Power From Space 2.0

In a Multi-Verse the proababiltiy of the impossible is One. Op-Ed the case for more EMDRIVE research

2015-08-22T21:22:00.001-07:00

Op-Ed the case

for more

EMDRIVE / Q - THRUSTER

Research

Test Article

By Paul Wallis Aug 18, 2015 in Science

According to the Sydney Morning Herald:

The EMDrive theoretically works by converting electric power into microwaves which bounce around inside an enclosed cavity, using the difference in radiation to move through an environment. This violates the laws of physics, which state that if something moves forward it must also push something back, as no propellant is expelled to balance the engine's momentum.

Huh? This is an issue? The theory of conservation of momentum is based on the equal and opposite forces principle, attaining an equilibrium. The theory is usually demonstrated by a collision analogy. Therefore, equal forces in collision achieve stalemate? Wrong. Two cars colliding at 100 mph don't come off with no damage. They get trashed by the transferred energy of the collision. This is energy we're talking about, not momentum.

Atoms can collide and release enormous energy. Is conservation of momentum an issue? It's merely part of a larger and far more complex process which took hundreds of years to understand. It is patently absurd to say there are no reciprocal forces involved in any kind of electromagnetic system. Are you seriously trying to pretend EM forces don’t generate momentum and reaction? Contradiction in terms, to start with. EM forces push against other EM forces, by definition. On the basis of that "no conservation of momentum" theory, similar poles on a magnet wouldn’t repel each other, and atoms couldn’t behave as they do. Newtonian laws emphasize whole system mechanics, like conservation of energy, not just parts of systems. Physical events don't occur in isolation from each other.

Therefore, if something works, it isn't, and can't, be contradicting the laws of physics.

It just means you don't really understand the applications of the theory to the facts. Kindly also note that Newton himself missed the square in the formula for gravity.

These ancient laws are becoming real obstacles. The “laws of physics” were written in the pre-spaceflight era. Apparently, science is doing what religion did in the Dark Ages — claiming a monopoly on information.

Spectator Science as an obstacle course for innovation

….Which leaves us with a problem. It’s a big problem. The problem is Spectator Science, which learns things in college like grade schoolers and then apparently refuses to learn anything else. They can't even see the contradictions in their own statements.

Like politics and religion, this insular form of science is now refuting actual, demonstrated facts. It simply regurgitates what it’s claiming to have learned as if there was nothing else to be discovered. It’s actually worse than pseudo-science, because it does nothing but get in the way of real science.

This is the mentality of this obstacle course previously called “science”:

• The rules can’t be wrong, therefore the facts are wrong.

• All people with new information should be ridiculed or actually abused for finding new information. (I know two US scientists who were actually treated like garbage for a single finding. No attempt at replication, no evaluation, just abuse. It was like Facebook bullying. This is your sainted “science”.)

• A pre-Mandelbrot fossil like the Theory of Relativity, written by someone with an IQ which was 3 points lower than Jayne Mansfield’s, and who thought time was the fourth dimension, (it isn’t, any more than a square is a cube) shalt be the only show in town.

Meanwhile, back in the unfashionable place known as reality, the world is making do with ridiculous 5 percent payloads, incredible expense, endless time wasting, and total inefficiency is sabotaging space exploration. This is happening specifically because this lazy geriatric holiday camp of a science can’t be bothered developing better drives. That’s the net result of all this obstruction.

It’s like the military industrial or oil industry mindset, gouging the nation for inferior quality products and monopolizing debate on any subject. The insistence on “no new physics discoveries” is bordering on fanatical dogmatism, and about as useful.

This branch of science hasn’t done a useful thing in decades. All it’s done is sit around looking pleased with itself for finding a Higgs boson. The other, remarkably unproductive and expensive hobby is the game of hide and seek with dark matter, in which actual diagrams and graphics from the 1970s and 1990s have been used to “explain” the subject.

This is science?

This is paid intellectual wanking, incarnate.

Where are the new power systems, the new technological efficiencies, the new and better ideas? Where are the fantastic transport systems, maglev, medical systems, comm systems, and non-Jurassic computers? Sure as hell not getting developed by Geniuses with Tenure R Us.

This isn’t the first time science has obstructed innovation in space flight drive research. The VASIMIR project, a comparatively straightforward plasma drive, was labelled a hoax. It isn’t. It’s currently under testing with NASA funding.( ISS TestCase)

Let’s clarify – Humanity needs a working drive and much better economics in space tech. That’s not being delivered. NASA demonstrated that EMD works, and these Spectator Scientists are saying it doesn’t?

Video Series

Interview : Roger Shawyer

Interview ; Prezo Sony White NASA @ NASA AMES

***

Warp drives and bending time! - Australian Academy of Science

PS: Let's let the researcher and real scientist do their work, enuff said.

BLOG HAS MOVED TO TWITTER!

(..Just because think Mesosphere and Aurora are kewl... )

http://twitter.com/powerfromspace1

AUG 1 2015

***

NASA down to one commerical supplier to ISS today - Orbital Explosion

2014-10-29T13:23:00.001-07:00

KABOOM!

Reported in USA Today.

NASA is down to one commercial provider of cargo to the International Space Station until an investigation determines what caused an unmanned Orbital Sciences Corp. rocket to blow up Tuesday evening shortly after lifting off from a Virginia pad.
The Antares rocket's failure leaves SpaceX as the only U.S. company able to fly cargo to the orbiting laboratory for the near future, raising the stakes of SpaceX's next launch from Cape Canaveral, Fla., which is planned no earlier than Dec. 9.
A Cygnus spacecraft packed with more than 5,000 pounds of equipment and science experiments was destroyed Tuesday when the 14-story rocket suffered a problem with its first stage and fell back to the ground, generating a massive fireball on impact.
No one was injured. The severity of damage to the Wallops Island launch pad was not immediately known.
NASA said the station and its six-person crew would be fine despite the loss of supplies, including more than 1,300 pounds of food, 1,600 pounds of science investigations and some spare parts and spacewalking equipment

***

***

***

***

Full Story : http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/10/28/nasa-down-to-one-commercial-provider/18093545/

Future PSWP2 and DevOps news is here : http://twitter.com/powerfromspace1 as of 10-29-14

PWSP 3.5 : The future of manned intra-planetary flight : Chemical + Solar Electric Propulsion for Mars.

2014-05-05T21:44:00.002-07:00

GOTO MARS, THE WHY?:

Mars was the original water world with some form life, what happened?

SOLAR ELECTRIC PROPULSION, THE WHAT?:

Is this the real MARs colonial transporter (MCT) - A Solar Electric MARS to L2 transport that loops continuously....

Image : NASA multimedia of a SEP based Colonial Transporter

NASA planned path to MARs
Could be quickened by the inclusion of Falcon 9 Heavy for the Cargo to L2 phase. #Spacex would need a much BIGGER Faring! though.

MARS MISSION CHARACTERISTIC,
THE SUMMARY?:
Chemical + SEP

- 2 NASA http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/tag/hlv/ SLS Launch!

–  103t Cargo in Aeroshell!

–  113t 800 kW SEP stage from option 3.1!

•  BUT ofﬂoad all but 7t of chemical propellant and add another xenon tank!

•  Xenon load now 80t on sep Vehicle - no xenon on cargo!

•  Meet up in LEO!

•  Spiral to escape (~400 days)!

•  Thrust to Mars but separate SEP before capture! –  Option for SEP to ﬂyby Mars and return to Gateway!

•  Cargo vehicle captures using aerocapture system!

design by COMPASS Team

NASA

John H. Glenn
Research Center

Built in OHIO

Combined Solar Electric and Storable Chemical Propulsion Vehicle 4 Piloted Mars Missions.

PWSP 2.0 : Britain's MoonShoot - Reaction Engines Skylon - Hypersonic space plane review

2014-04-01T15:28:00.004-07:00

SKYLON SPACEPLANE!

Source : SEN.COM 01/2014

Skylon : Inorbit delivering space plane.

Two very different space planes being developed in Europe and the United States have each won the interest of parties on the opposite sides of the Atlantic.

The UK’s design for Skylon - and in particular its revolutionary SABRE hybrid engine - is to be studied and assessed by the US Air Force to see if the technology has potential to power its hypersonic vehicles.

And the European Space Agency (ESA) has agreed to work with Sierra Nevada Corporation (SNC) to find areas where they can work together to develop the American company’s Dream Chaser spacecraft.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO EXPLORING THE ENGINE AND ITS LIGHTWEIGHT HEAT EXCHANGERS WHICH HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO ENABLE HYPERSONIC AIR-BREATHING ROCKET PROPULSION

Yesterday Reaction Engines Ltd (REL) in the UK announced its first formal link-up with the US government. The company, based at Abingdon, near Oxford, has entered into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) with the Air Force Research Laboratory’s Aerospace Systems Directorate.

The US interest is the latest major success for REL. Last year the British government pledged £60 million investment to continue development of the Skylon project. And that came after experts from ESA concluded a study by agreeing that the technology behind SABRE - it stands for Synergistic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine - had proved itself.

Validation of this technology clearly caught the eye of the Americans too. They will have been impressed at how SABRE will switch in flight from air-breathing mode which takes it to Mach 5.5 - twice as fast as a jet - to that of a rocket engine, reaching Mach 25, or 7.5 km per second. The engine’s hybrid nature will allow a spacecraft to take off from a runway and fly directly into orbit.

Its secret is heat exchanger technology that can can cool air entering the engine from 1,000°C to minus 150°C in just one hundredth of a second whilst preventing ice from forming within the unit. And it is all done using equipment that weighs less than a standard car to transfer as much heat - 450MW - as generated by an electricity power station.

The engines will be able to power Skylon to become a reusable replacement for the Space Shuttle, carrying cargo and crews to space stations from any airport with a long enough and strong enough runway, and with a speedy turnaround time between missions.

But the SABRE engine also has the potential to power other vehicles, and could fly passengers at hypersonic speed from one side of the Earth to the other - e.g. London to Sydney - in less than four hours.

OFFICIAL

http://www.reactionengines.co.uk/space_skylon.html

PWSP 4.0 : A NuclearThermal rocket to take us to the Stars - NERVA 2

2014-03-26T16:35:00.003-07:00

NUCLEAR THERMAL STAR TRAVEL

Project Icarus!

Above, Hungary-based space illustrator Adrian Mann is a graphical engineer for Project Icarus, an effort to research the possibilities for interstellar flight.

When scientists conceive of spaceships for travel to another star, most proposals require advanced and exotic propulsion mechanism such as nuclear...

Project Icarus is a volunteer theoretical engineering study to design an interstellar spacecraft. The project was launched on September 30th 2009 at the British Interplanetary Society HQ in London, and is a five year study.

The purpose of Project Icarus is four-fold:

1. To motivate a new generation of scientists in designing space missions that can explore beyond our solar system.

2. To generate greater interest in the real term prospects for interstellar precursor missions that are based on credible science.

3. To design a credible interstellar probe that is a concept design for a potential mission in the coming centuries so as to allow a direct technology comparison with Daedalus and to provide an assessment of the maturity of fusion based space propulsion for future precursor missions.

4. To allow a direct technology comparison with Daedalus and provide an assessment of the maturity of fusion based space propulsion for future precursor missions.

Project Icarus was initiated by the British Interplanetary Society (BIS) and the Tau Zero Foundation (TZF) and is currently being managed by Icarus Interstellar Inc., a nonprofit foundation.

Project Icarus was inspired by Project Daedalus, which ran from 1973 to 1978. Project Daedalus, a British Interplanetary Society project, concluded thatinterstellar travel is feasible. Specifically, Daedalus demonstrated that it is possible, by using current or credible extrapolations of existing technology, to launch an interstellar probe that could reach another solar system on timescales of a normal human lifetime.

http://www.icarusinterstellar.org/projects/project-icarus/

AND WHAT ABOUT MARS...

The first people to step on to the surface of Mars won't arrive aboard the chemical-fueled rockets that delivered Apollo 11 to the Moon—they simply don't provide enough thrust to get to the Red Planet before exposing their crews to months of dangerous space radiation. Instead, NASA is turning to long-ignored nuclear-thermal rocket technology to deliver the first Martian explorers into history

Advanced Mars Colonial Transporter : MCT via NERVA2

We need the resources of the solar system so that we can afford interstellar travel.

The NERVA rocket technology is reviewed in detail by Geoffrey Landis.

Russia did some more advanced nuclear thermal rocket work.

Look at bimodal nuclear thermal rocket for a mission to Callisto (Jupiter moon outside of the deadly radiation belt).

About 2.5 years each way...

Where does the time go?

Moderator at PWSP2 big 50

PWSP 1.5 Hypersonic Attack & Recon drones to keep America safe!

2014-02-15T15:05:00.002-08:00

REUSABLE XS-1 ATTACK DRONE HYPERSOAR

VEHICLE UNDER DEVELOPMENT

"I've seen the future and its Hypersonic with low-cost heavy lift:

It wouldn't would take much to take virgin galactic platform and turn-it in to hypersonic capable vehicle.

It would take much to modify Orion to sit on top of a Spacex Falcon Super Heavy or a ULA Vehicle.

Just saying DARPA & NASA ;)"

- DRS Rant 6444.Y.2.15.2014

The Defense Department is attempting to develop a new unmanned spacecraft that could enter low Earth orbit faster and with more frequency than ever before.

If DARPA gets what it wants, the new XS-1 experimental space drone would be designed to travel at hypersonic speeds and be durable enough to fly once a day for 10 days in a row.

A release from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency explained how “quick, affordable and routine access to space” is becoming increasingly critical to DOD operations.

“We want to build off of proven technologies to create a reliable, cost-effective space delivery system with one-day turnaround,” said Jess Sponable, DARPA program manager for the XS-1, in the release. “How it’s configured, how it gets up and how it gets back are pretty much all on the table—we’re looking for the most creative yet practical solutions possible.”

According to its federal contract proposal sheet, the reusable space plane will need to carry 3,000- to 5,000-pound payloads at a cost of less than $5M per launch. Another listed requirement is “Mach 10+” speed, meaning 10 times the speed of sound and faster than 7,680 mph.

Similar to the X-37B unmanned spacecraft—designed by Boeing and used by the U.S. Air Force—the XS-1 would provide a technological edge in the age of real-time surveillance and information gathering.

Right now, development of the XS-1 is in the question and answer phase with potential contracting agencies, according to the website for Federal Business Opportunities.

INTRO CLIP FOR SR-72

The Lockheed Martin SR-72 is a conceptualized unmanned, hypersonic aircraft intended for intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance proposed by Lockheed Martin to succeed the retired SR-71 Blackbird.[1]

http://www.darpa.mil

suzuki.toshio@stripes.com

Twitter: @ToshJohn

PWSP 1.5 Inside Spacex Flying Monster Rocket, The one that could save NASA Human spaceflight ... And take us to Mars.

2014-02-14T09:09:00.001-08:00

Inside Spacex's Flying Monster Rocket!

channeling POPSCI

"...the goal the prize was always Mars. Mars was what motivated Dr. Von Braun to architect the Saturn V in the first place.

Much in the same way Elon Musk was motivated by the idea of colonizing Mars. (Google it).

In order for NASA to a have viable Mars Human Program in needs two things 1) low cost heavy lift 2) fast interplanetary transport.

NASA SLS would be the answer is only it didn't suck all the air out of the budget NASA budget balloon for the next 5 years.

When it its complete and flying NASA will have no budget left for Mars misisons or protecting the earth from the effects of climate change.

So ask I Congress to consider Spacex's Flying Monster ( 5 Billion / 5 years) or United Launch Alliances ( 5.5 billion / 5 years) or do both.

In fact doing both would still be cheaper than NASA SLS..." :(

- Dr Strangelove Rant HJK67.2014.12.14

When the firm SpaceX launches its Falcon Heavy rocket into space late this year, the craft will become the mightiest rocket in the world. Only NASA's Saturn V, which sent Americans to the moon, has ever generated more power.

In rockets, the most important measure of power is thrust. Falcon Heavy's 27 individual booster engines together generate 3.8 million pounds of thrust—enough to lift the 3.1-million-pound rocket and its 117,000-pound payload toward low-Earth orbit. The rocket's success is critical for both SpaceX and the U.S. space program: The Air Force has already hired SpaceX and its Falcon Heavy to send two satellites into orbit sometime in 2015.

The Falcon Heavy Rocket

Nick Kaloterakis

1) ENGINE CLUSTER

Nine SpaceX Merlin 1D engines sit at the bottom of each of the craft's three cores, or boosters. The engines are identical to those on SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket.

2) FIRST STAGE: THREE ROCKET CORES

Falcon Heavy's first stage consists of three cores. All three cores operate together at liftoff. About T+2:45 minutes into flight, the center core throttles down while the two side cores continue at full thrust until their fuel is nearly spent. At that point, pneumatic separators release the side cores, which plummet into the ocean, and the center core throttles up.

3) CENTER CORE

For payloads heavier than 100,000 pounds, Falcon Heavy uses a cross-feed system to run fuel from the side cores to the center core, leaving the center core almost fully fueled after the side boosters separate. What's left is the equivalent of a complete Falcon 9 rocket already high in space.

4) FUEL TANKS

A liquid-oxygen tank at the top of each core feeds the engines through a center tube; the lower portion of the tank contains rocket-grade kerosene. The propellants are turbo-pumped into each Merlin engine's injector, where they are mixed and fed into the combustion chamber.

5) SECOND STAGE

Powered by a single Merlin 1D engine modified to operate in the vacuum of space, the second stage delivers the final push that gets the payload into orbit. The engine can shut down and reignite as needed, enabling Falcon Heavy to deliver multiple payloads to different orbits.

6) FAIRING

Falcon Heavy can carry either a Dragon capsule—SpaceX's free-flying spacecraft, currently used to resupply the International Space Station—or up to 117,000 pounds of payload (think multiple military and commercial satellites) enclosed in a shell 45 feet long and 17 feet in diameter. The fairing consists of two clamshell-style halves made of an aluminum honeycomb core and carbon-fiber face sheets. When the second stage nears the desired orbit, pneumatic pushers split the halves apart, exposing the payload.

7) MERLIN 1D ENGINE

A single Merlin 1D generates 147,000 pounds of thrust at sea level, burning rocket-grade kerosene and liquid oxygen fed by a turbo-pump into the combustion chamber. Falcon Heavy's liquid propellant has an advantage over solid fuel: Liquid-fueled engines can stop and restart in flight, whereas solid-fuel engines burn until they are spent. Through proprietary adjustments that SpaceX won't disclose, engineers recently lightened the engine to increase its efficiency, making it the most efficient rocket booster engine ever built.

Peek Inside

The SpaceX Falcon Heavy will be the world's most powerful rocket when it launches later this year. It can carry a payload of up to 117,000 pounds in its clamshell fairing. The fairing is shown here open with the payload exposed, but on a mission it would remain closed until the first stage has separated and the second stage has nearly reached orbit.

Nick Kaloterakis

TIMELINE OF A LAUNCH

T – 3:00:00

Falcon Heavy is ready on the launchpad at Cape Canaveral. Engineers time liftoff to achieve the optimal flight path and desired orbit.

T – 0:10:30

The countdown begins. All actions from here forward are pre-programmed, although Mission Control can abort the mission at any time.

T – 0:02:30

The launch director issues the final launch command.

T – 0:00:40

Propellant tanks are pressurized.

T – 0:00:03

First-stage engines ignite.

FULL STORY :

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-03/most-powerful-space-rocket

The light at the end of the climate change tunnel is nuclear - and I bet its a Transtomic Fast Breeder

2014-02-04T23:59:00.004-08:00

INTRODUCTION TO TRANSATOMICS

BREEDER PLUS - MOLTEN SALT REACTOR

Innovators Under 35: Leslie Dewan, Chief Science Officer, Transatomic

CLIMATE CHANGE BUSINESS CASE FOR NEW NUCLEAR

by Submitted by iraszl on Sun, 09/15/2013 - 12:13

However, because we have stubbornly retained the conventional reactors, we are stuck with 1950s technology. According to Michael Mayfield, head of the Office of Advanced Reactors at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC is “unfamiliar with most new small-reactor technology, and has no proven process to certify one” - despite the fact that Germany successfully operated a thorium-powered reactor in the eighties. How can this be, when in July, 2013, the U. S. Energy Information Administration predicted that world energy use will increase 56% by 2040 - and most of the increase will come from burning fossil fuels, which will add billions of tons of CO2 to our already damaged oceans and atmosphere. In addition, a recent report from the United Nations indicates that, by 2020, ocean acidification from excess CO2 production will severely damage the ocean food chain that we rely on for 20% of our protein.

Why not expand nuclear power production, which creates no CO2? Is it really as dangerous as some claim?

Not all radiation is dangerous. We are bathed in natural radiation from birth to death – about 2/3 from cosmic radiation and earth elements like radon, and the rest from elements within us, from consumer products and medical uses.

So what about Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima? Let’s examine them one by one, but first, we should understand that the nuclear plants that have been supplying some 14% of the world's electricity while emitting no CO2 have 15,000 reactor-years of almost-accident-free operation, and second, that the reactors that have powered our navy for more than 40 years have similar histories.

Three Mile Island – In March, 1979, two weeks after the release of the best-seller, The China Syndrome, a partial meltdown of one of the reactor cores (due to coolant pump failure and subsequent operator error) caused mildly radioactive gases and hydrogen to accumulate inside a main reactor building. After being filtered through charcoal, the gases were vented. No one died or was harmed at Three Mile Island. In fact, radiation exposure from Three Mile was less than what an airline passenger would receive on a round trip flight across the U.S. And in the following decades, operator training and safety measures have been greatly enhanced.

Chernobyl – During an equipment test in 1986, reactor operators ignored computer warnings, disabled the safety systems and inadvertently exposed the reactor core of the Russian reactor, which had design hazards not present in Western reactors. This negligence led to a “runaway” reactor and an explosion that released radioactive gases into the atmosphere because the reactor had no containment structure. In contrast, every water-cooled U.S. reactor has a robust, re-enforced concrete containment structure, and the NRC strictly supervises every plant. Chernobyl, which was built by the old USSR, was long judged by American scientists to be dangerous.

Chernobyl was a failure not of nuclear power, but of bad design, poor training and a political system that forbade operators from sharing information about reactor problems. Until Fukushima, Chernobyl was the only accident where radiation directly killed anyone. More than twenty firefighters (who should not have been sent into the building) died from intense radiation, and others were injured. According to a study by 100 scientists from eight U N agencies, “Chernobyl produced an additional 50 deaths over the following 20 years,” a small fraction of the deaths caused the use of coal and petroleum.

Fukushima – Tepco’s Fukushima reactors began operation in 1971, and ran without issue for 40 years. Following the 2012 earthquake that severed Fukushima’s connections to the external power grid, the 18-foot seawall (that Tepco had been told was grossly inadequate) was swamped by a tsunami. (Old, deeply weathered Sendai “stones” in the area warn “Don’t build below the ~150 foot elevation.”) Worse yet, in 1967, Tepco cut 25 meters off of the site’s 35-meter natural seawall to make it easier to ferry equipment to the building site, which subsequently placed the reactors five meters below the crest of the tsunami.

Emergency diesel generators located in the basement were immediately flooded. Batteries powered the coolant pumps for 8 hours – and then failed – and without coolant, meltdown was assured. Had a reservoir or water towers been built nearby, and space was available, the buildings could have been flooded by gravity-powered water. Reactors 1-4 are now useless, but reactors 5 and 6 were unaffected, and are capable of producing power, but have not been activated – largely due to wrong-headed, anti-nuclear hysteria.

Japan’s Onagawa nuclear plant, which was closer to the epicenter of the quake, survived the quake (as did Fukushima), and its 45-foot seawall easily blocked the tsunami. Onagawa’s reactors were shut down only as a precaution. The tsunami took 20,000 lives that day, but the Fukushima failure directly took the lives of just three firefighters.

Unfortunately nuclear power has been tarred by the Fukushima disaster, but the failure was NOT the fault of nuclear power. It was the caused by corporate penny-pinching, by building too close to the ocean, by ignoring warnings about seawall height, and by installing backup generators in easily flooded basements.

What about reactor waste?

Nuclear plants are required to contain every speck of their waste. If you were to get all the electricity for your lifetime from uranium, your total share of the waste would weigh just two pounds – but about 98% of that will be hazardous for 100,000 years. Disposal of this waste has not been solved. Instead, it has been allowed to accumulate at places like Washington’s Hanford Site – a site that Tom Zoellner, the author of URANIUM, called the “most polluted piece of real estate on earth.” Half as big as Rhode Island, the site had one purpose, the manufacture of plutonium for bombs. However, a recent study shows that mixing plutonium-contaminated waste with blast furnace slag and turning it into glass reduces its volume by 85-95%. It also effectively locks in the radioactive plutonium, creating a stable end product.

Advantages of nuclear power.

No other technology produces energy steadily on a large scale and as cheaply with a better safety record than nuclear power. The U S currently generates 18% of its electricity with nuclear reactors. France tops 50 % and Finland, currently at 30 % is aiming for 60%. The energy density of nuclear power is a MILLION TIMES GREATER than that of fossil fuels – and even more so for wind or solar. Compared to fossil fuels, nuclear energy is akin to a gift from the energy gods.

Nuclear reactors emit ZERO greenhouse gases. Instead, they are the largest displacers of greenhouse gases on the planet. Given that fact, how can anyone, even my fellow “greens,” oppose nuclear power when the environmental costs of burning carbon-based fuels are so high?

TRANS-ATOMIC ARCHITECTURE

Transatomic Power has greatly improved the molten salt concept, while retaining its significant safety benefits. The main technical change we make is to change the moderator and fuel salt used in previous molten salt reactors to a zirconium hydride moderator, with a LiF-based fuel salt. During operation the fuel in the salt is primarily uranium. Together, these components generate a neutron spectrum that allows the reactor to run using fresh uranium fuel with enrichment levels as low as 1.8% U-235, or using the entire actinide component of spent nuclear fuel (SNF). Previous molten salt reactors such as the ORNL Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) relied on high-enriched uranium, with 33% U-235. Enrichments that high would raise proliferation concerns if used in commercial nuclear power plants.

Transatomic Power’s design also enables extremely high burnups – up to 96% – over long time periods. The reactor can therefore run for decades and slowly consume both the actinide waste in its initial fuel load and the actinides that are continuously generated from power operation. Furthermore, our neutron spectrum remains primarily in the thermal range used by existing commercial reactors. We therefore avoid the more severe radiation damage effects faced by fast reactors, as thermal neutrons do comparatively less damage to structural materials.

A key difference between Transatomic Power’s reactor and other molten salt reactors is its zirconium hydride moderator, which we use instead of a conventional graphite moderator. Zirconium is a metal with a low absorption of neutrons and high resistance to radiation damage. Hydrogen is a highly effective moderator. The reactor core contains zirconium hydride rods. These rods are surrounded by cladding to extend the life of the moderator in the corrosive molten salt.

The available experimental data suggest that the service lifetime of the moderator rods will be at least 4 years, and could potentially last the lifetime of the plant. Additional in situ testing is needed to determine the full extent of the service lifetime.

There are three factors driving this higher electricity output: lower enrichment, higher burn-up, and better conversion of heat to electricity:

Lower Enrichment: One ton of natural uranium ore yields 88 kilograms of LWR fuel enriched to 5%. However, it yields 274 kilograms if only enriched to 1.8%. This is a factor of 3.1X more starting fuel mass for the TAP reactor.

Higher Burn-up: At 5% enrichment, light water reactors have improved their burnups from 30 Gigawatt-days per metric ton of heavy metal (GWd per MTHM), and are quickly approaching burnups as high as 45 GWd per MTHM. In contrast, the TAP reactor can achieve up to 96% burnup at 1.8% enrichment —the equivalent of 870 GWd per MHTM out of a theoretical maximum of 909 GWd per MHTM. This is a factor of 19.2X more thermal energy for the TAP reactor.

Better Conversion: Light water reactors have outlet temperatures of 290°C -330°C, and typical thermal efficiencies of about 34%. TAP reactors have an outlet temperature over 650°C with a gross thermal efficiency of about 44%. This is a factor of 1.3X more for the TAP reactor.

According to sources cited by the World Nuclear Association, proven world reserves of uranium are estimated to be 5.3 million metric tons if the market price were $130 per kilogram (current prices are about $80-110 per kilogram – at a higher price more mines are viable) and 7.1 million metric tons if the price increases to $260 per kilogram. Using light-water reactors, WNA calculates these reserves are enough “for about 80 years” especially given expected increases in energy use.

This limitation is currently not a serious problem, because it is likely that reserves could be extended by a factor of 2 or more through additional exploration. However, nuclear power’s generation share is currently only 12% of global generation. If this were to increase because of rapid energy demand of if countries turn away from fossil fuels, the relatively low burnup of light-water reactors may become an issue.

By comparison, the TAP reactor can use current known uranium reserves to supply fully 100% of the world’s electricity needs for about 4,000 years.

Techniques now under research for collecting uranium from seawater are estimated to become economically viable once uranium reaches a price of about $300 per kilogram. The TAP reactor generates enough electricity per kilogram of fuel that it remains commercially viable even at this price.

Compared to a similarly-sized light-water reactor, the annual waste stream is reduced from 10 to 0.5 metric tons – which is 95% less waste. Furthermore, the vast majority of our waste stream – the lanthanides, krypton, xenon, tritiated water vapor, noble metals, and semi-noble metals – has a relatively short half-life decay, on the order of a few hundred years or less. We believe mankind can tractably store waste materials on these timescales, compared to the hundreds of thousands of years

FULL STORY HERE --> https://twitter.com/powerfromspace1/status/430837119284563969/photo/1

PWSP 1.5 - NASA Man on Mars live program update.(LIVE STREAM)

2014-01-07T07:37:00.001-08:00

NASA MARS UPDATE

Watch live streaming video from mars at livestream.com

...Put on a happy face....

PWSP 2 .0 : Of Polar Vortices, Climate Change and why this Blog

2014-01-06T12:25:00.003-08:00

" This blog exists because I believe humanity is in jeopardy and that knowledge along with the right technology will allow society to make the correct decisions for the biosphere.

Tip : Coal Energy is a bad technical decision.

- DRS Rant 90A.01.06.2014".

____

Fire Fighter on Jan 06 2014

By Starre Vartan in Mother Nature Network

01/05/2014

Meteorology and climate are complex topics, which is why it is easy to create confusion about their causes and effects. If you're like me, you have been hearing about this past week's super-cold weather across much of the country, including references to the "polar vortex," and were wondering if that dramatic moniker is a name the media has anointed to the phenomenon, or if it's a legit thing — and what exactly it all means for the rest of the winter (and coming years).

It's a big question, and that answer isn't simple. But it can be explained in relatively straightforward terms that most of us can understand.

In the video below, Rutgers University's Jennifer Francis and Weather Underground's Jeff Masters explain what's going on with the extreme cold of late, as well as what the jet stream and climate change have to do with it all. It really cleared up some of my confusion and helped me visualize what is happening with global weather conditions.

Climate Change Might Just Be Driving the Historic Cold Snap

Climate change skeptics are pointing to the record cold weather as evidence that the globe isn't warming. But it could be that melting Arctic ice is making sudden cold snaps more likely—not less

By Bryan Walsh @bryanrwalshJan. 06, 2014

It’s polar bear weather today for much of the Midwest. Temperatures are in the -20sº F (-28º C) and -30sº F (-35º C) in eastern Montana, North Dakota, northeast South Dakota, Minnesota and northern Iowa. With the stiff wind, it’s even worse—wind chills in the -40sº F (-40º C) and -50sº F (-45º C) are common across Minnesota and North Dakota, cold enough for exposed skin to suffer frostbite in just five minutes. By tonight, the freeze will reach the East Coast, where temperatures from Florida to Maine are expected to be 30º F to 40º F (16º C to 22º C) degrees below normal, extremes that haven’t been seen in decades. The National Weather Service isn’t kidding when it calls the cold “life-threatening.”

Unsurprisingly, the extreme cold has brought out the climate change skeptics, who point to the freeze and the recent snowstorms and say, essentially, “nyah-nyah.” Now this is where I would usually point to the fact that the occasional cold snap—even one as extreme as much of the U.S. is experiencing now—doesn’t change the overall trajectory of a warming planet. Weather is what happens in the atmosphere day to day; climate is how the atmosphere behaves over long periods of time. Winters in the U.S. have been warming steadily over the past century, and even faster in recent decades, so it would take more than a few sub-zero days to cancel that out.

Story : http://science.time.com/2014/01/06/climate-change-driving-cold-weather/

Thermal Map NA January 06 2014

PWSP 3.0 - Holy crap! Flowing water on MARs.

2013-12-17T10:07:00.001-08:00

Holy crap! Flowing water on Mars. I expect the planetary research budget will double, unless of course @NASA_SLS gobbles it up first.

Which it will...

Water still flows on Mars, potentially harboring life

–

and we need to be careful not to contaminate it

By Sebastian Anthony on December 17, 2013 at 9:33 am

25 Comments

Water flows freely on the surface of Mars. Wait, what?

In recent months, NASA’s Curiosity rover has confirmed that Mars, millions of years ago, used to be covered in free-flowing rivers. According to some new imagery from NASA’s Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter (MRO) and analysis by Alfred McEwen of the University of Arizona, however, it appears that waterstill flows on the surface of Mars today.

In the image above, the dark lines are postulated to be caused by the flow of salt water down hills and mountains on Mars. These streaks, officially called ”recurrent slope linea,” appear to ebb and flow with the seasons, growing longer in Mars’ summer months, and then receding in the winter. We have known about these streaks for a few years, and there have been other theories about their formation, but according to McEwen the best explanation is that ice — trapped about a meter underground — melts in the summer months and streaks down the hill, causing these markings. ”Water will darken most soils,” McEwen says.

In the video below [ redacted ] and animated GIF above, a sequence of images shows the growth of these dark streaks. The frames were captured over a period of months as NASA’s MRO periodically orbited the same spot on the surface.

Adding credence to the melting-subsurface-water theory, these recurring slope lineae only seem to appear near the Martian equator, where temperatures are relatively warm. Most people don’t realize that the surface of Mars is incredibly cold: Unless it’s summer and you’re near the equator, the air temperature is nearly always below freezing (0 Celsius, 32 Fahrenheit). It’s around -153C (-243F) at the poles, with an overall average temperature for the planet being -55C (-67F). Near the equator, in the summer, at noon, surface temperatures might reach 20C (68F) — warm enough to melt those underground deposits of ice. As the summer wears on, melted water would streak down the hill, until autumn comes and daytime temperatures are no longer high enough to melt the subsurface supply...

FULL ARTICLE : http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/172937-water-still-flows-on-mars-potentially-harboring-life-and-we-need-to-be-careful-not-to-contaminate-it

DAILY RANT

"...NASA is doing too many IMPORTANT things. ( Much like Microsoft used too until the shake-up ) And the time has come to break it up along principal lines of earth sciences, planetary exploration and aviation & space research.

So it can do a few things well; instead of a lot of things poorly.

....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B2y3Juq1zlI

PWSP2 - 1.5 China has ushered in the Lunar Space Economy by landing a rover on the Moon / Blue Orgin

2013-12-15T15:47:00.005-08:00

SPACE 2.0 : LUNAR SPACE ECONOMY LEADER is CHINA

"Well deserved congrats to a nation that can articulate a long term plan, fund it and execute on it over a period of more than four years.

This is what happens when you have moribund space agency that is under funded and without a core mission.

Perhaps its time to spin-off space exploration to the private sector as mining rights soon become strategically & economic significant. - DRS Strangelove 12.15.13

CHINA'S Jade Rabbit rover vehicle has driven onto the moon's surface after the first lunar soft landing in nearly four decades, a huge advance in the country's ambitious space program.

The Yutu, or Jade Rabbit, was deployed at several hours after the Chang'e-3 probe landed on the moon, said the official news agency Xinhua.

Ma Xingrui, chief commander of China's lunar program, declared the mission a "complete success" after the rover and lander took photos of each other on the moon's surface late Sunday, Xinhua reported.

China is the third country to complete a lunar rover mission after the United States and the then-Soviet Union - a decade after it first sent an astronaut into space.

It plans to establish a permanent space station by 2020 and eventually send a human to the moon.

The mission is seen as a symbol of China's rising global stature and technological advancement, as well as the Communist Party's success in reversing the fortunes of the once-impoverished nation.

Colour images showing the Chinese national flag on the rover, taken at about 11:42pm, were transmitted live to the Beijing Aerospace Control Centre where Chinese President Xi Jinping congratulated the mission, Xinhua said.

"One Giant Leap for China," read the headline in Hong Kong's Sunday Morning Post, evoking the words in 1969 of American astronaut Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon.

The lunar journey "once again lights up the China Dream", said a Xinhua editorial citing Xi's slogan for Chinese advancement.

"Chang'e-3 has successfully carried out a soft landing on the moon. This makes China the world's third nation to achieve a lunar soft landing," the Chinese Academy of Sciences said in an online post on the mission's official page on Sina Weibo, a Chinese Twitter equivalent.

The landing, nearly two weeks after blast-off, was the first of its kind since the former Soviet Union's mission in 1976.

State broadcaster China Central Television (CCTV) featured extensive coverage of the mission and China's wider space ambitions.

Rover to look for natural resources The potential to extract the moon's resources has been touted as a key reason behind Beijing's space program, with the moon believed to hold uranium, titanium, and other mineral resources, as well as offering the possibility of solar power generation.

( PWSP2 - I told you so. HERE : Next Tech Boom Lunar Space Economy )

FULL ARTICLES :

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/china-makes-leap-with-jade-rabbit-in-moon-landing/story-e6frg6so-1226783795919

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/china-successfully-completes-first-soft-landing-on-moon-in-37-years/2013/12/14/fad6ffb4-64c6-11e3-af0d-4bb80d704888_story.html

Whitepaper Assessment of Concepts for Utilizing Lunar
Resources ( 2007 )

http://www.spaceclimate.net/Assessment.v95R.pdf

Giant solar belt around moon could meet all of humanity’s energy needs by 2030, say Japanese inventors

-
See more at:
http://www.rtcc.org/2013/12/05/space-odyssey-is-lunar-power-the-answer-to-earths-energy-needs/#sthash.oSJRxlA5.dpuf

Jade Rabbit : The Next Giant leap...

It's not bragging if you do it
---
China's successful launch of its Chang'e-3 lunar lander mission do more for the country than the science alone the spacecraft will perform. Dwayne Day examines the potential "soft power" benefits of the mission, and its limitations as well.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2418/1

Blue Origin takes another small step towards human spaceflight
---
Blue Origin, the commercial space company funded by Jeff Bezos, has developed a reputation as a secretive company, but even it sometimes wants to share its progress. Jeff Foust reports on the company's announcement of a engine development milestone and what it means for its suborbital and orbital vehicle plans.
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/2417/1

PWSP 1.5 : Third time the charm for Spacex. SES-8 well on its way to GeoSat Orbit.

2013-12-03T19:11:00.001-08:00

SpaceX third attempt at Falcon 9 rocket

SES-8 communications satellite launch succeeds, so far.

SpaceX launched their Falcon 9 v1.1 rocket on Tuesday, ahead of successfully lofting the SES-8 satellite into its Geostationary Transfer Orbit. In what was the debut of SpaceX’s upgraded Falcon 9 rocket from SLC-40 at Cape Canaveral, the third launch attempt enjoyed a smooth countdown, launching at the start of the launch window at 17:41 local time.

Full Story at NASA Spaceflight ->

http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/12/spacex-falcon-9-v1-1-milestone-ses-8-launch/

Meanwhile China shoots for the Moon Literally.

Chang'e 3 : On its way to the Lunar surface.

.. 100% nominal flight...

"We are loosing the race for the rights and ability to exploit the Moons resources Because we can't get our sh*t together to be quite frank. More later in a follow on post - DRS Rant 12/3/13

And so begins the new space and this time its a race for the solar systems riches.

-Sunshine itself-

PWSP 2.0 To Mars and Beyond on the wings of the Private Sector ( Part 4/4 ) - Mars Holdings Co.

2013-11-24T02:44:00.000-08:00

A Second Earth : New beginning for Humankind

(Shepherded by the private sector )

Building the American Frontier

(A new barter town created on Mars... A international tax free zone with its own property laws)

Financially sustainable Mission Organization

( Private Holding Company, Public Sub contractor )

Comparing the MARs crew capsules - NASA Orion offers most space.

There is a "small" company out Hawthorne, CA that has a lower cost heavy lift rocket that could do the job perhaps as early as 2018.

Spacex Rev 1.0 Dragon Capsule on MARs. First manned flight 2016 using Dragon 2 Capsule.

A company that also coincidently also wants to go to MARs.

But the risks involved with going to MARs in 2018 are significant given our technical readiness which is essentially zero. A direct results of Congress' budgetary dithering on NASA's budget over the years - but I digress.

A better round trip attempt time window would be ~2022-2030 when InspirationMARS could test directly help test NASA DRM 5.0 components on or near MARs. $300M in the bank collecting interest over 10 years is real world klout.

Source : NASA : NTR Rocket from DRM 5.0

However, InspirationMARS would need some sort of NTR/NEP Mars Transfer Vehicle MTV propulsion to make up the extra distance caused by the delay.

Source : Wikipedia Manned Mission when is the planet closest.

However, Inspiration Mars would still be ahead of NASA as SLS to MARS with its launch window most likely on ~2033 -2035. PWSP2 has said it before the time is now for developing Nuclear Rockets and Nuclear energy from Thorium. And we could make money at as well."

First Private Mission to Mars fails to Launch...

But why the Rush?

"....First private sector to MARS mission will need a new ride as it appears NASA SLS won't be made available even if 30% cost are picked up by Tito's Group..."

Dennis Tito wants to send two astronauts to Mars as soon as Christmas 2017, but NASA — from whom Tito's non-profit Inspiration Mars organization needs $700 million in funding — has snubbed the American billionaire. In an email statement sent to Inspiration Mars, NASA's David Weaver said "the agency is willing to share technical and programmatic expertise with Inspiration Mars, but is unable to commit to sharing expenses with them."

In addition to financial assistance, the billionaire needs to use NASA's Space Launch System (SLS) to power his organization's planned mission — technology still under development, and funded by the federal government. Weaver also says Tito's aim of getting humans to Mars in the planned time-frame is unrealistic. "Inspiration Mars' proposed schedule is a significant challenge due to life support systems, space radiation response, habitats, and the human psychology of being in a small spacecraft for over 500 days."

Tito's organization is pushing for a manned mission to launch between Christmas 2017 and January 5th, 2018, to take advantage of planetary positioning to make the distance between Earth and Mars shorter. The next window of opportunity for such an alignment will reportedly occur in 2021. -- Source : The Verge

Full Story : http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/21/5131918/nasa-snubs-dennis-tito-planned-mission-2017-mars

Real world test of MARs components for NASA via an orbital mission around the moon or a MARs with payload.

Full Story : http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/21/5131918/nasa-snubs-dennis-tito-planned-mission-2017-mars

What would a Privately lead Consortium supported by NASA look like....

1) HEAT SHIELDs

2) MARS TRANSFER VEHICLE ( NTR or NEP MEGAFLEX ) WITH SHIELDING

MEGAFLEx by ATK/Alliant at 40KwH per wing today!

NTRs Kiwi-Phoebus were test successfully tested by John F Kennedy's NASA/DoE

3) HABITAT - PREPOSITIONED 4 HUMAN LANDING

4) MARS LANDER VEHICLE

TBD

5) MARS HUMAN DRIVEABLE ROVER

TBD

6) MARTIAN HABITAT POWERPLANT

TBD

7) DEEP SLEEPER MISSIONS

"The goal of PWSP2 is nothing than the Conquest of the Solar System." - DRS Rant 12/15/13

Mars Holdings this ain't your Grand Pa's Space Program anymore

This Sleek new Spiderman Spacesuit Could Take Astronauts To Mars http://zite.to/1buVefN

PWSP 2.0 To Mars and Beyond on the wings of the Private Sector ( Part 3 /4 ) - Field of Broken Dreams

2013-11-23T18:17:00.001-08:00

NASA - Design Reference Architecture
and
the Dream of MARs (2000s )

"...The definition of insanity, is repeating the same behaviour again and again expecting a different result..."
- DRS Rant 11.23.13

NASA DRA 5.0 - Version 2.0 ( Take 2 : Bush Administration Era)

NASA - Design Reference Architectures Dream of MARS 2013

( Obama Administration Era )

Con Ops Assess Baseline Features for SLS/Orion Mission to Mars

October 6, 2013 by Chris Bergin

More clues into NASA’s long term goal of sending humans to Mars have been provided in the latest revision of the Space Launch System (SLS) Concept of Operations (Con Ops) presentation. The document confirms the agency is siding with a version of the Mars Design Reference Architecture 5.0, utilizing multiple SLS launches, including nuclear stages, over an extensive timeframe.

Mars is the Prize:

Sending humans to the Red Planet is, and always has been, a long term ambition of many in the United States.

Curtailed by the need for vast amounts of funding and political support, along with continued challenges associated with maturing deep space technology, the prospect of humans on Mars has always appeared to be decades away. Politically, directing NASA toward the enabling of missions to Mars is a problem, given the agency’s funding cycles rarely project beyond the short term.

Lawmakers would have to commit billions of dollars, without a full understanding of the long term economic environment, whilst possessing the knowledge they would be no longer in office nor able to reap the political rewards of such an historic mission being successfully achieved.

While sending rovers to Mars is a cheaper and politically acceptable precursor to the eventual goal of sending humans, the possibility of a man or woman setting foot on the red planet has hardly been promoted by NASA’s current leadership, with Administrator Charlie Bolden providing little more than brief comments indicating the agency wishes to achieve that goal “some time in the mid 2030s.”

However, while an astronaut wandering around on the Martian surface in a NASA spacesuit may be a distant dream, the United States still has an ace in the hole-a driven young billionaire named Elon Musk.

The leader, not only of SpaceX, but also the meteorically rising Tesla Motors and creator of PayPal, made his intentions known when he said he wants his company to push towards human missions to Mars, not least because he wants to go himself.

Citing his ambition in helping humanity become a multi-planetary species, Musk, backed by his growing company and large pools of cash, is highly likely to beat NASA to Mars, as much as that may eventually involve a level of cooperation between SpaceX and the agency.

The NASA Plan:

With the above funding constraints in mind, a full blown exploration plan continues to be in the preliminary planning phase.

Currently, only two missions are manifested for NASA’s new fleet involving the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion, namely Exploration Mission -1 (EM-1) and Exploration Mission -2 (EM-2).

With Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs) providing the stepping stone approach to returning NASA to deep space exploration, managers hope the experience gained in long-duration missions will enable the technology for making the big leap towards Mars.

The NEA missions in the 2020s will mature several key elements that will be required for trips to Mars, with SLS evolving into at least its Block 1A/B 105mT configuration, Orion gaining deep space mileage, along with theopening flights of the Deep Space Hab (DSH).

However, far more technology will be required, as acknowledged in the latest Mars Mission planning effort, outlined in the revised 116 page Concept of Operations (Con Ops) document, available to download in L2.

“Missions to Mars, including the moons of Mars – are a major goal for human exploration. The architectures to accomplish these missions continue to be assessed and there remain many architectural and technology implementation options under evaluation,” noted the presentation.

“Over the past several decades, numerous Mars architectural studies have been conducted, each of which concluded with very similar key driving capability needs (with) a list of the key driving capabilities associated with the Orion, SLS, and Ground Operations projects as they pertain to potential Mars missions.

FULL PLAN HERE @ WWW.NASASPACEFLIGHT.COM

- http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/10/nasa-con-ops-baseline-slsorion-mission-mars/

With the Current Budget, NASA Will Never Get to Mars

At today's House hearing for the NASA Authorization Act of 2013, witness Thomas Young was asked how long it would take the Agency to put a human on Mars with its current budget. His response was unambiguous: “Never.”

Prepared statements from Young (former executive VP of Lockheed Martin) and co-witness Steven Squyres (Principle Investigator of the Mars Exploration Rover mission) paint an inauspicious picture of NASA's current standing, and its continued role in humanity's exploration of deep space.

From Squyres:

Three themes run through my testimony today:

NASA needs a clear and compelling long-term goal. That goal should be to send human explorers to Mars.

NASA is being asked to do too much with too little. Unless program content can be matched to budget, the result will be wasted effort and delay.

Our nation's civil space program will be best served by having high-level policy set by the Administration and Congress, and implementation details recommended by NASA engineers, scientists, and managers.

From Young:

The dominant strategic issue facing the civil space program is human spaceflight. Today, there is a human spaceflight program but no credible human space exploration strategy. There is much discussion about going to the moon, an asteroid, Phobos, Deimos and Mars; however, there is no credible plan or budget.

This grim dose of reality comes just two days after NASA announced the selection of its latest class of astronauts – a team widely touted as one that could one day lead missions to Mars.

"They're excited about the science we're doing on the International Space Station and our plan to launch from US soil to there on spacecraft built by American companies," said Nasa administrator Charles Bolden.

"And they're ready to help lead the first human mission to an asteroid and then on to Mars."

Full Story : http://io9.com/with-current-budget-nasa-will-never-get-to-mars-514301367

Ready to lead an unfunded Expedition where only 2 (Orion & SLS ) of the 8 required mission components are funded. There is no lander, no MARs transfer vehicle, No Power source for MARs and no Trans-Hab. Worse yet no one has solved the issue of cosmic radiation in transit or on MARs. No wonder Charles Bolden talks of MARs maybe in a post 2033 time frame.

When many of us reading this blog will be dead.

-------

Or to summarize in the immortal words of Gus Grissom
"No Bucks, No Buck Rogers"

PWSP 2.0 To Mars and Beyond on the wings of the Private Sector ( Part 2 /4 ) - Public + Private Collaboratrion

2013-11-14T19:49:00.001-08:00

MAKING THE CASE FOR
A
MULTI-YEAR PUBLIC-PRIVATE MARS CONSORTIUM

Humans on Mars by 2025?

"Could humans land on Mars earlier than 2033 through a public private partnership? Could we develop the technologies required ( e.g NTRs or Methane-Oxygen HLV Engines) better, faster and cheaper by having a private - public consortium lead an effort supported by NASA with its vast pool of of skill and real world space flight know how.

Could we for example combine the efforts of the groups like Mars Society, Spacex, Boeing, Bigelow, Inspiration Mars , ESA and NASA into creating a mission architecture for one of humanity's greatest challenges that of colonizing a new world.

A new world that would become humanity's Disaster Recovery site.

Humans to set foot on Mars by 2025?

Could we have the private sector take on the Risks that NASA (Or any other Govt. agency ) can't so things are done quicker.

The answer appears to be, Yes...."

- DRS Rant 11/14/2013

----

BY JAMES HUTCHINSON

More than 3.2 million people tuned in to watch a one-tonne robot, the Curiosity rover, land on Mars last year, but expect billions to watch when humans step foot on the red planet as early as 2033, which an authority on space exploration believes possible.

Doug McCuistion, a former director of NASA’s Mars Science Laboratory in the United States and the leader for three robotic missions to Mars, said he believed a manned mission could be on the horizon if governments and private industry globally supported the goal.

“The only thing holding us back from putting humans on the surface is the technology required to get them from orbit to the ground,” he told The Australian Financial Review.

“Everyone is really enamoured with the complexity and difficulty and the ultimate success of putting the Curiosity rover on the ground, that was only one metric ton. We need to take that and replicate that by 30 or 40 to be able to get humans on the surface.”

Should the 2033 goal fail, the next opportunity to launch a manned mission likely would likely fall a decade or more later.

Mr McCuistion, who left NASA last December after directing the Curiosity mission, said such a move would require an increase in funding for NASA, which has faced numerous budget cuts in recent years and was affected by the US government shutdown last week.

US President Barack Obama has previously pushed support for a manned mission to Mars in the mid 2030s, in addition to proclamations by previous administrations that promised further missions to the moon.

Previous attempts to collaborate on surveillance missions to Mars with global space agencies, have been fraught with issues, most recently when NASA pulled out over a planned rover mission with Europe in 2018.

“This is without a doubt a global mission, it’s a mission where the major space-faring nations of the world need to get together and do this, in fact it would be a very unifying effort I believe,” Mr McCuistion said about a manned mission.

Scientists have firmed the hypothesis that life once existed on Mars, and could support life in future, after evidence from the Curiosity of water and minerals on the planet’s surface.

“I would find it surprising if it did not harbour life at some point in its history now,” Mr McCuistion said.

“We have essentially found all the ingredients for life.”

But he revealed Curiosity may never have been launched at all, after initial plans to launch the rover in 2009 failed, pushing back the project to 2012 and increasing the mission budget by about $750 million.

He said a manned mission to Mars could see more heavy involvement from the private sector, which has increasingly explored missions to space and other planets.

SpaceX, the space exploration vehicle of US entrepreneur Elon Musk, became the first private vehicle to dock with the International Space Station while there are several private attempts to send manned missions to Mars.

However, Mr McCuistion said the enormous funding required, and lack of obvious profits, could leave such missions in the hands of governments, which he urged to publicly state a coherent goal of 2033.

“There was a global rally, and frankly it was larger than I ever expected it to be, around Curiosity and the landing on Mars,” he said. “It tells me the excitement and most importantly the attention of the populace of the world is there. I think people want to see humans on another planet, I think humans want to see science fiction become science fact in their lifetime because it’s within our grasp.

“I’d like to be around to see it, I don’t know if I can make the late 2040s.”

_______

PWSPS2 Classic : Werner von Braun on MARS

MANIFEST DESTINY OF HUMAN MANKIND
"... I am asking each of you to be pioneers towards the new frontier..."

- President John F. Kennedy

"Had John F Kennedy had lived we would have been on
MARs by today...."

http://www.jfk50.org/

http://www.ibtimes.com/technology-focus-curiosity-mars-another-legacy-jfk-746539

- DRS Strange-love Rant 11.17.13.5467a

PWSP 2.0 To Mars and Beyond on the wings of the Private Sector ( Part 1/4 ) - The Mars Underground

2013-11-12T20:28:00.004-08:00

MARS UNDERGROUND

Part 1 : How our dreams of man and women on Mars were destroyed...

"This film captures the spirit of Mars pioneers who refuse to let their dreams be put on hold by a slumbering space program. Their passionate urge to walk the soil of an alien world is infectious and inspirational. This film is the manifesto of the new space revolution." James Cameron

See also Colonizing Mars:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLpWEM....

The Mars Underground - Pioneers for the Next World

Leading aerospace engineer and Mars Society President Dr. Robert Zubrin has a dream. He wants to get humans to the planet Mars in the next ten years.

Now, with the advent of a revolutionary plan, Mars Direct, Dr. Zubrin shows how we can use present day technology and natural resources on Mars to make human settlement possible. But can he win over the skeptics at NASA and the wider world?

The Mars Underground is a landmark documentary that follows Dr. Zubrin and his team as they try to bring this incredible dream to life. Through spellbinding animation, the film takes us on a daring first journey to the Red Planet and envisions a future Mars teeming with life and terraformed into a blue world.

BOOKS:

Red Mars (Mars Trilogy)

PWSP 2.0 - Kirk Sorensen of Flibe Energy: Why We Need New Nuclear...

2013-11-01T22:10:00.004-07:00

Why Do We Need New Nuclear ?

Short Answer : Climate Change

Kirk Sorensen talks to the Ohio State University's 2nd annual Nuclear Power Forum - 10/26/2013

---- FORBES.COM LEADERSHIP COLUMN 10.16.2013 ---

Following a contentious online debate about the article The Case for Combating Climate Change with Nuclear Power and Fracking, Harvard Business School Professor Joe Lassiter expands his argument that nuclear power and fracking are the lesser evils when stacked up against coal power–and presents a way forward.

BY JOE LASSITER

With more than 7,500 views and 180-plus tweets, I want to thank everyone for taking the time to read the original HBS Working Knowledge piece, The Case for Combating Climate Change with Nuclear Power and Fracking, and, in particular, for sharing your thoughts with one another. I don’t expect the article has changed minds, but I do hope it encourages people to open their minds to consider new possibilities.

FULL DEBATE:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/hbsworkingknowledge/2013/10/16/response-to-readers-combating-climate-change-with-nuclear-power-and-fracking/

PANDORAs PROMISE - CNN TRAILER

Air Date - 11.7.2013

UPDATE 11.05.13

Dr James Hansen and other Climate Scientists Open Letter for New Nuclear

A rather surprising news item was released today. Prominent climate scientist James Hansen and 3 other climate scientists are imploring world leaders and environmentalists to back an increase in nuclear power to offset climate change.

They believe that wind and solar cannot deliver enough clean energy quickly enough to cause the necessary decrease in fossil fuel (read: coal) electricity.

"Those energy sources cannot scale up fast enough" to deliver the amount of cheap and reliable power the world needs, and "with the planet warming and carbon dioxide emissions rising faster than ever, we cannot afford to turn away from any technology" that has the potential to reduce greenhouse gases.

The move can be seen as unexpected because so many env'al groups like Greenpeace are staunchly opposed to nuclear power. I find the announcement to be interesting as my own view on nuclear power has wavered over recent years. The Fukushima disaster certainly swayed many people from the prospect of nukes as both Japan and Germany resolved to phase out their use of nuclear power shortly after the March 2011 Japanese quake.

Stephen Ansolabehere, a Harvard professor who studies energy issues, said nuclear power is "very divisive" within the environmental movement. But he added that the letter could help educate the public about the difficult choices that climate change presents.

Although I do not believe my mind to be very easily swayed, this letter may be enough to get me to rethink my own opposition to nukes which has persisted for over 3 years after readingthis book. I have a ton of respect for Hansen and would have a difficult time questioning his findings on this matter.

by LaughingPlanet Follow

Experts say 'New Nuclear' power needed to slow warming.

By KEVIN BEGOS, Associated Press

Updated 8:20 am, Sunday, November 3, 2013

PITTSBURGH (AP) — Some of the world's top climate scientists say wind and solar energy won't be enough to head off extreme global warming, and they're asking environmentalists to support the development of safer nuclear power as one way to cut fossil fuel pollution.

Four scientists who have played a key role in alerting the public to the dangers of climate change sent letters Sunday to leading environmental groups and politicians around the world. The letter, an advance copy of which was given to The Associated Press, urges a crucial discussion on the role of nuclear power in fighting climate change.

More : http://www.sfgate.com/business/energy/article/Experts-say-nuclear-power-needed-to-slow-warming-4950906.php

New Nuclear in 5 Minutes - Intro to #LFTR Reactors

Full letter Dr Hansen online: http://bit.ly/1fc6Dpu

Commentary : On #CNN live 'Pandora Promise" debate:

https://twitter.com/powerfromspace1/status/397798868441907201

PWSP 1.0 - Spaceflight this week (1) DreamChaser Drop Test and (2) MARs flyover ESA

2013-10-30T03:12:00.000-07:00

SNC's Dream Chaser Captive Carry Test August 2013
- Credit NASA

FROM THE NEW ROOM 4 SNC ..

UPDATE 11/1/11 from Sierra Neveda

http://www.sncspace.com/ss_space_exploration.php

Mars FlyOver European Space Agency

From the highest volcano to the deepest canyon, from impact craters to ancient river beds and lava flows, this showcase of images from ESA's Mars Express takes you on an unforgettable journey across the Red Planet. Mars Express was launched on 2 June 2003 and arrived at Mars six-and-a-half months later.

It has since orbited the planet nearly 12 500 times, providing scientists with unprecedented images and data collected by its suite of scientific instruments. The data have been used to create an almost global digital topographic model of the surface, providing a unique visualisation and enabling researchers to acquire new and surprising information about the evolution of the Red Planet.

The images in this movie were taken by the High Resolution Stereo Camera and the video was released by the DLR German Aerospace Center as part of the ten years of Mars Express celebrations in June 2013.

The music has been created by Stephan Elgner of DLR's Mars Express planetary cartography team. DLR developed and is operating the stereo camera. Read the original post on DLR's website here:

http://www.dlr.de/dlr/en/desktopdefau...

Credit: ESA / DLR / FU Berlin (G. Neukum)

PWSP 1.02 : Participate in the International SunSat Competition Over $40,000 Prizes! #NSS

2013-10-28T20:45:00.003-07:00

Prezo from the leader in SPSS research - JAPAN! (I am going new nuclear, but anyways.. )
*******

NSS.ORG SSP Visualizations :ISDC 2013 - Ohio University

The National Space Society in affiliation with Ohio University is pleased to announce that theInternational SunSat Design Competition is now registering competitive teams. This two-year project is designed to link global scientific communities with university-based (and other) digital media labs for the purposes of advancing knowledge of space-based solar power satellites (SunSats) and illustrating their many Earth-energy applications.

If you are a space scientist, engineer, academic, business or digital media professional with an idea for moving space solar power closer to implementation, consider forming a team to join in this effort. And please forward this message to others.

In the first cycle of this competition, two First Place prizes of $10,000 and three Second Place prizes of $5,000 are expected to be awarded at the May 2014 International Space Development Conference in Los Angeles. For registered teams successfully completing the Feb. 2014 "significant progress point," an additional $1,000 incentive can be earned, and $1,000 travel assistance will be awarded to winners.

Winning entries of 2014 and 2015 will be published in the Space Journal as Issue No.18: Top SSP Designs.

To learn more, check the SunSat Visualization Guidebook and look at the SunSat Design Competition website.

To see where the idea of a SSP Design Competition came from, take a look at SpaceJournal Issue No.16: Solar Power Satellites.

To see how Ohio University's Game Research in Immersive Design (GRID) Lab, with the help of Georgia Institute of Technology, University of North Dakota and others in academia, has experimented with making the advanced science and technology concepts of SSP more accessible to the public, view SpaceJournal Issue No.17: Creative Visualization of Space Solar Power.

This competition is managed by Ohio University, the host institution for the Online Journal of Space Communication, but guided and juried by members of the National Space Society and the Society of Satellite Professionals International.

------------------

About the National Space Society: NSS is an independent, educational, membership, non-profit organization dedicated to the creation of a spacefaring civilization. NSS is widely acknowledged as the preeminent citizen's voice on space, with thousands of members and supporters, and over 50 chapters in the United States and around the world. The Society publishes Ad Astra magazine, an award-winning periodical chronicling the most important developments in space. To learn more, visit www.nss.org

PWSP 2.0 - James Hansen on using "new nuclear" to mitigate Climate Change #LFTR

2013-10-26T21:18:00.003-07:00

NEW NUCLEAR IS THE FUTURE!

" Synergy : And we can use Nuclear Thermal Rocket (NTR) research to justify developing Molten Salt and other types of more useful to the Mars Colonial Transporter reactors" - DRS Rant 10.24.13A5678

Dr Hansen not subtly making the case for #LFTR and Fast Breeder reactors

---- New York Times March 2013 ---

In an informative general overview of alternative nuclear power, the New York Times’ Justin Gillis draws attention to three companies that in their own different way promise to deliver nuclear power that is safer, more efficient, more cost effective, less weapons-prone and that leaves less waste than conventional reactors. Some of the alternatives can use nuclear waste as fuel.

Regular readers of my blog will recognize each of Gillis’ example: Lockheed Martin’s fusion power project; Flibe Energy’s thorium-fueled molten salt reactor; and TerraPower’s “fast reactor”, backed by Terra’s chairman, the one and only Bill Gates.

Gillis has chosen three fine, exemplary companies that are working hard to deliver superior nuclear technologies and help nuclear play a big role in providing low carbon energy that the world will need to help stave off the disastrous climate changing consequences of burning CO2 emitting fossil fuels like coal and natural gas.

He could have chosen many others.

There are several startups trying to crack the fusion nut, for instance - Lawrenceville Plasma Physics and its “aneutronic” approach that creates electricity without requiring a turbine is among them. On the thorium and molten salt trail, startups Transatomic Power, Cambridge, Mass., and Terrestrial Energy of Ottawa are ones to watch, not to mention the impressive work underway in China. Gates’ fast reactor is one of several that could one day soon burn waste as fuel - billionaire Richard Branson is behind the idea, General Atomics has compelling technology, and China and Russia are going for it, among others.

FULL STORY : http://www.smartplanet.com/blog/bulletin/new-york-times-recognizes-thorium-and-other-alternative-nuclear-power/15129

-------- Pandora Promise Trailer ----

MOVIE TRAILER [HD]

"Pandora's Promise" Clip on "Megatons to Megawatts" : United States buying up used Nuclear Warheads from Russia in order to generate power.

And the used warheads account for 10% of US power, amazing!"

PWSP 1.5 - SpaceX progress on Dragon abort test and Raptor engine

2013-10-25T04:16:00.003-07:00

Source : NASA Space Flight

October 24, 2013 by Chris Bergin

Falcon 9 1.1 - Launch Late Sept 2013

Worlds first mid-flight re-ignite (see previous)

SpaceX provided another glimpse into their future ambitions by announcing they have completed a review of their 2014 abort test for their commercial crew program. The company also announced they would begin testing of their new Raptor engine – a key element of their Mars mission architecture – early year at NASA’s Stennis Space Center.

SpaceX Status:

Most of SpaceX’s current focus is on the upcoming salvo of missions, with the second launch of their upgraded Falcon 9 v1.1 aiming to follow up the success of the Cassiope mission.

The launch vehicle – and its passenger, the SES-8 satellite – are both undergoing launch processing at SpaceX’s SLC-40 complex. However, the launch date has since slipped to a NET (No Earlier Than) November 22 launch date, per L2′s SpaceX section.

Efforts into the Upper Stage re-start investigation are ongoing, following its issue during the Cassiope mission.

Photographs of the recent attempt have since been published by SpaceX, showing the stage propulsively returning back to Earth, prior to hitting the ocean, as had been planned for the test.

While the Canadian satellite was successfully deployed, a re-start of the stage was attempted as part of SpaceX’s fully-reusable launch vehicle aspirations.

The relevance to the SES-8 mission is the requirement to re-start the upper stage as part of the satellite’s mission profile. It is understood the stage re-starts without issue during ground testing, but may have a unique issue once in the cold vacuum of space.

With the delay to the SES-8 mission, the prospect of the next flight of the F9 v1.1 – carrying the Thaicom-6 satellite – occurring just one month later are all-but gone.

A separation of 30 days between launches is understood to be a hard limit, resulting in the Thaicom-6 mission having to avoid the holiday period and re-target for a launch in the new year.

All launch dates are subject to change, with the realigned target of November 22 for SES-8 a preliminary placeholder, subject to approval from the Eastern Range. Should approval be granted, the launch window will stretch from 13:28 to 15:28 local time, per L2.

Dragon Abort Test:

Following the SES-8 and Thaicom-6 missions, SpaceX will move into preparations for the fourth Dragon mission to the International Space Station (ISS). The CRS-3 (SpX-3) mission is tracking a February 11, 2014 NET – also subject to change based on the success of the preceding launches and the continually busy Visiting Vehicle (VV) schedule at the orbital outpost.

With an eye to the future, one where Dragons could be transporting NASA astronauts to the Station, as opposed to just cargo, SpaceX and NASA completed a review of a 2014 test of Dragon’s abort capabilities – a key element of allowing humans onboard their spacecraft.

Thus far, every Dragon has successfully returned home via current method of parachute landings into the Pacific Ocean. This will eventually be replaced by propulsive landings on terra firma.

With future Dragon spacecraft sporting a series of eight SuperDraco liquid engines – built into the side walls of the capsule – these thrusters will also provide an initial Launch Abort System (LAS) capability, by producing up to 120,000 pounds of axial thrust to drive the Dragon away from a failing launch vehicle.

Because the system is integrated with the Dragon – as opposed to a Tower system that normally requires jettison shortly after first stage flight – the spacecraft can technically abort within much longer periods.

In preparation for a summer 2014 test, SpaceX recently laid out its plan to demonstrate the Dragon spacecraft’s ability to abort in the event of an in-flight emergency.....

FULL STORY: http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2013/10/spacex-press-abort-test-raptor-engine/

PWSP 2.0 :USAF on the future plans of Spacex RLV GrassHopper 1.1 (Unauthorized)

2013-10-16T21:37:00.004-07:00

"... I am no expert, but I would say that USAF Space Command is excited by what is going on at Spacex. Look out Boeing-LockMart.. " - DRS 102013.RTY

....

"Kudos to E. Mudge on the heads up about this article "

Published by Armed Forces Network on Oct 15, 2013

Grasshopper is an experimental technology-demonstrator, suborbital reusable launch vehicle (RLV), a vertical takeoff, vertical landing (VTVL) rocket,[1] built to support development and test of a subset of the technologies required for the SpaceX reusable rocket launching system.[2] Grasshopper was announced in 2011[3] and began low-altitude, low-velocity hover/landing testing in 2012. The initial Grasshopper test vehicle—the 32 metres (106 ft)-tall Grasshopper v1.0—made eight successful test flights in 2012 and 2013 before being retired. A second Grasshopper test vehicle—the larger and more capable Grasshoper v1.1—is currently being built and will be used for testing at higher altitudes and supersonic speeds.

Grasshopper is being developed and tested by Space Exploration Technologies (SpaceX) in order to assist development of the reusable Falcon 9 and reusable Falcon Heavy rockets, which will require vertical landings of the near-empty Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy first-stage booster tanks and engine assemblies.

Grasshopper is one element of the multi-element, incremental SpaceX reusable rocket launching system test program, a program that includes Grasshopper testing both in low-altitude, low-velocity situations at the SpaceX Texas test site and high-altitude, mid-velocity testing of the larger second-generation Grasshopper test vehicle with all nine engines at Spaceport America in New Mexico, as well as high-altitude, high-speed controlled-descent tests of post-mission (spent) Falcon 9 booster stages on Falcon 9 missions beginning in September 2013.
Grasshopper v1.1—also known as Falcon 9 Reusable (F9R) development vehicle[14] —was initially announced in October 2012, when SpaceX indicated that a second Grasshopper vehicle with fold-up landing legs would be built on the longer Falcon 9 v1.1 platform.[11]

In March 2013, it was announced that the v1.1 Grasshopper suborbital flight vehicle would be constructed out of the Falcon 9 v1.1 first-stage tank that had been used for qualification testing in Texas at the SpaceX Rocket Development and Test Facility prior to March. It was to be rebuilt as the next Grasshopper "with flight-like landing legs."[15] In May 2013, the design for the retractable landing leg was shown to be a telescoping piston on an A-frame. The total span of the four legs will be approximately 18 metres (60 ft), and the landing gear will weigh less than 2,100 kilograms (4,600 lb); the deployment system will use high-pressure Helium.[16]

Test plans call for the v1.1 Grasshopper to be high-altitude flight tested only at Spaceport America, New Mexico,[9] at altitudes up to approximately 91,000 metres (300,000 ft).[15] SpaceX began constructing a 30 by 30 metres (98 ft × 98 ft) pad at Spaceport America in May 2013, 7 kilometres (4.3 mi) southwest of the spaceport's main campus, and will lease the pad for US$6,600 per month plus US$25,000 per Grasshopper flight. As of May 2013, the spaceport administrator expected SpaceX to be operational at the Spaceport sometime between October 2013 and February 2014, and that is the time that the lease payments were expected to begin.[17]

In August 2013, SpaceX announced that the Grasshopper v1.1 test vehicle would fly in New Mexico with all nine engines of the fully loaded Falcon 9-R, whereas Grasshopper v1.0 had flown exclusively with only a single Merlin 1D engine in place, the center engine which is planned to be used to complete the last phase of the deceleration and landing.[18] The testing is expected to start in New Mexico only after low-altitude initial flight tests of the Grasshopper v1.1 are accomplished in Texas at the SpaceX Rocket Development and Test Facility, sometime after October 2013.[14]
A rocket is a missile, spacecraft, aircraft or other vehicle that obtains thrust from a rocket engine. Rocket engine exhaust is formed entirely from propellants carried within the rocket before use.[1] Rocket engines work by action and reaction. Rocket engines push rockets forward simply by throwing their exhaust backwards extremely fast.

While comparatively inefficient for low speed use, rockets are relatively lightweight and powerful, capable of generating large accelerations and of attaining extremely high speeds with reasonable efficiency. Rockets are not reliant on the atmosphere and work very well in space.

Rockets for military and recreational uses date back to at least 13th century China.[2] Significant scientific, interplanetary and industrial use did not occur until the 20th century, when rocketry was the enabling technology for the Space Age, including setting foot on the moon. Rockets are now used for fireworks, weaponry, ejection seats, launch vehicles for artificial satellites, human spaceflight, and space exploration.

Chemical rockets are the most common type of rocket[citation needed] and they typically create their exhaust by the combustion of rocket propellant.

CINEMATIC ASIDE!

Gravity is one bad-ass movie!

PWSP2.0 - The Last Best hope for REAL Space Solar Power is Japan's 2030 Project

2013-10-14T09:11:00.001-07:00

Written by Derek Markham for www.treehugger.com

Technology / Solar Technology

October 2, 2013

"For obvious reasons a nation surrounded by seawater, with NO native source of oil&gas, burnt for the next few decades by "old school nuclear energy" now turns to to stars to meet its long term energy needs "

- DRS Rant 10.14.13ASD567

On Earth, harvesting solar energy is limited to daylight hours, and is affected by weather conditions and the seasons of the year. But in space, those constraints don't apply, and space-based solar power could provide a continuous supply of clean, renewable energy, regardless of the time of year or any inclement weather on Earth.

In an effort to increase the options for supplying Japan with energy, their space agency, JAXA, is developing a method of harvesting solar energy from geostationary satellites sitting 36,000 km above the Earth, and transmitting it down to the planet's surface in the form of either laser beams or microwaves. The agency aims to launch a successful space-based solar power system by 2030, and is currently conducting ground-based experiments to determine the most effective way to transmit the energy across large distances.

"There are many technological challenges to solve before SSPS can be implemented. However, in principle, we are getting close to the stage where it is feasible, and we have just moved from the study phase to the technology demonstration phase. Researchers have started preparation for the world's first demonstration of 1kW-class wireless power transmission technology, and are aiming for practical use in the 2030s." - Yasuyuki Fukumuro, JAXA

FULL STORY : http://www.treehugger.com/solar-technology/japan-developing-space-based-solar-power-system.html

JAXA AGENCY OFFICIAL PAGE : http://www.jaxa.jp/article/interview/vol53/p2_e.html

PWSP 1.5 :Super Commercial Spaceflight Sunday! Spacex launches from Vandenberg & Orbital docs with ISS

2013-09-29T13:43:00.001-07:00

SpaceX succeeded in launching a new version of its Falcon 9 rocket today, its first launch from Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. It was the second of three significant space events planned today -- the successful berthing of Orbital Sciences Corporation's Cygnus spacecraft this morning and the upcoming return-to-flight of Russia's Proton-M rocket later this afternoon (all times Eastern Daylight Time).

VIDEOS

Full Orbital Resupply & Doc - NASA TV - 4 hours

....

Spacex Falcon 9 1.1 Vandenberg Launch

The Falcon 9 v1.1 lifted off on time at 12:00 noon EDT (9:00 am Pacific) placing the Canadian Space Agency's Cassiope scientific satellite and five smaller satellites into orbit. The launch had been delayed from ealrier in the month to allow additional engine tests. This was a first for the company in many respects -- the first launch from the west coast, the first launch for a customer other than NASA, the first launch of this version of the Falcon 9 (which has a fairing), and the first time a Falcon 9 first stage engine was reignited in flight (after separating from the rest of the rocket). The last task was part of a test related to SpaceX's long term goal of developing a reusable rocket.

SpaceX gained fame as the first successful "commercial cargo" company, developing the Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft to take cargo to the International Space Station (ISS) as part of NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program.

Under COTS, NASA has been providing most, but not all, of the funding for two companies to develop their own space transportation systems using Space Act Agreements instead of traditional government contracts. The idea is that in the long run, competition and the atypical procurement approach will mean lower costs to NASA and other customers for launch services. COTS began in 2006 under the George W. Bush Administration while Mike Griffin was NASA Administrator and was embraced by the Obama Administration.

SpaceX's COTS competitor, Orbital Sciences Corporation, scored its own first this morning with its Cygnus spacecraft successfully being berthed to the ISS. The Cygnus berthing is part of Orbital's demonstration mission for the COTS program. Cygnus will remain attached to ISS until the end of October and then will make a destructive reentry. Orbital is expected to launch its first operational cargo mission to ISS later this year.

Full Story : http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/spacex-scores-second-success-on-space-super-sunday