Slashdot Mirror
Rescue Mission For European Space Industry
metz2000 writes "The New Scientist reports that the European Space Agency (ESA) has pledged hundreds of millions of Euros to guarantee its independent access to space. Europe also looks set to co-operate with the Russian Space Agency. Looks like the space industry is hotting up again. How will NASA react to this news after being the dominant space agency over the past three decades? A lot of money is going into rocket technology also; with this and the 'European version' of GPS are we heading towards a future conflict across the Atlantic?"
Most european countries just purchase American or Russian military vehicles and weapons anyway.
I think it would be great for nasa to work together. If the US wants to be seen as a world player they may need to increase funding to NASA and have it work with the European space agency. The russians have been great help working with Nasa and I expect the same.
http://saveie6.com/
btw, I find it so very amusing that whenever western sources refer to the chinese space program, they just HAVE to add phrase like "secret, military linked," as if NASA is completely independent of the military, or something...
anyhoo. maybe there is still a chance for me to visit mars before I die eh? or some serious possibility of WWIII - as China and EU becomes increasingly suspicious of US... (not unwarrented or anything)
My life in the land of the rising sun.
With the current problems in the US space program, it may be that the newly fixed Arianne launch system can claim a significant share of the market.
It is important to remember that Arianne is also somewhat cheaper than the Shuttle for any given weight of payload - the shuttles main advantage is that its live crew (which is the reason for the higher cost) can perform and regulate scientific tests.
I await the next Arianne launch with baited breath.
An infinite number of monkeys will eventually come up with the complete works of
It seems like 30 years ago we did pretty well with expendable rockets. Since each shuttle mission costs hundreds of millions, is it really worth it? Why not invest in the development of a 'cheap' single-use lifting technology, like a successor for Soyuz? Even if each rocket cost $100 million wouldn't it still save lots of money, and wouldn't it mean much larger payloads could be delivered?
A-Bomb
... then surely it would be an advantage for the stricken space-program to have the other party to fall back on?
I'm thinking particularly of in-space rescues where the other program may have the resources ready to launch a rescue-mission, but there are probably other scenarios from which both NASA and ESA would benefit.
Plus, competition will mean that the science thrives, particularly in the current political climate (don't kid yourself - the US and Europe are *not* friends right now).
Mod early, mod often.
The New Scientist report is both inaccurate and out of date.
A more timely report was published last week at the BBC.
All the same, this is a very interesting move for the ESA, and for Europe. A challenging move here could well help our efforts towards a more united Europe.
This is a rare 'carrot' for UK residents, more used the threat of monetory union and other unpleasent symptoms of a united Europe.
"Those who cast the votes decide nothing; those who count the votes decide everything." (attrib. Joseph Stalin)
I say more power to 'em. Something has to get the US off it's fat ass, and if it won't, someone else needs to carry the torch of science and progress into space.
I say this as a US citizen BTW.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
After reading recent stories here on /. about Chinese interests in building a moon base and extracting resources, I wonder what are Europe's space program's primary goals? Are they interested mostly in hard science stuff? Or are they creating and building up an entirely new kind of space industry?
Perhaps what I really want to know is, when do the orbiting space hotels go up? :)
The ESA and NASA already have a history of working together. The Saturn-bound Cassini, for instance, has the ESA-designed Huygens aboard. A little competition is healthy (see the current Mars missions), but international cooperation is the only way we'll see big projects like Cassini in the future.
This may just be a good thing for the space industry in general...
:-(
Didn't the really great advances in space travel come about because of the intellectual battle between the US and the Soviet Union?
If the ESA starts making inroads into space research and NASA wants to keep its top position, it will be forced to become really competitive, and this might mean that we will see missions which *succeed*!!!
Or we may just see more missions, with more cut corners...
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
I don't think we are heading for a new cold war europeans have been in space for years.
The problems are the funding (and this is what is being discussed in the article) To the best of my knowledge all the worlds space agencies are losing money. Currently the only way they make money (apart from ever reducing government grants) is by launching comercial cargo. This is why there is so much crap up their in orbit.
We need to limit the amount of commerical launches or we risk ruining space for the next few generations. If this extra money means less satilites are launched for companies that will go bust before they are ever used then it is good money. But if the money is going to be used to subsidise the launches of this type of cargo then it good money after bad.
The reason for a euro GPS system is also commercial. You need to be a partner of the US government to get full access to GPS data at the highest resolution. The euro GPS will sell to those companies that want to make use of accurate GPS data but can't (or are unwilling to attempt) to get the US government to play ball. This is both a good and bad thing. If access to accurate GPS helps governments and companies develop and help local peoples then it is a good idea but I personally think the data will be used by robber oil barons and weapons manufacturers making the current situations even worse for the average man on the streets.
blog and junk
.. ? Its not very effective to compete in a field like shooting stuff to mars .. if they could work together, theyll have more advantages, than disadvantages .. look @ the ISS -
..
of course I know its mainly driven by the U.S. - but I think it works out fine if they combine their knowhow and money.
And at leat it would be a bad idea if just the U.S. would settle at the mars
Um, so what you're saying is that when America does space stuff, it's good for the world, but when Europe does space stuff, that's "conflict across the Atlantic?" How's that work then?
Not intending to troll but that "conflict" thing does seem like an odd conclusion. Are Europeans now terrorists? How about a bit more reasoning, rather than just saying "Europe? Space? WAR!!!!!"
As in any market competition encourages the other competitors to step up the pace to beat out the latest and greatest from their foes. This is really the birth of the space race, as privatized sectors will probably get more funding than NASA these days. Lots of rich people are ignorant and very interested towards space (NSYNC Member Lance Bass) and they have the money to power their dreams. These companies will open more gateways into space and will further technology on planet Earth, Luna (The moon) and Mars (To get to Mars).
:)
It's hard to find a negative side other than NASA will have to be more of a space agency than a satellite monitoring system.
I look forward to new technology that will allow me to drink Tang all day, and that chalky hard ice cream! But seriously, I look forward to new innovations in space ship design as well as thrusters that will get us out of the atmosphere with some kind of renewable fuel source and enough power to move around outside of orbit.
(Maybe in 22nd century)
Dont flame me I have bad karma as it is
[cx]
...after the shuttle is built/acquired...
Think of the building costs as well...Tens of billions, anyone???...
"Go to CNN [for a] spell-checked, fact-checked summary" -- CmdrTaco
<mood type="foul">
ESA and the russians aren't much competition right now... On the other hand neither is NASA, what with the Columbia debacle which will probably lead to a permanent moth-balling of the remaing orbiters.
The russians will just keep cranking out 1960's era craft until the factories break down. Nothing wrong with 60's rockets, but we need to have modern designs and materials if we're going to lower the cost of space access.
ESA is at least trying to develop new technology. Witness the Ariadne 5 a.k.a. "worlds most expensive fire cracker". Last thing I heard ESA needed 500.000.000 to redesign it from scratch. That kind of expense will cripple ESA for decades. *Sigh*. I guess I'll have to hold my thumbs for the Chinese.
</mood>
OT: Actual shell experience (UnixWare)
I choose to remain celibate, like my father and his father before him.
The problem with GPS, is that US can turn it off when ever they want to. This makes it hard to make security equipment that depends on GPS. Like for boats and so, Military systems already exists, and theres no need for a GPS in the European Military (From what I know). Sure the European Military wouldnt mind a new GPS system, not at all. But they dont realy _need_ it. An european GPS is good for the consumer, that gets two systems to choose from. Its good got the rescue crew (that cant use the militray systems) that in a few years can have equipment running on _both_ gps and "euro-gps"
A separate GPS system for Europe adds redundancy, which is great, but the us mil's must be shivering on the though of no longer beeing the masters of wobbling.
should I duck & cover right now?
That was classic intercourse!
I was always under the impression that even with three satellites, you would be able to use the GPS signal to correct your local clock.
Few reasons for this, IIRC:
1) all three satellites are keeping perfect time, so if your clock is off, it is very easy to compensate for.
2) satellites transmit positional information - this can be compared with your local positional table to correct your local time
Besides the point - since details are sketchy, they might even be using dual-band per satellite to compensate for atmospheric delay errors.
Of course, i might be talking out of my ass - so if you have evidence backing up what you say, prove me wrong.
My life in the land of the rising sun.
well, its really funny that some ppl might think that a space mission to mars will trigger a new cold war + even a real war. hmmm ... as far as im informed the ESA and NASA have been working together in numerous missions before with everyone depending on each other. the problem was that sometimes the europeans were only allowed to play the passengers and didnt get the science information first hand. some also mentioned the european gps system. it was started because the normal gps could be turned off at any place by the US military. so the european one is more like consumer-orientated (and not wobbling :). and the russians and chinese also have their gps system.
but on the whole i think that a little competition is never bad. but why does this sort of thing upset some ppl? afraid of a multipolar world (that some governor doesnt want). oh man!
>
> "...are we heading towards a future conflict across the Atlantic?"
>
What kind of conflict do you mean, and what might cause it because Europe develops some tehcnological abilities of it's own?
Does the US feel somehow threatened when it doesn't have a monopoly on many kinds of stuff anymore? Does it have a reason to be afraid in that case?
"Hey, i'm growing potatoes, you must not research the hoe technology (because then i would lose the monopoly on producing and selling these artificially degraded and overpriced potatoes to whom i wish, whenever it might suit my needs).."
china, India, Japan, EU, even North Korea are massively getting into space thanx largely to the research and development efforts of Russia and USA. But Russia is near bankruptcy, and we are heading that way all the time. One nice affect of outrageous deficits is that we will be forced to cut back NASA, which will propel private enterprise into at least leo(hopefully more). Who knows, that may allow NASA to finally expand into moving to Mars, Moon, and further.
Personally, I am in hopes that EU will start heading for the moon now and start colinizing efforts.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
First of all, I see no future 'conflict'. There are many players here besider the US, and the International Space Station shows us that we have no problems besides technical to cooperate when it comes to space exploration (except maybe Russian funding). Both the Chinese and the Japanese have programs with great momentum.
The system redundancy argument is a good one. I am sure that there's a lot of obscure politics involved, but technically speaking I am looking forward to being able to utilize a GPS receiver that can correlate the results from two independent systems. There were receivers that did that with GLONASS, I don't know if that system is still operable.
Competition is of course good, however I think that the potential for commercial competition is fairly slim for the time being due to the high cost of anything space related and that you can't 'claim' resources in space like you do on earth (AFAIK).
All in all - the more people/equipment/systems we can bring out into space, the easier it will be to colaborate and go 'where no man has gone before'. Manned mission to Mars, anyone?
-Kris
Open your computer, and read the 'Made in...' stickers. Most of them don't say Taiwan any more.
Now go around your house and read more 'Made in...' stickers.
It's not the technology, it's the finance and (cheap) workforce and know-how and willingness to use the technology. US may get there in 20 years, you know...
--
I refuse to use
are you referring to the the kind of war like the one fought in iraq (with the WMD that havent been found) because of the so-called "bureaucracy reasons"? if so, its called "Preemptive War". but i believe that Fox News doesnt tell you this ...
economic stability? which one? btw, theres more in the world than either youre with us, or against us. just a hint.
God (which one?) bless sanity.
"with this and the 'European version' of GPS are we heading towards a future conflict across the Atlantic?"
I don't think so, Europeans are quite pacifists (If we remove the uk, of course) they are not oriented to conflict aspects and try to avoid violence as much as possible.
The GPS systems was indeed good to be launched, in Europe there is a huge ammount of GPS civilian users as well there is big investments in adding services to this system. I believe all the GPS users(like me) don't like to feel dependent of the us army to remove the resolution of the GPS location.
In the first day of the iraque attack, I was traveling from the netherlands to austria, and believe in me, it was not funny to loose the sinal and go the wrong way!
cool. point taken and noted. heh, maybe all the chinese recievers need a altimeter to function properly for now...
very very unrelated: you seem to almost universally substitute "were" into places that need a "where." is there a reason for this?
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Nah... competition is the word. Why's that bad when it comes to space technology?
;-)
One down side I could imagine: competition will not allow for much environmental cleaning... near-earth space is getting more dirty every day. Cleaning does not immediately contribute to lower cost numbers so will be ignored when there's loads of competition.
Eventually we will not be able to send anything into space anymore (all non-dirty time-slots will be gone... it'll be too risky to launch). Then we'll have to start building space buildozers
If I remember correcty, the ESA are the only ones actually making money from space with their Ariane program. If you ask me, the dominant agency has been ESA for a long time. And before that it was Russia.
I'd like to remind you of the fact that even though NASA is very glad to have won the race to the moon, there was no such thing. Instead of going there and back, the Russians put Mir in orbit, which is a more useful and lasting feat than putting a flag on the moon.
They said they would put "over 1 billion euros" on that. What about some prospective? ESA's budget for 2002 was around 2,8 bn euros. With this sort of money for last four years they were able to put together a mission to Mars - and that's about it. NASA's budget is around 15 bn Euros and it is barely enough to keep the Shuttle fleet flying and make around two scientific missions a year (look for example at the state US Mars exploration is in). And that is not all the money US spends on space - there is also DoD budget.
A single Ariane 5 launch costs around $150 M which is roughly $140 MEuros, so this is good for around ten launches. Proton and Soyuz are cheaper - $80M and $40M respectively. (a table of launch vehicles costs). But of course this money won't be spent directly on launches, you have to have something to launch first.
Europe's space program has been so far driven mostly by France and to some extent Britain. Others were just interested, but with no real substance. All projects of manned missions were dropped along the way (and there were a few - a small shuttle designed by French that was supposed to be Ariane's payload - I forgot the name, German SSTO Sanger plane and similar British project). As a result Europe has no experience in building manned spacecraft - unless they would get it from Russians. I'm afraid that 1 bn Euros won't be enough to put together a manned mission unless it would be just flying Russian spacecrafts with Europe's yellow stars logo painted on them.
If Europe would spend this money on building a GPS-like system, then 1 bn Euros is a significant amount, however again not enough to build the system - and keep it running (Russians build one to guide their warheads but couldn't afford to keep it up).
What is most likely however is that this money won't be spent on a single mission or project. As the article says this money would be "pumped into the sector to overhaul its manufacturing and marketing programmes". It means that it would be divided into many small donations to various projects just to keep the industry afloat. So it is nice, but is far from enough if Europe really wants to be a player in the Space Race.
And - BTW - Deutsche Telekom's loss for 2002 was "over" 24 billion euros.
No, it'll just mean garbage collection vehicles will be needed sooner or later.
This will probably be needed anyway as an increasing number of manned vehicles and orbiting space stations go into orbit. There's junk up there dating from the earliest Soviet Union programs. Some is of actual historical value, some can simply have a thruster attached and deorbited into the ocean. Most is in known orbits. It's all going to either be gotten rid of or Murphy's Law dictates it's going to come through somebody's vacuum-tight window at a mile or two/second.
Tech Public Policy stuff
For quite a few years, the military / aerospace sector has basically been building on electronic and computer technology developed for the private consumer sector.
Perhaps it's time for another driver for new technology to show up on the market. Especially given the increasingly successful attempt to suppress new consumer technology by the *AA (RIAA/MPAA) organizations.
Tech Public Policy stuff
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
rm -rf /home/leia
If I remember correctly ESA is already both marketleader launching commercial sattelites AND making money while doing it. The biggest threat to ESA's position right now is not NASA but country's like China and India.
That's what happens when you keep launching something that was designed over 30 years ago and never reached it's design goals, like for example being a reusable vehicle(!). The current space "shuttle" is more like a pod sitting on top a big rocket that can land by itself. Almost everything else needs to be build again.
Europe should simply wait a generation or two until creationist christians have complete control of the US government and education system. When the entire US public believes the sky to be an inverted bowl suspended over a flat earth, it will be safe to resume space travel.
See if I can contribute some bits to this topic:
First of all both the EU and Russia are highly succesful in the launching business. The Ariane 4 was at one point responsible for over 40% of all commercial launches and still is very successful. The Ariana 5 has seen some significant setbacks with all those errors but still is (will be) a very competitive launcher. The russian launchers, while based on sixties technology have been refined and re-engineered to an enormous ammount for decades and were and still are very competitive. For most commercial apps the shuttle program is outrageously expensive and even the US itself relies on convential rockets (which they also make of course) for many launches. Another problem in general for the US, and more limited for the EU, is that the international space station is costing a lot more than expected (nuttin'new, right?) and this is affecting other projects. This problem is even larger due to the fact that -for now- we need the shuttle as a servicing vehicle for the ISS
Now for those GPS systems: first of all to clear that bit up: you need a few dozen to make sure always at least three (but better four or five) are visible everywhere on earth (except usually the poles due to orbit mechanics) for triangulation methods. Second of all Europe is not happy with the position the military takes in the GPS system of the US: we saw this many times with both Gulf wars that the US decided to downgrade the system accuracy for everyone but themselves (the military that is). In general people are a bit tired of the US policy to foreign countries with the change from Clinton to Bush (I don't want to take sides on the last war in this comment but in general popularity and support of the US bombed in the EU recently (as in from 60% to 25%), even in the normally pro-US United Kingdom). The military funding of many system in the US is what makes the EU sometimes a bit scared and makes it want to develop its own system, and the anti-US feelings in the population make these kind of projects a lot easier to get funded. Now, wether or not we need another system if another question but it takes time to launch so many sattelites for a new GPS system, so China is still busy get everything up there, as it will also take Europe time to fully deploy. Even more, if the US and the EU can/want work together these GPS system can also complement eachother.
It is independent of the military, actually; the Pentagon did have input in the Shuttle program early on (they wanted to be able to use it for launching and servicing/upgrading spy satellites, which can't be done with a rocket) but these days they launch their own stuff, on rockets from Lockheed Martin.
This is yet another legal vs. de-facto status thing. Yes, NASA isn't under Pentagon jurisdiction, but consider that both NASA and Pentagon share good part of research, launch, communication and support infrastructure, and use same contractors. Hell, even commertcal comsats were used by military during Iraq war!
Space programs were always tightly interveined with military, and will remain so in observable future, thus it doesn't really matter if your institution is called Peaceful Space Exploration Agency or Rapid Space Militarization Headquarters.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
Tragically we know how the US would like to react:
http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030522S0050
The nation's largest intelligence agency by budget and in control of all U.S. spy satellites, NRO is talking openly with the U.S. Air Force Space Command about actively denying the use of space for intelligence purposes to any other nation at any time--not just adversaries, but even longtime allies, according to NRO director Peter Teets.
At the National Space Symposium in Colorado Springs in early April, Teets proposed that U.S. resources from military, civilian and commercial satellites be combined to provide "persistence in total situational awareness, for the benefit of this nation's war fighters." If allies don't like the new paradigm of space dominance, said Air Force secretary James Roche, they'll just have to learn to accept it. The allies, he told the symposium, will have "no veto power."
This would not go down to well at all. I know the US economy/military is the biggest in the world - but I still think that a trade war/shooting war with every other country in the world isn't the best way of improving the lives of American citizens.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
Normally, I like to keep political views away from /. so I'll try to keep this as benign as possible.
My personal opinion about heating up NASA: Tie it into the War(!) on Terror. The rocket scientists at our beloved space agency need to come up with a plan to catch terrorists from space.
Perhaps a space-based railgun, or a manned Osama Bin Laden tracking gizmo based on Mars?
How will NASA react to this news after being the dominant space agency over the past three decades?
Do you really mean that Soviet space programme in early 70's was incomparable with the one of NASA, in terms of launches, manned flights, interpanetary missions or deployed satellites?
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
Frace's highway tolls will.
It frightens me deeply even thing about it.
Aren't odd things usually considered more frightening?
You owe us Europe.. you owe us big.
Not as much as we owe the Soviets.
The illegal we do immediately. The unconstitutional takes a little longer.
--Henry Kissinger
For many years the military and other agencies have been looking to . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
... my apologies ...
put payload in space with a rail gun as a launchor assisted launch
A variation on that theme would be a high altitude platform using
something like www.21stcenturyairships.com to lift the cargo to
near 100,000 ft , then use the rail gun to kick start it and if a
heavy payload fire a booster as well . The first 20 miles of flight would be eliminated
A series of MANY of these balloons could be used to hold the launch
platform up and the tremendous cargo
If you run it all with remote control robots, you do not need
to worry about life support systems on the launching pad
Also you use remote control robots to build your space station,
and do your repairs up in space
Solar power in space is not filtered by the earth's atmosphere,
there is ALOT more watts per sq. meter up there
Imagine the work that could be done with no need for food and
water, no need for atmosphere , and protected enclosure for the
repair robots
If the chinese are smart when they go to build their base on the
moon they will start it out unmanned and built by robots
the logistics are just SOOOO much cheaper than trying to keep
humans alive and sane in deep space
Once they have a large Teraformed cavern underground on the moon
then test it for problems over a period of time , with redundant
systems and escape pod like rescue vehicles . Test it with robots
The majority of the moon base being underground would be shielded
against meteors , and cosmic radiation
The dark side of the moon could be used to acquire cooling for
machinery and computers, etc etc
The light side could be used for a permanent solar farm
Robots coming back and plugging into the grid when they get
low or redundant battery packs get switched out by battery
serving bots that change one pack at a time and every robot
has two or three, lol
Once we get a moon base, we have a MUCH cheaper launching
platform than the earth . Less Gravity, no atmosphere
burning you up , and no wind shear
Then wash, rinse and repeat for mars, pretty simple plan and
we have already sent a tiny robot there
Just send a larger one and start rail gunning cargo from the
moon base , the cargo goes into orbit around mars and is picked
up by the space station there and then sent down to the surface
by the bouncing ball airbag method used by path finder
The airbag material can be saved and reused for other needs
once humans arrive once the base is built and safely tested
Once again an underground base using the heat from the core of
mars would keep the underground base somewhat liveable
Solar power on mars would not be that good, would need an
alternative like geo-thermal
For safety reasons the drilling should be a great distance from
the mars base in case a geological problem is let loose similar
to a kick experienced when drilling here in north america
Run the geo thermal power plant with robots, and have it
beyond a ridge or mountain to protect the colony from
any possible disasters
A large low light garden would be needed to turn CO2 into O@
to breathe , and provide food , enriched soil with bacteria
would have to be sent to the moon and mars
How mars bacteria and earth bacteria interact could be dangerous,
another reason to test it with robots for some time
The big dig in boston has made underground earth works much
cheaper, this tech would be perfect for mars, just implementing
it all the distance aways would be VERY hard
Due to delay a LARGE space ship/station would need to be built
in orbit best from the moon base, then travel to mars
and ppl could remote control the mars robots from orbit
Ok I am really rambling here
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Its amazing that the leadership of space has finally returned to Europe. Seeing the Germans started in all. As we all know the Americans and Russians all had German scientists at the beginning of their programs. Maybe the Germans should get heavily involved, then we would get to Mars and where ever else we want. They do generally have the best technology. Get BMW/Mercedes to build the rockets.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
1: I think you mean perspective not prospective
2: The "Space Race" was little more than a cold war pissing contest, and It ended decades ago.
3: The ESA is already very much "a player" in space: for one thing it's the market leader in commercial satelite launches, and for another it's one of the few agencies with an active launch vehicle development programme (unlike NASA for example).
There is a real argument for stopping most of the ongong spending in NASA/ESA and re-assessing how and why we want to go into space. An independant project to put 2 men into space & claim the "X-prize" - a mere $10 million - may be near to fruition - see:. stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2956103
- if that is sucessful, it makes NASAs bill of $500 million per shuttle launch seem bad value. In fact some amateur rocket builders have been getting near-orbit performance for under $100,000..
And since when have nationalised agencies like NASA been good at commercial exploitation anyway? What would the motor industry be if the government built cars? (think british leyland, the lada, skoda, trebant, etc..) Why not just offer a series of "prizes" (together with some sensible level of regulation) and let private firms innovate and fight it out?
"You lied to me! There is a Swansea!"
FYI, Europe has Nukes. France could turn east-coast of USA in to nuclear wasteland without their submarines even leaving port. If they wanted to nuke rest of USA; they would have to move a bit.
So you are a bit late with your "comments"
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
(don't kid yourself - the US and Europe are *not* friends right now)
Well I'm still friends with my pals who have US passports so there are some exceptions :-))
Seriously though this kind of simplistic statement is the sort of thing politicians come out with - come on! I'd guess that away from the politicans, most of the scientific and business community are getting on just fine, trading research and business just as they ever have done. Few influential organisations or research teams are bounded along strictly national lines these days, I'm sure...
Once the rockets are up, who cares where they come down - That's not my department, says Wernher von Braun.
Tom Leher
That's a slightly baffling statement. Britain is (NET) self-sufficient, Norway is a NET exporter and Russia has enormous untapped resources. Much more importantly, Europe could fairly easily become self sufficient in fuel if it substituted ethanol for petrol and vegetable oil for Diesel - why we don't do this is a total mystery to me.
That was classic intercourse!
The "Space Race" was little more than a cold war pissing contest, and It ended decades ago.
And that's a pity. Without a contest we (humans) can't do much more than launch a few men a year into low orbit for a few weeks. Not much progress ever since that pissing contest ended, hm?
I don't like it, but the fact is that people don't care about space exploration unless there is financial gain in sight or a competition ("pissing contest") to be won (especially a military one).
well, if mass media can make ppl believe that saddam could strike with WMD within 45 min although he counldnt even piss over the tigris (Rice said in 2000 that saddam wouldnt be the slightest threat), then they can also make ppl afraid and paranoid. thats the power of the media and it will even grow if the big companies get bigger and are owned by only few in the end.
Yes, I worked on guided missile radar for the US Navy .
www.geocities.com/duanenavarre
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
"Europe could fairly easily become self sufficient in fuel if it substituted ethanol for petrol and vegetable oil for Diesel - why we don't do this is a total mystery to me."
Other than because it typically takes more energy to create the ethanol than you get when you burn it, you mean?
Those of us who live in the pacific region remember the French terrorist bombing of the Rainbow Warrior (a Greenpeace protest vessel) in a New Zealand harbour.
The terrorists were French Secret Service agents, and were caught, convicted, and sentenced to prison terms in NZ. The French government made a deal with the NZ government where they would serve their terms in French prisons, and once they were back in France they broke this agreement and set them free.
So, Weapons of Mass Destruction (which actually exist) and proven terrorist links, but no oil. Sadly the conditions for war are not met.
Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
I think this sounds more and more like ESA is definitely interested in its own manned launcher systems.
The loss of Columbia and the problems with the newest Soyuz spacecraft concerns ESA, especially since they are a major contributor to the International Space Station. I think we may see the French dust off plans for the Hermes spaceplane and get it into production as soon as possible, since that's the fastest way to get manned space launches. If I remember correctly, Hermes had actually reached the point of a mockup being built when the project was shelved; this means not much more engineering will be necessary to start producing the real thing.
>>If we pull all of our troops out of Europe, who will keep the Germans out of France?
;)
>Frace's highway tolls will.
Yes, but what will happen when the French military goes on strike to protest having to spend more than 35 hours a week fighting off the Germans? Hmm?
Who cares? It's just a question of energy source portability, after all.
That was classic intercourse!
Not intending to troll but that "conflict" thing does seem like an odd conclusion. Are Europeans now terrorists?
I think the problem is that Americans like to think of themselves as the most powerful nation on earth and have gotten used to being first in everything. But, objectively, the US is a mid-size nation with an economy that is in deep trouble ($3 trillion in foreign debt and growing rapidly), that depends on skilled immigration for its competitiveness, and that faces enormous inequalities and social problems. The preeminent role of the US was an artifact of the aftermath of WWII. Now that Europe is pretty close to a federation and that China and India have caught up technologically, America becomes merely one among several large players, and not the biggest or most important one.
The only area where the US is clearly first is in military spending. But that really worries foreign nations. What is the US going to do when (and it's "when", not "if") foreign investments slow down, the dollar crumbles, skilled workers stay away, and the economy falters? Is it going to dismantle its military and quietly accept being a second-rate player on the world stage? Or is the US going to try to get by force what it won't be able to get by other means? Using the US military for economic reasons has happened before.
It is completely natural for European and Asian space programs, which represent larger populations and economies, to surpass the US programs. This is only the beginning of many changes. The question is whether Americans can get used to it.
Or did you mean bated breath...
The original Doctor Dark.
Much more importantly, Europe could fairly easily become self sufficient in fuel if it substituted ethanol for petrol and vegetable oil for Diesel - why we don't do this is a total mystery to me
We do have the North Sea oil, but I believe like the USA, they would rather use oil from the rest of the world, which is usually cheaper. Having our own oil and not using it allows us to have a certain bargining tool on the table when buying oil from others.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
um, not really, france got mostly tactical nukes, no city-busters.
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
That's because you can spend it on hospitals. While 15% of the US GDP goes to the military, only three percent of the EU GDP goes to the military. The result is that, right or wrong, defense is something that trumps social programs. Europe has social programs as a higher *spending* priority than defense. Spending is the key word because European governments know that US bases are all over the place to protect them. While you may be delighted if the US leaves Europe (and I would be delighted also), it would cause massive budget priority changes across the continent. You might have to ask the private sector for that hospital or that upgraded public transit system. Basically, saying that Europe is better because they build hospitals instead of tanks is a demonstration of ignorance and a troll at best.
Laws are for people with no friends.
How will NASA react to this news after being the dominant space agency over the past three decades?
Nothing, because no one wants to give them enough money to do anything. Not enough people care about space in America to fund it.
War is not going to break out between the US and Europe - both sides have enough nuclear missiles to completely wipe the other off the face of the Earth. It's not going to happen. Even if we could resist falling back on nukes, neither side has a sufficiently powerful military to overtake the other - it's just not feasible.
The recent tiff over Iraq is nothing to worry about, and will largely blow over. There's far too much trade in both directions, and there's a lot of Europeans in America and a lot of Americans in Europe. We're just too close to go to war.
As for The UK splitting off from Europe to join with America - I really can't see that happening. The loss of sovereignty in joining Europe is small fry compared to becoming a state of the US.
Not much progress ever since that pissing contest ended, hm?
Oh I don't know, it's debatable wether either the Shuttle fleet or Mir could really be said to be part of the 'contest' since both took development in such utterly different directions.
I'm as disapointed as you that we (humans) are making such slow progress as we are, but I see plenty of examples that co-operation can drive that progress just as well as competition can... here's hoping we'll see the two driving forces ballanced better in future, it might just speed things up a little.
.. aren't only manufactured in Russia and Usa. The beautiful land of Sweden, with companies like Bofors, Space Universities and more, is a big manufacturer and exporter of both military and space technology. Go Fugelsand!
The relations were shown to be not as convivial as as some had hoped in the Iraq war. But to think it started there is naive. The idea of a European military initiative has been a thorn in the side of US military for some years now, and the US was opposed to the Gallileo system as well. While the US might try to increase other countries dependance on the US, a lot of countries have seen that this is not necessarily in their own best interests.
The EU is not alone in this kind of thinking, India also tries to minimise it's dependance on the US, as does China.
wired: U.S. Could Deny GPS To Taliban
The international fear and uncertainty has become so large that the Pentagon even feld compelled to say they wouldn't enact a global GPS blackout during war time. This is obviously a completely unbearable situation for anyone besides the US government. Here is a link:
Reuters: Pentagon pledges 'no global GPS blackout'
I don't know what happened to the Russian space positioning system that was once discussed as alternative, but the European Union is completely right in that they think they have to create an alternative to GPS. Even more puzzling is the fierceness with which the USA have tried to stop Galileo (why would they do that if not to leverage their monopoly pressure?). Here is a satnews.com story about it:
EU Postpones Decision on Galileo System Until 2002
The argument of the US government against Galileo was that it "could be abused by future enemies". So you can see how the US government is using GPS to pressure others. It is very important to create an alternative to GPS, even if it's just to stop the US from bullying other nations.
So much about Galileo, but what about other reasons for a non-US space program? I think one of the most dramatic display of bullying ever to be seen by any government is what the US government semi-openly discussed according to a Reuters story this February: to deny other nations access to space:
U.S. Pentagon Sees Space as Military 'High Ground'
If any sovereign nation sees something like this, it is obvious that a big space program besides the US one is absolutely necessary. The USA have proven time and again that they are a very volatile friend who on a whim decides to deny their resources to their friends.
There was one well documented case in the Bosnian war that is quite telling. The US vehemently denied ground troops and any real war involvement of theirs in Bosnia, on the grounds that Clinton thought his political career would be over of pictures of dead soldiers arrived home. So the role of the USA was mostly reconnaissance and intelligence and they did help keeping the air space empty. However, it later turned out that they gave weapons to the rebels, in violation of NATO orders. Here is one link about it:
Washington finances ethnic warfare
This is a very serious issue, please don't take my word for it, look for yourself. There was a good joint European documentary about it a while ago, where they interviewed the NATO official in Bosnia, a Norwegian military official, and he said that the USA basically denied their allies the contractually guaranteed intelligence to cover up their covert operations.
In my eyes this kind of behaviour leaves Europe no other choice but to go for independence in space and military. Most nations have given in to US surveillance and intelligence superiority, some like Australia and Britain even joined the Echelon system. There are stories that even those very close allies do not have full access to the jointly generated intelligence. In effect, the USA is exploiting and abusing everyone else around them, and now Mr Bush has stepped over the line with his excessive bullying and the other nations are banding together.
I have been waiting for this for many years, and I am happy that it finally happened. While I despise Bush on all levels, he did something very valuable for the world. He gave them enough motivati
ESA / EU isnt doing much at all in space at the moment.. launching a probe now and then and small work on the ISS is about it... and the Ariane of course.
:-)
Biggest reason is money. Historically the EU hasnt thought space very important, only France has spent any money worth mentioning on space (and it is still nothing compared to what the US has spent)... mostly because of their US-envy, and no matter what you Yanks think, France isnt very popular in the rest of EU who tends to think the Frence government a bunch of pathetic has-beens
Sadly, the Russian Space Agency has encouraged private enterprise more in the last decade than has it's cold-war capitalist rival, NASA.
0 9.html
To effectively stimulate the commercial launch industry NASA must stop competing with private start-ups. The most important first step it could take would be to competitively bid resupply for the Internation Space Station. In this transport sector, the space shuttle is hogging potential commercial business that NASA could otherwise outsource.
"The government should seek to cultivate a commercial launch industry in the same way that postal airmail did with civil aviation in the early 20th century."
Letter to Senators from NY on NASA's future
http://stellarlink.com/blog/archives/0000
A equal payload could be fired down in the direction the earth .
.
.
.
but it is captured in a hydraulic or pneumatic piston
The 2 guns firing simultaneous to each other cancel
each others recoil , piggy backing one on the other
Hydrogen based thrusters for a short fire burn would
or could also achieve this effect
The rail gun weapons planned for SDI were of a similar mind
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Currently everyone is afraid of US hegemony.
The driving force between the Chinese space program is the fear of US dominance. It's in their interest (and in the interest of everyone else) that no single nation has significantly more power than others; that means world wide and concerning a small region.
That's why China sold the nukes to Pakistan. One nation being significantly more powerful than everyone around them is a recipe for instability and desaster. It's the same axiom by which the US and Israel governments act as well, when they give Taiwan weapons or access to espionage satellites.
The only detail that is not obvious about this is why the world has let the US become so dominant in the first place. Maybe because there was nobody powerful enough to stop them?
NASA won't react. The sad truth is that right now American society is leaning far more towards guns than butter. The reality for NASA is that American pride no longer sores on NASA wings. (Note: I'm not endorsing this view, just expressing popular culture). The reality is that the drive in congress is just not there for supporting NASA, as it's far easier to woo voters with bribes and fears on TV, than with pictures of engineers behind control stations.
There will be speeches at NASA HQ, but no money from congress.
Help me become a Porn Star Guru
Anyone remeber playing computer game named space war? Now that was a great game. 2 small spaceships circling around screen and planet on the centre. That was somewhere in late eighties i think. Oh those were the days.
jk
Seeing the Germans started in all.
l ery/fact _sheets/general/frocket/frocket.htm
Goddard, if alive, would argue this point.
http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gal
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
Continental Europe is suffering from a combination of stangant economic growth, high unemployment, and the threat of deflation, and yet it wastes billions duplicating GPS and propping up an uncompetitive space launch capability. When countries in Europe, in spite of the punishing tax load they place on their citizens, can't even afford the demographic time bomb created by their below-replacement level birth rates and economically absurd pension plans, why piss away money on something that already works (GPS and everyone else's commercial space launch) and that they don't need (because the Chinese and the US do it cheaper and always will)?
Is it really worth billions of dollars for the EU to play make believe that it is a world power by duplicating a US system that is more than 20 years old? EU spending on space launch is the result of the same blinkered reasoning that tries to homogenize the population by punishing people who work hard by taxing them more to pay the lazy bastards who want to sit in a cafe and sip coffee on a government hand out.
Ah, stand corrected.
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Quantifying them is of little value when the quality makes the difference. I suggest you (all of you) do a little traveling and find out the difference in peoples attitudes, quality of life, work ethic, policies of state, policies of companies, policies of personal protocol, and generally how people live in each area being compared, before you apply some of these theories. Even a couple a weeks of light-weight tourism will teach you alot and sway your perspective. I mean this for anyone in this discussion. I have my opinions but won't share them here in the hope that this advice is will be heard by all camps. This is the road to world understanding. Hopefully this is the road to achieving peace in space.
"Last one in is a rotten goblin!" - Kepp
Uh, better turn that amazement into something like "extremely concerned", or better yet, "not suprised". Take a good look around . . . the US is rapidly becoming an autonomous power-machine without a user interface . . . or even effective closed-loop feedback. A few wild oscillations that quickly turn into chaotic behavior pretty well describes the future of the US, unless something dampens the system. Global competition might do it.
NASA plans to sit around and do nothing exciting. Oh, they also plan to wait until some of their cutting-edge technologies are ready, then axe the programs. Like Project Prometheus? That'll be dead when it's about a month from completion. NASA just loves pulling the plug on really cool technologies.
:)
It's almost like NASA _wants_ to keep humans grounded. Perhaps Armstrong & Aldrin really did see extraterrestrials on the moon and they're keeping us on Earth so we don't move in on their territory. I'm open to the possibility.
What's really funny is that this can be a barb pointed in either direction.
Heaven forbid anyone else should dare to lead (or try to lead) in any particular sector of industry...or in anything for that matter!!!
In Canada, there is a popular conspiracy theory about the Avro Arrow, a fighter-interceptor that was being developed up here in the 50s.
If you believe the hype that was around it, it was destined to be the fastest interceptor in the world, necessitated by the fact that Canada has such an enormous northern territory to protect.
The conspiracy theorists claim that it was killed by political pressure from the U.S., who was worried about its northern neighbour commanding such advanced technology.
Accountability on the heads of the powerful.
Power in the hands of the accountable.
I can't tell either. He sounds so goofy I'm tending to believe he was being humorous, but failed to give enough clues to that fact.
What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
with this and the 'European version' of GPS are we heading towards a future conflict across the Atlantic?
Hey! What's this?
It seems to me that this is a very American way of thinking (at least lately). What has been left unsaid is: 'Hey! Let's do some preventive war against the whole Europe, just in case they do develop an independent positioning system (obviously for guiding terrorist missiles) and we can't disable all their navigation-dependent systems just by pressing a button'.
Other countries' dependency on GPS is like having someone pointing a gun to our head. The gun holder may be your friend (now), but it feels still a little uncomfortable...
Moreover after seeing the latest samples of the American respect for international laws and treatises...
Give them some time (I mean - don't bomb them like Iraq) and they advance technologically. Remember? The later you get into the game the better your startup. And I see China moves in the right direction. Go China!
Less is more !
Oh wait, Bill works for the other company. Anyway, Bill or not Bill - you got a point :)
Less is more !
Hi all,
:)...
:
:)
:
:A M/f rss.html
Maybe we need to remember how it started
Once upon a time...
In 72 Germany and France developped a the most advanced Telecommunication satelitte of that time : Symphonie. Missing a reliable launcher they turned to their American friend who had always been telling them how stupid and a waste of money it was to developp their own launcher when they could rely on the american one !
What a relief ! Then someone had the good idea to get a closer look to the contract... "No commercial use" ! This "incident" finished to decide France&Germany to get their own rocket and Arianne was born...
Another little story
A couple of month ago, the american friend wrote a letter to all responsibles in european countries just couple of days before the Galileo space program had to be signed. The friend was just nicely trying to make them realize the hawfull cost and waste of money it was to invest in a European GPS equivalent when the GPS was globaly free to use !... It almost worked...
Do you want the Concorde plane story ?
But of course this friend has been such a help in the past and you will always remember it ! that's why you can forgive for a while even if he hasn't been so nice recently...
My wife told me
"you know, One day you'll have to tell him... what ? you did it ? Good, I hope he'll understand so you'll stay good friend..."
Read the full story here
http://www.airspacemag.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1996/
America's space capability was terminated on 9/11/01. The desire to be a technological giant was already far gone. It just took a final gust of wind to knock it down forever. The strays who still want to go into space all have to butter up India for cash.
you're a shame for your country poor guy ;)
Fortunatly I know your people better than you know mine !
What do you know about the world? It seems to me that it's only what the mass media (mainly cartoons, probably) want you to believe.
Please... go read some real book. Some Europeans were able to write some of these some time ago. I would recommend Huxley's or Orwell's ones. Please, don't be misled by the fact that none of these two people were French. They were indeed Europeans, whether they thought of themselves in such terms or not.
Marsexpress : a european project, launched 2 days ago by a russian soyuz rocket !
Yeah, and the sad thing is that the eastern European countries, the ones that have a chance at prospering, see joining the EU as a *good* thing.
You'd think that they'd at least know that socialism sucks.
Some choice quotes:
So we reserve the right to wack ANY other nation's spacecraft. And.. Finally. "unilateral networks to manage the planet from space" indeed!!"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
Most european countries just purchase American or Russian military vehicles and weapons anyway.
Not at all. The French, Germans, and English all have their own assault rifles and tanks; and they are often better than the US equivalent.
This sig wasn't worth reading, was it.
Not quite; it is to do with the relative fractions that can be distilled from the oil. North Sea oil is extremely light, sweet (low sulphur) oil which yields large amounts of gasoline without further catalytic cracking.
Middle Eastern crude from the Southern Gulf is a heavier oil better suited to fuel oil and kerosene. It can be turned into gasoline, but requires cracking.
North Sea oil is so desirable that Brent Crude is one of the international price benchmarks. Crude from the US covers almost the whole range of possible compositions.
Middle Eastern crude (of which the US is not a major customer) is liked because it can be raised extremely cheaply in vast quantities and the infrastructure exists to move it to market. And we'll carry on liking it because soon enough it will be all that's left.
Best wishes,
Mike.
You still have quality papers :p Im portuguese and read the Guardian daily.
Conflict?! WTF? You americans are menal, all it seems you have on your mind is world domination and war (the ends and the means). Maybe other countries feel they should not have to deal americas problems to go about their own business. And don't even begin to tell me that america does not have problems and doesn't drag the world through em. BTW, Hows the economic forcast, hope your on your way to the hills all ready.
GPLv2: I want my rights, I want my phone call! DRM: What use is a phone call, if you are unable to speak?
A lot of money is going into rocket technology also; with this and the 'European version' of GPS are we heading towards a future conflict across the Atlantic?
I don't see why a group of countries, who were previously totally dependent on a distant country for a particular service (GPS), should cause a conflict when they eventually decide to do it for themselves.
Although considering the history, acknowledged or otherwise, of the US when it comes to these things, they will definitely be considering whether to allow this to go ahead. After all, you can't deny other countries access to space if there's another player willing to grant it. It's all about US freedoms, not everybody else's.
Stay tuned for more rampant cynicism the next time I respond to a post discussing conflict and the US!
Typical fucking Yanks! If we dont own it, but we're interested in it, and you're doing it, then you're in conflict with us.
I'd say that summarises the general xenophobic, arrogant american attitude of late.
ps: I live in Orange County, so keep the johnnie foreigner comments to yourself.
the problem is that even a lot of newspapers are owned by big companies. or single persons like murdoch owning all non-quality newspapers that reach more ppl than the quality ones. i usually read the nytimes online and it was the only newspaper that i found to be some kind of objective. if you have found another one plz tell me.
"And we'll carry on liking it because soon enough it will be all that's left."
:-]
Oh come on! You've still got the Yellowstone oil and the Yosemite oil and the Arctic and the Antarctic and Russia and...
As long as you're prepared to go after oil at ANY cost (like the US govt) there's plenty more out there...
That was classic intercourse!
Maybe we need to remember how it started :)...
Once upon a time...
In 72 Germany and France developped a the most advanced Telecommunication satelitte of that time : Symphonie. Missing a reliable launcher they turned to their American friend who had always been telling them how stupid and a waste of money it was to developp their own launcher when they could rely on the american one !
What a relief ! Then someone had the good idea to get a closer look to the contract... "No commercial use" ! This "incident" finished to decide France&Germany to get their own rocket and Arianne was born...
Another little story :
A couple of month ago, the american friend wrote a letter to all responsibles in european countries just couple of days before the Galileo space program had to be signed. The friend was just nicely trying to make them realize the hawfull cost and waste of money it was to invest in a European GPS equivalent when the GPS was globaly free to use !... It almost worked...
Do you want the Concorde plane story ? :)
But of course this friend has been such a help in the past and you will always remember it ! that's why you can forgive for a while even if he hasn't been so nice recently...
My wife told me :
"you know, One day you'll have to tell him... what ? you did it ? Good, I hope he'll understand so you'll stay good friend..."
Read the full story here :
http://www.airspacemag.com/ASM/Mag/Index/1996/AM/f rss.html
In recent years, just about all of the new big discoveries have been in the Middle East. America production is in steady long term decline no matter what those fantasists who want to dig up Alaska and the national parks like to think. The US is one of the best known geological regions in the World - there are no new 'giants' waiting to be discovered.
World production is increasingly concentrated in fewer large fields. 14% of World reserves lie in 8 enormous oil fields with more than 30 billion barrels apiece. Of the 50 000 or so oil fields in the World, more than 1/2 of production comes from just 120 fields. Almost none of which lie inside America.
No matter what, we are at the point where oil production is peaking. Fewer fields are being discovered and the average size of the new fields is falling. Billion barrel discoveries have been on a falling rate since the 1940s, 500 million barrel discoveries since the 1960s. More than 80% of global oil production is coming from fields discovered before the energy crunch of 1973, current discoveries are less than 1/3 of usage and falling.
All the time of course, oil consumption is rising.
If that wasn't gloomy enough there is the really worrying possibility is that almost all reserves have been inflated. The USGS has a long history of upping reserves without good reason and many members of OPEC have inflated their reserves to gain larger production quotas. We might actually have less oil than we think.
And as for Britain, well all that oil and gas which has been helping balance the government's books is really starting to run out. The big downturn in production is less than 10 years away.
Sooner or later we're all going to be looking in the same direction for the lovely stuff. One of the new big players in the Persian Gulf is the Chinese State Oil Company, the PRC has already declared that the Persian Gulf is a region of strategic interest for the Chinese. Oh good - the current superpower and the next superpower both looking hungrily at someone else's oil.
Best wishes,
Mike.
Why are there not more commercial space agencies pushing the boundaries. Instead of government funded ones, who only just scrape by- I am talking about ones who dont mind sticking coke and McDonalds advertising on the side to get funding, who invest in mining projects, or profitable exploration projects. It might be difficult to get initial funding - but I am sure there are some manufacturing processes which would be considerably easier in Zero-G. The big boundary is getting there and back, but if enough businesses are trying to do this - then the technology WILL be advanced- the systems of transit will become safer, cheaper and quicker.
Of course all things said- lets hope Bill Gates never builds a deathstar for zapping non-conforming companies...
OrionRobots.co.uk - Robots From sol
I was joking, but thanks for the info.
"All the time of course, oil consumption is rising"
Now I know it's not true to blame ALL of this on Americans driving SUVs - but what the HELL is the US govt. doing allowing the average fuel consumption of their road traffic vehicles to actually INCREASE over time? I realise that the oil companies are a powerful lobby indeed, but how fucking stupid are these people?
Personally, I'm not really worried about the oil running out - Diesel fuel is probably the most important fuel of all, and we all know that you can run Diesel engines on all sorts of crap like vegetable oil and so on. More worrying (for the UK) is the insane "dash for gas" that's occured here since electricty production was privatised, we are increasingly relying on a resource that's running out, while neglecting investments in coal, nuclear and - most worryingly - wind and wave power. Sometimes I wonder if politicians can even IMAGINE times further distant than the next election.
That was classic intercourse!
With Bush in power I think we'll need to move to a logarithmic scale of stupidity.
Best wishes,
Mike.
#3 is wrong. NASA is developing the new Delta rocket, which will have a lifting capacity of 7 tons, the highest of any launch vehicle on the market upon its release in 2006.
.............. kris
"I thought I could organize freedom. How Scandinavian of me."