“They ain’t gettin the TV”.

Although in my case, the TV is a pair of 9 Volt stereoscopic 3D LCD goggles, which admittedly, I found in the trash. It is easily run on a small solar panel, and I don’t watch much TV anymore, except for the occasional science documentary. Then I really don’t mind firing up the big screen.

Cancel Constellation, and we can have it all, three different launch vehicle architectures, commercial orbital space transporation systems, and an SSP.

Continuing on the present path means certain failure.

Already it’s happening.

Given the intrinsic spectral dispersion of sunlight, we’re probably looking at something more like 40 percent in the near term, although great reductions in costs will be necessary for space solar power, beyond what you suggest.

There are amazing things afoot in the condensed matter world, and it is definitely the condensed matter world that will provide these solutions.

Engineering physics, on the other hand, probably will only result in a ten fold reduction in launch costs in the near term, possibly 100 times later.

What I am trying to accomplish is to promote the very clear connection which exists between scientific activities in the condensed matter physics field, which produces technological breakthroughs yearly and decadally, and scientific breakthroughs almost nightly now, and rocket science, which proceeds at a much slower pace, but would benefit from these advances.

When one project stalls, I move onto others. But I’m still moving forward on the ‘broad front’, as the goal is still the same – human health and welfare.

Rocket science and condensed matter physics will still remain high on my list of disciplines which can provide the breakthroughs we need for this.

Can you figure out that it was a joke on gm.

95% efficient solar panels that cost 1/100th of the price of panels today.

May I suggest you peruse some of the papers on the LANL archive before making statements about things that you apparently know little about?

It has been debunk that is not feasible. It is possible but it is not quick nor cheap, hence it is not feasible.

May I suggest you peruse some of the papers on the LANL archive before making statements about things that you apparently know little about?

http://arxiv.org/archive/cond-mat

three options: a “Shuttle-C” design (which he didn’t elaborate upon), an EELV/capsule approach, and vastly increased funding for COTS. On the last option, he said that COTS should be funded at $2.5 billion, about five times its current level.

That’s a good start. It’s too bad it took them so long to figure that simple truth out, though. On a more practical note, the original Shuttle C designs are very old. A ‘Shuttle E’ would be a much more effective approach IMHO.

I have an idea to improve energy independence: 95% efficient solar panels that cost 1/100th of the price of panels today. I’ll leave it to the engineers and program managers to deal with the specifics.