirling a yo-yo on a string then, because that's the core principle behind making a space elevator work.

So, smart guy, explain exactly which laws of physics are broken by a space elevator.

No need to rush, I'll be here all night.

[flaminbats]

21. I agreed that it may be possible...

But suspension bridges do not have comparatively thin cables connecting a large orbiting object through the windy extremes of the atmosphere down to the ground. And what happens as the orbit begins to decrease? It seems like moving poles would be needed more than cables.

Which laws of physics?...I suggest you start with Newton's laws, and then move slowly up to the laws of thermodynamics. :thumbsup:

[Emperor_Norton_II]

23. You don't even know what you're talking about, do you?

No, of course not. Silly of me to think otherwise, really.

Look, rocket boy, here's how it works. You have point A and point B. Point A is on the Earth's surface as close to the Equator as possible if not right on top of it. Point B is out in space, directly above point A. You string a line between the two of them, with a weight at point B. The Earth turns, keeping the line under tension. This is a lot of tension, but then it's a lot of line.

The windy atmosphere is only really "windy" for the last ten miles of it. The remaining 59,990 miles of cable don't really have to deal with it. The object itself is orbiting in a 24 hour equatorial orbit, so there's that problem solved.

[flaminbats]

26. enough with the insults prettyboy!

You still haven't explained how these cables would prevent the long-term decline in the orbit. Or explained how these cables would actually be "strung-up".

You can't string them up when launching into space, so how could this possibly be done during re-entry?

And the cost of such an undertaking would be enormous, enough to provide clean water in Mexico or to provide massive amounts of humanitarian aid to those in third-world nations.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

29. Two words: Centrifugal. Force.

The cable is being held in tension by the force of the planet's spin.

You can't string them up when launching into space, so how could this possibly be done during re-entry?

You put the thing in stationary orbit, then keep the center of gravity balanced on that orbit, sending one end of the line towards the planet and the counterweight out into space. Doing it nice and slow and it doesn't come in at reentry speeds.

[flaminbats]

34. The more details I get, the more unlikely it becomes...

"The cable is being held in tension by the force of the planet's spin."
This spin could also break the cable, especially as the orbital velocity slowly declines. Also, you state that "keeping the center of gravity balanced on that orbit, sending one end of the line towards the planet and the counterweight out into space." How do you keep these counterweights in orbit, while placing the cables on solid ground?

It sounds like the cables would have to be buried deep into the ground. What happens to the center of gravity if just one cable breaks?

The day I see a suspension bridge linking Australia to southeast Asia is the day I'll buy into this plan!

[Emperor_Norton_II]

36. ...

Where the hell are you getting this "orbital velocity slowly declines" garbage from? Orbital velocity doesn't work like taking your foot off the gas when you're on the road - it remains constant unless you hit something. Newton's Law, as you so charmingly reminded me upthread.

[flaminbats]

45. another word for it is orbital decay...

this is why our satellites are frequently boosted into high Earth orbit. Gravity slowly reduces the orbit velocity of any object. Sometimes the orbital velocity exceeds the effects of gravity...as with the Moon.

Scientists suggest that the moon has been orbiting outward from the Earth for nearly 4 billion years. When it first existed, the moon appeared to be many times the brightness and size that it does today, which made it clearly visible during the day and night. At one point in its history, both the near and farsides were observable..depending on which time one attempted to look at it.

[tkmorris]

47. Mr Bats? Sir?

I'm afraid that I have the rather sad task of informing you that expressing an opinion on this topic without having done your research is making you look a bit...well...silly. A Space Elevator is in fact quite an old idea, and one that is not only theoretically possible but in fact has been designed to the blueprint stage more than once using existing engineering, space vehicles, and materials. As of the late 70's the only obstacle other than cost was the material to be used. As Mr. Norton stated the tensions are rather enormous. Materials developed recently however (carbon nanotubes specifically, I understand there are others as well) satisfy the requirements.

Please, go do some reading on the topic. It is quite exciting and very possible to do. Further it need not be terribly expensive, particularly if it is built by an international coalition rather than a single national entity. It would almost have to be since it is imperative to place the base at the equator and there are no real candidates owning territory there that could come close to footing the bill.

Go my friend. Google. Here, this will send you on your way nicely; it is written in nice friendly laymans terms. http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/technology/space_elevator_020327-1.html

Have one for the road first :beer:

[flaminbats]

59. Nice article...

Some call it a "thought experiment", but others point out that space exploration B.C. -- "Before Cable" -- will pale contrasted to what's possible within ten to fifteen years.

"Even though the challenges to bring the space elevator to reality are substantial, there are no physical or economic reasons why it can't be built in our lifetime." That's the matter-of-fact feeling of physicist, Bradley Edwards of Eureka Scientific in Berkeley, California, but carrying out heavy lifting design work in Seattle, Washington.

It probably can be done within our lifetimes or maybe in a few decades, if the U.S. ever reduces the national debt, and if the benefits for such a venture are made freely available...not sold, to the citizens of every nation on Earth.

[Tiger Tank II]

60. Obviously, you are a overly cautious man

We understand your fear of exploring our solar system but please refrain from destroying all others hopes/abilities to do so.

And understand that our goverment spend approx. 55billion on NASA while spending 350billion on military. milions of those dollars are spent on weapons designed to fight a cold war that never happened. All of thisleaves us with is the ability to send unmanned probes and an increasingly less frequent scale.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

62. Correction:

The annual US budget for NASA comes out to $14 billion.

HTH, HAND.

[flaminbats]

65. WELCOME TO DU MR TANK...

But this isn't exactly starting our friendship on the right foot.

If I'm overly cautious, what does this make you for your 6th post?

For me what can be done is greater exploration, more funding for unmanned probes within the solar system, and the same for completing the space station to maximize its potential. If a nation is deeply in debt, it hardly makes sense to risk billions or even trillions of tax dollars on what is proposed to be a profitable venture. Many of these dollars could be used on things that we know will give us a tangible return.

I would then find every tax-dollar spent on military space projects..classified or not, and propose redirecting all of this funding into the civilian space program.

I have been labeled everything from a radical to a freeper in this forum, name calling will not convince anyone. Note that I do favor redirecting all military spending on space projects into the civilian program. This doesn't mean I am ruling out any options, just stating that more money needs to be available for the program and suggesting a place to get this funding. This kills two birds with one stone, it ends our militarization of space while also providing this same level of spending for civilian space projects which benefit everyone.

[bigtree]

18. Disposable satellites

Why do I get this image of a space junkyard? Oh, well. Maybe we will crash and burn 'em.

Space Elevator, a contractor's press release:

Seattle, Wash. (January 15, 2004) – LiftPort Group, the space elevator companies, today announced its support for NASA’s new blueprint for the space exploration program.

"Under LiftPort’s proposal, the first commercial space elevator would stretch 62,000 miles into space, and would act as a “railroad” that could transport cargo and ultimately humans to the Moon, Mars and beyond. The elevator would be constructed from a carbon nanotube composite ribbon anchored to an offshore sea platform and to a small counterweight in space. Robotic “lifters” attached to the ribbon would carry cargo ranging from satellites to solar powered panels and eventually humans, reducing launch costs from $10,000-$20,000 per pound, to approximately $500 per pound."

According to LiftPort, the first commercial space elevator could be operational as early as 2018. Key developmental milestones planned by LiftPort in 2004 include two major tests of the robotic lifters, including one using a high altitude balloon.

http://www.liftport.com [e-mail].

Did they finally prove the carbon nanotube composite ribbon? The concept hinges on a yet-to-be developed carbon nanotube composite that would be 30 times stronger than steel. $570,000 in funding should have produced something.

I like the company's concept of investment clubs to fund this instead of relying on the public to fund something like this which will, at least initally, benefit private enterprise.

Invest here:
http://www.liftportfinance.com/



'Come, let us make bricks and bake them in the fire.' For stone they used bricks and for mortar they used bitumen.

'Come', they said, 'let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top reaching heaven. Let us make a name for ourselves, so that we do not get scattered all over the world.'

[Emperor_Norton_II]

20. The ribbon, the ribbon.

To the best of my knowledge, no, the ribbon has not yet been proven. That is the critical chokepoint, and one that (to date) has been hampered by a lck of funding. Venture capitalists don't seem to want to put much money down on stuff like that, funny.

Anyway, one of the key points of my proposal is to ensure that canotube composite research gets the appropriate steady funding needed.

[flaminbats]

15. I have posted alternatives...not that anyone really cares.

This debate should be focused on what can be done, what should be done, and why exactly should we spend time and money exploring space?

I would argue that the statement of "some things, however, like metals and energy, are abundant in space, and we should begin looking to them for our needs."

Nothing personal, but this is one of the most worthless arguments I have ever seen for space exploration. The cost of transporting people and payloads into space is enormous. Ultimately the cost of transporting large quantities of heavy metals or other minerals back to Earth would far exceed any benefits that could be reaped from such a venture. Maybe a century from now, when we have developed the technology and ability to do this in a cost effective way would this be a practical argument.

For me what can be done is greater exploration, more funding for unmanned probes within the solar system, and the same for completing the space station to maximize its potential. If a nation is deeply in debt, it hardly makes sense to risk billions or even trillions of tax dollars on what is proposed to be a profitable venture. Many of these dollars could be used on things that we know will give us a tangible return.

I would then find every tax-dollar spent on military space projects..classified or not, and propose redirecting all of this funding into the civilian space program. "Operation to start unloading solar power satellites in geosynchronous orbit to replace aging and starving oil/gas/coal power plants."

Nice plan, but hasn't it occurred to you that more power would be used transporting such satellites into space than would ever be returned by collecting such amounts of solar energy? Solar energy is logical in space for providing power to a Space Station or orbiting satellite, but never enough for any practical purpose on Earth. And of course how would the energy be sent back to Earth? Beaming it down would result in greater loss of power than any worthwhile gain, and the same for using power to launch vehicles just to transport batteries or power paks back to Earth.

Once much of the national debt is finally paid off and our more achievable Earthly goals are met, then a Mission to Mars or returning to the Moon might be logical. But just a single mission to Mars would take over a year, and cost nearly a trillion dollars. If we do it, we better have the technology available and set some worthwhile objectives..other than just seeing some pretty people walking on a pretty planet!

[Emperor_Norton_II]

19. I and my worthless argument thank you.

Now that you've expressed your contempt for me and my optimism, I'd like to say for the record that argument is flawed, your logic is poorly-constructed at best and willfuly ignorant of the ideas set down in the proposal had you bothered to read it at worst, and ultimately nothing more than a long-winded retread of the same old tropes that kill liberal enthusiasm for the space program year after year, complete with a cynical topper about "pretty people." All in all, it's a bullshit argument coming from somebody who's had enough of an education to know better.

Nothing personal.

[bigtree]

22. This deserves a rebuttal

"Solar energy is logical in space for providing power to a Space Station or orbiting satellite, but never enough for any practical purpose on Earth. And of course how would the energy be sent back to Earth? Beaming it down would result in greater loss of power than any worthwhile gain, and the same for using power to launch vehicles just to transport batteries or power paks back to Earth."

I have heard this reasoning before. On solar and the loss of power evicerating any gain? Please?

[Emperor_Norton_II]

25. Fair enough.

It's a dumb argument, but...

Solar power sats, as envisioned, would basically be just an array of huge solar panels in space (and we're talking huge - a couple square miles per sat) with a power converter and a microwave projector. The sats would sit in a high orbit where they have a nice and fixed view of the Earth and a mostly unobstructed view of the sun, soaking up power and sending it back in the form of microwaves. The microwaves are picked up on the surface by special antennas, which transfers it to the power distribution grid.

Now, there's going to be loss in transmission no matter how you slice it, even if you were using something a coherent as a laser bouncing power from 23,000 miles would have beam spreadout and general loss of energy. But the loss can be minimized to, say, a few hundred watts in a 1MW transmiter. There's nothing in the underlying physics that says it can't be done, it's just an engineering problem.

[flaminbats]

28. And 99.99% of the time these arguments are correct.

The power expended for such an operation would greatly exceed any possible gain. The primary purpose of solar energy is to reduce our consumption of nonrenewable fuels, not to increase it!

[Emperor_Norton_II]

30. Any possible gain?

None at all?

We wouldn't get back the energy expended to put a solar power satellite into orbit in the lifetime of the sun?

I await your answer with baited breath.

[bigtree]

35. I've got a concern

Cost vs. timely results (benefits)

To employ a solar powered satellite system large enough to provide a feasable power alternative will require a massive infrastructure for its construction. The space elevator might lessen the burden and provide the means for the transportation of construction materials etc., but it also requires a large infrastructure.

As none of these projects will produce timely, recriprocal financial results we may have to first find possibly something to mine in space to fund the thing. Any way you look at it you find daunting funding issues with no tangible solutions on the horizon. Quite a large chunk to swallow, notwithstanding the future benefits envisioned.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

38. Long-term vs. short-term

It all depends on whether or not you're willing to pay today for a return five years from now. That kind of thinking isn't new to the species or anything - it drives the 401k, after all.

As for short-term moneymakers for an elevator project, I can think of a couple that don't involve mining things. Cheap space access would be a big boon to a number of industries, including ones I'm sure most people here would rather not see in space. (reality TV, anybody?)

[bigtree]

40. Such a boon

That they won't fund it. Dishonesty, frugility, disbelief? Or, what?

[Emperor_Norton_II]

41. Beats me

I never claimed to have all the answers. I always liked timidity, but I have no proof.

[bigtree]

42. I've learned a bit here.

Good post. Unusually cordial exchange. I'll read on from here. Thanks.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

49. Not a problem

I don't get abusive except in the face of truly monumental and stubborn stupidity. Glad to have been of service.

[flaminbats]

24. thanks friend!

I happen to consider myself an optimist as well. I had many positive things to suggest concerning space exploration, but I still think your space elevator is a bit strange. First, the only logical transportation up and down would not be cable cars..but some type of airtight tube to shoot cars across at rapid speeds, yet another pipe dream.

The remark about having pretty people walk on a pretty planet makes a basic point, if we wish to do this...there are cheaper television effects that can be used to produce the effect. I'm sick of your insults, even though I agree with the basic objective of going to Mars. It is all a question of when? I personally believe such missions should be funded by the major international powers wishing to participate, but supervised by the United Nations not the United States!

The next flag on another planet or on the moon should be the UN flag..

This is an optimistic view IMHO!

[Emperor_Norton_II]

27. You're quite welcome

First, the only logical transportation up and down would not be cable cars..but some type of airtight tube to shoot cars across at rapid speeds, yet another pipe dream.

Why? You don't have to move up the damn cable at orbital velocity - a hundred miles an hour or so to get out of the atmosphere, then ramp it up to an even thousand and you'll be at the top of the elevator in three days. Christ above, the Japanese have been futzing about with maglev trains that could do the job quite nicely given the appropriate adaptions. The whole thing is stable and stationary, like a huge fucking skyscraper. An elevator in the Sears Tower doesn't need a heat shield for descent because it doesn't move nearly fast enough.

[flaminbats]

31. all objects eventually loose their orbital velocity over time.

On the cable cars, the power required to transport them would be enormous. The power needed to slow their re-entry would be just as excessive!

The extreme level of tension and wear on the cables would require that they are replaced constantly. Which brings me back to another question, how the hell are the cables going to be strung up?

It is a fascinating idea, but one that can only be accomplished decades from now..and it would have to be a worldwide, not merely a U.S. effort.

Finally, it would have to be practical not just possible. The benefits would have to exceed the costs to finance this scheme.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

33. I guess that means the Earth is slowly spiraling into the sun, right?

After all, it's in orbit too, so we're all getting closer and closer to the Sun as the days progress...

Hint: Low Earth orbit is a unique environment, because it's at the very top of the atmosphere, meaning there's drag from stray oxygen molecules and the like. Once you get out past the low orbits, orbits are very very stable. Stuff placed in the higher orbits does not leave that orbit unless acted on by an outside force.

The benefits would have to exceed the costs to finance this scheme.

I guess unlimited access to the Solar System doesn't count as a benefit in your book, huh?

[flaminbats]

43. the results must not put our nation deeper in debt...

Actually unlimited access to the Solar System would be a limitless benefit, but limits will always reduce our ability to use energy and matter. Sad isn't it?

"Low Earth orbit is a unique environment, because it's at the very top of the atmosphere, meaning there's drag from stray oxygen molecules and the like. Once you get out past the low orbits, orbits are very very stable. Stuff placed in the higher orbits does not leave that orbit unless acted on by an outside force."

Correction...high Earth orbits are more stable in theory. But we have still lost a number of weather satellites due to premature shutdowns and yes..orbital decay. This is not the norm, but it happens.

Basically this is an interesting idea, but lets at least wait until all of the technology exists to do this. And it should be an international effort, in otherwords if the United Nations will not be in charge..then this shouldn't be done at cost or benefit of a single nation.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

32. Okay, kids -- SPACE ELEVATOR 101

The following link is to an NAIC paper which outlines the basic concept, realities and difficulties involved in putting a space elevator into orbit. It's nice and low-physics, which means that you don't have to freak and break out the calculator to understand it.

http://www.isr.us/Downloads/niac_pdf/contents.html

Take a look at this, and we'll all be on the same page, allright?

[corporatewhore]

37. I have a progressive alternative Fund Our Schools or healthcare or

veterans benefits (esp bush cut theirs) or housing or a whole slew of other things that are considered progressive spending the money going to the moon while there are people starving really says something about bush

[Emperor_Norton_II]

39. What does that say about me, then?

After all, I'd be going to the moon while there are people starving, too...

[FDRrocks]

46. Alot...

The moon is barren, people here are starving. That speaks volumes.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

48. Glad to have been of assistance, then.

Now you can safely put me on ignore and not have to worry about your thoughts being polluted by my evil technocratic optimism.

Damn my non-zero-sum thinking! Damn it to hell!

[FDRrocks]

50. Nice presumptions, I don't ignore people...

Also, very nice tone. Look down on me all you want.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

51. *shrug* Hey, you were looking down on me.

I saw no reason not to return the favor.

[FDRrocks]

52. Hows that? n/t

[Emperor_Norton_II]

53. I quote:

"The moon is barren, people here are starving. That speaks volumes."

Your own words, unedited. Should I not take that as a sniffy little condemnation of my priorities?

[FDRrocks]

56. It states facts...

then says that it speaks volumes. Take it however you want, I said nothing negative.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

57. You keep telling yourself that, maybe it'll come true. -nt-

[FDRrocks]

58. take it however you want.

how you take it might be an idea of how you feel about your beliefs.

[Emperor_Norton_II]

61. It certainly is

I feel that we as a civilization and a species are not trapped in some sort of hideous, Hobbesan zero-sum game which forces us to sacrifice the future in order to satisfy the needs of the Right Now Dammit.

I also feel that, whenever I try to broach the subject in Democratic Underground, I'm jumped on by people who think they are trapped in a zero-sum game. Morover, people who like the zero-sum game, who feel comfortable in that situation.

Last but not least, I feel very, very tired of having to defend my long view proposals, or the concept that Technology Is Not The Enemy, from people like you, who automatically assume that I am Evil because I don't follow your exact blend of progressivism.

So, I do this. Because I am an optimist, I am tired of pessimism, and I am through being a nice guy about it.

[FDRrocks]

63. I'm an optimist in that

animals have lived on this earth for millions of years, and humans could live here as long as they want if we stop fucking it up. This doesn't involve useless space exploration and an imperialistc and ultimately unneeded colonization of space.

Change the world b/f you change worlds, imo.

You don't need to sacrifice to future to live for Right Now Dammit. The earth is a blessing.

[corporatewhore]

67. I think you might feel differently if

you ever had to contemplate going to get treatment or not because you dont have health insurance.or ifyou had visted the colonias in the tip of texas.It is like a fucking third world people still have dirt floors and no electricty or running water. not saying you are evil but you probably arent fully aware of the problems here on earth

[FDRrocks]

44. I do not support space exploration

until we can figure out how not to fuck up our own planet. We cannot treat humans and animals in a good way, there is no reason to explore space. Earth is our haven, and it takes top priority in my mind. Fuck space, help earthbound animals.

Thinking about other planets is a huge jump when we cannot even work shit out here.

[Serenity-NOW]

54. This was a good idea when...

Arthur C. Clarke wrote about it and it's good that NASA is looking at it but the fact is we'd have plenty of dough for this if we weren't at war. Unfortunately we are and any thoughts about space are simply grandiose at best. Too many problems to deal with down here right now; let's clean up this mess first.

[...Alltogethernow]

55. ... You have my support Emperor_Norton_II

... n/t

[Tiger Tank II]

64. Good subject

I agree we need to continue space exploration. It is one of the things that defines us as humans. We are not he first nation to explore while in debt, starving etc. It may be one of our most important attributes. We spread out our numbers whenever space becomes overcrowed, under-providing or otherwise, inhosbitable. I see one of the best ways to help humanity is to spread it out or to increase it's avalable resources. Earth no longer has that ability but our solar system sure does.

Ben Bova has an entire series based around this idea. And he often has predicts quite accurately the state of the world in such a situaton.

[corporatewhore]

68. we woujldnt be so overcrowded if

we spend money on family planning education world wide

[Emperor_Norton_II]

66. kick

Not everybody has had a chance to denounce me as a fool just yet, so...