Interesting post, KAEP.

It seems like a cost effective way to conduct a useful space exploration program.

Australia did have a space program at Woomera until the Hawke Labor Government closed down in 1983 - one of he earlier victims of the neo-liberal 'small government' 'revolution' of the past decades.

I agree with other posters who are against indefinite growth of human numbers and who warn against the danger that embarking on a major space program might divert humankind away from achieving the goal of beng able to live within the constraints of this planet.

Nevertheless, an appropriate space progarm on an appropriated scale might be one means to to help humankind through the looming environmental crises.

Keep using billions of dollars fighting in wars and we will get Star Wars or use it to get Star Trek. Our choice is war or explore.

Perhaps the salvation of the planet will be to use networks of floating space stations or satellite vacuum cleaners capable of cleaning up the atmosphere and syphoning the harmful gases that cause global warming from Earth to outerspace.
Every product in the world could have a carbon tax that goes to a global organisation that helps to pay to keep our planet clean.
I'd much rather use renewable energies, but if I knew that nuclear waste could be shot off into space and buried on the Moon or Mars, I'd rather that, than knowing it's sitting on our home planet Earth.

Further to my previous comment about space science, consider this article:
“Concentrating on the Solar Energy Space Race”,
http://www.carbonfree.co.uk/cf/news/wk41-07-0001.htm

noting major backing by the USA National Security Space Office of the Department of Defense.

To put this organisation in perspective, I provide the following, from:
http://nationalsecurity.oversight.house.gov/documents/20070523162721.pdf

Statement of
Major General James Armor
Director, National Security Space Office of the Department of Defense
(snip)

”Weaponizing Space: Is Current U.S. Policy
Protecting Our National Security”
May 23, 2007

Chairman Tierney, Congressman Shays, Members of the Subcommittee, it is my distinct honor to appear … as the Director of the National Security Space Office to discuss the National Space Policy and the policy implications of China’s counter space developments [including] its January 11, 2007, anti-satellite test. … “

“ … The current National Space Policy … , is the product of the first post 9-11 assessment of American space policy … . It continues to provide the vision and direction for the conduct of U.S. space activities and is based on a longstanding U.S. commitment to peaceful uses of outer space that allow defense and intelligence-related activities in support of national security.”

The Carbon-Free article notes:

“The Space Solar Alliance for Future Energy (SSAFE), a new organization advocating investment in space-based solar power technologies to address the planet’s future energy needs, was announced this week at the National Press Club.”

“The coalition of thirteen leading research organizations and space advocacy groups focused their inaugural event on the announcement of a new study of space-based solar power led by the National Security Space Office (NSSO).”

“The new Space Solar Alliance for Future Energy (SSAFE) will promote the findings of the NSSO-led study, and seek to communicate the benefits of the technology to business, government and the general public.”

Many of the comments above show muddled thinking, arguably the result of 50 years of glorious propaganda.

Dear Mr Da Silva, what evidence is there that satellites or space travel will eventuate in net energy gain, in the next 50 years, to address our concurrent, earthly energy problems?

Vivor,

It is possible that the new Global Space Race will not be between America and China but between Australia and America.

Have a read of this NYTimes forum post.

http://forums.nytimes.com/top/opinion/readersopinions/forums/science/humanorigins/index.html?offset=107221&fid=.f56c6bd/107221

Believe it or not!

Not sure if this thread is still on, but give it a shot.
Found some remarkable responses. KAPE approach gets my two cent.
But what's the deal with GPAL? You mention it subliminal so much that subliminal it feels subliminal ;-)

I am all for Au space leadership if it is about fixing climate right now. (The 'glorious' human mission wouldn't be put on hold if it gained a timely purpose.) So what do you mean by "details are obviously secret but I can say that 20 standard packet types could autonomously and remotely build power stations .. and scientific data collectors anywhere"

I mean I like the sound of it but why exactly would you build those stations in space? I can't see the rationale. If anywhere you would build them in the upper atmosphere and the troposphere where the problem is.

And the problem of course is urgent. If we leave on shelf a sensible solution for too long, we WILL get geo-engineering from NASA, you can bet your hat on it. And I don't like the sound of that if it comes from an organisation that is admittedly and proudly about "weaponising space."

Right now, that's insane squared.