It does not matter if I like the answer - just that I get one:) Funny, last week I would have agreed with you about the diminishing role of US in space. Now, I will take a rain check on it and see what gives in the next four. Yes, an optimist to the core:)
Woman in space? I know we can take higher sustained G's, but had not lent credence to proposed weaknesses in space, as we don't have enough research on it yet. Adaptation in space is buggers for anyone and only a generational route can make that adaptation feasible physically and psychologically. I mean, how are they going to get around bone density? one avenue is genetic engineering to evolve a musculoskeletal human that can take deep space. Could never stand Earth G afterword though, so space would be your home. Just think how different that humanity would be...Spacers. One thing that I hope develops quickly is this composite NASA has been working on (for years) that combats radiation. NO ONE is going to last out there without that. If we ever see our way to artificial G's without rotation!!! Syonara Blue Planet:) Like Arthur C. Clarke, I believe many things are possible in space and my sweetest wish it to live long enough to see it all happen. Ah, well:) On Thu, Nov 6, 2008 at 10:51 AM, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>wrote: > > "...What do you think of the future of space stations?..." CB > > You may not like my answer. What I THINK about it is that their future > is very dire. And the role of the US will continue to diminish. > > I also have a strange intuition about the overall future of 'wo/man in > space' being very dire too, something about not being able to adapt. > > IF huwo/manity survives, a low probability, it seems our 'travel' may > have to take some other form than what is commonly thought of now by > most. > > Thank you for asking! I don't think anyone has ever asked me this > before, yet I've been contemplating it for a long time. And no, my > time is not spent walking the streets with a sign saying the end is > near! : - ) > > On Nov 6, 6:42 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Orn, > > > > Oh, I guess I jumped on any excuse to talk about aerospace/military, no > > abuse intended to you. It is a shared hobby/career at my house, and I > have > > met so many interesting people in that industry. As you can tell, I am > > close to the military and have family and friends in most government > > agencies, and love to discuss them, good and bad. Space propulsion is my > > favorite. > > > > Remember hearing about Avro Arrow but it was more for manned travel. > Geeks > > that designed it came out of Canada and started working for NASA....yep, > 10 > > years later "walkin on the moon". Nice story:) You would like this > book... > > > > http://www.avroarrow.org/AvroArrow/Avroengineers.html > > > > What do you think of the future of space stations? Russia has a stick up > its > > bum right now, so wonder how that will affect collaborations?? > > > > On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:17 PM, ornamentalmind <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "...The original deployment system for North America..." - orn > > > > > Now I feel confused, used and perhaps abused. I was basing my comment > > > on what I thought was a documentary film a few years ago as well as > > > some online research I did at the time. > > > Now it appears that, even though there remains much misinformation > > > about the company, planes and cause of demise, the information may > > > have been a bit of mythomania. Specifically, I am talking about the > > > Avro Arrow. As I remember it, there were reports, films and > > > discussions about it's capability to launch satellites into space…now > > > I can't find the sources. So, will table it for now. > > > > > On Nov 5, 7:24 am, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Orn, I was referring to your own passage below in the reference to > > > satellite > > > > delivery systems... > > > > > > <<<The original deployment system for North America was going > > > > to be a plane and 'business' and nationalism got in the way.>>> > > > > > > that response I sent was directly pointed to this sentence. The > original > > > > deployment vehicles were always to be rocketry. Big, fast, and ugly. > > > They > > > > used rocket delivery instead of aircraft for the obvious reasons, as > I am > > > > sure you know. Mostly, I think, because we could test missile > > > capabilities > > > > simultaneously demonstrating how far our reach extended...on both > sides > > > of > > > > course. Cold War contest. > > > > > > very important stuff, those satellites. practical uses for military > and > > > > civilians. This tech birthed GPS, which was only used by the > military > > > > until, what, the last 10 years? Not a bad innovation. > > > > > > Ode to Arthur C. Clarke:) > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 3:58 PM, ornamentalmind < > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > "... Flight delivery? ...not practical and not used until after > cold > > > > > war a bit.... " - CB > > > > > > > I don't know what you are apparently criticizing here, sorry. > > > > > > > And, when it comes to sputnick, I still remember the headlines. I > even > > > > > bought a Revel model of it. And, in the late 50s, I was most likely > > > > > one of the very few in Indiana to purchase and read magazines from > and > > > > > about Russian rockets. Everyone else was afraid to be called a > 'Red' > > > > > if they even picked them up, let alone read them. > > > > > > > On Nov 4, 1:30 pm, CrossBow <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > <<<You next ask, rhetorically perhaps, about satellite > technology. > > > Again, > > > > > > even the original satellites (Russian) were developed in academic > > > > > > settings. The original deployment system for North America was > going > > > > > > to be a plane and 'business' and nationalism got in the way. Of > > > > > > course, since the vast majority of all satellites in use today > are > > > for > > > > > > covert military use, your question is almost a tautology>>>> > > > > > > > > Satellite delivery and deployment at that time was rocket based > > > mostly > > > > > > because everyone was worried about missile development and using > > > rocketry > > > > > > just made one more workable link in the test system. Flight > > > delivery? > > > > > > ...not practical and not used until after cold war a bit.... > > > > > > > > this was the method similar to Russia's sputnik delivery... > > > > > > > >http://history.nasa.gov/sputnik/expinfo.html > > > > > > On Tue, Nov 4, 2008 at 2:49 PM, ornamentalmind < > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > > > CB, when I used the term cancer, it was an analogy in response > to > > > your > > > > > > > (also hyperbolic and comparative as truth) post: > > > > > > > "…I know this little note is a spoof, but in a global society > how > > > can > > > > > > > we Not police the planet? that is like letting the guy down the > > > street > > > > > > > corner beat the shit out of his wife and kids in his front yard > and > > > > > > > watching without response. Oh, yeah diplomatic > > > > > > > relations...sanctions...." – CB on 10-28 > > > > > > > > > Looking at my post in context, I didn't say that I was 'against > > > > > > > anything military'. In general, I accepted the reality of the > > > > > > > situation. "I do not deny that today, yesterday, tomorrow, a > year > > > from > > > > > > > now as well as a hundred years ago there were, are and will be > > > those > > > > > > > who wish to do harm to other people including the people > currently > > > in > > > > > > > the USA. When this 'truth' is 'solved' by becoming State > Terrorists > > > in > > > > > > > a perpetual war, a greater 'truth' arises and that is that 'we' > > > > > > > perpetually are attracting an even greater amount of ire. This > > > 'truth' > > > > > > > has always been known." – Orn – 10-28 > > > > > > > > > I do find the Orwelian notion of perpetual war against a method > > > rather > > > > > > > than people for political purposes with obvious and well known > > > results > > > > > > > to be as close to 'sin' as one who does not embrace the notion > of > > > sin > > > > > > > can find. > > > > > > > > > Also, my direct observation about the two methods of: > > > > > > > 1. Agreement > > > > > > > 2. Force > > > > > > > …would seem to be reality based in this context too. > > > > > > > > > You continue with a list of organizations including Homeland > > > Security. > > > > > > > Here, since even many within the organization think it was at > the > > > very > > > > > > > best ill-conceived, and at the worst an impediment for > response, a > > > > > > > bloated and grossly expensive bureaucracy that in fact does > nothing > > > > > > > better, same people in functions etc. I question why you even > > > > > > > mentioned it. > > > > > > > > > The Army Corp of Engineers are well known to emulate beavers. > They > > > > > > > have built bridges for decades, many of which were not > necessary, > > > many > > > > > > > of which were poorly conceived and implemented. [see: New > Orleans > > > > > > > among a legion of other places] This is all well documented > and > > > > > > > available for all to know. So, at least in this way I am > against > > > this > > > > > > > group. > > > > > > > > > I don't know much about the National Guard, other than it is > not > > > only > > > > > > > being grossly abused and misused, leaving the 'nation' at risk > to > > > > > > > 'homeland' issues from natural disasters to the omnipresent > > > 'invasion' > > > > > > > across our boarders. > > > > > > > > > This leaves the Coast Guard. Again, since it is mainly being > used > > > for > > > > > > > the 'War on Drugs'….. And, how is that war going? (irony) > > > > > > > > > Little of the above criticizes the individuals in each > > > organization. > > > > > > > More to the point the different group functions, methods, > > > > > > > administration and leadership as well as how each is directed > by > > > the > > > > > > > current regime, are more of what should be examined. > > > > > > > > > When it comes to the Arctic, sadly this area is on the way out. > Oh, > > > do > > > > > > > you reject global warming? If so, I'll have to support this I > > > guess. > > > > > > > When it comes to the Antarctic, see: > > > > >http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1093824/ > > > > > > > A WONDERFUL and informative movie. The clips alone are worth > the > > > time. > > > > > > > > > You say that deep-sea mapping wouldn't exist w/o the military. > > > While I > > > > > > > don't know for sure, my guess is that either it would be done > by > > > the > > > > > > > educational system, 'publish or die', scientific community, > other > > > > > > > countries or by the private sector IF it is in fact worthwhile > in > > > any > > > > > > > objective sense. > > > > > > > > > You next ask, rhetorically perhaps, about satellite technology. > > > Again, > > > > > > > even the original satellites (Russian) were developed in > academic > > > > > > > settings. The original deployment system for North America was > > > going > > > > > > > to be a plane and 'business' and nationalism got in the way. Of > > > > > > > course, since the vast majority of all satellites in use today > are > > > for > > > > > > > covert military use, your question is almost a tautology. > > > > > > > > > When one does a review of US history, we did quite well without > a > > > > > > > standing army for quite a while. In fact, it was proposed by > > > Jefferson > > > > > > > to explicitly outlaw one in the Constitution. A good overview > of > > > the > > > > > > > situation and foundational ideas can be found here: > > > > > > >http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0505-08.htm > > > > > > > > > Next, you ask the Faustian question of "…Sanctions only work if > > > they > > > > > > > are backed up by potential force. Would you privatize all of > it?.." > > > > > > > > > First, we can do an analysis of 'sanctions'. However, since > there > > > are > > > > > > > thousands of 'em, I won't take the time to do so now. IF you > have > > > > > > > specific ones you are interested in, we can do that. As to > > > privatizing > > > > > > > the military, that has already happened. Well, not every last > > > person, > > > > > > > but everything from the mess tent to toilet paper, from > Blackwater > > > to > > > > > > > Haliburton. And, of course, the private sector is always more > > > > > > > expensive. Articles about the cost of the war are ubiquitous. > Here > > > is > > > > > > > one from a year or so ago: > > > > ... > > > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
