Slashdot Mirror

The pen that can write upside down (likely the Fisher Space Pen) was completely privately developed and was not funded or supported by the government or space program.

Perhaps the reason you don't see many spinoffs from the space program is that they are literally all around you. You can't see the forest for the trees, so to speak. Miniaturization is often quoted, and it is quite true. There are many other examples, many in medicine and industry.

I think there may be a few things you have overlooked but they are easy enough to find.

Jim

The pen that can write upside down (likely the Fisher Space Pen) was completely privately developed and was not funded or supported by the government or space program.

Perhaps the reason you don't see many spinoffs from the space program is that they are literally all around you. You can't see the forest for the trees, so to speak. Miniaturization is often quoted, and it is quite true. There are many other examples, many in medicine and industry.

I think there may be a few things you have overlooked but they are easy enough to find.

Jim

How many nations put satellites in space in geosynchronous orbit perfectly above their land? That's a serious question that I don't know the answer to,

Not a list of geosynchronous satelites but: This information is from the Satellite Situation Report from Goddard Space Flight Center, dated September, 1997. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/sa tellites/ssr.html
If anyone has a link to a more recent list, I would like to see it.

And for a very cool visual on some of these satellites:
http://science.nasa.gov/realtime/ Choose J-Track 3D from the left menu. Java required.

Did you know there are over eight thousand artificial objects orbiting Earth? Over 2,500 are satellites, operative and inoperative. The remaining objects are orbital debris: parts such as nosecone shrouds, lens, hatch covers, rocket bodies, payloads that have disintegrated or exploded, and even objects that "escape" from manned spacecraft during operations.

J-Track 3D is one of the most popular Java applets on our web site. It shows 700 satellites, out of thousands, swarming about our earth. You can rotate the display and modify all kinds of settings. The display will also zoom in and out.

How many nations put satellites in space in geosynchronous orbit perfectly above their land? That's a serious question that I don't know the answer to,

Not a list of geosynchronous satelites but: This information is from the Satellite Situation Report from Goddard Space Flight Center, dated September, 1997. http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/sa tellites/ssr.html
If anyone has a link to a more recent list, I would like to see it.

And for a very cool visual on some of these satellites:
http://science.nasa.gov/realtime/ Choose J-Track 3D from the left menu. Java required.

Did you know there are over eight thousand artificial objects orbiting Earth? Over 2,500 are satellites, operative and inoperative. The remaining objects are orbital debris: parts such as nosecone shrouds, lens, hatch covers, rocket bodies, payloads that have disintegrated or exploded, and even objects that "escape" from manned spacecraft during operations.

J-Track 3D is one of the most popular Java applets on our web site. It shows 700 satellites, out of thousands, swarming about our earth. You can rotate the display and modify all kinds of settings. The display will also zoom in and out.

I'd always wondered about that myself. How come NASA never seemed to take any precautions against space junk

from here: http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/9-12/fea tures/F_What_Goes_Up.html

Thanks to the information provided by the U.S. Space Surveillance Network, crewed spacecraft are able to dodge larger pieces of orbital debris. When an object is expected to come within a few miles of the Space Shuttle, and there is greater than a 1 in 10,000 chance of collision, the Space Shuttle changes its path to avoid the object. During normal flight operations of the Space Shuttle, this happens about once every year or two. The International Space Station (ISS) can also maneuver away from debris in its path. In addition, the ISS is also the most heavily shielded spacecraft ever, able to withstand impact with smaller pieces of debris. Since the smallest particles of debris cannot be tracked, occasional collisions with them are inevitable. The Space Shuttle frequently returns to Earth with tiny impact craters from being hit by orbital debris. Astronauts have reported seeing very small cracks formed in the Space Shuttles' front windows when they strike objects. While impact by small pieces of orbital debris is routine, the odds of two pieces of debris larger than 10 cm in diameter colliding is very low. In all of spaceflight history, there is only one recorded incident of two such objects from different missions accidentally colliding.

They fly it back - For a picture: http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/STS-Ferry/S mall/EC95-43279-3.jpg

Here's a link to the NASA fact sheet on landing the space shuttle, for those interested in factual type of info: http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/release/1992/1- 92.htm

There is also a updated secure PDF of this article here:
  http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/La ndingSS-2005.pdf

One thing that I learned reading through this is that the shuttle can be brought down via computer system. Some folks on Slashdot (and many other websites) have stated that the landing gear must be activated by persons onboard the shuttle, via some sort of mechanical device. That is not true according to this information from NASA. The quote below is found under Landing Aids about 2/3 way down the html page. The PDF is actually a very good read, with charts and graphics, for those into this stuff.

Landing Aids
An array of visual aids as well as sophisticated guidance equipment at the Shuttle Landing Facility help to guide the orbiter to a safe landing.

The Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) system on the ground provides range and bearing measurements to the orbiter when it is at an altitude of up to 145,000 feet. More precise guidance signals on slant range, azimuth and elevation come from the Microwave Scanning Beam Landing System (MSBLS) when the orbiter gets closer - up to 18,000 to 20,000 feet. Both TACAN and MSBLS are automatic systems that update the orbiter's onboard navigation systems.

The MSBLS also provides an autoland capability that can electronically acquire and guide the space plane to a completely "hands off" landing. So far, Shuttle mission commanders have taken control of the orbiter for all final approach and landing maneuvers during subsonic flight, usually about 22 miles from the touchdown point.

Here's a link to the NASA fact sheet on landing the space shuttle, for those interested in factual type of info: http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/release/1992/1- 92.htm

There is also a updated secure PDF of this article here:
  http://www-pao.ksc.nasa.gov/kscpao/nasafact/pdf/La ndingSS-2005.pdf

One thing that I learned reading through this is that the shuttle can be brought down via computer system. Some folks on Slashdot (and many other websites) have stated that the landing gear must be activated by persons onboard the shuttle, via some sort of mechanical device. That is not true according to this information from NASA. The quote below is found under Landing Aids about 2/3 way down the html page. The PDF is actually a very good read, with charts and graphics, for those into this stuff.

Landing Aids
An array of visual aids as well as sophisticated guidance equipment at the Shuttle Landing Facility help to guide the orbiter to a safe landing.

The Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) system on the ground provides range and bearing measurements to the orbiter when it is at an altitude of up to 145,000 feet. More precise guidance signals on slant range, azimuth and elevation come from the Microwave Scanning Beam Landing System (MSBLS) when the orbiter gets closer - up to 18,000 to 20,000 feet. Both TACAN and MSBLS are automatic systems that update the orbiter's onboard navigation systems.

The MSBLS also provides an autoland capability that can electronically acquire and guide the space plane to a completely "hands off" landing. So far, Shuttle mission commanders have taken control of the orbiter for all final approach and landing maneuvers during subsonic flight, usually about 22 miles from the touchdown point.

If a CA landing is not possible, then go to backup plan number 3, White Sands Space Harbor in New Mexico. Last time they did this was 1982, and it was the Columbia orbiter.

No satellite has been the subject of a direct physical attack in the history of warfare.

Well, sure, but that seems a bit disingenuous... it's like saying that there were zero shuttle accidents between 1000 and 1900.

I sure am glad to hear that the history of warfare stopped sometime before 1957.

I know the people at Edwards AFB are hoping for a divert to their location.

I was stationed at Edwards when STS-111 landed there after several days of bad weather in Florida.

We piled into the shop truck and drove up to the ridge that overlooks the runway and Rodgers dry lake. We parked at an optical tracking station, which was up and running. The camera operator gave us a bearing to the northwest, towards Santa Barbara, to watch for the shuttle.

We knew it was inbound when the camera began tracking. It was just a speck, but within seconds it was overhead and the double sonic boom was impressive even by Edwards' standards, where sonic booms are an almost daily occurance.

It passed overhead and turned once, landing flawlessly on runway 22. From first sighting to touchdown was only fifteen to twenty seconds.

Later that day, after pre-flighting a jet, we drove out to the taxiway to get a closer look at Endeavour.

We almost made it before Security Forces chased us down and told us to get the heck out of there. In retrospect, we were lucky we didn't spend an hour or two face down on the concrete.

NASA did some testing with a P3 Orion to study the effect.

http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/P-3/HTML/EC 87-0035-001.html

Extrasolar moons of HD 28185 b and iota Hor b, if they exist, would have the additional advantage of getting enough solar radiation to support Earth-like temperatures. This would help keep water liquid, although it may not be necessary for life to appear.

Landing Aids
The MSBLS also provides an autoland capability that can electronically acquire and guide the orbiter to a completely "hands off" landing. So far, Shuttle mission commanders have taken control of the orbiter for all final approach and landing maneuvers during subsonic flight, usually about 22 miles (35 kilometers) from the touchdown point.

Those censored maps were USGS images, straight from the States (and censored by them too). If Mr. Smith thinks Google did that, he should also check them on World Wind.

In any case, I'd be bitch-scared like him, too, if that was my only nuclear reactor. With all the things publicly available on the Internet (for now), I'm sure government bigs everywhere are finally thinking of underground utility buildings.

This is pretty impressive too:
http://heasarc.gsfc.nasa.gov/Images/misc_missions/ isee3_traj.gif
Mmm... Pretty colours... Mmm...

--

So cool.... two little star like dots drifting across the sky in the twilight...
(i'm in Houston)

Best NASA site for tracking:
http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/

The last time I watched the shuttle past to the north of my house it was entering the atmosphere( a few years ago). The most cool group of air and space craft I have ever seen. One shuttle two helocopters, one jumbo jet and a small plain; all in my view at the same time. So Cool...
The local news is saying that NASA will not renter over land anymore?
So sad that I we will never see it renter over land again. What is NASA afraid of? Another rain of bodies? Not likely. NASA please reconsider; rentry is such a sight to see.

Thank You NASA; May darwinism not shine on you today.
If GOD then: Godspeed.
If not then: Best wishes!

More information of hidden black holes and their discovery.

Could things like this be part of the explanation for that "dark matter" that scientists are always talking about? Maybe there are more and we just haven't found them.

Well, yes, but only a small part. We can put a pretty good upper bound on the amount of dark matter that can be in black holes based on gravitational lensing data. Black holes most famously absorb light that is incident inside their event horizons, but they also cause light traveling outside to curve around it. (As does all matter.) Thus, a star that is behind a black hole looks to be in a different place than it should, or even at two different places at once (more info). We can measure how much light is bent and infer how much matter is contained in high-density regions.

Obviously, gravitational lensing only happens where matter is compact. Uniformly distributed stuff won't do it. Thus, we know about how much dark matter there is, and from this, roughly how much can be in black holes. The punch line is that only a small fraction of dark matter (I don't remember the statistic off hand) can come from black holes.

The question is obviously, then, where's the rest of this matter? Some could be in other "normal" matter, like dwarf stars, but again, for various reasons that can't account for very much. Some could be in neutrinos (weakly interacting particles which are almost impossible to detect). This still leaves a whole lot of matter unaccounted for though. Maybe it's so-called WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) which theoretically could be very massive but interact with normal matter very little. Read more at Wikipedia.

Good question, though.

Here's the Saturn V link: http://grin.hq.nasa.gov/ABSTRACTS/GPN-2000-000627. html

I realize it's a joke, but the first CapCom was Deke Slayton.

Slayton was one of the origional Mercury 7 Astronauts. He's also the one that never flew (on Mercury) due to a heart condition which was discovered after his selection. He would later pilot the Apollo Soyuz docking mission at the end of the Apollo Program.

No actually, it isn't. If you dont HAVE to use it for hauling garbage you can use it for other far more important things. Like scientific experiments! The cost of a Progress resupply vehicle is less than 10% of a shuttle mission.

Your best bet would probably be to root around the NASA history office's website for the "official" story about NASA's origins. ;)

I was AC cause I hadn't yet taken the time to register a nick. So here ya go, just for you ;) Just did a search and found this cool site... http://planetquest.jpl.nasa.gov/index.cfm If you hit the "new worlds atlas" link, you'll see they have 154 planets listed so far. Yes, still not a huge number on it's own. But there are so many factors that go into making a planet suitable for complex life, there just isn't time to go into it all. I encourage you to keep looking into this topic. Those books I mentioned before are good for starters, as well as talkorigins.org, wikipedia.org, and other such websites.

The E.T. is no longer accelerating (except for a very small negative acceleration from drag and some downward component from gravity)so it's possible the dot is in a lot closer and is some sort of debris. I'm still not clear on why it would be moving right to left, if that's what it is.

This info is not new. Know and considered for some time by NASA and others. Also, this is typically outside the expertise of the FAA (where the report originated from), so that's odd. Here's a link to an overview of work on this problem... http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/24jun_elec trostatics.htm [nasa.gov] ALSO, be sure to check out the links to more info at the bottom of that page. As far as the value of spaceflight, NASA uses less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the Federal Budget, and returns an average of $3+ to every $1 spent in technology returns. This of course doesn't measure the value of inspiration to youth in pursuing careers in science, engineering, and medicine. Also, providing prestige to the nation and expanding the frotiers of human knowledge for application here on earth (e.g. study of global change began with NASA funded research).

http://worldwind.arc.nasa.gov/download.html

"World Wind requires that you have .NET runtime environment and DirectX installed."

OK, it's not "commercial" but it is a pretty impressive app, if you ask me. Disclaimer: I develop .NET applications in Visual Studio for a living.

If you haven't tried it, I recommend a download. Impressed me a lot more than Keyhole. (p.s. get close to a mountainous area and tilt the globe with a right-drag... Fly through those mountains!)

            Incorrect. The astronauts were not going to simply sit there for the duration of the mission. They had a work schedule - and lot of experiments to perform. Since some of them are now spending time on repairs instead of carrying out their programmed schedule, this work will not be done. This lost work cost money in terms of the mass of the equipment that had to be lifted into orbit for nothing (mass which could have been used for something else like more supplies for the space station). It also costs money because now ANOTHER Shuttle/Soyuz mission will be necessary to get this equipment into orbit or get these experiments done.


Sorry, bud. No experiments and no space science on this flight. This is an ISS resupply mission and test flight. The closest thing to "experiments" are the examination of the Shuttle TPS and the material tests in the cargo bay. Except for the spacewalks, which are man-power intensive, the majority of the work is unloading the MPLM and repacking it. Space Science has largely ceased in the Shuttle-Station system - it is engineering/construction at this point. The ISS crew has extremely limited time for science (10hrs/wk or less lately) and except for the final Columbia flight most Shuttle missions the past few years have been station assembly.

As far as "cost", you are right. Actual money as a measure doesn't really work, but adding spacewalks definitely hits the assembly schedule or other projects. The time hit the extra spacewalks caused wouldn't cause another mission to added, it would stretch this one out. If the MPLM repacking were delayed, they still need it ready before coming home.

Not the crew itinerary, but pretty close. No science involved:

http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/crew/event_time line.html

Josh

PDF of STS-114 Mission Overview:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/112310main_114_miss_overvi ew_july05.pdf

NASA provides a ton of information about the shuttle and ISS programs online. You have to go find it. You're not going to see most of this info reported by the general media because it doesnt have all the foolsih drama and it would require research/explanation.

I've been off all week and have had the chance to watch almost the entire mission on NASA TV as well as crawl their websites. (Yes, I need a shower and shave about now.) They update their website pretty quickly when new events take place and just about anything you could want to know is available by doing a simple search.
http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/search/search.js p
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/
http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/crew/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

It's been interesting to watch the mission and press meetings live and then compare that to the drivel the media spews. The only issue I have with NASA TV is that I have to watch it over the web because my cable operator only offers it with a overpriced package of junk I could care less about. Would be nice if it were freely broadcast, at least when there is an active mission.

PDF of STS-114 Mission Overview:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/112310main_114_miss_overvi ew_july05.pdf

NASA provides a ton of information about the shuttle and ISS programs online. You have to go find it. You're not going to see most of this info reported by the general media because it doesnt have all the foolsih drama and it would require research/explanation.

I've been off all week and have had the chance to watch almost the entire mission on NASA TV as well as crawl their websites. (Yes, I need a shower and shave about now.) They update their website pretty quickly when new events take place and just about anything you could want to know is available by doing a simple search.
http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/search/search.js p
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/
http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/crew/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

It's been interesting to watch the mission and press meetings live and then compare that to the drivel the media spews. The only issue I have with NASA TV is that I have to watch it over the web because my cable operator only offers it with a overpriced package of junk I could care less about. Would be nice if it were freely broadcast, at least when there is an active mission.

PDF of STS-114 Mission Overview:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/112310main_114_miss_overvi ew_july05.pdf

NASA provides a ton of information about the shuttle and ISS programs online. You have to go find it. You're not going to see most of this info reported by the general media because it doesnt have all the foolsih drama and it would require research/explanation.

I've been off all week and have had the chance to watch almost the entire mission on NASA TV as well as crawl their websites. (Yes, I need a shower and shave about now.) They update their website pretty quickly when new events take place and just about anything you could want to know is available by doing a simple search.
http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/search/search.js p
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/
http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/crew/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

It's been interesting to watch the mission and press meetings live and then compare that to the drivel the media spews. The only issue I have with NASA TV is that I have to watch it over the web because my cable operator only offers it with a overpriced package of junk I could care less about. Would be nice if it were freely broadcast, at least when there is an active mission.

PDF of STS-114 Mission Overview:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/112310main_114_miss_overvi ew_july05.pdf

NASA provides a ton of information about the shuttle and ISS programs online. You have to go find it. You're not going to see most of this info reported by the general media because it doesnt have all the foolsih drama and it would require research/explanation.

I've been off all week and have had the chance to watch almost the entire mission on NASA TV as well as crawl their websites. (Yes, I need a shower and shave about now.) They update their website pretty quickly when new events take place and just about anything you could want to know is available by doing a simple search.
http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/search/search.js p
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/
http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/crew/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

It's been interesting to watch the mission and press meetings live and then compare that to the drivel the media spews. The only issue I have with NASA TV is that I have to watch it over the web because my cable operator only offers it with a overpriced package of junk I could care less about. Would be nice if it were freely broadcast, at least when there is an active mission.

PDF of STS-114 Mission Overview:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/112310main_114_miss_overvi ew_july05.pdf

NASA provides a ton of information about the shuttle and ISS programs online. You have to go find it. You're not going to see most of this info reported by the general media because it doesnt have all the foolsih drama and it would require research/explanation.

I've been off all week and have had the chance to watch almost the entire mission on NASA TV as well as crawl their websites. (Yes, I need a shower and shave about now.) They update their website pretty quickly when new events take place and just about anything you could want to know is available by doing a simple search.
http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/search/search.js p
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/osf/
http://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/crew/index.html
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html

It's been interesting to watch the mission and press meetings live and then compare that to the drivel the media spews. The only issue I have with NASA TV is that I have to watch it over the web because my cable operator only offers it with a overpriced package of junk I could care less about. Would be nice if it were freely broadcast, at least when there is an active mission.

They just went to APOD...

The triangular piece is obvious, what I believe is the other piece is being looked at edge-on so it's tricky to see. You can even see the damaged heat shield on the left.

No Fourth Spacewalk Needed

Mission control radioed the Discovery crew today with news that they will not need to make a fourth spacewalk to fix a thermal blanket near the Commander's left window. Mission Control and the crew agreed that it was "good news."

The Mission Management Team, which made the decision based on extensive analysis, is still meeting. More details about the decision will be discussed at a news conference at 3 p.m. EDT today.

This is 3D laser thingy is nice and all, but these fabric pieces were clearly visible in a picture from a regular camera in the PUBLIC DOMAIN:
See for yourself.

It seems to me this laser thingy is meant to find much smaller flaws.

I've been watching the shuttle mission on the K6BEN amateur TV repeater near San Jose, which is on 421.25Mhz, the same as cable (not broadcast) channel 57, through my VCR and with a Yagi I made from a magazine article. The NASA Ames Amateur Radio Club is providing the feed with a 1.2GHz uplink to the repeater. They also have shuttle audio on two meters, and I can receive that with my VX-2R HT.

I've been watching the shuttle mission on the K6BEN amateur TV repeater near San Jose, which is on 421.25Mhz, the same as cable (not broadcast) channel 57, through my VCR and with a Yagi I made from a magazine article. The NASA Ames Amateur Radio Club is providing the feed with a 1.2GHz uplink to the repeater. They also have shuttle audio on two meters, and I can receive that with my VX-2R HT.

Linky

It has a lot to do with the planned use of Vandenburg Air Force base to launch the shuttles and disruptions in the launch schedule.

Well, yes, it is correct that this is the 114th mission, but the previous mission (Columbia) was numbered STS-107 (STS-113 was actually the 112th mission). It's not that straightforward.

page 4 from this NASA PDF:
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/kennedy/pdf/91372main_ tps.pdf

Gaps and Gap Fillers The gaps between the tiles, which range from 0.028 inch to 0.200 inch are necessary for two important reasons. The first reason concerns the difference in thermal expansion properties between the tiles and the orbiter airframe. When in orbit, the external temperature fluctuates by as much as 400 degrees F. The tiles contract much less than the airframe, due to differences in the thermal expansion; thus, the gaps are required to accommodate the difference. During reentry the gap dimensions are also critical. As the orbiter descends through the ever-thickening atmosphere, pressure gradients cause the plasma surrounding the orbiter to flow. If the gaps are too large, hot gases can flow through the gaps and can cause damage to the backup surface seals (filler bar). Gap fillers are used extensively to control the gap dimensions between the individual tiles in many areas of the orbiter and in some areas to provide mechanical 'padding' between the tiles.

Great search site here: http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/search/search.js p

and lots of info on on the thermal protection system here: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts -newsref/sts-tps.html

Great search site here: http://search.nasa.gov/nasasearch/search/search.js p

and lots of info on on the thermal protection system here: http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/technology/sts -newsref/sts-tps.html

The big block engine may be too heavy. You have to look at tables of "Thrust to Payload" ratios to get a good idea of efficiency. http://www.spacefuture.com/archive/a_single_stage_ to_orbit_thought_experiment.shtml

The idea of the Shuttle is to work as a service module and to allow astronauts to exit and re-enter the vehicle. Rockets are still used to launch satellites--but they can't be used for space stations and repair missions. Or at least, you would have to add a lot more of a return payload to the lifting body and add other complicated devices that would have to be thrown away. So the thought is, by the time you fix a rocket to do this type of work, you are better of with some kind of shuttle (not necessarily the one we have).

There is also the Delta-V to consider. Weight of propellant is not the only issue--its Volume to Mass ratio also has an effect, giving denser fuel an advantage. http://yarchive.net/space/rocket/fuels/hydrogen_de ltav.html

Anyway, the ideal engine would be an Atomic engine for real power. But say "Nuclear" to anyone and rationality goes out the window. http://www.nas.nasa.gov/About/Education/SpaceSettl ement/75SummerStudy/4appendM.html But it is quite feasible to create a safe and effective nuclear rocket.

It's a matter of knowing what to search for really, I found this in the first try. http://www.sti.nasa.gov/tto/

Aerogel is good for conductive heat insulation, but poor at radiative insulation - including infrared radiation. It wasn't until after carbon was added to it that infrared radation was stopped (and that still doesn't solve the problem of the remainder of dangerous radioactive spectrum that courses through space).

This info is not new. Know and considered for some time by NASA and others. Also, this is typically outside the expertise of the FAA (where the report originated from), so that's odd.

Here's a link to an overview of work on this problem...
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2005/24jun_elec trostatics.htm

ALSO, be sure to check out the links to more info at the bottom of that page.

As far as the value of spaceflight, NASA uses less than 1/10th of 1 percent of the Federal Budget, and returns an average of $3+ to every $1 spent in technology returns. This of course doesn't measure the value of inspiration to youth in pursuing careers in science, engineering, and medicine. Also, providing prestige to the nation and expanding the frotiers of human knowledge for application here on earth (e.g. study of global change began with NASA funded research).

This study was done in 1991 when the first Bush Lunar-Mars plan was proposed.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.g ov/19910008686_1991008686.pdf

See also
http://marie.jsc.nasa.gov/

This study was done in 1991 when the first Bush Lunar-Mars plan was proposed.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.g ov/19910008686_1991008686.pdf

See also
http://marie.jsc.nasa.gov/