"The Future of Human Spaceflight"

There is one clear moral in what you say and it is this. Make sure
that aid is always distributed fairly. Make sure always that extremism
is not encouraged.

It is ironc. In Arabic "Fatah" means "youth". We see corrupt
geriatrics governing in Palestine today. Hamas would not have won if
that were not so. I keep on saying that the casting of lead will only
encourage Hamas, AQ and all those who are extreme.

I think a good idea might well be to open all the crossings. Now Hamas
what are You going to do?


- Ian Parker

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
There is one clear moral in what you say and it is this. Make sure
that aid is always distributed fairly. Make sure always that extremism
is not encouraged.

It is ironc. In Arabic "Fatah" means "youth". We see corrupt
geriatrics governing in Palestine today. Hamas would not have won if
that were not so. I keep on saying that the casting of lead will only
encourage Hamas, AQ and all those who are extreme.

I think a good idea might well be to open all the crossings. Now Hamas
what are You going to do?


- Ian Parker

I do believe these people don't figure out they're off topic -- because,
they can't.

Titeotwawki -- mha [sci.space.policy 2009 Jan 14]

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 14 Jan, 15:08, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: :
: :Could you answer me one question. How did Hamas get elected?
: :
:
: What does that have to do with anything, Ian?
:
:
:Thank you Fred! We now see the US naked. They are NOT interested in
:democracy and never were.
:

Non sequitur noted. Lack of responsive answer noted. Lack of
reasoning ability noted.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine

Quadibloc wrote:
The tyranny of the majority - where a ruler gets elected to pursue a
policy of persecuting minorities - is not democracy in a meaningful
sense, because the most basic element of democracy, before elections,
is respect for human rights.


I still like this little item on who runs US foreign policy:
http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNew...50C20B20090113
Olmert calls Bush - who doesn't know jack **** about what Olmert is
talking about - so Bush calls Condi - and tells her to do what Olmert
told him to do.
Condi is Secretary Of State of _what_ nation again? :-D

Pat

On 15 Jan, 02:07, "Martha Adams" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message

...

There is one clear moral in what you say and it is this. Make sure
that aid is always distributed fairly. Make sure always that extremism
is not encouraged.

It is ironc. In Arabic "Fatah" means "youth". We see corrupt
geriatrics governing in Palestine today. Hamas would not have won if
that were not so. I keep on saying that the casting of lead will only
encourage Hamas, AQ and all those who are extreme.

I think a good idea might well be to open all the crossings. Now Hamas
what are You going to do?

*- Ian Parker

I do believe these people don't figure out they're off topic -- because,
they can't.

It IS off topic. Not quite though. The overwhelming issues are these.

1) We do not treat each other with respect. I have been to scientific
conferences and language like we have seen would be off limits. There
is the real issue of new ideas.

2) Ad hominem arguments have been introdiced by Fred and Rand not by
me. The ad hominem argument is simply this. Given that their thinking
has left Iraq and the Middle East in general in such a mess, can you
trust them to run NASA. They seem to be keeping their ideas close to
their chests. Is there any evidence they would be better than current
NASA ideas.

3) Since 1969 there has been a revolution in UNMANNED exploration.
Current spacecraft simnply do not compare with those of 1969. Real X-
ray telescopes worthy of the name, WMAP, Voyager etc. These represent
quantum leaps in capability. There is LISA too which to me represents
a milestone but other people seem to be ridiculing.

4) Where in contrast is the fresh thinking about manned spaceflight?
Ares is simply a glorified Saturn. As has been observed human
spaceflight is strictly confined to LEO.

5) To be the only way forward is increased use of automation. There is
to me only one way to Mars and that is via a series of stepping stones
NONE OF WHICH ARE DELIVERED FROM EARTH. If things are delivered from
Earth you might just as well assemble everything at LEO and simply
cast off.

6) Ares to me shows a complete lack of ANY creative thinking. It is
not only Saturn writ large, it (effectively) mandates heavy
indivisible loads rather than space assembly.

7) This group seems to discource creative thinking. Seeing our threads
creative thinkers are going to be put off.

From an ad hominem stand-point "cast lead" typifies the kind of
thinking we have.

I feel that Obama should in essence pull the plug. Get rid of NASA
lock stock and barrel. How will unmanned flights be organized. Well
there is already overlap between NASA and ESA. What I would advocate
is a slimmed down board of academics who would vet and instigate
unmanned projects.

NASA in its present form is an exercise in futility. There can be no
other way of looking at it.


- Ian Parker

On Jan 15, 4:19*am, Ian Parker wrote:

1) We do not treat each other with respect. I have been to scientific
conferences and language like we have seen would be off limits. There
is the real issue of new ideas.

At scientific conferences, unlike on USENET,

a) contentious political issues aren't discussed, and

b) not just anyone can wander in off the street.

3) Since 1969 there has been a revolution in UNMANNED exploration.

4) Where in contrast is the fresh thinking about manned spaceflight?

Humans haven't been cutting their height in half every 54 months.

It's not surprising that unmanned vehicles are not much more capable
than they used to be. Life-support demands, however, remain constant,
and many of the technologies in spaceflight, which involves moving
heavy objects about with fossil fuels, are mature. Gas mileage doesn't
double every 18 months either.

5) To be the only way forward is increased use of automation. There is
to me only one way to Mars and that is via a series of stepping stones
NONE OF WHICH ARE DELIVERED FROM EARTH. If things are delivered from
Earth you might just as well assemble everything at LEO and simply
cast off.

Not necessarily. Using small rockets to launch supplies to Mars for a
Mars mission, for example, may be considerably more convenient and
cheaper than spending time on space assembly.

7) This group seems to discource creative thinking. Seeing our threads
creative thinkers are going to be put off.

Wild ideas that are in flagrant contradiction to current knowledge -
such as the notion NASA is in some conspiracy to conceal that Venus is
clement, but the Moon could never have been landed on by men due to
some electrostatic problem - will not be respected, and if the people
advancing them also insult the rest of the world that doesn't see the
wisdom of their ideas, yes, they will get more insults back. Oh, yes,
throw in anti-Semitism too.

Of course, Brad Guth isn't the only person we're less than polite to,
it may be.

It's true that I don't think there's much room for original thinking
in the Middle East.

Given certain premises that I think are factual, I'm not sure there is
much room for change...

1) The Democrats may well be critical of the need to engage in
military action in Iraq. But they and the Republicans - and virtually
the entire spectrum of conventional American political discourse - is
in agreement on the following principles:

a) Although it might be useful in a tactical sense to understand the
mentality behind terrorists, there were no legitimate grievances
behind the attacks of September 11, 2001. They did not result from
anything the U.S. government did on behalf of the American people that
was unjust or unfair to Muslims or others.

b) There are to be no negotiations, no compromises, with al-Qaeda or
the Taliban. They are to be defeated (and presumably, therefore,
destroyed, as they are willing to commit suicide for their cause)
utterly.

c) While the U.S. is not perfect, and should still critically examine
its own past conduct (i.e. in Latin America), September 11, 2001 is
not, in any way, shape or form, the specific occasion for any soul-
searching on the part of the American people.

Now, this may be a bit overstated; in particular, violations of (c)
have taken place from sources that were, and continued to be,
respected. But seldom heeded.

2) Israel is a democracy which believes in universal equality; it is a
country that is a participant in, and a contributor to, world science,
technology, and culture. Its existence is legitimate; the proposition
that it sits on territory seized by aggression, that should be given
back to its original owners, is no more accepted than the equivalent
proposition in the case of the United States, Canada, Australia, New
Zealand, or the countries of Latin America.

3) At the time of the Camp David peace accords, Israel agreed to allow
the West Bank and Gaza Strip to become an independent Palestinian
nation, removing all the settlements therefrom, holding on to nothing
gained in the Six-Day War except East Jerusalem.

As this is about as much as can be expected from Israel in the way of
concessions, nothing further remains to be offered to any group still
engaged in violence against Israel. It can only reasonably be
inferred, since such violence obstructs implementing the Camp David
accords (once a Palestinian state becomes an internationally-
recognized nation, Israel's options, if it were still used as a base
of operations for terrorism against it, would be more restricted),
that groups engaging in continued violence against Israel have more
ambitious goals than implementation of the Camp David accords.

Such as driving Israel into the sea.


Given these facts - and, going beyond them, partly because, yes, the
U.S. does have a large Jewish population, to the premise that:

The Jews of Israel are people too, and thus we shouldn't ask anything
of them that we wouldn't ask of ourselves.

.... then, while it IS also possible to hold the premise that Gazans
are people too, that gets us no further than

civilian casualties in Gaza should cease immediately, if possible, but

military operations in Gaza should continue until Hamas is wiped out
to the last man.

If there were wiggle room for "creative thinking" of the conventional
kind, that would be nice, but I don't see any. But that doesn't mean I
don't want creative thinking - in fact, I encourage it - applied to
another step of the problem.

Based on *this* premise:

1) The only people who agree to a resolution of an issue that is
"unacceptable" from their viewpoint are those who don't have a choice.

and noting the immense power and nuclear arsenal of the U.S.,

then, unless a new cold war with Russia (given the invasion of
Georgia, that is a possibility; even World War III is possible)
constrains the freedom of action of the U.S., no resolution to the
issues raised by the September 11 attacks that isn't *the way the
American people want this to be resolved* will happen.

So al-Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, as well as Iran and Syria are going to
be crushed. Given the way things are going in Iraq and Gaza, what
grounds do we have that a military solution won't cause so much
suffering on the part of innocent civilians as to cause - because,
after all, Muslims are only human - so much bitterness and hatred as
to create many more terrorists? Until the whole thing ends with
genocide.

Which is what the Romans did in response to guerilla warfare. Given
Vietnam as evidence, it looks like *nobody* has yet come up with a
reasonable alternative to winning a counterinsurgency action.

One place to look for an answer is here -

*to* avoid the situation deteriorating to genocide, we should make
peace and make compromises, even though those compromises aren't
really demanded by justice. For example, surrender Israel, moving its
Jews to Canada, Australia, and the U.S..

That's one possibility. I don't think it will happen, so I'm looking
for stuff that could happen.

- Fight the war against the terrorists very selectively, so that
civilian suffering and hence alienation is minimized.

Yes, you can do that. For example, institute a draft, put as many
Americans under arms as during the height of World War II, and send
them, in turn, to Gaza, to Iraq, to Afghanistan.

- If the entire Muslim world does end up being conquered, promote
cultural changes that destroy the psychology behind terrorism.

What would a matriarchal Islam look like?

Instead of going "outside the box" of constraints that I think
realistically *do* apply (i.e. the constraint that in the end, we win,
they lose), I go outside the box of conventional thinking.

John Savard

On Jan 15, 3:28*am, Pat Flannery wrote:
Quadibloc wrote:

The tyranny of the majority - where a ruler gets elected to pursue a
policy of persecuting minorities - is not democracy in a meaningful
sense, because the most basic element of democracy, before elections,
is respect for human rights.

I still like this little item on who runs US foreign policy:http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNew...50C20B20090113
Olmert calls Bush - who doesn't know jack **** about what Olmert is
talking about - so Bush calls Condi - and tells her to do what Olmert
told him to do.
Condi is Secretary Of State of _what_ nation again? :-D

I could say something like "shame on you for even thinking such
thoughts", but that could be taken as humorously indicating agreement.

While I do think that the U.S. should indeed look out for itself,
frankly, if people in France, or Britain, or New Zealand... or Taiwan
or South Korea... were being killed, frankly, I quite fervently wish
that the U.S. would react as if it were Americans being killed.
Because only the U.S. is big and strong enough to defend against the
biggest bullies in the world - and those big bullies *do* have the
intent to attack small, weak countries that can't stand against them
alone.

As witness Russia's carefully staged attack on Georgia.

This is partly because I live in Canada, which, like Israel, is not as
militarily strong as the United States, but which, like the U.S., is
one of the democratic allies.

So if the U.S. exerts itself - on behalf of the survival of Israel -
in ways that go beyond the selfish interests of the U.S., don't expect
me to be critical of this instead of supportive. Frankly, I'd rather
that the U.S. stand up and fight, instead of being isolationist,
before, rather than after, say, the Red Chinese come to Canada and
take it over for its land and resources.

Bush wants Condoleeza Rice to back the attack in Gaza? Go for it.

John Savard

On 15 Jan, 14:05, Quadibloc wrote:
On Jan 15, 4:19*am, Ian Parker wrote:

1) We do not treat each other with respect. I have been to scientific
conferences and language like we have seen would be off limits. There
is the real issue of new ideas.

At scientific conferences, unlike on USENET,

a) contentious political issues aren't discussed, and

The political discussion as far as I am concerned stem from the
insistance of people like Fred and Rand that I should take advice from
"experts". Just look where their so called "experts" have got us.

b) not just anyone can wander in off the street.

I don't know. I think the military is systematically trained in
disinformation techniques. I think you too when you talk about Venus
are ducking the essential issue. The term "beni Al-kalb" carries with
it a number of implications. The disinformation techniques we see here
have been used on innumerable occaisions, most notably Iraq. The
greatest offense against science though has been the little green
mannikins of Phoenix fame.

I cannot tell whether Fred believes in LGM or not. He rubbishes in
equal measure the believers and disbelievers.

3) Since 1969 there has been a revolution in UNMANNED exploration.
4) Where in contrast is the fresh thinking about manned spaceflight?

Humans haven't been cutting their height in half every 54 months.

It's not surprising that unmanned vehicles are not much more capable
than they used to be. Life-support demands, however, remain constant,
and many of the technologies in spaceflight, which involves moving
heavy objects about with fossil fuels, are mature. Gas mileage doesn't
double every 18 months either.

This is true. You cannot miniaturize life support requirements. Well
at least not in the same way that you can miniaturize unmanned
spacecraft.

Moore's Law - double every 18 months. This might not go on for ever
though. If you believe in Moore though it tells us that if you (say)
want to build a telescope on the Moon, unmanned technology will
rapidly overtake you. It also tells us that if we want to do
something, let us say for the point of argument mine an asteroid that
at some point in the near future there will be technology available to
do it economically and unmanned.

5) To be the only way forward is increased use of automation. There is
to me only one way to Mars and that is via a series of stepping stones
NONE OF WHICH ARE DELIVERED FROM EARTH. If things are delivered from
Earth you might just as well assemble everything at LEO and simply
cast off.

Not necessarily. Using small rockets to launch supplies to Mars for a
Mars mission, for example, may be considerably more convenient and
cheaper than spending time on space assembly.

But the total tonnage remains the same. The avenue for cost reduction
may well be a standard rocket that would be smaller than Ares.

7) This group seems to discource creative thinking. Seeing our threads
creative thinkers are going to be put off.

Wild ideas that are in flagrant contradiction to current knowledge -
such as the notion NASA is in some conspiracy to conceal that Venus is
clement, but the Moon could never have been landed on by men due to
some electrostatic problem - will not be respected, and if the people
advancing them also insult the rest of the world that doesn't see the
wisdom of their ideas, yes, they will get more insults back. Oh, yes,
throw in anti-Semitism too.

Of course, Brad Guth isn't the only person we're less than polite to,
it may be.

All new ideas are not. I was talking not about Venus or anything like
that but about LISA, robotics, Von Neumann technology and fragmented
telescopes. You have absolutely ducked the issue.

I am snipping your comments on the Middle East. I do not entirely
agree, but it is off topic. Not completely. My main political points
are about Iraq and Afghanistan not about Israel or Palestine. Why do I
mention these? I feel that the reasons for the situation in Iraq is
due in no small measure to the attitude of US forces. High policy was
wrong too, but that is not really the point. There we are full square
on my main contentions. Venus - a complete red herring!


- Ian Parker

There is one additional point which should be made. Venus is a
complete red herring - and you know it.

There are a whole load of classified projects that no one knows
anything about. I think the answer is if anyone delves to deeply into
what should, or should not, be done in space they come up against
classification issues. I believe two things.

1) That if classified matters are being discussed they should stay
stum rather that go for the invective. This is what would after all be
expected in a scientific conference.

2) Because peer group review is absent classified research is often
inefficient.

Ares - I don't think it is intended to go to the Mars or even the
Moon. It is intended for some highly classified project. The Moon and
Mars are merely covers. What could this project be? We can only, of
course make educated guesses. However there are some well known facts.

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/.../msg00698.html
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_...nalysis_june03

An ABM laser is being developed. It is as far as I can gather based on
CO2. (9.4/10.6 microns I think)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser

Suppose we send the payload of the 747 to MEO with Ares. We would need
larger mirrors for the longer range, but potentially you have a global
ABM system.

The Chinese are well aware of this and that is one of the reasons why
they are conducting ASAT tests.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/A_Go...t_Two_999.html

The Chinese are clearly aware of this.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...63974cd0?hl=en

As far as AI is concerned I managed to trawl the following. The work
is extensive to say the least of it. Why with this extensive list do
people call me looney. It just doesn't figure at all. This is wha\t
makes me angry and causes me to go into such matters as Iraq.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en...projects&meta=

The reference below is the GILA air traffic control system. The
approach is an expert system. I would BTW have approached the problem
genetically, that is to say I would have simulated aircraft behaviour
ans optimised a genome. Still that is NOT my main point.

http://www.networkworld.com/community/node/24924

As far as VN machines go there is a weath of references. Why the
military don't like them I really don't know. This is one of the
puzzles. Here we are.

http://www.science-papers.org/2009/0...mann-machines/

I think you are writing as an apologist for these sons of dogs. Venus,
as I have said is a red herring. I think you know this yourself.

The question I would ask is should we shut up shop? Should we set up a
new group not open to anyone with a military background? Hard to
enforce. There are in addition the points about vortex lift and
hypersonic flight.

This could in actual fact mean that progress in the US will be slower
than that in other countries. I have not just mentioned one issue I
have gone into a raft of issues.


- Ian Parker

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 09:42:37 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Ian Parker made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

There is one additional point which should be made. Venus is a
complete red herring - and you know it.

There are a whole load of classified projects that no one knows
anything about. I think the answer is if anyone delves to deeply into
what should, or should not, be done in space they come up against
classification issues. I believe two things.

1) That if classified matters are being discussed they should stay
stum rather that go for the invective. This is what would after all be
expected in a scientific conference.

A newsgroup is not a scientific conference. It is lunacy to imagine
that it is.

2) Because peer group review is absent classified research is often
inefficient.

Ares - I don't think it is intended to go to the Mars or even the
Moon. It is intended for some highly classified project. The Moon and
Mars are merely covers. What could this project be? We can only, of
course make educated guesses. However there are some well known facts.

http://sci.tech-archive.net/Archive/.../msg00698.html
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_...nalysis_june03

An ABM laser is being developed. It is as far as I can gather based on
CO2. (9.4/10.6 microns I think)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_laser

Suppose we send the payload of the 747 to MEO with Ares. We would need
larger mirrors for the longer range, but potentially you have a global
ABM system.

The Chinese are well aware of this and that is one of the reasons why
they are conducting ASAT tests.
http://www.spacewar.com/reports/A_Go...t_Two_999.html

The Chinese are clearly aware of this.

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...63974cd0?hl=en

As far as AI is concerned I managed to trawl the following. The work
is extensive to say the least of it. Why with this extensive list do
people call me looney. It just doesn't figure at all. This is wha\t
makes me angry and causes me to go into such matters as Iraq.

No, what makes you angry and causes you to go into irrelevant matters
as Iraq is that you are completely off your nut.

rest of typical Ian lunacy snipped