|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Answers to quiz + ASAT capability & the future of space itself
As promised the answers to my Quiz
What are dominant and recessive characteristics? In any scheme of sexual reproduction genes occur in pairs. A dominant characteristic requires only one gene to be present whereas a both genes have to be present for a recessive characterisic. What experiments did Mendel perform and how do they illustrate this. Mendel was a monk and he performed experiments on peas in the Monastery garden. He cross fertilised them and looked for characteristics such as colour and crinkly leaves. How are proteins made? How would I use yeast (say) to make a particular protein? Proteins are strings of amino acids. They are normally made from genes (and enzymes). Enzymes are biological catalysts which are made from a gene. Hence a gene is associated with a particular enzyme. What are T cells? These are white blood cells that do not have any immunological activity themselves but act on and optimize other cells. How do white blood cells (leukocytes ) operate? They bind onto infective agents. As we shall see in a vaccine we only need to bind to one site on the infective agent. What would you understand by a cell fragment. How might it be made by genetic engineering? A cell fragment is simply a piece of a cell. It is normally regarded as a single protein, or a part of a DNA sequence. It is important in creating vaccines since we only need to have one accessible fragment in a vaccine. This will create an immune response which will be adequate. Genetic engineering will enable a fragment to be manufactured in the cells of another organism - a yeast for example. In the case of AIDS the virus frequently turns itself inside out so it is hard to find an unambiguous binding site. Some progress has been made. There are a group of prostitutes in Africa whose genetic make up makes them immune to AIDS. Work is in progress to try to find a binding site associated with the gene. I will not take lectures from people who are totally unqualified lying down. I tumbled to this when looking at the energy momentum balance of ion propulsion. I will repeat. There can be no siege colonies without a Von Neumann machine. Space colonies are no substitute for working towards world peace and adherence to arms control treaties. ASAT and ABM systems The US has just torn up the ABM treaty. Claim is that protection is needed from the missile systems of rogue states. Reality is somewhat different. Poland borders on Russia. It does not border on Iran. It is hard to see how a radar station in Poland could possibly be relevant to Iran. Iranian missiles would not go anywhere near. The offer of President Putin for a station in Azerbaijan, which really does border on Iran was turned down. http://www.space4peace.org/asat/asat.htm ABM systems are also ASAT systems and the most popular is a laser mounted on a 747. The claim that only an Iranian (or other rogue state) attack is planned is just rubbish. A laser system is potentially capable of multiple kills. Technological advances in the future will greatly expand capability. Let us look at what ASAT means in practice. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...s/CHI01177.xml .. A moments reflection tells you that other countries are going to respond to the ASAT threat. The Chinese test has been condemned for the creation of space debris. In fact space is a rather fragile environment from this viewpoint. My suggestion is this. Part of defense policy should be directed at reducing vulnerability and this means using ground based systems for civil and military purposes even where they would be more expensive than ground based systems. All civil communication should use fibre optic cables with terrestrial transmitters on locations like the tops of hills or tall buildings for mobile applications. You cannot have a traffic management systems, either for cars or aircraft dependent on such a fragile environment as space. US defense policy is based on a contradiction. If you are fighting terrorist groups or small countries without any aerospace capability, you are OK. But, against such an enemy the utility of sophisticated aircraft may be limited anyway. There is absolutely no point in military secrecy - at least not for technology. A country which is capable will be able to knock 70-80% of your military capability out at a stroke, using ASAT weapons and sand. You can give detailed hypersonic drawings to Al Qaeda or any small country and they could not make use of them anyway. All this does have an impact on marketing. Don't imagine that the reasons why transoceanic passenger jets still use inertial systems is nothing to do with the above. It might be an idea if in the future jets flying oceanic journeys used RELATIVE positioning for collision avoidance. Unless some method can be found of safeguarding the space environment any cheap launch facility is highly problematic. In 20 years time there might be a market only for deep space scientific missions and Ultra LEO spy missions. Everything else could be just too dangerous. - Ian Parker |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Answers to quiz + ASAT capability & the future of space itself
Ian Parker wrote:
: :As promised the answers to my Quiz : Didn't need 'em. I already gave the answers. : :What are dominant and recessive characteristics? :In any scheme of sexual reproduction genes occur in pairs. A dominant :characteristic requires only one gene to be present whereas a both :genes have to be present for a recessive characterisic. : Overly simplistic. Many characteristics are determined by more than two genes. The more of the genes you have, the more of the characteristic you have. Hint for my answer - my eyes are blue and my hair is dark brown. : :What experiments did Mendel perform and how do they illustrate this. :Mendel was a monk and he performed experiments on peas in the :Monastery garden. He cross fertilised them and looked for :characteristics such as colour and crinkly leaves. : Hint for my answer - I spelled 'pea' in "Don't pea yourself" the way I did on purpose. : :How are proteins made? How would I use yeast (say) to make a articular protein? :Proteins are strings of amino acids. They are normally made from genes and enzymes). Enzymes are biological catalysts which are made from a :gene. Hence a gene is associated with a particular enzyme. : Incomplete. A gene is associated with a particular polypeptide. A polypetide may or may not encode an enzyme. Proteins are made of one or more polypeptides. You don't appear to understand this very well. : :What are T cells? :These are white blood cells that do not have any immunological :activity themselves but act on and optimize other cells. : Your question was incomplete, as is your answer. There are multiple types of T cell. They do other things than "act on and optimize other cells". Some of them (like cytotoxic T cells) do have immunological activity of their own against viruses. : :How do white blood cells (leukocytes ) operate? :They bind onto infective agents. As we shall see in a vaccine we only :need to bind to one site on the infective agent. : I liked my answer better. It's also just as good as the VERY incomplete answer you provide above. : :What would you understand by a cell fragment. How might it be made by :genetic engineering? :A cell fragment is simply a piece of a cell. : Just what I said. : :I will not take lectures from people who are totally unqualified lying :down. : Then, given your inadequate answers to your own quiz, you should probably just shut up. : :I tumbled to this when looking at the energy momentum balance of :ion propulsion. I will repeat. There can be no siege colonies without :a Von Neumann machine. : Hogwash. : :ASAT and ABM systems : :The US has just torn up the ABM treaty. Claim is that protection is :needed from the missile systems of rogue states. Reality is somewhat :different. Poland borders on Russia. It does not border on Iran. It is :hard to see how a radar station in Poland could possibly be relevant :to Iran. Iranian missiles would not go anywhere near. : Simply wrong. Get a map and draw some Great Circle routes between Iran and the US East Coast. : :The offer of :President Putin for a station in Azerbaijan, which really does border n Iran was turned down. : Because it's too close to the launch site. : :http://www.space4peace.org/asat/asat.htm :ABM systems are also ASAT systems ... : Not necessarily. : :... and the most popular is a laser :mounted on a 747. : The "most popular"? With who? : :The claim that only an Iranian (or other rogue :state) attack is planned is just rubbish. : Your opinions are, so far, "just rubbish". : :A laser system is otentially capable of multiple kills. Technological advances in the :future will greatly expand capability. : Nobody is putting a laser system in place. [Remaining silly gibbering elided] -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Answers to quiz + ASAT capability & the future of space itself
Mendel's genetics was for simple characteristics. If you take a
concept like intelligence, which you seem to lack, there are many gene systems involved, that is perfectly true. All I wondered was whether in view of your complete ignorance on energy and momentum you knew anything about genetics and vaccines. : :The claim that only an Iranian (or other rogue :state) attack is planned is just rubbish. : I thought so. You are merely confirming my picture. If it isn't just for rogue states it is certain to unleash an arms race. You know I don't think a low cost launch facility is desirable at all. To protect the assets we have in space launch costs must be kwept high. Your opinions are, so far, "just rubbish". You've just confirmed them. : :A laser system is otentially capable of multiple kills. Technological advances in the :future will greatly expand capability. : Nobody is putting a laser system in place. Why do all the references talk about a Boeing 747 with a laser. This is for ABM but ASAT isn't so very different. [Remaining silly gibbering elided] -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." Hark at Satan condeming sin. - Ian Parker |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Answers to quiz + ASAT capability & the future of space itself
"Ian Parker" wrote in message ps.com... As promised the answers to my Quiz US defense policy is based on a contradiction. If you are fighting terrorist groups or small countries without any aerospace capability, you are OK. But, against such an enemy the utility of sophisticated aircraft may be limited anyway. There is absolutely no point in military secrecy - at least not for technology. A country which is capable will be able to knock 70-80% of your military capability out at a stroke, using ASAT weapons and sand. You can give detailed hypersonic drawings to Al Qaeda or any small country and they could not make use of them anyway. You have our military strategy all wrong. The new frontiers of space and cyberspace allow a new opportunity to fight and defend against the...small or less developed enemies...terrorists. We are not moving into space to counter large sophisticated military threats. As China and Russia could easily overwhelm missile defense, and debris attacts could take out anything in orbit. We're moving into the high ground and high tech to give the individual soldier a full spectrum advantage in low intensity urban warfare...terrorists. US Air Force Posture Statement Space Capabilities in Joint Operations http://www.posturestatement.hq.af.mil/2_3_fighting.htm The classic example the military uses for their new space based warfare is the killing of Al-Zarqawi in Iraq. Where tips, troops and communication networks allowed quick and effective response by US jets. http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...irstrike_x.htm The US wants the ability to deploy ...small and highly accurate payloads anywhere in the world in minutes. Before the intelligence gets stale. The effects of these capabilities against larger countries is marginal for now. Down the road though...it scares even me~ Imagine the internet twenty or forty years from now, a network so vast and interconnected it takes on a life of its own. A machine we can't turn off. Now imagine a military with the same sort of global pervasiveness and self-sufficiency. It's happening as we speak. Truth is always stranger than fiction. - Ian Parker |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Answers to quiz + ASAT capability & the future of space itself
"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message ... Ian Parker wrote: : Nobody is putting a laser system in place. I agree with your other responses about the defense sites near Russia. But we are going full tilt towards having military lasers. Most notably, we have a new military branch ominously called the Directed Energy Directorate "The Air Force Research Laboratory's Directed Energy Directorate develops high-energy lasers, high-power microwaves, and other directed energy technologies for the United States Air Force and the Department of Defense. ...to precisely project these directed energies at the speed of light anywhere, at any time and with graduated intensity." http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/ Ya know those C-130's gun platforms we have? The next armament upgrade appears to be lasers. http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/ic/leos/index.html Air Borne Laser (gotta love this jet) http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/...abl/index.html And the Starfire range is all about the ability to use lasers against satellites. They call military lasers...beam directors. http://www.de.afrl.af.mil/SOR/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Answers to quiz + ASAT capability & the future of space itself
Ian Parker wrote:
Ian 'cleverly' elides most of what he's actually responding to. : :Mendel's genetics was for simple characteristics. If you take a :concept like intelligence, which you seem to lack, there are many gene :systems involved, that is perfectly true. All I wondered was whether :in view of your complete ignorance on energy and momentum you knew :anything about genetics and vaccines. : So you wondered based on your own delusions whether some more of your delusions were true... : : : :The claim that only an Iranian (or other rogue : :state) attack is planned is just rubbish. : : : :I thought so. You are merely confirming my picture. : YOU wrote the preceding, you lying ******, not me. : :If it isn't just :for rogue states it is certain to unleash an arms race. You know I :don't think a low cost launch facility is desirable at all. To protect :the assets we have in space launch costs must be kwept high. : You know, I think you're a drooling moron and you just provide more and more proof for that opinion. : : Your opinions are, so far, "just rubbish". : :You've just confirmed them. : I see. You're just an idiot, then... : : : : : :A laser system is : otentially capable of multiple kills. Technological advances in the : :future will greatly expand capability. : : : : Nobody is putting a laser system in place. : : :Why do all the references talk about a Boeing 747 with a laser. This :is for ABM but ASAT isn't so very different. : All what references, you stupid *******? You're mixing apples and aardvarks. ASAT is **VERY** different from a boost phase or terminal phase defense, which is what the follow on to the ABL would be used for. : [Remaining silly gibbering elided] : : -- : "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the : soul with evil." : : :Hark at Satan condeming sin. : Hark at Idiot spewing more moronic macaroni... -- "Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is only stupid." -- Heinrich Heine |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Answers to quiz + ASAT capability & the future of space itself
On 9 Jul, 21:34, "Jonathan" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message ps.com... As promised the answers to my Quiz US defense policy is based on a contradiction. If you are fighting terrorist groups or small countries without any aerospace capability, you are OK. But, against such an enemy the utility of sophisticated aircraft may be limited anyway. There is absolutely no point in military secrecy - at least not for technology. A country which is capable will be able to knock 70-80% of your military capability out at a stroke, using ASAT weapons and sand. You can give detailed hypersonic drawings to Al Qaeda or any small country and they could not make use of them anyway. You have our military strategy all wrong. The new frontiers of space and cyberspace allow a new opportunity to fight and defend against the...small or less developed enemies...terrorists. We are not moving into space to counter large sophisticated military threats. As China and Russia could easily overwhelm missile defense, and debris attacts could take out anything in orbit. We're moving into the high ground and high tech to give the individual soldier a full spectrum advantage in low intensity urban warfare...terrorists. US Air Force Posture Statement Space Capabilities in Joint Operationshttp://www.posturestatement.hq.af.mil/2_3_fighting.htm The classic example the military uses for their new space based warfare is the killing of Al-Zarqawi in Iraq. Where tips, troops and communication networks allowed quick and effective response by US jets.http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...arqawi-airstri... The US wants the ability to deploy ...small and highly accurate payloads anywhere in the world in minutes. Before the intelligence gets stale. The effects of these capabilities against larger countries is marginal for now. Down the road though...it scares even me~ Imagine the internet twenty or forty years from now, a network so vast and interconnected it takes on a life of its own. A machine we can't turn off. Now imagine a military with the same sort of global pervasiveness and self-sufficiency. It's happening as we speak. Truth is always stranger than fiction. What you have said is I think absolutely true. Terrorism exists because people are brainwashed. It might surprise you to learn that only 1 in 100 of terrorists are psychotic. Most are misguided idealist who do function well in groups. One point which I think we can emphasize is that the Internet is going to increasingly dominate our information experience. There is one vital question about cyber war. Is it going to be directed solely at terrorists or is it going to be directed more generally against all countries that oppose Uncle Sam. I think that is the real question. Terrorism is a question of getting the truth across against Arab proaganda and of countering propaganda against Isreal. Cyber warfare is a case of putting your own disinformation forward. The two cases are very different. Also cyber warfare is to do with interference with the communications and websites of countries like Estonia. The US is not the only baddie in this, but it is definitely a baddie. It may in fact prove not to be possible for the CIA to operate. Any AI which effectively made the net self repairing and self defending would immediately annoy the CIA. - Ian Parker |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Answers to quiz + ASAT capability & the future of space itself
"Ian Parker" wrote The US has just torn up the ABM treaty. Claim is that protection is needed from the missile systems of rogue states. Reality is somewhat different. Poland borders on Russia. It does not border on Iran. It is hard to see how a radar station in Poland could possibly be relevant to Iran. Iranian missiles would not go anywhere near. The offer of President Putin for a station in Azerbaijan, which really does border on Iran was turned down. Ian, this may shake up your world view, but most of us have known for a long, long time that the Earth is R-O-U-N-D, not flat like your head, and that when you draw a string on it from Iran to closest targets in the United States, the route passes over - uh, over Poland. Russian missiles headed for the same targets do NOT pass over Poland, or within range of any ABM weapon based in Poland. Azerbaijan is too close to potential Iranian missile sites, which would be low on the horizon or blocked by mountains, and which would still be thrusting (i.e., potentially changing course) when they exit the radar's field of view. Besides, in Azerbaijan, both the local government (not eager to seek confrontation with Iran) and the Russian government (hardly a party known to be dedicated to American well-being) have hands on the plug at a moment's notice. You trust 'em? Let's vote on that judgment. Like I said, this ROUND concept may make you dizzy for awhile but the struggle for understanding -- and for restoring your credibility -- is worth it. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Answers to quiz + ASAT capability & the future of space itself
On 10 Jul, 13:57, "Jim Oberg" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote The US has just torn up the ABM treaty. Claim is that protection is needed from the missile systems of rogue states. Reality is somewhat different. Poland borders on Russia. It does not border on Iran. It is hard to see how a radar station in Poland could possibly be relevant to Iran. Iranian missiles would not go anywhere near. The offer of President Putin for a station in Azerbaijan, which really does border on Iran was turned down. Ian, this may shake up your world view, but most of us have known for a long, long time that the Earth is R-O-U-N-D, not flat like your head, and that when you draw a string on it from Iran to closest targets in the United States, the route passes over - uh, over Poland. Russian missiles headed for the same targets do NOT pass over Poland, or within range of any ABM weapon based in Poland. Azerbaijan is too close to potential Iranian missile sites, which would be low on the horizon or blocked by mountains, and which would still be thrusting (i.e., potentially changing course) when they exit the radar's field of view. Besides, in Azerbaijan, both the local government (not eager to seek confrontation with Iran) and the Russian government (hardly a party known to be dedicated to American well-being) have hands on the plug at a moment's notice. You trust 'em? Let's vote on that judgment. Like I said, this ROUND concept may make you dizzy for awhile but the struggle for understanding -- and for restoring your credibility -- is worth it. That is not the question. It really depends where they are goin. If they going over the Artic - yes they will cross Poland. It is NOT a good idea to try an interception in mid flight anyway. The reason is that aluminium foil and other sorts of decoys will be deployed. There are 2 points where interception is possible. The first is during the boost phase where there are no decoys and the rocket is very fragile. The second is just before reentry where the decoys slow down faster because of aerodynamic drag. It is a very uncertain business. Who is say anyway that the destination is the USA. Israel is the country they are always fulminating against. I also took the trouble to look up the longitudes of some places. Tehran is 51E. New York is 70W, Seattle is 122W. Seattle therefore is more or less over the North Pole. For N Korea no missiles will pass Poland on any target. N Korean missiles will fly across the Pacific. What about Europe? Uncle Sam doesn't care a damn about that. In Azerbaijan there is at least a chance of a booster interception. Poland makes sense for Russian missiles destined for N Europe, not really for anything else. From the above you can say a number of things about ABM. The only sound concept is a laser based booster interception. Other things are problematic to say the least. The only really sure fire ABM system is in fact a series of forts in MEO armed with lasers and capable of having the whole world in view at any one time. Would violate Outer Space Treaty - but who cares! To some extent the present generation of radar stations is window dressing and to some extent for intelligence gathering. Poland is of course intelligence on Russia. Talk about ABM is in fact technically misleading, but it certainly serves to increase tension. To have MEO forts you need an inexpensive route to LEO (ion drive LEO - MEO?) something that no one has yet achieved. - Ian Parker - Ian Parker - Ian Parker |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Answers to quiz + ASAT capability & the future of space itself
On Tue, 10 Jul 2007 07:57:53 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Jim
Oberg" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: "Ian Parker" wrote The US has just torn up the ABM treaty. Claim is that protection is needed from the missile systems of rogue states. Reality is somewhat different. Poland borders on Russia. It does not border on Iran. It is hard to see how a radar station in Poland could possibly be relevant to Iran. Iranian missiles would not go anywhere near. The offer of President Putin for a station in Azerbaijan, which really does border on Iran was turned down. Like I said, this ROUND concept may make you dizzy for awhile but the struggle for understanding -- and for restoring your credibility -- is worth it. How does one "restore" something that never existed? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Space Shuttle Gains Remote-Control Landing Capability" from SLASHDOT | EricT | History | 8 | November 21st 06 08:06 PM |
Time to put the Space Shuttle painlessly to sleep .... and return to SPACE work that's got a future ! | Alec | Space Station | 0 | August 13th 05 08:10 PM |
Time to put the Space Shuttle painlessly to sleep .... and return to SPACE work that's got a future ! | Alec | Space Shuttle | 0 | August 13th 05 08:08 PM |
RoadRunner demonstrates revolutionary military space capability(Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | News | 0 | July 31st 05 04:29 AM |
quiz | Kim Keller | Policy | 1 | July 21st 03 04:21 AM |