WHAT’S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC

On Dec 29, 9:51 am, Jim Davis wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:
I couldn't begin to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time,

But it's fairly easy to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time.

but a world placed behind an iron curtain
inside a world-class concentration camp, a totalitarian state
paradise, becomes immediately predictable,...

You're going to wait for that totalitarian state to do your heavy
lifting for you.

Brad, if you think space is such a great place to live, go live
there. Stop complaining that everyone else has as little interest in
doing so as you do.

Jim Davis

He's more than welcome to try out Venus. At least on Venus there's no
shortage of renewable energy, as having nothing whatsoever to do with
fossil or yellowcake alternatives. Just ask how many spare/surplus
teraWatts of clean energy would you like, and I'll deliver.

- Brad Guth

"BradGuth" wrote in message
...
On Dec 29, 9:51 am, Jim Davis wrote:
G. L. Bradford wrote:
I couldn't begin to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time,

But it's fairly easy to predict what you [individually] will or will
not do over time.

but a world placed behind an iron curtain
inside a world-class concentration camp, a totalitarian state
paradise, becomes immediately predictable,...

You're going to wait for that totalitarian state to do your heavy
lifting for you.

Brad, if you think space is such a great place to live, go live
there. Stop complaining that everyone else has as little interest in
doing so as you do.

Jim Davis

He's more than welcome to try out Venus. At least on Venus there's no
shortage of renewable energy, as having nothing whatsoever to do with
fossil or yellowcake alternatives. Just ask how many spare/surplus
teraWatts of clean energy would you like, and I'll deliver.

- Brad Guth

Space colonization! Your comprehension level is about nil. In our numbers
and powers and capabilities [as a species] we are now beyond the extremely
limited and limiting dimensions of Mars, Venus and so on. Equivalently, we
are now far beyond macro-mainframe systems (macro-worlds) in our needs and
wants, and in need of micro-pc systems (generalized and specialized easily
customizable micro-worlds, and local and wide area networks, or complexes,
of them).

GLB

On Dec 28, 3:47 pm, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:
"Sam Wormley" wrote in message

news:M7edj.9112$Ux2.1411@attbi_s22...



WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 28 Dec 07 Washington, DC

1. HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS: SANK IN "THE GATHERING STORM."
Science-policy reps were patting each other on the back in August when
President Bush signed the bipartisan America COMPETES Act in response to
the NAS report Rising Above the Gathering Storm. It was meant to keep
America competitive by boosting basic science, including a doubling of
funding for NSF and the DOE Office of Science. Six months later, the most
basic of all the sciences, high-energy physics, is in a death spiral.
Fermilab faces major layoffs, the neutrino oscillation experiment, NOvA,
which was expected to be the lab's principle activity after the Tevatron
shuts down, is terminated. Three quarters of the funding for the
International Linear Collider is cut. The US again stiffed ITER on our
share of the fusion program. The NSF increase was pared down to 1
percent. Meanwhile, in a letter to the research community, House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said her "commitment to the innovation agenda remains
strong and steadfast." Try spending that.

2. IT'S FUNDAMENTAL: DO WE NEED HIGH-ENERGY PHYSICS?
Why would fragile, self-replicating collections of atoms, trapped on a
tiny planet for a few dozen orbits about an undistinguished star among
countless other stars in one of billions of galaxies, spend their orbits
trying to understand how it happened? Others claim to know all the
answers, but the only way to know is to experiment - and they haven't done
it.

3. LOW-ENERGY PHYSICS: FUNDING IS UP FOR "CLEAN COAL."
The spending bill did increase funding for "clean coal." Sound like an
oxymoron? Integrated gasification combined cycle (IGCC) generators were
supposed to be all over the place by now. They turn coal into gases and
filter out the CO2 before the gases are burned. Clean coal plants cost
more to build but are cheaper in the long run - or at least they would be
if they captured and sequestered the carbon dioxide like they're supposed
to. The technology, however, is not there yet, and some planned clean-
coal plants are being cancelled. That's a relief to some people in West
Virginia, where coal companies want to scrape the tops off the mountains
to get the coal, filling the valleys with the rubble.

4. IT'S A DAM SHAME: WHAT ARE WE WILLING TO LET GO?
The rules have changed. China, according to a story in today's Wall
Street Journal, has become the dam builder for the world. Chinese
companies are now involved in deals to construct at least 47 major dams in
27 countries, not all of which have nice leaders. Construction of large
dams involves the forced relocation of people - in the case of the
gigantic Three Gorges Dam in China 1.4 million people had to be
relocated. Fifty years ago the Pacific Northwest was the envy of the rest
of the nation for its cheap hydroelectric power - the sun does all the
work. Then the public mood began to shift away from fish ladders and back
toward wild rivers. With global warming as a new term in the equation,
pressure for new dam projects is certain to increase. Although dams alter
the environment, the changes are not necessarily bad.

THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND.
Opinions are the author's and not necessarily shared by the
University of Maryland, but they should be.
---

Have we colonized the space frontier yet (have we torn down World Utopia's
iron curtain yet and opened up the system wide open)? NO!!! Then the
resources of the Earth will be there in enormous abundance but you will
starve to death for resources. Why?! World-class entropy-like physics.

Hasn't that been the plan all along, whereas the rich and powerful get
richer and more powerful at the ongoing demise of others, including
those of their own kind.

BTW, with surplus energy is when most anything becomes doable.
Without said energy begets war.

- Brad Guth

On 28 Dec, 23:47, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:

* It is surprising that SCIENTISTS (particularly including 'professional
phyicists') who went before Congress to hawk the needlessness of Man's
expansion into Space (including just "at this time") will be discovered to
have been the most stupid humans the world has ever produced.

I think that one or two questions are being begged. The first question
is whether we can colonize with existing rocket technology. I think
the answer to that must be "no". If you say "Yes, we can do greater
things in space, but on the basis of radically different technology -
like the ability to use the resouces of space."

To me the vital question is will the utilization of space resources be
done using colonists and astronauts or will it be done on the basis of
robotics. As I have not tired of pointing out, if you schedule a
landing on Mars for 2031 and "back to the Moon" for 2020, you are
wasting your time. By those dates (certainly 2031) there will be agile
robots capable of human manual dexterity.

I think perhaps the questions we should be asking is what can be done
now to influence future developments. As has been correctly pointed
out robotics will develop whatever decisions NASA takes. A space
agency will of course have to qualify components for space.

Perhaps there is one thing we can do now. That is to look at agile
robots and think about how we might use them. Do a feasibility study.
If we went to an asteroid, smelted a quantity of aluminium and made a
mirror say, it would give us some confidence in the feasibility of the
use of resources.

Doing something with robotics MUST be easier than using astronauts.
All you need is electricity, you don't need food, water or oxygen. Any
space station anywhere would work far better without the need for life
support.

Scientists are not blind either to the nationalistic elements of
space. When I talk about space being like T shirts I am talking a
little bit tongue in cheek. Scientists are however unanimous in
rejecting national prestige as being a prime motivator.


- Ian Parker

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
On 28 Dec, 23:47, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:

It is surprising that SCIENTISTS (particularly including 'professional
phyicists') who went before Congress to hawk the needlessness of Man's
expansion into Space (including just "at this time") will be discovered to
have been the most stupid humans the world has ever produced.

I think that one or two questions are being begged. The first question
is whether we can colonize with existing rocket technology. I think
the answer to that must be "no". If you say "Yes, we can do greater
things in space, but on the basis of radically different technology -
like the ability to use the resouces of space."

To me the vital question is will the utilization of space resources be
done using colonists and astronauts or will it be done on the basis of
robotics. As I have not tired of pointing out, if you schedule a
landing on Mars for 2031 and "back to the Moon" for 2020, you are
wasting your time. By those dates (certainly 2031) there will be agile
robots capable of human manual dexterity.

I think perhaps the questions we should be asking is what can be done
now to influence future developments. As has been correctly pointed
out robotics will develop whatever decisions NASA takes. A space
agency will of course have to qualify components for space.

Perhaps there is one thing we can do now. That is to look at agile
robots and think about how we might use them. Do a feasibility study.
If we went to an asteroid, smelted a quantity of aluminium and made a
mirror say, it would give us some confidence in the feasibility of the
use of resources.

Doing something with robotics MUST be easier than using astronauts.
All you need is electricity, you don't need food, water or oxygen. Any
space station anywhere would work far better without the need for life
support.

Scientists are not blind either to the nationalistic elements of
space. When I talk about space being like T shirts I am talking a
little bit tongue in cheek. Scientists are however unanimous in
rejecting national prestige as being a prime motivator.


- Ian Parker

No planet, or number of moons or planets, is enough anymore. We are going
to have to go smaller in order to go larger, like we did with computers; a
modeling of the system. Customizable generalized and specialized units and
systems, local and wide area complex networks of island micro-worlds. Space
colonization is what I'm talking about.

Do your robots in space without Man there. You won't be able to get them
small enough to cover the graduating infinitizing cost. You can throw things
out the window, it doesn't do anything about the shrinkage of the world or
the numbing deadness of World Utopia.

GLB

On 29 Dec, 20:31, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:

* No planet, or number of moons or planets, is enough anymore. We are going
to have to go smaller in order to go larger, like we did with computers; a
modeling of the system. Customizable generalized and specialized units and
systems, local and wide area complex networks of island micro-worlds. Space
colonization is what I'm talking about.

* Do your robots in space without Man there. You won't be able to get them
small enough to cover the graduating infinitizing cost. You can throw things
out the window, it doesn't do anything about the shrinkage of the world or
the numbing deadness of World Utopia.

The logic as I see it is this. 90% of the world's population live on
10% of the Earth's surface. If you were to (say) postulate Space Solar
Power to do large scale desalination you would release, in the short
term at least, far more land than would be released by space
colonization. As I have stated it MUST be easier to colonize the
Sahara (and other deserts) than it would be Mars. You can walk around
unprotected in the Sahara now, you might like air conditioning indoors
but it is a far cry from Mars.

To assemble SSP (I am assuming for the sake of argument that this is
our technology, there may be even cheaper purely terrestral
technologies but that only reinforces my case) you require use (by
robots) of the resources of space. Much less mass is required than for
ANY type of colonization. With cheaper access you might even take
everything up from Earth. As I said for long term living the Sahara is
vastly preferable.

In the very long term, yes we will have to go into space. As the short
term arguments are so powerfully in favor of terrestrial solution I
wonder whether or not there is some ulterior motive. - The bolthole
for generals and politicians.


- Ian Parker

On Dec 30, 6:32*am, Ian Parker wrote:
On 29 Dec, 20:31, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:

* No planet, or number of moons or planets, is enough anymore. We are going
to have to go smaller in order to go larger, like we did with computers; a
modeling of the system. Customizable generalized and specialized units and
systems, local and wide area complex networks of island micro-worlds. Space
colonization is what I'm talking about.

* Do your robots in space without Man there. You won't be able to get them
small enough to cover the graduating infinitizing cost. You can throw things
out the window, it doesn't do anything about the shrinkage of the world or
the numbing deadness of World Utopia.

The logic as I see it is this. 90% of the world's population live on
10% of the Earth's surface. If you were to (say) postulate Space Solar
Power to do large scale desalination you would release, in the short
term at least, far more land than would be released by space
colonization. As I have stated it MUST be easier to colonize the
Sahara (and other deserts) than it would be Mars. You can walk around
unprotected in the Sahara now, you might like air conditioning indoors
but it is a far cry from Mars.

To assemble SSP (I am assuming for the sake of argument that this is
our technology, there may be even cheaper purely terrestral
technologies but that only reinforces my case) you require use (by
robots) of the resources of space. Much less mass is required than for
ANY type of colonization. With cheaper access you might even take
everything up from Earth. As I said for long term living the Sahara is
vastly preferable.

In the very long term, yes we will have to go into space. As the short
term arguments are so powerfully in favor of terrestrial solution I
wonder whether or not there is some ulterior motive. - The bolthole
for generals and politicians.

* - Ian Parker

When the capital of bureaucracy gets to be the only
"connector" to funding programs, what results is purely
an exercise in "pink handed compartmentalization".

Intuitive scientific ability requires an infusion of
promise market capital - capital that does not lend itself
to the partisan policies of antiquated markets of corporate
colonialism. This can only result in the "dumbing down"
the technology to pork barrel status. Such is the process
of the current energy policy demagoguery with things like
"FTL propulsion" - since there can be no direct benefit
to those whose proclivities have strictly aligned every
single business in America as requiring more NWO-like
status, the "baby of FTL propulsion gets thrown out with
the memory water of extraterrestrialism". The Darwinist
stigmatists would then remain confined to define "all life"
as being "earth referenced", while the new creationist
begins to invent a "galactic reference frame" with which
to find his new "calling". Both are only partly right.

However, in this scenario, we've already assumed our own
extraterrestrial presence as "beings in the world but not
of the world". If one wishes to play the game of "Darwin"
in a multi-species universe, then Darwin must deal his cards
extraterrestrially - a moot issue, or even "dead issue" with
the notoriously underfunded earth-to-orbit technologies.

Identifying FTL propulsion by re-analogizing the science
w.r.t. definitions of "dispensationalism" will only serve
to restrict the science towards some globalist's agenda.
FTL propulsion will never obtain an "equal time" with re-
ports on transportation technology with the various brain-
washed networks - no - that would actually demonstrate that
spirit of scientific intuition, or in terms of most of the
"politically uncorrected" vernacular "creationist" mentality,
and rather, that what this country needs most is a *trial
lawyer to interpret "who gets what from who" and the
dominionist's credo: "We were here first".

Not only were we GIVEN this "breath of life" as it were,
but there is a peculiar allusion in Genesis 9:3, "As grassy
vegetation all manner of grain have I given you." So why
is it that within a short 2000 years, the genetic grain
chromosome pairs quadrupled, providing wheat and barley,
along with fruits, vegetables, sheep, and goats in the
same Syria-Israel "highlands" and not the plains?

Is not this "observable enough" phenomenon for all the
NWO scientific dogmatists to gloat over? (Apparently not)

American

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
On 29 Dec, 20:31, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:

No planet, or number of moons or planets, is enough anymore. We are going
to have to go smaller in order to go larger, like we did with computers; a
modeling of the system. Customizable generalized and specialized units and
systems, local and wide area complex networks of island micro-worlds.
Space
colonization is what I'm talking about.

Do your robots in space without Man there. You won't be able to get them
small enough to cover the graduating infinitizing cost. You can throw
things
out the window, it doesn't do anything about the shrinkage of the world or
the numbing deadness of World Utopia.

The logic as I see it is this. 90% of the world's population live on
10% of the Earth's surface. If you were to (say) postulate Space Solar
Power to do large scale desalination you would release, in the short
term at least, far more land than would be released by space
colonization. As I have stated it MUST be easier to colonize the
Sahara (and other deserts) than it would be Mars. You can walk around
unprotected in the Sahara now, you might like air conditioning indoors
but it is a far cry from Mars.

To assemble SSP (I am assuming for the sake of argument that this is
our technology, there may be even cheaper purely terrestral
technologies but that only reinforces my case) you require use (by
robots) of the resources of space. Much less mass is required than for
ANY type of colonization. With cheaper access you might even take
everything up from Earth. As I said for long term living the Sahara is
vastly preferable.

For a trillion humans? For a quadrillion? For even sixty to seventy
billion humans? No!? Then the Sahara, the sea beds, Antarctica, and so on,
is not enough. Not even for the short term. GLB

In the very long term, yes we will have to go into space. As the short
term arguments are so powerfully in favor of terrestrial solution I
wonder whether or not there is some ulterior motive. - The bolthole
for generals and politicians.


- Ian Parker

On Dec 30, 9:54 am, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...
On 29 Dec, 20:31, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:

No planet, or number of moons or planets, is enough anymore. We are going
to have to go smaller in order to go larger, like we did with computers; a
modeling of the system. Customizable generalized and specialized units and
systems, local and wide area complex networks of island micro-worlds.
Space
colonization is what I'm talking about.

Do your robots in space without Man there. You won't be able to get them
small enough to cover the graduating infinitizing cost. You can throw
things
out the window, it doesn't do anything about the shrinkage of the world or
the numbing deadness of World Utopia.

The logic as I see it is this. 90% of the world's population live on
10% of the Earth's surface. If you were to (say) postulate Space Solar
Power to do large scale desalination you would release, in the short
term at least, far more land than would be released by space
colonization. As I have stated it MUST be easier to colonize the
Sahara (and other deserts) than it would be Mars. You can walk around
unprotected in the Sahara now, you might like air conditioning indoors
but it is a far cry from Mars.

To assemble SSP (I am assuming for the sake of argument that this is
our technology, there may be even cheaper purely terrestral
technologies but that only reinforces my case) you require use (by
robots) of the resources of space. Much less mass is required than for
ANY type of colonization. With cheaper access you might even take
everything up from Earth. As I said for long term living the Sahara is
vastly preferable.

For a trillion humans? For a quadrillion? For even sixty to seventy
billion humans? No!? Then the Sahara, the sea beds, Antarctica, and so on,
is not enough. Not even for the short term. GLB

In the very long term, yes we will have to go into space. As the short
term arguments are so powerfully in favor of terrestrial solution I
wonder whether or not there is some ulterior motive. - The bolthole
for generals and politicians.

- Ian Parker

There's always those "boltholes" as intended for the rich and
powerful, along with accommodating all of their brown-nosed minions.

- Brad Guth

On 30 Dec, 17:54, "G. L. Bradford" wrote:


* For a trillion humans? For a quadrillion? For even sixty to seventy
billion humans? No!? Then the Sahara, the sea beds, Antarctica, and so on,
is not enough. Not even for the short term. GLB


I think what we are arguing about is timescale. There is great
uncertainty about the Earth's population. By 2050 it will be 9-10
billion. This is a fairly certain prediction. At 9-10 billion what we
need to be thinking about is supplies of raw materials and energy, not
even primerally more land. In the further future who knows. If we do
in fact manage to achieve a vastly increased longevity and people have
second families in their sixies, this will upset al the predictions.
At the moment the prediction is for a slow decline after 2050.

In actual fact the goal for 2050 should not even be the opening up of
new land (on Earth) but a stabalization of climate and technology to
bring not deserts, but semi dererts into cultivation and to halt the
slide into desertification.

Space I believe will be crucial in the control of climate. Hurricanes
occur because of chaos and I can forsee space based mirrors being used
to prevent the build up of storms. In fact if NASA were to present
this as a major space goal they would be presenting Earth with clear
benefits. A space mirror system would be unlikely to be cancelled with
a change in administation. Everyone can see the destruction of
Katrina. On the other hand there are large numbers of people who
cannot see the benefits of a jaunt to Mars.

In the very long term, yes we will have to go into space. As the short
term arguments are so powerfully in favor of terrestrial solution I
wonder whether or not there is some ulterior motive. - The bolthole
for generals and politicians.

I still believe that any short term goal must be a bolthole. Space
must be used to bring clear cut short term benefits to Earth. If
indeed at some point we have a population of 20 billion which is
rising decisions will need to be taken as to what to do. We do not
have to take these decisions now.

In point of fact the main fear I have about population is not TOTAL
overpopulation, but of population pressure in a particular region. The
Middle East still has a rapidly rising population, OK rates of
fertility are declining even there but at a slower rate than in the
rest of the world. this is going to be of major concern in terms of
the peace of the region.

The Middle East is of course arid and will need technological
solutions for this aridity. Lets put the surplus Damascenes near to
Palymyra.


- Ian Parker