Monthly Archives: August, 2010

Danes to launch rocket Thursday 9/2/2010 now

From Space.com:

A private Danish rocket built by volunteers to launch one person into suborbital space could see its first test flight as soon as Thursday with a dummy pilot riding aboard.

If successful, the rocket should carry its payload up almost 19 miles (30 km) into the upper atmosphere. The project could pave the way for Denmark to eventually become the fourth space-faring nation to send humans into space after Russia, the United States and China.

There is a 75 percent chance of moving the launch platform to the Danish island of Bornholm in the Baltic Sea by Tuesday, according to the website of Copenhagen Suborbitals. It also pegs a 40 percent chance of launching the rocket by Thursday, but the designated launch window remains open until Sept. 17.

The new suborbital rocket is called the Hybrid Exo Atmospheric Transporter 1X, or HEAT-1X. It carries a Tycho Brahe space capsule, which can hold one pilot in a half-standing, half-sitting posture.

But the rocket will just carry a dummy for the first several suborbital flights to see how much G-force a human would endure. One G is equivalent to Earth’s standard gravity.

“We get three Gs half-sitting, half-standing,” said Peter Madsen, cofounder of Copenahgen Suborbitals. “Higher G loads may occur during re-entry, but here the capsule is oriented in a sidewards position where the astronaut has excellent G tolerance.”

The $70,000 effort funded by private sponsors and donations includes the capsule, booster and an offshore launch platform.

much G-force a human would endure. One G is equivalent to Earth’s standard gravity.

“We get three Gs half-sitting, half-standing,” said Peter Madsen, cofounder of Copenahgen Suborbitals. “Higher G loads may occur during re-entry, but here the capsule is oriented in a sidewards position where the astronaut has excellent G tolerance.”

The $70,000 effort funded by private sponsors and donations includes the capsule, booster and an offshore launch platform.

Madsen’s homemade submarine from a past project, called the Nautilus, has the duty of towing the floating platform to a designated launch site in the Baltic Sea near Copenhagen, Denmark. [10 Private Spaceships Becoming Reality]

During the Tycho Brahe capsule’s descent, a drogue parachute and three main parachutes should deploy and carry it back down for recovery in the water by a fast boat.

Tracking radar and GPS should also help the ground team keep an eye on the launch and return.

Making it all work

Madsen decided to kick-start the private rocket venture when he met Kristian von Bengtson, an aerospace engineer who has worked with NASA on Mars and lunar programs. They gathered a small group of about 19 supporting team members.

“We get a lot of support — and have access to experts that would be very expensive if we were commercial,” Madsen told SPACE.com. “I honestly don’t think we can afford to be commercial.”

The Tycho Brahe capsule draws inspiration from the NASA space capsules of the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, von Bengtson wrote in an e-mail. But he also aimed to simplify the overall design.

Liquid oxygen serves as the oxidizer part of the propellant, and polyurethane acts as the rocket fuel propellant. That allows the HEAT-1X booster to burn for 60 seconds and create almost 9,000 pounds of thrust (40 kN).

The inaugural flight should allow the Danish team to test the offshore launch concept, the high-speed aerodynamic properties of the vehicle, engine performance and recovery scenarios. Wireless telemetry gives real-time updates on the booster during burns.

This story is starting to make the corpo-media lines now and hopefully it’ll be viral by the time they actually launch.

The launch window is until September 17th, so there’s a good chance they’ll have a world-wide audience then.

The rebirth of the Vikings, gotta love it!

Private Danish Rocket Launch Moved to Thursday

hat tip

Fortean Frankensteins

Recently, Dr. Craig Venter has made the claim of “creating life” by constructing a bacterium from dead material.

While not a 9 foot tall monster, the artificial bacterium has the potential to become the first practical biological nano-particle that could have industrial and medical applications.

But Venter isn’t the first to claim the mantle of godlike powers of life and death.

There were earlier models of which Mary Shelley used as her model for “Dr. Frankenstein”:

Craig Venter is being portrayed as a modern Frankenstein, creating life from inanimate matter and starting another debate about scientists “playing god”. But he is by no means the first scientist said to have created life in the laboratory.

This goes back to the Renaiss ance, when one of the great goals of alchemy was the creation of a homunculus, a miniature human being. Paracelsus, greatest of the alchemists (in his own view, at least – see‘Paracelsus: The Mercurial mage’) provided a recipe to create such a being. Semen is sealed in a glass container and buried in horse manure for 40 days. After being “properly magnetised”, it will take on human form and come to life. [1] The growing homunculus is fed with Arcanum sanguinis hominis, the secret of human blood, and incubated at a constant temperature. After 40 weeks, it grows into “a human child, with all its members developed like any other child, such as could be born by a woman; only it will be much smaller… and it should be afterwards educated with the greatest care and zeal, until it grows up and starts to display intelligence.”

Paracelsus claimed to have successfully created such a homunculus with this formula; it grew to be a foot tall and eventually ran away. Alchemical formulæ were often intended to be taken symbolically rather than literally. Also Paracelsus was prone to misleading his rivals. Having invented laudanum, opium dissolved in alcohol, he published a recipe including gold and crushed pearls.

Paracelsus described the creation of the homunculus as “a miracle and a marvel of God, an Arcanum above all arcana, and deserves to be kept secret until the last of times”. In other areas (such as chemotherapy and anæsthesia), Paracelsus achieved successes which put him centuries ahead of his time, but the creation of intelligent life does seem something of a stretch. He was, however, one role model for Mary Shelley’s Baron Frankenstein, as well as Goethe’s homunculus-making Faust. Aleister Crowley also claimed to have created homunculi, a claim which may be taken with a pinch of alchemical salt.

Simply creating life from decaying matter would not have been considered much of a feat, as it was commonly held that life spontaneously arose in this way. Experiments seemed to show that, left to itself, a piece of meat or bread would produce moulds, maggots and other life through natural processes. It was not until 1859 that Louis Pasteur proved that bacteria or other organisms had to be present to start with and that there was no spontaneous generation.

But although it is one thing to harness nature’s own generative force, it is something else to create entirely artificial life. One of the most notable controversies arose in 1836 when experimenter Andrew Crosse published results of his electrocrystallisation experiments. Crosse, who had carried out much previous work in this area, was attempting to create a new mineral by the action of electricity on liquids when something unusual caught his eye, small projections emerging from the electrified stone:

“On the eighteenth day these projections enlarged, and stuck out seven or eight filaments, each of them longer than the hemisphere on which they grew. On the twenty-sixth day these appearances assumed the form of a perfect insect, standing erect on a few bristles which formed its tail. On the twenty-eighth day these little creatures moved their legs…” [2]

Crosse found the presence of these insects baffling and sought help from theorists and experimenters. Crosse and other scientists assumed that insects’ eggs must have somehow got into the experimental appar­atus. However, when the experiment was repeated by amateur experimenter WH Weeks of the Electrical Society, even with thorough sterilisation of the apparatus, the insects again appeared.

When the story was picked up by the popular press, it was inevitably magnified. They suggested that the insects were an entirely new species, Acarus crossii, which Crosse had created out of nothing. This drew a violent react ion. Crosse was accused of blasphemy and received death threats; his crops were burned and cattle killed at his estate in Somerset. There does not seem to have been further work on this, and Crosse himself did not claim to have created life (for more on Crosse see FT91:46, 139:38).

As knowledge of biochemistry grew, the prospects of creating life from scratch receded. However, in a famous 1952 experiment, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago took a flask of water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen and passed an electric current through it for a week. At the end of that period, a whole range of amino acids, “the building blocks of life” (the units of protein chains), were present in the mixture. [3] Again, the experiment was hailed by the popular media as scientists creating life.

We can see many of the same elements at work in the Venter case. Like Paracelsus, he is not starting from scratch, but using DNA from an existing organism. As with Crosse, Miller and Urey, the media exaggeration of what has been achieved obscures the actual work. In this case, life is not created from scratch, but assembled from the ready-made components provided by nature – this gives the project more than a touch of the Frankensteins, albeit on a cellular level. However, there is one big differ ence: few are doubting Venter’s claims. The creation of artific ial life has now moved from the fortean fringes of science squarely into the mainstream.

It’s interesting to note that Paracelsus is mentioned by name in Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’ and is put down by one of Frankenstein’s professors at University.

Science as we know it today, especially chemistry is directly descended from alchemy.

That most famous of physicists (until Einstein), Isaac Newton, was an alchemist.

Is Venter and his ilk modern day alchemists?

Maybe, especially since one of his stated goals, (along with Aubrey de Grey) is the search for human immortality.

Which of course, was one of the goals of ancient Alchemy.

Modern Frankensteins

Is Space Colonization Still Just Fantasy?

Space colonization has been a theme (or meme?) in literature for over 150 years, probably thousands of years earlier than that really (Book of Enoch). Anyway, humans have dreamed of traveling to alien worlds in the heavens for a very long time, it isn’t a recent phenomenon.

Dr. Stephen Hawking is only one voice among many lately who has advocated colonizing planets in the solar system. Discovery of extra-solar planets over the past 20 years and recently of a solar system closely resembling ours that is 127 light-years away is piquing public interest in the mainstream about space travel and how we can study such things.

However, there are voices of dissension in the ranks, and from sources one wouldn’t expect any at all.

Especially from a science-fiction writer:

Renowned science-fiction writer, Charlie Stross, argued last week in his High Frontier Redux blog that space colonization is not in our future, not because it’s impossible, but because to do so effectively you need either outrageous amounts of cheap energy, highly efficient robot probes, or “a magic wand.”

“I’m going to take it as read that the idea of space colonization isn’t unfamiliar,” Stross opens his post, “domed cities on Mars, orbiting cylindrical space habitats a la J. D. Bernal or Gerard K. O’Neill, that sort of thing. Generation ships that take hundreds of years to ferry colonists out to other star systems where — as we are now discovering — there are profusions of planets to explore.”

“The obstacles facing us are immense distance and time -the scale factor involved in space travel is strongly counter-intuitive.”

Stross adds that “Planets that are already habitable insofar as they orbit inside the habitable zone of their star, possess free oxygen in their atmosphere, and have a mass, surface gravity and escape velocity that are not too forbidding, are likely to be somewhat rarer. (And if there is free oxygen in the atmosphere on a planet, that implies something else — the presence of pre-existing photosynthetic life, a carbon cycle, and a bunch of other stuff that could well unleash a big can of whoop-ass on an unprimed human immune system.”

Stross sums up by saying that while “I won’t rule out the possibility of such seemingly-magical technology appearing at some time in the future in the absence of technology indistinguishable from magic that, interstellar travel for human beings even in the comfort of our own Solar System is near-as-dammit a non-starter.”

Stross’s blog  received over 450 comments as of this writing. The most prescient follows:

“First, Stross’s analysis fails to take into account future civilization types; I get the sense that he takes a normative view of today’s technological and economic realities and projects them into the future. This is surprising, not only because he’s an outstanding science fiction visionary, but also because he’s a transhumanist who has a very good grasp on what awaits humanity in the future. Specifically, he should be taking into account the possibility of post-Singularity, Drexlerian, Kardashev Type II civilizations. Essentially, we’re talking about post-scarcity civilizations with access to molecular assembling nanotechnology, radically advanced materials, artificial superintelligence, and access to most of the energy available in the solar system.

“Stross also too easily dismisses how machine intelligences, uploaded entities and AGI will impact on how space could be colonized. He speculates about biological humans being sent from solar system to solar system, and complains of the psychological and social hardships that could be inflicted on an individual or crew. He even speculates about the presence of extraterrestrial pathogens that undoubtedly awaits our daring explorers. This is a highly unlikely scenario. Biological humans will have no role to play in space. Instead, this work will be done by robots and quite possibly cyborgs (which is how the term ‘cyborg’ came to exist in the first place).”

I find this curious that a writer with ‘gravitas’ like Stross takes such a dim and extremely conservative view about space colonization, because some of his books address the issue. And they give no indication of such an opinion.

Fascinating.

Maybe he just separates the ‘real’ world from his work, like millions of other folk all over the world?

Walk along now, nothing to see here.

Well anyway, it just goes to show that when you think that you have the world figured out, it goes and proves you don’t.

Especially when folks like Hawking and Stross throw curve balls at you!

Stephen Hawking on Space Colonization – The Human Future or SciFi Fantasy?

hat tip

NASAWatch: Should Congress Design the Next Big Booster?

From NASAWatch:

Frank Sietzen, Jr.: Consider how many space initiatives the United States didn’t pursue in the past half century. A fully reusable launch vehicle. A 20-person expendable space station. New heavy lift boosters. A permanent lunar colony. The Orbital Space Plane. NERVA and Prometheus. An outpost on Mars. In fact, there have been more false starts and failed approaches than those that worked. By setting budget limits, the hand of the Congress can be seen in all of these programs, but the “failure to launch” can be squarely placed on the Defense Department, the Air Force, and of course NASA.

Consider this history as the House and Senate move, albeit slowly, to finalize a NASA FY 2011 spending bill that could wind up as guidance in a Continuing Resolution to allow Uncle Sam to keep the doors open past October 1st. Thus far, common to both bills are a virtual rejection of the space plan submitted by President Barack Obama last February and a resurrection of key elements of the Constellation program, only without the name. Orion as a fully functional manned spacecraft is mandated. Commercial crew survives, but with little up-front funds in the House bill crafted by Rep. Bart Gordon’s science committee and approved by the chair of the space subcommittee, Gabrielle Giffords. These are Democrats that gutted Obamaspace, not Republicans. Such a fact is without precedent in the recent history of Congressional funding and approval for space projects (my upcoming book on this subject is nearly complete and will be published next year by Texas A&M University).

But something equally new has emerged from this round of budgeteering. Consider this language that was embedded in the committee report (not the actual legislation) that accompanied the Senate’s NASA bill passed by the full Senate before the recess:

“The Committee anticipates that in order to meet the specified vehicle capabilities and requirements, the most cost-effective and ‘evolvable’ design concept is likely to follow what is known as an ‘in-line’ vehicle design, with a large center tank structure with attached multiple liquid propulsion engines and, at a minimum, two solid rocket motors composed of at least four segments being attached to the tank structure to form the core, initial stage of the propulsion vehicle. The Committee will closely monitor NASA’s early planning and design efforts to ensure compliance with the intent of this section.”

Say what?

As near as I could find, this is the most specific instructions ever passed along to NASA as to the technical merits and specifics for a space vehicle configuration.

Let’s try and make sense of this. First, “specified vehicle capabilities and requirements”-for what mission exactly? Access to the ISS via Orion capsules? Missions to the Moon? Oh yeah, I forgot the Moon’s no longer in favor by this crowd. Launching heavy payloads to the ISS that replace Shuttle up and down mass? Carrying astronauts to asteroid encounters, Phobos landings, or Mars itself? It’s hard to know see, because both bills studiously avoid naming what the next U.S. space goal should be. Or a payload for that matter.

Then there’s “At a minimum two solid rocket motors with a minimum of four segments”. This would effectively imprison the first generation of heavy lift booster with 1970s technology. That may or may not be a good thing, depending on your point of view. Those man-rated solids have a long and largely successful flight history, thanks to the Space Shuttle program. But they ain’t cheap. At the same time, funding for advanced launch and propulsion technologies, like new hydrocarbon booster engines, has been wiped out. An in-line Shuttle-derived solution has also been eliminated. While all of this may make sense and be based on sound technical decisions, is this the place for rocket designing? I mean, isn’t that what NASA is for?

And while industry’s hand can be plainly seen as having shaped this choice, by doing it in secret there is no transparency, accountability, or competition. And while the Obama administration wanted heavy lift research, it wasn’t in a frenzy to get a new booster soon, which is what the Congress seems hell bent on doing.

My questions this week to NASAWATCH posters:

-Is this a good precedent for Congress to follow in specifying the technical details of a new launch system?

-If not, then how can Congress be persuaded to let the design work be done by NASA?

-Why the rush for a new heavy lift vehicle: What is it for-and do we really need one sooner rather than later? Can we make do on the shortterm with existing Atlas, Delta and falcon boosters?
Your thoughts and ideas, please.

Besides getting ‘inline’ and ‘sidemount’ confused toward the end, this was a pretty good rant..er..post from Frank.

And I can understand his frustration, Congress trying to be rocket designers/engineers is just asking for trouble and no good is going to come of it.

Modern mainstream rocket science can be traced back to Von Braun’s V2s from Peenemunde, which in turn, ironically enough, descended from American Robert Goddard’s research in the 1920s.

Which was in turn, rejected funding by the political powers that be in those days because; “Though Goddard brought his work in rocketry to the attention of the United States Army, he was rebuffed, since the Army largely failed to grasp the military application of large rockets.”

Full circle.

source

Danish Rockets: Or Those Incredible Young Men in Their Flaming Machines!

Move over Elon Musk and Burt Rutan. Here are a couple of adventurous Danish inventors who are willing to put their money, and their lives, where the rubber meets the road so to speak.

Or to put it more exactly; The Amazing Flying Danes:

It might not look much. In fact, it looks practically suicidal.

But two Danish inventors hope to launch the world’s first amateur-built rocket for human space travel.

The homemade rocket is the brainchild of Danish firm Copenhagen Suborbitals, headed by Kristian von Bengtson and Peter Madsen.

It is due to launch from a submarine in the Baltic Sea on August 30th and, if successful, they will repeat it with a human passenger on board as soon as possible.

Madsen hopes to be inside the single-passenger capsule named Tycho Brahe for a manned flight in the near future if all goes well next week.

The team has been building their rocket since about 2004 and have been doing so without any national funding.

Copenhagen Suborbitals is a non-profit organistaion, based entirely on sponsors, donations and volunteers.

Denmark would become only the fourth nation to send a human into space.

On their website, Madsen and von Bengtson say: ‘We are working fulltime to develop a series of suborbital space vehicles – designed to pave the way for manned space flight on a micro size spacecraft.’

The rocket they use has been nicknamed HEAT, which stands for Hybrid Exo Atmospheric Transporter. It as around 9 metres high and uses liquid oxygen as fuel.

The booster was successfully test-fired in February and May 2010.

The HEAT booster rocket will burn for about 60 seconds, providing 40k N of thrust. They have calculated that this will make it tolerable for humans to travel in an upright position in the module at the top of the rocket.

Madsen and von Bengtson said: ‘The mission has a 100% peaceful purpose and is not in any way involved in carrying explosive, nuclear, biological and chemical payloads.

‘We intend to share all our technical information as much as possible, within the laws of EU-export control.’

Before the spacecraft reaches zero gravity, the booster system will be jettisoned.

It will then be slowed using a drogue parachute followed by three main parachutes. Finally the spacecraft will touchdown in water.

You have got to me sh!ttin’ me!

This guy must have cojones made of stainless steel!

I admire someone who puts their money where their mouth is, but this guy is willing to put his hide on the line!

I sure hope he makes it!

If he does, the Danes will be the fourth people to put humans into space. Totally unexpected.

Danish inventors produce first amateur rocket designed to send humans into space (and one of them is going to test it out himself)

source

Star Child Update

The Star Child, the skull of a supposed “alien” child, does seem to have anomalous DNA on the father’s side of the family.

Lloyd Pye explains:

]

Proof of genetic engineering 900 years ago?

The more time goes on and empirical evidence such as DNA from the Star Child, and I’m sure others will crop up eventually, will have to be accepted by mainstream science. Then the idea of aliens on Earth won’t be so much tin-foil.

But in my opinion, these aliens seem to be “of Earth” despite the fact the DNA isn’t in the world’s database.

Star Child 2010 DNA Result

hat tip

Hawking Makes Waves At SETIcon

It seems that Dr. Hawking’s statements about nomadic ETIs being voracious hunters has created quite a stir in the mainstream science community.

Especially the crowd Uncle Seth Shostak is in charge of at the recent SETIcon in California:

Even if humanity could reach out to an intelligent alien civilization, scientists are polarized over whether we should.

Famed astrophysicist Stephen Hawking has argued that the extraterrestrials we contacted would be likely to harm us, a view that divided the experts here at the SETIcon convention.

“No one can say that there is no risk to transmitting,” John Billingham, former chairman of the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) Committee of the International Academy of Astronautics, said via a statement read at the convention Sunday. “Personally, I agree with Hawking and think it may be unwise to transmit.”

However, Douglas Vakoch, director of interstellar message composition at the SETI Institute, said of aliens: “Even if they tend to be hateful, awful folks, can they do us any harm at interstellar distances?”

Up to now, the efforts of SETI have concentrated on receiving and recognizing signals from non-natural sources in space.

Hawking, 68, claimed that any civilization with which humanity could communicate is likely to be much older and more technologically advanced than ours. So they would probably have the ability, and possibly the motive, to eradicate humanity and strip-mine our planet for parts. It would be safer not to actively broadcast our presence, he said.

Billingham said listening for signs of life is safe, but sending out signals of our own could be asking for trouble. He recommended establishing an international conference to decide whether the whole world supported “active SETI,” or METI (Messaging to Extraterrestrial Intelligence).

Canadian science-fiction author Robert Sawyer agreed that international opinion should be consulted before a small group of scientists made any “arrogant” choice on behalf of the planet.

“We’ve got to stop and think about this, whether this is a wise thing to do,” Sawyer said.

But Seth Shostak, senior astronomer at the California-based SETI Institute, said such a conference is unlikely to be productive. “The idea that we can solve this problem with international consultation strikes me as naivete of the first order,” Shostak said.

He argued that the whole issue is moot because Earth has been radiating signals into space for decades.

Every radio and television broadcast in history has beamed out electromagnetic radiation to the cosmos — an effect scientists refer to as leakage. While these signals haven’t been particularly powerful or targeted to extraterrestrials, a sufficiently advanced civilization would have no trouble detecting them, Shostak said.

“This horse has left the barn,” he said. “Any society that could possibly be a threat to us can easily know at least that we’re here. There’s no point in losing sleep over this.”

Furthermore, he and other experts questioned the logic of an alien civilization wanting to attack Earth.

Vakoch said it would take quite a lot of time and energy for extraterrestrials to come all the way to Earth to wage war or try to extract resources from our planet. The cost of traveling here to collect them, not to mention transporting those resources back to the aliens’ home, would far outweigh the benefit, he said.

There’s a point missing about all the pros and cons of sending out strong beacon like signals into the Universe to draw attention to ourselves and I’m surprised these scientists haven’t even thought of it; Survival of the Fittest.

Yes, that old Theory of Evolution Paradigm in which the strongest of tooth, claw, nail and guile gets to continue to eat, breath, sleep and screw.

If the Universe is part of Nature, wouldn’t that rule apply?

Advanced aliens, presuming that they haven’t attained a technological singularity, but have technology of a Kardashev Type 1 civilization have indeed been observing us through nano-Bracewell type interstellar probes at a distance of say…four light years. Time enough to be real time, but a safe enough distance where they know we can’t get at them. Just yet.

All they would have to do is shoot a “relativistic missile” at us, like an asteroid, or Oort Cloud object that could be a “planet killer.”

The only reason they would need is to preserve their own safety; to kill a potentially powerful competitor before we could out compete them on the evolutionary stage.

Nothing personal. “It’s either us or you.”

IMO, Hawking’s close, but his reasons are wrong.

Do we dare let aliens know we’re here?

hat tip

On the Cusp of Wormhole Technology?

Wormhole technology, or any kind of faster-than-light space travel is considered tin-foil hat fantasy with current technology.

But Gary S. Bekkum of STARstream research interviewed a young Iranian physicist in May of this year who just might’ve discovered a way using present day tech of producing wormhole technology and they discussed the ramifications of said technology:

Gary S. Bekkum for STARstream Research: The world has lived under the threat of nuclear fire from an atomic war for more than a half century, and in all of that time we have not heard of any new, viable weapons of mass destruction appearing on the horizon. Politicians remain focused on the proliferation of nuclear technology, such as under development in your home country of Iran. Do you believe that the governments of the world have been conducting secret research into new technologies that might someday replace atomic devices as the ultimate weapons of mass destruction

Mammad: I’m not sure Gary, but its probability sounds low. Like many others, I’ve heard about Death Ray Weapon or potential nightmares of X-Ray laser, but I have a different viewpoint.

Consider the dangers of current atomic weapons, expenses for supporting their security, fear of using them in a classic war or by terrorist groups, troubles of successful hitting them to a target, and converting them as a  prestigious symbol of the having nations, while I feel that’s not a real honor for the people. If we in the south countries, or you in the west are proud of ability to destroy the human beings, that would be a sign of throughout depression, frustrated to improve the global situations by peaceful approaches. In the modern era, no government imagines an extensive assault on a location causing the effects more than that of a nuclear bombarding.

Anyway, I can last my justifications for a long time for you that the general psychological conditions of the world do not accept such weapons, however that can be felt naturally. For example, if America announces inventing such kind of innovations while is not in a serious conflict with China or Russia, they might threaten to exit the UNO and deny their global responsibilities until a new military balance, moreover they might found an extreme desire to apply their H-bombs, as soon as feeling the tiniest suspicious sign, like biting a man by a terrified snake, because it feels being weaker. Since researching on military inventions originates from the fear of “others,” I think more and more education by the independent mass media, along with more clearance and highest precision toward minimizing the mistakes in military decisions in free countries, plus most extreme and roughest global observations on dictator regimes and/or with retarded culture, having old conflicts with neighbors, unusual nationalist roots in their history, etc, could help to not watching a warfare by more deathful devices. As a good news, if I’d realize a practical space warp, that would imply fundamentally novel orders of using the mass destruction weapons.

[…]

Bekkum: How do you foresee the governments of the world responding to the military implications of worm hole technology?

Mammad: Well, answering to this question needs citing some psychological facts. I think people most commonly terrify of the phenomena that do not know and have an unpleasant feeling – by the instinct – toward something they cannot recognize. When a place, a stuff or a face is unfamiliar to you, your natural behavior is taking a defense guard, up to habituating with the surrounding. Therefore, what is the source of this sense? Survival! Disregarding suicide committers among some humans and dolphins, all organic systems try to live and stay alive, longer and better.


Wormhole technology, like any sort of communicational technology, has one basic goal: taking something from the point A, to the point B (safer, and more rapidly).


Remember the history of with-wire and wireless telephones, cars and tanks, planes and fighters, telescopes and satellites, missiles and shuttles, ships and submarines, etc and see how they found application in the wars. All of them have the role of contact, deliver something to another, and gather more information for a better knowledge. Wormhole technology can be analyzed within this frame. I’ve heard there is a motto in Texas, which is: “God created the people and Colt made them equal,” but equal in what? Killing each other! Well, that’s the American style of living and has some good and some bad features. No matter how much you’re strong, if you can hurt or kill me, I might be unable to hurt you, but I can kill you. Now, generalize this picture to a world where every country has the capability of achieving others without any serious trouble. For instance, White House might be afraid of conventional bombs of the North Korea, not even the unconventional ones!

So the immediate cure to that end, if all would make an agreement that life is a good thing for us (and should be good for others too), and we do not intend to die in a war (at least until a second announce), is try to become the world more ethical. However, it seems like a dream, but has the most importance. I guess and hope this technology would cause to deep modifications in the UNO, toward establishing a real “global republic.” By adopting a suitable policy, fighting for the ground gets meaningless (more than now). Hitler attacked on Poland in 1939, and said the Germany needs more “living space.” When there is no serious physical distance, satisfying such a “need” would not require a war.

The young man brings up a very valid point; every advancement in technology during the past 5500 years have either been discovered during a war, or used by a nation’s military if a civilian source invented it.

Not a good track record.

But imagine the world with wormhole technology, instantaneous communications (communication satellites would be extinct), travel, space observations and computing would be vastly improved.

Also spying on people and nations would be very common.

In short, the world would be vastly more changed than it’s changing now.

Could humanity survive such changes?

STARstream Research Interviews Iranian Physicist Mohammad Mansouryar

Related post: “Better than most in the field”

The Politics of Fear

The 21st Century is one of William Gibson’s dystopic tales.

Or maybe Philip K. Dick, I can’t tell.

Anyway, one can’t deny the fear and anxiety that permeates the air like a thick cloud of smog.

Couple that with technology accelerating toward a Technological Singularity that seems to want to enslave all ordinary folk, well, one can see why people are slowly going insane.

At the center of this? Who knows? Theories go from the politicians, Bilderbergers, Freemasons, Trilateral Commission, to the Jesuits, Catholics, the CFR, all worshipping Lucifer!

The person studying the result of all this fear is Ignorance Isn’t Bliss and he’s made quite a few films on these subjects and my chicken scratchings hardly do him justice:

In the 21st Century we have two primary threats thrown at us. In the blue corner we have man-caused Global Warming, and in the red corner we have Islamic Terrorism. What are the risks and absurdities of each, and what is really driving these agendas?

The intention here isn’t to convince people they’re right or wrong about being liberal or conservative, but to point out how remarkable it is that each side of the agenda setters & policy makers have taken such staunch stances on these opposing issues, and to show the realities of the perceived threats..

These proclaimed threats are complex issues. The point here is to put them into perspective. What can we compare these issues to? How much do we know? What don’t we know? What makes sense? How far should we go? What should we jeopardize? What are the ascertainable risks?

These are the questions that need to be asked no matter the issue, especially if any given issue is to cost into the range of a trillion dollars per year, as regardless we all face total economic collapse. So hang up your preconceptions and political biases for a chance at a better understanding of many things. Let’s try to slow down for a minute, and try to assess what the non-Left/Right biased realities are, while discovering the unifying benefactor in pursuing both objectives as we’re being told to.

Ask yourself when haven’t you seen 2 people dramatize an event between them, and didn’t each have different stories as to what actually happened. Now consider, Democrats are supposed to be anti-war and pro-Global Warming mitigation. Republicans are opposite on both issues. This creates a small selection of scenarios: (1) One side is right about both, making the majority of the other side wrong about what they advocate (consider the odds of over 50 million people being totally wrong on both major issues). (2) Each side is right about what they promote, which makes them each wrong about what they argue against. (3) Each side is wrong about the intensity of what they advocate for, and are overall right about the lack of doomsday threat about what they argue against.

Odds are that either scenario 2 or 3 is the right answer. Then consider how hyped everything always is, and then crunch some odds numbers. Before we explore each issue, consider what is known in academia as the “Politics of Fear”.

A Primer On Fear

In the archetectualization of policy responses to perceived threats, few thinkers actually seem to address their statistical realities, nor do advocates of such policies. Should we listen wholeheartedly the strongest advocates of policy responses to any majors threats? The fact is, humans are aren’t very often ‘logical machines’ with emotions, instead humans are ‘emotional machines’ that think.

The fear reaction reflex is the most overpowering of all neural mechanisms. It’s a hard wired survival system, and when it goes into effect our cognitive abilities to rationally respond are almost quite literally physically incapable of rational thought. This is particularly the case if we don’t understand and acknowledge this inherent feature of quite literally all human brains. Without understanding this you’re almost powerless to suppress it when faced with complex fears.

[…]

There have been countless scholarly papers studying the media-driven Politics of Fear, but you wont hear about these on the news like you would the latest scholarly paper on global warming. Consider the intro of this paper by Frank Furedi:

Fear plays a key role in twenty-first century consciousness. Increasingly, we seem to engage with various issues through a narrative of fear. You could see this trend emerging and taking hold in the last century, which was frequently described as an ‘Age of Anxiety’. But in recent decades, it has become more and better defined, as specific fears have been cultivated.

Fear is often examined in relation to specific issues; it is rarely considered as a sociological problem in its own right. As Elemer Hankiss argues, the role of fear is ‘much neglected in the social sciences’. He says that fear has received ‘serious attention in philosophy, theology and psychiatry, less in anthropology and social psychology, and least of all in sociology’. This under-theorisation of fear can be seen in the ever-expanding literature on risk. Though sometimes used as a synonym for risk, fear is treated as an afterthought in today’s risk literature; the focus tends to remain on risk theory rather than on an interrogation of fear itself. Indeed, in sociological debate fear seems to have become the invisible companion to debates about risk.

Agenda’s tend to be pushed based on how much fear potential they carry, while the metrics of actual risk are ignored. The problem with all of this is the majority of issues trumpetted as primary items have been decreasing for decades, and not just because we’ve been afraid or because of insane funding for various things. In general, itis the issues that we’re most helpless against that are pushed the hardest. Issues like crime, school shootings, airplane crashes, airplane hijackings, terrorism, nuclear armageddon, and a pissed off planet frying us with CO2 that we breath out of our faces are all over-reported based on the actual ascertainable risks.  As fear expert David Altheide explains in his paper “Notes Towards A Politics Of Fear“:

The politics of fear relied on terrorism as a constant threat that can never be defeated; The term “terrorism” was used to encompass an idea as well as a tactic or method. Like the Mafia, it was everywhere and nowhere, all-powerful, but invisible. Crime helped shape the direction for terrorist victimisation. The politics of fear joined crime with victimisation through the “drug war,” interdiction and surveillance policies, and grand narratives that reflected numerous cultural myths about moral and social “disorder”. Numerous “crises” and fears involving crime, violence, and uncertainty were important for public definitions of the situation after 9/11. So perhaps it was natural that the terrorist attacks fed off this context of fear. The drug war and ongoing concerns with crime led to the expansion of fear with terrorism. News reports and advertisements joined drug use with terrorism and helped shift “drugs” from criminal activity to unpatriotic action. A $10 million ad campaign that included a Super Bowl commercial stated that buying and using drugs supports terrorism, or as President Bush put it, “If you quit drugs, you join the fight against terror in America.”

The Politics of Fear is going strong in 2010. The bruhaha over the mosque near the site of the old World Trade Center exemplify this by the inhabitants of New York City expressing their fear and anger with/of the Muslim community. Another example of the meme of fear and anger management by the political class/corporate media is the scheduled Koran burning in Florida on the September 11th anniversary.

Is this what Jefferson and Franklin had in mind when they formed the Republic 234 years ago?

Search within yourselves and answer that question.

The Global Meltdown of FEAR: Eliminated by 60+ visual aids.

The US Taking Up UFO Study? Fuh-getta-bout It!

When it comes to UFO Disclosure, people leave their brains at the door.

For decades folks have waited with baited breath, hoping for each new Presidential administration will take up the Disclosure Banner, and give the word that aliens have been on Earth for years and admission into the Galactic Federation is at hand.

Well, according to former White House science advisor Dr. Neal Lane, it’s going to take more than the whining from the so-called “UFO Community” for the US government to release anything, let alone study it:

‘It takes a major catastrophe to get the political will to make something happen’ — former White House science advisor Dr. Neal Lane/CREDIT: pathways.fsu.edu

In 1965-66, Neal Lane had just earned his doctorate and was studying atomic physics at the University of Colorado when he met Dr. Edward Condon. Naturally, Lane was in awe. Pioneer in radar and nuclear weapon technology, survivor of loyalty inquisitions by the House Un-American Activities Committee, former director of the National Bureau of Standards, Condon was a legend by time their paths crossed.

“Why he took on that UFO project, I’ll never know,” Lane recalls. “But of course, that’s something we never discussed.”

Condon’s name is now forever embroidered into the controversial University of Colorado Report on UFOs, widely dismissed by critics as window dressing to discourage public interest in the phenomenon. After reading an advance copy of Leslie Kean’s UFOs: Generals, Pilots and Government Officials Go On the Record, Lane says “I thought it was maybe a little too hard on Condon, although I know a lot of people did not like that report.”

Yet, the former director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy decided to endorse the book, and for one reason: John Podesta. The two had worked together during the Clinton administration, and Podesta written the foreword.

“I know he’s a serious person and that’s what made me pay attention to the book,” says Lane of the former White House chief of staff. “I share John’s belief in open government, particularly the federal government.”

Now a  Senior Fellow of the James A. Baker III Institute for Public Policy at Rice University in Houston, Lane has no real interest in UFOs, doesn’t read up on the stuff, and considers himself “very skeptical about the issue itself.” He found the witnesses in Kean’s book credible and wouldn’t mind a serious debate. But he doesn’t think reviving official interest in UFOs — on the scale of a  small transparent government operation, as Kean advocates — stands a snowball’s chance.

“Not unless you’ve got some institutional support for it, like the National Academies (of Science), which operate under the National Research Council. Those reports have high-level credibility, and when they come out,” he says, “Congress does pay attention, the White House does pay attention.

“This is a very mysterious subject, no question about it. But the problem, I think, is that there are a lot of things we should be spending money on that are more obviously important. Washington is a very competitive arena; this (UFOs) doesn’t have a constituency, or not a very large and vocal one. Unless there’s some urgency, or it can somehow produce support in the way of campaign contributions, it’s unlikely to happen.”

In the book, former NASA scientist Richard Haines cites air traffic safety — with instances of near-misses between UFOs and passenger liners — as ample incentive for proactive measures. Lane doesn’t disagree.

“Anything that threatens the welfare of the American people, certainly the government should be concerned about,” he says. “But the fact is, there are not a large number of these incidents. These days, unfortunately, it takes a major catastrophe to get the political will to make something happen. It’s frightening, actually.”

Unfortunately this is how government works anyway. It’s not just UFO disclosure or study, it’s anything the government undertakes.

If it doesn’t suffuse their congressional districts with pork, a dire emergency or helps them get  re-elected, politicians could really give a crap about it!

Science Policy Wonk: US UFO Study DOA

hat tip