NASA Mission: YOU Decide....

[Pappa]

The solar colectors wouldn't heat up the atmosphere. They would fire s beam of light to the ground where it is then collected and converted into electricity. If I wasn't posting on my phone with my left thumb, I'd find some suitable links.

If you're bringing in energy that wouldn't otherwise enter the atmosphere, you're heating it up. It might be insignificant compared to what fossil fuels are doing, but you're still adding to the total energy in the planetary environment. The form of the energy doesn't matter so much, as it's always changing form anyway. Electicity to kinetic to heat, etc. Of course, it it's converted to chemical energy, the release would be delayed by a great deal, but we're not talking about storing it, are we? We're talking about using, thus releasing, it, eh?

It would be collecting energy that would otherwise have warmed the planet directly as sunlight anyway... so there would be no net increase due to it's use. As for storage, I expect there will always be a need to store electricity generated in one way or another. Whether that be using modern batteries, or more traditional ways like pumping water into reservoirs or whatever.

[GeneticJen]

I'd be stuck between two missions, one manned and one using robots. Unless I could manage to fit both into that budget.

Firstly, one-way trip to Mars for some brave astronaut/scientists with kit that would allow a lot of travel and research to be done. One-way means half the fuel and half the complications. I personally believe NASA could find perfectly sane and capable astronauts willing to go to another planet and not return.

But far more importantly: An unmanned trip to Europa, please. I want to crash right through that baby and have a robotic submarine do a hell of a lot of research.

And why should we do these things? Well, it's my fucking money and that's what I want to do. Big whoop. Wanna fight about it?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Peter, any thoughts on sending resupply to your guy from other budget sources than your 1 b?

[normal]

NASA is so last light year.

Exactly how far away would it have to be to qualify as "so last light year"?

970 yards

[Gawdzilla Sama]

NASA is so last light year.

Exactly how far away would it have to be to qualify as "so last light year"?

970 yards

I was going to say Svalbard.

[normal]

NASA is so last light year.

Exactly how far away would it have to be to qualify as "so last light year"?

970 yards

I was going to say Svalbard.

That's last Longyear, not light year

[Gawdzilla Sama]

NASA is so last light year.

Exactly how far away would it have to be to qualify as "so last light year"?

970 yards

I was going to say Svalbard.

That's last Longyear, not light year

Vanskelig å se forskjell fra her.

[normal]

Vanskelig å se forskjell fra her.

lol

[Santa_Claus]

$1 billion?

Small Beer in NASA / Space Budget terms.

I'd put $500 million up as a prize for the private sector to build a space shuttle replacement. (re-usable & commercially viable). As a bonus they get a 10 year contract with uncle Sam to do exactly that.

the other $500m I would use as matched funding for any projects that looked promising. or it would go missing in a mysterious accounting transaction.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

$1 billion?

Small Beer in NASA / Space Budget terms.

I'd put $500 million up as a prize for the private sector to build a space shuttle replacement. (re-usable & commercially viable). As a bonus they get a 10 year contract with uncle Sam to do exactly that.

You don't follow the X-Prize news very closely, do you?

[FBM]

It would be collecting energy that would otherwise have warmed the planet directly as sunlight anyway... so there would be no net increase due to it's use...

Yeah, as long as that's the setup, no prob. I was thinking a solar harvester might be set up in a way as to caputure sunlight that wouldn't otherwise strike earth. Either way, it'd still be a far cry better than the fossil fuels, what with the air pollution, oil spills, wars, etc. It'd be great to knock some of the oil giants off their perches.

[Santa_Claus]

$1 billion?

Small Beer in NASA / Space Budget terms.

I'd put $500 million up as a prize for the private sector to build a space shuttle replacement. (re-usable & commercially viable). As a bonus they get a 10 year contract with uncle Sam to do exactly that.

You don't follow the X-Prize news very closely, do you?

not closely.

but Google reminds me that Virgin won $10m from them for Space Ship one 5 years ago. For $500 million might get a shuttle replacement? or if left to a Govt, half a feasability study

The Virgin space craft is based on technology available in the early 1970's - imagine what 40 years of progress could look like....

[mistermack]

Actually, I think they should spend the money on geostationary solar energy harvesters, beaming it to energy collectors on earth. That would be a step towards helping us wean ourselves of our oil addiction.

I'm not sure if that is actually possible. Reflectors tend to get hot and explode when they handle heavy light loads. If you point a reflecting telescope at the sun it will explode, I heard.
Refraction might handle it, but that would probably be too heavy to be practical.

I think there are big problems with a space elevator too. I imagine the centrifugal force needed to support such a cable would be gigantic, and you would need to provide that force with a rocket, until the cable was attached. And get the cable up in the first place. I think it would need rockets on an unimaginable scale.
(which sort of defeats the object).

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Actually, I think they should spend the money on geostationary solar energy harvesters, beaming it to energy collectors on earth. That would be a step towards helping us wean ourselves of our oil addiction.

I'm not sure if that is actually possible. Reflectors tend to get hot and explode when they handle heavy light loads. If you point a reflecting telescope at the sun it will explode, I heard.
Refraction might handle it, but that would probably be too heavy to be practical.

I think there are big problems with a space elevator too. I imagine the centrifugal force needed to support such a cable would be gigantic, and you would need to provide that force with a rocket, until the cable was attached. And get the cable up in the first place. I think it would need rockets on an unimaginable scale.
(which sort of defeats the object).

Once you get it up, it stays up. (Well, it used to, but I digress.) So after the initial energy investment the cost per pound to orbit goes down rapidly as the startup expenditures are amortized.

[mistermack]

Once you get it up, it stays up. (Well, it used to, but I digress.) So after the initial energy investment the cost per pound to orbit goes down rapidly as the startup expenditures are amortized.

Maybe there are ways around using huge rockets. You could start with an extremely fine, lightweight cable, and small counterweight, and then build it up, sending up more strands, with tiny carriages, and more elements for the counterwieght. Each time you send up another strand, you send up more weight, till you end up with something pretty substantial.
The carriages would have to have a power source, maybe solar power to keep the weight down.
You could maybe use huge kites, to get materials up part of the way, and provide extra support at the lower end.