Science fiction?

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

(Readers may need to free-register with NYTimes to see the posts)

The GPAL concept is complex so I would like people to ask questions rather than 'knock'. There really is a lot of ground to cover before making rash judgements.

The main issues with GPAL are:

*Off-the-shelf procurement of most materiel and components, meaning overall costs will be a $fraction of other nation's.

*A target-launch-cost to LEO of less than $50/Kilogram

*An initial goal of Reaching Mercury orbit in less than 3 months, for less than $50million(mission cost, not infrastructural) and carrying instrumentation to determine human risks close to the SUN.
NASA's MessengerII is currently taking 8 years to reach Mercury.

*The craft will be heat shielded by NEXTEL fabric. Magnetic bottle shielded with electrics powered by back-to-back dynamo generators linked to an outfolding ammonia-filled-heat-exchanger of at least 100 square metres.

* The instrumentation will be required to determine radiation levels, chaotic(sunspot etc) event profiles and the effectiveness of the shielding. Also, the possibility that water exists at the poles and abundant Uranium is present within Mercury's (5.3gm/cc)fairly dense crust.

With solid public support and a rekindling of international American Apollo spirit, it is not beyond belief that this mission, with US assistance, could be returning results before MessengerII reaches Mercury in 2012.

Between Mercury and Venus exist the greatest, technologically manageable Thermodynamic gradients, the makers & supportes of LIFE, that exist in our solar system.
The fact they have been overlooked till PEAKOIL has awakened a better understanding of life and thermodynamics, is a matter for history books.

What counts is that Australian's PARTICIPATE to get a high-tensile-engineered-concrete head-start on other not so well intentioned competitors.

“I must admit that I am fascinated by bold, adventurous, big-picture research. “
“A renewed international space research effort may be just the thing for a world increasingly focused inwards.”
Oh Natasha! Please, when did you undergo a conversion to space exploration. On the 24 September 1997, The Democrat Party issued a media release in the name of Senator Stott Despoja that was highly critical of the Cassini probe.
In Senate question time the good Senator was especially critical of the presence on board the probe of a thermo nuclear generator (TNG). The heat energy released from Pu-238 is used to generate electricity.
In the darkness of deep space solar photovoltaic cells may not be adequate. Can we now assume that TNG generators have become a Democrat approved technology.
By the ways the pictures of Saturn rings obtained from Cassini were truly “breath taking.”

I suggest this Senator from South Australia is pushing space as yet another way to attract Federal funding to South Australia - its not worth it.

If Natasha knew about the history of space research she would realise

- her rosy picture of space and Australia largely centred on testing rocket boosters for weapons in Australia:

- worldwide, space rocket technology has received its main impetus from nuclear missile booster programs:

- the navigation advances she refers to were mostly a product of missile warhead and freefall (nuclear) bombing accuracy requirements

- improved "communications" (as with the internet) were developed for their qualities of quick reaction, redundancy and survivability in a war

- the managers and astronauts of the golden age of space (Apollo Program - trip to Moon) were all men and all ex or current military. The engineering based space industry is still largely male.

Space research is still closely aligned with world military efforts in terms of technology, language and benefits to aviation and space warfare.

The costs are enormous.

Natty should indeed get real. The Dems are obviously getting desperate for different policies - for policy product definition.

The Democrats used to be a Party that cared about social welfare not multinational, high tech, extravaganzas tied to the military.

If the Democrats made their (money for South Australia) space pitch with honesty it might make more sense.

Pete
http://spyingbadthings.blogspot.com/

anti-green:

"The Australian Democrats have a long-standing opposition to nuclear power and that also applies to space-craft. While I acknowledge nuclear energy has some natural advantages as a power source in space, we would be concerned about the safety of conducting experiments in Earth's orbit where there is a danger of radioactive material falling back to Earth." --- Senator Stott-Despoja, March 2007, in an email communication to Richard Tonkin, posted here:

http://webdiary.com.au/cms/?q=node/1867

michael_in_adelaide,

I don't understand the peak-oil paranoia. Oil is one concentrated and convenient energy carrier, but there is no shortage of energy available to us at the Earth's surface. Concentration and conversion of ambient energy is a very straightforward task which we're getting very good at, using plants, windmills, mirrors and the like. The retirement of fossil fuels is imminent, and it may cause something of a depression if we are forced (by our own short-sightedness) to abandon our profligate oil-dependent ways and technologies before we surrender them voluntarily, but in the longer term there need be no energy shortage.

"In the darkness of deep space solar photovoltaic cells may not be adequate."

Actually there's far more solar energy available in space than within the Earth's atmosphere, which reflects a good deal of it away. The reason space is dark is because there's nowhere for the sunlight to reflect back towards the viewer (well, technically, the mainstream explanation for why space is dark is because the universe is expanding and finite. But see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olber%27s_paradox).

Photovoltaic cells probably won't end up being the primary means of space propulsion for various reasons, but there are no physical barriers to it.

"Natasha,

I assume you are reading this and other comments.

re:
"The Australian Academy of Science's National Committee for Space Science has marked the 50th Anniversary of the Space Race with a call to arms. They want to ensure that this country is seen as a player on the global stage, and have put forward a number of realistic goals that Australia could adopt."

What were these realistic goals? I can't be bothered Googling them, myself.

As for your remark:
"I will endeavour to ensure that this issue is on the agenda of our new Parliament, whatever it may look like after Election '07. A cross-party inquiry into Australia's space policy could be an ideal springboard for the Government of the day to advance this country's interests in space research. If we do not take this opportunity to “buy in” to this huge frontier soon, it could cost us in the future."

Personally, I would greatly prefer you use your boundless energy to establish a cross-parliamentary inquiry into Australia's federal energy conservation policy. This also a truly huge frontier, where Australian science and technology have made groundbreaking advances, then seen the industry go offshore. And it seems Big Coal and other established players have a distorting influence, at present.

An exceptionally interesting energy policy document can be found at:

http://www.nirs.org/climate/background/austriangovtreport607.pdf

Nuclear Power, Climate Policy and Sustainability
An Assessment by the Austrian Nuclear Advisory Board
Vienna January 2007

A pertinent excerpt:

"Austria takes the view that electricity production from Nuclear Energy is neither sustainable nor environmentally sound and is therefore not suitable to contribute to the solution of the climate
problem or the peak oil crisis:

• Even when ignoring the possibility of severe accidents, Nuclear Energy is burdened with a large number of environmental problems and risks, such as possibly health damaging low level radioactive emissions in normal operation and the worldwide unresolved problem of final repositories for nuclear waste."

Much closer to home, and to the heart of Australian Democrat policy, and the concerns of many ordinary people.

The Austrian document has an +excellent+ FAQ section, in plain English