Discussions about space policy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6749873.stm

I wonder if they’ll be able to compete with Virgin.

Will this prompt Boeing into the market?

Could this be used for high speed point to point flights? The cabin
looks like it has room for 10 people.

I think the answer must be "yes". There are 2 parts to that answer.
The first is a general comment about FTL and causality violation. The
second is in terms of the impossibility of an alien visit (puerde leer
en espanl – the AI question). This second point covers both FTL and
sub luminal Von Neumann technology.

You can (without causality violation) travel FTL iff you have an
absolute frame of reference. In other words the negative mass you
would need for a warp drive has to be tied to an absolute frame of
reference. Could someone tell me please what that absolute frame is?
Is it tied in some sense to the apparent center of expansion of the
Universe. There is one important point here. The maths given by Jack
cannot be right for this reason. The positive mass is relativizstic
and has no frame of reference. The negative mass is tied to a FOR and
cannot obey the relativistic equations fully.

FTL with PARTICLES can be made paradox free by postulating a self
consistent Feynmann diagram, in which past and future are combined. I
have a feeling at the back of my mind. If you were to take a wormhole,
warp drive or any other FTL device it would cause infinities in its
Feynmann diagram. That is because a return journey could be made
before you had started. Deep question – Is Inflation itself caused by
infinities in a FD? Is it a valid way of looking at it?

On the question of AI. ET (if there is one, I am doing reducto ad
absurdam here). ET on arrival will have established AI on the Web. He
will already have done what Google is struggling to do (and admittedly
making some progress). ET does not need Guardians, the AI will perform
that job. Postings will all be multilingual. If a warp drive were
possible there is one of two possibilities. Either the design would be
published and we would all agree about it, or it is wrong. ET would
not allow the publication by you of a correct design.

 - Ian Parker

Puerde leer en espagnol – (razon segundo)

On Jun 14, 3:47 pm, AnAmericanCitizen <NoAmne…@earthlink.net> wrote:

> Today the president announced monies were being voted on to "make the border ‘more’
> secure."  "More" secure doesn’t sound to me like completely secure, or closed.  I
> wish someone would remind him that monies were voted last year for 700 miles of
> fencing in addition to other bells and whistles and to date only around 20 (twenty)
> miles of fence have been put up.   (Of course, he hasn’t forgotten he just hopes we
> have.)

I’m glad that you echo the sentiments of *millions of independent*
Americans,
as I too am wondering what ever became of our Senate Republicans.
People should also recognize that our citizenry is becoming redefined
by these crass comercializers of freedom and independence. It’s also
becoming an issue if one will ever be able to voice his or her opinion
against these puppets of transnationalism.

The crass commercializers using their C-SPAN & NPR
(Alan Spec) oligarchs as another dictatorial arm of their
populist (left wing as well as centrist Brian Lamb
should be defunded by Congress for blacklisting the freedom
of speech award). Bush’s agenda of trying to make an end
run on the amnesty bill to redefine AMERICANS AS CONSUMERS
RATHER THAN CITIZENS REEKS OF DOMINIONIST MANTRA when ALL
AMERICANS would inadvertantly pay tribute to those who
worship the GOLDEN CALF of their vested interest in cheap,
dumbed down, and illiterate labor, because CERTAIN AMERICAN
INTERESTS ARE TOO DISTRACTED WITH MONEY-BOUGHT ALLIEGENCE
THAN SPEARHEADING A REPLACEMENT FOR TRANSNATIONALIST
ENERGY CO-DEPENDENCE. The truth is, that independence
is a total FACADE, with the lies of the bought-off
politicians who are proposing to overhaul U.S. culture
forever with a permanent PAX AMERICANA voter recruitment
swindle, who are more interested in their BACK POCKETS
BEING FULL rather than representing the interests of
constituents characterized by THE FREE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS.
Conservative ideas operate in the public spirit of contrib-
ution rather than the conspicuous philanthropism of the
transnationalist oligarchies. Why should the Pentagon
be demanding over $500 billion a year to fight terrorism,
and at the same time grant instant amnesty to millions of
illegals entering the country from all over the world, yet
under the guise of greater opportunity? The defense depart-
ment can’t even account for 25% of the funds it spends!

"Benedictus qui venis" -Purgatorio, Dante, 1320

        Dr. Pamela L. Gay is hosting this week’s Carnival of Space:

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Education/ednotes74.cfm

        She has a nice collection of posts.

        Drop in and see what bloggers are writing about space
this week.

–
———-             Henry Cate               ca…@panix.com
"Consider how hard it is to change yourself and you’ll understand what
little chance you have in trying to change others."  – Jacob M. Braude
Our blog: http://whyhomeschool.blogspot.com/

<http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1120AP_ODD_Baby_Monitor_Space….>

This fits in well with the astro-diaper stuff…

Dale

.
.
.
EELVs, Falcon-9, Dragon, CXV…
.
it’s from the early days of the ESAS plan that I read on forums and
blogs LOTS of peoples suggesting them as possible alternatives to the
Ares-I, Ares-V and Orion, but, unfortunately, these are NOT real
alternatives NOW and could be used ONLY under some conditions
.
NewSpace Companies’ chances of success:
so far, they have NOT accomplished just ONE 100% successful orbital
launch, while, to replace the Ares-I, they must develop an RS-68/SSME
class engine and use it to build a 30 mT payload VERY RELIABLE rocket
(then, it can’t be the Falcon-9 that has less payload and too much
engines to be man-rated) that should show a good launch rate
that effort needs very much time and money, so, they could succeed
ONLY if NASA will fail with the Ares-I or the Ares-I development will
need too much time (8+ years) as explained in my NewMars thread here:
http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=5390
.
EELVs’ chances of success:
the best success rate EELVs have less than HALF the payload the
(current design) Orion+LAS needs to launch, the, they can be used ONLY
if the Orion will be RESIZED down to a Soyuz-like capsule
the biggest EELVs on the market (Proton, Ariane5 and Delta IV Heavy)
have a likewise smaller max payload than necessary so, if they can/
will be man-rated, could be used ONLY for the orbital/ISS launches
(with less propellent in the SM tanks, 2 mT rather than 8 mT for TEI)
and/or a 30% resized lunar-Orion as explained in this article:
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/010arianecev.html
launch the 30 mT Orion+LAS needs the development of a bigger, cheap,
safe, reliable and man-rated EELV that needs very much MONEY and TIME
(with many unmanned launches, to know its real success rate) so, I’m
not sure if a new and bigger EELV would cost less than the Ares-I or
could be ready to fly sooner
.
Ares-I’s chances of success:
in its current version the Ares-I’s chances are LOW due to the
problems NASA must solve to develop and launch it and MAINLY due to
the (3-years/$3Bn R&D) 5-segments SRB and the (6-years/1Bn R&D) J-2x,
so, it could be ready to fly when many bigger EELVs and private
rockets will be already available on the market (from years!) at a
fraction of the Ares-I price!
the 5-segments Ares-I could increase its chances of success ONLY if
NASA adopts SOON (and modify for air-start) a ready available engine
like the Vulcain-2 as explained in this article:
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/024aresF.html
.
REVISED Orion/Ares-I chances of success:
(in my opinion) the ESAS plan has lots of mistakes, but "the mother of
all ESAS mistakes" clearly IS the TOO BIG ORION that (obviously) needs
a TOO BIG ARES-I
since all ISS and moon missions will have a cerw of 3/4 astronauts,
there is NO NEED of a bigger six-seats ("2045′s Mars missions ready")
Orion but just a RESIZED 4-seats version (that needs a resized SM, LAS
and Ares-I)
this is the ONLY way for NASA to develop and LAUNCH the Orion/Ares-I
duo with a reasonable amount of money and within a reasonable amount
of time, so (maybe) it could be launched in 2013 (just three years
after the Shuttle retirement)
here some links about how to design a smaller, simpler and LIGHTER
Orion, LAS and Ares-I:
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/019orionlight.html
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/020newLAS.html
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/022orionTPS.html
.
(May 12, 2006) "FAST-SLV" (or ***SIMILAR*** August 2006 "Direct" and
January 2007 "Jupiter") chances of success:
MY (May 12, 2006) IDEA of a "FAST-SLV" (made with cheaper, ready
available and man-rated engines and motors) [
http://www.gaetanomarano.it/articles/005_SLVnow.html ] (or the
***LATER*** and ***SIMILAR*** Direct/Jupiter) could have some chances
of success ONLY if the Ares-I will fail, but, if NASA will have enough
time and money to develop it, the chances for MY "FAST-SLV" concept
(or the ***LATER*** and ***SIMILAR*** Direct/Jupiter) should be nearly
ZERO

.
.

http://www.spacex.com/F1-DemoFlight2-Flight-Review.pdf

More than a few funny things happened on the way to not-quite-orbit.
The bump at stage separation which imparted an uncontained slosh
to the second stage propellants, and which ultimately resulted in
a premature stage shutdown, was the one thing that prevented success.

Reading the rest of the report shows it was remarkable the second
flight didn’t end up the way of the first.  Certain disconnects didn’t.

Maybe SpaceX will get it completely right the third time.

–Damon

Looks like Delta IV and Atlas V are in a dead-heat again. Atlas V
dumped its NRO payload in a lower than planned orbit today after the
Centaur crapped out.

http://www.spaceflightnow.com/atlas/av009/status.html

Brian

Posted on Fri, Jun. 15, 2007

Miami Herald Editorial

NASA needs a better watchdog

OUR OPINION: SCATHING REPORT FINDS POOR PERFORMANCE,
BAD JUDGMENT

As inspector general at NASA, it’s the job of Robert ”Moose” Cobb to blow
the whistle whenever he finds something wrong, usually by issuing reports
critical of his own agency. Recently, however, the tables were turned. Mr.
Cobb found himself the target of a scathing, 289-page report substantiating
allegations that he abused his authority and had created at least the
appearance of being too chummy with the managers he’s supposed to be
policing. Apparently, NASA’s managers are perfectly happy with this cozy
arrangement because he’s still on the job.

Poor performance

The report was issued by the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency
(PCIE), which investigates complaints against inspectors general. It decided
to look into Mr. Cobb’s performance after receiving 18 complaints against
him, including 79 allegations.

It would take too much space to outline all the alleged shortcomings, but a
partial list would include resisting investigations that might embarrass
NASA, bullying his staff and otherwise failing to show the sort of judgment
and leadership the position requires.

Investigators determined that Mr. Cobb never acted illegally. They did not
substantiate the 79 allegations, but they found enough evidence of poor
performance to warrant a recommendation that he should be punished — up to
and including being fired.

Florida Sen. Bill Nelson, a leading congressional expert on NASA, has also
called for his dismissal, as have other members of Congress. Yet after a
hearing on Capitol Hill last week in which Mr. Cobb stubbornly refused to
concede any wrongdoing, the inspector vowed to stay on the job and the Bush
administration continues to support him.

As Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa pointed out, IG offices are
supposed to impartially investigate and audit operations within their
agencies. But according to the PCIE report, Mr. Cobb repeatedly told his
staff that one of his priorities was to avoid embarrassing NASA. ”He has
used the power of his office to insulate the agency from critical
investigations,” Sen. Grassley said.

No `charm school’

To top it off, Mr. Cobb has an abysmal relationship with his own staff, to
whom he refers as ”beaurons,” his shorthand for ”bureaucratic morons.”
He apparently does not communicate with many of them because of mutual
distrust.

This is not a problem that can be fixed by sending Mr. Cobb to some sort of
management ”charm school.” The IG at NASA plays a vital role in protecting
the lives of its employees, most prominently the astronauts, and looking for
waste, fraud and abuse in a $13 billion budget. Mr. Cobb apparently does not
understand the role of the IG and should be removed to make way for someone
who does.

http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/editorials/story/140354.html

See:

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Dwarf_Planet_Known_As_Eris_Is_M…