I’m listening to a debate right now on KPFK (90.7 FM in LA) between Rick Steiner (loony anti-lunar developer) and Ian Strock (The Moon Society) over lunar development.
[Update at 8:30 PDT]
The debate went about as expected. KPFK is a Pacifica station, fairly lefty, so it eventually degenerated into wailing about how evil corporations are, and they can’t be put in jail, so how can we trust them with our precious lunar heritage. Steiner said that he found the idea of advertising in space (and probably anywhere else) “distasteful.” I guess that means that we shouldn’t do it; apparently his aesthetic sense should prevent us from opening up the universe.
Dave Kopel and Instantman have a sensible suggestion (one that I’ve made myself). It’s time, indeed past time, to withdraw from that other relic of the Cold War, the Outer Space Treaty.
[Update at 12:32 PM PDT]
Jim Bennett notes that there’s at least one other reason to get rid of the treaty that Glenn didn’t mention.
…the OST and its Liability Convention also raise the cost of space launch by assigning strict liability to all earth-to-space operations. This is no longer warranted for ordinary launch operations. Withdrawing from the OST should be accompanied by a new Liability Convention creating a more reasonable liability regime.
Yes. This could also affect the existing regulatory environment for spaceflight in the US, since the existing regulations are based on that strict liability.
I can’t understand why you take such a negative point of view on the solution of aerial acrobatics to disarm terrorists, which I had missed in the news. Please give it a little more thought, considering it in a little more detail.
It will simply require a plan to be developed in stages, as follows:
Teach airline pilots to roll successfully, in the aircraft in which they are qualified.
In event of attack, perform Maneuver 1 and announce “Anyone standing on the ceiling, put up your hands to promise you will surrender…If you refuse to do so we will get quite upset”…. then perform maneuver 2, until the flight attendants catch each perpetrator and cuff with plastic cuffs.
Before issuing this directive, check with the Administration to get approval for plastic cuffs, but in no event shall these be issued for flight crews, whose judgment on such matters is highly suspect.
I can’t understand why you take such a negative point of view on the solution of aerial acrobatics to disarm terrorists, which I had missed in the news. Please give it a little more thought, considering it in a little more detail.
It will simply require a plan to be developed in stages, as follows:
Teach airline pilots to roll successfully, in the aircraft in which they are qualified.
In event of attack, perform Maneuver 1 and announce “Anyone standing on the ceiling, put up your hands to promise you will surrender…If you refuse to do so we will get quite upset”…. then perform maneuver 2, until the flight attendants catch each perpetrator and cuff with plastic cuffs.
Before issuing this directive, check with the Administration to get approval for plastic cuffs, but in no event shall these be issued for flight crews, whose judgment on such matters is highly suspect.
I can’t understand why you take such a negative point of view on the solution of aerial acrobatics to disarm terrorists, which I had missed in the news. Please give it a little more thought, considering it in a little more detail.
It will simply require a plan to be developed in stages, as follows:
Teach airline pilots to roll successfully, in the aircraft in which they are qualified.
In event of attack, perform Maneuver 1 and announce “Anyone standing on the ceiling, put up your hands to promise you will surrender…If you refuse to do so we will get quite upset”…. then perform maneuver 2, until the flight attendants catch each perpetrator and cuff with plastic cuffs.
Before issuing this directive, check with the Administration to get approval for plastic cuffs, but in no event shall these be issued for flight crews, whose judgment on such matters is highly suspect.
I just notice that Jay Manifold has cited a poll that states, “”… more than two-thirds favored teaching both evolution and creationism in U.S. public school classrooms.”
Heck, I have no objection to that. I just don’t want them taught in the same class…
The first would be taught in science class, the second in “Survey on World Religions.”
Just one more example of how misleading poll questions, and polls, can be.
Sort of. Actually, I’m going to meld the two topics of evolution/creationism with space. Since now we know that there is a vast amount of ice on Mars, many think that the probability of finding life there has gone up, for good reason since water is an essential component for LAWKI (Life As We Know It).
So, I’m not going to provide any of my own thoughts yet (partly because I haven’t devoted much time to thinking about it, and many of my readers are smarter than me), but just toss out a little Sunday puzzler.
Suppose we do find life on Mars. There are two possibilities. It will use the same genetic code as life on earth, or it won’t.
What are the implications for believers in evolution, and for believers in divine creation, in either case?