OPPOSING VIEWS FOR ALL OUR WEBSITES (LISTED AT: groups.google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic).
Thank you, Al.
-----Original Message-----
From: Al Globus <alglobus@gmail.com>
To: Rickcosmos <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 1:10 am
Subject: Re: SAVING "CONSTELLATION"
From: Al Globus <alglobus@gmail.com>
To: Rickcosmos <rrdd3939@aol.com>
Sent: Sun, Aug 1, 2010 1:10 am
Subject: Re: SAVING "CONSTELLATION"
Constellation is a turkey. Already late. Not enough money. No funds for a lunar lander. No Ares I until 2017. Dump ISS in the ocean in 2015. Canceling it is the best thing that's happened to human space in decades. The key feature of the new program is commercial human launch. Huge game changer for the better.
The new plan, particularly the original before Congress got ahold of it, is MUCH better. See http://alspolitics.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-space-policy-targets-launch.html and http://alspolitics.blogspot.com/2010/02/obamas-brilliant-space-policy.html for details.
On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:23 PM, Rickcosmos wrote:
> Check out first four posts at www.rickaddsite.blogspot.com and frst
> five at rickscisite.blogspot.com
> It includes recent Senate Sub-Committee on Justice-Commerce-Science
> (that sure makes sense!) and
> House Committee on Science and Technology and "Citizen Reporter"
> proposals concerning NASA. You
> want new technology as do we; we also want to build on existing
> technology which makes technological
> and fiscal sense (since NASA no longer has virtual 'blank check that
> it enjoyed in '60's and it too eventually
> makes it's way to the private sector)Saving "Constellation" or the
> bulk of it accomplishes those objectives
> plus saves the jobs of those involved in Shuttle (must be extended 2
> to 4 years; SpaceX is already over budget
> and can't reach it's goal of transporting cargo to space station by
> early 2012 and astronauts by early 2014) and
> "Constellation' Programs.
>
> On May 29, 1:24 pm, Al Globus <alglo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the decision to kill Constellation is a sound one. I think
>> that the new space policy is much, much better.
>>
>> Here's why: (from my bloghttp://alspolitics.blogspot.com/2010/02/obamas-brilliant-space-policy...)
>>
>> Prologue: I want to build space settlements. I want Life to grow
>> outward from this beautiful but tiny planet and fill the solar >> system.
>> This is technically feasible but incredibly difficult (for engineers,
>> that's the fun part).
>> Yesterday's space program was all about putting a very small number >> of
>> people on the Moon entirely at enormous government expense. It wasn't
>> doing much for space settlement. For space settlement, we need to put
>> huge numbers of people in space mostly at their own expense. The key
>> is much, much better transportation from Earth to space because today
>> it costs thousands of dollars per pound and the failure rate is a
>> percent or two. Yet another expensive government owned transportation
>> system, as we were developing, can't deliver. We need better
>> technology, a private sector human-rated launch industry so people >> can
>> buy a ticket with their own money, and, above all, much higher launch
>> volume. Today, the whole world launches less than 100 times per year.
>> At that rate we'll never settle space.
>>
>> In Paths to Space Settlement I identified three near term projects
>> that would develop most of the technology and infrastructure >> necessary
>> to settle the solar system: space tourism, space solar power, and
>> planetary defense. President Obama's new space policy takes a big >> step
>> for all three.
>>
>> Much of President Obama's new space policy, about $2 billion/year, is
>> to develop better Earth to orbit transportation and, especially,
>> develop private sector companies to take people into orbit. After a
>> year of ramping up, the budget provides $1.4 billion per year to help
>> private firms develop human-rated launchers and successful companies
>> will have a core tenant flying government astronauts to the
>> International Space Station (ISS). But the real payoff isn't flying >> to
>> the ISS, it's space tourism. In "Researching the Space Tourism
>> Market," Crouch estimates that at $100,000/flight about 400,000 >> people
>> will want to go a year. Even with a 100 person vehicle, and the
>> largest today carries 10, that would pay for 4,000 launches a year.
>> There are many surveys supporting traffic at similar levels and >> higher
>> if the price comes down. Furthermore, Bigelow Aerospace has launched
>> two small space hotel prototypes and plans to launch a full sized
>> system in a couple of years, but there will be no customers without a
>> private sector vehicle to bring them there. President Obama's new
>> space policy may be just the ticket.
>>
>> The other big potential market for launch is space solar power (SSP)
>> -- gathering solar energy in huge satellites with wireless power >> transmission to Earth. For SSP to supply 1/3 of today's energy needs
>> would require approximately 125,000 launches of a heavy lift vehicle
>> capable of taking 500 tons to orbit (the largest vehicle today can
>> lift perhaps 40 tons). President Obama's budget allocates almost $600
>> million/year to develop heavy lift launch technology. SSP development
>> is not part of the new program, the policy's biggest deficiency, but
>> vehicle development won't start for a few years giving SSP advocates
>> time to make the case for SSP-related requirements.
>>
>> President Obama's policy also quintuples NASA's planetary defense
>> budget, from $4 million to $20 million. This will not only help find
>> asteroids in time to deflect them before hitting Earth, but locate
>> most of the larger near-earth asteroids which will tell us where the
>> materials we need for space settlement are. For example, one of the
>> key problems in orbital settlement development is access to >> sufficient
>> materials as millions of tons of radiation shielding and structure >> are
>> needed. Building an orbital settlement co-located with an asteroid
>> solves this problem very nicely.
>>
>> The new budget also ramps up to $3 billion/year to develop and
>> demonstrate new space technology, including fuel depots, life >> support,
>> and space resource utilization, which will help when the time comes >> to
>> build space settlements.
>>
>> President Obama's policy does a lot of other sensible things. For
>> example, the old policy, after spending something like $100 billion >> to
>> develop the ISS, planned to destroy it five years after completion >> and
>> had very few plans to actually use it. The new policy extends the
>> ISS's life and provides funds to actually use the ISS for America's
>> benefit. The new policy also increases Earth observation funding
>> substantially so we can understand what is happening to Earth and
>> perhaps avoid creating serous problems.
>>
>> President Obama's space policy abandons "Apollo on Steroids," the
>> third attempt to recreate the glory of the brilliant 1960s era >> program
>> by going back to the Moon and on to Mars. Apollo was great. It ended
>> 35 years ago. Get over it. We don't need "Apollo on Steroids," we >> need
>> a program that benefits the people of Earth and lets millions of us >> go
>> to space on their own dime. I doubt that Obama read Paths to Space
>> Settlement before creating his space policy, but he might as well
>> have. Brilliant!
>>
>> On May 16, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Rickcosmos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I spent much of the day on Twitter and Facebook encouraging people >>> to
>>> contact the
>>> Chairmen and Ranking Members of House and Senate Budget Committees
>>> suppling
>>> email addresses.Further, I recommended that they contact Shelby of
>>> Alabama and
>>> Nelson of Florida, as well as, their senators and congressman. I
>>> suggested that they
>>> visit comsat-ak.blogspot.com for "Mission Statement" which might >>> give
>>> them ideas
>>> as to what to say in emails. I have other ideas and would like to >>> hear
>>> yours. I'm
>>> a member of your group. Quid pro Quo: How about joining: "Cosmic
>>> Trinity" at: groups.
>>> google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic and NASA_Ares at Facebook or
>>> Twitter.
>>> Does the group or any members want to work with me on CONSTELLATION
>>> Project?
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
>> If we had gotten serious about space solar power (SSP) in the 1970s
>> it's quite likely that we would not be in the global warming and
>> energy pickle we find ourselves in today. Let's make sure we're not
>> saying the same thing in 2040.
>>
>> For details see:http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/
>>
>> Al Globushttp://alglobus.net
>>
>> Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
>> position of any organization I'm familiar with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Solar Power (SSP) can solve our energy and global warming problems. For details see: http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/
Al Globus
http://alglobus.net
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the position of any organization I'm familiar with.
The new plan, particularly the original before Congress got ahold of it, is MUCH better. See http://alspolitics.blogspot.com/2010/03/new-space-policy-targets-launch.html and http://alspolitics.blogspot.com/2010/02/obamas-brilliant-space-policy.html for details.
On Jul 31, 2010, at 9:23 PM, Rickcosmos wrote:
> Check out first four posts at www.rickaddsite.blogspot.com and frst
> five at rickscisite.blogspot.com
> It includes recent Senate Sub-Committee on Justice-Commerce-Science
> (that sure makes sense!) and
> House Committee on Science and Technology and "Citizen Reporter"
> proposals concerning NASA. You
> want new technology as do we; we also want to build on existing
> technology which makes technological
> and fiscal sense (since NASA no longer has virtual 'blank check that
> it enjoyed in '60's and it too eventually
> makes it's way to the private sector)Saving "Constellation" or the
> bulk of it accomplishes those objectives
> plus saves the jobs of those involved in Shuttle (must be extended 2
> to 4 years; SpaceX is already over budget
> and can't reach it's goal of transporting cargo to space station by
> early 2012 and astronauts by early 2014) and
> "Constellation' Programs.
>
> On May 29, 1:24 pm, Al Globus <alglo...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think the decision to kill Constellation is a sound one. I think
>> that the new space policy is much, much better.
>>
>> Here's why: (from my bloghttp://alspolitics.blogspot.com/2010/02/obamas-brilliant-space-policy...)
>>
>> Prologue: I want to build space settlements. I want Life to grow
>> outward from this beautiful but tiny planet and fill the solar >> system.
>> This is technically feasible but incredibly difficult (for engineers,
>> that's the fun part).
>> Yesterday's space program was all about putting a very small number >> of
>> people on the Moon entirely at enormous government expense. It wasn't
>> doing much for space settlement. For space settlement, we need to put
>> huge numbers of people in space mostly at their own expense. The key
>> is much, much better transportation from Earth to space because today
>> it costs thousands of dollars per pound and the failure rate is a
>> percent or two. Yet another expensive government owned transportation
>> system, as we were developing, can't deliver. We need better
>> technology, a private sector human-rated launch industry so people >> can
>> buy a ticket with their own money, and, above all, much higher launch
>> volume. Today, the whole world launches less than 100 times per year.
>> At that rate we'll never settle space.
>>
>> In Paths to Space Settlement I identified three near term projects
>> that would develop most of the technology and infrastructure >> necessary
>> to settle the solar system: space tourism, space solar power, and
>> planetary defense. President Obama's new space policy takes a big >> step
>> for all three.
>>
>> Much of President Obama's new space policy, about $2 billion/year, is
>> to develop better Earth to orbit transportation and, especially,
>> develop private sector companies to take people into orbit. After a
>> year of ramping up, the budget provides $1.4 billion per year to help
>> private firms develop human-rated launchers and successful companies
>> will have a core tenant flying government astronauts to the
>> International Space Station (ISS). But the real payoff isn't flying >> to
>> the ISS, it's space tourism. In "Researching the Space Tourism
>> Market," Crouch estimates that at $100,000/flight about 400,000 >> people
>> will want to go a year. Even with a 100 person vehicle, and the
>> largest today carries 10, that would pay for 4,000 launches a year.
>> There are many surveys supporting traffic at similar levels and >> higher
>> if the price comes down. Furthermore, Bigelow Aerospace has launched
>> two small space hotel prototypes and plans to launch a full sized
>> system in a couple of years, but there will be no customers without a
>> private sector vehicle to bring them there. President Obama's new
>> space policy may be just the ticket.
>>
>> The other big potential market for launch is space solar power (SSP)
>> -- gathering solar energy in huge satellites with wireless power >> transmission to Earth. For SSP to supply 1/3 of today's energy needs
>> would require approximately 125,000 launches of a heavy lift vehicle
>> capable of taking 500 tons to orbit (the largest vehicle today can
>> lift perhaps 40 tons). President Obama's budget allocates almost $600
>> million/year to develop heavy lift launch technology. SSP development
>> is not part of the new program, the policy's biggest deficiency, but
>> vehicle development won't start for a few years giving SSP advocates
>> time to make the case for SSP-related requirements.
>>
>> President Obama's policy also quintuples NASA's planetary defense
>> budget, from $4 million to $20 million. This will not only help find
>> asteroids in time to deflect them before hitting Earth, but locate
>> most of the larger near-earth asteroids which will tell us where the
>> materials we need for space settlement are. For example, one of the
>> key problems in orbital settlement development is access to >> sufficient
>> materials as millions of tons of radiation shielding and structure >> are
>> needed. Building an orbital settlement co-located with an asteroid
>> solves this problem very nicely.
>>
>> The new budget also ramps up to $3 billion/year to develop and
>> demonstrate new space technology, including fuel depots, life >> support,
>> and space resource utilization, which will help when the time comes >> to
>> build space settlements.
>>
>> President Obama's policy does a lot of other sensible things. For
>> example, the old policy, after spending something like $100 billion >> to
>> develop the ISS, planned to destroy it five years after completion >> and
>> had very few plans to actually use it. The new policy extends the
>> ISS's life and provides funds to actually use the ISS for America's
>> benefit. The new policy also increases Earth observation funding
>> substantially so we can understand what is happening to Earth and
>> perhaps avoid creating serous problems.
>>
>> President Obama's space policy abandons "Apollo on Steroids," the
>> third attempt to recreate the glory of the brilliant 1960s era >> program
>> by going back to the Moon and on to Mars. Apollo was great. It ended
>> 35 years ago. Get over it. We don't need "Apollo on Steroids," we >> need
>> a program that benefits the people of Earth and lets millions of us >> go
>> to space on their own dime. I doubt that Obama read Paths to Space
>> Settlement before creating his space policy, but he might as well
>> have. Brilliant!
>>
>> On May 16, 2010, at 5:38 PM, Rickcosmos wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> I spent much of the day on Twitter and Facebook encouraging people >>> to
>>> contact the
>>> Chairmen and Ranking Members of House and Senate Budget Committees
>>> suppling
>>> email addresses.Further, I recommended that they contact Shelby of
>>> Alabama and
>>> Nelson of Florida, as well as, their senators and congressman. I
>>> suggested that they
>>> visit comsat-ak.blogspot.com for "Mission Statement" which might >>> give
>>> them ideas
>>> as to what to say in emails. I have other ideas and would like to >>> hear
>>> yours. I'm
>>> a member of your group. Quid pro Quo: How about joining: "Cosmic
>>> Trinity" at: groups.
>>> google.com/group/rickcosmos-eclectic and NASA_Ares at Facebook or
>>> Twitter.
>>> Does the group or any members want to work with me on CONSTELLATION
>>> Project?
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------
>> If we had gotten serious about space solar power (SSP) in the 1970s
>> it's quite likely that we would not be in the global warming and
>> energy pickle we find ourselves in today. Let's make sure we're not
>> saying the same thing in 2040.
>>
>> For details see:http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/
>>
>> Al Globushttp://alglobus.net
>>
>> Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the
>> position of any organization I'm familiar with.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Space Solar Power (SSP) can solve our energy and global warming problems. For details see: http://www.nss.org/settlement/ssp/
Al Globus
http://alglobus.net
Views expressed in this email are only my opinions and are not the position of any organization I'm familiar with.
No comments:
Post a Comment