Slashdot Mirror
Obama Transition Team Examining Space Solar Power
DynaSoar writes "President-elect Obama's transition team has published for public comment a white paper entitled Space Solar Power (SSP) — A Solution for Energy Independence & Climate Change. The paper was prepared and submitted by the Space Frontier Foundation and other citizen space advocates, and calls for the new Administration to make development of Space Solar Power a national priority. The SSP white paper was among the first ten released by the Obama transition team. It is the first and only space-related white paper released by the team to date. With 145 comments thus far, it is already among the top five most-discussed of the 20-some white papers on Change.gov."
We have two clear choices which will determine the direction humanity takes.
The first alternative, which currently is very popular in a stealthy kind of way, is to reduce. Cut back on the emission of pollutants, reduce energy usage, have a "smaller footprint" on Planet Earth. This requires a smaller population and however we get there, it isn't going to be nice. My favority scenario (although rather unrealistic) is people marching into gas chambers while watched over by the Eco-Troops. I'd say a nuclear war is far more likely. Possibly intentionally triggered by the environmentalist movement as a way to "reduce" all at once.
The other alternative is to being exploiting resources from off-planet. Mine the moon. Mine the asteroids. Collect hydrocarbons from the atmosphere of Jupiter. And, absoutely, collect energy from the Sun directly in space. The problem is that right now, we may have actually dug ourselves into a "reduce, reuse, recycle" trap that we can't get out of. How does the US Government explain that in order to ensure an abundant lifestyle for everyone it is necessary to cut back on entitlement programs? How do we tell the welfare class that it is time to get to work to earn their bread instead of subsisting on the dole? The answer is pretty clear - Americans do not wish to be told that. The election of Mr. Obama should have made that pretty clear to everyone.
Talk about a "two chickens in every pot" kind of candidate!
OK, so which do you think is more likely to happen? A "sustainable" lifestyle is perfectly possible - sustainable in the sense where natual processes recycle wastes as fast or faster than they are created. The planet was in that condition in around 1850 and not since then. Unfortunately, even with some advanced technology, we going to be limited to around 200 million people. Total. Not in the US, but everywhere. That is larger than the population was in 1850 by a good measure, but we should be able to manage it with better technology. That means we have around 6 billion "excess lives" right now and the longer we wait to make the "sustainable" decision the worse it is going to get.
To put this in perspective, if somehow starting 1 Jan 2009 we started killing a million people a day it would take 20 years to get to a sustainable population. That is a 97% reduction. It means that out of every 100 people you know 3 would be left and you might not be one of them. I doubt any Western civilian is prepared to accept this sort of "sustainable" environment but every time you use the phrase "sustainable" that is what it means. We can't have a "sustainable economy" with 6 billion people. At least not without obtaining off-planet resources.
Today the technology is within our grasp. It is entirely possible to send humans to the moon, set up a camp there and mine it for raw materials and resources needed on Earth and in Earth orbit. It is entirely possible to send a mission to Jupiter to collect hydrocarbons from the atmosphere. It would take a long time to do this, but it could be done today. In 10 years, if all of the Western government persue a course of entitlements, handouts, bailouts and compassionate care we will not have the money, time or resources to mount a mission to the Moon, much less Jupiter. Our decendents can look up in the sky and see the limitless resources that could have been ours for the taking while they, with there constrained "reduced" lifestyle, continue to eek out an existance in the future.
We aren't getting rescued by God or other civilizations. We have to decide for ourselves, and we had better do it soon, or the decision will be made for us.
Who is pining for a manned mission to Mars?
George W Bush?
If that's the case, maybe we should have sent him to Mars.
If it was done earlier, it would have brought great benefit to the world.
Even now, it might still prove useful.