History of the NSA and its various pre-911 ops can be found in The Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets, both by James Bamford. The story of Glomar Explorer in those books alone is worth the read.
Although NSA is technically prohibited from performing incercepts on U.S. citizens, they do not shy away from operating against non-citizens here in the U.S. An interesting tale in those books is how, back in the day that Western Union was the only way to transmit internationally, NSA leaned on them to in effect "Bcc" the U.S. Gov't on all incoming / outgoing faxes from the U.N. without the knowledge of our friends or allies. Sweet.
Another part of the problem is cable companies who take advantage of their exclusive-distributor status in your area and attempt to leverage that into promoting owned or related channels and locking out competition in the same genre.
When the Yankees left MSG Network (owned by Cablevision) and created the YES Network, Cablevision did everything they could keep YES off its system. It attempted to sell YES as a "premium only" channel like HBO which YES refused to agree to, resulting in a whole season of not being able to watch the Yankees even though I live within 20 miles of NYC. Last year, they reached an interim agreement and went to binging arbitration. About 2 weeks ago the arbitrators ruled that YES should be carried (like MSG) on the basic tier.
I'm still not clear as to how they were installed but never used, but MSNBC's article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4581134/) has a picture of an actuator being hoisted out of the vertical tail.
Possibly, according to globalsecurity.org's write-up of the ABL project:
"The airborne laser will fire a Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser, or COIL, which was invented at Phillips Lab in 1977. The laser's fuel consists of the same chemicals found in hair bleach and Drano - hydrogen peroxide and potassium hydroxide - which are then combined with chlorine gas and water. The laser operates at an infrared wavelength of 1.315 microns, which is invisible to the eye. By recycling chemicals, building with plastics and using a unique cooling process, the COIL team was able to make the laser lighter and more efficient while - at the same time - increasing its power by 400 percent in five years. The flight-weighted ABL module will be similar in performance and power levels to the multi-hundred kilowatt class COIL Baseline Demonstration Laser (BDL-2) module demonstrated by TRW in August 1996. As its name implies, though, it will be lighter and more compact than the earlier version due to the integration of advanced aerospace materials into the design of critical hardware components. For the operational ABL system, several modules will be linked together in series to achieve ABL's required megawatt-class power level."
Wrong? Then why aren't we adding the Moon/Mars funding on top of NASA's budget instead of raping existing programs to pay for it?
I'm not saying the STS or ISS have been models of fiscal responsbilitiy; clearly, they have not. They are both examples of politically-driving programs with little, if any scientific merit on their own.
I don't see how Bush's speech changes any of this. He offered no vision; he offered no tangible goal; he offered no money. It was a far cry from JFK's "Moon or Bust" speech.
At best, he offered another pork-barrel for Congress which will keep the crazy scientists quiet while killing off ISS and STS by, quite literally, promising them the moon.
You're right, he didn't say "let's go to Mars." Just another example of his preternatural ability to seemingly make grandiose prouncements while offering little, if any, substantive support or insight.
And, we have been "exploring" "space" for about 30 years. The most scientifically fecund missions have been robotic - Pioneer, Voyager, Magellan, Ulysses, SOHO, Pathfinder, Galileo, so on.
What NASA needs is a tangible, scientifically valid goal that the White House and Congress are both committed to. Setting out these visions is what Presidents are supposed to do. That speech did nothing except sound the death-knell for the STS, ISS and Hubble.
One of Hubble's most useful features is its ability to detect and chart "Type 1-A" Supernovae. These objects, more than any other, allow for accurate time/space measurements back towards the big bang. Spitzer (formerly SIRTF) and ground-base observatories, even those with the most advanced adapative optics, can't do nearly the job that Hubble does with Type 1-As.
Maybe THIS Mars program should be killed though. I have yet to understand the reasoning behind W's plan to "return to the Moon" first. If there is any reason why this is a necessary, logical precursor to manned missions to Mars, I haven't heard it.
In fact, I would say that while retiring the Shuttle is a good idea, continuing to marry the ISS to the Shuttle isn't. Why not put the rest of the pieces up on ELVs (if you have to, buy some Arianie 5's from ESA), use fewer shuttle flights for "assembly-only," forget about hauling cargo. Simultaneously, launch a Soyuz a month, rotate crews like that, get the darn ISS staffed the way it was designed to be. Enough of this "caretaker crew" B.S.
Oh, and of course, we are killing the STS (in 2010) and ISS (in 2016) to fund this Moon/Mars project, let's not forget that. If allowed, it will become another black hole which will drain funds away from other NASA programs (like STS/ISS has done for the last 30 years). We'll never get Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) or the next generation of Galileo or Cassini-class missions with this project. Nevermind that Americans spend more money on potato chips than NASA in a given year.
Too bad fixing Hubble is "too dangerous," it's one of the few things manned spaceflight can do (and has done) amazingly well.
That ignores the fact that breeder reactors would never run out of fuel. If you consider the aggregate pollution of fossil-fuel plants I would expect their lifetime pollution to be equally hazardous as nuclear waste. Because its more diffuse, however, it seems to be accepted. Nuclear power, properly managed, can be safer in many respects.
Assuming it's a federal suit, 28 U.S.C. 1391 holds the answer - subsection (a) is for situations on which jurisdiction is based solely diversity (parties are citizens of different states); subection (b) is for "federal question" jurisdiction. Generally, if a defendant has any presence in a judicial district or a large part of the events occurred there, the case can be venued there. If the forum is really inappropriate, a defendant can move for change of venue for a variety of reasons.
Why would they do this? Usually, the venue of the forum state is applied to the dispute. If Nevada's substantive law if favorable for whatever reason, then it makes eminent sense to sue this defendant in this location. I wouldnt be surprised if the defendant was picked at least in part on the Plaintiff's ability to bring the suit in this forum.
If the suit is being brought in state court, then the answer is even easier. If the Defendant conducts business in the jurisdiction, they are subject to suit there.
There are vastly different standards of pleading and proof required for injunctions compared to simply filing suit in Federal courts. If the claim is truly frivolous, a defendant does not even have to file an answer, but can simply move to dismiss based upon Plaintiff's failure to state a claim. If this is granted, a defendant can even ask for for its fees to be awarded against the Plaintiff.
I am not condoning SCO's actions, nor am I expressing any opinion on the merits of their claims, but the adversarial process we have here works well to weed out frivilous claims, not only at the pleading stage. If the suit is truly without merit, it can be effectively defended with moderate cost, which may be recovered someday from the Plaintiff.
So, what legal loophole are we talking about again?
There are international guidelines on the amount of biological hitchhikers that are allowed on the probes that are sent to other planets. Presumably, Spirit and Opportunity were de-contaminated to these standards (as was Pathfinder/Sojourner). Incidentally, Viking landers were both put in ovens a sterilized before launch, but these days the standard has been to only sterilize certain parts like this and wipe-down disinfect others, which is probably better on the electronics in any event.
At the press conference, they just adknowledged the "need" for a sample return but did not offer any timeline. Wonder if Zubrin's in-situ propellant producing sample return architecture will get a closer look now.
Sadly, while the current NASA programs envision a sample return "at some point," nothing is even close to being on the drawing boards, let alone atop a rocket --
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mars_2003_05. html
Exactly what are people railing against here? What legitimate expectation of privacy do you have in the fact that a purchase was made of Bud at a particular time and place, at a specific price? It doesn't even attempt to track who bought the product.
It's not like they're putting RFID's in the cans/bottles and finding out how long it took you to polish off the six-pack you bought on Tuesday night.
In fact, as far as I can see, the data is not purchaser-specific and is focused more on the retail outlet's presentation of Bud with respect to other brands. So, who cares? If it focuses their marketing, let it.
Unfortunately, not so unusual. In the NY/NJ area, Cablevision is the biggest cable tv game in town and they regularly screw over their subscribers by positioning Cablevision-owned properties on the lineups at the expense of competitors. For example, we get Independent Film Channel (IFC) which is owned by Cablevision, but not Sundance (similar programming, owned by Turner.) MSG Sports Network (Cablevision) is on basic, while YES and Fox Sports are quasi-premium (you need "Basic Plus" or can pay a la carte).
In 2001 when the Yankees did not renew with MSG but instead formed the YES Network, Cablevision refused to carry YES for that entire season because YES wanted to be on "basic" tier (like MSG, Fox Sports, etc.) while Cablevision wanted to charge it as a Premium Channel, like HBO.
Subscribers were the ones who got screwed for that year, while Cablevision just continually hikes their rates, and provides mediocre cable service. Their digial rollout was a complete disaster, too.
The Dolan Family who owns Cablevision also owns the Knicks and Rangers -- both of which have the higest payrolls but are among the worst teams. Thank heavens the Dolans never were able to buy into the Yankees a few years ago like they tried.
Can someone please explain if I can buy telehpone service, natural gas, or electricity from 15 differnet suppliers, why should cable tv be any different?
When the uproar first started, O'Keefe requested the Adm. Gehman, Chairman of the Columbia Accident Review Board, look into the matter and produce an advisory opinion as to the safety issues.
As far as I have researched (albeit, quickly) Gehman hasn't made any recommendations yet. Could it be that O'Keefe is... backpedaling?
Call me a cynic, but I have the feeling that Gehman's response ("Hey, it's safe enough to fly HST") wasn't going to be welcomed, so he's been pre-empted by the bean-counter Administrator.
Overlooked in the earlier posts/threads in terms of safety is the possibility that instead of relying on the ISS "safe haven" rationale, a second Orbiter could be prepped and on "Ready Hold" during the HST SM-4 mission. If on-orbit imagery/inspection indicated a problem, launch the second Orbiter and transfer the crew. Instant safety margin. Or, launch the crew (Soyuz) and equipment separately (Progress) to service HST.
Clinton was never a friend of NASA, often allowing the then-administrator Dan Goldin to slash-and-burn some of the best projects and people out of the agency. However, he did recognize the value of using the ISS as a bridge program with Russia, if not for any other reason to give their rocket scientists something to do besides sell designs to North Korea. Pragmatically, from this view, the ISS has been a good program.
However, IANARS (I am not a research scentist), but I am unaware of any "flagship" research that ISS is conducting or will conduct in its present 3-person configuration, or even its "Core Complete" projected configuration. I think it's been said elsewhere, without the full build-out of 7 occupants (with at least 4 fully dedicated to science), it is of dubious scientific utility. What puzzles me is how politicials fail to realize that without the commitment to built it to this level of capability, its utility is kept at a bare minimum (about at the level of being able to say once a day or so, "Hey.. look, up in the sky, its the ISS!")
If we were to throw a few more Shuttle launches at the project, we could have a REAL laboratory. Instead, we have spam in a can inclined at 51.9 degrees. Gee whiz. Remind anyone of the fiasco in the early 70's of the USAF telling NASA what design specs to build into the Shuttle? Look how well that turned out.
What we need at NASA is a scientist-administrator who has the White House clout to back him up. Though O'Keefe is much better than his tyrannical predecessor Goldin, O'Keefe is an administrator-type bean counter. While NASA, from an institutional point of view, may have needed this "tough love" right now, ultimately, it must be given a scientific leadership as well, starting from the top.
There is a STS-107 Archive site at http://echo.gmu.edu/shuttle/documents/ which houses many of the stories in the days after the breakup. Sort of a digital timecapsule.
Its a surprisingly small deceleration to deorbit - on the order of 250 ft/sec. change in delta-v, less than a 3-minute burn from the OMS engines on the shuttle.
In development since 1997, transferred to about 43 different development teams, this project was most recently killed by UbiSoft in November 2003. Amazon was still taking orders last time I checked though, nice of them. By the time it ships, no one will even remember the Cold War.
Technically, this would mean a transfer of the Hubble from a 570km orbit to something more in the area of the ISS, which is approximately 370km. At that altitude, there is still the issue of atmospheric drag, which is why ISS is periodically re-boosted by Shuttles (when/if they fly again). Moving Hubble to a lower orbit doesn't make sense, it too would need periodic re-boosting.
More significantly, there is the issue of orbital inclination (the angle between the orbit and the equator). Hubble is at a comfy 28.5 degrees, which is optimal for shuttle launches from KSC given the launch site's latitude. ISS is inclined at 51.6 degrees, which is more of a 'climb' from low-latitute launch sites like KSC, because of the need to launch materials from Russia. (Low latitute launch sites get an extra 'kick' from the earth's rotation, the more equitorial the orbit.)
Transferring in altitude and orbital plane is no easy trick, (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/s atellites/hohmann.html) but can be done (just check the math... a lot).
Even if it's done though, NASA would have to commit to service the HST for a few more years. And, although their "official" reason for canceling the HST Service Flight is "safety," the real reason is funding. It may be cliche, but as the line goes, "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers."
I would bet there are gaggles of astronauts who would volunteer to fly a HST service flight with these risks and I'd much rather spend $500 million (most of which is already spent on the hardware and training) to support HST for another 5-7 years than on anything else, including ISS or Pluto-Kupier. Otherwise, we're left with a HST which is one failure away from becoming an orbital paperweight (if there is such a thing) and $200 worth of already-built flight hardware sitting in a warehouse somewhere.
It's the Wilkinson Microwave Anistrophy Probe (homepage - http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/) which =measures the cosmic microwave background radiation thought to be remnants of the Big Bang.
Slashdot Mirror
Although NSA is technically prohibited from performing incercepts on U.S. citizens, they do not shy away from operating against non-citizens here in the U.S. An interesting tale in those books is how, back in the day that Western Union was the only way to transmit internationally, NSA leaned on them to in effect "Bcc" the U.S. Gov't on all incoming / outgoing faxes from the U.N. without the knowledge of our friends or allies. Sweet.
When the Yankees left MSG Network (owned by Cablevision) and created the YES Network, Cablevision did everything they could keep YES off its system. It attempted to sell YES as a "premium only" channel like HBO which YES refused to agree to, resulting in a whole season of not being able to watch the Yankees even though I live within 20 miles of NYC. Last year, they reached an interim agreement and went to binging arbitration. About 2 weeks ago the arbitrators ruled that YES should be carried (like MSG) on the basic tier.
I'm still not clear as to how they were installed but never used, but MSNBC's article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4581134/) has a picture of an actuator being hoisted out of the vertical tail.
"The airborne laser will fire a Chemical Oxygen Iodine Laser, or COIL, which was invented at Phillips Lab in 1977. The laser's fuel consists of the same chemicals found in hair bleach and Drano - hydrogen peroxide and potassium hydroxide - which are then combined with chlorine gas and water. The laser operates at an infrared wavelength of 1.315 microns, which is invisible to the eye. By recycling chemicals, building with plastics and using a unique cooling process, the COIL team was able to make the laser lighter and more efficient while - at the same time - increasing its power by 400 percent in five years. The flight-weighted ABL module will be similar in performance and power levels to the multi-hundred kilowatt class COIL Baseline Demonstration Laser (BDL-2) module demonstrated by TRW in August 1996. As its name implies, though, it will be lighter and more compact than the earlier version due to the integration of advanced aerospace materials into the design of critical hardware components. For the operational ABL system, several modules will be linked together in series to achieve ABL's required megawatt-class power level."
I'm not saying the STS or ISS have been models of fiscal responsbilitiy; clearly, they have not. They are both examples of politically-driving programs with little, if any scientific merit on their own.
I don't see how Bush's speech changes any of this. He offered no vision; he offered no tangible goal; he offered no money. It was a far cry from JFK's "Moon or Bust" speech.
At best, he offered another pork-barrel for Congress which will keep the crazy scientists quiet while killing off ISS and STS by, quite literally, promising them the moon.
Who gave John Ashcroft mod points? Mod parent up, not a troll.
And, we have been "exploring" "space" for about 30 years. The most scientifically fecund missions have been robotic - Pioneer, Voyager, Magellan, Ulysses, SOHO, Pathfinder, Galileo, so on.
What NASA needs is a tangible, scientifically valid goal that the White House and Congress are both committed to. Setting out these visions is what Presidents are supposed to do. That speech did nothing except sound the death-knell for the STS, ISS and Hubble.
One of Hubble's most useful features is its ability to detect and chart "Type 1-A" Supernovae. These objects, more than any other, allow for accurate time/space measurements back towards the big bang. Spitzer (formerly SIRTF) and ground-base observatories, even those with the most advanced adapative optics, can't do nearly the job that Hubble does with Type 1-As.
In fact, I would say that while retiring the Shuttle is a good idea, continuing to marry the ISS to the Shuttle isn't. Why not put the rest of the pieces up on ELVs (if you have to, buy some Arianie 5's from ESA), use fewer shuttle flights for "assembly-only," forget about hauling cargo. Simultaneously, launch a Soyuz a month, rotate crews like that, get the darn ISS staffed the way it was designed to be. Enough of this "caretaker crew" B.S.
Oh, and of course, we are killing the STS (in 2010) and ISS (in 2016) to fund this Moon/Mars project, let's not forget that. If allowed, it will become another black hole which will drain funds away from other NASA programs (like STS/ISS has done for the last 30 years). We'll never get Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter (JIMO) or the next generation of Galileo or Cassini-class missions with this project. Nevermind that Americans spend more money on potato chips than NASA in a given year.
Too bad fixing Hubble is "too dangerous," it's one of the few things manned spaceflight can do (and has done) amazingly well.
That ignores the fact that breeder reactors would never run out of fuel. If you consider the aggregate pollution of fossil-fuel plants I would expect their lifetime pollution to be equally hazardous as nuclear waste. Because its more diffuse, however, it seems to be accepted. Nuclear power, properly managed, can be safer in many respects.
Why would they do this? Usually, the venue of the forum state is applied to the dispute. If Nevada's substantive law if favorable for whatever reason, then it makes eminent sense to sue this defendant in this location. I wouldnt be surprised if the defendant was picked at least in part on the Plaintiff's ability to bring the suit in this forum.
If the suit is being brought in state court, then the answer is even easier. If the Defendant conducts business in the jurisdiction, they are subject to suit there.
There are vastly different standards of pleading and proof required for injunctions compared to simply filing suit in Federal courts. If the claim is truly frivolous, a defendant does not even have to file an answer, but can simply move to dismiss based upon Plaintiff's failure to state a claim. If this is granted, a defendant can even ask for for its fees to be awarded against the Plaintiff.
I am not condoning SCO's actions, nor am I expressing any opinion on the merits of their claims, but the adversarial process we have here works well to weed out frivilous claims, not only at the pleading stage. If the suit is truly without merit, it can be effectively defended with moderate cost, which may be recovered someday from the Plaintiff.
So, what legal loophole are we talking about again?
There are international guidelines on the amount of biological hitchhikers that are allowed on the probes that are sent to other planets. Presumably, Spirit and Opportunity were de-contaminated to these standards (as was Pathfinder/Sojourner). Incidentally, Viking landers were both put in ovens a sterilized before launch, but these days the standard has been to only sterilize certain parts like this and wipe-down disinfect others, which is probably better on the electronics in any event.
At the press conference, they just adknowledged the "need" for a sample return but did not offer any timeline. Wonder if Zubrin's in-situ propellant producing sample return architecture will get a closer look now.
http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/mars_2003_05. html
It's not like they're putting RFID's in the cans/bottles and finding out how long it took you to polish off the six-pack you bought on Tuesday night.
In fact, as far as I can see, the data is not purchaser-specific and is focused more on the retail outlet's presentation of Bud with respect to other brands. So, who cares? If it focuses their marketing, let it.
I was distinguishing it, however inartfully, from its television products (channel offerings, pricing, customer service, etc.)
In 2001 when the Yankees did not renew with MSG but instead formed the YES Network, Cablevision refused to carry YES for that entire season because YES wanted to be on "basic" tier (like MSG, Fox Sports, etc.) while Cablevision wanted to charge it as a Premium Channel, like HBO.
Subscribers were the ones who got screwed for that year, while Cablevision just continually hikes their rates, and provides mediocre cable service. Their digial rollout was a complete disaster, too.
The Dolan Family who owns Cablevision also owns the Knicks and Rangers -- both of which have the higest payrolls but are among the worst teams. Thank heavens the Dolans never were able to buy into the Yankees a few years ago like they tried.
Can someone please explain if I can buy telehpone service, natural gas, or electricity from 15 differnet suppliers, why should cable tv be any different?
As far as I have researched (albeit, quickly) Gehman hasn't made any recommendations yet. Could it be that O'Keefe is... backpedaling?
Call me a cynic, but I have the feeling that Gehman's response ("Hey, it's safe enough to fly HST") wasn't going to be welcomed, so he's been pre-empted by the bean-counter Administrator.
Overlooked in the earlier posts/threads in terms of safety is the possibility that instead of relying on the ISS "safe haven" rationale, a second Orbiter could be prepped and on "Ready Hold" during the HST SM-4 mission. If on-orbit imagery/inspection indicated a problem, launch the second Orbiter and transfer the crew. Instant safety margin. Or, launch the crew (Soyuz) and equipment separately (Progress) to service HST.
However, IANARS (I am not a research scentist), but I am unaware of any "flagship" research that ISS is conducting or will conduct in its present 3-person configuration, or even its "Core Complete" projected configuration. I think it's been said elsewhere, without the full build-out of 7 occupants (with at least 4 fully dedicated to science), it is of dubious scientific utility. What puzzles me is how politicials fail to realize that without the commitment to built it to this level of capability, its utility is kept at a bare minimum (about at the level of being able to say once a day or so, "Hey.. look, up in the sky, its the ISS!")
If we were to throw a few more Shuttle launches at the project, we could have a REAL laboratory. Instead, we have spam in a can inclined at 51.9 degrees. Gee whiz. Remind anyone of the fiasco in the early 70's of the USAF telling NASA what design specs to build into the Shuttle? Look how well that turned out.
What we need at NASA is a scientist-administrator who has the White House clout to back him up. Though O'Keefe is much better than his tyrannical predecessor Goldin, O'Keefe is an administrator-type bean counter. While NASA, from an institutional point of view, may have needed this "tough love" right now, ultimately, it must be given a scientific leadership as well, starting from the top.
There is a STS-107 Archive site at http://echo.gmu.edu/shuttle/documents/ which houses many of the stories in the days after the breakup. Sort of a digital timecapsule.
Its a surprisingly small deceleration to deorbit - on the order of 250 ft/sec. change in delta-v, less than a 3-minute burn from the OMS engines on the shuttle.
In development since 1997, transferred to about 43 different development teams, this project was most recently killed by UbiSoft in November 2003. Amazon was still taking orders last time I checked though, nice of them. By the time it ships, no one will even remember the Cold War.
More significantly, there is the issue of orbital inclination (the angle between the orbit and the equator). Hubble is at a comfy 28.5 degrees, which is optimal for shuttle launches from KSC given the launch site's latitude. ISS is inclined at 51.6 degrees, which is more of a 'climb' from low-latitute launch sites like KSC, because of the need to launch materials from Russia. (Low latitute launch sites get an extra 'kick' from the earth's rotation, the more equitorial the orbit.)
Transferring in altitude and orbital plane is no easy trick, (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/rocket_sci/s atellites/hohmann.html) but can be done (just check the math... a lot).
Even if it's done though, NASA would have to commit to service the HST for a few more years. And, although their "official" reason for canceling the HST Service Flight is "safety," the real reason is funding. It may be cliche, but as the line goes, "No Bucks, no Buck Rogers."
I would bet there are gaggles of astronauts who would volunteer to fly a HST service flight with these risks and I'd much rather spend $500 million (most of which is already spent on the hardware and training) to support HST for another 5-7 years than on anything else, including ISS or Pluto-Kupier. Otherwise, we're left with a HST which is one failure away from becoming an orbital paperweight (if there is such a thing) and $200 worth of already-built flight hardware sitting in a warehouse somewhere.
It's the Wilkinson Microwave Anistrophy Probe (homepage - http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/) which =measures the cosmic microwave background radiation thought to be remnants of the Big Bang.