Necessity and Incentives Opening the Space Frontier
Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Space
by James Bowery, Chairman, Coalition for Science and Commerce
July 31, 1991
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:
I am James Bowery, Chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on the critical and historic topic of commercial incentives to open the space frontier.
The Coalition for Science and Commerce is a grassroots network of citizen activists supporting greater public funding for diversified scientific research and greater private funding for proprietary technology and services. We believe these are mutually reinforcing policies which have been violated to the detriment of civilization. We believe in the constitutional provision of patents of invention and that the principles of free enterprise pertain to intellectual property. We therefore see technology development as a private sector responsibility. We also recognize that scientific knowledge is our common heritage and is therefore a proper function of government. We oppose government programs that remove procurement authority from scientists, supposedly in service of them. Rather we support the inclusion, on a per-grant basis, of all funding needed to purchase the use of needed goods and services, thereby creating a scientist-driven market for commercial high technology and services. We also oppose government subsidy of technology development. Rather we support legislation and policies that motivate the intelligent investment of private risk capital in the creation of commercially viable intellectual property.
In 1990, after a 3 year effort with Congressman Ron Packard (CA) and a bipartisan team of Congressional leaders, we succeeded in passing the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, a law which requires NASA to procure launch services in a commercially reasonable manner from the private sector. The lobbying effort for this legislation came totally from taxpaying citizens acting in their home districts without a direct financial stake -- the kind of political intended by our country's founders, but now rarely seen in America.
We ask citizens who work with us for the most valuable thing they can contribute: The voluntary and targeted investment of time, energy and resources in specific issues and positions which they support as taxpaying citizens of the United States. There is no collective action, no slush-fund and no bureaucracy within the Coalition: Only citizens encouraging each other to make the necessary sacrifices to participate in the political process, which is their birthright and duty as Americans. We are working to give interested taxpayers a voice that can be heard above the din of lobbyists who seek ever increasing government funding for their clients.
Introduction
Americans need a frontier, not a program.
Incentives open frontiers, not plans.
If this Subcommittee hears no other message through the barrage of studies, projections and policy recommendations, it must hear this message. A reformed space policy focused on opening the space frontier through commercial incentives will make all the difference to our future as a world, a nation and as individuals.
Americans Need a Frontier
When Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon, we won the "space race" against the Soviets and entered two decades of diminished expectations.
The Apollo program elicited something deep within Americans. Something almost primal. Apollo was President Kennedy's "New Frontier." But when Americans found it was terminated as nothing more than a Cold War contest, we felt betrayed in ways we are still unable to articulate -- betrayed right down to our pioneering souls. The result is that Americans will never again truly believe in government space programs and plans.
Without a frontier, for the past two decades, Americans have operated under the inevitable conclusion that land, raw materi
I was in a meeting with venture financiers when the DC-X program was announced and they walked out.
The venture being considered for financing was a private rocket company. They didn't want to compete with government's subsidized winners the way the government subsidized the Shuttle.
To make matters worse, the likely source of the DC-X support came from Congressman Rorabacher after I met with him in 1991 regarding the Launch Services Purchase Act and mentioned to him that Truax was looking at a trans-pacific shuttle service as a possible business venture.
PS: Armadillo didn't its technology from the DC-X legacy.
Normalized English has been developed by Layman E. Allen and his colleagues; see for example, Layman E. Allen, ``Language, Law and Logic: Plain Legal Drafting for the Electronic Age,'' Computer Science and Law (Bryan Niblett ed.), 1980, pp. 75-100. Normalized language has been used in the Tennessee statutes (Tenn. Code Ann. sect. 33-6-104(a) (1991)). An example of the form of Normalized English used as input to the NLESB system follows. Note that the formatting is for the sake of readability, and is not necessary for NLESB.
Subsection (a). IF AND ONLY IF (1)(A) A person has threatened or attempted suicide or to inflict serious bodily harm on himself, OR (B) The person has threatened or attempted homicide or other violent behavior, OR (C) The person has placed others in reasonable fear of violent behavior and serious physical harm to them, OR (D) The person is unable to avoid severe impairment or injury from specific risks, AND (2) There is a substantial likelihood that such harm will occur, THEN (3) The person poses a "substantial likelihood of serious harm" for purposes of subsection (b).
Subsection (b). IF AND ONLY IF (1) A person is mentally ill, AND (2) The person poses a substantial likelihood of serious harm because of the mental illness, AND (3) The person needs care, training, or treatment because of the mental illness, AND (4) All available less drastic alternatives to placement in a hospital or treatment resource are unsuitable to meet the needs of the person, THEN (5) The person may be judicially committed to involuntary care and treatment in a hospital or treatment resource.
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/NLESB-normal.html
Natural-Language Legal Expert System Builder (NLESB)
NLESB enables a lawyer to build a useful legal expert system in ordinary English without being a computer expert. It accepts rules in ordinary English, though in normalized form, and parses them into propositional data structures that it can use to draw inferences. NLESB has some features, particularly in its logic, that are peculiar to the needs of legal expert systems. Send me mail for reprints or if you are interested in using our prototype implementation.
Publications (reverse chronological order):
A Logic for Statutory Law, by John Nolt, Grayfred B. Gray, Bruce J. MacLennan, and Donald J. Ploch, Jurimetics 35, 2 (Winter 1995), pp. 121–151. Winner of Loevinger Prize.
Legal Expert System Building: A Semi-Intelligent Computer Program Makes It Easier, by Grayfred B. Gray, Bruce J. MacLennan, John E. Nolt & Donald R. Ploch, John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law, 12 (1994), pp. 555–583.
Readability of the Law: Forms of Law for Building Legal Expert Systems, by Donald R. Ploch, Bethany K. Dumas, Grayfred B. Grey, Bruce J. MacLennan, and John E. Nolt, Jurimetrics 33, 2 (Winter 1993), pp. 189–221.
Law Reading Experiment, by Donald R. Ploch, Bethany K. Dumas, Grayfred H. Gray, Bruce MacLennan, & John Nolt, Pre-Proceedings of the III International Conference, Logica Informatica Diritto: Legal Expert Systems, A. A. Martino (ed.), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto per la documentazione giuridica, Florence, Italy, November 2-5, 1989, Vol. 2, pp. 681–704.
The thing that's really important to the government is to protect the privacy of protected class criminals. The only gore you're allowed to see is "docudrama" shit on TV where they reverse the races of the perpetrators.
They say "96% efficient" but they are talking about the efficiency of converting from "captured solar energy" to "chemical energy". By "captured solar energy" biologists usually are talking about the "quantum efficiency" of photosynthesis -- that is -- the percent of photon energy converted into electron energy available for the chemical conversion process. So, if you have a 100% quantum efficiency, the total photosynthetic efficiency will be 96% but if your quantum efficiency is 1% then total photosynthetic efficiency will be less than 1%.
Of course NONE of the "science reporting" articles give the quantum efficiency, and the actual journal article costs $30.
This, of course, has little to do with the quality of programmers and if you think it does, then you're most likely an unemployed, childless white programmer suffering from age-related cognitive decline who has lived a life of sexual frustration.
Just die now and stop sharing your misery with the rest of the world in your psycho suicide attacks on the government.
For a second there, I thought someone was serious about getting to the bottom of the Pioneer anomaly:
The Pioneer anomaly or Pioneer effect is the observed deviation from predicted trajectories and velocities of various unmanned spacecraft visiting the outer solar system, most notably Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11.
Both Pioneer spacecraft are escaping from the solar system, and are slowing down under the influence of the Sun's gravity. Upon very close examination, however, they are slowing down slightly more than expected. The effect can be modeled as a slight additional acceleration towards the Sun.
The anomaly has no universally accepted explanation. The explanation may be mundane, such as measurement error, thrust from gas leakage or uneven radiation of heat. However, it is also possible that current physical theory does not correctly explain the behaviour of the craft relative to the sun.
Of course, validating the winning explanation is the problem since the heretical Enlightenment placed barbaric experimentation over civilized argumentation.
For a moment there, thought Stewart Brand had gone insane. But it all makes sense now. What an evil genius Stewart Brand is to promote global dieoff through presenting high population densities as "green"!
If the Federal government makes a strategic decision based on the outcome of one rocket launch, the only thing it demonstrates is that the Federal government should be cancelled.
Reminds me of something I did on PLATO III. Back then, the -press- command let you give an argument to cause a keypress at another terminal. Naturally, the 16-year-old mind wonders what will happen if you put all the terminals in the classroom into a chain where a keypress on one ripples through them all and cycles back around to the original. Well, it hangs the system, that's what.
I actually remember being there when the -ext- command exploit hit. It didn't hit me personally but it created quite an uproar.
However, that was on that PLATO IV system in 1974. PLATO III was a few years earlier.
Uh, excuse me, but are you appealing to the results of a theory put into practice, rather than to the fact that guys like Bill Gates are richer, hence smarter, than the rest of us combined?
Sounds like you're one of those envious American engineers who should be working at Starbucks.
Engineering is about results alright but not the kind of results you're taking about. Its about worshiping the guys whose behavior has resulted in their possessing huge piles of money no matter how they got them. That's what settled the frontier of the US and got us to land on the moon! Big virtual dicks made tumescent with loads of moolah! Not some guy pounding on a keyboard from his mother's basement who can't get a job from guys like Gates!
I know. Isn't it ridiculous? I mean look what happened to Silicon Valley after the huge importation of foreign workers in the late 1990s hit their limits: Crash! Any white-color brain knows that the cause of the crash was the failure to remove the caps.
Don't worry. It was the first reply and those always get modded up even if they consist of a link to goatse. Go back to K5 or wherever it is you get your world-view reinforced and report everything is normal.
That's right... nothing like Google would have been invented without immigrants. Nothing like Sun workstations would have been invented without immigrants. Indeed, when John Bardeen gave a talk at Altgelt Hall at the U of IL while under the impression his health problems were terminal hence it may have been his last opportunity to tell the history of the transistor, he claimed that Shockley ordered he and Brattain to stop work on semiconductors, forcing them to hide their work on germanium from him by placing it on a "rollycart" so they could roll it out of a closet at night to work on it while Shockley wasn't around and back in before morning. This is clearly sour-grapse symptomatic of the "lazy American engineer who should be working at Starbucks".
"90,000 jobs lost in the last two years; the influx of foreign science and engineering talent has slowed"
I keep telling these idiots that the first option you should look at when jobs are declining is to increase the importation of foreign workers but do they listen?
I did think of one use for a
computer, though. Back in the Sierras
there were mosquitoes. 1 could see a
little solar-powered or laser-based zapper
I wear on my head, that shoots
mosquitoes. And any mosquito that
comes within two feet of me is dead!
Necessity and Incentives Opening the Space Frontier
Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Space
by James Bowery, Chairman, Coalition for Science and Commerce
July 31, 1991
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:
I am James Bowery, Chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on the critical and historic topic of commercial incentives to open the space frontier.
The Coalition for Science and Commerce is a grassroots network of citizen activists supporting greater public funding for diversified scientific research and greater private funding for proprietary technology and services. We believe these are mutually reinforcing policies which have been violated to the detriment of civilization. We believe in the constitutional provision of patents of invention and that the principles of free enterprise pertain to intellectual property. We therefore see technology development as a private sector responsibility. We also recognize that scientific knowledge is our common heritage and is therefore a proper function of government. We oppose government programs that remove procurement authority from scientists, supposedly in service of them. Rather we support the inclusion, on a per-grant basis, of all funding needed to purchase the use of needed goods and services, thereby creating a scientist-driven market for commercial high technology and services. We also oppose government subsidy of technology development. Rather we support legislation and policies that motivate the intelligent investment of private risk capital in the creation of commercially viable intellectual property.
In 1990, after a 3 year effort with Congressman Ron Packard (CA) and a bipartisan team of Congressional leaders, we succeeded in passing the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, a law which requires NASA to procure launch services in a commercially reasonable manner from the private sector. The lobbying effort for this legislation came totally from taxpaying citizens acting in their home districts without a direct financial stake -- the kind of political intended by our country's founders, but now rarely seen in America.
We ask citizens who work with us for the most valuable thing they can contribute: The voluntary and targeted investment of time, energy and resources in specific issues and positions which they support as taxpaying citizens of the United States. There is no collective action, no slush-fund and no bureaucracy within the Coalition: Only citizens encouraging each other to make the necessary sacrifices to participate in the political process, which is their birthright and duty as Americans. We are working to give interested taxpayers a voice that can be heard above the din of lobbyists who seek ever increasing government funding for their clients.
Introduction
Americans need a frontier, not a program.
Incentives open frontiers, not plans.
If this Subcommittee hears no other message through the barrage of studies, projections and policy recommendations, it must hear this message. A reformed space policy focused on opening the space frontier through commercial incentives will make all the difference to our future as a world, a nation and as individuals.
Americans Need a Frontier
When Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon, we won the "space race" against the Soviets and entered two decades of diminished expectations.
The Apollo program elicited something deep within Americans. Something almost primal. Apollo was President Kennedy's "New Frontier." But when Americans found it was terminated as nothing more than a Cold War contest, we felt betrayed in ways we are still unable to articulate -- betrayed right down to our pioneering souls. The result is that Americans will never again truly believe in government space programs and plans.
Without a frontier, for the past two decades, Americans have operated under the inevitable conclusion that land, raw materi
It took a black Democratic president to finally drive a stake through the heart of that white middle class welfare program that's been holding whites back from the space frontier. Whites should sing Obama's praises for freeing them:
Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty whites are free at last!
Slashdot Mirror
Necessity and Incentives Opening the Space Frontier
Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Space
by James Bowery, Chairman, Coalition for Science and Commerce
July 31, 1991
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:
I am James Bowery, Chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on the critical and historic topic of commercial incentives to open the space frontier.
The Coalition for Science and Commerce is a grassroots network of citizen activists supporting greater public funding for diversified scientific research and greater private funding for proprietary technology and services. We believe these are mutually reinforcing policies which have been violated to the detriment of civilization. We believe in the constitutional provision of patents of invention and that the principles of free enterprise pertain to intellectual property. We therefore see technology development as a private sector responsibility. We also recognize that scientific knowledge is our common heritage and is therefore a proper function of government. We oppose government programs that remove procurement authority from scientists, supposedly in service of them. Rather we support the inclusion, on a per-grant basis, of all funding needed to purchase the use of needed goods and services, thereby creating a scientist-driven market for commercial high technology and services. We also oppose government subsidy of technology development. Rather we support legislation and policies that motivate the intelligent investment of private risk capital in the creation of commercially viable intellectual property.
In 1990, after a 3 year effort with Congressman Ron Packard (CA) and a bipartisan team of Congressional leaders, we succeeded in passing the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, a law which requires NASA to procure launch services in a commercially reasonable manner from the private sector. The lobbying effort for this legislation came totally from taxpaying citizens acting in their home districts without a direct financial stake -- the kind of political intended by our country's founders, but now rarely seen in America.
We ask citizens who work with us for the most valuable thing they can contribute: The voluntary and targeted investment of time, energy and resources in specific issues and positions which they support as taxpaying citizens of the United States. There is no collective action, no slush-fund and no bureaucracy within the Coalition: Only citizens encouraging each other to make the necessary sacrifices to participate in the political process, which is their birthright and duty as Americans. We are working to give interested taxpayers a voice that can be heard above the din of lobbyists who seek ever increasing government funding for their clients.
Introduction
Americans need a frontier, not a program.
Incentives open frontiers, not plans.
If this Subcommittee hears no other message through the barrage of studies, projections and policy recommendations, it must hear this message. A reformed space policy focused on opening the space frontier through commercial incentives will make all the difference to our future as a world, a nation and as individuals.
Americans Need a Frontier
When Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon, we won the "space race" against the Soviets and entered two decades of diminished expectations.
The Apollo program elicited something deep within Americans. Something almost primal. Apollo was President Kennedy's "New Frontier." But when Americans found it was terminated as nothing more than a Cold War contest, we felt betrayed in ways we are still unable to articulate -- betrayed right down to our pioneering souls. The result is that Americans will never again truly believe in government space programs and plans.
Without a frontier, for the past two decades, Americans have operated under the inevitable conclusion that land, raw materi
This is just the death rattle of mass media control of thought.
The venture being considered for financing was a private rocket company. They didn't want to compete with government's subsidized winners the way the government subsidized the Shuttle.
To make matters worse, the likely source of the DC-X support came from Congressman Rorabacher after I met with him in 1991 regarding the Launch Services Purchase Act and mentioned to him that Truax was looking at a trans-pacific shuttle service as a possible business venture.
PS: Armadillo didn't its technology from the DC-X legacy.
Example of Normalized English Input to NLESB
Normalized English has been developed by Layman E. Allen and his colleagues; see for example, Layman E. Allen, ``Language, Law and Logic: Plain Legal Drafting for the Electronic Age,'' Computer Science and Law (Bryan Niblett ed.), 1980, pp. 75-100. Normalized language has been used in the Tennessee statutes (Tenn. Code Ann. sect. 33-6-104(a) (1991)).
An example of the form of Normalized English used as input to the NLESB system follows. Note that the formatting is for the sake of readability, and is not necessary for NLESB.
Subsection (a). IF AND ONLY IF
(1)(A) A person has threatened or attempted suicide or to inflict serious
bodily harm on himself, OR
(B) The person has threatened or attempted homicide or other violent
behavior, OR
(C) The person has placed others in reasonable fear of violent behavior
and serious physical harm to them, OR
(D) The person is unable to avoid severe impairment or injury from
specific risks, AND
(2) There is a substantial likelihood that such harm will occur,
THEN
(3) The person poses a "substantial likelihood of serious harm" for
purposes of subsection (b).
Subsection (b). IF AND ONLY IF
(1) A person is mentally ill, AND
(2) The person poses a substantial likelihood of serious harm because of
the mental illness, AND
(3) The person needs care, training, or treatment because of the mental
illness, AND
(4) All available less drastic alternatives to placement in a hospital or
treatment resource are unsuitable to meet the needs of the person,
THEN
(5) The person may be judicially committed to involuntary care and
treatment in a hospital or treatment resource.
http://www.cs.utk.edu/~mclennan/NLESB-normal.html
Natural-Language Legal Expert System Builder (NLESB)
NLESB enables a lawyer to build a useful legal expert system in ordinary English without being a computer expert. It accepts rules in ordinary English, though in normalized form, and parses them into propositional data structures that it can use to draw inferences. NLESB has some features, particularly in its logic, that are peculiar to the needs of legal expert systems.
Send me mail for reprints or if you are interested in using our prototype implementation.
Publications (reverse chronological order):
A Logic for Statutory Law, by John Nolt, Grayfred B. Gray, Bruce J. MacLennan, and Donald J. Ploch, Jurimetics 35, 2 (Winter 1995), pp. 121–151. Winner of Loevinger Prize.
Legal Expert System Building: A Semi-Intelligent Computer Program Makes It Easier, by Grayfred B. Gray, Bruce J. MacLennan, John E. Nolt & Donald R. Ploch, John Marshall Journal of Computer and Information Law, 12 (1994), pp. 555–583.
Readability of the Law: Forms of Law for Building Legal Expert Systems, by Donald R. Ploch, Bethany K. Dumas, Grayfred B. Grey, Bruce J. MacLennan, and John E. Nolt, Jurimetrics 33, 2 (Winter 1993), pp. 189–221.
Law Reading Experiment, by Donald R. Ploch, Bethany K. Dumas, Grayfred H. Gray, Bruce MacLennan, & John Nolt, Pre-Proceedings of the III International Conference, Logica Informatica Diritto: Legal Expert Systems, A. A. Martino (ed.), Consiglio Nazionale delle Ricerche, Istituto per la documentazione giuridica, Florence, Italy, November 2-5, 1989, Vol. 2, pp. 681–704.
The thing that's really important to the government is to protect the privacy of protected class criminals. The only gore you're allowed to see is "docudrama" shit on TV where they reverse the races of the perpetrators.
Of course NONE of the "science reporting" articles give the quantum efficiency, and the actual journal article costs $30.
IT project failures lose over $6e12/year worldwide.
This, of course, has little to do with the quality of programmers and if you think it does, then you're most likely an unemployed, childless white programmer suffering from age-related cognitive decline who has lived a life of sexual frustration.
Just die now and stop sharing your misery with the rest of the world in your psycho suicide attacks on the government.
Of course, validating the winning explanation is the problem since the heretical Enlightenment placed barbaric experimentation over civilized argumentation.
Google should respond: These and other network effects make it hard for competing operating systems to catch up.
Don't fear the creepy green light.
What do you expect from people who believe food comes from the grocery store? Arithmetic???
If the Federal government makes a strategic decision based on the outcome of one rocket launch, the only thing it demonstrates is that the Federal government should be cancelled.
IIRC that was called "washing machine mode" by some, due to its resemblance to an unbalanced spin-dry cycle.
Erratum: David Woolley's quote should have ended with "that's what."
Sounds like you're one of those envious American engineers who should be working at Starbucks.
Engineering is about results alright but not the kind of results you're taking about. Its about worshiping the guys whose behavior has resulted in their possessing huge piles of money no matter how they got them. That's what settled the frontier of the US and got us to land on the moon! Big virtual dicks made tumescent with loads of moolah! Not some guy pounding on a keyboard from his mother's basement who can't get a job from guys like Gates!
I know. Isn't it ridiculous? I mean look what happened to Silicon Valley after the huge importation of foreign workers in the late 1990s hit their limits: Crash! Any white-color brain knows that the cause of the crash was the failure to remove the caps.
Don't worry. It was the first reply and those always get modded up even if they consist of a link to goatse. Go back to K5 or wherever it is you get your world-view reinforced and report everything is normal.
The Horror!
The Horror!
That's right... nothing like Google would have been invented without immigrants. Nothing like Sun workstations would have been invented without immigrants. Indeed, when John Bardeen gave a talk at Altgelt Hall at the U of IL while under the impression his health problems were terminal hence it may have been his last opportunity to tell the history of the transistor, he claimed that Shockley ordered he and Brattain to stop work on semiconductors, forcing them to hide their work on germanium from him by placing it on a "rollycart" so they could roll it out of a closet at night to work on it while Shockley wasn't around and back in before morning. This is clearly sour-grapse symptomatic of the "lazy American engineer who should be working at Starbucks".
I keep telling these idiots that the first option you should look at when jobs are declining is to increase the importation of foreign workers but do they listen?
nnnnNOOOOOoooooooo....
Necessity and Incentives Opening the Space Frontier
Testimony before the House Subcommittee on Space
by James Bowery, Chairman, Coalition for Science and Commerce
July 31, 1991
Mr. Chairman and Distinguished Members of the Subcommittee:
I am James Bowery, Chairman of the Coalition for Science and Commerce. We greatly appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee on the critical and historic topic of commercial incentives to open the space frontier.
The Coalition for Science and Commerce is a grassroots network of citizen activists supporting greater public funding for diversified scientific research and greater private funding for proprietary technology and services. We believe these are mutually reinforcing policies which have been violated to the detriment of civilization. We believe in the constitutional provision of patents of invention and that the principles of free enterprise pertain to intellectual property. We therefore see technology development as a private sector responsibility. We also recognize that scientific knowledge is our common heritage and is therefore a proper function of government. We oppose government programs that remove procurement authority from scientists, supposedly in service of them. Rather we support the inclusion, on a per-grant basis, of all funding needed to purchase the use of needed goods and services, thereby creating a scientist-driven market for commercial high technology and services. We also oppose government subsidy of technology development. Rather we support legislation and policies that motivate the intelligent investment of private risk capital in the creation of commercially viable intellectual property.
In 1990, after a 3 year effort with Congressman Ron Packard (CA) and a bipartisan team of Congressional leaders, we succeeded in passing the Launch Services Purchase Act of 1990, a law which requires NASA to procure launch services in a commercially reasonable manner from the private sector. The lobbying effort for this legislation came totally from taxpaying citizens acting in their home districts without a direct financial stake -- the kind of political intended by our country's founders, but now rarely seen in America.
We ask citizens who work with us for the most valuable thing they can contribute: The voluntary and targeted investment of time, energy and resources in specific issues and positions which they support as taxpaying citizens of the United States. There is no collective action, no slush-fund and no bureaucracy within the Coalition: Only citizens encouraging each other to make the necessary sacrifices to participate in the political process, which is their birthright and duty as Americans. We are working to give interested taxpayers a voice that can be heard above the din of lobbyists who seek ever increasing government funding for their clients.
Introduction
Americans need a frontier, not a program.
Incentives open frontiers, not plans.
If this Subcommittee hears no other message through the barrage of studies, projections and policy recommendations, it must hear this message. A reformed space policy focused on opening the space frontier through commercial incentives will make all the difference to our future as a world, a nation and as individuals.
Americans Need a Frontier
When Neil Armstrong stepped foot on the moon, we won the "space race" against the Soviets and entered two decades of diminished expectations.
The Apollo program elicited something deep within Americans. Something almost primal. Apollo was President Kennedy's "New Frontier." But when Americans found it was terminated as nothing more than a Cold War contest, we felt betrayed in ways we are still unable to articulate -- betrayed right down to our pioneering souls. The result is that Americans will never again truly believe in government space programs and plans.
Without a frontier, for the past two decades, Americans have operated under the inevitable conclusion that land, raw materi
You don't need physical robots running around a maze to demonstrate AI.
Free at last! Free at last! Thank God Almighty whites are free at last!
Well, except from a generally unconstitutional Federal government...