With enough “political clout” to affect the outcome of a recent NASA survey on what to name a new ISS module, does Stephen Colbert has a chance to be the first American comedian in space?
By: Ringo Bones
When it comes to underwriting worthy causes that he believes in, Stephen Colbert did recently manage to sponsor the US speed-skating team after their Dutch backer got broke. Although the most audacious show of how much political clout that he has happened much earlier back in April 2009 when his very popular voting campaign on his show –The Colbert Report – almost made NASA’s campaign to name a new International Space Station swing to his favor. And given his “power over NASA”, does Stephen Colbert have that proverbial “right stuff” to be the first American comedian in space?
Although after dubbing himself as the “first clown in space”, Cirque du Soleil founder Guy LaLiberté managed to make himself the first Canadian space tourist to have a “working vacation” in the International Space Station. After raising the 35 million US dollars or so space-fare for the Soyuz Launch Vehicle in the Baikonor Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. By planning it as a platform to raise awareness of the difficulty of having reliable safe drinking water by the world’s poor with the One Drop Foundation – all for water, water for all - Guy LaLiberté doesn’t want his first space vacation to be just a mere “ego trip”. LaLiberté also trains rigorously months before his launch so that he won’t be a burden to his fellow astronauts. He even managed to perform his signature Cirque du Soleil-style acrobatics while weightless in the ISS. Luckily, someone of Guy LaLiberté’s stature was deemed too high brow to dub himself as the first comedian in space, so Stephen Colbert of the Colbert Report still has a chance at the title.
Speaking of his powers over NASA, Stephen Colbert did manage to have certain vital equipment on the International Space Station named after him. Called the COLBERT which stands for Combined Operational Load Bearing External Resistance Treadmill, a namesake of The Colbert Report presenter Stephen Colbert. As everyone knows, exercise equipment such as the COLBERT is very important on the ISS because in weightless conditions, astronauts could easily suffer from osteoporosis due to calcium leaching out from their bones in an accelerated manner due to the weightless conditions of low-Earth-orbit.
But Mr. Colbert should decide soon if he wants to be the first American comedian in space because by 2010, the planned NASA space shuttle retirement will have NASA astronauts hogging the Baikonor Cosmodrome launch facilities to get to the International Space Station. So there will be no more space tourist even if they have their 35 million dollars until the time NASA finds a replacement for their about to be retired space shuttle fleet. This could be doubly bad for the space tourism industry and it might give Larry David or Jerry Seinfeld a chance to beat Stephen Colbert as the first American comedian in space.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Friday, June 19, 2009
The Moon Landing Hoax: Still Crazy After All These Years?
Forty years has gone by since man first landed on the Moon, but why isn’t anyone asking why the “Moon Landing Hoax” rumor got started in the first place?
By: Ringo Bones
Given that I’ve always been fascinated by our yet still fledgling efforts to explore outer space. I was hoping that this year Americans will going to be celebrating in a big way about one of their nation’s greatest achievement – if not the greatest achievement – of landing men on the Moon and bringing them safely back to Earth. Like it’s been 40 years. Will we be celebrating this year on July 20, 2009 about the 40th Anniversary of the Apollo Moon landing? Or will America be saving for the “Big 5-0” – i.e. 50th Anniversary (July 20, 2019?) celebration 10 years from now on the Moon Landing. But for better or for worse, there’s one topic that’s rarely been discussed that it has even raised suspicions that there has been a conspiracy of a cover-up on efforts in trying to prove that the NASA Moon landings were a hoax. Although rational methods have proven that the Moon Landings were real, the bad news is that proofs supporting the contrary are easy to “create” yet hard to disprove that ideas like these even attract the attention of the finest minds in the scientific community around the world.
I’ve seen that episode on Mythbusters were they set-up experiments proving that the Moon landings were real and I even watched the reruns. Though I’m convinced, it is very, very easy to cast doubt about the authenticity of Neil Armstrong and company’s heroic accomplishments through criminal trial lawyer-style logic and reasoning. I mean those quartz retro-reflectors could easily have been placed by a robotic spacecraft. Although if America’s robotic spacecraft technology were that advanced in 1969, the air war over Vietnam would have been fought by unmanned aerial vehicles like those currently in use in Afghanistan. Sadly America’s robotic spacecraft technology wasn’t that well developed back in 1969. Just ask any retired aerospace engineer. Even though if you put yourself in the criminal trial lawyers shoes, you’ll be able to easily figure out the nuts and bolts – i.e. what and how behind the Moon Landing Hoax. But the question now is why did this Moon Landing Hoax idea have gained so much credibility after all these years.
First here’s something that’s trapped between the “how” and the “why” the Moon Landing Hoax got started in the first place. Back in the late 1960s – or around July 20, 1969 - people like today’s Rush Limbaugh, Bill “Papa Bear” O’Reilly, Glen Beck, and the rest of Fox News Network ruled America. These “salt-of-the-earth” people could utter their personal opinions and beliefs, though it was mostly their low opinion of African-Americans and Jews (remember Billy Graham’s accidentally captured on TV “stranglehold of the Jews” speech?). Sadly, these are the kind of people who vehemently claimed the achievement’s of NASA’s manned space program even though this feat is supposedly dedicated to all mankind. Add to that the conservative Right Wing’s belittlement of other cultural revolutions in America that’s happening together with the Moon landings. Like the 1969 Woodstock concert, Or the Peace and Love revolution in Haight Ashbury.
Though I’ve heard rumors that there was a movie made in the 1970s about the faking of the Moon landings but to tell you the truth, the earliest that I’ve even heard about the Moon Landing Hoax topic was in the movie Sneakers back in 1992. And to think that R.E.M. ‘s song Man on the Moon makes them appear as Moon Landing Hoax believers’ apologists. Maybe the Discovery Channel should rerun that Mythbusters Moon Landing Hoax episode to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin’s landing on the Moon.
But is it possible that the popularity of this Moon Landing Hoax movement is what’s holding back America’s space exploration program? I mean NASA is probably very busy working on a special camera so that viewers will never doubt whether their next Moon landing TV (or Internet Web version whatever) broadcasts in the 2020s will never be accused of being staged in a Burbank soundstage.
By: Ringo Bones
Given that I’ve always been fascinated by our yet still fledgling efforts to explore outer space. I was hoping that this year Americans will going to be celebrating in a big way about one of their nation’s greatest achievement – if not the greatest achievement – of landing men on the Moon and bringing them safely back to Earth. Like it’s been 40 years. Will we be celebrating this year on July 20, 2009 about the 40th Anniversary of the Apollo Moon landing? Or will America be saving for the “Big 5-0” – i.e. 50th Anniversary (July 20, 2019?) celebration 10 years from now on the Moon Landing. But for better or for worse, there’s one topic that’s rarely been discussed that it has even raised suspicions that there has been a conspiracy of a cover-up on efforts in trying to prove that the NASA Moon landings were a hoax. Although rational methods have proven that the Moon Landings were real, the bad news is that proofs supporting the contrary are easy to “create” yet hard to disprove that ideas like these even attract the attention of the finest minds in the scientific community around the world.
I’ve seen that episode on Mythbusters were they set-up experiments proving that the Moon landings were real and I even watched the reruns. Though I’m convinced, it is very, very easy to cast doubt about the authenticity of Neil Armstrong and company’s heroic accomplishments through criminal trial lawyer-style logic and reasoning. I mean those quartz retro-reflectors could easily have been placed by a robotic spacecraft. Although if America’s robotic spacecraft technology were that advanced in 1969, the air war over Vietnam would have been fought by unmanned aerial vehicles like those currently in use in Afghanistan. Sadly America’s robotic spacecraft technology wasn’t that well developed back in 1969. Just ask any retired aerospace engineer. Even though if you put yourself in the criminal trial lawyers shoes, you’ll be able to easily figure out the nuts and bolts – i.e. what and how behind the Moon Landing Hoax. But the question now is why did this Moon Landing Hoax idea have gained so much credibility after all these years.
First here’s something that’s trapped between the “how” and the “why” the Moon Landing Hoax got started in the first place. Back in the late 1960s – or around July 20, 1969 - people like today’s Rush Limbaugh, Bill “Papa Bear” O’Reilly, Glen Beck, and the rest of Fox News Network ruled America. These “salt-of-the-earth” people could utter their personal opinions and beliefs, though it was mostly their low opinion of African-Americans and Jews (remember Billy Graham’s accidentally captured on TV “stranglehold of the Jews” speech?). Sadly, these are the kind of people who vehemently claimed the achievement’s of NASA’s manned space program even though this feat is supposedly dedicated to all mankind. Add to that the conservative Right Wing’s belittlement of other cultural revolutions in America that’s happening together with the Moon landings. Like the 1969 Woodstock concert, Or the Peace and Love revolution in Haight Ashbury.
Though I’ve heard rumors that there was a movie made in the 1970s about the faking of the Moon landings but to tell you the truth, the earliest that I’ve even heard about the Moon Landing Hoax topic was in the movie Sneakers back in 1992. And to think that R.E.M. ‘s song Man on the Moon makes them appear as Moon Landing Hoax believers’ apologists. Maybe the Discovery Channel should rerun that Mythbusters Moon Landing Hoax episode to celebrate the 40th Anniversary of Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin’s landing on the Moon.
But is it possible that the popularity of this Moon Landing Hoax movement is what’s holding back America’s space exploration program? I mean NASA is probably very busy working on a special camera so that viewers will never doubt whether their next Moon landing TV (or Internet Web version whatever) broadcasts in the 2020s will never be accused of being staged in a Burbank soundstage.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Space Debris: A Threat to Space Commerce?
Will space commerce become more costly due to the high-profile collision of an American telecommunications satellite with an inactive Russian Cosmos military satellite back in February 10, 2009?
By: Vanessa Uy
Given that the recent on-going conversion of a former RAF airbase in Moray into the world’s first commercial spaceport means that humanity is now poised for a large-scale commercialization of space. Especially when it comes to space tourism. But after that recent high-profile collision of an American commercial telecommunications satellite with an inactive Russian Cosmos military satellite when both apparently tried to cross the same orbit window at the same time created an additional 600 or so pieces of space debris. Will this make future commercial civilian space ventures more costly, given that insurance premiums for satellites and other space-based assets need to be restructured (usually more expensive) due to the increased risks?
At orbital speeds of 17,380 miles per hour, every piece of space debris will be hitting spacecraft and satellites with the force comparable to that of an exploding fragmentation grenade. During the Reagan Administration, NASA policymakers proposed to prospective commercial satellite owners to harden – i.e. use armor plating – to their satellites as a protection against space debris. Though the proposal was swiftly abandoned when the weight burden incurred by the armor plating necessitates a more powerful rocket – hence a more expensive rocket - to launch them. Given at the time that the Russian Energia rocket – which became the world’s most powerful rocket / launch system in the 1990’s - was probably still in the planning stage.
As space tourism will probably become space commerce leading “cash cow” in a few years time, the threat posed by orbital debris cannot be easily overlooked. Especially if you want repeat customers who are willing to pay serious money just to experience a few minutes of weightlessness. Errant space debris breaching a hole in your space-bound tour bus can really give your clients a very bad day. Using Victor Szebehely’s celestial mechanics calculations to predict orbital debris path is no walk in the park either. While NORAD ’s RADAR system can only “see” certain sized objects. Smaller ones can still hit a space-bound tour bus with a force of a hand grenade.
While research studies modeling the behavior of space debris and their associated risk had been very helpful in providing data to make insurance products especially tailored for space commerce. After reading Space Debris: Models and Risk Analysis by Heiner Klinkrad, academic research such as these can be very helpful to those who want to know how insurance providers use risk assessment data in crating equitable insurance clauses intended for multi-million dollar space-based assets.
The resulting orbital debris produced by the recent satellite collision already endanger the long-term future of the Hubble Space Telescope and the International Space Station whose structural hardware are not design to cope with debris packing energies similar to that of an exploding hand grenade. Even though future space-based assets are certainly insured, the monetary compensations are more often than not after-the-fact Band-Aids, rather than pro-active evasive procedures. Like the warnings / advisories provided by NORAD on incoming debris “seen” by their RADAR.
By: Vanessa Uy
Given that the recent on-going conversion of a former RAF airbase in Moray into the world’s first commercial spaceport means that humanity is now poised for a large-scale commercialization of space. Especially when it comes to space tourism. But after that recent high-profile collision of an American commercial telecommunications satellite with an inactive Russian Cosmos military satellite when both apparently tried to cross the same orbit window at the same time created an additional 600 or so pieces of space debris. Will this make future commercial civilian space ventures more costly, given that insurance premiums for satellites and other space-based assets need to be restructured (usually more expensive) due to the increased risks?
At orbital speeds of 17,380 miles per hour, every piece of space debris will be hitting spacecraft and satellites with the force comparable to that of an exploding fragmentation grenade. During the Reagan Administration, NASA policymakers proposed to prospective commercial satellite owners to harden – i.e. use armor plating – to their satellites as a protection against space debris. Though the proposal was swiftly abandoned when the weight burden incurred by the armor plating necessitates a more powerful rocket – hence a more expensive rocket - to launch them. Given at the time that the Russian Energia rocket – which became the world’s most powerful rocket / launch system in the 1990’s - was probably still in the planning stage.
As space tourism will probably become space commerce leading “cash cow” in a few years time, the threat posed by orbital debris cannot be easily overlooked. Especially if you want repeat customers who are willing to pay serious money just to experience a few minutes of weightlessness. Errant space debris breaching a hole in your space-bound tour bus can really give your clients a very bad day. Using Victor Szebehely’s celestial mechanics calculations to predict orbital debris path is no walk in the park either. While NORAD ’s RADAR system can only “see” certain sized objects. Smaller ones can still hit a space-bound tour bus with a force of a hand grenade.
While research studies modeling the behavior of space debris and their associated risk had been very helpful in providing data to make insurance products especially tailored for space commerce. After reading Space Debris: Models and Risk Analysis by Heiner Klinkrad, academic research such as these can be very helpful to those who want to know how insurance providers use risk assessment data in crating equitable insurance clauses intended for multi-million dollar space-based assets.
The resulting orbital debris produced by the recent satellite collision already endanger the long-term future of the Hubble Space Telescope and the International Space Station whose structural hardware are not design to cope with debris packing energies similar to that of an exploding hand grenade. Even though future space-based assets are certainly insured, the monetary compensations are more often than not after-the-fact Band-Aids, rather than pro-active evasive procedures. Like the warnings / advisories provided by NORAD on incoming debris “seen” by their RADAR.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Moray: World’s First Commercial Spaceport?
If Virgin CEO Richard Branson already has the first purpose-built spacecraft for space tourism in the works, will Moray be it’s first spaceport?
By: Vanessa Uy
If the Scottish National Party and Virgin CEO Richard Branson gets their way, every potential space tourist with enough money will be soon going into space via the former RAF airbase in Moray. Towards the end of December 2008, the Scottish National Party or SNP has been very busy calling for the development of the former Royal Air Force base in Moray to be developed as the world’s first commercial spaceport. The world’s first designed exclusively for space tourist to access space at a cost a fraction of that currently provided by existing launch systems. Like the 20 million-dollar per person price tag of the Soyuz spacecraft of the Baikanour Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
The SNP ‘s Westminster leader, Angus Robertson, wants Virgin Galactic to use RAF Lossiemouth in his constituency as an airbase exclusively for use in space tourism. Virgin has already identified the base as a possible location for commercial space enterprise. “The prospect of space flight from Scotland is a serious and exciting one.” Says Mr. Robinson. Will Whitehorn of Virgin Galactic had already checked out the RAF Lossiemouth site as far back as 2007. If they succeed, will this make the UK the world’s first regular space faring society - never mind the future leader when it comes to space commerce?
Everyone’s optimism when it comes to space tourism enterprise being run by a private corporation harks back to the golden age of “barnstorming” a few years after World War I. Back then, everyone who can afford – especially rich civilians – were busy building and flying “homemade aircraft”. Some of which flew much faster compared to planes then in regular service of most government-run air corps. There are even those philanthropic types who picked disadvantaged citizens the rare fortune of experiencing flight first-hand.
Today, even though space tourists who can afford the proposed 10,000 US dollars or so price tag of rocketing 60miles or 100kilometers into space just to experience the sensation of weightlessness first hand for more than a few seconds are growing. Most of us can hardly afford a low-cost airfare to visit those Seven Wonders of the World sites – let alone a near-space joyride. But given that technology is already in the works to slash the cost of space tourism even further, who knows that there would be some of us who will actually have their regular jobs in space, rather than just “mere tourists”.
By: Vanessa Uy
If the Scottish National Party and Virgin CEO Richard Branson gets their way, every potential space tourist with enough money will be soon going into space via the former RAF airbase in Moray. Towards the end of December 2008, the Scottish National Party or SNP has been very busy calling for the development of the former Royal Air Force base in Moray to be developed as the world’s first commercial spaceport. The world’s first designed exclusively for space tourist to access space at a cost a fraction of that currently provided by existing launch systems. Like the 20 million-dollar per person price tag of the Soyuz spacecraft of the Baikanour Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan.
The SNP ‘s Westminster leader, Angus Robertson, wants Virgin Galactic to use RAF Lossiemouth in his constituency as an airbase exclusively for use in space tourism. Virgin has already identified the base as a possible location for commercial space enterprise. “The prospect of space flight from Scotland is a serious and exciting one.” Says Mr. Robinson. Will Whitehorn of Virgin Galactic had already checked out the RAF Lossiemouth site as far back as 2007. If they succeed, will this make the UK the world’s first regular space faring society - never mind the future leader when it comes to space commerce?
Everyone’s optimism when it comes to space tourism enterprise being run by a private corporation harks back to the golden age of “barnstorming” a few years after World War I. Back then, everyone who can afford – especially rich civilians – were busy building and flying “homemade aircraft”. Some of which flew much faster compared to planes then in regular service of most government-run air corps. There are even those philanthropic types who picked disadvantaged citizens the rare fortune of experiencing flight first-hand.
Today, even though space tourists who can afford the proposed 10,000 US dollars or so price tag of rocketing 60miles or 100kilometers into space just to experience the sensation of weightlessness first hand for more than a few seconds are growing. Most of us can hardly afford a low-cost airfare to visit those Seven Wonders of the World sites – let alone a near-space joyride. But given that technology is already in the works to slash the cost of space tourism even further, who knows that there would be some of us who will actually have their regular jobs in space, rather than just “mere tourists”.
Sunday, December 28, 2008
Extraterrestrial Real Estate: Unreal Real Estate?
The business model behind extraterrestrial real estate development seems sound. But will it be doomed to failure due to unenforceable legal issues?
By: Vanessa Uy
If you think space exploration is a very, very difficult endeavor given the current state of spacecraft technology, wait till you see the problems confronting outer space / extraterrestrial real estate developers and brokers. And given our current rate of progress – whether technological, sociological, or especially of legal jurisprudence – a space colonizer’s version of the US Homestead Act of 1862 is very, very unlikely to occur within anyone’s lifetime. Even to those born on 2008! But before we can ever so much as worry over an impending extraterrestrial real estate bubble, here are some of the problems born out of the “ontological epistemology” of what is extraterrestrial real estate.
Interests in extraterrestrial real estate can probably trace it’s roots to the time of the “Golden Age of Exploration” – i.e. when Christopher Columbus was busy wooing the Spanish Royal Household to finance his “exploration scheme”. Even though the European powers at the time profited handsomely from the pioneering efforts of explorers like Columbus, their conquered lands were never seen from their palaces. Even from their tallest ramparts with the aid of the most powerful telescopes of the day. In short, their conquered lands lie over the horizon.
Given that since the time humanity acquired the capacity for sentience, the Moon was always visible and laying claim on such far-off real estate prove too tempting not to given the audacity of the human imagination. Which brings us to the two legal jurisprudence pre-requisites of claiming something – namely: corpus possidendi or physical possession and aminus possidendi or intention to possess. And given that possession has always been nine-tenths of the law – which the Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein audaciously demonstrated back in August 2, 1990 by invading defenseless Kuwait – corpus possidendi or physical possession always trumps over mere intention to possess or aminus possidendi. Especially true when it comes to claiming real estate. If real estate possession already has a well-defined legal definition, then what’s stopping the extraterrestrial real estate business from, if you excuse the pun, “getting off the ground”?
The laws of physics and the high-cost of current space travel technology aside, the biggest hurdle faced by the extraterrestrial real estate development business is a legal one – namely the 1967 Outer Space Treaty – which is also a part of the UN Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Treaty. The Article II of the Outer Space Treaty states the prohibition of national appropriation in outer space which fortunately was never violated given the current “state of the art” of our space travel abilities. Even though some persons and quasi-government agencies have tried to file lawsuits against the foremost space exploration entity – namely NASA. Back in July 1997, a group of Yemeni gentlemen filed a lawsuit against NASA for “trespassing” on their ancestral land on Mars – i.e. the Pathfinder spacecraft’s on-going scientific exploration on the Martian surface, and also Dennis Hope’s “Lunar Embassy “. These are just a few examples of the lack of a dispute mechanism when it comes to the equitable settling of extraterrestrial real estate torts.
But when it comes to the legalese that’s holding back the development of outer space real estate for colonization and other commercial activity, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty surely deserves all of the blame. Given that the UN can barely enforce the peace in conflict zones, as a quasi-governmental body it should start relegating the utilization of space to those with the know-how and resources to do it. Not make abstract unenforceable laws that can easily become an encumbrance once technology sufficiently advances. So before we worry about space pirates and other space faring criminal elements, an internationally binding agreement governing the commercial – and peaceful but it should be able to pay itself - utilization of outer space should be drawn up.
By: Vanessa Uy
If you think space exploration is a very, very difficult endeavor given the current state of spacecraft technology, wait till you see the problems confronting outer space / extraterrestrial real estate developers and brokers. And given our current rate of progress – whether technological, sociological, or especially of legal jurisprudence – a space colonizer’s version of the US Homestead Act of 1862 is very, very unlikely to occur within anyone’s lifetime. Even to those born on 2008! But before we can ever so much as worry over an impending extraterrestrial real estate bubble, here are some of the problems born out of the “ontological epistemology” of what is extraterrestrial real estate.
Interests in extraterrestrial real estate can probably trace it’s roots to the time of the “Golden Age of Exploration” – i.e. when Christopher Columbus was busy wooing the Spanish Royal Household to finance his “exploration scheme”. Even though the European powers at the time profited handsomely from the pioneering efforts of explorers like Columbus, their conquered lands were never seen from their palaces. Even from their tallest ramparts with the aid of the most powerful telescopes of the day. In short, their conquered lands lie over the horizon.
Given that since the time humanity acquired the capacity for sentience, the Moon was always visible and laying claim on such far-off real estate prove too tempting not to given the audacity of the human imagination. Which brings us to the two legal jurisprudence pre-requisites of claiming something – namely: corpus possidendi or physical possession and aminus possidendi or intention to possess. And given that possession has always been nine-tenths of the law – which the Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein audaciously demonstrated back in August 2, 1990 by invading defenseless Kuwait – corpus possidendi or physical possession always trumps over mere intention to possess or aminus possidendi. Especially true when it comes to claiming real estate. If real estate possession already has a well-defined legal definition, then what’s stopping the extraterrestrial real estate business from, if you excuse the pun, “getting off the ground”?
The laws of physics and the high-cost of current space travel technology aside, the biggest hurdle faced by the extraterrestrial real estate development business is a legal one – namely the 1967 Outer Space Treaty – which is also a part of the UN Peaceful Uses of Outer Space Treaty. The Article II of the Outer Space Treaty states the prohibition of national appropriation in outer space which fortunately was never violated given the current “state of the art” of our space travel abilities. Even though some persons and quasi-government agencies have tried to file lawsuits against the foremost space exploration entity – namely NASA. Back in July 1997, a group of Yemeni gentlemen filed a lawsuit against NASA for “trespassing” on their ancestral land on Mars – i.e. the Pathfinder spacecraft’s on-going scientific exploration on the Martian surface, and also Dennis Hope’s “Lunar Embassy “. These are just a few examples of the lack of a dispute mechanism when it comes to the equitable settling of extraterrestrial real estate torts.
But when it comes to the legalese that’s holding back the development of outer space real estate for colonization and other commercial activity, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty surely deserves all of the blame. Given that the UN can barely enforce the peace in conflict zones, as a quasi-governmental body it should start relegating the utilization of space to those with the know-how and resources to do it. Not make abstract unenforceable laws that can easily become an encumbrance once technology sufficiently advances. So before we worry about space pirates and other space faring criminal elements, an internationally binding agreement governing the commercial – and peaceful but it should be able to pay itself - utilization of outer space should be drawn up.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Chandrayaan 1 Lunar Probe: India’s Pride Child or Burden?
Is India’s Chandrayaan 1 Lunar probe nothing more than an ill-conceived pride-child given that a significant portion of their population is currently languishing in poverty?
By: Vanessa Uy
Sometimes I wonder why social justice campaigners unfairly target a nation’s space program as money that could be spent better on poverty alleviation programs. But isn’t space exploration a kind of poverty alleviation program in itself? I mean is anyone curious enough to find out if carbonaceous meteoric materials make excellent organic fertilizers?
Despite costing 80 million US dollars to the Indian taxpayer, Chandrayaan 1 boasts the latest in advanced digital-based optical mapping technology with a 5-meter resolution optical camera, plus the latest generation of instruments to analyze the chemical composition of the Moon. And the mission had already passed several of its intended missions with flying colors despite being sent on a fuel-saving gravitational assist trajectory that unfortunately delays the craft’s arrival to the Moon.
Critics might say that the Chandrayaan 1 Lunar mission is an extravagance that an emerging economy like India can ill afford, despite of ambitions plans by India for a manned Lunar mission 30 or 40 years from now. But Portugal didn’t became a 16th Century superpower by complaining how poor it is every time the country’s “Royal Treasury” finance yet another exploratory missions into the “New World”. An Indian space program will surely generate jobs for their local underutilized Ph.D. s, engineers and other people with technical training as opposed to sending them to more technically advanced Western nations like they do today. An Indian space program could also create a regional “fringe benefit” for the countries “poorer” neighbors like job opportunities to people from Bangladesh.
An Indian astronaut walking on the surface of the Moon could serve as an “unbiased witness” to finally dispel the “Conspiracy Theorists” belief in that the manned Lunar program of NASA back in the 1960’s and 1970’s are just nothing more than staged PR stunts. Done on some non-descript movie soundstage in Burbank, California (or is that Hollywood?).
By: Vanessa Uy
Sometimes I wonder why social justice campaigners unfairly target a nation’s space program as money that could be spent better on poverty alleviation programs. But isn’t space exploration a kind of poverty alleviation program in itself? I mean is anyone curious enough to find out if carbonaceous meteoric materials make excellent organic fertilizers?
Despite costing 80 million US dollars to the Indian taxpayer, Chandrayaan 1 boasts the latest in advanced digital-based optical mapping technology with a 5-meter resolution optical camera, plus the latest generation of instruments to analyze the chemical composition of the Moon. And the mission had already passed several of its intended missions with flying colors despite being sent on a fuel-saving gravitational assist trajectory that unfortunately delays the craft’s arrival to the Moon.
Critics might say that the Chandrayaan 1 Lunar mission is an extravagance that an emerging economy like India can ill afford, despite of ambitions plans by India for a manned Lunar mission 30 or 40 years from now. But Portugal didn’t became a 16th Century superpower by complaining how poor it is every time the country’s “Royal Treasury” finance yet another exploratory missions into the “New World”. An Indian space program will surely generate jobs for their local underutilized Ph.D. s, engineers and other people with technical training as opposed to sending them to more technically advanced Western nations like they do today. An Indian space program could also create a regional “fringe benefit” for the countries “poorer” neighbors like job opportunities to people from Bangladesh.
An Indian astronaut walking on the surface of the Moon could serve as an “unbiased witness” to finally dispel the “Conspiracy Theorists” belief in that the manned Lunar program of NASA back in the 1960’s and 1970’s are just nothing more than staged PR stunts. Done on some non-descript movie soundstage in Burbank, California (or is that Hollywood?).
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Should NASA’s Space Shuttle Fleet Be Retired?
With no suitable replacement before it’s much publicized retirement date of 2010. Should NASA’s aging space shuttle fleet be retired knowing that existing stopgap measures like the Soyuz spacecraft could stray into hostile territory?
By: Vanessa Uy
While the harrowing incident of the Soyuz spacecraft straying off-course by more than 400 kilometers from its planned landing site. Almost a headline story back in April 21, 2008 - now fades into obscurity. But there are some of us who still care beyond the 8.2 G pull of such an “uncomfortable” Earthbound ride. The April 21 incident highlights the Soyuz spacecraft’s inherent problem: it can’t be controlled with a reliable degree of certainty on where to land. Worst of all, replacement spacecraft of comparable controllability to NASA’s current fleet of space shuttles won’t come on line at least until March 2015.
America’s NASA developed their space shuttle fleet in the first place to meet a requirement for a spacecraft / return vehicle that can be piloted back to the Earth’s surface to a precise location. Like a paved runway commonly used by large commercial jet-powered aircraft and preferably on US soil. A feat that space capsule-type vehicles like the Soyuz spacecraft – despite their lower operating costs – can never do.
Though it never happened yet, returning astronauts from the International Space Station using an Earth return vehicle similar to Soyuz might accidentally land in a hostile territory. Like the tribal areas in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which is technically not that far from the Russian controlled Central Asian plains which their space capsules regularly lands given the number of kilometers the Soyuz spacecraft could stray. And there are no international treaties yet that protects these astronauts from being taken hostage. Like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants would even respect it if preexisting ones exists. The Somali pirates who recently abducted vacationing French tourists in a luxury yacht sailing in the waters of the Horn of Africa between Somalia and Djibouti probably never even heard of the International Maritime Conference in Washington in 1899, or would give a damn if they had.
So astronauts and space tourists will have to settle to pray for luck that they don’t land in a hostile region and be taken hostage by militants. Given the extremely cramped -quarters of our current space vehicles, carrying infantry weapons like modern assault rifles could be very inconvenient for our astronauts. I just hope that computer game billionaire Richard Garriott will have the best of luck as he underwrites and personally makes Project Immortality a feasible reality.
By the way, Project Immortality is about storing digitally-sequenced human DNA on the International Space Station or ISS to avert a “Doomsday Event” – i.e. mankind won’t just go extinct if our planet ever becomes biologically uninhabitable because viable genetic material of humans are stored safely in space. Does this remind you of an episode of Star Trek about those genetically enhanced “übermensch”? Richard Garriott’s bravery is admirable though, given that the Soyuz spacecraft could have him landing in front of Osama Bin Laden's cave.
By: Vanessa Uy
While the harrowing incident of the Soyuz spacecraft straying off-course by more than 400 kilometers from its planned landing site. Almost a headline story back in April 21, 2008 - now fades into obscurity. But there are some of us who still care beyond the 8.2 G pull of such an “uncomfortable” Earthbound ride. The April 21 incident highlights the Soyuz spacecraft’s inherent problem: it can’t be controlled with a reliable degree of certainty on where to land. Worst of all, replacement spacecraft of comparable controllability to NASA’s current fleet of space shuttles won’t come on line at least until March 2015.
America’s NASA developed their space shuttle fleet in the first place to meet a requirement for a spacecraft / return vehicle that can be piloted back to the Earth’s surface to a precise location. Like a paved runway commonly used by large commercial jet-powered aircraft and preferably on US soil. A feat that space capsule-type vehicles like the Soyuz spacecraft – despite their lower operating costs – can never do.
Though it never happened yet, returning astronauts from the International Space Station using an Earth return vehicle similar to Soyuz might accidentally land in a hostile territory. Like the tribal areas in the Afghanistan-Pakistan border, which is technically not that far from the Russian controlled Central Asian plains which their space capsules regularly lands given the number of kilometers the Soyuz spacecraft could stray. And there are no international treaties yet that protects these astronauts from being taken hostage. Like the Taliban and Al-Qaeda militants would even respect it if preexisting ones exists. The Somali pirates who recently abducted vacationing French tourists in a luxury yacht sailing in the waters of the Horn of Africa between Somalia and Djibouti probably never even heard of the International Maritime Conference in Washington in 1899, or would give a damn if they had.
So astronauts and space tourists will have to settle to pray for luck that they don’t land in a hostile region and be taken hostage by militants. Given the extremely cramped -quarters of our current space vehicles, carrying infantry weapons like modern assault rifles could be very inconvenient for our astronauts. I just hope that computer game billionaire Richard Garriott will have the best of luck as he underwrites and personally makes Project Immortality a feasible reality.
By the way, Project Immortality is about storing digitally-sequenced human DNA on the International Space Station or ISS to avert a “Doomsday Event” – i.e. mankind won’t just go extinct if our planet ever becomes biologically uninhabitable because viable genetic material of humans are stored safely in space. Does this remind you of an episode of Star Trek about those genetically enhanced “übermensch”? Richard Garriott’s bravery is admirable though, given that the Soyuz spacecraft could have him landing in front of Osama Bin Laden's cave.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
