Comeback for big science?

John, Scottsdale, Arizona — Mon, 04 Feb 2008 23:41:14 GMT

The space program over the years has given us incredible advances in science, technology, and medicine. It is not just the U.S.A. that has benifited from the space program, but all humanity. Obama wants to gut the space program. Anyone who cares about the future of humanity should vote for anybody but Obama.

Comeback for big science?

www.actionforspace.com — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:01:19 GMT

Now is the time for the public to shout to congress that they need to support big science. www.actionforspace.com has the tools to fax, email, and call congress to demand that they do not reduce this bill but fund a robust space program for the benefit and inspiration of our nation and the world.

Comeback for big science?

Yehuda Draiman — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 00:26:14 GMT

A more efficient and cost effective renewable energy system is needed.
To accelerate the implementation of renewable electric generation with added incentives and a FASTER PAYBACK - ROI. (A method of storing energy, would accelerate the use of renewable energy) A greater tax credit, accelerated depreciation, funding scientific research and pay as you save utility billing. (Reduce and or eliminates the tax on implementing energy efficiency, eliminate increase in Real estate Taxes for energy efficiency improvement).
In California, you also have the impediment, that when there are an interruption of power supply by the Utility you the consumer cannot use your renewable energy system to provide power.
In today's technology there is automatic switching equipment that would disconnect the consumer from the grid, which would permit renewable generation for the consumer even during power interruption.
New competition for the world's limited oil and natural gas supplies is increasing global demand like never before. Reserves are dwindling. These and other factors are forcing energy prices to skyrocket here at home. It's affecting not just the fuel for our cars and homes, but it's driving up electricity costs, too. A new world is emerging. The energy decisions our nation makes today will have huge implications into the next century.

A synchronous system with batteries allows the blending of a PV with grid power, but also offers the advantage of “islanding” in case of a power failure. A synchronous system automatically disconnects the utility power from the house and operates like an off-grid home during power failures. This system, however, is more costly and loses some of the efficiency advantages of a battery-less system.
Power grid back-feed protection apparatus
Document Type and Number:
United States Patent 7148585
Link to this page:
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7148585.html
Abstract:
A circuit breaker that functions like a double pole double throw (DPDT) switch is used to isolate the commercial power grid from an external power source. When in the “on” position the circuit breaker serves as a main power input circuit breaker allowing power from the commercial power grid to feed into existing wiring. In the “off” position the commercial power grid is disconnected and isolated from the existing wiring. Instead, the switch mechanism is connected to an external power source such as a generator. The generator can be safely operated without risking power back-feed into the commercial power grid.

Jay Draiman, Northridge, CA
PS
We’re surrounded by energy — sun, wind, water. The problem is harnessing it in an economical way.

Comeback for big science?

Ferris Valyn, Ann Arbor, MI — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 05:39:35 GMT

John, thats not accurate at all. Obama's space policy has serious problems - you can read it at http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647 and you can read my critique of it at http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/12/9710/60633/713/435590

The only thing he actually "guts" is the Ares V, as well as the Lunar Lander. But he explicitly comes out in favor of Ares I, and Orion.

Frankly, what he should do is come out for a complete overhaul, because Nasa and the manned space program are a mess right now. You can read my post, if you want the details of what I think he should do.

So to say he would gut it has no basis in reality.

Comeback for big science?

Frank McClintic — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:21:36 GMT

Just like any normal tax payer or anybody who has to make decisions on money we have to set priorities. We have a major national security interest in getting off of imported oil. We need to spend the majority of our currently available resources to this aim. A combination of plug in hybrid vehicles and wind, solar energies can do this. In reviewing the studies of wind off the eastern coast called the Atlantic bight in combination with plug in hybrid vehicles and the average commute lengths we could reduce enough oil use to get off of foreign oil. There is over 300 giga watts of power sitting of the coast. We currently use only 160 total which includes oil converted the gigawatts. I feel we should attack this first and than with all of the excess money from this development fund the other projects second. Priorities.

Comeback for big science?

Guy S. Newell — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:29:03 GMT

Bush knows that we're not going to solve global warming by building big wind chimes or making moonshine. That's stupid. We need more nuclear reactors now. We need to figure out how to do fusion for later. We need to stop playing stupid games with expensive hydrogen batteries and get to work figuring out where the electricity to charge those batteries is going to come from and don't tell me coal, because that's the problem. Coal is carbon. We can't be dumping carbon into the atmosphere any more.

Comeback for big science?

hjarvey keek east gybip — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 15:16:22 GMT

Your observers are right on. Space is where the future is Kennedy did the right thing in going to the moon -weve been living on the tech. advances for fifty yrs. time to break the speed of light and get to deep space -another level of technology--were not going to compete world wide making sneakers -let's get on with it!!!!

Comeback for big science?

Zooball — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:05:54 GMT

Yeah, I fell for the conservative media bias, too, for a few days about Obama. But once again the White House-directed FOX/CNN "free press" led me astray.

We decided to ask Obama for ourselves:

"Dear [Mrs. Zooball],

"Thank you for contacting Obama for America about America's leadership role in space.

"Over the decades, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has embodied the adventurous spirit that lifted this nation to greatness and inspired people around the world. Barack Obama believes that the United States needs a strong space program to help maintain its superiority not only in space, but also here on earth in the realms of education, technology, and national security. Over the years, NASA technology has been applied to improve everything from computers and medical technology to baby formula and automobiles. Work done at NASA, whether here on earth or in outer space, impacts the daily lives of all Americans.

"We encourage you to learn more below. Thanks again for writing.

"Sincerely,

"Obama for America ..."

[Alan writes: The rest of Zooball's message is the space policy statement from the Obama campaign, which can be read in full at: http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647 ]

Comeback for big science?

Scott Suddarth, Boise, Idaho — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:39:55 GMT

John,

Obama believes we should continue developing the next generation of space vehicles, and complete the international space station. While Obama would delay plans to return to moon and push on to mars, Obama would continue unmanned missions, and use NASA to monitor the forces and effects of climate change, support scientific research, and maintain surveillance to strengthen national security. Obama also believes we need to keep weapons out of space.

Comeback for big science?

S.B. Stein E. B. NJ — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:40:16 GMT

This is far too little too late for the Bush administration. They have never really supported science in a large enough way. Most of the science that they want is policy driven; it is their policy driving science instead of the other way around.

If the Bush administration had been willing to accept global warming and put shown some leadership, then we would have had lots money for renewable and fusion power research already. Since I am not running for president, I can only mention what I would be doing as an academic exercise.

It would start with 1 billion dollars for fusion research as source to fuel our need for electrical and other energies that we use on a regular basis. Another area would be major funding for places to store electrical energy like the batteries revolution (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/17/586070.aspx) and newer smaller capacitors. As president, I would also have installed the most advanced solar panels on the majority of federal buildings; when newer and better ones come out, such as quantum dot solar panels, the old ones would be auctioned off after the new ones would be installed. The Bush administration has failed to lead; I would if elected which I don't think that I could.

Comeback for big science?

Frank, Dallas, TX — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 18:55:42 GMT

"Anyone who cares about the future of humanity should vote for anybody but Obama"

Nove of the republican candidates have even publicized a position on space policy. Isn't that even more dangerous than voting for a candidate who spells out which nasa projects he or she supports and which he or she doesn't? I mean, I don't think I'm ready to vote democratic in this election, but to not even publish a position on space policy is a mistake, if not downright cowardly.

Comeback for big science?

Wayne, Alamogordo, NM — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 19:57:20 GMT

I'm a Republican (you already know that of course), but I have to agree that the Bush administration has failed the American people. Some blame falls directly on W., a lot more on his advisors, and even more on Congress. Let's face it, our Congress is worthless. They're nothing but a self-serving group of mostly inexperienced, under-educated (at least in the sciences), gutless individuals whose only talent is making excuses. We should be the world leader in every category of any importance, and the fact of the matter is, we're not even close in most of them. To top it off, America has been sold out by CEOs of large corporations whose only focus has been how much money they could line their pockets with. They've bankrupted their companies, and Congress has bankrupted the American people. More money for science programs? We continue to let corrupt politicians and special interest groups choose where to spend our money on space and science programs. Until we develop a solid roadmap for economic recovery, we're just throwing money into the wind. The coming recession has the potential of drastically changing our way of life, and not in a good way. Forget about Hillary, Barrack, John, and Mitt. In the long run, there's little any of them can do. Let's focus on cleaning up Congress. Let's elect congressmen and women who are willing to make the tough decisions to help get our country back on track.

Comeback for big science?

David H. Partington, Ph.D., Dalton, NH — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 19:17:56 GMT

"Like it did last year." This grammarian suggests: "as it did last year."

Comeback for big science?

wow leveling guide — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:18:37 GMT