Maybe we do not disagree at all. Maybe all we had was a lack of communication.

I agree. For NASA’s role, technology development would be the appropriate course. I also feel that the agency has a lot to provide in the areas of wind power, alternative fuels, hydrogen power/fuel cells and other technologies. (Lewis/Glenn Research Center pioneered much of the early wind turbine technologies in the 1970s.)

I also agree that NASA needs to get back to low-cost access to space. This is the primary obstacle to sustainable human exploration.

FAZAH: Yeah right. Just $200-500 per kg…no problem. That’s only two orders of magnitude greater than an economy fare, domestic airline ticket.

This is exactly the thinking that got us stuck on X-33 and the SSTO Kool Aid. In fact, 10 years ago, this figure was on the NASA planning roadmap. Not appreciating the tremendous technological and commercial challenges of getting to a figure like that is disingenuous.

Have you read the NSSO report? What part of that report does not appreciate “the tremendous technological and commercial challenges of getting to “cheap and reliable access to space (CRATS)?

Let’s me summarize your argument

SSP (and CRATS) would …

* help provide energy independence to America,

* help solve global warming by provide clean virtually carbon-free energy, and

* provide significant benefits to national security

and your biggest complaint is that achieving these three goals would be a “tremendous challenge”? (your words)

(If this is not your argument, then you might clarify it now.)

I wonder what your reaction was (or would have been if you were too young) to Kennedy’s speech declaring we would put a man on the Moon within a decade, not because it was easy, but because it was a tremendous challenge.

Multiple presidential candidates have declared that we need the equivalent of an “Apollo program” for energy independence. Clinton has proposed a $150 Billion energy investment initiative. McCain has declared all three goals to be top priorities (energy independence, solving global warming, and national security).

This is a huge opportunity for space advocates to make space technology investment into a TOP national priority.

And your complaint is “cheap access to space is a tremendous challenge”.

– SSP FAN

Hmmmmm ….

I am not sure what the source of the disagreement is then.

THE PEOPLE: I would vehemently object to making SSP into a new JIMO or ESAS effort.

I think it would be a really bad idea for SSP to replace ESAS. SSP would fail in that case.

The NSSO report states that the government role should be limited to developing subsystem technologies, and capabilities (like CRATS) and incentivizing the private sector to take the lead.

Incentives like investment tax credits, tax holidays, loan guarantees, and having the DOD act as an anchor tenant customer.

The NSSO report states that it is critical for success for the private sector to design, own and operate these systems.

If the private sector decides to invest, and take the lead, I have a funny feeling that nobody here would have a problem with that.

Maybe we do not disagree at all. Maybe all we had was a lack of communication.

– SSP FAN

SSP: The only “clean energy alternative” that compares in upside promise and potential scalability with SSP, is fusion. We have spent over $20 Billion on fusion energy research, and continue to spend $300 million per year on the same, yet people continue to whine and complain about spending real money investing in SSP.

Fusion is another deceptive “holy grail.” The easiest form, Deuterium/Tritium, yields 14 MeV neutrons that and all sorts of radioactive headaches. Just ask the folks at Princeton handling the deactivation of TFTR. Pseudo-aneutronic processes, such as Deuterium/Helium-3, are an order or magnitude more challenging from a reaction standpoint, and they also yield neutrons in side D/T reactions. The easiest “clean” fusion reaction is Proton/Boron-11, but this is even harder to achieve than D/He-3. Even with these challenges, I still support research in fusion, mainly because of its extraordinary potential to terrestrial power and space propulsion.

As far as SSP is concerned, technology work in advanced PV arrays, power beaming, lightweight spacecraft subsystems/components and, most importantly, low-cost access to space is great. I would vehemently object to making SSP into a new JIMO or ESAS effort.

The naivete is yours. Thorium breeding has inherent barriers against proliferation, which is the main reason why no country has ever built an operational U-233 nuclear weapon, despite the overwhelming abundance of thorium and the ease of its conversion. Keep studying.

Although true, this is a naive answer from somebody who has not thought about the unintended consequences of spreading breeder reactor technology around the world.

1) The United States recognizes 193 independent countries in the world.

2) Every one of those countries wants the American standard of living, yet it would create a global nightmare to allow nuclear technology to spread to even half those countries.

3) The last thing we need to do into today’s world is to allow widespread distribution of nuclear technology. This would be a field day for Osama Bin Laden and all his friends.

The only “clean energy alternative” that compares in upside promise and potential scalability with SSP, is fusion. We have spent over $20 Billion on fusion energy research, and continue to spend $300 million per year on the same, yet people continue to whine and complain about spending real money investing in SSP.

By the way, this is not an either/or proposition.

We need to be investing in ALL the clean energy options.

It is time for us to add SSP technology investments to the portfolio for this national priority. This is NOT a space issue.

It is a energy independency/environmental/national security issue.

Space advocates who ignore the issue will be left behind. You can continue whining that the presidential candidates, and elected officials, ignore your pleas to give more money to NASA, or you can do something different. As they say “Doing the same thing, over and over, and expecting different results is the definition of insanity.”

SSP Fan

The mere fact that nuclear power is attempting to boil water with what amounts to the energy of cosmic rays, reveals a stunning lack of understanding and/or appreciation for physics, science and nature.

I’ve tried to find a shred of rational though behind the argument you made there, and came up empty. What a remarkably silly non sequitur.

This is exactly the thinking that got us stuck on X-33 and the SSTO Kool Aid. In fact, 10 years ago, this figure was on the NASA planning roadmap. Not appreciating the tremendous technological and commercial challenges of getting to a figure like that is disingenuous.

Spot on, Mike. I knew the SSP advocates would howl when you put up realistic launch costs into the argument, because a basic article of faith among SSP advocates is that the very existence of SSP somehow will institute magnificent improvements in launch costs. But one thing we’ve learned in the last 20 years is that if launch costs are going to go down, it is going to be extremely slow and difficult. 100-fold improvements in launch costs are not around the corner.

I find it amazing that nuclear power is often dismissed by the green crowd as non-economic when already-built plants are the cheapest form of power for the utilities that own them, and new-build plants are ranging from $2000-3000 kW installed.