A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Space Station
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old December 24th 08, 04:00 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 23 Dec, 13:21, (Rand Simberg) wrote:
: On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 04:37:56 -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:
:
: snip much typical Ian lunacy
:
: Is there an "Al-kalb" training course? I really don't know. I must say
: that the remarks that have been made to me are similar to remarks made
: to other people in different circumstances. This suggests to me that
: they all come from a common source. I feel it is the Establishment at
: work. In a scientific discussion group it is concomitant on them to
: justify the views they hold. The fact that they fail to do so is
: indicative of the paucity of any real argument.
:
: I will repeat. If you do not allow opinions contrary to the
: "Establishment" you might as well simply read NASA's bulletin board.
:
: This is classic paranoid schizophrenia, folks.
:
:Honestly you do wonder. My contribution was very reasoned. I did not
:ask for embarrassing remarks on Obama or anything else. I was asking a
:number of questions that are very pertinant to space and I get a reply
:like that.
:

Your 'contribution' was not "very reasoned". You didn't ask any
particular questions, but went on and on about some imagined
'Establishment' plot against you, whereby we've all been to a special
school to learn how to call you the idiot that you manifestly are.

If imagining some vast plot against you by government trained
character assassins isn't paranoid, I don't know what is.

:
:Really what can you say? This group is one for failed astronauts and
:Establishment cronies.
:

No, this group is one for sane discussion. If you don't like being
treated like a loonytoon, stop acting like one.

:
:All the remarks I have made deserve a decent reply. I will ask again.
:

Well, most of your remarks certainly do not deserve a decent reply.
They deserve all the derision that can be heaped on them. That being
said, let's continue.

:
:1) How can manned spaceflight be justified with the enormous expansion
:in AI and robatic capability in general?
:

Because men are still orders of magnitude more effective and capable
than the best machines. This will no doubt be true for the
foreseeable future.

:
:2) Should winged craft be considered at all in view of what
:simple_language has said? What about the 2 tons of lead?
:

Depends on the usage. I have my own thoughts about that.

What, pray tell, does the trim weight in one vehicle have to do with
anything at all in the general sense?

:
:3) If you are going to have space colonies (to save the World that is)
:should not anthpogenic threats be considered?
:

No doubt, but you'd also no doubt squeal like a stuck pig if said
space colonies were provided with weapons to protect themselves
against said "anthpogenic [sic] threats".

:
:It has become increasingly clear that there is indeed an "Al-kalb"
:course.
:

This only becomes increasingly clear to the increasingly insane.

:
:No one is prepared to arge anymore in a proper scientific way.
:

Lots of people are prepared to do precisely that. They're just not
prepared to do it when the other side is not and is clearly deluded
into the bargain.

:
:This group is not a science group. I don't know what it is but it is
:definitely not scientific. How anyone can pretend it is I don't know.
:It is a group for failed astronauts and progeny of dogs.
:

Gee, **** you, too, Ian. Now run along and take your lithium.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #72  
Old December 24th 08, 04:18 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar


"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
On 23 Dec, 14:56, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
"Ian Parker" wrote in message
Really what can you say? This group is one for failed astronauts and
Establishment cronies.


All the remarks I have made deserve a decent reply. I will ask again.


1) How can manned spaceflight be justified with the enormous expansion
in AI and robatic capability in general?


Robots still can't do 1/10th of what a man in a suit can do. The rovers
on
Mars have taken years to move less distance than the manned lunar rovers
did
during Apollo.

Apollo was in 1969/70 a lot has changed since then. In 1969 the only
way to get a quality Moon mission was to send astronauts. This is not
true today.


Yes it is true today. Look at the current, and planned, Mars rovers and
you'll see that what I say is true. The robotics is getting good, but the
"AI" simply isn't there. As far as I know, currently planned missions will
be teleoperated much like the current Mars rovers. Whenever any parameter
goes out of range, it stops and waits for instructions from Earth. These
things aren't autonomous like you're implying.

I think we must look at robots not only today but at the critical
dates. Moon base 2020. Manned expedition to Mars 2030. These are not
my dates BTW, I regard them as being very optimistic. They assume that
space is going to be a high priority for administrations.


Predicting what will happen in the future is awfully hard. One only has to
look at past predictions to see that today's state of the art falls short of
many of those optimistic precdictions.

As I think I have said you don't need full AI a la Kurtzweil. You just
need human manual dexterity + some pattern recognition capability.
This is in fact being worked on now.


In other words, it's a research project. Come back when you can point to
operational hardware. The military has been investing in this sort of thing
for *a long time*. They simply are not there yet. When we can dispense
with deep sea divers (a very risky job) because their work has been taken
over by autonomous (as opposed to teleoperated) robots, let me know.

Yesterday, NASA announced the two COTS winners. If just one of the two can
deliver, it will be money well spent. If both deliver, then that money
spent will be doubly worth it. This is the sort of baby step that NASA must
take to open up space.

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson


  #73  
Old December 24th 08, 04:21 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Jeff Findley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,012
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar


"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
Of those the only real possibility is "4". This leaves us with the
more exotic possibilities. What about William Mook, what about heating
hydrogen with lasers? NASA has in point of fact investigated this
possibility also. It has investigated small payloads propelled by
lasers.


Just what hardware has William Mook built and flown? Last I checked, he's a
net kook. His ideas don't pass the sniff test and he has no real
engineering data to back up his wild assertions. I've got a B.S. in
Aerospace Engineering, so I'm at least somewhat qualified to administer a
sniff test to an unproven propulsion method. What's Mook got?

Jeff
--
"Many things that were acceptable in 1958 are no longer acceptable today.
My own standards have changed too." -- Freeman Dyson


  #74  
Old December 24th 08, 04:35 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar

Ian Parker wrote:

:On 23 Dec, 14:56, "Jeff Findley" wrote:
: "Ian Parker" wrote in message
: Really what can you say? This group is one for failed astronauts and
: Establishment cronies.
:
: All the remarks I have made deserve a decent reply. I will ask again.
:
: 1) How can manned spaceflight be justified with the enormous expansion
: in AI and robatic capability in general?
:
: Robots still can't do 1/10th of what a man in a suit can do. *The rovers on
: Mars have taken years to move less distance than the manned lunar rovers did
: during Apollo.
:
:
:Apollo was in 1969/70 a lot has changed since then. In 1969 the only
:way to get a quality Moon mission was to send astronauts. This is not
:true today.
:

Well, actually, yes, it is.

:
:I think we must look at robots not only today but at the critical
:dates. Moon base 2020. Manned expedition to Mars 2030. These are not
:my dates BTW, I regard them as being very optimistic. They assume that
:space is going to be a high priority for administrations.
:

Potentially optimistic. Does someone have the 'closest approach'
dates to hand? It seems to me that these are going to at least
somewhat drive timing for a Mars mission.

:
:As I think I have said you don't need full AI a la Kurtzweil. You just
:need human manual dexterity + some pattern recognition capability.
:This is in fact being worked on now.
:

And that will get you perhaps 0.1% of the effectiveness you would get
if you sent people.

: 2) Should winged craft be considered at all in view of what
: simple_language has said? What about the 2 tons of lead?
:
: You can't damn all winged craft based on a sample size of one experimental
: craft (the US space shuttle). *I don't count the Russian shuttle since it's
: a clone of the US shuttle.
:
:Indeed not. I think in fact "simple language" was oversimlified. There
:are a few points that can be made. One ad hominem point is that
:Arianespace has built an extremely successful COMMERCIAL business on
:the Ariane 5 expendible. If your load is too small perhaps a Soyuz
:would suit you sir.
:

It's easy to build a 'commercial business' if you get all your
launcher development and facilities for free.

:

paragraphs of irrelevancy elided

:
:My point though was this. People should have told Simple_language the
:error of his ways as soon as he posted.
:

You would have saved a lot if you hadn't wandered all around the barn
before arriving at your 'point'.

: 3) If you are going to have space colonies (to save the World that is)
: should not anthpogenic threats be considered?
:
: WTF are you talking about? *It's statements like this that make you look
: like a complete nut job.
:
:I disagree. As I pointed out there are reasons for space colonies
ther than "saving the world".
:

Quite true, but that doesn't make that reason invalid.

:
:In view however of trends in automation
:it is hard to see any real scientific value, if that is your
:criterion.
:

For direct scientific value of SPACE settlements, that's probably
true. However, having people in space makes the accompanying unmanned
platforms easier to service.

:
:Youu need to find a humanistic reason. Perhaps throwing
:your partner over your head is as good as any.
:

There are all sorts of reasons. No single one is 'the' reason.
Carping about a reason someone puts forward as if they have claimed it
is the only reason is specious reasoning at best and intellectual
dishonesty at worst.

:
:Hawking however expressly mentioned "saving the world". When you say
:that you immediately ask "are there better ways of doing this?". Risks
:fall into 2 classes. There are natural risks like asteroids and
:volcanic eruptions, and there are antropgenic risks like genetically
:engineered lurgis. Most people who have studied this question believe
:that antropogenic risks are much greater. My feelings are and have
:always been these.
:
:1) These risks should be tackled on Earth. Talking about space
:colonies only gives an excuse to the establishment to ignore them.
:

Ah, there's that evil 'Establishment' again. The preceding is
nonsensical. If such "risks" are going to be "tackled" on Earth they
will be. Nobody (sane) is going to reason that, "Well, we won't
tackle this here because we have a space colony."

:
:2) A space colony will NOT be immune from antropogenic risk. Indeed
:space colonies may even increase the risk.
:

True, it won't be immune. But it is a different basket. Don't keep
all your eggs in one basket.

:
:3) A siege colony is an impossibility in any event.
:

Horse manure. A 'siege colony' is quite possible, although you
certainly won't have one within a decade of starting the effort. It
seems that everything must be "right now" for 3 year olds and loons.

:
:
: It has become increasingly clear that there is indeed an "Al-kalb"
: course. No one is prepared to arge anymore in a proper scientific way.
:
: Actually, I am, it's you that's putting faith in things like robotics and
: "AI" when such faith is unwarrented. *The utility of people in spacesuits is
: well demonstrated. *The utility of robotics and AI to replace them is not.
:
:Well, after Hawking had made his remarks and I had made my first
osting I made a few errors about the Antrax attacks.
:

"A few errors"? You got virtually EVERYTHING wrong.

:
:The point, which
:I wanted to make, was that the attacks had originated in the US, were
f US military manufacture and had done immense damage. This is
:undeniable.
:

Oh, is it? We *still* don't know those things with certainty. We
don't even know that all the anthrax was from the same source. There
were apparently three distinct grades involved in the attacks.

None of it was "of US military manufacture", by the way. You're
misstating the known facts again.

It hardly did "immense damage". Only 5 people died.

:
:I got the impression that I knew the truth and they knew
:the truth.
:

You get all sorts of loony impressions, which you then go on to treat
as if they are facts.

:
:As a token of their concern about the risk of meteorites they
:deliberated hijacked a discussion on that very subject.
:
:Mrs. Stevens is someone I feel very sorry for. How relevant is this?
:Well the fact that the sons of dogs argued that they were not
:responsible speaks volumes about them.
:

What are you gibbering about now?

:
:As I said I don't know whether there is conspiracy or not. There are
:just too many cooincidences/
:

State that you don't know some loony idea's truth or falsity and then
go on to act as if it must be true. Vintage Ian (A.S.S.) Parker.

: This group is not a science group. I don't know what it is but it is
: definitely not scientific. How anyone can pretend it is I don't know.
: It is a group for failed astronauts and progeny of dogs.
:
: Well, if you didn't appear to the rest of the group as a wounded animal,
: then perhaps the dogs would not attack.
:
:Such behaviour would be completely unacceptable in any scientific
:conference. No one can deny this. I will not put up with this and I do
:not see why I should have to.
:

You don't have to put up with anything. You have lots of
alternatives. You could stop acting like a loonytoon. You could
leave. You could seek mental health care.

I don't see why sane people should have to put up with you.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine
  #75  
Old December 24th 08, 05:08 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Pat Flannery
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 18,465
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar



Jeff Findley wrote:
Just what hardware has William Mook built and flown? Last I checked, he's a
net kook. His ideas don't pass the sniff test and he has no real
engineering data to back up his wild assertions. I've got a B.S. in
Aerospace Engineering, so I'm at least somewhat qualified to administer a
sniff test to an unproven propulsion method. What's Mook got?


I'm already working on a Orion-type nuclear pulse drive using fusion of
Mook-emitted methane detonated behind a pusher plate...upon which he
sits eating beans.
This will be the basis of the Deep Space Bomber Force, with its motto:
"Silent But Deadly" ("Silens Tamen Mortifer") ;-)
Seriously, whatever became of the laser-powered launch vehicle that rode
shockwaves up the beam as it was focused on its underside and detonated
the air under it that Leik Myrabo was working on?
http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/
Also, why does Leik Myrabo look like Val Kilmer as Chris Knight out of
"Real Genius" in that picture? :-)

Pat
  #76  
Old December 24th 08, 05:39 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar

On 24 Dec, 14:42, Fred J. McCall wrote:
:

Fred, at least, knows no such thing. *By merely a slight extension of
that thinking, Earth can't exist completely independently, then.

I am talking about something that can be built at reasonable cost
within today's emergent technology. The Earth is in fact a biosystem.
It is for example a truism to say that we could not exist without
insects.

Or, to put it in your usual loonytoon vocabulary, are you insisting
that a von Neumann machine is impossible?

Make up your mind bin Al-kalb. You castigated me for lunacy when I
proposed such a thing. Now you are postulating one yourself!

To build a siege colony you need a VN machine. There is no other way
of doing this at reasonable cost. You can look at the Asteroid belt
and if a VN machine could be made to work in that environment there is
no limit to what you might think of doing. You could even make an
interstellar trip with a Forward type laser system.

One word of caution. A colony based on a VN machine would in itself
consistute an antropgenic risk. Kevin Warwick has written a book on
"The mind of the machine" in which he states that machines will be
more intelligent than us and (if given a will of their own) will take
us over.

If you have a VN machine where the genome is encoded with a strong
error correcting code evolution cannot take place. If on the other
hand you have gone into space to save the World from an anthopogenic
disaster you are in danger of creating another. You see the temptation
will be to let the genome evolve up to the point where it formulates
its own goals.

If my "goal" is to obey Asimov's laws of robotics it will achieve
"satisfaction" by helping us. If on the other hand the machine is
going to be used to wage war on another group of humans, it might well
end up waging war on all humans, yourself included.

This is the VN siege paradox. You can indeed build a siege colony with
a VN machine, but you would be ill advised to do so.

There is one other aspects of Warwick's book that I would like to
comment on. He talks about the definition of intelligence. He talks
about an AI definition which is objective. In fact there is an
objective metric which is based on entropy. He only mentions it in his
book once.


- Ian Parker
  #77  
Old December 24th 08, 05:44 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...


Jeff Findley wrote:
Just what hardware has William Mook built and flown? Last I checked,
he's a net kook. His ideas don't pass the sniff test and he has no real
engineering data to back up his wild assertions. I've got a B.S. in
Aerospace Engineering, so I'm at least somewhat qualified to administer a
sniff test to an unproven propulsion method. What's Mook got?


I'm already working on a Orion-type nuclear pulse drive using fusion of
Mook-emitted methane detonated behind a pusher plate...upon which he sits
eating beans.
This will be the basis of the Deep Space Bomber Force, with its motto:
"Silent But Deadly" ("Silens Tamen Mortifer") ;-)
Seriously, whatever became of the laser-powered launch vehicle that rode
shockwaves up the beam as it was focused on its underside and detonated
the air under it that Leik Myrabo was working on?
http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/
Also, why does Leik Myrabo look like Val Kilmer as Chris Knight out of
"Real Genius" in that picture? :-)

Pat



  #78  
Old December 24th 08, 05:45 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,865
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
dakotatelephone...


Jeff Findley wrote:
Just what hardware has William Mook built and flown? Last I checked,
he's a net kook. His ideas don't pass the sniff test and he has no real
engineering data to back up his wild assertions. I've got a B.S. in
Aerospace Engineering, so I'm at least somewhat qualified to administer a
sniff test to an unproven propulsion method. What's Mook got?


I'm already working on a Orion-type nuclear pulse drive using fusion of
Mook-emitted methane detonated behind a pusher plate...upon which he sits
eating beans.
This will be the basis of the Deep Space Bomber Force, with its motto:
"Silent But Deadly" ("Silens Tamen Mortifer") ;-)
Seriously, whatever became of the laser-powered launch vehicle that rode
shockwaves up the beam as it was focused on its underside and detonated
the air under it that Leik Myrabo was working on?
http://www.lightcrafttechnologies.com/
Also, why does Leik Myrabo look like Val Kilmer as Chris Knight out of
"Real Genius" in that picture? :-)


Have you seen his daughters? (Myrabo's, not Kilmer's). One of is daughters
was in my freshman class. Very beautiful and very intelligent, but not an
engineering type, so she transferred out.

I met another of his daughters about 8 years ago. Also very beautiful and
very intelligent.



Pat




--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.


  #79  
Old December 24th 08, 05:53 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Tow The Line

On 24 Dec, 16:40, Ian Parker Non Grata wrote:
On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 03:36:53 -0800 (PST), Ian Parker

wrote:
You are anonymous, your reply will be deleted after 6 days.


Where do you get *this* idea, Ian? Out of your butt?

Troll *and* a retard.


Well you are. I can read a list of names.


- Ian Parker
  #80  
Old December 24th 08, 05:59 PM posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.shuttle,sci.space.station
Ian Parker
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,554
Default Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar

Darwin talked about natural selection survival of the fittest. Let us
suppose we use VN machnies to construct two siege colonies. Both are
at war with each other. Eventually both sides decide that they can
maximize their strength by letting AI evolve strategies for the defeat
of the other. The 2 VN mchines are therefore attempting to destroy one
and other. The fittest will, of course, survive. Each machine feels
that its chances of survival would be maximized if it gave up carrying
the humans on whose behalf it was fighting the war.

Eventually a robotic ecosystem will evolve, but it will be one that
excludes humans.


- Ian Parker
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Steve Lindsey - Astronaut Liar kT Space Shuttle 151 December 29th 08 08:50 AM
Astronaut Steve MacLean Appointed President of the CSA (Forwarded) Andrew Yee[_1_] News 0 September 6th 08 06:26 PM
AG LIAR Rick Nelson Space Shuttle 0 February 7th 06 12:15 AM
Canadian Space Agency Astronaut Steve MacLean Honoured by Israeli Delegation Jacques van Oene Space Shuttle 0 July 21st 03 08:20 PM
Canadian Space Agency Astronaut Steve MacLean Honoured by Israeli Delegation Jacques van Oene Space Station 0 July 21st 03 08:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.