ACTION CHAIN LETTER 4:
MOON MINING/ELECTRICITY EARTH
Or, SUPPLEMENT to ACL 11
- - - Reader's Choice - - -
(Formerly titled: EXPLORATION and ENERGY)
by Richard DePersio (Preservatives Added)
Hours and hours (ad nauseam) of coverage to a British wedding and a
week later little coverage in memory of a late American hero and
the two national/historic events associated with him. Networks would
say: "We are giving people what they want." We can't believe
that Americans are that shallow. They would have forfeited
an hour or more of a prince for an Al. If you wouldn't or if
you don't know what we are talking about - you are shallow!!!
The recent announcement by LEXUS of a 3D Carbon Fiber Loom
which will make future cars stronger and lighter is most
disconcerting. Why? We saw numerous stories regarding
this major technological advance but they failed to mention
that Lexus is owned by the Japanese company, Toyota.
America went from being a minor industrial power in 1870
to being number three in 1900 and number one by 1920 - a
meteoric rise. By 1975, we were number one in virtually all
technological areas due in large part to the NASA of 1958-1970.
NASA's budget which rose throughout the 1960's due to
Moon Race plummeted (adjusting for inflation) since the
early '70's in parallel with America loosing its technological
edge in one area after another. While NASA is still the
main scientific/technological engine of our economy, it
isn't what it once was. We explained that NASA should
see its budget rise from $ 17 billion to 30 billion over 10
years and then frozen for 10 years except for a
full annual inflationary increase. While virtually all other
components of fed gov must be frozen in some cases
and reduced modestly or moderately or big time or
abolished to reduce $16 trillion debt by November. Why?
NASA's prime directive: Manned space flight. Collateral
benefits: NASA in you home, car, factory, office, farm,
hospital. NASA benefits fields ranging from astronomy
to electronics to medicine to microminiaturizing to
zoology. Presently, NASA receives one-half of 1% of
fed budget; for every $1 budgeted NASA, we get a $7
return in pure science and technology. Other gov
components are limited to one area and loose money.
NASA is unique.
We face an energy crisis. NASA can play a major
role in making America energy independent and
substantially reducing the cost of electricity. NASA to
the rescue. (Recently, we told you about a 27 year old
mother of three who was saved with a heart pump with parts
originally designed for manned space flight).
Here's how:
PROPOSAL 10:
Mining the Moon for Silicon and Helium-3 for the purpose
of taking a major step toward energy independence and generating
affordable energy while our demand for energy more
then doubles over the next two decades.
We have taken many factors into consideration in endorsing
these proposals, including, real climatology as opposed to
U.N.-Cattle Fart-Hockey Stick Pseudo-climatology.
It is extremely expensive and difficult to mine for silicon and Helium-3
on earth. The price tag might even be prohibitive on a massive
scale. Silicon is employed in producing solar cells for solar panels
which we want in earth orbit generating electricity. Helium-3 would
be used for fusion plants to generate electricity. We presently have fission
plants. Fusion plants would be less expensive, even safer and more
environmentally-friendly (for the benefit of Cattle-Farters) than fission plants.
Let's put the subject in perspective. Coal generates 15-20% as
much energy as put into the energy of mining and processing. Mining on
the moon is much less expensive because of lower gravity and no air
resistance. "Mass Drivers" powered by concentrated
sunlight would scrape helium-3 and silicon from the surface and would deliver the
material to earth (He-3) and orbit (silicon). It would cost only 5% to send
silicon from moon to earth orbit then it would from earth to earth orbit.
Such mining would retrieve 300x more energy from He-3 then put in, including,
the energy of going to the moon and shipping material to earth! Cost-effective:
It would be less expensive to use He-3 from moon than from earth in nuclear
fusion plants; it would be cheaper and more effective (above weather) to have
orbiting solar panel satellites as opposed to solar panel stations on earth.So,
Why did Obama cancel moon program? Same reason that he loaned Mexican
Oil to drill in Gulf of Mexico during moratorium on U.S. drilling, in spite of the
fact that they have much lower safety and environmental standards?
Air Force has been testing 'secret' unmanned X-37B which resembles a
space shuttle. A year ago, we were probably the first to propose placing
future operational version near GPSs in order to move them out
of harm's way in the event that an enemy fires a missiles at them
for the purpose of crippling our communications, especially, military.
Further, upgraded GPS should be housed in cargo bay ready to
replace aging GPS when it dies. Unmanned X-37B is more
maneuverable from ground than a regular satellite. In addition, we
proposed calling operational-version "Constitution" to drive libs crazy.
It is suspected that a manned version is in the works. A
declassified-version - notice: new, original proposal coming -
should be employed by NASA to construct framework for
solar energy collecting devices which would transmit
concentrated sunlight to earth for conversion to electricity.
Framework complete, it becomes a private sector endeavor.
Don't touch pristine moon. We'll get to it. Hold your farts.
It has been estimated that we will have fusion plants by 3030 give or take
3 years. NASA could truncate it to 2025 give or take 3 years.
PROPOSAL 11:
Not allowing $9 billion spent on NASA's "Constellation" Program go down
same presidential black hole as "stimulus package" and Fannie/Freddie.
Combine Orion/Ares 1 and Ares 5
heavy-lifter with nuclear thermal stage ( aka earth-transfer module to moon
and Mars) to be fired in low or high earth orbit with it doing double-duty as
cosmic ray shield for Orion. If booster rockets are necessary, we should go
with more expensive but safer liquid rather than solid fuel which would
enable astros or ground control to turn off boosters in an emergency;
you can't do that with solid - when ignited it must burn until spent.
We must keep in mind that we are recommending the use of
nuclear thermal stage would make rocket faster, more powerful and
less expensive. It would also require one or two chemical stages. Project
NERVA (1962-73) would have created a nuclear thermal stage by 1978
for proposed Mars mission - the Saturn 5 third stage would have
been replaced with a nuclear thermal stage and called Saturn S-N.
PROPOSAL 12:
We should have 5 moon missions - lasting 3 weeks at lunar equatorial
region, mission to lunar 'arctic' region for 5 weeks, flight to lunar 'antarctic'
circle for 7 weeks, visit to lunar
far side for 4 weeks with comsat in La grange orbit and a return to lunar
north for 3 months
during 2020-21. Four follow-up missions if warranted.
NASA would establish 3 moon bases where astronauts (Commander,
pilot, mission specialists - geologists, geophysicists, engineers,
astronomers) for stays of up to 3 months
with private company geologists, geophysicists, metallurgists, engineers
nearby. They would pay NASA to be flown to moon or pay private company.
They might be able to use water at poles to drink, separate out O to breath
and the H for nuclear thermal power plant and for propulsion. Living off the
land. Mining can't commence until area is thoroughly studied scientifically.
During that period, private company can determine
viability of site for mining. In the future, it would be in the financial interest
of a private company to do exploration prior to exploitation without NASA.
Pure science often leads to applied science or technology).
The Mars mission would employ the thermal nuclear stage a.k.a. earth
transfer module and what is learned in the process of upgrading
NERVA (nuclear stage development which had been successfully tested)
and the blueprints of the never built Saturn S-N might be applicable to the
development of nuclear fusion plants.
Proposals 10, 11 and 12 might enable us to have fusion plants on earth by 2025
give or take 3 years rather than projected 2030 and we should begin orbiting
solar energy satellites when the new version Ares is operational which
should be by or before 2017. Experts estimate that we can only get up
to 30% of our electricity from solar and wind by 2035. NASA could guarantee
it and, perhaps, increase it to 35% less expensively and by 2030.
Since NASA's inception it has developed cutting-edge technology and
built upon existing technology which has made its way to the private
sector - free of charge! - after 3 to 5 years.
In acknowledgement of the need to substantially reduce the debt (we have
been recommending $4 trillion over 10 years as a minimum for a year now)
and consideration of what NASA needs to accomplish over the next
quarter century (the sheer beauty of comprehending our place and
destiny in the immense cosmos and practical applications fallout from
the acquisition of knowledge), we hereby modify our proposal for
the purpose of making it more palatable and garnering majority (51%
or more support): Increasing NASA budget from $17 billion to $30 from
2012-1222. And, then, shrinking it from $30 billion to 25 from 1222-1227.
And, then, freezing it for 10 years with a full annual inflationary/cost of
living increase. Rally 'round the Flag on Orion!
(As always, we request that you contact your members of congress.
You can call 202-224-3121 for their phone numbers, as well as,
specific members - for example, request name and number of
chairman of house committee on science and technology.
state to operator if you don't know the names of your members
of congress. One more thing: check recent Action Chain Letters for
info on contacting key members of congress and their names).
