Even though Black History Month have come and gone for a number of times over the years, how many of us can answer with true confidence when asked: “Who was the first African-American astronaut?
By: Ringo Bones
No, it is not Astronaut Jones from that famous SNL comic routine played by Tracey Morgan – in fact, there are two contenders that could qualify as the first African-American astronaut – and one of them, during his training, has even paved way for NASA’s Space Shuttle program. As with the state of the space race when there was still a Soviet Union, the first person of black African descent to go to space was Cuban cosmonaut Arnaldo Tamayo Méndez during the then Soviet Union’s space program.
One very worthy contender as the first African-American astronaut was Major Robert Henry Lawrence, Jr. Even though he tragically dies during a training accident back in December 8, 1967 at Edwards Air Force Base in California, Major Lawrence’s training flight in a modified F-104 Starfighter equipped with hydrogen peroxide maneuvering jets that can enable it to maneuver in altitudes where the air is too thin for conventional flaps and other aerodynamic control surfaces to work. The data gathered during Major Lawrence’s training flight proved very useful in NASA’s Space Shuttle program several years later. Major Lawrence officially became a NASA astronaut after being selected by the US Air Force’s Manned Orbital Laboratory (MOL) program back in June 1967.
Another very worthy contender as the first African-American astronaut is Guyon “Guy” Bluford, Jr., although he is indisputably the first African-American astronaut because he actually got into low-Earth-orbit. Bluford is now a retired Colonel of the US Air Force and a former NASA astronaut who during his heyday participated in four Space Shuttle flights between 1983 and 1992. In 1983, as a member of the crew of of the Space Shuttle Challenger on Mission STS-8, Bluford became the first African-American in space.
Before being selected by the 1978 NASA Group to become a full-fledged astronaut in August 1979, Bluford’s career mirrors that of some “adventurous” Starfleet officer in Gene Roddenberry’s Star Trek because after attending pilot training at Williams Air Force Base and receiving his pilot wings in January 1966, Bluford then went to an F-4C Phantom combat crew training in Arizona and Florida and was then assigned to the 557th Tactical Fighter Squadron in Cam Ranh Bay, of then South Vietnam. Bluford flew 144 combat missions, 65 of which were over the then North Vietnam.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, January 31, 2011
Is President Obama Against Manned Space Exploration?
Though currently busy deciding which truly unnecessary government expenditures to cut in order to rein-in on a runaway deficit, is there truth to the rumours that President Obama is against manned space exploration?
By: Ringo Bones
I’ve just heard President Obama's staunchest critics - both famous and the not-so - after finishing this year’s State-of-the-Nation Address. Quite a number of them voiced criticisms aimed at President Obama worded in a way that can be defined as no longer politically-correct in this day and age. But the question now remains, is President Obama really against manned space exploration?
It might be just an unfortunate coincidence that NASA’s Space Shuttle fleet is slated to be retired during President Obama's first term in office that's already mired in a weak economy and runaway deficit spending noting that the myriad of parts of the Space Shuttle can no longer guaranty the safety of its crew and reliability of operation. Not to mention that the Shuttle fleet might at the present austere fiscal environment of post-subprime mortgage crisis America be seen as an unnecessary government expense that is driving the US government’s runaway deficit.
Though a search for a better and low-operating-cost replacement for NASA’s Space Shuttle fleet is already under way – under the Obama administration’s watch I might add, it is worth noting that historically, the US Republican party – unlike their Democratic counterparts – has been largely anti-scientific research since the end of World War II.
Back in the mid-1950s when the XB-70 Valkyrie program was slated to replace the B-52 as a Mach 3-capable strategic heavy bomber, then Republican President “Ike” Eisenhower wanted the program scrapped because it was too expensive and might only be marginally better than the existing fleet of B-52s. Fortunately, when Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy got elected, the XB-70 program got a new lease of life as a platform for aviation and aerospace research. The XB-70 program only got cancelled when a tragic crash destroyed one of the three prototype planes.
So is President Obama – which is a Democrat lest you forget – really against manned space exploration? While the other camp – ie. The Republicans – obsessing over Creationism / Intelligent Design / Bible-based sham science to be taught in American schools, President Obama’s renewable energy programs that would grant America one more step to be independent from Arab crude are blocked by now-Republican majority congress. Not to mention other scientific programs that would eventually lead into a low-cost and more reliable replacement for NASA’s ageing Space Shuttle Fleet. President' Obama's plans to out-compete and out-innovate the People's Republic of China could might as well be shot-down by the US Republican party who unfortunately has been "cozy" with Mainland China since Bush senior was President.
The rumours behind President Obama’s disdain for America’s manned space exploration and intentions to scrap it are more likely to be politically motivated by the other camp and very likely to be untrue. After all, will our kids still be able to navigate all the way to the Moon if American schools start teaching that the Earth is the “center” of the Universe?
By: Ringo Bones
I’ve just heard President Obama's staunchest critics - both famous and the not-so - after finishing this year’s State-of-the-Nation Address. Quite a number of them voiced criticisms aimed at President Obama worded in a way that can be defined as no longer politically-correct in this day and age. But the question now remains, is President Obama really against manned space exploration?
It might be just an unfortunate coincidence that NASA’s Space Shuttle fleet is slated to be retired during President Obama's first term in office that's already mired in a weak economy and runaway deficit spending noting that the myriad of parts of the Space Shuttle can no longer guaranty the safety of its crew and reliability of operation. Not to mention that the Shuttle fleet might at the present austere fiscal environment of post-subprime mortgage crisis America be seen as an unnecessary government expense that is driving the US government’s runaway deficit.
Though a search for a better and low-operating-cost replacement for NASA’s Space Shuttle fleet is already under way – under the Obama administration’s watch I might add, it is worth noting that historically, the US Republican party – unlike their Democratic counterparts – has been largely anti-scientific research since the end of World War II.
Back in the mid-1950s when the XB-70 Valkyrie program was slated to replace the B-52 as a Mach 3-capable strategic heavy bomber, then Republican President “Ike” Eisenhower wanted the program scrapped because it was too expensive and might only be marginally better than the existing fleet of B-52s. Fortunately, when Democratic presidential candidate John F. Kennedy got elected, the XB-70 program got a new lease of life as a platform for aviation and aerospace research. The XB-70 program only got cancelled when a tragic crash destroyed one of the three prototype planes.
So is President Obama – which is a Democrat lest you forget – really against manned space exploration? While the other camp – ie. The Republicans – obsessing over Creationism / Intelligent Design / Bible-based sham science to be taught in American schools, President Obama’s renewable energy programs that would grant America one more step to be independent from Arab crude are blocked by now-Republican majority congress. Not to mention other scientific programs that would eventually lead into a low-cost and more reliable replacement for NASA’s ageing Space Shuttle Fleet. President' Obama's plans to out-compete and out-innovate the People's Republic of China could might as well be shot-down by the US Republican party who unfortunately has been "cozy" with Mainland China since Bush senior was President.
The rumours behind President Obama’s disdain for America’s manned space exploration and intentions to scrap it are more likely to be politically motivated by the other camp and very likely to be untrue. After all, will our kids still be able to navigate all the way to the Moon if American schools start teaching that the Earth is the “center” of the Universe?
The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster – 25 Years On
Even though this tragic event never managed to halt America’s manned space exploration program, has the lessons learned from the Challenger disaster been heeded?
By: Ringo Bones
To us space exploration enthusiasts, January 28, 1986 seems like almost yesterday, and yet the date marking one of the tragic events in the history of America’s manned space exploration program as always has been observed in the usual low-key and solemn manner as the years go by. As the date marking the tragic event is now 25 years behind us, it has never seemed to dampen the folks at NASA on their drive to explore humanity’s final frontier.
At 73 seconds after lift-off, it wasn’t just the tenured crew members and schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe that had perished 25 years ago, the inner drive of space enthusiasts around the world almost perished along with Challenger’s crew. The launch of the Hubble Space Telescope was delayed to the near-detriment of the now-famed space-based telescope. The Galileo spacecraft – after a long launch delay – was launched without its famed powerful rocket boosters to be launched from low-Earth-orbit deemed too dangerous in the wake of the Challenger disaster. Instead was launched via gravity assist to a circuitous path that sent it to a detour to the planet Venus before going en route to Jupiter.
Though the faulty O-Rings on the SRBs have been deemed the primary culprits of the Challenger explosion, the weak links of NASA’s Space Shuttle fleet was not given due diligence when falling chunks of insulation foam from the main fuel tanks caused the tragic break-up during re-entry of the Space Shuttle Columbia back in February 2003. Has the lessons of the Challenger disaster been heeded?
As America’s Space Shuttle fleet is slated to be retired because it has become increasingly uneconomic to operate and the myriad parts needed to operate them are too complex to guarantee the safety of the crew, NASA’s final Shuttle flight could happen this year. Nonetheless, we live in hope that something better and cheaper will replace NASA’s Space Shuttle fleet because manned space exploration is just too costly for all mankind to be discontinued.
By: Ringo Bones
To us space exploration enthusiasts, January 28, 1986 seems like almost yesterday, and yet the date marking one of the tragic events in the history of America’s manned space exploration program as always has been observed in the usual low-key and solemn manner as the years go by. As the date marking the tragic event is now 25 years behind us, it has never seemed to dampen the folks at NASA on their drive to explore humanity’s final frontier.
At 73 seconds after lift-off, it wasn’t just the tenured crew members and schoolteacher Christa McAuliffe that had perished 25 years ago, the inner drive of space enthusiasts around the world almost perished along with Challenger’s crew. The launch of the Hubble Space Telescope was delayed to the near-detriment of the now-famed space-based telescope. The Galileo spacecraft – after a long launch delay – was launched without its famed powerful rocket boosters to be launched from low-Earth-orbit deemed too dangerous in the wake of the Challenger disaster. Instead was launched via gravity assist to a circuitous path that sent it to a detour to the planet Venus before going en route to Jupiter.
Though the faulty O-Rings on the SRBs have been deemed the primary culprits of the Challenger explosion, the weak links of NASA’s Space Shuttle fleet was not given due diligence when falling chunks of insulation foam from the main fuel tanks caused the tragic break-up during re-entry of the Space Shuttle Columbia back in February 2003. Has the lessons of the Challenger disaster been heeded?
As America’s Space Shuttle fleet is slated to be retired because it has become increasingly uneconomic to operate and the myriad parts needed to operate them are too complex to guarantee the safety of the crew, NASA’s final Shuttle flight could happen this year. Nonetheless, we live in hope that something better and cheaper will replace NASA’s Space Shuttle fleet because manned space exploration is just too costly for all mankind to be discontinued.
Monday, November 22, 2010
D. I. Y. Space Exploration: Wave of the Future?
From pubmates launching a webcam-equipped paper airplane via balloon near the edge of space to a 500 quid D.I. Y. satellite balloon, is do it yourself (D.I. Y.) space exploration the wave of the future?
By: Ringo Bones
Maybe it is just do to the incrementally lowering costs of Internet connectible digital cameras with better than decent resolution that is currently driving the current do it yourself (D.I.Y.) space exploration. Back in November 11, 2010, three British pubmates decided earlier over a beerchat to attempt a seemingly impossible task for mere civilians – that is to launch a webcam-equipped paper airplane to the edge of space, about the altitude limit of a helium-filled balloon, by dropping the plane from a balloon from 17 miles up in the upper atmosphere. The amateur space explorer’s successful attempt eventually got press attention.
John Oates – one of the team members – explained to reporters that they conducted their seemingly impossible feat in Spain with the help of his amateur radio enthusiast pubmate named Steve Daniels who’s in charge of their webcam-equipped paper airplane’s telemetry. The team managed to gently land their webcam-equipped paper airplane about 100 miles from their balloon launch site. Not only did the team achieve to land their webcam-equipped paper airplane with all electronics relatively intact, they even managed to record the footage of what their paper airplane had “seen” 15 miles up.
Earlier this year – back in March 27, 2010 – Robert Harrison, a British amateur scientist, managed to successfully launch his “500-quid” (UK£500) balloon-borne satellite. At a total cost of UK£500 per launch, Harrison’s balloon-borne satellite is a bargain compared to NASA’s space shuttle – which costs 300-million quid per launch.
Using a web-enabled digital camera of better than decent resolution, loft insulation (fibreglass), duct tape and a ruggedized weather balloon bought from a surplus shop; Robert Harrison’s budget D.I.Y. satellite managed to reach 21 miles up during its maiden flight. In comparison the U2 / TR-1, the most economical jet-powered high altitude craft in current use, only has a service ceiling of 17 miles. Surprisingly, Harrison’s D.I.Y. balloon-borne satellite can fly 4 miles higher.
When Robert Harrison launched his 500-quid balloon-born satellite that managed to take pictures 21 miles up, it was launched from a specially designated launch site away from commercial air traffic. The balloon eventually expanded 21 meters across after reaching its maximum altitude. This is really good news to amateur scientists and amateur space explorers everywhere when brilliantly prestigious science fair type projects is now even within reach of most schools, and could possibly represent the future of citizen-led space exploration.
By: Ringo Bones
Maybe it is just do to the incrementally lowering costs of Internet connectible digital cameras with better than decent resolution that is currently driving the current do it yourself (D.I.Y.) space exploration. Back in November 11, 2010, three British pubmates decided earlier over a beerchat to attempt a seemingly impossible task for mere civilians – that is to launch a webcam-equipped paper airplane to the edge of space, about the altitude limit of a helium-filled balloon, by dropping the plane from a balloon from 17 miles up in the upper atmosphere. The amateur space explorer’s successful attempt eventually got press attention.
John Oates – one of the team members – explained to reporters that they conducted their seemingly impossible feat in Spain with the help of his amateur radio enthusiast pubmate named Steve Daniels who’s in charge of their webcam-equipped paper airplane’s telemetry. The team managed to gently land their webcam-equipped paper airplane about 100 miles from their balloon launch site. Not only did the team achieve to land their webcam-equipped paper airplane with all electronics relatively intact, they even managed to record the footage of what their paper airplane had “seen” 15 miles up.
Earlier this year – back in March 27, 2010 – Robert Harrison, a British amateur scientist, managed to successfully launch his “500-quid” (UK£500) balloon-borne satellite. At a total cost of UK£500 per launch, Harrison’s balloon-borne satellite is a bargain compared to NASA’s space shuttle – which costs 300-million quid per launch.
Using a web-enabled digital camera of better than decent resolution, loft insulation (fibreglass), duct tape and a ruggedized weather balloon bought from a surplus shop; Robert Harrison’s budget D.I.Y. satellite managed to reach 21 miles up during its maiden flight. In comparison the U2 / TR-1, the most economical jet-powered high altitude craft in current use, only has a service ceiling of 17 miles. Surprisingly, Harrison’s D.I.Y. balloon-borne satellite can fly 4 miles higher.
When Robert Harrison launched his 500-quid balloon-born satellite that managed to take pictures 21 miles up, it was launched from a specially designated launch site away from commercial air traffic. The balloon eventually expanded 21 meters across after reaching its maximum altitude. This is really good news to amateur scientists and amateur space explorers everywhere when brilliantly prestigious science fair type projects is now even within reach of most schools, and could possibly represent the future of citizen-led space exploration.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Stephen Colbert: First American Comedian in Space?
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
