Solar power satellite would pay future dividends for NASA
By BEN BOVA
Special to the Naples Daily News
May 22, 2005
http://www.naplesnews.com/npdn/pe_columnists/article/0,2071,NPDN_14960_3796636,00.html
Where is NASA going?
More importantly, where should NASA be going? It's a big universe out there
and the space agency has plenty of possible goals and missions.
As regular readers of this column know, I have been critical of NASA's
refusal to refurbish the Hubble Space Telescope. It seems to me that to
allow the HST to fall into disuse and ultimately flame back to Earth is a
criminal waste of an unique astronomical facility on which we taxpayers
have already spent more than $2 bil lion.
I'm happy to report that NASA's new director, Michael Griffin, has told
Congress that he will consider sending a shuttle mission to refurbish
Hubble and make it useful for years to come.
Consider, he said. No promises.
The previous chief administrator, Sean O'Keefe, had decided not to send a
shuttle mission to the HST, citing safety reasons in the aftermath of the
shuttle Columbia's tragic crash in February 2003.
Griffin, who is an engineer and scientist as well as an able manager, is
apparently more flexible on the subject.
He has promised to keep an open mind, at least until the first shuttle
mission since the Columbia accident, scheduled now for mid-summer. The
tug-of-war over Hubble is symptomatic of the crossroads that NASA now finds
itself facing.
President Bush has laid out an ambitious plan to set up permanent bases on
the moon and ultimately send human explorers to Mars. NASA's budget and
program planning are being pushed in that direction by the White House.
Many space scientists, though, are fearful that the exploration initiative
will suck money away from their pro grams. They point out that NASA's
greatest achievements have been the exploration of the planets of our solar
system by robotic spacecraft such as Voyager and the various Mars probes,
plus studies of the stars by unmanned astronomical instruments such as the
Hubble telescope.
Why spend all that money and effort to put humans into space, the
scientists argue, when robotic vehicles can do the job cheaper and more
safely?
Already some science programs have been cut back or canceled altogether, a
move that infuriates scientists who have spent their careers working on them.
Meanwhile there's the International Space Station, a multibillion-dollar
program that NASA is committed to and our international partners expect us
to help them finish.
What to do? Where to go?
NASA faced this kind of dilemma more than 40 years ago, when President
Kennedy started the Apollo program. Distinguished space scientists howled
bitterly at the billions being spent on sending a few test pilots to the
moon. Their unspoken agenda, of course, was that they wanted that kind of
funding lavished on their own programs.
What those scientists didn't understand — and many still don't — is that
the success of Apollo allowed NASA to do the kinds of robotic missions that
the scientists wanted. Without Apollo's enormous political clout, space
science would have withered in the halls of Congress and in the White
House. NASA needed a "headliner," a shining star, to convince the taxpaying
public and their representatives in Washington to push ahead with space
science.
Also, by going to the moon NASA developed the technology and the trained
team to send spacecraft anywhere in the solar system that we chose to go.
The only real restraints were politics — and money. Because of Apollo we
got the Voyagers and Vikings and Galileo and Hubble and a host of other
robotic explorers.
Likewise, I feel, President Bush's exploration initiative will produce new
technology that will ultimate allow space scientists to do more than ever
with their robotic spacecraft. And in the meantime, we'll have human
scientists on the moon. And Mars. Some science program will suffer, true
enough.
But in the long run, our exploration of the universe will benefit.
The taxpaying public wants to see people in space: scientists, builders and
even tourists. Private entrepreneurs actually see space tourism as a major
market.
To all this, I would like to add still another objective. NASA should
spearhead a program to build a demonstration solar power satellite —
perhaps an SPS capable of beaming a few hundred megawatts of electrical
power to the ground.
I have two reasons for adding this goal to NASA's already-overloaded agenda.
One: An SPS program would show that NASA can make dramatic contributions to
the problems that exist here on the ground. If NASA can help to develop the
technology for bringing solar power to Earth, and thereby make a major
contribution to ending our dependence on imported petroleum, the benefits
to the space agency, the economy and the nation at large will be enormous.
Two: Constructing a miles-wide solar power satellite in orbit will require
building a technological infra structure (and trained team of engineers and
managers) that can be used for other space efforts. Like Apollo, an SPS
program could give us the technology and the people to really develop the
space frontier.
As I see it, by focusing on SPS (in partnership with private enterprise)
NASA will produce the tools to allow us to send people to the moon, or
Mars, or tourist hotels in space. And by proving that solar power
satellites can make a major contribution to solving our energy problems,
NASA will gain powerful political clout with America's taxpayers.
Much as I want to see humans return to the moon and walk on Mars, I believe
that an SPS program is more important. It attacks a problem that affects
every one of us. It will produce the tools and trained people to make space
flight profitable. It will allow us to begin to tap the stupendous riches
of energy and natural resources that exist in space.
Sure, I'd like to see humans on Mars in my lifetime. But bringing energy
from space to ordinary people here on Earth is more important. Mars will
still be there after we've succeeded with SPS.
--------------------
Naples resident Ben Bova is the author of more than 100 books. His latest
novel is "Mercury." Dr. Bova's Web site address is www.benbova.net.
================================
George Antunes, Political Science Dept
University of Houston; Houston, TX 77204
Voice: 713-743-3923 Fax: 713-743-3927
antunes at uh dot edu
Reply with a "Thank you" if you liked this post.
_______________________________________________
MEDIANEWS mailing list
medianews@twiar.org
To unsubscribe send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
