The Space Movement

NSS, India to Launch Space-Based Solar Power Initiative

2010-11-01T17:59:00.001-07:00

NSS, India to Launch Space-Based Solar Power Initiative

The National Space Society will hold a press conference Thursday, November 4 at the National Press Club to reveal one of the first initiatives ever undertaken by a non-profit American organization and a former head of state. That initiative pairs India’s eleventh President, Dr. A.P.J. Kalam with America’s National Space Society. Its name? The Kalam-NSS Energy Initiative.

The Kalam-NSS Energy Initiative’s goals? To solve the global energy crisis. To solve the global carbon crisis. And to solve America’s next generation jobs crisis. How? By harvesting solar power in space.

National Space Society Announces the Kalam-NSS Energy Initiative

Join Elon Musk For an Elegant Evening at The Rocket Factory

2010-10-09T03:44:00.000-07:00

Join Elon Musk For an Elegant Evening at The Rocket Factory

Celebrate Freedom & Technology

at a fundraiser for

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher

Monday, October 11th

7:30 p.m.

Space Exploration Technologies

1 Rocket Road

Hawthorne, CA 90250

(Near LAX)

Catering by Wolfgang Puck

Host: $2,000 NRCC contribution

Guest: $1,000 campaign contribution

Contact: Rhonda Rohrabacher

rhonda@rohrabacher.com

714-655-9420

Invite PDF

Keep Space Only for Governments says the India Times

2010-09-18T08:56:00.000-07:00

This is no joyride in The Times of India.

Manned space missions should only be carried out by agencies and professionals whose job it is to study space. It is only they who clearly understand the risks involved. Governments have a moral responsibility to protect their citizens from businesses that have no qualms about selling a potentially hazardous product.

There are several major problems with the proposition in this article. First, saying space should be left to the government is as ridiculous as saying the sea, land or air should be left to the government. Except that the area of space and the resources in space dwarf those of the sea, land and air combined.

Second, government funded space activity is big, expensive and dangerous because engineering decisions are made for political reasons. Government funded space has become a self justifying jobs program which is not required to actually produce anything and is not designed to actually do so. After 50 years of government funded manned space activity nothing has been done to actually settle and develop space. Not only do we not have Moon bases and space solar power satellites which we could have had if governments had made other choices. Humans have never even grown food in space and cooked it. What could be more basic to settlement, but no government funded manned space program has tried it. I am sure the private companies are planning to once they build permanent structures in space, since plants and animals naturally recycle carbon dioxide and other wastes produced by living humans, in recycling they naturally produce oxygen and food. With launch cost in the thousands of dollars a pound recycling in space is an obvious way to cut costs drastically. Unfortunately governments have never shown real interests in doing so since they are only interested in short term stays of small numbers of people in space.

Third, government has no moral responsibility at all. Government only have responsibility since it insists on taking our resources, government has the responsibility to use those resources for our benefit. Government should never attempt to protect citizens from themselves beyond providing information so they understand the dangers of choices.

Forth, Life without risk is not life. Many in the space movement would rather spend ten minutes in zero-gee or with their feet in Lunar or Martian soil then a millennium stuck on Earth. They have the right to spend their money to do that if they choose. It is their money and their life.

Fifth, The India Times seems unaware that the globe has a capitalist economic system. Even Castro has said communism doesn't work. To limit space to the government would assure that space would never be developed and we will never benefit from the vast resources in space.

Using the dangers and expense of government space activity caused by politicians doing engineering for political purposes such as creating jobs in the right congressional districts to justify keeping space only for governments is the most absurd proposition I have ever seen.

Don't let Pork decide NASA's future

2010-09-10T18:54:00.000-07:00

Freeman Dyson: Congress Should Reject H.R. 5781

2010-09-10T07:27:00.000-07:00

Freeman Dyson: Congress Should Reject H.R. 5781, Choose “Right Side of History”

The present House bill will delay the time when space can make a greater contribution to our national welfare. The most useful thing this Congress can do to lower the cost of launch is to create a market for space transportation services. The Kelly Act of 1925, which contracted for private air mail delivery, is a successful example. A consequence of the Kelly Act was the development of the DC-3. As students of history note, the commercial DC-3 ( re-designated the C-47) was an important element in winning WWII.

NASA Scientists Talk About Asteroids Passing Near Earth Wednesday

2010-09-07T13:27:00.000-07:00

MEDIA ADVISORY : M10-128

NASA Scientists Talk About Asteroids Passing Near Earth Wednesday

WASHINGTON -- Two asteroids will pass within the moon's distance from Earth on Wednesday, Sept. 8. NASA scientists will be available for satellite interviews Tuesday, Sept. 7, and Wednesday morning to discuss these near- Earth objects.

The Catalina Sky Survey near Tucson, Ariz., discovered both objects on Sunday, Sept. 5. The Minor Planet Center in Cambridge, Mass., reviewed the observations and determined the preliminary orbits. The center's personnel concluded both objects would pass within the distance of the moon to Earth, approximately 240,000 miles. The asteroids should be visible with moderate-sized amateur telescopes.

Neither asteroid will hit Earth. Asteroid 2010 RX30 is estimated to be approximately 32 to 65 feet in size and will pass within approximately 154,000 miles of Earth at 5:51 a.m. EDT Wednesday. The second object, 2010 RF12, estimated to be 20 to 46 feet in size, will pass within approximately 49,000 miles at 5:12 p.m. EDT.

Moon 2.0: Join the Revolution

2010-09-04T20:12:00.000-07:00

An Open Letter to President Obama

2010-09-03T17:56:00.000-07:00

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear President Obama,

Your words are visionary but they are not being followed with action by the agencies in your administration. Three agencies in your administration are unwilling to even acknowledge a promising alternative energy source, space solar power. The concept of space solar power has been around for 40 years. Space solar power is the concept of putting large solar collectors in Earth orbit, using wireless power transmission, either microwaves or lasers, to transmit the power to customers on the Earth. This is a truly revolutionary clean source of energy which could be used to obtain nearly limitless amounts of clean, greenhouse gas free power, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week which could easily be exported. Yet space solar power has only gotten a total of $80 million of funding from the US government since the 1970's, none of it in the last decade. The Europeans and Japanese are working on space solar power. The Japanese committing $21 billion to the technology. The Russians, Chinese, and Arabs are also interested in space solar power.

In your speech on June 15, 2010 remarks to the nation on the BP oil spill: "The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash American innovation and seize control of our own destiny. This is not some distant vision for America. ... Scientists and researchers are discovering clean energy technologies that will someday lead to entire new industries." Yet agencies in your administration are ignoring space solar power, a concept which has only waiting for government attention and commitment to become a new vast new industry which will create millions of jobs, and bring America back to being energy independent and an energy exporter again.

In your April 15th speech at NASA's Kennedy Space Center you said "We will invest in cutting-edge research and technology. We will set far-reaching milestones and provide the resources to reach those milestones." Yet NASA is not investing in a space technology which will push the boundaries of energy technology. NASA's goal should be to become relevant to America's needs. NASA's goal should be to use space and space resources to make the United States not only energy independent, but an energy exporter again. NASA knows space solar power can do this but has chosen a different path for decades.

In your Transparency and Open Government Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies, you called for the US government to become transparent, participatory and collaborative. Yet NASA, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Department of Energy are ignoring the results of the Open Government Ideascale. The most popular idea for all of government, for NASA, the Office of Science and Technology Policy and for the Department of Energy-."Space Solar Power Conference - Hold a conference on space solar power which brings together NASA, the Department of Energy, The Department of Commerce, University researchers as well as corporations such as Solaren, PowerSat, Space Energy, Space Island Group, Boeing etc. Also inviting the Japanese, European, Russians and Canadians who are who are working on Space Solar power. The conference would develop ideas on how best to bring this technology to reality. Space solar power offers unlimited, green, base load power. It is now time to turn this futuristic concept into reality with NASA in the lead." Despite the popularity of this idea with the public nothing is being done.

Unfortunately in the United States, Space Solar Power has a policy dilemma, The Department of Energy considers space solar power to be space not energy and NASA considers space solar power to be energy not space. Although NASA is working on biofuels which are clearly energy and not aeronautics or space and the Department of Energy has worked on nuclear power for space applications which is clearly space. The Department of Defense would like space solar power since to would greatly reduce fuel truck causalities but space solar power is definitely not in their mandate. Also the DOD is developing lasers and microwaves for military use so they can not be involved in a civilian program to develop wireless power transmission. Space Solar Power has to fall in some agencies mandate.

As President of the United States your words automatically become national policy, yet your agencies are not following your lead. You have called for the development of clean energy technologies which create new industries yet your agencies will not fund development of space solar power. You have called for agencies to push the boundaries of technology yet the Department of Energy, NASA and the Office of Science and Technology Policy are unwilling. You have called for participatory and collaborative government yet your agencies remain closed to new ideas pushed by the public despite there popularity. Mr. President, please direct you agencies to hold the interagency conference on space solar power, proclaim that one agency is responsible for developing space solar power, and direct funds for space solar power research and development, such as, an end to end systems study, lab work, flight tests and tests from the International Space Station, followed by a space solar power pilot plant able to generate power in the megawatt range. Now is the time for the United States to seize the day and develop space solar power and secure our future freedom and prosperity.

Karen Cramer Shea
Publisher
Space Solar Power Information Service

How Far Have We Fallen?

2010-09-03T11:21:00.000-07:00

How far have we fallen in terms of exploration when NASA's Newest Exploration Analog is miners trapped in a cave? How about we explore by studying people in prison?

Defeating the Homers, Haters and Boomers

2010-08-26T22:07:00.000-07:00

Defeating the Homers, Haters and Boomers by Bob Werb for the Space Frontier Foundation.

A friend of ours in DC describes the opposition to the proposed NASA budget as the “homers, haters and boomers.” The homers want as much federal spending as possible in their home state or district. The haters reflexively oppose anything at all that comes out of an Administration they despise. The boomers are nostalgic for the 60s and want to recreate the imagined glories of Apollo. Some of our most vigorous opponents affiliate with two, or even three of these disjointed fellowships (as do many on the other side.)

But the real enemy of progress in civil space is a dramatically more insidious opponent that infects the body politic, an adversary so sinister and commonplace that we have come to take it for granted, the corrosive background noise of democracy. Our real enemy is apathy.

Jim Muncy at New Space

2010-07-28T11:11:00.000-07:00

NewSpace 2010: NewSpace Today

NewSpace Today
Introduction to the NewSpace 2010 Conference: Where does the NewSpace industry currently stand and where is it likely to go in the future? Speaker: Jim Muncy Co-Founder, Space Frontier Foundation, President, PoliSpace

Insanity in the Senate

2010-07-19T10:36:00.000-07:00

"Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Albert Einstein. By this definition the Senate Commerce, Science and Space Committee is insane for pushing NASA to immediately build a Shuttle Derived Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle because it will require the use of the Solid Rocket Motors. Solid Rocket Motors cost the lives of the Challenger Astronauts.

NASA Press Conference

Congressional Bill Calls for Commission on Planetary Defense

2010-07-11T12:52:00.000-07:00

Congressional Bill Calls for Commission on Planetary Defense

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (Republican from California) has introduced a bill calling for the establishment of a United States Commission on Planetary Defense. Such a group would offer guidance, among a list of tasks, on neutralizing a Near Earth Object (NEO) that may have cross-hairs on our home planet.

Space Manufacturing 14 Call for Papers

2010-07-11T12:45:00.000-07:00

Space Manufacturing 14: Critical Technologies for Space Settlement will be held at NASA Ames Conference Center in Mountain View, CA, October 30 and 31, 2010.

Thirty five years ago, NASA Ames Research Center was the site of the first large technical study of space settlement. We have made significant progress since then, but with the prospect of low cost space transportation in the near future, now is the time to reinvigorate research and collaboration on the critical path technologies needed for space industrialization and settlement. The 14th Space Studies Institute conference on Space Manufacturing continues in the spirit of the Princeton Conferences initiated by Prof. Gerard K O’Neill in 1974.

The Space Manufacturing and Space Settlement Conferences have always given SSI great value. This conference is the only one solely concerned with the science and engineering of humanity’s expansion into the solar system. Its most important function is to bring together the engineers, entrepreneurs and researchers who do the real work. New space companies and new institutions have formed from collaborations forged at earlier conferences. We hope that this and future annual SSI conferences will be as fruitful.

The specific purpose of Space Manufacturing 14 is to identify and recommend critical hardware research that can be conducted now by SSI, NASA and other organizations.

To focus and facilitate discussion, all papers must conform to the following baseline assumptions:

Must be focused on Research and Hardware Demonstrations; Legal Session requests must be focused on Research and Scholarly Analysis.

Sessions and Preliminary Schedule are as follows:

Saturday, October 30, 2010

javascript:void(0)
Session 1: Space Transportation Architecture

Session Chair: Gary C Hudson

9:30-11:00am

Session 2: Closed Environment Life Support Systems

Session Chair: Taber McCallum

11:00am – 12:30pm

Session 3: Robotics and Space Manufacturing

Session Chair: Professor William (Red) Whittaker

2-3:30pm

Session 4: Extraterrestrial Prospecting

Session Chair: Professor Michael F. A’Hearn

3:30-5pm

Sunday, October 31, 2010

Session 5: Engineering Materials from Non-Terrestrial Resources

Session Chair: Dr. Peter J. Schubert

9:30-11:00am

Session 6: Space Solar Power and Space Energy Systems

Session Chair: Dr. Philip K. Chapman

11:00am – 12:30pm

Session 7: International, Legal and Economic Considerations

Session Chair: James E. Dunstan, Esq.

2-3:30pm

Abstract submissions shall be:

No longer than 1000 words, and provide an outline of a presentation on research and hardware demonstrations and scholarly analysis (for legal) and a brief biography of the presenter (not to be counted as part of the 1000 word limit).

Submitted on or before August 16, 2010 by email to Colette Christiansen atabstracts2010@ssi.org, indicating for which session the paper is proposed.

Selected abstracts will be based on compliance with the baseline assumptions and likelihood to promote discussion during the sessions. Authors of selected papers will be notified by August 23, 2010.

All papers: Authors retain copyright of their works. SSI will have non exclusive publication rights for SSI; appearance release for video archives; and presentation publication rights (non exclusive to SSI). Final agenda expected to be published September 1, 2010.

Final Papers must be submitted within 14 days of the close of the conference (November 14, 2010) and shall be between 5 and 10 (electronic) pages when published. Publication guidelines will be sent to all invited and selected presenters.

For more information on abstracts, contact Colette Christiansen, Conference Director, at the submission email address (abstracts2010@ssi.org) or write to Space Manufacturing 14, Space Studies Institute, 1434 Flightline Street, Mojave, CA 93501.

Session chairs and presenters will be comped for registration (including lunch). Public registration for the conference will open in July.

NASA Has Been A Foreign Policy Agency For Decades

2010-07-07T03:39:00.000-07:00

There has been a lot of recent criticism of NASA Administrator Bolden for saying one of NASA's priorities was outreach to Muslim countries, but NASA has a long history as a foreign policy agency. Apollo was nuclear war by other means. Apollo-Soyuz turned NASA from international competition to international cooperation. Which was continued by the International Space Station which used foreign policy to justify its existence. Bolden's comments are a sign of how far NASA has fallen from greatness but are not surprising.

International cooperation is incompatible with American dominance of space. American dominance of space should be NASA's main goal. Since the US proclaimed we came in peace for all mankind instead of claiming a chuck of territory around the Apollo 11 landing site, the US has been to timid to dominate space. Instead the US slunk into the safety of international cooperation.

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Final Report (2010) NRC

2010-06-30T11:27:00.000-07:00

Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies: Final Report (2010)

Summary

The United States spends approximately four million dollars each year searching for near-Earth objects (NEOs). The objective is to detect those that may collide with Earth. The majority of this funding supports the operation of several observatories that scan the sky searching for NEOs. This, however, is insufficient in detecting the majority of NEOs that may present a tangible threat to humanity. A significantly smaller amount of funding supports ways to protect the Earth from such a potential collision or "mitigation."

In 2005, a Congressional mandate called for NASA to detect 90 percent of NEOs with diameters of 140 meters of greater by 2020. Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies identifies the need for detection of objects as small as 30 to 50 meters as these can be highly destructive. The book explores four main types of mitigation including civil defense, "slow push" or "pull" methods, kinetic impactors and nuclear explosions. It also asserts that responding effectively to hazards posed by NEOs requires national and international cooperation. Defending Planet Earth: Near-Earth Object Surveys and Hazard Mitigation Strategies is a useful guide for scientists, astronomers, policy makers and engineers.

Up

2010-06-30T11:15:00.000-07:00

For immediate release

contact: JP Marin, jpmarin@howardbloom.net

Space Development Steering Committee 718 622 2278

In the 19^th century, America redefined the global economy by opening a new frontier, a new landscape of real estate, resources, and opportunities. That American advance ended famine in Europe by giving the world the grain harvests of the Midwest. And some of the frontier real estate that seemed wildly overpriced at 80 cents an acre in 1836 is now worth over $12 million.

In the wake of the Great Recession of 2008, it’s time for America to pioneer again. This time by opening vast new landscapes not just to humanity, but to biomass, to ecosystems, and to the grand experiment of life.

In the shadow of the Chinese Century, one technology in which America continues to lead the world is access to space. Let’s use that technology to make the next great economic leap. Not just for ourselves, but for all humanity.

REPLACE OIL WITH SPACE SOLAR TECHNOLOGY, SAYS S.R.I.

2010-06-24T04:37:00.000-07:00

International, June 24, 2010 – In light of the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, The Space Renaissance Initiative (SRI) recommends that energy companies follow the courageus “Beyond Petroleum” address of a few years ago, and drill up, not down. Rather than risk further disasters as nations desperately drill for diminishing oil, SRI calls upon the leaders of the G20 to support the research and development of Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) as the energy of the future.

Rick Tumlinson, president of Space Frontier, and member of the Space Renaissance Initiative Board, says “For less than the cost of one offshore platform—and far, far less than the cost of the clean up of this disaster—we could build and operate the first tests of a space based power satellite.”

In fact, companies in Japan, Europe, and the USA have declared their intention to build a solar power station in space and beam that energy to Earth. However, the intention has not yet become realized. SRI recommends public-private partnerships between G20 governments and companies who want to grow their businesses above the atmosphere, where the Sun never sets.

“When this is accomplished, the world can access an unlimited energy supply that by-passes the need for oil; synergizing with the borning Space Tourism industry, SBSP will boost the greatest economic revolution of all times”, says Adriano Autino, President of the Space Renaissance Initiative.

Space Based Solar Power (SBSP) was first proposed by Dr Peter Glaser in 1968 and promoted in 1976 by Professor Gerard K. O'Neill of Princeton, who also proposed to use Lunar raw materials for building solar power satellites, to supply global energy markets.

SRI sees the positive benefits of SBSP and its enormous spin-off technology potentials as a gamechanging human endeavour for achieving this goal, and for transforming our earth-bound, oildependent economy into a space-faring solar economy.

About the Space Renaissance Initiative:

SRI is an international organization that has the support of 73 space-related organisations, such as: The Moon Society (USA), Next Gen Expo (USA), Centro Italiano Ricerche Aerospaziali (Italy), Advanced Technology Working Group (USA), SpaceFuture (UK, Japan), Technologies of the Frontier (Italy). SRI exists to promote the completion of the kopernican revolution: venturing out to space will assure the survival and the further growth of our civilization.

Contact:

Adriano Autino

Via Borgomasino 25/A 13040 Moncrivello (VC) Italia

+39 335 8244435

or

Peter Wainwright / Carol Pinchefsky

240 West 73rd St. #1201, New York, NY 10023 USA

+1 212 5802556

Open Letter To Congress On Commercial Space

2010-06-22T08:50:00.000-07:00

Open Letter To Congress On Commercial Space

Dear Members of Congress:

We, the undersigned space leaders, are strong supporters of human spaceflight. We are writing to urge you to both (1) fully fund the commercial crew to Space Station program proposed in the President's FY2011 budget request for NASA, and (2) accelerate the pace and funding of NASA's human space exploration projects beyond Earth orbit.

These twin pillars of human spaceflight are each crucial to the long-term health of our Nation's space program. They are also interdependent.

And they will together generate thousands of high tech U.S. jobs for people in multiple states, including Florida, Alabama, Texas, California, Nevada, Virginia, Colorado, New Mexico, and Maryland.

Among us are over 50 space leaders--former NASA executives and advisors, former astronauts, CEOs of firms large and small, a former FAA Associate Administrator, space scientists, space journalists, and others. We are a diverse group, but we are only a handful of the Nation's citizens who support U.S. leadership in human space flight in general, and the development of commercial human spaceflight in particular.

We specifically wish to express our concern that the commercial crew to Space Station program is sometimes seen as optional or too risky to America's future in space, but nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the commercial crew to Space Station program is a fundamental enabler of NASA's human space exploration beyond Earth orbit, specifically because it will free up the NASA dollars needed to develop deep space transportation and exploration systems for astronauts.

Moreover, a commercial crew to Station transportation system, involving multiple separate space lines as the President has proposed, is more robust than a single-legged transportation plan, whether domestic or foreign.

For these reasons and others, we fully and enthusiastically support both full funding for the commercial crew to Space Station program and also the acceleration of exploration beyond Earth orbit, as the top two priorities within NASA's human spaceflight budget.

Together, these two efforts will also:

Provide an affordable and fast way to close the current post-Shuttle gap in indigenous U.S. human orbital spaceflight capability, by using launch vehicles that already exist.
Provide a safe and robust future transportation network to low Earth orbit and beyond for U.S. astronauts. Ensure that our dependence on foreign human launch capabilities is reduced quickly and economically.
Reduce space access costs and enhance our national security industrial base.
Allow NASA to better focus on accelerating space exploration and the development of its enabling technologies.
Excite young Americans to careers in science, engineering, and technology.
Stimulate the private sector economy and the development of space commerce over in a dramatic way, by catalyzing other U.S. space interests such as space tourism and the operation of private in-space research facilities.
Excite entrepreneurs to envision and then give birth to new commercial services and capabilities in space, further stimulating the Nation's economy. Others have said that one of the greatest fears of any generation is not leaving things better for the young people of the next generation. We agree with this.

Therefore we reiterate that the near term development of commercial human spaceflight and a clearly defined program of human exploration beyond Earth orbit are both essential. Without either, our Nation's leadership in space will significantly suffer.

We urge you to make these two goals your highest priorities within NASA's FY2011 budget for human spaceflight.

Sincerely,

The undersigned, listed alphabetically

Mr. Bretton Alexander

President, Commercial Spaceflight Federation

Washington, D.C.

Mr. Eric Anderson

President and CEO, Space Adventures

Vienna, Virginia

Dr. Daniel N. Baker

Director, Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics, University of Colorado

Boulder, Colorado

Dr. Jim Bell

Professor, Planetary Scientist, and Member of the Mars Exploration Rover team, Cornell University

Ithaca, New York

Capt. Ken Bowersox, Ret.

Former NASA Astronaut, and Vice President of Mission Assurance & Astronaut Safety, Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

Hawthorne, California

Mr. Chad Brinkley

President, DCI Services and Consulting

Houston, Texas

Ms. Heather Bulk

President and CEO, Special Aerospace Services

Boulder, Colorado

Mr. John Carmack

President and CEO, Armadillo Aerospace

Caddo Mills, Texas

Dr. Peter Diamandis

Chairman and CEO, X-Prize Foundation

Playa Vista, California

Mr. Frank DiBello

President and CEO, Space Florida

Kennedy Space Center, Florida

Dr. Michael Drake

Head, Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona

Tucson, Arizona

Mr. Art Dula

CEO, Excalibur Almaz

Houston, Texas

Ms. Esther Dyson

Principal, EDyson Ventures

New York, New York

Mr. Edward Ellegood

Director of Aerospace Development, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University

Daytona Beach, Florida

Dr. Robert Farquhar

Senior Mission Designer, KinetX Corp.

Fairfax, Virginia

Mr. Jeff Feige

CEO, Orbital Outfitters

Los Angeles, California

Mr. Jim Foreman

President, Blue Smoke LLC

Houston, Texas

Dr. Owen Garriott

Former NASA Astronaut, and Aerospace Consultant

Huntsville, Alabama

Mr. Richard Garriott

Commercial Astronaut

Austin, Texas

Mr. Jeffrey Greason

CEO, XCOR Aerospace

Mojave, California

Dr. Jeffrey Hoffman

Former NASA Astronaut, and MIT professor

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Mr. Richard Homans

Executive Director, New Mexico Spaceport

Las Cruces, New Mexico

Dr. Scott Hubbard

Former Director of NASA Ames, and Professor

San Francisco, California

Mr. Michael Joyce

President, Next Giant Leap LLC

Boulder, Colorado

Mr. Dale Ketcham

Director, Spaceport Research & Technology Institute

Meritt Island, Florida

Mr. Jim Kennedy

Former Director, NASA Kennedy Space Center

Cocoa Beach, Florida

Mr. Glenn King

Chief Operating Officer, NASTAR; Pennsylvania

Southampton, Pennsylvania

Mr. Bill Khourie

Executive Director, Oklahoma Space Industry Development Authority, Oklahoma Spaceport

Burns Flat, Oklahoma

Dr. Byron Lichtenberg

Former NASA Astronaut

Houston, Texas

Mr. Todd Lindner

Director, Cecil Field Spaceport, Jacksonville Aviation Authority

Jacksonville, Florida

Dr. John Logsdon

Founder, Space Policy Institute, George Washington University.

Washington, D.C.

Lt. Col. J. Mike Lounge, Ret.

Former Astronaut, and President, Cisneros Innovation Strategies

Houston, Texas

Dr. Stephen Mackwell

Director, Lunar and Planetary Institute

Houston, Texas

Mr. David Masten

CEO, Masten Space Systems Inc.

Mojave, California

Mr. Bill Mitchell

CEO, Environmental Tectonics Corporation

Southampton, Pennsylvania

Mr. James A.M. Muncy

Co-Founder, Space Frontier Foundation

Alexandria, Virginia

Dr. John Muratore

Former Space Shuttle Flight Director and University of Tennessee Space Institute

Tullahoma, Tennessee

Mr. Elon Musk

CEO and CTO, Space Exploration Technologies Corp.

Hawthorne, California

Mr. Miles O'Brien

Aerospace Journalist, and Managing Editor of "This Week in Space"

New York, New York

Mr. Rich Phillips

President, Phillips & Company

Austin, Texas

Mr. Joseph E. Palaia, IV

Manager, NewSpace Center, and Vice President, 4Frontiers Corp.

New Port Richey, Florida

Mr. Brian Rishikof

CEO, Odyssey Space Research

Houston, Texas

Dr. Rusty Schweickart

Former NASA Astronaut, and Aerospace Consultant

Los Angeles, California

Col. Richard Searfoss, Ret.

Former NASA Astronaut, and Chief Test Pilot, XCOR Aerospace

Mojave, California

Mr. Frank Sietzen, Jr.

Author, and Former Editor in Chief of Ad Astra Magazine of the National Space Society

Arlington, Virginia

Mr. Mark Sirangelo

Chairman, Sierra Nevada Corporation Space Systems, and Chairman of the Board, Commercial Spaceflight Federation

Lousville, Colorado

Mr. Frederick A. Slane

Executive Director, Space Infrastructure Foundation, Inc.

Colorado Springs, Colorado

Ms. Linda Kenny Sloan

President, Information Universe

Carson, California

Ms. Patti Grace Smith

Former FAA Associate Administrator, and Aerospace Consultant

Washington, D.C.

Mr. John Spencer

Founder and President, Space Tourism Society

Los Angeles, California

Dr. Alan Stern

Former NASA Associate Administrator for Science, and Aerospace Consultant

Niwot, Colorado

Dr. Frederick A. Tarantino

President ad CEO, Universities Space Research Association

Columbia, Maryland

Mr. Rick N. Tumlinson,

Co-founder, Space Frontier Foundation

Toluca Lake, California

Col. Jim Voss, Ret.

Former NASA Astronaut, and Director of Advanced Programs, Sierra Nevada Corporation Space Systems

Louisville, Colorado

Mr. Robert W. Werb

Co-founder, Space Frontier Foundation

Nyack, New York

Mr. Stuart Witt

General Manager, Mojave Air and Space Port

Mojave, California

Drill up, not down, Mr. Obama

2010-06-22T08:46:00.000-07:00

contact: Space Development Steering Committee

JP Marin, 718 622 2278, jpmarin@howardbloom.net

This week the president of the United States, Barack Obama, will announce a new national space policy. If the president is smart, that space policy will be an energy policy. It will focus on solar power harvested in space.

Last week, in his June 15th Oval Office BP oil spill address, President Obama called for a destiny-changing clean energy program. Says Howard Bloom, head of the Space Development Steering Committee, a group that includes Buzz Aldrin, Edgar Mitchell, and members from NASA, the National Science Foundation, and the Department of Defense, “The answer is eight minutes above Mr. Obama’s head. Space.” Says Bloom, “Solar power harvested in space means jobs, economic recovery, power to the global poor, and a new American century. Space solar power can turn America from a billion dollar a day oil importer to a net energy exporter. Space solar power can be harvested 24/7 and transmitted directly to the cities and villages that need it, from America, Europe, India, and China to the electricity-deprived corners of Africa and Asia.”

Drill up, not down, Mr. Obama. Space solar power.

Bill Nye New Planetary Society Executive Director

2010-06-08T09:25:00.000-07:00

Bill Nye Signs on as Planetary Society's New Executive Director

Bill Nye the Science Guy® will take the helm as the new Executive Director of the Planetary Society. Louis Friedman, co-founder and Executive Director since the organization began 30 years ago, is stepping down in September, 2010, but will remain closely involved with the non-profit space group, continuing to direct its solar sail project -- Lightsail-1 -- and other Planetary Society initiatives.

Unspillable

2010-06-06T07:10:00.000-07:00

Space Solar Power means no more energy wars, and no more dependence on foreign oil. It means a new economy, new jobs power to global poor, a new American future.

Space solar is fives times the power of Earth Based solar, is available 24/7, and no nation can hoard it. We can begin beaming energy back from space as soon as 2016.

The World can't wait any longer. Goggle Search: SPACE SOLAR

Spudis and Zubrin Don't Understand The Problem with NASA

2010-06-01T09:57:00.000-07:00

SPUDIS & ZUBRIN: NASA's mission to nowhere Big, fat, pointless and expensive describes plan to twiddle our fingers By Paul D. Spudis and Robert Zubrin Monday, May 31, 2010 for The Washington Times.

It is shocking that Dr. Paul Spudis and Dr. Robert Zubrin are fighting so hard for a program which will only delay their dreams, as long as it exists. The Vision for Space Exploration at first seemed a miracle, that NASA had finally seen the light but it soon became corrupted by shuttle culture. The Vision soon lost all talk of permanence, and insitu resource utilization and developed into a jobs program which used the Moon and Mars as an excuse for continuation of the shuttle architecture with its extraordinarily high costs because of its standing army. The dependence of the shuttle architecture on it standing army justifies its existence while assuring neither the Moon or Mars will ever be developed due to so the extremely high costs of continuing to maintain the standing army.

Jobs programs are by definition more expensive then the alternative which isn't a jobs program. Jobs programs will also always be expensive. The reason launch costs are high is that launch is a jobs program. High launch costs are the main reason we have not developed space. Space development requires space commerce and high launch costs assure there will be no space commerce.

The root of the problem with NASA today lies way back before the Apollo 11 Moon Landing when NASA used the funds to Maintain THE Saturn 5 ASSEMBLY LINE to do the INITIAL DESIGN STUDIES FOR THE SPACE SHUTTLE. Let me emphasize, NASA traded the capability to build any more Saturn 5 rockets for the first study into building the Space Shuttle BEFORE WE LANDED ON THE MOON. That meant they bet the entire future of human space flight on making the shuttle work when they hadn't yet done a design study and assured that the path of lunar development and Mars, after Apollo was not an option.

NASA lost that bet. The US has paid for it for forty years with high launch costs since the shuttle costs more per pound to launch than the Saturn 5. We paid for it the lives of 14 Astronauts.100% of US casualties in space were shuttle accidents directly caused by that decision. We have paid for it with 40 years of being stuck on the road to space development. Far worse the shuttle has poisoned th whole US National System of Innovation. By teaching several generations of engineers and scientists to compromise, lower expectations and avoid truth.

It used to be that "Good is the Enemy of the Best" meant don't settle for a good solution go for the best solution, but in the shuttle Era this has developed into meaning go for the good solution because the best solution costs too much. In reality the best rarely means the most expensive since cost should always be part of the calculus and the best usually is far cheaper over the long run. To build the shuttle NASA developed a culture of compromise- political compromises, compromises with safety, compromises with the truth.

It used to be that we expected progress, that each generation would live better than the last. But now we are barely hanging on as a nation. We are falling behind. NASA has convinced the US it is doing, hard stuff but that is only because it is doing everything the hard way. Instead of bringing the US the vast resources of space, NASA, has been puttering around in Low Earth Orbit for decades.

NASA has devolved to the point where a conference is considered infeasible and unpractical. The following line is from the NASA Open Government Plan Appendix, discussion of the Ideascale results, it most likely refers to the idea of having and Interagency Conference on Space Solar Power which was the most popular idea for NASA as well as the US Government as a whole on Ideascale, "Some of the ideas submitted to the site were infeasible or otherwise unpractical for NASA to address, yet received a high number of votes." A conference on any subject should not be considered infeasible and unpractical. If the sentence refers to Space Solar Power it really shows the lowering of expectations because the NASA of the 1970's didn't consider space Solar Power to be infeasible or impractical. In the 1970's space solar power seemed the natural next step which would be taken by the commercial energy sector, as soon as the shuttle was flying, the promised 50 flights a year.

The unfortunately truth is that each space shuttle turned out to be only capable of 2 flights a year each at enormous cost and considerable danger. So right now space solar power may be infeasible and impractical because launch capabilities have dropped so much and launch costs rose so high. Space solar power wasn't infeasible and impractical when the US still had a Saturn 5 Assembly line. Instead of being dependent on terrorists and polluter for our energy which we send billions abroad for every month, the US could have been not only energy independent but an energy exporter. We could have pulled our troops home and not worried about Iraq, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Instead we have been fighting oil wars. We could have been free from foreign debt and foreign entanglements, beaming terrawatts clean solar of power down from space 24 hours a day, as much as we could sell. Science fiction? No, the truth is this is the path not taken because of NASA's choice to gut the Saturn 5 assembly line for the money to study the possibility of building a shuttle.

It used to be that truth was valued above all else in the US science and technology community but decades of the best funded civilian technical agency claiming to be making progress in space, when they obviously are not and using draconian means to assure compliance with the party line have severely diminished the value of truth and reality in our National System of Innovation. As a result scientific studies are often questioned for good reason as science is warped to say whatever researchers like and the technological community stands for it because they have been trained pointing out that the powerful are misstating the truth can end your career.

The Obama space policy will end this culture and return us to a time when everything was on the table and experimentation, scientific evidence and truth determines our path forward. Rather than premature choice. The Obama Space Policy does not end human space flight it will open the door to a Renaissance of new space technology in many fields. New space technology which we desperately need for any of the numerous possible destinations and activities which can be done beyond low earth orbit. We need new launch technology, should it be reusable or heavy lift? We really need reusable heavy lift but which path takes us there? Only history will tell. So we should try them all, which is exactly the Obama plan. With the Obama plan we have SpaceX, Atlas, Delta and Orbital as well as other new launch technology development. As long as options are funded and allowed to experiment in a decade we will have an entirely new portfolio of launch technologies reflecting that we are now in the third Millennium rather than stuck in the third quarter of the last century.

The Obama plan also directs NASA to develop numerous other technologies which will make development of the Moon and Mars possible. The Vision for Space Exploration had devolved to the point that it never envisions settlement, simply flags and foot prints. The Obama plan will allow for real development of all of space. Our destination should be space development. we should let scientific evidence and business profits determine our path, not political considerations.

NASA Human Space Flight has headed down the wrong path for 40 years. The Obama Administration has called for a Bootleg Turn. A pause in US Human Space Flight is the price we have to pay for real space development. If the Obama plan survives in congress the US will be well on its way to both the Moon and Mars to stay. If Obama fails to change NASA's culture we will delay space development indefinitely.

Vote for the Interagency Space Solar Power Conference the NASA Open Gov Plan Ideascale

2010-05-25T11:09:00.000-07:00

The NASA Open Government Plan is now open for comment. Let NASA know how important space solar power is by going to this link and voting for the Interagency Space Solar Power Conference.

This was the most popular idea for the Federal Government as a whole, we can not let NASA forget that. We can not let space solar power slip through the cracks of government bureaucracy as the agencies play a game of "Not Mine" with our future.

OpenGovTracker.com is Back Up

2010-04-22T16:35:00.000-07:00

After 3 days of being down the Opengovtracker.com site is back up. This is important because this is the site showing that the Space Solar Power Conference was the most popular idea across the government.

I am not sure if its reappearance was a result of the petition drive or not.
Please sign the petition.
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/3/demand-action-on-base-load-solar-power