Space Policy Advisory Group

Please don't murder your family!

Jonathan — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:51:29 EST

Oh my God people, what is going on. I just heard about another family being destroyed by apparent hopelessness. Its bad but not that bad. Those poor children had everything to live for. If you or anyone you know is going through some hard times, please, please, please take the time to reach out. Don't be so prideful or selfish not to ask for help. We are all in this together. You are all my brothers and sisters and I care about you. We are all neighbors and friends, you are not alone. When you suffer we all suffer but we do it together. We may fall together but we will rise together as well.

I have been through some very hard times in my life and when I was at my lowest was when I felt all alone with no one to turn to. I felt trapped, hopeless and lost. When I was at that point when all hope was lost was when a friend asked me one day how I was doing. I lied and said everything was great, but he pressed me saying he didn't believe that. When I let go of my pride and started to open up to him about my situation, I felt a large weight was lifted from my shoulders. I didn't need to feel ashamed of myself for how things were going, sometimes things just happen and even though I couldn't see a way out, my friend could. He gave me some advise and offered me some part time work to help me get through this rough time I was going through. I was a janitor for 6 months, but through one small step at a time I pulled my life together until I felt happy again about myself. It took some time, but afterwords I felt much stronger and more capable of dealing with life's problems.

If I could offer any advise to others that may be feeling the same is, don't hide how you feel. If things are going bad tell someone. People care a lot more then you think and they may see things that will help you out of your situation that you can't see. Let go of your pride and talk about it. It might just be the best thing you can do.

Can cutting taxes really save our economy?

Jonathan — Thu, 29 Jan 2009 03:31:37 EST

I keep hearing people say, especially republicans, that in order to fix the economy, we need to cut taxes and I just don't see how that will help everyone. They are saying that "in order to fix the economy we need to put money back in the hands of taxpayers." Sounds good but that is not going to help everyone. What about the people that don't make enough income to pay taxes. Lower income people are as much a part of the economy as upper income people. In my opinion Tax incentives disproportionately distribute wealth to the upper rungs of our society. The majority of people are not on those rungs and thus it seems to be a clever way for tax payers to help themselves instead of doing the hard thing and helping others. This is just my opinion. Just for the record i don't really know how to fix all these problems that we are facing but the more of us that are debating this topic the better result we should be able to get. I really would like to see our country doing finically better. All of us.

Golden Ticket

Lovenrockets - New Smyrna Beach, FL — Sat, 10 Jan 2009 17:49:43 EST

Today as an exciting day for me for two reasons. Interestingly enough the one that followed later in the day surpassed one of deep personal enrichment and growth.

I received an invite to the Inauguration of Barack H. Obama, as President of the United States of America and Joseph R. Biden, Jr., as Vice President of the United States of America.

Like so many people, never have I ever been involved in politics because and to be honest, it scared and/or bored me off.

It is deeply moving to see another person's dream as one of my own. I'm going because "we can" and might be doing the jig all the way there. :-) (jk).

I'm excited!!!

On the Stimulus: Show me an Investment Plan

Jawad — Fri, 19 Dec 2008 10:51:57 EST

When the Detroit big three came to Washington asking for a loan to rescue their companies from pending bankruptcy, the Congress was steadfast on demanding a business plan. And they were right to do so.

Gasoline from Air and Water

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 13:49:10 EST

by Marcel F. Williams

Fossil fuels are predominantly responsible for putting excess carbon dioxide and methane intothe Earth's atmosphere, greenhouse gases that are melting our polar ice caps, raising global sea levels, and causing more extreme climate conditions around the world. The coal and natural gas power industry has looked looked towards future technologies for the on site capture of flu gas in order to recover and sequester carbon dioxide. However, there is no cost effective technology for capturing the CO2 from the mobile producers of carbon dioxide: automobiles, trucks, aircraft, and sea craft.

But there are new technologies that are rapidly being developed that may eventually divorce carbon dioxide polluting sources of energy from the need for on site capture and sequestration of carbon dioxide. These devices are sometimes referred to as mechanical trees. But what they do is to simply extract and recover carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. And these future technologies appear to be far more efficient at extracting CO2 from the air than the plant life on our planet.

Some argue that these carbon dioxide from air extracting technologies could be the saviors of the fossil fuel industry. Ironically, such future technologies could also eventually lead to the complete extinction of fossil use on this planet if the CO2 taken from the atmosphere is used in combination with hydrogen from water to produce hydrocarbon fuels such as: gasoline, methanol, diesel fuel, jet fuel, and dimethyl ether.

Hydrogen

Because the combustion of hydrogen produces only energy and water, hydrogen via the electrolysis of water through hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, and solar has often been proposed as a replacement for hydrocarbon transportation fuels. Liquid hydrogen fuel has been used in US space craft since the days of the Apollo Moon program. And liquid hydrogen has also been frequently proposed for future generation subsonic and hypersonic airliners and aircraft. Hydrogen fueled buses now transport commuters in many urban areas in the US. And hydrogen automobiles have been demonstrated by many automobile companies around the world .

However, hydrogen automobiles have a substantially shorter range than hydrocarbon fueled vehicles and are a lot less efficient than electric vehicles. Refueling hydrogen vehicles also takes much longer than refueling with gasoline, ethanol, or methanol. Because of the hydrogen embrittlement of metals like steel, hydrogen pipelines are more expensive to maintain than natural gas and oil pipelines. Aircraft, seacraft and ground vehicles, and the infrastructure associated with these vehicles, would also have to be completely replaced if we completely replaced our fuel economy with hydrogen.

Hydrocarbon fuels from CO2 and hydrogen

Alternatively, there are several demonstrated methods for synthesizing hydrocarbon fuels by utilizing carbon dioxide in combination with hydrogen which could allow a country to avoid any major overhaul in its transportation energy infrastructure.

Chemist have known how to produce methanol from hydrogen and carbon dioxide for more than 80 years:

CO2 + 3H2 → CH3OH (methanol) + H2O

Methanol is mostly used as a feedstock for making other chemicals. But methanol can be converted into dimethyl ether (DME), a fuel that can be effectively used in diesel engines equipped with new fuel injection systems. The fact that dimethyl ether produces no black smoke, soot, or sulfur dioxide is an clean advantage it has over diesel fuel.

Methanol can also be converted into high octane gasoline via the Mobil Oil methanol to gasoline (MTG) process. Back in the 1980's, the New Zealand government produced 600,000 tonnes of gasoline a year from methanol derived from natural gas using the MTG process.

Methane gas can also be synthesized from hydrogen and carbon dioxide:

CO2 + 4H2 → CH4 (methane) + 2H2O

And methane can also be converted into diesel and jet fuels via Fischer-Tropsch and hydrocracking processes.

Mechanical extraction of atmospheric CO2

Plants capture carbon dioxide from the atmosphere while utilizing sunlight to convert the CO2 into starch. During photosynthesis, trees, for instance, convert carbon dioxide and water into starche molecules and oxygen through a series of oxidation and reduction reactions:

6 CO2 + 6 H2O + sunlight ---> C6H12O6 + 6 O2

Some farm crops and trees can produce up to 20 metric tons per acre (4047 square meters) of biomass a year. One tonne of dried tree consist of 0.45 tonnes of carbon which would translate into the extraction of 1.65 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually extracted from the atmosphere. That's 33 tonnes of CO2 per acre extracted on an annual basis.
Even though the concentration of CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere is a meager 0.04 per cent, companies like GRT (Global Research Technologies) in Arizona and Canadian researchers at the University of Calgary have already built machines that can extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere far more efficiently than any tree or any other source of biomass. GRT claims that its carbon dioxide air extraction system is a thousand times more efficient than a tree of equal size.

GRT CO2 absorbent material

The University of Calgary team has shown that they could capture CO2 directly from the atmosphere with less than 100 kilowatt-hours of electricity per tonne of carbon dioxide. Their carbon dioxide from air extraction tower was able to capture the equivalent of about 20 tonnes per year of CO2 on just one single square meter of air scrubbing material. Astonishingly, this suggest that even the most conservative estimates would allow these CO2 extracting machines to produce more than 80 thousand tonnes of carbon dioxide per acre annually.

University of Calgary carbon dioxide extraction machine

Because of the need for cheap electricity for hydrogen production, only nuclear and hydroelectric facilities would be currently viable for hydrocarbon fuel production utilizing carbon dioxide from air extraction technologies. Hydroelectric facilities currently produce electricity at 0 .85 cents per kwh while electricity from nuclear facilities currently cost 1.68 cents per kwh. Wind and solar thermal electricity, however, is much more expensive and ranges from over 4 cents per kwh to over 6 cents per kwh.

At the Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico, F. Jeffrey Martin and Williams L. Kubic, Jr. have developed the Green Freedom concept for using the cooling towers of nuclear reactors to extract carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for the production of gasoline and methanol.

They argue that a 1 GWe power plant using their Green Freedom method could produce 18,000-bbl/day of gasoline or 5000 tonnes a day of methanol.

Carbon neutral hydrocarbon synfuel production at nuclear and hydroelectric facilities would not only allow such power facilities to produce transportation fuels and industrial chemicals, they would also allow them to pump methanol and oxygen up to 80 kilometers away to high efficiency power plants for the production of peak-load and back-up-load electricity and commercial waste heat. Nuclear power plants could therefore not only produce base-load electricity but could also supply methanol fuel to replace greenhouse polluting natural gas power plants which are used for daytime peak-load energy and back-up energy for wind and solar power plants.

In 2006, the US consumed nearly 21 million bbl/day of petroleum for transportation fuel and industrial chemical use. If we assumed that nuclear power plants replaced all of the petroleum used in the US in 2006, that would roughly require more than a thousand new 1Gwe nuclear reactors, over 1000 GWe of electrical capacity. Existing nuclear sites that already have nuclear reactors could probably on add an additional 200 to 300 Gwe of capacity. However, if one large centralized nuplex (nuclear park) with about 30GWe of average electrical capacity were set up in every state in the union, then that could add an additional 1500 GWe of electrical capacity, more than enough to replace all of our petroleum needs today and probably our needs 30 years from now.

If the new Obama administration is going to invest substantial R&D money into new energy technologies, I would strongly suggest investing in the fast tracking of these carbon dioxide extraction from air technologies that could revolution synfuel production by helping to achieve US independence from the petroleum fuel economy while protecting the global environment from the dangers of global warming and climate change.

Links and References

1. Green Freedom: A concept for producing carbon-neutral synthetic fuels and chemicals, Los Alamos Labs, November 2007 F.J. Martin and WL Kubic,

2. GRT (Global Research Technologies, LLC)

3. Giant Carbon dioxide Vacuums

4. Snatching Carbon dioxide from the Atmosphere

5. CO2 capture from air

6. First Successful Demonstration of Carbon Dioxide Air Capture Technology Achieved:

7. First Successful Demonstration of Carbon Dioxide Air Capture Technology Achieved by Columbia University Scientist and Private Company, (2007) Earth Institute News Archive, 04/24/07

8. Carbon capture and storage:

9. Researchers Scramble to Create CO2-Busting Technologies:

10. CO2 capture from ambient air: a feasibility assessment:

11. Carbon Capture and Storage A False Solution

12. The Case for Carbon Dioxide Extraction from Air

13. Klaus S. Lackner, Patrick Grimes, Hans-J. Ziock, Capturing Carbon Dioxide From Air

14. K. Schultz, L. Bogart, G. Besenbruch, L. Brown, R. Buckingham, M. Campbell, B. Russ, and B. Wong HYDROGEN AND SYNTHETIC HYDROCARBON FUELS – A NATURAL SYNERGY General Atomics Poster

15. G. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, Germany

It Looks Real

Lovenrockets - New Smyrna Beach, FL — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 22:03:10 EST

OMG...I can hardly contain myself. It looks like it is going to happen!!! This entire experience has restored my hope that our nation really sees the truth behind the blinds. I am almost at a complete loss of words...

Thank you MSNBC for hearing the voice of the Senator Obama supporters from Day 1. They were smart enough to know it was the "Voice of A Nation".

Florida...please do not act crazy and let's get it under the belt!! Go Obama Go!!!! Thank God!

While Waiting for America to Decide

Jawad — Tue, 04 Nov 2008 16:26:50 EST

After months of campaigning, canvassing, and phone-banking, the moment of truth has arrived. Today is the day all those who have put their heart into this campaign take a big breath and put their trust in the good sense of the American People. This has been a remarkable campaign and most of those I have encountered in it, volunteers and campaign staff alike, just feel privileged to be part of it.

Electoral Predictions

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 14:12:18 EST

As the final tabulation of votes are revealed on Wednesday morning, I predict that Barack Obama will win the presidency of the United States by winning a total of 318 electoral votes-- including Florida.

The fatal flaws of the McCain campaign, IMO, were:

1.) Picking Sarah Palin, a woman who clearly lacks the foreign policy experience to be the Commander-in-Chief. If McCain really loves this country and cares about the safety of this country more than he wants the presidency, he certainly didn't show that by picking Palin as his VP nominee!

2.) McCain's failure to focus like a laser beam on the energy re-industrialization of America through both private and public investment in order to end our dependence on foreign oil and to create jobs here in America. McCain did best in his campaign and even in the debates when he talked about energy and especially nuclear energy even though I strongly disagree with him on off-shore drilling. It was a huge mistake, IMO, that he didn't make energy independence through nuclear and renewable energy the primary focus of his campaign.

and

3.) Trying to instill fear and division in America through negative campaigning with phrases like 'paling around with terrorist', 'socialist', folks at his rallies referring to Obama's middle name and screaming for Obama's death. Sorry but that's not what America is all about, or at least it shouldn't be about that.

But if for some tragic reason, McCain and Palin do win the White House, I'll pray (and I'm an atheist:-) for McCain's good health because a Palin presidency, IMO, would put this country and the rest of the world in an extremely dangerous situation thanks to her total lack of foreign experience. The woman got her first passport in 2006!

McCain's picking of Palin is simply an unforgivable act. Unforgivable!!!!

Marcel F. Williams

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/

Compelling & Inspiring Videos On MSNBC on Senator Obama

Lovenrockets - New Smyrna Beach, FL — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 20:22:53 EDT

I found these three videos to be quite heart felt and thought provoking, perhaps you will too.

The first and third were so deeply touching, but the second was equally as compelling. Never before have I wanted someone to be President more than I do now.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/27460577#27460577

Natural Radiation

Marcel F. Williams — Sat, 25 Oct 2008 15:28:20 EDT

NEW PAPYRUS

The online magazine of science, technology, socioeconomics, and politics

http://newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com/

Monday, October 20, 2008

Natural Radiation

by Marcel F. Williams

Humans exist on a planet and within a universe that is naturally radioactive. In fact, humans and all other plant and animal species that live and breed on Earth are also inherently radioactive.

Since the birth of the cosmos, the earth has been subjected to an endless hailstorm of cosmic radiation. These potentially deleterious ionizing particles consist of highly accelerated protons, electrons, and neutrons originating mostly from other stars in our galaxy.

Our planet of evolutionary origin is also radioactive due to naturally occurring radioactive elements in the earth's crust such as: potassium-40, uranium-238, thorium-232, and rubidinum-87, and radium-226. In fact, the radioactive decay from uranium, thorium, and potassium may be responsible for 45 to 90% of the earth's internal heat source which is the source of earthquakes, volcanoes, mountain building, hot springs, and continental drift.

On average, humans receive 0.4 mSv (40 millirems) of cosmic radiation. People also receive about 0.5 mSv (50 millirems) of terrestrial radiation. We also inhale about 1.2 mSV (120 millirems) of radiation from radon gas annually.

The human species is also internally radioactive due to the potassium in our bones which exposes our tissues to 0.4 mSv (40 millirems) of ionizing radiation. So being in constant proximity to other human beings increases one's exposure to ionizing radiation.

So if you lived with at least one other person in your house, you would receive 0.4 (40 millirems). That's more than ten times as much radiation as you would receive by living near a nuclear facility. If you lived in California and moved to Colorado, you would receive 45 times as much ionizing radiation as you would living next to a nuclear power facility.

Ionizing Radiation Levels (annual):

0.39 (mSv) Annual human internal radiation due to radioactive potassium

0.35 mSv Annual exposure to cosmic radiation in the state of Louisiana

1.20 mSv Annual exposure to cosmic radiation in the state of Colorado

0.30 mSv Annual exposure to terrestrial radiation in the state of Texas

1.15 mSV Annual exposure to terrestrial radiation in the state of South Dakota

0.07 mSv Annual radiation exposure to while living in a stone, brick, or concrete building

0.03 mSv Annual radiation exposure while living near the gate of a nuclear power plant

0.01 Annual USA dose from nuclear fuel and nuclear power plants

1.15 mSv Annual radiation exposure while working at a nuclear power plant

2.0 mSv Annual human internal radiation due to radon

1.0 mSv Annual Limit of dose from all DOE facilities to a member of the public who is not a radiation worker

5.0 mSv Annual USA NRC limit for visitors

Ionizing Radiation Levels (acute):

0.o5 mSV One round-trip to Paris-New York

0.46 mSv off-site exposure to the Three Mile Island core meltdown accident

2.2 mSv Average dose from upper gastrointestinal diagnostic X-ray series

50 mSv Lowest dose at which there is any evidence of cancer being caused in adults

100 mSv USA EPA acute dose level estimated to increase cancer risk 0.8%

500-1000 mSv Low-level radiation sickness due to short-term exposure

Persons working at a nuclear facility are normally exposed to 1.15 mSv (115 millirems) annually. This would be the equivalent of living in the state of Ohio where Americans there are exposed to an equivalent amount of cosmic and terrestrial radiation and below that of states like Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah where one receives a lot more background radiation.

If you lived near the gate of a nuclear reactor and never left the house, you would be exposed to 0.03 mSv (3 millirems) of radiation annually from that nuclear facility. However, you would receive 0.07 mSv (7 millirems) of radiation if you were living in a stone, brick, or concrete building. So you would receive more radiation from your house than from living near the gate of a nuclear facility.

But what about a nuclear meltdown?

Thanks to the fact that US reactors are housed in huge protective containment structures, the nuclear meltdown at Three Mile Island exposed nearby residents to only 0.46 mSv of acute radiation. That's nearly five times lower than receiving a gastrointestinal medical X-Ray and more than 100 times below the level of cancer causing radiation. But the new generation of nuclear reactors such as the AP1000 and GE's ESBWR have core damage frequencies at least 100 to 1000 times lower than current reactors such as the LWR at Three Mile Island. But, again, even if a meltdown did occur, the public would be protected by the containment structures which are also designed to withstand an impact from a jet plane.

Americans are exposed to natural radiation from cosmic and terrestrial radiation ranging from as low as 0.75 mSv (75 millirems) to as high as 2.25 mSv (225 millirems). And Americans are exposed to an additional 2.0 mSv (200 millirems) of radon gas on average. Yet living near the gate of nuclear power facility would only expose them to 0.03 mSv (3 millirems) of radiation. And even consistent contact with a family member would expose you to another 0.4 mSv (40 millirems) of radiation annually. So the idea that a dramatic increase in nuclear power would expose humans to a dramatic increase in ionizing radiation is clearly not supported by the scientific evidence.

References and Links

1. G. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, Germany

2. Ionizing radiation (Wikipedia)

3. Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor

4. Martin D. Ecker, and Norton J. Bramesco (1981) Radiation: All you need t know about to stop worrying...or to start, Vintage Books, New York

5. Radiation and Life
Posted by Marcel F. Williams at 12:53 AM 0 comments:

The Absurdity of Rovian Politics

Jawad — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 11:49:12 EDT

Governor Palin has declared the "small towns" of America that she and her running mate "get to visit" to be "the real America" where the real "patriotic" and "pro-America" citizens of this country live. Almost robotically, their campaign surrogates started falling in line.

Separating Leadership from Demagoguery

Jawad — Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:06:14 EDT

When Colin Powell endorsed Barack Obama this morning, he did so in primetime with a full explanation. He pointed to the intellectual deficit of the GOP and the disappointing tactics of the McCain Campaign. He contrasted the erratic decision-making style of Senator McCain to the impressive temperament and intellect of Senator Obama. It was a clear-cut decision: For a nation battered by short-sighted and ill-devised policies, Colin Powell opts for the transformational leadership of Barack Obama.

Barack Pledging To Increase NASA Funding

Charles from Raleigh, NC — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 11:51:27 EDT

In the roar of coverage leading up to the election in eighteen-odd days, some of my fellow Space Democrats outside of Florida may have missed this:

http://www.floridatoday.com/content/blogs/space/2008/10/campaigns-compete-for-space-votes.shtml

Sen. Barack Obama has released a radio ad touting his pledge to increase NASA funding.

The ad features Sen. Bill Nelson, who says the additional $2 billion and an extra shuttle flight would reduce layoffs expected at Kennedy Space Center when the shuttle is retired.

The Party of debt and deficit

Sahil — Thu, 16 Oct 2008 16:14:58 EDT

I download the following federal budget data from the Congressional Budget Office. It clearly shows that for the last forty years the Republicans have been the party of huge federal deficits. During both the Carter era (1977 – 1980) and the Clinton era (1993 – 2000) the deficit shrank and during the Reagan era (1981 – 1988) and the Bush II era (2001 – 2008) the deficit broke all previous records.

All figures in Billions of dollars. The 2008 Budget deficit is a record $455 billion.

1968 -31

1969 -3

1970 2

1971 -10

1972 -21

1973 -20

1974 2

1975 4

1976 -35

1977 -21

1978 -32

1979 -14

1980 -9

1981 -17

1982 -43

1983 -112

1984 -143

1985 -179

1986 -211

1987 -157

1988 -126

1989 -117

1990 -120

1991 -150

1992 -186

1993 -192

1994 -144

1995 -146

1996 -93

1997 -81

1998 -38

1999 2

2000 105

2001 102

2002 -131

2003 -288

2004 -294

2005 -239

2006 -229

2007 -152

2008 -455

I think, given all the attacks democrats get for taxing people, democrats should highlight the deficits the Republicans have created for us and the debt they are leaving for our children. The Republicans have been a party of debt and deficit for the last forty years. They have shown fiscal indiscipline of the worst kind.

There must be a reason as to why the Obama campaign is not highlighting this in ads and campaigns. Any guess any body, please.

Long term fix for the financial crisis

Sahil — Mon, 13 Oct 2008 18:36:10 EDT

Dear Senator Obama:

Now that the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has shown some understanding of the financial problem, it is time for us to see it as well. As I had strongly advocated in my two previous blogs (Sahil's blog) that helping the banking system directly was the right thing to do. Main Street deals with the banks and banks are the institutions we regulate and have responsibility for. FDIC insures deposits in these banks.

Now that we seem to be focusing on the banks and will probably get the short term fix; we need to look at the long term fix for our economy.

I have sent many letters to you and to Dr. Jason Furman and would really wish that you look at my proposal once. We are in problem of very unusual kind, one that happens once in hundreds of years, and it needs a very radical solution.

In my proposed solution I have done away with interest and income tax and changed the powers of money itself. My solution is the only one so far available that will solve the problem for good.

Please take a look at it; you will need it down the line when it becomes clear that solutions proposed by the experts are not working. This is the time when the experts change.

Sincerely,

Syed G.Q. Sahil

Three Million dollars = 13.392 Minutes

CJM — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:50:56 EDT

John McCain's attempt to nail Senator Obama on the Adler Planetarium's Projector is a clear example of the fact that McCain has no idea on how education is an important integral aspect of growing a strong nation. He asserts that the projector's $3,000.000.00 dollars that was asked for in a bipartisan bill is "Pork Barrel Spending" when the bill was out front and in the open.

In comparing this learning tool for children and adults alike to the cost of the war in Iraq, I found that in the time it took me to research, compose & post this I had already surpassed the cost of $3,000,000.00.

The cost of the war in Iraq is at 10 billion a month (31 days.) That in comparison to the cost of the Planetariums complex projection system is $3 million dollars for 13.392 minutes.

Now, we close the deal.

Dan Blair — Mon, 06 Oct 2008 20:12:26 EDT

Friends and family,
There is nothing wrong with admitting that we're ahead right now. Democrats have been burned time and again in recent decades and have a hard time believing in winning. But, folks, we're looking good right now.
And John McCain and Sarah Palin wouldn't be taking this race into the gutter if they thought they could win on the issues. That Barack Obama is opening up solid leads in the polls, even in places like Virginia, proves that America wants to talk about issues. And Barack Obama is speaking truth to power.
In these last 4 weeks (yes, just 28 days), the Republicans are going to throw the nastiest, sleaziest stuff they've got. It's the only strategic option that remains for them in their warped world-view. And Barack Obama is going to have to fight it all off and hold steady to his economic message. To do that, Barack Obama needs the financial resources to respond effectively.
So let me speak plainly. I am asking you this last time (okay maybe I'll ask once more) to please make a donation to the Barack Obama campaign. The campaign is almost over. We will not be asked month after month to donate after November 5th. NOW is the time to make a donation. If you haven't given yet, NOW is the time. If you've given before and have been thinking of topping it off, NOW is the time. There are few things left that will be asked of you in this campaign. So PLEASE make a contribution to the Barack Obama campaign through my Grassroots Donation page:
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/VictoryNight

I pledged to the Obama campaign that I would raise $2500. I have raised $1450 as of this email. Please make a contribution of any size through this website to help contribute to my goal. In doing so, you will help Obama fight the smears! That's a pretty good return on your investment.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/outreach/view/main/VictoryNight

Keep up the good fight!
Dan

Drop Everything and Come to Ohio!

Bobbie Sue Grenerth *OFA* www.handsontiffin.net — Tue, 30 Sep 2008 13:50:07 EDT

In 2004, John Kerry lost by 118,601 votes - an average of 9 votes per precinct.

By taking Ohio, George W Bush won enough electoral votes to secure a second term.

Please, drop everything and come to Ohio!

http://my.barackobama.com/page/-/Video_states/OH/ComeToOhio.mov

Crazy Emails From McCain Supporters

Lovenrockets - New Smyrna Beach, FL — Sun, 28 Sep 2008 20:29:07 EDT

This evening I checked my work email from home. I was very surprised someone sent me the email I will cut and paste below. I was surprised and rather annoyed someone would send it out on a global distribution list throughout my work. Instead of blasting him for sending such garbage I responded with an actual website that shared the truth in this matter. How do people actual think they can send and say outright lies without being found out?

The first email is my response to the hideous one below:

RE:

From: me
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2008 8:07 PM
To:
Subject: RE: Who is Franklin Rains

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0908/Obama_denies_Raines_ties_accuses_McCain_of_throwing_stones_from_his_seven_glass_houses.html

Raines said in the statement through the campaign, "I am not an advisor to Barack Obama, nor have I provided his campaign with advice on housing or economic matters."

Obama spokesman Bill Burton added an attack:

This is another flat-out lie from a dishonorable campaign that is increasingly incapable of telling the truth. Frank Raines has never advised Senator Obama about anything -- ever. And by the way, someone whose campaign manager and top advisor worked and lobbied for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shouldn't be throwing stones from his seven glass houses.

From:
Sent: Friday, September 26, 2008 5:13 PM
To:
Subject: Who is Franklin Rains

And why should we care?

Franklin Rains is the former chairman and chief executive officer of Fannie Mae, the government sponsored enterprise started in 1939 to offer mortgages to Americans wishing to become home owners.

After serving as budget director under President Bill Clinton, Mr. Raines served as CEO at Fannie Mae from 2000 until 2004.

While Mr. Raines was CEO, Fannie Mae went deep into the practice of buying mortgages based on almost no or no money down given to borrowers who could not afford them. During this time he received bonuses and salary over 90 million dollars. In 2004 he was offered “early retirement” after the accounting practices used at Fannie during his tenure to secure top executive bonuses were shown to be fraudulent.

Civil charges were filed against Raines and two other former executives which sought $110 million in penalties and $115 million in returned bonuses from the three accused. On April 18, 2008, the government announced a settlement with Raines together with J. Timothy Howard, Fannie's former chief financial officer, and Leanne G.
Spencer, Fannie's former controller. The three executives agreed to pay fines totaling about $3 million, which will be paid by Fannie's insurance policies.

When pressed by the Bush administration to tighten down regulations on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, members of congress – Republicans and Democrats alike - in positions to pass such regulations, did nothing. Today, Fannie Mae owns or guarantees over half of America’s 12 trillion dollar mortgage market, and we are in the middle of a credit crunch and housing slump brought on in large part by government backed Fannie Mae going down this dangerous credit slope under Mr. Raines.

And where is Franklin Raines today? He is a chief economic advisor to the presidential campaign of Senator Barack Obama. Who says "Crime" does not pay?

Obama Shifts Spaceward

FlyingSinger — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:40:47 EDT

This is a post I wrote originally on August 2 on my own blog. I decided to add this and a couple of other Obama-related posts to this blog. The occasion for this was a speech by Senator Obama in Florida in late July in which he clarified and expanded upon his support for space exploration and NASA.

Although political "flip flopping" is sometimes condemned as if it were a crime, let's face it - politicians are always adjusting their positions and sometimes even reversing them. Situations change, new information and analysis becomes available, mistakes are made, strategies are changed. If there's a good reason to change a position, and if the candidate can explain and justify it, it's crazy to stick to the original position for its own sake.

Obama and Science

FlyingSinger — Sun, 14 Sep 2008 15:30:49 EDT

Science and technology are vitally important to the future of this country and indeed the world. Voters should know the positions of the candidates on these vital issues. Science Debate 2008 is a grassroots initiative to encourage the presidential candidates to debate the most important questions in science. This initiative is supported by leading scientific and engineering organizations, universities, and many individuals including Nobel Prize winners. They have received over 3,400 questions from 38,000 individual signers, and they have distilled these down to the 14 most important questions, stated to encourage discussion and embellishment in a debate setting.

While I have not seen any sign that there will be a direct presidential debate on science, Barack Obama's campaign has submitted his answers to the 14 questions (McCain's campaign has indicated that he too will provide answers). Obama's answers are thoughtful and include specific policy proposals to deal with these issues.

IEC Polywell Fusion (WB-7)

CJM — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:02:12 EDT

I sure hope Senator Obama knows about this potential new source of low cost energy. If it works then it would be very disruptive as a technology to other energy alternatives but would speed up the independence away from fossil fuel, and would speed up our space travel also!

A MESSAGE WE NEED TO PROLIFERATE

Phil Smith — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:06:51 EDT

I am not a Democrat or Republican. I support Obama for several reasons, but at the core of the matter is this:

1. Conservatism and individualism are contrary to the American traditions of solidarity, freedom of opportunity and liberty. Indeed, these two isms are anti-American.

2. McCain's pick of Governor Sarah Palin demonstrates the presumptive Republican nominee for president puts the GOP before the country. A reasonable person can see that Palin's credentials leave much to be desired as a president (remember that a Vice President is not selected to balance the ticket or become a trusted advisor - a VP is a President in Waiting). The fact that Palin was selected means that even though McCain surely thinks Palin can't possibly be an effective president, he picked her anyway. In short, the GOP wanted a celebrity, nothing more. Not only has McCain demonstrated his poor judgment on various matters in the past, but he has also shown judgment that reflects a sinister character.

I've Waited My Lifetime for Him

Lovenrockets - New Smyrna Beach, FL — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:58:40 EDT

Barack Obama is not a false hero or a God like figure, but rather a voice of those that didn't think their voice would ever be heard. He is here as my JFK, as my TR, as the person I shall write about as being the inspiration as a single voice heard in choir.

p.s. Convention music is okay but we need Rock and Roll and Rap. Thanks....and Will I am!

Thank You Those That Always Believed & Those That Have Come to Believe

Lovenrockets - New Smyrna Beach, FL — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:20:59 EDT

It was a creed written into the founding documents that declared the destiny of a nation.
Yes we can.
It was whispered by slaves and abolitionists as they blazed a trail toward freedom.
Yes we can. Yes we can.
It was sung by immigrants as they struck out from distant shores
and pioneers who pushed westward against an unforgiving wilderness.
Yes we can. Yes we can.
It was the call of workers who organized;
women who reached for the ballots;
a President who chose the moon as our new frontier;
and a King who took us to the mountain-top and pointed the way to the Promised Land.
Yes we can to justice and equality.
(yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can...)

Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.
Yes we can to opportunity and prosperity.
Yes we can heal this nation.
Yes we can repair this world.
Yes we can. Si Se Puede
(yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can...)

We know the battle ahead will be long,
but always remember that no matter what obstacles stand in our way,
nothing can stand in the way of the power of millions of voices calling for change.
We want change!
(We want change! We want change! We want change...)

We have been told we cannot do this by a chorus of cynics who will only grow louder and more dissonant.
We've been asked to pause for a reality check.
We've been warned against offering the people of this nation false hope.
But in the unlikely story that is America, there has never been anything false about hope. We want change!
(We want change! I want change! We want change! I want change...)

The hopes of the little girl who goes to a crumbling school in Dillon are the same as the dreams of the boy who learns on the streets of LA;
we will remember that there is something happening in America;
that we are not as divided as our politics suggests;
that we are one people;
we are one nation;
and together, we will begin the next great chapter in America's story with three words that will ring from coast to coast;
from sea to shining sea - Yes. We. Can.
(yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can, yes we can...)

IMPORTANT! READ THIS NOW!

Will Conlin — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:11:19 EDT

The U.S. Election Atlas, one of the internet's most comprehensive databases on election results holds an annual "mock election" where if you are registered on the site you declare what state you live in and you cast your vote for president. Apparently a large number of Republicans have registered in the past few weeks and have cast so many votes for John McCain that Barack is loosing in every state except Illinois (it's a tie there) and DC.

We cannot allow them to dominate this poll!

Please go to www.uselectionatlas.org, register (it's free) and cast your vote for Barack & Joe!!!

Industry seeks alternative to aviation fuel

Marcel F. Williams — Mon, 25 Aug 2008 03:55:35 EDT

August 24, 2008

Industry seeks alternative to aviation fuel

A non-conventional coal blend is being used in S. Africa

By CHRIS KAHN
Associated Press

PHOENIX -- With the price of oil still above $100 a barrel, everything from wood chips to algae blooms is being scrutinized as an alternative to traditional fuel. But when it comes to airplanes, finding the right mix poses a special challenge.

"When you're in an airplane, you don't want your fuel to start solidifying," said Robert Dunn, a Department of Agriculture chemical engineer who is studying biodiesel jet fuel.

The airline industry is aggressively pushing for homegrown alternatives to petroleum-based jet fuel, while leaning on customers with a variety of new travel charges to help control a projected $61 billion industrywide fuel expense this year. A number of alternatives to standard jet fuel have been studied for years, though aircraft manufacturers say the challenge is to find ideas that will work now.

Jet engines can be retrofitted to run on hydrogen, for example. But hydrogen does not pack the same punch as traditional jet fuel -- kerosene -- and would require airlines to buy planes designed with huge tanks. That is a tough choice for cash-strapped carriers, said Billy Glover, managing director of environmental strategy at Boeing Commercial Airplanes.

The best bet right now for non-conventional fuel comes from South Africa, experts said. The country has powered its airline industry for a decade using a coal-based jet fuel blend developed by petrochemicals group Sasol. It's technically a "synthetic" fuel, which means it can be used without altering engines or other aircraft equipment.

A number of U.S. companies are developing a variety of similar synthetics. Airline experts say three companies in particular could provide as much as three million gallons a day of synthetic fuel by 2012: American Clean Coal Fuels of Portland, Ore., Baard Energy in Vancouver, Wash., and Rentech Inc. of Los Angeles.

Though significant supplies will not be ready for several years, the Commercial Aviation Alternative Fuels Initiative (CAAFI) -- a coalition that includes the Federal Aviation Administration, airline, manufacturing and airport associations -- wants to set standards by the end of the year for a 50 percent synthetic jet fuel. CAAFI wants standards for a totally synthetic fuel ready in two years.

"We're looking for something that is so correct in its performance that it can be interchanged with petroleum-based kerosene," Glover said. "From a distribution standpoint, from a technical standpoint, it needs to fit without modifications or special handling."

CAAFI Executive Director Richard L. Altman said the push for new fuel standards is meant to show investors that airlines will buy synthetic fuel. Doing so will send needed dollars to energy startups that may one day replace foreign oil, Altman said.

"Nobody will invest unless the fuel is certified," he said. "So we have a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem."

With more companies investing in alternative energy, the thinking goes, the more synthetic jet fuel eventually becomes available. The more fuel available, the easier it will be for airlines to unshackle themselves from volatile petroleum markets.

In February, Boeing partnered with Virgin Atlantic to test a flight that included a biofuel mixture of babassu oil, which comes from a palm tree in northern Brazil, and coconut oil.

Many biofuels may create more problems than they solve, however. Using edible feedstocks such as corn and sugar could raise the price of food. And palm trees for babassu and coconut oil could lead to clearing large chunks of rain forest.

These are some of the reasons why algae-based synthetic fuel is getting a lot of attention.

Algae is inedible, and it has a relatively high yield compared with other crops, using less land to produce the same amount of oil.

"It can be grown anywhere you can have a pool of water and expose it to sunlight," said Stanford Seto, an expert in aviation fuels who works with ASTM International, a Pennsylvania-based organization that develops standards for jet fuel.

Investors have pumped almost $84 million into companies developing algae-based fuel so far this year, up from $29 million in all of 2007, according to the Cleantech Group, an industry research firm.

Despite its promise, it will be years before algae biofuel could be sold at a price that would make sense to an airline, said Dave Jones, co-founder of LiveFuels, an algae fuel startup in San Carlos, Calif.

"If anyone is below $50 a gallon, I'd be stunned," he said. "We have a pretty good idea on how to grow algae. The biggest challenge is in the harvesting and how to extract it from the water."

Even if prices come down, most airlines see synthetic fuel as a chance to run a greener airline, not necessarily a cheaper one, said Nancy Young, vice president of environmental affairs for the Air Transport Association.

More fuel sources could temper the effect oil speculation has on gas prices, and they could give carriers fuel at a cost they can count on, she said. But "you aren't going to find a fuel that's pennies on the dollar than what we find today," she said.

For travelers, that means that fewer flight options and charges for checked bags, drinks and other items are here to stay.

"Even if we were to double the volume we were to make in biofuels every year for the next 10 years, we're still looking at maybe this will impact 15 percent of the overall fuel supply," said Brian Fan, Cleantech's senior director of research.

"Realistically, for anything to be happening at scale, enough to actually impact an airline's bottom line, we're years away," Fan said.

VP pick

PJ from Chatsworth, CA — Sat, 23 Aug 2008 09:46:58 EDT

I am so not impressed with that choice.

Flexible-Fuel Vehicles

Phil Smith — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 00:56:49 EDT

I've been doing some reading on how our country can achieve energy independence, and Dr. Robert Zubrin's call for legislation requiring all future vehicles built and operated in the U.S. be FFV is the most logical as part of a long-term, comprehensive energy plan. I've been struggling for some time to figure out the best "transition" from fossil fuels to, say, a hydrogen fuel-cell or nuclear economy, and this is the bestbet I've seen.

I urge Senator Barack Obama to investigate FFVs for himself and adopt this idea. Senator John McCain has already announced his intention to support an agenda that includes FFVs.

Thanks,

Democratic platform draft includes space plank

Gary Oleson — Sun, 10 Aug 2008 12:52:09 EDT

The Democratic National Committee draft 2008 platform that was sent to Platform Committee members on August 7 included a space plank that gives space investment equal billing with alternative energy investment. The relevant text is quoted below:

"... We will make science, technology, engineering, and math education a national priority. We will double federal funding for basic research, invest in a strong and inspirational vision for space exploration, and make the Research and Development Tax Credit permanent. We will invest in the next generation of transformative energy technologies and health IT and we will renew the defense R&D system. ..."

Those of us who hoped for more should appreciate that a party platform is a high-level thematic document. We shouldn't expect to get more detailed treatment than alternative energy! It's worth noting that the 2004 Democratic platform did not mention space at all.

I also wonder what significance to assign to the word "invest" in the space plank. When we invest we expect a return on investment. Could this indicate a more forward-looking commercial or industrial view of space? I'd like to hear some day from the people who drafted the space plank on what they had in mind.

Drilling For Oil off of the Beautiful (and delicate) Florida Coast

Lovenrockets - New Smyrna Beach, FL — Sat, 09 Aug 2008 10:29:57 EDT

Even though my dedication to Senator Obama has not chanced at all, I find I am at odds with the semi or full proposing of offshore drilling in Florida. The benefits are so small yet the risks to the environment and the taking away of the beauty of our horizon are far to great to ignore. The other issue is the possibility of natural disasters such as hurricanes and tornadoes. I've done much research on the massive damage from Katrina due to oil rigs/platforms, refineries and storage facilities. It would be wise for all Floridans and Americans do the same. I realize that Senator Obama has a mind of his own. But I'm concerned about his cabinet listening to the Senator Bill Nelson group. Senator Bill Nelson was dead set against the drilling off of the coast, but watched him change his mind before my eyes. This was also the same fundraiser in in Coral Gables I attended that he nor those that introduced him never once mentioned he was a former US astronaut or any support for the US Space Program. It was not mentioned as one of his accomplishments, and I did ask him and a couple of others why this was so. I guess it was best explained as an oversight. I'm not so sure it was since the audience at the time were not "Space Coasters" or "Central Floridians", but "South Floridians". Even former President Clinton was there and I'm sure he was the big draw. The issue for me is that Senator Nelson threw in the offshore oil drilling at that time as well accidently-on-purpose leaving out any affiliation with the space agency.I'm sorry, but I have a general uneasiness about our delicate and fragile waterways and coast which absolutely includes the life that lives in and around it. A major oil accident off the coast of Florida will bring the unimaginable to life as we know it. I really want to hear more about this from our great and hopeful Senator from the Land of Lincoln. I’m worried and need to learn more about this policy, even though Senator McCains is way out in left field.

Gasoline from Nuclear and Renewable Energy

Marcel F. Williams — Fri, 08 Aug 2008 15:48:51 EDT

New Papyrus

newpapyrusmagazine.blogspot.com

Gasoline from Nuclear and Renewable Energy

Marcel F. Williams

With more than 700 billion dollars a year of our national wealth being exported to foreign nations in exchange for the importation of foreign oil, the US is gradually impoverishing itself while also continuing to put more greenhouse polluting carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. While it is estimated that plug-in-hybrid vehicles and electric cars utilizing current off-peak electric power capacity could reduce US petroleum consumption by at least 35% without adding any new electric capacity to the national grid, this would still require Americans to consume at least 65% of their transportation energy needs through petroleum fuels. Of course, this does not take into account the substantial increases in demand for transportation fuel in the future, during the next few decades, due to increasing US population and economic growth.

Biofuels have long been argued as an alternative solution to the use of petroleum for transportation needs. While most of the US emphasis has been on the controversial production of ethanol, technologies that can covert biomass into gasoline, diesel fuel, methanol, and aviation fuel have existed for decades.

The US Department of Energy reported that up to 30% of our transportation fuel needs could be met through synthetically produced biofuels (gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, methanol, and ethanol) by the year 2030. Agricultural lands including 87 million tons of animal manure could provide nearly 1 billion dry tons of sustainably collectable biomass while also continuing to meet food, feed and export demands. They also reported that forest lands could provide an additional 370 million dry tons of biomass annually. The report argues that an annual biomass supply of more than 1.3 billion dry tons could be accomplished with relatively modest changes in land use and agricultural and forestry practices.

This however does not include the 250 million tons of solid biowaste produce from the urban areas of the US which would could replace an additional 6% of our petroleum needs. So in total, 36% of our current petroleum needs could be met through biofuels which would amount to approximately half of our petroleum imports.

However, if the US demand for energy for transportation should increase by 50 to 100% over the next few decades then possibly only 18% of our petroleum needs could be met by biofuels in the future. But if electricity could still provide 30% of our transportation energy needs in 2030 via plug-in-hybrids and electric cars then 48% of our future transportation needs could be met by biomass. This would still leave the US dependent on petroleum for over 50% of its transportation needs.

However, a 2007 study published through the National Academy of Sciences showed that, even without plug-in-hybrids and electric vehicles, all of our current transportation fuel needs could be met through biofuels if hydrogen from nuclear, wind, and solar were added to the mix. This would more than triple the amount of synthetic gasoline, diesel fuel, methanol, and aviation fuel produced in the US. We might, therefore, be able to provide more than 80% of our transportation fuel needs in a ground transportation system dominated by plug-in-hybrids and electric vehicles.    This, however, would require a substantial increase in our nuclear and wind capacity in order to produce the hydrogen component for enhanced biofuel production.

There are new emerging technologies, however, that are capable of extracting carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere. Such technologies would allow the US to produce gasoline, diesel fuel, aviation fuel and methanol through nuclear, wind, solar, and hydroelectric power without the need for any biomass component. Scientist at the Los Alamos labs have recently proposed a concept for using nuclear power or wind power plants to produce gasoline and other transportation fuels. In order for these technologies to completely replace petroleum, it would require increasing nuclear power by about ten times current capacity or increasing wind power by more than 200 times current capacity. But if transportation fuel needs doubled within the next few decades then nuclear power plants would have to be increased at least 20 times while wind power   would have to be increased 400 times current capacity. However, increasing our nuclear and wind capacity even further might allow the US not only to become totally independent of petroleum but might also enable the US to be a major exporter of clean carbon-neutral fuels which could help lower greenhouse gases around the world.

So it is clear that the US will have to dramatically increase its nuclear, wind, and biomass capacity in order to become truly energy independent from foreign fuels.   Such carbon-neutral synthetic fuels would finally end greenhouse gas pollution from our nation's transportation system. And a synthetic fuel economy would also finally end this country's dependence on foreign oil and the petroleum fuel economy! It would also mean that the 700 billion dollars that was once annually leaving America's shores would now be flowing right back into the US economy as a-- titanic-- annual stimulus.

It will be a tall order over the next few decades to move this nation from a petroleum fuel economy to a nuclear and renewable synthetic fuel economy. But it is most certainly doable for the most advanced industrial nation on Earth especially one that can so easily throw away hundreds of billions of dollars annually on an unnecessary war in Iraq.

REFERENCES

G. Olah, A. Goeppert, and G. Prakash, (2006) Beyond Oil and Gas: The Methanol Economy, Wiley-VCH Verlang, Weinheim, Germany

F.J. Martin and WL Kubic, Green (2007) Freedom: A concept for producing carbon-neutral synthetic fuels and chemicals, Los Alamos Labs, November (www.lanl.gov/news/newsbulletin/pdf/Green_Freedom_Overview.pdf)

Michael Kintner-Meyer, Kevin Schneider, Robert Pratt, (2007) IMPACTS ASSESSMENT OF PLUG-IN HYBRID VEHICLES ON ELECTRIC UTILITIES AND REGIONAL U.S. POWER GRIDS PART 1: TECHNICAL ANALYSIS Pacific Northwest National Laboratory November, (www.pnl.gov/energy/eed/etd/pdfs/phev_feasibility_analysis_combined.pdf)


Agrawal, R, Singh, N R, Ribeiro, F H , Delgass, W N , (Mar 2007) Sustainable fuel for the transportation sector. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104 (12), p.4828-4833, (www.pnas.org/content/104/12/4828.full)

Robert D. Perlack, Lynn L. Wright, Anthony F. Turhollow, Bryce J. Stokes,Donald C. Erbach, Robin L. Graham, (2005)BIOMASS AS FEEDSTOCK FOR A BIOENERGY AND BIOPRODUCTS INDUSTRY: THE TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY OF A BILLION-TON ANNUAL SUPPLY Oak Ridge National Laboratory A Joint Study Sponsored by the U.S. Department of Energy and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (www1.eere.energy.gov/biomass/pdfs/final_billionton_vision_report2.pdf)

K. Schultz, L. Bogart, G. Besenbruch, L. Brown, R. Buckingham, M. Campbell, B. Russ, and B. Wong HYDROGEN AND SYNTHETIC HYDROCARBON FUELS – A NATURAL SYNERGY General Atomics Poster (bioage.typepad.com/greencarcongress/docs/H2__Synfuel_poster.pdf)

Robert E Uhrig, (2007) Replacing Transportation Fuels with Nuclear Energy NUCLEAR ENERGY REVIEW (www.touchbriefings.com/pdf/2771/Uhrig.pdf)

Klaus S. Lackner, Patrick Grimes, Hans-J. Ziock, Capturing Carbon Dioxide From Air (www.netl.doe.gov/publications/proceedings/01/carbon_seq/7b1.pdf)

First Successful Demonstration of Carbon Dioxide Air Capture Technology Achieved by Columbia University Scientist and Private Company, (2007) Earth Institute News Archive, 04/24/07(www.earth.columbia.edu/news/2007/story04-24-07.php)

Obama to reestablish the National Aeronautics and Space Council

Gary Oleson — Sat, 02 Aug 2008 22:50:01 EDT

Barack Obama pledged to reestablish the National Aeronautics and Space Council at a town hall meeitng in Titusville, FL, today!

For more info, see: http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/amandascott/gG5kBP

Remarks of Senator Barack Obama Town Hall on the Economy As Prepared For Delivery Titusville, Florida Saturday, August 2, 2008

...... And we have to do more than provide short-term relief. We have to secure our long-term prosperity and strengthen America’s competitiveness in the 21st century. One of the areas where we are in danger of losing our competitive edge is our space program. When I was growing up, NASA inspired the world with achievements we are still proud of. Today, we have an administration that has set ambitious goals for NASA without giving NASA the support it needs to reach them. As a result, they’ve had to cut back on research, and trim their programs, which means that after the Space Shuttle shuts down in 2010, we’re going to have to rely on Russian spacecraft to keep us in orbit.

We cannot cede our leadership in space. That’s why I will help close the gap and ensure that our space program doesn’t suffer when the Shuttle goes out of service by working with Senator Bill Nelson to add at least one additional Space Shuttle flight beyond 2010; by supporting continued funding for NASA; by speeding the development of the Shuttle’s successor; and by making sure that all those who work in the space industry in Florida do not lose their jobs when the Shuttle is retired – because we cannot afford to lose their expertise.

More broadly, we need a real vision for space exploration. To help formulate this vision, I’ll reestablish the National Aeronautics and Space Council so that we can develop a plan to explore the solar system – a plan that involves both human and robotic missions, and enlists both international partners and the private sector. And as America leads the world to long-term exploration of the moon, Mars, and beyond, let’s also tap NASA’s ingenuity to build the airplanes of tomorrow and to study our own planet so we can combat global climate change. Under my watch, NASA will inspire the world, make America stronger, and help grow the economy here in Florida....

Space policy should include robust Asteroid/Comet Defense

bdn — Fri, 01 Aug 2008 04:44:27 EDT

A manned visit to Mars is a good eventual goal. Great civilizations need great goals to thrive. However it strikes me that our space policy should be a little more focused on near term need. After reading the article in the June issue of The Atlantic, The Sky is Falling (http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200806/asteroids), I have come to the conclusion that we need to really start thinking about this as a real issue. I know this sounds chicken littlish, but you should read the article. The probabilities associated with a significant impact event have been increasing dramatically over the last few decades. I quote from the article:

"A generation ago, the standard assumption was that a dangerous object would strike Earth perhaps once in a million years. By the mid-1990s, researchers began to say that the threat was greater: perhaps a strike every 300,000 years. This winter, I asked William Ailor, an asteroid specialist at The Aerospace Corporation, a think tank for the Air Force, what he thought the risk was. Ailor’s answer: a one-in-10 chance per century of a dangerous space-object strike."

Part of the rethinking comes from the rather obvious observation that if you are going to be looking for crater impacts you need to also look at the ocean floor. (Since most of the planet is covered by the oceans.) The next observation is that not all impact events will leave a crater behind at all.

[off-topic] Support Team USA by

Eric from Tacoma, WA — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:50:44 EDT

visiting www.homedepot.com and clicking on the Olympic rings/ "It's time to turn clicks into gold" banner near the bottom of the page. For every click, Home Depot will donate $1 to Team USA on your behalf. The ticker shows that over $670,000 has been raised so far.

And now that HD has given Team USA a dollar for you, I challenge you to donate a matching dollar to the campaign!

Reforming and Accelerating NextGen Should be a Presidential Priority

Jawad — Fri, 25 Jul 2008 10:40:29 EDT

Congress has passed and the President has signed a bipartisan legislation to reclaim America's global advantage in the field of aeronautics and modernize the nation's aging air transportation system. Vision 100, Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, became public law in the closing days of 2003. Since then, an interagency organization, the Joint Planning and Development Office (JPDO), was formed and a roadmap for America's Next-Generation air transportation system (NextGen) has been developed -this despite a high turnover rate in JPDO leadership and sluggish interagency coordination as has been documented by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) report to Congress.

Energy and Security: Why to Support Robust Space policy

Tammy — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 01:57:50 EDT

Nuclear power would be much more appreciated if we could store the waste without endangering anyone. Instead of riling any of our states or territories, how about we work out a way to send our radioactive waste into space?

Speaking of safety, why don't we try to build a nuclear reactor out in space to beam us the power we need?

Or if looking for something safer yet, let's focus on capturing solar power in space and beaming it directly to Earth?

And as I've mentioned before, mining the asteroids for resources?

And on the Security argument... from a strategic point of view, owning the high ground puts you in a safer position militarily. Space is the ultimate high ground, and the Moon in particular is a very strategic bit of property. We can't let other countries out pace us in the space race, and we must forge ahead and continue to be a leader in space technology and innovation.

Space at Netroots Nation

Ferris Valyn — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:46:04 EDT

Space policy made a pretty decent splash at Netroots Nation. We had an excellent panel on space policy, and an excellent platform meeting. For those of you who don't remember, we had Andrew Hoppin moderating, and Chris Bowers, Lori Garver, Patricia Grace Smith, and George Whitesides all speaking. You can about the panelists here.

Join me over the fold to read, and see it

July 2008 Space Security Lunch Series

Phil Smith — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 16:35:44 EDT

The third installment of our Space Security Lunch Series, held at the University of Colorado Boulder in the University Memorial Center (UMC), Aspen Room 285, will take place on July 23, 2008. Speaker will be Rachel Yates, space lawer and partner with Holland & Hart law firm in Denver. Subject of talk will be: "Space Tourism: Have Fun at Your Own Risk."

Note that her talk is sponsored by the Secure World Foundation, and is a non-partisan discussion focusing on an aspect of space law.

Upcoming events about space and space policy

Ferris Valyn — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:05:07 EDT

Hey Everyone,

I figured now would be a good time to remind everyone (again) about some upcoming space events, that would be worth going to. We have a couple of major events this week, as well as future events upcoming. I promise reports to any and all I attend, and I suggest that you attend as well

Redstate, Senator Obama, space policy, and our group

Ferris Valyn — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:21:44 EDT

Generally, when I do a diary about space, its either about current events, proposing good space policy, or remarking on the fact that Senator Obama hasn't fully developed a space policy. But today's is a little different - its actually not about space, so much as reaction to 1 line, I wrote, about Senator Obama. What was the line, and who reacted? Well, come over to the flip side, and you can find out (although you can probably guess who was doing the reacting

The Delta Clipper

Marcel F. Williams — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 04:01:49 EDT

One of NASA's biggest mistakes, IMO, was not properly supporting and funding the Delta Clipper VTOVL (vertical take off vertical landing) program back in the 90s. If an Obama administration could go back and seriously support and appropriately fund this reusable space vehicle concept, I think it would revolutionize manned space travel and capture the public's imagination like no other NASA spacecraft ever has. And this would be a vehicle that would be extremely attractive to private industry and even to the space tourism industry. The Delta Clipper could also be used as an experimental rapid intercontinental transport vehicle since it would be capable to traveling to any point on the planet within less than 45 minutes; much larger versions in the future could therefore transport dozens or perhaps hundreds of passengers and their luggage anywhere on Earth in less than an hour instead of those agonizing 15 to 20 hour over seas flights.

The Delta Clipper concept was designed to take off and land practically anywhere and be fueled by liquid hydrogen and oxygen which could be produced by a simple water electrolysis facility. It would have been fundamentally used to conveniently transport people or small satellites into low earth orbit. But basically the same vehicle could also be used to shuttle astronauts from Mars orbit to the martian surface and from the surface of Mars back into martian orbit. It could also be used as a heavy cargo OTV (orbital transport vehicle) easily capable of transporting hundreds of tons from LEO to lunar orbit if fully fueled in orbit.

Even if this vehicle were only capable of launching 4 metric tons into orbit, that would be enough to place at least 2 pilots plus 6 passengers into LEO (rule of thumb that it takes 1000 lbs of payload structural mass for each passenger). And many have argued that it would reduce payload cost by a factor of ten.

The unmanned experimental DC-X1 only required two individuals to launch it while an expendable launcher requires hundreds of individuals. The DC-X required a ground grew of seven while an expendable launcher requires a ground crew of thousands.

Unfortunately, this concept was not a vehicle of NASA origin and after its initial success, NASA reluctantly took on the project with minimal funding. Adding to the complexity of the project was the military requirement that it also be used as a polar orbiting vehicle which would have required a nose-first reentry. This of course would be unnecessary if the vehicle were used solely for civilian transport to normal equatorial orbits such as to the international space station.

There are those who argue that this type of simple space craft properly funded, it could be ready for flight in less than 5 years. This vehicle would be much better than NASA's far more expensive Ares 1 human launch vehicle concept.

So I hope Obama takes a new an positive look at the Delta Clipper concept.

More info on the Delta Clipper program and concept can be found in the links below:

www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcy.htm

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DC-Y

media.armadilloaerospace.com/DCX/

www.astronautix.com/lvs/dcx.htm

www.hvcn.org/info/a2s2/restofus.html

Senator Obama, bring back the National Space Council

Ferris Valyn — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:56:43 EDT

This is being re-posted from my diaries over at dailykos

In many of my past diaries, I commented on Senator Obama, and his lack of a space policy, and the concern that he is anti human spaceflight. These diaries have ranged from long explanations, to something that was probably close to a rant.

However, today I want to talk about something that, Senator Obama can do, which doesn't require massive new spending, but would show an openness to the idea of manned spaceflight, and would fit well within his comments and concerns about having a coherent space policy. Senator Obama, please bring back the National Space Council.

Good thoughts and a Science Agency Reorg

Tammy — Sat, 05 Jul 2008 14:38:35 EDT

Been a crazy few days... Anyone who has a spare minute, please send a happy thought my way. A little positive thinking my way may help life get back on track.

And speaking of getting back on track, I think we can all agree that science over the past 8 years has been politicized. But, even so, we have scientists who are working their hearts and minds out to solve many of our problems. Here's an interesting idea they've suggested that may help our government manage our approach to science a bit better: Link

It's a suggestion to combine three of our govt agencies dealing with various environmental issues into a single agency so they have a more holisitic perspective on how far-reaching environmental effects are impacting the US. I hope Barack backs this idea. In addition to the better knowledge the single agency might gain, there may also be efficiencies gained from merging these groups, which means our tax dollars would be giving us more bang for our buck.

Manned Missions

CJM — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:58:25 EDT

Senator Obama, there should be no question as to wether the US should continue and bolster a vigorous manned space program without pause. This coupled with unmanned missions and the pursuit of fusion energy for space travel can be the winning combination that gets us where we want to be in space travel and value for what we hope to accomplish.

The Constellation mission will be a very important stepping stone to the giant leaps to come. We cannot afford to cut this funding and stall the program, only to pay more later to start back up and be way behind the potential. There is no good trade off of a vigorous manned space program for funding of education.

I say to you Senator Obama that we must do both, and they must be intertwined, and in the words of President Kennedy we must do it, not because it is easy but because it is hard, but we must do them together.

It is in the DNA of mankind to push the limits, it is what kills us and what keeps us alive!

Tell Congress to Resist Calls for Drilling

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 15:39:37 EDT

Go to the site below to tell Congress to resist calls for offshore and arctic drilling. Thanks.

Click here

I think this an important message for us all to send since the GOP has already gotten over a million signatures that urge Congress to do the opposite.

Dear Steve Robinson,

John Messerly — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:45:53 EDT

To: Steve Robinson, space policy spokesperson for the Obama campaign.

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your long time support of Barack and your service in advising him on science policy. I am primarily interested in energy independence issues, but as a close follower of Space Policy (I admin the Space and Aeronautics Policy blog on democrats.org), I would like the opportunity to offer some observations about the recent debate you participated in at the International Space Development Conference.

What Bush tapped into with his ill-advised "Vision for Space Exploration" policy was the romance of endless frontiers to be explored. It is deeply American. We are inspired by limitless opportunities and broad vistas of opportunities.
Factually speaking, conservative estimates are that we can do 10 times more exploration for the same dollar. We should be leveraging that fact.
Our message should be: we want to do 10 times more space exploration than what McCain-Bush proposed. Nasa's estimate that a Apollo sized commitment to a manned Mars mission wouldn't get us there before 2037. Our question is not, why should we go there, but why should we wait that long? Let's stop robbing missions based on remote controlled vehicles that are delivering real science for manned missions that are delivering negligible science.
Beware the "Robot trap". Use the term "remotely controlled exploration" or explorers. Stop referring to Robots and Robotic missions because as a factual matter with the Mars rovers for example, only rudimentary functions are partially autonomous- all exploration is human directed. Yet the deceptive "Robot" label is the preferred terminology of manned spaceflight advocates because it leverages the "Man is better than Robot" theme, and dooms your position. So challenge the premise of any question that rests on the Robot Trap. Opportunity and Spirit rovers, same as UAVs, have marvelous support software, but exploration is performed by instructions from explorers on earth. Both manned and remotely piloted vehicles are human exploration, relying on human distinctions unsubstitutable human judgment. The difference is that manned is vastly more expensive, relies on a single human's rather than multiple expert judgments, puts a human in not just in harms way, but in an exceptionally dangerous environment where even minor errors can result in death.
Co-opt the central argument for manned craft. Freely admit that today's remote controlled exploration vehicles take as many as 3 days to do what it would take an astronaut 30 minutes to do. But point out that the Opportunity and Spirit Rovers have collectively spent over 109 months on Mars and are still going strong. Using the discount of 3 days of remote rover = 30 minutes of astronaut time on surface, these remotely piloted explorers have already done the work of more than 90 manned days on the Mars surface, assuming astronauts on a manned mission worked flat out, 6 hours every day with no down time.
Redefine the argument for manned missions as a quantitative rather than qualitative difference. Freely admit that the people exploring Mars have not physically touched the Martian surface- but challenge the listener to be brutally honest. The astronaut in 2037 would no more touch the surface either, and would be safely separated from Mars, inside the self contained pressurized spacecraft complete with robust life support and communications that the lay audience calls a spacesuit. The intermediary technology always separates the human from the Mars- the difference is- by what degree, and at what cost benefit? In one case the distance is one inch. In the other the distance is a couple million miles. Manned mission advocates want us to wait 30 years to get that distance down to one inch. Our challenge to McCain: Is the wait worth the benefit? This turns the tables of the debate, putting McCain on the defense, as the one without vision, the one seeking to retard exploration.

Thanks for your time in considering these options for future confrontations with space spokespersons representing the Bush-McCain " Vision for Space Exploration" that will doom us to a 30 year delay in space exploration. An example of how I employ these themes and rhetoric may be found on the democrats.org space and aeronautics policy blog. Link to a recent post here. Although I am for reconsideration of Constellation/Ares in favor of heavier investment in climate change monitoring and remote exploration of space, contrary to the appearance given in this post, I am not an opponent of manned missions. In fact I fiercely believe this gets us a significantly more aggressive space policy using the same resources budgeted by the Republicans. I foresee manned bases on the moon and mars, but see the base construction and extraction of local resources largely conducted by vehicles operated remotely by humans on earth. I personally believe it is the fastest and smartest way to extend humanity's dominion to the inner and outer planets.

Warm regards,

John

Politics at the International Space Development Conference, 2008

Ferris Valyn — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:33 EDT

Recently, I attended the 2008 International Space Development Conference (ISDC). While there, a number of space issues were discussed, espcially concerning policy. I felt everyone here could benefit from reading about it. Before I go into what happened, with regard to the politics, let me give a short background about ISDC. ISDC is put on every year, for 26 years, by the National Space Society. Its purpose is to promote space development. It brings together scientists, engineers, policy makers, businessmen, even artists and philosophers, to talk about and discuss space development.

With that firmly established, join me on the other side, to talk about some of the political discussions that happened there, this year.

Recreate the National Space Council

Gary Oleson — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 04:50:05 EDT

Several policy proposals were discussed at the second meeting of the Obama'08 Space Policy Advisory Group at the International Space Development Conference (ISDC). One that received broad approval was to recreate the White House National Space Council that existed off and on from the Eisenhower Administration until 1993. I volunteered to write a paper to document the idea and I managed to get some great reviews and suggestions from several experienced people. The result is in the extended post below.

WOW, It might be happening as we read!!!

CJM — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 18:19:42 EDT

I have written previous articles about the possibilities of Dr. Bussard's Polywell Fusion addressing alternative fuel needs. As some of you may know, there has been ongoing research in NM and it seems that while they are "not there yet" they are moving in a positive and promising direction!

When the world gets to a place where fusion energy can be produced in small safe reactors and in a cost effective way, we will see a great technological jump away from fossil fuels. One that will not only address many of our energy needs on earth but even provide us with a fuel source to travel space like never before!

You Go Dr. Richard Nebel & the Emc2 Polywell Fusion team, the world has it's fingers crossed!

One of my previous post concerning IEC Polywell Fusion

Education vs. Space... why can't we have both?

Tammy — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 18:06:18 EDT

In an article linked to the community blog, we find a review of the nominees' education platforms...

http://thevote.abc13.com/2008/06/education-is-a.html?cid=118030066#comment-118030066

This article does speak to one of my disagreements with some of Barack's ideas, and that is reducing funding of our space initiatives to pay for education. I believe we have to find a way to do both things... Education prepares our children for their future, and I believe that Space is where a huge chunk of our future prosperity will come from.

I also wanted to share my reply to the article above...

"This, unfortunately, is one of the few issues where I differ with my candidate, Barack Obama. The space program definitely needs to continue to be funded, especially as we are nearing the time when the rapid pace of technological advancements will allow us to mine our solar system for resources. Who knows, we may find plentiful energy resources out in the asteroids.

However, Barack's focus on education is incredibly important, and I also like how he discusses that he will improve teacher salaries. How can you attract the best and brightest to teach our up and coming best and brightest?

The question does become how do we pay for it all, especially when we've wasted billions in what many agree was a war we should have never started.

The answer is hard to nail down, but I can tell you that with Barack's history of choosing advisors based on their skills and not their loyalty, that we'll get some really great ideas out of his administration."

Robust and comprehensive space policy

Phil Smith — Mon, 02 Jun 2008 13:56:28 EDT

I was disappointed with Dr. Steve Robinson's input during the ISDC panel discussing Obama's view on space matters (I was not there, but have read various accounts). I'm not suprised by this, as campaigns have traditionally placed space low on the list of priorities, which is understandable. What is not understandable is having someone who knows about space on the staff somewhere, even if this is a secondary duty.

We need to reinvent the way the federal government deals with space. NASA needs to be reinvented, for one thing. I want that organization to be split into two NACA0like organizations - one dedicated to aerospace RDT&E and the other to astronautical RDT&E. I want it out of operations. All science missions should go to the National Academies of Science and all Earth missions to NOAA.

Military space needs direction from above as well. We need a firm space policy that is not belligerent. Among other things, we need to prevent the militarization of space now. Currently, space assets support terrestrial military operations. I do not want to see this evolve into space assets supporting non-terrestrial military operations. I consider this distinct from "weaponization" of space, which is a broader concept allowing for law enforcement and personnel security needs.

We need a robust Department of Commerce office dedicated to space, working closely with the Department of Transportation's Office of Commercial Space Transportation. We need to provide a means for commercial activity to establish itself in space, and this means tax incentives, RDT&E support, international engagement, etc. The bulk of space activity in the future will be commercial in nature, and we need this fact reflected in our space policy and funding.

Finally, the president will need a senior space policy advisor. Such a person should have a comprehensive understanding of the space sectors, and not be a generic policy wonk, scientist, engineer, or military member, unless such a person has a big picture view that embraces more than their experience would suggest.

Phil

Inspiration & Nasa (parts 2)

Tommy — Sun, 25 May 2008 19:43:33 EDT

Sitting here watching NASA TV online waiting to see if the Phoenix Lander is a success or not I am reminded of the inspiration that I sometimes get from the Obama community and Obama speeches. It makes me wonder the reason behind his decision to cut more funding for NASA than has already been cut from the program. It makes no sense to me in anyway.

NASA provides vision and opportunity not only to the United States but the international community. The contribution of NASA is not only to astronomy and flight testing but almost every facet of our lives from medicine to archeology. This IS science and math at one of the greatest levels of contribution to us that we could hope for.

NASA is inspirational, progressive, and shows how science and math ARE important and cutting its funding strongly appears to be contrary to much of what Obama speaks of and apparently stands for. Not only does NASA show how science and math are important but it is a start of something that should be expanded in my opinion and not cut more and more.

If the Lander fails, which I believe it will not, I truly hope that it isn’t turned into a political gimmick to cut funding. If successful I fully expect it to generally be ignored as it usually is (other than for the momentary ‘wow’) I believe NASA and other scientific endeavors should be funded better, rather than cut. I thought this is what Obama stands for and is why it makes absolutely no sense to hear about him wanting to cut funding for 5 years…..

I hope he can see the possibilities of NASA rather than dismiss it so. NASA so intertwines into what I thought Obama stood for.

Tommy

Of Obama, Richardson, and Space

Ferris Valyn — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:25:19 EDT

This week, Governor Bill Richardson endorsed Senator Barack Obama. Governor Richardson was clearly inspired by Obama's speech. Now, the question is, will he be able to provide counsel to Senator Obama (and to an Obama administration, should that happen). And in particular, my hope is that Richardson will be able to provide counsel to Senator Obama on the issue of space policy. Please join me over the fold

Essays to Senator Obama - The Space Economy Pt3

Ferris Valyn — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:22:56 EDT

Dear Senator Obama,

It is clear, through your statements, that you have questions about what role human spaceflight can and does play on our society. You have said that you want to have a full evaluation, and have a clear understanding about how and where we can have the most impact in our spending on space.

Part of the problem is how we've interacted with space, and how we view it. For a long time, space has been viewed as being beyond the reach of the average person, and that it can only provide us more scientific knowledge.

However, there is growing evidence that this is about to change, and that properly harnessed, space can have an incredibly positive effect on society - it can help with our economy, and it can help provide us with clean, cheap energy.

It is for this reason I have written these essays - so you can understand how human spaceflight can have a beneficial impact on society, why the time is now that it can have such a beneficial impact, and how best to capitalize on this.

In this first essay, I talk about the economy, and orbital space businesses.

Essays to Senator Obama - The Space Economy Pt2

Ferris Valyn — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:39:08 EST

Dear Senator Obama,

It is clear, through your statements, that you have questions about what role human spaceflight can and does play on our society. You have said that you want to have a full evaluation, and have a clear understanding about how and where we can have the most impact in our spending on space.

Part of the problem is how we've interacted with space, and how we view it. For a long time, space has been viewed as being beyond the reach of the average person, and that it can only provide us more scientific knowledge.

However, there is growing evidence that this is about to change, and that properly harnessed, space can have an incredibly positive effect on society - it can help with our economy, and it can help provide us with clean, cheap energy.

It is for this reason I have written these essays - so you can understand how human spaceflight can have a beneficial impact on society, why the time is now that it can have such a beneficial impact, and how best to capitalize on this.

In this second essay, I talk about the economy, and suborbital space businesses.

Essays to Senator Obama - The Space Economy Pt1

Ferris Valyn — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:05:17 EST

Obama, the Houston Chronicle, and Space

Ferris Valyn — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:57:24 EST

Cross posted at dailykos

As you probably know, Senator Obama was endorsed by the Houston Chronicle. However, in their endorsement, the Chronicle responded to a statement from Obama, and added a caveat to their endorsement. What was the comment, and what was the subsequent caveat? Come over the fold, and see

Space Exploration Policy

Harry — Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:27:06 EST

President Bush - not one of my favorite people in the world. But one thing I have to agree with him on is relaunching the space program to head for the Moon. Thank God for that, in my humble opinion!

Does Obama have much say on what the space program should do? I'm sure he does, but this is a back-burner issue. I'm fine with the fact that it is, but I'd like to hear something about that. I'd like to see NASA's budget expanded so it doesn't have money woes like it has had in the past 20 years. I'd like to see more space station development beyond ISS. I'd like to see a big push to the moon; speed up the project. Get the ball rolling.

This is inevitably going to be a discussion. China's making a big push - and they have the funds and apparently the resources to do so. We need to catch up to where China's at right now. They may only be sending a few astronauts up in their own capsules, but their aim is the Moon, and they'll get there before us.

It's not like China's going to have a permanent base the moment that they land on the Moon for the first time, but with their plans accelerating, moon bases might not be that far off.

If I had the chance to meet Barack, that would be my question.

A Science Call to Debate...

Richard 'Doc' Kinne — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:56:27 EST

Folks:

While we may certainly be all "debated out" soon, my friend Dr. Phil Plait, the "Bad Astronomer" has let folks know of a different kind of debate we may want to see.

A link and text follow (You'll want the link to get the important sublinks):

http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2008/02/11/presidential-science-debate-we-need-your-help/

This post is about a Presidential science debate, and we need your help! Please see below for how you can help make this happen.

There is no doubt -- none -- that science plays a major role in our lives today. There is also no doubt that science has been under vicious attack by politics recently as well, from Plan B to Fish and Wildlife to stem cells to evolution and beyond.

That is why a large group of scientists and science writers has been gathered to promote a Presidential debate on science. This idea has been gathering steam, and is now a major force. The National Academy of Sciences just signed on, for example, and the list of supporters is awesome to behold.

This force was started by Chris Mooney and Sheril Kirshenbaum from the science blog The Intersection, and they have now announced that the Presidential candidates have been officially invited to participate in a science debate!

You read that right: this is for realz. We want the candidates to stand on stage and talk about their stance on various topics in science, and discuss the policies they have about scientific issues. We already know how many of them feel on various issues, but this would be a chance for them to debate, air out their policies, and see who stands where.

Here is the actual invitation sent to Clinton, Obama, Huckabee, and McCain.

The invitation is clear that this is not a science quiz, it is a debate on policy:

The debate may include such policy issues as: American economic competitiveness and support for scientific research; policy approaches to climate change; clean energy; the healthcare crisis; science education and technology in schools; scientific integrity; GM agriculture; transportation infrastructure; immigration; the genome; data privacy; intellectual property; pandemic diseases; the health of the oceans; water resources; stem cells; conservation and species loss; population; the space program, and others.

This is a policy debate. It is not intended to be a science quiz. Nor are we interested in state-level battles such as the evolution versus creationism/ID debate. Our goal is to find out how aware candidates are of America's major science and technology problems and opportunities, and how they propose to offer the kind of visionary leadership and policy solutions that will tackle those challenges and ensure America's place as the most scientifically and technologically advanced nation on earth. This is your opportunity to demonstrate that you are such a leader.

Cooooool. The debate is scheduled for April 18 at The Franklin Institute.

To make this a reality -- let's face it, we want to pressure the candidates into accepting -- we need your help. Here's what we need you to do:

1. Contact the campaigns, and tell them to attend ScienceDebate2008! A list of contact information for the campaigns can be found here.

2. Write letters to the editor of your local newspapers, raising further awareness about this initiative. Some handy letter writing tips can be found here.

3. Tell a friend about ScienceDebate2008 (handy link here). We need to spread the word as much as possible at this critical time. We're at 13,000 supporters right now; we want to get to 15,000 supporters by the end of the week and 20,000 supporters by the end of the month.

I know that well over 20,000 people read my blog (and it's probably closer to twice that). If half of you sign up, we'll blow right past what we need, and if even a fraction write letters to the campaigns, this will become a reality. Just like that. I will be sending out my letters very soon (I'll post the copy on the blog when I do).

We have a chance to be active in our own leadership here beyond just pulling a lever in November. Let's make this happen.

Obama's space policy - Its out, but its not good

Ferris Valyn — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:30:06 EST

Cross-posted at Dailykos

So, those who were/are my regular readers (as well as some Obama supporters who aren't regular readers) know that I have been pushing for Senator Obama to have a space policy, after he released his educational plan around Thanksgiving. Well, in the last few weeks, the Obama campaign has begun to rectify that. First, on Jan 2nd, Lisa Ellman, Obama's policy director, issued the following statement,

Obama believes we should continue developing the next generation of space vehicles, and complete the international space station. While Obama would delay plans to return to moon and push on to mars, Obama would continue unmanned missions, and use NASA to monitor the forces and effects of climate change, support scientific research, and maintain surveillance to strengthen national security. Obama also believes we need to keep weapons out of space.

And on Thursday, this week, the Senator released a full policy statement. Come over the fold, and I'll give you my thoughts

Manned space exploration

John Messerly — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:33:40 EST

Who's your favorite space explorer? Armstrong? Glenn?

Mine is the Opportunity (Mars exploration) rover. 4 years after setting down on Mars, it is still toiling away, uncovering more of Mars' secrets. In terms of science return on dollar invested, it has been a magnificent investment.

Sure- it doesn't get any mention in the news any more. But though science can be dramatic, drama is not the point. Unfortunately, Bush believes it is, and so set Nasa on a track towards re-asserting America's manhood in space- designed to land men on the moon again by. That's what his man in space policy to send astronauts to Mars is about.

Landing men on Mars will be a huge distraction and resource hog for Nasa. Other than the fleeting drama it will provide, such a goal makes very little sense from a science or business (spin off technology) perspective. It's not complicated to figure out why. Unlike technology of the 60's, robotic exploration means engineers can push the envelope in experiments of new approaches. Manned exploration forces engineers to be extremely conservative. The risk taking necessary for breakthrough technologies means dead astronauts- so guess what. It's a bad bet to count on the breakthroughs coming from manned programs. So really, it doesn't take a genius to realize which approach generates more new technologies. That means fewer growth opportunities for Florida and Texas businesses hoping to generate spin off technology products for global markets.

Next consider the cost of proving our manhood in space. 90% of the equipment necessary for manned missions are useless baggage on Telerobotic missions. Telerobotic explorers are on a one way trip. No return fuel needed. No human crew being present on the vehicle means massively redundant systems are not necessary, nor is the bulky life support systems required. Reliable airbag landing systems can be used because machines can be subjected to 40G stresses.

Sure- let's build bases on the Moon, Mars and Europa that "live off the land", we return samples from the outer planets and send high velocity ion propulsion probes outside of the solar system. We can do all of this dramatic stuff a lot faster if we don't have to be 100% sure that every mission will be a success. Ok- the eyes that see all this will be separated from the mars environment not by a piece of clear plastic in a helmet, but by the silicon of a high resolution camera. The distance from the human explorers face to the mars environment will not be measured in inches but in millions of miles.

Is that difference worth waiting 30 years or more for and spending 10 times as much money that could be spent on 10 times more Nasa exploration in unmanned form? For what? So we can do then what we can do today on mars minus the in situ hemoglobin? The price of human vanity is indeed very high.

The nice thing about Telerobotics space exploration is that we can be there without having to wait 20 years to develop the technology to safely move our bodies there. It's good for American businesses that can profit from accelerated risk taking engineering efforts that the telerobitic approach allows. It's good for science because we get an order of magnitude more science bang for the buck. Lastly, it's even good from the perspective of the drama of exploration because we don't have to wait decades to make baby steps to the planets. Instead we can move their boldly and use space as a vast proving ground of radical new technologies that on earth will make our country more competitive.

(Disclaimer- I am not in any way associated with the space or aerospace industry or an inhabitant of Florida or Texas or anyone so connected. I am a former software engineering manager at a well known company and hold a handful of patents in the field. Now I mostly change my children's diapers.)

Senator Obama, you need a space policy

Ferris Valyn — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:32:28 EST

Senator, recently you released your education proposal. To provide part of the money for funding it, you propose to delay the Constellation program. Now, Constellation has some serious flaws, as anyone who looks at it will tell you – Ares I is a complete waste, and there are serious issues with Orion, and Ares V as well. That said, if you are going to be pulling money from Nasa, and spaceflight in general, on a basic fairness, you need to tell us what your vision is for spaceflight in general (and Nasa in particular).

There is more on the other side

50 Years In Space Conference

Laura Lee-Chin — Thu, 06 Sep 2007 14:05:15 EDT

If you want to learn more about space policy from NASA, JPL and aerospace industry experts, then register for the 50 Years in Space Conference at Caltech in Pasadena on Sept. 19-21, 2007. It's free, but registration is on a first-come basis by Sept. 17th.

More info:

http://www.galcit.caltech.edu/space50/index.html

Registration:

http://www.beatricia.caltech.edu/space50/

Welcome to the Space Policy Advisory Group!

Clive — Tue, 13 Feb 2007 03:07:54 EST

I created this group to bring together supporters of space flight and
exploration, to use our combined will to hopefully shape the policies
that will bring renewed vigor to Man's greatest challenge.

If you wish to join the group, here is the location to do so:

Link

But why space? Surly the Iraq war is a more pressing concern! or the
state of education in America and the coming oil peak! Are these not
more urgent issues? Why can't we fix all these problems, and when
everything is better, we can move forward with space exploration? I
intend to answer these questions in many blog posts about
space, space flight, science and technology. Given that the majority of people who read this will in their 20's and 30's, I will first strive to give an overview of the history of space exploration in the context of the Cold War.