...NASA resorts to "Third Red-Scare" to Save Moon Shot!!!

On 18 Jul, 02:43, "jonathan" wrote:
'First Red Scare' (1917-1920)

The 'First Red Scare' began during World War I in which the
United States *fought from 1917-1918...inspired by the
Bolshevik revolution in Russia

'Second Red Scare' (1947-1957)

"The 'Second Red Scare' coincided with increased *fears of
espionage by Communists..."

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

.................................

Fast forward to May 2008 hearing concerning....
Reauthorizing the Vision for Space Exploration

The first speaker is Gene Kranz. He establishes the key
problem for the "Vision".

"The budget resources do not match the goals and requirements,
and further reductions, such as the FY'07 budget shortfall of
$577 million, set NASA and its programs up for failure."

Of course this means NASA needs a /dramatic increase/
in their budget from the next administration. Such increases
are closer to a pipe-dream these days, so....the last resort
is {shamelessly}unveiled. The time-tested *'Red-scare'.

* * * * * "Ten recent cases of Chinese espionage!"

Gene Kranz; *"But there is an even bigger challenge in the
future of our space program. China is the new competitor
in this second Space Race and the country that poses the
greatest threat to our leadership. China has publicly declared a
goal of establishing a permanent manned base on the moon.
When it is not putting our orbiting assets and those of other
countries at risk by testing anti-satellite weaponry in violation
of international protocols, China is successfully completing orbital
human space flights. In 2004, more than 600,000 students
graduated with engineering degrees from institutions of higher learning
in China, compared to 70,000 in the U.S., as reported by the
National Academy of Sciences. That's eye opening, but even more so
is the fact that China also actively uses covert means to access
U.S. technology and scientific information."

* * ( and he goes on and in more detail, guess he's studied-up on this)

"An April 3, 2008 cover story in the Washington Post references
ten cases in the past year alone where alleged Chinese agents have
been arrested or sentenced for the illegal export of sensitive U.S.
technologies. Reportedly, Shuttle technologies were a target of this
espionage activity. As reported in the Wall Street Journal and
Aviation Week, among other major publications, China is importing
"ITAR-free" satellites and other space technologies from a European
company, thereby evading U.S. export controls that are intended to
safeguard our national security. China is also developing its Long March 5
rocket that will be capable not only of delivering people to the moon, but
also landing nuclear payloads anywhere in the United States."

"It is time for our country and our nation's leaders to tune in to these facts
and back off of their naïve views of "space on the cheap" - other countries are
making the necessary resource investments; and it's time to do the same before
the option to respond is no longer an option."

The second speaker is {predictably} a Pentagon mouthpiece.
and a classic 'concern troll'.

Dr. Joan Johnson-Freese
Chair, National Security Decision Making Department
Naval War College

"....what China has that the U.S. does not is top-down political will.
It is likely *that China will launch more taikonauts into orbit next Fall,
toward fulfillment of their official three-part program: launching taikonauts
into space, which was *accomplished with Shenzhou V and VI; a
space laboratory; and eventually a space *station. While there are also
reports of Chinese intentions to land a man on the moon, there have
been no official announced plans in that regard. Essential to
Beijing's more ambitious plans is the development of a new
heavy-lift launch vehicle, the Launch March 5."

* * (missiles which can reach the US and with nukes)

"As recently as March 2007, Huang Chunping, chief vehicle designer
for Project 921, predicted that China would be able to send taikonauts
to the moon within 15 years.http://commerce.senate.gov/public/in...Hearings.Heari...

So I guess first to the Moon wins the military (missile defense) space-race.

It should be noted the President Bush announced he
will be attending the opening ceremony of the 2008
Beijing Olympics.

( I guess he's not so scared...is he?)

Face it, when the 'last resort' is used, and it falls flat, might
as well start considering a new, and more inspiring, goal.
A goal designed to be popular, designed to replace
fossil fuels and end global warming while making
America the next energy "Saudi Arabia".

Space Solar Powerhttp://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

One goal seeks to repeat the cold war waste and horrors
of the last century. * {Destroy the World}

The other goal chases unlimited clean energy, and to build
a new world ...free...to dream again.
{Save the World}

s

The real danger faced is an asymmetric one. The US is heavily
dependent on space in the shape of GPS and spy satellites. A power
with a lot less sophistication could attack GPS using ball bearings
going in the opposite direction. This is the real threat that the
propagandists seem to ignore.

If China DID get to the Moon in 2020 and I consider this to be
extremely problematical, there would be no DIRECT military threat. In
fact if anything the threat would diminish as asymmetic risks
diminished. China would have a stake in the safety of the space
environment.


- Ian Parker

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
news:65107caa-aa47-435e-9e63-
The real danger faced is an asymmetric one. The US is heavily
dependent on space in the shape of GPS and spy satellites. A power
with a lot less sophistication could attack GPS using ball bearings
going in the opposite direction. This is the real threat that the
propagandists seem to ignore.


================================================== ========================================

the U.S still has better terrestrial based assets

Ian Parker ha scritto:


If China DID get to the Moon in 2020 and I consider this to be
extremely problematical, there would be no DIRECT military threat.

erm.... if my knowledge in escape velocities and celestial dynamics &
navigation is correct, IPBM (interplanetary ballistic missiles) on the
moon are much easier to launch and has a much higher and unpredictable
reentry trajectory (read: hard to intercept)...

Best regards from Italy

On Jul 17, 2:00 pm, "dott.Piergiorgio"
wrote:
Ian Parker ha scritto:



If China DID get to the Moon in 2020 and I consider this to be
extremely problematical, there would be no DIRECT military threat.

erm.... if my knowledge in escape velocities and celestial dynamics &
navigation is correct, IPBM (interplanetary ballistic missiles) on the
moon are much easier to launch and has a much higher and unpredictable
reentry trajectory (read: hard to intercept)...

Best regards from Italy

China launches nukes from the Moon, Apollo took 3days to return from
the Moon
You 'might' be able to do it faster, but not by much. In short, if
they did launch them
our ground based nukes would be launched within Minutes.

Just my $0.02

Keith W of St. Louis AKA Space Cadet

http://www.geocities.com/the_wetzels/

"dott.Piergiorgio" wrote:

If China DID get to the Moon in 2020 and I consider this to be
extremely problematical, there would be no DIRECT military threat.

erm.... if my knowledge in escape velocities and celestial dynamics &
navigation is correct, IPBM (interplanetary ballistic missiles) on the
moon are much easier to launch and has a much higher and unpredictable
reentry trajectory (read: hard to intercept)...

So........what? There's a couple problems with that statement, first being
if the re-entry was as "unpredictable" as you make it sound, would that mean
the risk of a Chinese lunar-based nuke hitting it's target be potluck at
best? Second issue being the time it would take for the nuke to traverse
the distance which under best case scenarios would probably be about 14 - 24
hours. In that time, a threatened country could simply launch a earth (or
sub) -based counter-attack and wipe every major Chinese city off the planet
long before any Lunar nukes hit Earth.

Logistically, a country like China attempting to set up some sort of missile
base on the moon or even earth orbit would take years and be noticed by the
rest of the world as soon as any preliminary construction began and dealt
with one way or another before it ever became a true threat.

IMO, the real threat for the foreseeable future are "killer" satellites
disguised as say, ordinary communications satellites placed in orbit years
in advance which if needed, could conceivably destroy other country's
communications and navigations satellites which would really cripple a
country like the US. I don't think China or anyone for that matter
realistically wants to test the waters to see what happens to the first
country to stick a nuclear launching platform in Earth orbit.

T.B.

'First Red Scare' (1917-1920)

The 'First Red Scare' began during World War I in which the
United States fought from 1917-1918...inspired by the
Bolshevik revolution in Russia


'Second Red Scare' (1947-1957)

"The 'Second Red Scare' coincided with increased fears of
espionage by Communists..."

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


..................................

Fast forward to May 2008 hearing concerning....
Reauthorizing the Vision for Space Exploration

The first speaker is Gene Kranz. He establishes the key
problem for the "Vision".


"The budget resources do not match the goals and requirements,
and further reductions, such as the FY'07 budget shortfall of
$577 million, set NASA and its programs up for failure."


Of course this means NASA needs a /dramatic increase/
in their budget from the next administration. Such increases
are closer to a pipe-dream these days, so....the last resort
is {shamelessly}unveiled. The time-tested 'Red-scare'.


"Ten recent cases of Chinese espionage!"


Gene Kranz; "But there is an even bigger challenge in the
future of our space program. China is the new competitor
in this second Space Race and the country that poses the
greatest threat to our leadership. China has publicly declared a
goal of establishing a permanent manned base on the moon.
When it is not putting our orbiting assets and those of other
countries at risk by testing anti-satellite weaponry in violation
of international protocols, China is successfully completing orbital
human space flights. In 2004, more than 600,000 students
graduated with engineering degrees from institutions of higher learning
in China, compared to 70,000 in the U.S., as reported by the
National Academy of Sciences. That's eye opening, but even more so
is the fact that China also actively uses covert means to access
U.S. technology and scientific information."

( and he goes on and in more detail, guess he's studied-up on this)

"An April 3, 2008 cover story in the Washington Post references
ten cases in the past year alone where alleged Chinese agents have
been arrested or sentenced for the illegal export of sensitive U.S.
technologies. Reportedly, Shuttle technologies were a target of this
espionage activity. As reported in the Wall Street Journal and
Aviation Week, among other major publications, China is importing
"ITAR-free" satellites and other space technologies from a European
company, thereby evading U.S. export controls that are intended to
safeguard our national security. China is also developing its Long March 5
rocket that will be capable not only of delivering people to the moon, but
also landing nuclear payloads anywhere in the United States."

"It is time for our country and our nation's leaders to tune in to these facts
and back off of their naïve views of "space on the cheap" - other countries are
making the necessary resource investments; and it's time to do the same before
the option to respond is no longer an option."


The second speaker is {predictably} a Pentagon mouthpiece.
and a classic 'concern troll'.

Dr. Joan Johnson-Freese
Chair, National Security Decision Making Department
Naval War College

"....what China has that the U.S. does not is top-down political will.
It is likely that China will launch more taikonauts into orbit next Fall,
toward fulfillment of their official three-part program: launching taikonauts
into space, which was accomplished with Shenzhou V and VI; a
space laboratory; and eventually a space station. While there are also
reports of Chinese intentions to land a man on the moon, there have
been no official announced plans in that regard. Essential to
Beijing's more ambitious plans is the development of a new
heavy-lift launch vehicle, the Launch March 5."

(missiles which can reach the US and with nukes)

"As recently as March 2007, Huang Chunping, chief vehicle designer
for Project 921, predicted that China would be able to send taikonauts
to the moon within 15 years.
http://commerce.senate.gov/public/in...c-b66b645a1de9

So I guess first to the Moon wins the military (missile defense) space-race.

It should be noted the President Bush announced he
will be attending the opening ceremony of the 2008
Beijing Olympics.

( I guess he's not so scared...is he?)

Face it, when the 'last resort' is used, and it falls flat, might
as well start considering a new, and more inspiring, goal.
A goal designed to be popular, designed to replace
fossil fuels and end global warming while making
America the next energy "Saudi Arabia".

Space Solar Power
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10202&page=1

One goal seeks to repeat the cold war waste and horrors
of the last century. {Destroy the World}

The other goal chases unlimited clean energy, and to build
a new world ...free...to dream again.
{Save the World}



s

Don't be naive Jonathan.

Apparently you think that all the Chinese military hardware is for
"peaceful" purposes. I don't call selling missiles to Iran
friendly. If you continue to ignore China's ambitions fine, but
China has them. The morons that ignored the Soviet buildup in the
70's also were shocked as hell when Breshnev invaded Afghanistan.
China's army and space investments are huge, they are a clear and
present danger to the USA in the pacific. And in space.


On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:50:23 -0400, "jonathan"
wrote:


"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
On 18 Jul, 02:43, "jonathan" wrote:


So I guess first to the Moon wins the military (missile defense) space-race.



Btw, with the Big Party the world is giving Beijing
next month, and the President's attendance.
Does that mean China is our new best friend?
Or are new best enemy?


The real danger faced is an asymmetric one. The US is heavily
dependent on space in the shape of GPS and spy satellites. A power
with a lot less sophistication could attack GPS using ball bearings
going in the opposite direction. This is the real threat that the
propagandists seem to ignore.


My understanding is that the Chinese Asat test has changed our
tactics to accept that space based assets are vulnerable.
And the winner will be the side that can quickly replace them
once a conflict is underway. I think this translates to the weapons
staying on the ground. And using orbit or the Moon for observing,
tracking and communications and such.

So the winner can no longer be the side which can militarize
space first or the best, but the side that can militarize space
the /fastest/ after an effective first strike.



If China DID get to the Moon in 2020 and I consider this to be
extremely problematical, there would be no DIRECT military threat. In
fact if anything the threat would diminish as asymmetic risks
diminished. China would have a stake in the safety of the space
environment.


I would thing the Moon wouldn't be suitable for weapons, but
provides the best perch for observing, while being far more
defensible than in orbit. I think the Moon is the check-mate
for missile defense systems, for being able to regain control
of space after a war has started. The thing is this, my specialty is
systems theory, and China as it is today, Is Not going to
be around ten or twenty years from now. It can't survive
that long as a dictatorship, it'll be lucky to survive a couple
of years after the Olympics. So the whole effort, our entire
space 'goal' for the next twenty plus years will be a colossal
waste of precious money, and more importantly
....very precious time.

This is a goal designed to fail, it's hard to sell to the public when
winning some unlikely distant military conflict it's only virtue.
SSP is a goal that's as close to a textbook example
of a perfect goal as can be. In the abstract it closely resembles
what Kennedy did. (see below for details)


Jonathan


.............Begin extended rant, for fun and for practice.


Complexity science allows us to apply mathematical concepts
universally with real world systems. Where math has never
tread before.
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/


Such as how to design a goal with the greatest potential for inspiration.
With the largest possible ability to attract debate and support, while
steadily taking on a life of it's own. All the while initiating a problem
solving method based on evolutionary principles. A problem solving
method every bit as creative, relentless and resilient as nature, a method
that cannot fail to achieve great things....whatever they may settle on.

The evolving template called the complex adaptive system (CAS)
shows us the ultimate 'system' or goal. The system responsible for
life and intelligence.
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm

So now, to design any chosen 'system' or solution which has
the best-possible properties, is merely grunt work.
You take the abstract system properties or template given by a
CAS, and translate them into the specific system at hand.

It's easy really, if anyone would care to think a bit differently
for a change. Watch how I first define the abstract process
in universal language. Then I'll translate into the goal of
Kennedy and then Space Solar Power. Then into Darwin
and finally, the universe as a whole....

You first define the system, then search for the opposite extremes
in possibility for that system. Good and evil if you like.
But the /absolute maximum/ or extremes of good and evil.
Then, the system must be designed in such a way that
it's as hard as possible for any observer to decide /which/
opposite extreme dominates the whole.

The two extremes must be intractably entangled.

Acting as a cloud, or light. Or intelligence.
At the boundary between subcritical and supercritical
behavior. Acting as both a particle or a wave
at the same time. So that any attempt to observe
breaks the whole into one extreme /or/ the other
with perfect symmetry. Or decoheres to classicity.
Into...either...particle or wave like behavior.
Into...either...static or chaotic attractors.
Into...either....good or evil.

Each observer will see mostly one-or-the-other then.
Not both. Just like the Mona Lisa smile.
When the observed will not define itself, the
observer is left to make the definition.
(As they so chose)

This is the abstract mathematical definition of a fluid
or a cloud, an emotion or a good poem. Of Darwin
and the physical universe of galaxies and the big bang.
Someday your children will inform you that LIFE
defines the true properties of the physical universe.
And you'll wish this idea had sunk in long ago.

With Kennedy one absolute extreme, the static attractor, was
filled by the fear and horrors of the very scary cold war.
The opposite extreme, the chaotic attractor, is the opposite
not just in magnitude, but in character also.
As tangible and dark as a nuclear war can be, the opposite
must be as bright and hopeful as can be. In this case the
promise of technology to a needy world, and the utter fascination
of exploration and discovery. The tangible (static) and
imagination (chaotic) are optimized /if and only if/ those
two opposites can be combined into one. So that any observer
can't tell which of the two extremes is favored.

As in a cloud, where neither condensation or evaporation wins.
Or an emotion, where neither instincts or senses win.
Or a society where neither law or freedom dominates.
But both opposites are at simultaneous maximums and
in balance.

What this means is that the whole is defined NOT by itself, but
by the...observer. Whether the observer is far right, far left, far
whatever or anything in between....the will see what they
wish to see, and be drawn in.

EACH AND EVERY OBSERVER....will find what they are
looking for.

For instance, with Kennedy the military and hawks of all
kinds loved the program. The dreamers and doves also
are attracted from the promise of technology and such.
Big business and workers alike. The possible is stretched
to every limit, attracting the most possible.

Then Kennedy combined the ultimate good and evil into one
system using the very same method. Over and over with
each and every new question.

The two are combined by searching for and finding the opposite
extremes, then combining them. So accomplishment and deadline
must be such that neither extreme wins. The accomplishment must
then be neither easy, or impossible, but at the very edge of
what is possible. The deadline must also combine the opposite
extremes. Neither too long so that it peters out, or impossibly
short, but just at the edge of what is possible. At the opposite
extremes of possibility.

Now all the primary components of the goal are as complex
as possible. They are as far from either opposite extreme as
is possible.

The tangible possibilities is stretched to the limit.
The inspirational possibilities are also.
And if we start RIGHT NOW and give a maximum effort
we might ...just barely...pull it off. And save the world from
itself, while creating a future as bright as the sun.

Solar power, or whatever such a research program might
come up with, would directly address the two greatest
potential evils of today, energy shortages and the conflicts
they create, and climate change. The tangible and dark are
maximized. And finding a clean abundant replacement for
fossil fuels inspire Trekkian dreams of equality and justice
for everyone on the planet, and any others our new energy
source would take us.
The good, or our imagination is also optimized.

Good and evil are connected in a single whole.
But the place and time?
They must have the same level of uncertainty/complexity
...urgency/difficulty.

Replacing fossil fuels with some form of solar power by the time
climate change/oil supply reaches their tipping points qualifies
as being just barely possible, if we start RIGHT NOW.
And give it a maximum effort.

Save the world from itself, while inspiring all kinds of future
dreams. And with the optimum sense of urgency and
difficulty.

And once all these are in place, and connected to the public
using the same over and over method, the problem solving
method will emerge and evolve. It will take on a life of it's own
and converge on the best possible solution(s). Whatever
they may be. It may not be space solar satellites, it may
be a hundred smaller fixes. It doesn't matter, such a problem
solving methods finds the optimum all by itself.

Just like life does. The final product emerges as it will
from a creative (evolutionary) process.

When genetics (static) and mutation (chaotic) are
connected the dynamic attractor of natural selection
emerges. A problem solving method which finds by
itself the best possible adaptation.

Or when the opposites of cosmic expansion and gravity
are at an unstable equilibrium with each, we get
....a universe.

Btw, have they figured out which opposite, cosmic expansion
or gravity....dominates yet?

No, they never will...guess why?

For the same reason we'll never know whether a cloud
loses to condensation or evaporation until....it's no longer
a cloud. While a cloud, it's both and neither, so that
one can't tell.

ALL OF REALITY HAS THIS PROPERTY.

Which is why during my senior year as a math major
I placed modern math and the real world next to each
other. And realized the two have absolutely nothing
to do with each other. That Einstein had it right when
he said.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality."

So if reducing to precision takes us farther from reality
then complexity/uncertainty must take us towards
an understanding of the real world.

That's when I realized the modern science we all know and
love...to this day....is technically a Dark Age science.
As the frame of reference is exactly/completely backwards.

Reality is best understood by the most complex the universe
has to offer....life. Not the other way around as with the
reductionist/specialist science of today.

The opposite of specialist is the path.

Complexity science is generalizing all the disciplines.
Learn them all at once, that's the path to recognizing
previously unseen patterns/relationships between all
that exists. The ones that matter.

Hint: for starters the Power Law, an ...inverse square...
relationship seen throughout life.

It's no coincidence that gravity wells and fitness peaks
look so much alike.

Doesn't anyone find that to be incredible?


Jonathan


- Ian Parker

On 17 Jul, 20:00, "dott.Piergiorgio"
wrote:
Ian Parker ha scritto:



If China DID get to the Moon in 2020 and I consider this to be
extremely problematical, there would be no DIRECT military threat.

erm.... if my knowledge in escape velocities and celestial dynamics &
navigation is correct, IPBM (interplanetary ballistic missiles) on the
moon are much easier to launch and has a much higher and unpredictable
reentry trajectory (read: hard to intercept)...

Best regards from Italy

That assumes they are using lunar resources. If they are launching
from Earth one would ask why not simple launch from there?


- Ian Parker

On 18 Jul, 06:32, J Waggoner wrote:
Don't be naive Jonathan.

Apparently you think that all the Chinese military hardware is for
"peaceful" purposes. * *I don't call selling missiles to Iran
friendly. * *If you continue to ignore China's ambitions fine, but
China has them. * *The morons that ignored the Soviet buildup in the
70's also were shocked as hell when Breshnev invaded Afghanistan. *
China's army and space investments are huge, *they are a clear and
present danger to the USA in the pacific. *And in space. *

On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 21:50:23 -0400, wrote:

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
....
On 18 Jul, 02:43, "jonathan" wrote:

So I guess first to the Moon wins the military (missile defense) space-race.

Btw, with the Big Party the world is giving Beijing
next month, and the President's attendance.
Does that mean China is our new best friend?
Or are new best enemy?

The real danger faced is an asymmetric one. The US is heavily
dependent on space in the shape of GPS and spy satellites. A power
with a lot less sophistication could attack GPS using ball bearings
going in the opposite direction. This is the real threat that the
propagandists seem to ignore.

My understanding is that the Chinese Asat test has changed our
tactics to accept that space based assets are vulnerable.
And the winner will be the side that can quickly replace them
once a conflict is underway. *I think this translates to the weapons
staying on the ground. And using orbit or the Moon for observing,
tracking and communications and such.

So the winner can no longer be the side which can militarize
space first or the best, but the side that can militarize space
the /fastest/ after an effective first strike.

If China DID get to the Moon in 2020 and I consider this to be
extremely problematical, there would be no DIRECT military threat. In
fact if anything the threat would diminish as asymmetic risks
diminished. China would have a stake in the safety of the space
environment.

I would thing the Moon wouldn't be suitable for weapons, but
provides the best perch for observing, while being far more
defensible than in orbit. I think the Moon is the check-mate
for missile defense systems, for being able to regain control
of space after a war has started. The thing is this, my specialty is
systems theory, and China as it is today, Is Not going to
be around ten or twenty years from now. It can't survive
that long as a dictatorship, it'll be lucky to survive a couple
of years after the Olympics. So the whole effort, our entire
space 'goal' for the next twenty plus years will be a colossal
waste of *precious money, and more importantly
....very precious time.

This is a goal designed to fail, it's hard to sell to the public when
winning some unlikely distant military conflict it's only virtue.
SSP is a goal that's as close to a textbook example
of a perfect goal as can be. In the abstract it closely resembles
what Kennedy did. (see below for details)

Jonathan

.............Begin extended rant, for fun and for practice.

Complexity science allows us to apply mathematical concepts
universally with real world systems. Where math has never
tread before.
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/

Such as how to design a goal with the greatest potential for inspiration..
With the largest possible ability to attract *debate and support, while
steadily taking on a life of it's own. All the while initiating a problem
solving method based on evolutionary principles. A problem solving
method every bit as creative, relentless and resilient as nature, a method
that cannot fail to achieve great things....whatever they may settle on.

The evolving template called the complex adaptive system (CAS)
shows us the ultimate 'system' or goal. The system responsible for
life and intelligence.
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm

So now, to design any chosen 'system' or solution which has
the best-possible properties, is merely grunt work.
You take the abstract system properties or template given by a
CAS, and translate them into the specific system at hand.

It's easy really, if anyone would care to think a bit differently
for a change. Watch how I first define the abstract process
in universal language. Then I'll translate into the goal of
Kennedy and then Space Solar Power. Then into Darwin
and finally, the universe as a whole....

You first define the system, then search for the opposite extremes
in possibility for that system. Good and evil if you like.
But the /absolute maximum/ or extremes of good and evil.
Then, the system must be designed in such a way that
it's as hard as possible for any observer to decide /which/
opposite extreme dominates the whole.

The two extremes must be intractably entangled.

Acting as a cloud, or light. Or intelligence.
At the boundary between subcritical and supercritical
behavior. Acting as both a particle or a wave
at the same time. So that any attempt to observe
breaks the whole into one extreme /or/ the other
with perfect symmetry. Or decoheres to classicity.
Into...either...particle or wave like behavior.
Into...either...static or chaotic attractors.
Into...either....good or evil.

Each observer will see mostly one-or-the-other then.
Not both. Just like the Mona Lisa smile.
When the observed will not define itself, the
observer is left to make the definition.
(As they so chose)

This is the abstract mathematical definition of a fluid
or a cloud, an emotion or a good poem. Of Darwin
and the physical universe of galaxies and the big bang.
Someday your children will inform you that LIFE
defines the true properties of the physical universe.
And you'll wish this idea had sunk in long ago.

With Kennedy one absolute extreme, the static attractor, was
filled by the fear and horrors of the very scary cold war.
The opposite extreme, the chaotic attractor, is the opposite
not just in magnitude, but in character also.
As tangible and dark as a nuclear war can be, the opposite
must be as bright and hopeful as can be. In this case the
promise of technology to a needy world, and the utter fascination
of exploration and discovery. * The tangible (static) and
imagination (chaotic) are optimized /if and only if/ those
two opposites can be *combined into one. So that any observer
can't tell which of the two extremes is favored.

As in a cloud, where neither condensation or evaporation wins.
Or an emotion, where neither instincts or senses win.
Or a society where neither law or freedom dominates.
But both opposites are at simultaneous maximums and
in balance.

What this means is that the whole is defined NOT by itself, but
by the...observer. Whether the observer is far right, far left, far
whatever or anything in between....the will see what they
wish to see, and be drawn in.

EACH AND EVERY OBSERVER....will find what they are
looking for.

For instance, with Kennedy the military and hawks of all
kinds loved the program. The dreamers and doves also
are attracted from the promise of technology and such.
Big business and workers alike. The possible is stretched
to every limit, attracting the most possible.

Then Kennedy combined the ultimate good and evil into one
system using the very same method. Over and over with
each and every new question.

The two are combined by searching for and finding the opposite
extremes, then combining them. So accomplishment and deadline
must be such that neither extreme wins. The accomplishment must
then be neither easy, or impossible, but at the very edge of
what is possible. The deadline must also combine the opposite
extremes. Neither too long so that it peters out, or impossibly
short, but just at the edge of what is possible. At the opposite
extremes of possibility.

Now all the primary components of the goal are as complex
as possible. They are as far from either opposite extreme as
is possible.

The tangible possibilities is stretched to the limit.
The inspirational possibilities are also.
And if we start RIGHT NOW and give a maximum effort
we might ...just barely...pull it off. And save the world from
itself, while creating a future as bright as the sun.

Solar power, or whatever such a research program might
come up with, would directly address the two greatest
potential evils of today, energy shortages and the conflicts
they create, and climate change. The tangible and dark are
maximized. And finding a clean abundant replacement for
fossil fuels inspire Trekkian dreams of equality and justice
for everyone on the planet, and any others our new energy
source would take us.
The good, or our imagination is also optimized.

Good and evil are connected in a single whole.
But the place and time?
They must have the same level of uncertainty/complexity
...urgency/difficulty.

Replacing fossil fuels with some form of solar power by the time
climate change/oil supply reaches their tipping points qualifies
as being just barely possible, if we start RIGHT NOW.
And give it a maximum effort.

Save the world from itself, while inspiring all kinds of future
dreams. And with the optimum sense of urgency and
difficulty.

And once all these are in place, and connected to the public
using the same over and over method, the problem solving
method will emerge and evolve. It will take on a life of it's own
and converge on the best possible solution(s). Whatever
they may be. It may not be space solar satellites, it may
be a hundred smaller fixes. It doesn't matter, such a problem
solving methods finds the optimum all by itself.

Just like life does. The final product emerges as it will
from a creative (evolutionary) process.

When genetics (static) and mutation (chaotic) are
connected the dynamic attractor of natural selection
emerges. A problem solving method which finds by
itself the best possible adaptation.

Or when the opposites of cosmic expansion and gravity
are at an unstable equilibrium with each, we get
....a universe.

Btw, have they figured out which opposite, cosmic expansion
or gravity....dominates yet?

No, they never will...guess why?

For the same reason we'll never know whether a cloud
loses to condensation or evaporation until....it's no longer
a cloud. *While a cloud, it's both and neither, so that
one can't tell.

ALL OF REALITY HAS THIS PROPERTY.

Which is why during my senior year as a math major
I placed modern math and the real world next to each
other. *And realized the two have absolutely nothing
to do with each other. That Einstein had it right when
he said.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality."

So if reducing to precision takes us farther from reality
then complexity/uncertainty must take us towards
an understanding of the real world.

That's when I realized the modern science we all know and
love...to this day....is technically a Dark Age science.
As the frame of reference is exactly/completely backwards.

Reality is best understood by the most complex the universe
has to offer....life. Not the other way around as with the
reductionist/specialist science of today.

The opposite of specialist is the path.

Complexity science is generalizing all the disciplines.
Learn them all at once, that's the path to recognizing
previously unseen patterns/relationships between all
that exists. The ones that matter.

Hint: for starters the Power Law, an ...inverse square...
relationship seen throughout life.

It's no coincidence that gravity wells and fitness peaks
look so much alike.

Doesn't anyone find that to be incredible?

You may be right or wrong. Assuming China's intentions to be bellicose
a symmetrical Moon race would not be a good move. As has been said
probable the best move is to aim for low cost launches which would
enable assets to be replaced faster.


- Ian Parker

"Ian Parker" wrote in message
...
On 18 Jul, 02:43, "jonathan" wrote:


So I guess first to the Moon wins the military (missile defense) space-race.



Btw, with the Big Party the world is giving Beijing
next month, and the President's attendance.
Does that mean China is our new best friend?
Or are new best enemy?


The real danger faced is an asymmetric one. The US is heavily
dependent on space in the shape of GPS and spy satellites. A power
with a lot less sophistication could attack GPS using ball bearings
going in the opposite direction. This is the real threat that the
propagandists seem to ignore.


My understanding is that the Chinese Asat test has changed our
tactics to accept that space based assets are vulnerable.
And the winner will be the side that can quickly replace them
once a conflict is underway. I think this translates to the weapons
staying on the ground. And using orbit or the Moon for observing,
tracking and communications and such.

So the winner can no longer be the side which can militarize
space first or the best, but the side that can militarize space
the /fastest/ after an effective first strike.



If China DID get to the Moon in 2020 and I consider this to be
extremely problematical, there would be no DIRECT military threat. In
fact if anything the threat would diminish as asymmetic risks
diminished. China would have a stake in the safety of the space
environment.


I would thing the Moon wouldn't be suitable for weapons, but
provides the best perch for observing, while being far more
defensible than in orbit. I think the Moon is the check-mate
for missile defense systems, for being able to regain control
of space after a war has started. The thing is this, my specialty is
systems theory, and China as it is today, Is Not going to
be around ten or twenty years from now. It can't survive
that long as a dictatorship, it'll be lucky to survive a couple
of years after the Olympics. So the whole effort, our entire
space 'goal' for the next twenty plus years will be a colossal
waste of precious money, and more importantly
.....very precious time.

This is a goal designed to fail, it's hard to sell to the public when
winning some unlikely distant military conflict it's only virtue.
SSP is a goal that's as close to a textbook example
of a perfect goal as can be. In the abstract it closely resembles
what Kennedy did. (see below for details)


Jonathan


..............Begin extended rant, for fun and for practice.


Complexity science allows us to apply mathematical concepts
universally with real world systems. Where math has never
tread before.
http://necsi.org/publications/dcs/


Such as how to design a goal with the greatest potential for inspiration.
With the largest possible ability to attract debate and support, while
steadily taking on a life of it's own. All the while initiating a problem
solving method based on evolutionary principles. A problem solving
method every bit as creative, relentless and resilient as nature, a method
that cannot fail to achieve great things....whatever they may settle on.

The evolving template called the complex adaptive system (CAS)
shows us the ultimate 'system' or goal. The system responsible for
life and intelligence.
http://www.calresco.org/themes.htm

So now, to design any chosen 'system' or solution which has
the best-possible properties, is merely grunt work.
You take the abstract system properties or template given by a
CAS, and translate them into the specific system at hand.

It's easy really, if anyone would care to think a bit differently
for a change. Watch how I first define the abstract process
in universal language. Then I'll translate into the goal of
Kennedy and then Space Solar Power. Then into Darwin
and finally, the universe as a whole....

You first define the system, then search for the opposite extremes
in possibility for that system. Good and evil if you like.
But the /absolute maximum/ or extremes of good and evil.
Then, the system must be designed in such a way that
it's as hard as possible for any observer to decide /which/
opposite extreme dominates the whole.

The two extremes must be intractably entangled.

Acting as a cloud, or light. Or intelligence.
At the boundary between subcritical and supercritical
behavior. Acting as both a particle or a wave
at the same time. So that any attempt to observe
breaks the whole into one extreme /or/ the other
with perfect symmetry. Or decoheres to classicity.
Into...either...particle or wave like behavior.
Into...either...static or chaotic attractors.
Into...either....good or evil.

Each observer will see mostly one-or-the-other then.
Not both. Just like the Mona Lisa smile.
When the observed will not define itself, the
observer is left to make the definition.
(As they so chose)

This is the abstract mathematical definition of a fluid
or a cloud, an emotion or a good poem. Of Darwin
and the physical universe of galaxies and the big bang.
Someday your children will inform you that LIFE
defines the true properties of the physical universe.
And you'll wish this idea had sunk in long ago.

With Kennedy one absolute extreme, the static attractor, was
filled by the fear and horrors of the very scary cold war.
The opposite extreme, the chaotic attractor, is the opposite
not just in magnitude, but in character also.
As tangible and dark as a nuclear war can be, the opposite
must be as bright and hopeful as can be. In this case the
promise of technology to a needy world, and the utter fascination
of exploration and discovery. The tangible (static) and
imagination (chaotic) are optimized /if and only if/ those
two opposites can be combined into one. So that any observer
can't tell which of the two extremes is favored.

As in a cloud, where neither condensation or evaporation wins.
Or an emotion, where neither instincts or senses win.
Or a society where neither law or freedom dominates.
But both opposites are at simultaneous maximums and
in balance.

What this means is that the whole is defined NOT by itself, but
by the...observer. Whether the observer is far right, far left, far
whatever or anything in between....the will see what they
wish to see, and be drawn in.

EACH AND EVERY OBSERVER....will find what they are
looking for.

For instance, with Kennedy the military and hawks of all
kinds loved the program. The dreamers and doves also
are attracted from the promise of technology and such.
Big business and workers alike. The possible is stretched
to every limit, attracting the most possible.

Then Kennedy combined the ultimate good and evil into one
system using the very same method. Over and over with
each and every new question.

The two are combined by searching for and finding the opposite
extremes, then combining them. So accomplishment and deadline
must be such that neither extreme wins. The accomplishment must
then be neither easy, or impossible, but at the very edge of
what is possible. The deadline must also combine the opposite
extremes. Neither too long so that it peters out, or impossibly
short, but just at the edge of what is possible. At the opposite
extremes of possibility.

Now all the primary components of the goal are as complex
as possible. They are as far from either opposite extreme as
is possible.

The tangible possibilities is stretched to the limit.
The inspirational possibilities are also.
And if we start RIGHT NOW and give a maximum effort
we might ...just barely...pull it off. And save the world from
itself, while creating a future as bright as the sun.

Solar power, or whatever such a research program might
come up with, would directly address the two greatest
potential evils of today, energy shortages and the conflicts
they create, and climate change. The tangible and dark are
maximized. And finding a clean abundant replacement for
fossil fuels inspire Trekkian dreams of equality and justice
for everyone on the planet, and any others our new energy
source would take us.
The good, or our imagination is also optimized.

Good and evil are connected in a single whole.
But the place and time?
They must have the same level of uncertainty/complexity
....urgency/difficulty.

Replacing fossil fuels with some form of solar power by the time
climate change/oil supply reaches their tipping points qualifies
as being just barely possible, if we start RIGHT NOW.
And give it a maximum effort.

Save the world from itself, while inspiring all kinds of future
dreams. And with the optimum sense of urgency and
difficulty.

And once all these are in place, and connected to the public
using the same over and over method, the problem solving
method will emerge and evolve. It will take on a life of it's own
and converge on the best possible solution(s). Whatever
they may be. It may not be space solar satellites, it may
be a hundred smaller fixes. It doesn't matter, such a problem
solving methods finds the optimum all by itself.

Just like life does. The final product emerges as it will
from a creative (evolutionary) process.

When genetics (static) and mutation (chaotic) are
connected the dynamic attractor of natural selection
emerges. A problem solving method which finds by
itself the best possible adaptation.

Or when the opposites of cosmic expansion and gravity
are at an unstable equilibrium with each, we get
.....a universe.

Btw, have they figured out which opposite, cosmic expansion
or gravity....dominates yet?

No, they never will...guess why?

For the same reason we'll never know whether a cloud
loses to condensation or evaporation until....it's no longer
a cloud. While a cloud, it's both and neither, so that
one can't tell.

ALL OF REALITY HAS THIS PROPERTY.

Which is why during my senior year as a math major
I placed modern math and the real world next to each
other. And realized the two have absolutely nothing
to do with each other. That Einstein had it right when
he said.

"As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they
are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they
do not refer to reality."

So if reducing to precision takes us farther from reality
then complexity/uncertainty must take us towards
an understanding of the real world.

That's when I realized the modern science we all know and
love...to this day....is technically a Dark Age science.
As the frame of reference is exactly/completely backwards.

Reality is best understood by the most complex the universe
has to offer....life. Not the other way around as with the
reductionist/specialist science of today.

The opposite of specialist is the path.

Complexity science is generalizing all the disciplines.
Learn them all at once, that's the path to recognizing
previously unseen patterns/relationships between all
that exists. The ones that matter.

Hint: for starters the Power Law, an ...inverse square...
relationship seen throughout life.

It's no coincidence that gravity wells and fitness peaks
look so much alike.

Doesn't anyone find that to be incredible?


Jonathan


- Ian Parker