excellent article by David Portree on space solar energy. No mention of the Moon though and that is the great failing of the space solar power crowd; they do not seem to understand that manufacturing a solar energy infrastructure on the Moon and launching it from there into Earth orbit is practical while launching it directly from Earth is not.

Promising cheap and breaking that promise has become the “Norm” in the aerospace business. In 2002 Lockheed Martin spokesmen “promised” to deliver a future plane-that-will-not-be-named for 35 million each and a recent block of those aircraft were purchased years late in 2012 at 304.15 million each if the R&D costs paid by the customer are added. If those same R&D costs paid for by the taxpayer were factored into SpaceX launches the difference between what was advertised and what is being delivered becomes absurd. In the case of the SLS such pervasive deception is not possible due in part to the demonizing of the program perpetrated by new space sycophants.

So forgive me Bob if I repeat my own favorite advertising slogan; There is no cheap!

The Augustine commission inflated the cost of the Side-mount in their scenario by extending the Shuttle program until 2015 (actually a reasonable thing to do, IMO, in order to avoid any gap in America’s ability to send astronauts into space) and by– unreasonably– extending the life of the ISS program up to 2020.

So it wasn’t a fare comparison since they inflated the cost of the Side-mount by approximately $22 billion by extending both the Shuttle and ISS programs.

And anyone who is drinking the Obama-Holdren “mission to nowhere” kool-aid shouldn’t be calling anyone myopic:-)

Marcel

The committee’s preliminary analysis assumed that three launches (two of the Side Mount and one of an EELV) would be required. Based on that three launch scenario the committee apparently eliminated the Side Mount from consideration as an option for further analysis or presentation, but they never even bothered to explain why they ignored the two launch scenario in Shannon’s (well documented) presentation. No rationale for the three launch scenario was ever given.

Also a question for “libs0n”.

A few of your statements:
– “your deranged myopic obsession”
– “your views are in fact quite shallow”
– “your peculiar personality defects”
– “your entire limited worldview”

I have often wondered what people who post as you do believe they gain by resorting to those types of ad hominem insults. It certainly wins no converts to your position, if anything just the opposite. So why do it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjezoeVLwh0

Bob Clark

“ARM, it is claimed, will better prepare us for human Mars missions than lunar surface missions will.”

I am personally very upset when it is claimed this ARM smokescreen will protect the planet. It is bad enough that the only private organization advocating planetary protection has an anti-nuclear agenda and is pushing a “space tug” as the superior solution. Nuclear energy in space cannot be avoided when discussing planetary protection or interplanetary travel. But it is avoided.
And then there is this “better prepare us for human Mars missions.” Mars is not even a good destination- it’s gravity well is too deep and there are no oceans. I have been telling the truth as I see it for the last couple years and have yet to hear a convincing argument against my findings.
The first obvious conclusion that an objective researcher would come to is that space radiation and zero G debilitation must be eliminated before any Human Space Flight Beyond Earth and Lunar Orbit can take place. Not just “mitigated” or “remedied”; for missions that require years taking the Earth environment with the mission is really the only option. This means that an unshielded non-rotating chemical propelled spacecraft will just not work. Reality. This then leads unavoidably to a narrow path and the first stop is not Low Earth Orbit or a refueling depot or a “gateway” station or any of these schemes. The first stop in building a spaceship that can maintain an Earth environment for the several years required is someplace to assemble, test, and launch nuclear systems. That someplace has to be outside the Earth’s magnetosphere. That someplace has to have a sanctuary from space radiation while you are putting a nuclear mission together. And since the first requirement is something in the neighborhood of a thousand tons of cosmic ray shielding for the spaceship that place should also provide this material (water) so as not to waste several billion dollars lifting this dumb mass out of Earth’s gravity well.
This is the stark reality and no one is even talking about it.
There is only one place and one way to get there. The Moon by SLS. The “possible international ramifications” of this state of denial are that for decade after decade, just like the last thirty years, the human race will continue to remain Earthbound. While many are fine with this I am not. Not because I am a “space cadet” or want to go on a tourist trip- I am worried about a replay of Chelyabinsk with a rock a couple thousand times bigger or a engineered pathogen escaping from some modest lab in a third world country. Preventing the end of civilization and saving the human race from extinction is my priority and it might also be an appropriate international goal. The rider to these possible doomsday scenarios is the certain slow burn and contamination of resources the world faces and the only solution to that is to be found outside the ecosystem by beaming down energy from space. The truth as I see it and I greatly appreciate Dr. Spudis providing this forum and allowing me to express my opinion.