The license is for export and remote sensing. We're not "getting a license to confirm that the government isn't lying", we're getting it to go the Moon!
1) The remote-sensing permit from NOAA assures that we act in accordance with international treaties in regard to the imaging. NOAA also inspects for compliance with other things, like the Outer Space Treaty (especially with regards to space debris control). see http://www.licensing.noaa.gov/
2) The export permit lets us ship the spacecraft to Baikonur for launch. State does a rather meticulous inspection of the company's methods for handling technology security to avoid illegal technology transfer. see http://www.pmdtc.org
Paul Blase CTO TransOrbital http://www.transorbital. net
It's more to verify precisely where they are, rather than that they're there at all. For most of the unmanned probes, especially, the exact locations aren't well known.
wreck? Isn't that a bit harsh for one little bitty probe? Of course we certainly hope that this will lead to further industrialization and colonization, which will really drive the environmentalists up the wall. Wrecking all of that natural purity. Of course, most of these people would have us back in the stone age (except for themselves, of course). Here's a clue: take a look at what happened to the Native Americans. For a variety of reasons (not, I'll admit, their own fault - check out "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond) they didn't explore beyond their own shores. Well, they found out that the boundless sea wasn't quite as boundless as they'd thought.
Stasis is impossible, we must either grow, or die. Of course that doesn't mean that we have to be vicious or ugly about it, but if we don't expand life into space than we'll end up stewing in our own juices.
And if something _does_ escape, where's it going to go? You could set off an H bomb on the Moon, and _nobody could tell the difference afterwords_! There's no air and no ground water to spread stuff around, so even if something does leak, it's not going anywhere. Even if a bacteria could survive, it would cyst up and stay put. The most you'd lose is one crater. Considering all of the NIMBY problems here on Earth, I'd rather that it be done up there.
We are specifically NOT claiming any property on the Moon. As an aside, the mission-conclusion impact spot will be targeted to avoid any known landing sites or other spots of historical or particular geographical (selenegraphical?)interest.
Oh, it would get there. The moon is rather hard to miss, and there's not much interference. And the cost per byte wouldn't be that much more than keeping it on Earth. What you'd use this for is the stuff that you absolutely can't afford to loose, and can't afford for anyone else to get their hands on either (say, the backup design files for your company's $1G/year mainline products). Potential hazards on the Moon:
asteroid strike. Potential hazards on Earth:
asteroid strike
terrorists
fire
flood
Earthquake
your competition
teen hackers
disgruntled ex employees....
BTW, have you seen the new IBM effort called the Icecube, that fits a 1.2 TByte server into a 12" cube?
1) The remote-sensing permit from NOAA assures that we act in accordance with international treaties in regard to the imaging. NOAA also inspects for compliance with other things, like the Outer Space Treaty (especially with regards to space debris control).
see http://www.licensing.noaa.gov/
2) The export permit lets us ship the spacecraft to Baikonur for launch. State does a rather meticulous inspection of the company's methods for handling technology security to avoid illegal technology transfer.
see http://www.pmdtc.org
Realistically, "Mankind" (or "Humankind" if you prefer) won't colonize or do anything else in space. Individuals will, for a variety of reasons, including (and especially): the hope of gaining various freedoms (religious, political, etc) and the hope of making a (large) profit. In all probability, at least in the initial stages, these colonists will be sponsored by or at least work under the eye of a government or consortium of governments.
This is one reason. Primarily, NASA is so expensive because 1) it politically _cannot_ fail, 2) it has little incentive to keep costs down, and 3) it isn't in business to make money. If you look at the various analyses of the launch market, particularly G. Harry Stine's book "Halfway to Anywhere", one of the largest contributers to launch cost is the crew required to ready the vehicle for launch. Readying the Shuttle for each launch takes several months and around 10,000 people. Compare this to a commercial jetliner, which takes perhaps 20 people and about an hour. The other major contributing factor, of course, is that airlines don't throw away their aircraft after each use. (BTW, I should mention that one must distinguish between "NASA" and the "Launch Vehicle Providers." NASA doesn't actually do any orbital launches, and doesn't pay for the majority of them. Boeing, Lock-Mart, etc actually launch the vehicles, and most of the launches being done are either commercial comm-sats or military. )
The "8.5 x 11 inch pages" will be scanned and photo-etched onto a metal disk which will be placed on the spacecraft (and armored to survive the "hard-landing". The actual business card, however, is going.
We have submitted the applications, it's just that the processes take a long time to wind their way through a host of government agencies. The design and fabrication processes are proceeding, however.
Because
* we wish to start the _commercial_ exploration of space,
* NASA isn't interested in the Moon much
* We _are_ interested in the Moon.
* There's money to be gained.
BTW, TransOrbital started out as a bunch of folk from the Artemis Society - check out their website for some more reasons.
The spacecraft will be in a polar orbit, starting just inside the terminator. The location of the orbit relative to the terminator changes not as the Moon revolves around the Earth, but as the Moon (and Earth, of course) go around the Sun - basically the spacecraft's orbital plane stays still and the Sun moves through 360 degrees per year. Since the duration of the mission will only be about a month, the terminator will move beneath the spacecraft by 30 degrees over the course of a month.
The Moon's motion around the Earth, on the other hand, serves to move different areas of the moon underneath the orbit over the course of the month, allowing the spacecraft to view the whole lunar surface, in time.
If it'll go through customs and won't endanger the craft (e.g. no explosives) we'll carry it.
Seriously, though, yes - there's a great "gee-whiz" factor here. But then people bought pet rocks and are naming stars (sans approval from international astronomical authorities) and adopting whales. We're not claiming anything other than entertainment value, at this point, and the opportunity to be a part of opening up space to the "little guys."
Slashdot Mirror
The license is for export and remote sensing. We're not "getting a license to confirm that the government isn't lying", we're getting it to go the Moon!
That would be done with a lander, duh. The Time Capsule is images on a metal disk, in a hardened capsule, which would survive the impact.
Ever read "Canticle for Leibowitz" ?
1) The remote-sensing permit from NOAA assures that we act in accordance with international treaties in regard to the imaging. NOAA also inspects for compliance with other things, like the Outer Space Treaty (especially with regards to space debris control).
. net
see http://www.licensing.noaa.gov/
2) The export permit lets us ship the spacecraft to Baikonur for launch. State does a rather meticulous inspection of the company's methods for handling technology security to avoid illegal technology transfer.
see http://www.pmdtc.org
Paul Blase
CTO
TransOrbital
http://www.transorbital
Who's messing with God? We're just getting closer to some of His handywork to admire it better.
It's more to verify precisely where they are, rather than that they're there at all. For most of the unmanned probes, especially, the exact locations aren't well known.
Nope, it's just that the guy in South Africa (I think) got it first and wanted a LOT of money for it. We had better things to spend it on.
wreck? Isn't that a bit harsh for one little bitty probe? Of course we certainly hope that this will lead to further industrialization and colonization, which will really drive the environmentalists up the wall. Wrecking all of that natural purity. Of course, most of these people would have us back in the stone age (except for themselves, of course). Here's a clue: take a look at what happened to the Native Americans. For a variety of reasons (not, I'll admit, their own fault - check out "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by Jared Diamond) they didn't explore beyond their own shores. Well, they found out that the boundless sea wasn't quite as boundless as they'd thought.
Stasis is impossible, we must either grow, or die. Of course that doesn't mean that we have to be vicious or ugly about it, but if we don't expand life into space than we'll end up stewing in our own juices.
The operative word is "step".
And if something _does_ escape, where's it going to go? You could set off an H bomb on the Moon, and _nobody could tell the difference afterwords_! There's no air and no ground water to spread stuff around, so even if something does leak, it's not going anywhere. Even if a bacteria could survive, it would cyst up and stay put. The most you'd lose is one crater. Considering all of the NIMBY problems here on Earth, I'd rather that it be done up there.
We are specifically NOT claiming any property on the Moon. As an aside, the mission-conclusion impact spot will be targeted to avoid any known landing sites or other spots of historical or particular geographical (selenegraphical?)interest.
Well, if you _really_ want to go, we could possibly fit you in. :)
Oh, it would get there. The moon is rather hard to miss, and there's not much interference. And the cost per byte wouldn't be that much more than keeping it on Earth. What you'd use this for is the stuff that you absolutely can't afford to loose, and can't afford for anyone else to get their hands on either (say, the backup design files for your company's $1G/year mainline products).
Potential hazards on the Moon:
asteroid strike.
Potential hazards on Earth:
asteroid strike
terrorists
fire
flood
Earthquake
your competition
teen hackers
disgruntled ex employees....
BTW, have you seen the new IBM effort called the Icecube, that fits a 1.2 TByte server into a 12" cube?
Yep, we have applied for the trademark as regards spacecraft. What happens if you want to launch your Chevy truck, I don't know.
1) The remote-sensing permit from NOAA assures that we act in accordance with international treaties in regard to the imaging. NOAA also inspects for compliance with other things, like the Outer Space Treaty (especially with regards to space debris control).
see http://www.licensing.noaa.gov/
2) The export permit lets us ship the spacecraft to Baikonur for launch. State does a rather meticulous inspection of the company's methods for handling technology security to avoid illegal technology transfer.
see http://www.pmdtc.org
Realistically, "Mankind" (or "Humankind" if you prefer) won't colonize or do anything else in space. Individuals will, for a variety of reasons, including (and especially): the hope of gaining various freedoms (religious, political, etc) and the hope of making a (large) profit. In all probability, at least in the initial stages, these colonists will be sponsored by or at least work under the eye of a government or consortium of governments.
I rather imagine that he doesn't have to know anything about spacecraft - he hires the engineers who do.
This is one reason. Primarily, NASA is so expensive because 1) it politically _cannot_ fail, 2) it has little incentive to keep costs down, and 3) it isn't in business to make money. If you look at the various analyses of the launch market, particularly G. Harry Stine's book "Halfway to Anywhere", one of the largest contributers to launch cost is the crew required to ready the vehicle for launch. Readying the Shuttle for each launch takes several months and around 10,000 people. Compare this to a commercial jetliner, which takes perhaps 20 people and about an hour. The other major contributing factor, of course, is that airlines don't throw away their aircraft after each use.
(BTW, I should mention that one must distinguish between "NASA" and the "Launch Vehicle Providers." NASA doesn't actually do any orbital launches, and doesn't pay for the majority of them. Boeing, Lock-Mart, etc actually launch the vehicles, and most of the launches being done are either commercial comm-sats or military. )
The "8.5 x 11 inch pages" will be scanned and photo-etched onto a metal disk which will be placed on the spacecraft (and armored to survive the "hard-landing". The actual business card, however, is going.
We have submitted the applications, it's just that the processes take a long time to wind their way through a host of government agencies. The design and fabrication processes are proceeding, however.
Because
* we wish to start the _commercial_ exploration of space,
* NASA isn't interested in the Moon much
* We _are_ interested in the Moon.
* There's money to be gained.
BTW, TransOrbital started out as a bunch of folk from the Artemis Society - check out their website for some more reasons.
The spacecraft will be in a polar orbit, starting just inside the terminator. The location of the orbit relative to the terminator changes not as the Moon revolves around the Earth, but as the Moon (and Earth, of course) go around the Sun - basically the spacecraft's orbital plane stays still and the Sun moves through 360 degrees per year. Since the duration of the mission will only be about a month, the terminator will move beneath the spacecraft by 30 degrees over the course of a month.
The Moon's motion around the Earth, on the other hand, serves to move different areas of the moon underneath the orbit over the course of the month, allowing the spacecraft to view the whole lunar surface, in time.
1) Fox didn't prove anything, they were totally full of it.
2) What does the realness or non-realness of Apollo have to do with TrailBlazer?
For something like that we could work out a bulk discount.
If it'll go through customs and won't endanger the craft (e.g. no explosives) we'll carry it.
Seriously, though, yes - there's a great "gee-whiz" factor here. But then people bought pet rocks and are naming stars (sans approval from international astronomical authorities) and adopting whales. We're not claiming anything other than entertainment value, at this point, and the opportunity to be a part of opening up space to the "little guys."