<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>User Is Content &#187; space</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/tag/space/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog</link>
	<description>Culture Is Our Business</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 15 Jan 2012 09:27:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>Burning Men, Part 2: the Order of Things by Erik Davis of techgnosis</title>
		<link>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/09/29/burning-men-part-2-the-order-of-things-by-erik-davis-of-techgnosis/</link>
		<comments>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/09/29/burning-men-part-2-the-order-of-things-by-erik-davis-of-techgnosis/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 29 Sep 2007 09:13:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>synthum molyart</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[From The Field]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jai Note]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Burnin' WoMen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Burning WoMan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CIA Not!]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ecodelics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Erik Davis]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gamer Theory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hail Eris]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[media ecology]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mind manifesting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mind States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offGrid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open source religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psyche de Luxe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[space]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Spook Country]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Tantra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[tetrad]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Why They Hate US]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/?p=63</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How does Erik think this stuff UP^! too much and very nice. R eally gettin&#8217; a Clue! The Perp! above ^ eDavis: So when Burners invoked specifically legalistic categories like &#8220;arson&#8221; and &#8220;reckless endangerment&#8221;—and I did it too at times—they were not just rationally debating Addis&#8217; fate. They were actively deflating the productive legal ambiguity [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How does Erik think this stuff UP^!  too much and very nice. R eally gettin&#8217; a Clue!</p>
<p><img src="http://techgnosis.com/imgs/addis3.jpg" height="288" width="180" /></p>
<p>The Perp! above ^</p>
<p>eDavis:</p>
<p>So when Burners invoked specifically legalistic categories like &#8220;arson&#8221; and &#8220;reckless endangerment&#8221;—and I did it too at times—they were not just rationally debating Addis&#8217; fate. They were actively deflating the productive legal ambiguity of Black Rock City as a self-governing political and territorial space by capitulating, too quickly and without <a href="http://techgnosis.com/chunks.php?sec=journal&amp;cat=experiencing&amp;file=chunkfrom-2007-09-26-2329-0.txt">consciousness, to the reality tunnel of the State and, particularly, to its conception of property.</a></p>
<p>and</p>
<p>Look, for example, at the constricted lives of so many kids today, with their helmets and knee pads and car-seats, their time managed, their piss checked, their movements tracked by cell phones and prohibitions against aimless wandering. What has been killed in the process of making them less likely to be killed? Perhaps, in our fearful genuflection before safety, we are deadening our taste for the raw and nervy exultation of cognitive and physical liberty—a liberty which most certainly should include the freedom to attend dangerous and wayward festivals where, if your aren&#8217;t careful or even <a href="http://techgnosis.com/chunkshow-single.php?chunk=chunkfrom-2007-09-26-2329-0.txt">lucky, large burning things might fall on your head.</a></p>
<p><strong style="font-size: 17px">Burning Men</strong><br />
<a href="http://techgnosis.com/chunkshow-single.php?chunk=chunkfrom-2007-09-20-2300-0.txt">Part One: Chaosmos</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/09/29/burning-men-part-2-the-order-of-things-by-erik-davis-of-techgnosis/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>&#8216;In the Shadow of the Moon&#8217; film opens; no stars in any film frames?</title>
		<link>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/09/11/in-the-shadow-of-the-moon-film-opens/</link>
		<comments>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/09/11/in-the-shadow-of-the-moon-film-opens/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Sep 2007 05:41:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>synthum molyart</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[From The Field]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[film]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fun]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[space]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[video]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/?p=55</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[ How come no stars in the film/photos taken outside the atmosphere of the Earth? No views of the Star Fields on the 3 day trip to Moon. We went there 9 times?! No comments by any astronauts on the stars and how they do not twinkle in no air&#8230;and there would be plenty to see! [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<h2 id="headline"> How come no stars in the film/photos taken outside the atmosphere of the Earth? No views of the Star Fields on the 3 day trip to Moon. We went there 9 times?! No comments by any astronauts on the stars and how they do not twinkle in no air&#8230;and there would be plenty to see! Duh?! and what gives&#8230;I &#8216;ve never seen a star in any photo by NASA taken by a film camera by a person outside the atmosphere since NASA started&#8230;</h2>
<p>Astronauts Live &#8216;In the Shadow of the Moon&#8217;</p>
<h3 id="dek">Film Records Deepest Thoughts of Men Who Went to the Moon</h3>
<h4 id="byline">By NED POTTER</h4>
<p><strong>Sept. 7, 2007 —</strong></p>
<p>In all of time, only 24 human beings have flown to or around the moon, looked back, and seen Earth as a small blue sphere in the blackness of space.</p>
<p>Their numbers are dwindling.  Of the 12 who walked on the moon&#8217;s surface, only nine are alive today, and the youngest is 71.</p>
<p>So British director David Sington and his crew set out to seize the moment &#8212; now, before the opportunity passes, to bring the Apollo astronauts together in one film, and ask them how the experience affected them.</p>
<p>&#8220;I think these guys are very sane individuals. They are very down to earth, because, in some sense, they really know what Earth is,&#8221; says Sington. &#8220;There are 7 billion of us on the planet, and nine of those 7 billion have stood on another heavenly body.&#8221;</p>
<p><a href="http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3399586&amp;page=1">http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=3399586&amp;page=1</a></p>
<p>Film web site</p>
<p><a href="http://www.intheshadowofthemoon.com/">http://www.intheshadowofthemoon.com/</a></p>
<p>Clip on Apple</p>
<p><a href="http://http://www.apple.com/trailers/thinkfilm/intheshadowofthemoon/trailer/">http://www.apple.com/trailers/thinkfilm/intheshadowofthemoon/trailer/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/09/11/in-the-shadow-of-the-moon-film-opens/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Current TV covers Burnin&#8217; Man</title>
		<link>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/08/31/current-tv-covers-burnin-man/</link>
		<comments>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/08/31/current-tv-covers-burnin-man/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 31 Aug 2007 09:13:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>synthum molyart</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[From The Field]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[bicycles]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Burning WoMan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ecodelics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[fun]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[future]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mind manifesting]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mind States]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[offGrid]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[open source religion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Psyche de Luxe]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[religion upgraded]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[solar]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sound]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[space]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/?p=53</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Live video cam from burnin&#8217; womans http://qtss.telascience.org/live.sdp burning man site and info http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2007/08/video-current-t.html current.tv coverage of burning man http://www.current.tv/network/video?id=39821750 More current TV 2007 vids day by day http://www.current.tv/burningman/]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p> Live video cam from burnin&#8217; womans</p>
<p><a href="http://qtss.telascience.org/live.sdp">http://qtss.telascience.org/live.sdp</a></p>
<p>burning man site and info<br />
<embed src="http://www.current.tv/swf/vmm/vmm.swf" flashvars="videoType=vcc&#038;mrss=http%3a%2f%2fwww.current.tv%2frss%2fvideo%2fviewing.htm%3fctv%3d1%26id%3d39664240" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/go/getflashplayer" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" quality="high" height="400" width="400" AllowScriptAccess="always"></embed><br />
<a href="http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2007/08/video-current-t.html">http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2007/08/video-current-t.html</a></p>
<p>current.tv coverage of burning man<br />
<a href="http://www.current.tv/network/video?id=39821750">http://www.current.tv/network/video?id=39821750</a></p>
<p>More current TV 2007 vids  day by day<br />
<a href="http://www.current.tv/burningman/"> http://www.current.tv/burningman/</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/08/31/current-tv-covers-burnin-man/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>China&#8217;s space junk debris</title>
		<link>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/02/10/chinas-space-junk-debris/</link>
		<comments>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/02/10/chinas-space-junk-debris/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 10 Feb 2007 23:22:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Robin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[space]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/?p=26</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Here&#8217;s a link to an excellent graphic on the space junk created by China&#8217;s destruction of their old weather satellite. The graphic shows how the debris spreads throughout an orbit and threatens anything in nearby orbits. Chinese Space Junk]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Here&#8217;s a link to an excellent graphic on the space junk created by China&#8217;s destruction of their old weather satellite.  The graphic shows how the debris spreads throughout an orbit and threatens anything in nearby orbits.</p>
<p><a target="_blank" title="Chinese Space Junk" href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/20070206_ORBIT_GRAPHIC.html?_r=3&#038;oref=slogin&#038;oref=slogin&#038;oref=slogin">Chinese Space Junk</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/06/science/20070206_ORBIT_GRAPHIC.html?_r=3&#038;oref=slogin&#038;oref=slogin&#038;oref=slogin"><br />
</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/02/10/chinas-space-junk-debris/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Pretty Good Shot</title>
		<link>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/01/27/a-pretty-good-shot/</link>
		<comments>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/01/27/a-pretty-good-shot/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Jan 2007 07:23:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Robin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[math]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[space]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/?p=21</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[In the September 4, 2006 issue of Space News, Thomas Christie, the former chief weapons tester at the Pentagon, was quoted as saying the Ground Based Mid-course Defense System &#8220;likely would have less than a 20% chance of shooting down an incoming missile from North Korea&#8221;. When asked his take on the system&#8217;s effectiveness, the [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial" /><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial" /></font></font><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial"></p>
<p align="left">In the September 4, 2006 issue of Space News, Thomas Christie, the former chief weapons tester at the Pentagon, was quoted as saying the Ground Based Mid-course Defense System &#8220;likely would have less than a 20% chance of shooting down an incoming missile from North Korea&#8221;. When asked his take on the system&#8217;s effectiveness, the president of the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance, Mr. Riki Ellison, responded &#8220;that could be from firing just one missile, and, there are about 9 or 10 interceptors that could take multiple shots at the incoming target, thereby increasing the chances of a hit.&#8221;</p>
<p align="left">If one interceptor has a 20% chance of hitting a target, what exactly are the chances of a successful defense against an incoming missile with 10 interceptors?</p>
<p align="left">Basic probability theory can help answer that question. Let&#8217;s start simple. Suppose an antiballistic missile (ABM) interceptor has exactly a 20% chance of hitting an incoming missile. That means it has an 80% chance of missing. Not good.</p>
<p align="left">Suppose two interceptors are shot, and for simplicity, let&#8217;s assume that each interceptor launched is an independent event (the action of one interceptor does not effect the other). In this case, there are several possible situations that can occur. The first ABM could hit the target, and the second could miss. Likewise, the first ABM could miss and the second one could hit. Or, they both could hit the target, or, both miss it.</p>
<p align="left">Let&#8217;s abbreviate these four possibilities {HM, MH, HH, MM} using H for a hit and M for a miss. This list of all the possible outcomes for two interceptors is called the <em>sample space</em>. An <em>element</em> of the sample space is called an <em>event</em>. Now assuming each interceptor is independent, and one interceptor does not effect the other, the probability of any compound event of two interceptors can be computed by multiplying the probability of each of the single events.</p>
<p align="left">For example, if both ABMs hit the target, we can multiply the probability of each one hitting to get the probability of the <em>compound event</em> of them both hitting:</p>
<p align="left">P(HH) = P(H)P(H)</p>
<p align="left">          = (0.20)(0.20)</p>
<p align="left">          = 0.04</p>
<p align="left">We have a 4% chance of BOTH missiles hitting the target.</p>
<p align="left">The probability that both <em>miss</em> the target is computed as</p>
<p align="left">P(MM) = P(M)P(M)</p>
<p align="left">           = (0.80)(0.80)</p>
<p align="left">           = 0.64</p>
<p align="left">giving a 64% chance of both ABM&#8217;s missing the target.</p>
<p align="left">Now, what if one hits, and the other misses:</p>
<p align="left">P(HM) = P(H)P(M)</p>
<p align="left">          = (0.20)(0.80)</p>
<p align="left">          = 0.16</p>
<p align="left">or a 16% chance of one hitting and one missing. It&#8217;s the same computation and the same result for the first ABM missing and the second one hitting:</p>
<p align="left">P(MH) = (0.80)(0.20)</p>
<p align="left">          = 0.16</p>
<p align="left">Now it is a basic tenent of probability that the sum of all probabilities of events in the sample space must add to 1. We can confirm this by noting that</p>
<p align="left">          0.04 + 0.64 + 0.16 + 0.16 = 1</p>
<p align="left">Let&#8217;s now ask what is the probability that AT LEAST one hit will occur? There are three possibilites in the sample space where at least one hit can occur: HM or MH or HH. To find the probability of at least one hit occuring, we add the probabilities for each of these compound events.  (In these simple cases, OR measn ADD in probability.)</p>
<p align="left">P(at least one hit) = P( HM or MH or HH)</p>
<p align="left">                             = 0.16 + 0.16 + 0.04</p>
<p align="left">                             = 0.36</p>
<p align="left">So there is a 36% chance that at least one of the two ABMs will it the target missile.   Since all probabilities in a sample space must add to 1, and the probability that both interceptors miss is P(MM) = 0.64, we have that:</p>
<p align="left">          P(at least one hit) + P(all miss) = 1</p>
<p align="left">                                        0.36 + 0.64 = 1</p>
<p align="left">Subtracting the P(all miss) from both sides of the equation, we have</p>
<p align="left">          P(at least one hit) = 1 – P(all miss)</p>
<p align="left">Since there is only ONE WAY that any number of interceptors can ALL MISS the target, this simple equation gives an easier way to compute the probability of at least one hit for any number of ABMs.</p>
<p align="left">With three ABMs you have a sample set of eight different possible outcomes.</p>
<p align="left">          {HMM, MHM, MMH, HHM, HMH, MHH, HHH, MMM}</p>
<p align="left">To computer the probabiltiy that at least one of the three interceptors will hit the target, we have </p>
<p align="left">          P(at least one hit) = 1 – P(no hit at all)</p>
<p align="left">or</p>
<p align="left">     P(HMM or MHM or MMH or HHM or HMH or MHH or HHH) = 1 – P(MMM)</p>
<p align="left">It&#8217;s easy to compute the probability that all three interceptors miss:</p>
<p align="left">           P(MMM) = (0.80)(0.80)(0.80)</p>
<p align="left">                         = 0.512</p>
<p align="left">                         = 51.2%</p>
<p align="left">Then, substituting this into our equation, we get the probability that at least one of the interceptors will hit as</p>
<p align="left">           P(at least one hit) = 1 – P(all miss)</p>
<p align="left">                                        = 1 – P(MMM)</p>
<p align="left">                                        = 1 – 0.512</p>
<p align="left">                                        = 0.488</p>
<p align="left">                                        = 48.8%</p>
<p align="left">At least with three ABMs we are getting closer to a 50% chance of at least one of them taking out the target.</p>
<p align="left">So what if we had 10 interceptors.  The number of total outcomes increases to 2^10.  What is the probability that at least one of the ten interceptors will hit the target?</p>
<p align="left">          P(at least one hit) = 1 – P(all miss)</p>
<p align="left">                                       = 1 – P(MMMMMMMMMM)</p>
<p align="left">                                        = 1 – (0.8)^10</p>
<p align="left">                                        = 1 – 0.107374</p>
<p align="left">                                        = 0.892626</p>
<p></font><font face="Mathematica3">                                                      ></font><font face="Arial"> 89%</font><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial" /></font><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial" /></font></font><font face="Arial"><font face="Arial"></p>
<p align="left">It&#8217;s close to a 90% chance that at least one of the ten antiballistic missiles will hit an incoming missile, assuming independent events.</p>
<p align="left">Now, inreality, the events are not independent. In other words, if the first missile missed, one assumes there would be some information gleaned that would add to the accuracy of the second one. However, enemy efforts to disguise the incoming missile containing the warhead with a number of decoys further complicate the computation, as well as the probability of a hit.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, Mr. Ellison is correct; 10 interceptors increase the chances of a successful hit. As we have shown, the probability increases from 20% to 89%. He also states that &#8220;while the system&#8217;s capability might not be 100%, I think it would have a pretty good shot at intercepting the North Korean missile.&#8221; Given the price tag in the trillions through 2015 for Ballistic Missile Defense, it had better be &#8220;a pretty good shot&#8221;.</p>
<p> </p>
<p /></font></font></font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/01/27/a-pretty-good-shot/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Space Race Part II</title>
		<link>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/01/21/space-race-part-ii/</link>
		<comments>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/01/21/space-race-part-ii/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 21 Jan 2007 18:58:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Robin</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Robin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[China]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[McLuhan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[politics]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[space]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/?p=19</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Recent headlines about the destruction of a Chinese weather satellite by one of their own missiles had US officials quoted in wide-eyed surprise claiming the act threatened US-China relations and escalated the weaponization of space. Of course, the hundreds of billions of dollars the US has spent on ballistic missile defense and research into smaller [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><font size="3"><font size="3">Recent headlines about the destruction of a Chinese weather satellite by one of their own missiles had US officials quoted in wide-eyed surprise claiming the act threatened US-China relations and escalated the weaponization of space.<br />
</font><font size="3">Of course, the hundreds of billions of dollars the US has spent on ballistic missile defense and research into smaller “useable” nuclear weapons with its own kill vehicles positioned on land and sea aimed at sites across the world speaks volumes about the US’ position on the weaponization of our planet.<br />
</font><font size="3">It is also doubtful that the Chinese action was a surprise to intelligence professionals. Reports six months ago alleged the Chinese “illuminated” a US satellite using a laser. With this short burst of directed energy, it is believed China wanted to not only demonstrate its power, however briefly, but also gauge US reaction to it. This latest incident has brought China-US relations into a new level of experimentation and started Space Race II, the Sequel.<br />
</font><font size="3">As far as space is concerned, the field has evened in recent years, and the US no longer has the edge, or prestige, that it used to. China has conducted manned missions into space, becoming the third country to do so, behind Russia and the US.<br />
</font><font size="3">Changes in export laws fostered the creation of a network of businesses outside of US that has quietly developed to supply and build space assets for peaceful as well as military applications with no American involvement. Deals have been made between China, Russia, Europe, and Middle Eastern unilaterally. Middle Eastern, African, and South American countries are having satellites built in Europe and launched by Russia.<br />
</font><font size="3">Space shuttle disasters and the subsequent reneging on International Space Station agreements have put world partners in a position where they just don’t trust American commitments. Russia and Europe are partnering on a Mars mission, without US participation.<br />
</font><font size="3">The latest move by China will only exacerbate the stubbornness of the US to stay the course and isolate itself further. We can expect to see the rhetoric become frothier. US solicitations for partnerships on both military and civilian projects with even longterm partners will most likely be politely turned down. And what about Poland? Eastern block countries will likely join the European Union for any space related activity.<br />
</font><font size="3">Ironically, this act by China comes during a milestone anniversary, for it was October 4, 1957 that the Russians launched the first artificial satellite into orbit around the Earth.  Sputnik, a word meaning “traveling companion”, was a 184 pound ball that continuously transmitted a signal alternating in 20 and 40 MHz that radio enthusiasts around the world were able to pick up with inexpensive commercial equipment, enabling amateurs to track the satellite globally as it sailed above in low Earth orbit. The constant beeping irritated US officials who not only feigned surprise, but were also led to publicly state that it wasn’t much of a big deal.<br />
</font><font size="3">Of course, behind the scenes, American intelligence had many reports on Russian progress in rocketry. The US had a rocket program decades old, and plans for orbiting their own satellite. But the successful launch of Sputnik changed the dynamic. Officials knew they had to move quickly to gain supremacy in space and government support moved with it.  The Space Race had begun.  Suffering many losses in dollars and prestige, American efforts were finally rewarded and it was eventually won by the US with the landing of Apollo 11 on the moon.<br />
</font><font size="3">Sputnik disregarded the lines that separate nations and lorded over the planet wholly. The basketball-sized orb named Sputnik revealed to people around the world that space travel, till then only a dream, was indeed possible. “Sputnik and the moon shots brought about, in effect, the institution of a new kind of global theater, in which all men become actors and there are few spectators. The population of the world is both the cast and content of this new theater. The repertory of the theater consists of a perpetual happening, which can include the retrieval or replay of any previous happening that men choose to experience.” Marshall McLuhan Culture is Our Business pg 145   It was Marshall McLuhan who noted that man-made satellites, encircling the Earth, made Nature into an art piece. The world became a global village.<br />
</font><font size="3">The destruction of this weather satellite by China is to be abhorred for many reasons, not the least of which is the huge cloud of debris now in orbit, adding to the flotsam that endangers spacecraft and astronauts alike. Estimates are that only 10% of all space junk is tracked, and even the tiniest pieces can cause catastrophic damage. Hitting a satellite could have meant destruction, hitting an astronaut could have meant death.<br />
</font><font size="3">All wars are fought with the latest technology available and Sputnik started the third world war where information is the weapon. Space Race II is this very moment starting in a world very different from 50 years ago. The US is no longer the world leader it was. No longer do we have the resources, money, or trust of the people, to build a new infrastructure of war and weapons in space in the name of a “defense” strategy. No doubt attempts will continue, but it may be a last gasp of American hegemony.<br />
</font><font size="3">The Doomsday Clock was recently moved to five minutes till midnight indicating our increased vulnerability to nuclear weapons. On this 50th anniversary of Sputnik, our challenge today is to check the drive for control of Earth and space and keep from destroying the very the very planet we need for our survival as a species. Can world governments find a way to cooperate and move our planet into the 21rst century with a minimum of tragedy?<br />
</font><font size="3"> </font></font><font size="3"> </font></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.useriscontent.com/blog/2007/01/21/space-race-part-ii/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Dynamic Page Served (once) in 0.875 seconds -->

