Posts Tagged ‘NASA’

Robot Liability Issues? Space Internet with Lasers

October 25, 2013

ROBOTS

 

Robots are getting better, and some people are already talking about the liability issues. I’ll bet there are a few corporate lawyers and litigation specialists helping drive the talk:

http://cacm.acm.org/news/169024-legal-issues-with-robots/fulltext

 

They’re worried about open source robots. Who to blame when something goes wrong?

 

Much worry about nothing. Who sued Microsoft for all the time and money lost to the Blue Screen Of Death?

 

Nobody died, but….

 

It’s simple anyway. If you build a robot and sell it and it is to blame in some hypothetical situation, it’s a deal between them and you. Linux proved more reliable than Microsoft, more stable and generally less vulnerable to attacks, but Microsoft gets liability protections when it sells its stuff. Disclaimers tell you that by using it, you can’t blame them for the results.

 

Some computer academics want to roll that back. But do businesses really want that? For a fool-proof computer system, for all contexts and uses that you might imagine, free of glitches, you’d have to pay double.

 

Look, you want a car that will resist damage in an accident to that extent? Get an 18-wheeler. Otherwise, get what you can pay for and what you think is worth it. Or if you’re a business, of course it’s the same thing.

 

Of course, I’m glad Open Source is invading the robotics space. It’s already practically taken over the 3-D printing space, from what I can see.

 

 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++===

 

SPACE INTERNET?

 

http://cacm.acm.org/news/169004-nasa-says-first-space-internet-test-beyond-expectations/fulltext

 

NASA was (is) testing laser communication systems as a medium for a space-based Internet.

Cornell says the laser communications system could form the building blocks of an outerspace Internet. “This is the beginning of that,” he says. “I think we could have that with delay tolerant networking.”

NASA hopes to use similar systems for faster satellite communications and deep space communications with robots and human exploration crews in the future. Two-way laser communications systems can deliver six times more data with 25 percent less power than the best radio systems currently in use today, and weigh half as much, Cornwell notes.

“Oh, it’s going to enable a lot of things,” he says, “but the big benefit is you can send back more data from wherever you are.”

It will require line-of-sight, right? But then there’s not as much clutter in space as there is on the ground here, except for near-Earth orbiting space junk and useful stuff up there.

 

 

Advertisement

Pastor Jeffress is wrong: Billions?! O’Reilly likes Bible doubters

March 25, 2013
English: Adam and Eve were both naked & were n...

English: Adam and Eve were both naked & were not ashamed, as in Genesis 2:25: “And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.” (KJV) illustration from the 1728 Figures de la Bible; illustrated by Gerard Hoet (1648–1733) and others, and published by P. de Hondt in The Hague; image courtesy Bizzell Bible Collection, University of Oklahoma Libraries (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

This is my reaction to this story at Christian News:

http://christiannews.net/2013/03/07/pastor-jilted-by-tebow-under-fire-by-renowned-creationist-for-undermining-word-of-god-on-oreilly/

Pastor Jeffress CANNOT believe in the Bible “cover to cover” if he does not believe its historical accuracy in the straightforward reading of it. The six-day creation is emphasized scripturally in 21 different ways right there in Genesis One, by the word “day” itself, PLUS the ordinal numbering of the day (the 2nd day is the day after the 1st day), PLUS AND MOST IMPORTANTLY the emphasis given to the 24-hour day as we know it by the use of the “evening and the morning”.

Make no mistake: Jesus believed in the Creation as told in Genesis, it’s plain to see and clearly shown. He talked about Adam and Eve, and He who made them.

Wolves dressed in sheep’s clothing have infiltrated congregations and are teaching doctrines of devils.

Jeremiah 2 shows you that Darwinian (and neo-Darwinian) evolution are just ancient pagan myths, a “stock art my father” and a rock “hath brought be forth”. Nothing new under the sun. This is a materialistic superstition of modern pagans (atheists) who cling to these dogmas so as to escape believing in God.

Besides, the facts of science itself has brought 10s and 100s of thousands of hard physical scientists to faith in God. Polonium halos, polystrate fossils, inverted sedimentary layers, sea shells covering the land surface in every conceivable corner of the world, the Cambrian explosion, the fossil record testifying to original special creation of each kind, the spectacular design of the purely symbolic digital coded language of DNA, the spot-on prediction of the magnetic field strength of Saturn and Uranus by young-earth Creation scientist Russ Humphreys (putting to shame all the official dogma-enforcing NASA scientists –and prediction based on Genesis One)…

The list is tens of thousands of proofs of the precise accuracy of the word of God and the facts make fools out of the smarter-than-thou snotty-nosed class that have to revise their own dogmatic just-so blabber every couple of years because the FACTS keep proving them wrong over and over again.

Bill Nye blabbers the same religious dogmas on John Stossel’s show

December 16, 2012
John Stossel

John Stossel (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

HEY BILL NYE!

“Observable and repeatable”?

How about scientist Russ Humphrey’s bull’s eye accurate prediction of the magnetic field strength of planets Neptune and Uranus before the satellite sent back the measurements, and the NASA guys getting it orders of magnitude wrong?

Bill Nye holds his evolutionary beliefs with very religious tenacity.

John Stossel should host a debate between Bill Nye “the science guy” and one of the foremost Creation scientists that have done it, like a great many associated with The Institute of Creation Research, or The CRS Research Journal.

Nye says you can’t disprove evolution and that you cannot prove the Earth is 6,000 or 10,000 years old. Not that he’s ever tried to think about how you could.

Macro-evolution is NOT “observable and repeatable” the way they talk about. What they do talk about are the same observable and repeatable things that the Young Earth Creationists emphatically agree are facts, and Creationist scientists say are most definitely evidence for a young Earth. 

Stossel did ask the question that Nye says is “unknowable”, a good copout but that’s one of their own gaps. Their gap theory is that they don’t have to know how it may have happened, they just know it did.

In fact, they apply the same basic leaps of logic in their thinking about how a molecule may be the ancient ancestor of man. It could have happened this way, could have happened that way, all by itself unguided, but their best actual “observable and repeatable” examples are what Creation scientists agree with.

The difference is that Creationists precisely stay with what is observable and repeatable. The wild canine species all descended from the same original wolf-like ancestry, cats trace their lineage back to some kind of cat, and all this is obvious from observation and deduction. A net loss of information ensues.

Finches to finches, and a blind fish that even still has the gene for eyesight that lived in caves. You try it. Take some fish that can see and put them in a tank with zero light for a few generations and watch what happens.

Bill Nye believes in his long-ages unguided process that produces an information processing machine complete with a digital processing language and complete feedback mechanisms, better than any self-maintaining set of robots that any of today’s best IT engineers can do.

 

Mercury’s Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model – Again!

September 20, 2012

 

 

The magnetic field of Uranus as observed by Vo...

The magnetic field of Uranus as observed by Voyager 2 in 1986. S and N are magnetic south and north poles. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

http://www.icr.org/article/6424/

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8412

 

 

 

Send This

 

Mercury’s Fading Magnetic Field Fits Creation Model

 

by Brian Thomas, M.S. *

 

Planets, including the earth, generate magnetic fields that encompass the space around them. Observations have shown that, like earth’s, the planet Mercury’s magnetic field is rapidly breaking down, and NASA’s Messenger spacecraft confirmed that again earlier this year.

 

If the planets in the solar system are billions of years old, why do these magnetic fields still exist?

 

In 1974 and 1975, the Mariner 10 spacecraft measured Mercury’s magnetic field strength with its onboard magnetometer and sent the data to earth. The astronomers analyzing the data at the time found that the average magnetic moment was 4.8 x 1022 gauss cm3, which yields a field strength “about 1% that of the Earth.”1

 

A decade later, creation physicist D. Russell Humphreys published a magnetic field model based on clues from the Bible. He reasoned that earth and the planets all shared a watery beginning, in accord with Genesis 1 and 2 Peter 3:5.2 He calculated what the magnetic field strength would have been at the creation by using a mass of aligned water molecules equal to the masses of each planet.

 

Then, he plotted the rate at which the magnetic fields would have diminished over the roughly 6,000 years since. Humphreys wrote, “Electrical resistance in a planet’s core will decrease the electrical current causing the magnetic field, just as friction slows down a flywheel.”3 The resulting model accurately predicted the magnetic field strengths of Uranus and Neptune, as well as the declining strength of Mercury’s field.4

 

… read on…

 

http://www.icr.org/article/6424/

 

http://blog.drwile.com/?p=8412

 

 

Creation scientist Russ Humphreys predicted magnetic field strength for Uranus, Neptune, Mercury; NASA way off

July 19, 2012
The magnetic field of Uranus as observed by Vo...

The magnetic field of Uranus as observed by Voyager 2 in 1986. S and N are magnetic south and north poles. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The planet Mercury is proving to be a big problem for the big brains at NASA that try to fit it into billions-of-years ages:

http://creation.com/mercury-magnetized-crust

NASA’s MESSENGER spacecraft (figure 1) is continuing to produce surprising new evidence that Mercury’s magnetic field is as young as the Bible says. Since March 2011 the spacecraft has been in a near-polar orbit around Mercury. By now it has orbited the planet nearly a thousand times, repeatedly passing over the entire surface. Swooping low over the northern volcanic plains, the spacecraft discovered that the planet’s outer crust in that region is strongly magnetized.1 The strongest magnetization coincides with a broad topographic rise near the center of those plains. That leads the analyzing team to believe that the magnetization comes from basalt solidified from lava flowing up out of the deeper crust throughout the plain…..

This adds to the string of surprises Mercury’s magnetic field has given uniformitarian4 space scientists. Before Mariner 10 zoomed by the planet in 1974 and 1975, experts had expected the planet to have zero field. Instead, those flybys showed that Mercury has a significant magnetic field, about 1% of Earth’s. Since then, theorists have tried many versions of the ‘dynamo’ theory (which imagines a planet’s core acting like an electric generator) to explain how Mercury could have a field and sustain it for eons. In the last few years, they have been trying to understand why the field is so low compared to Earth’s.

The data sent back from the Mercury probe validates two predictions from Creation science, as explained by physicist Russ Humphreys in an article written in 1984:

#1. That Mercury would have a significant magnetic field, though weaker than Earth’s, because of the young age of Mercury (thousands). NASA scientists expected it to have zero strength. They found it has 1% of Earth’s.

#2. That the strength of the magnetic field would be fading fast. Measurements made in 2011 show the field is 8% weaker than in 1975, an astonishingly fast decrease. This calculates into a “fast rate of decay (half-life of 350 years)”. The conclusion is that the crust was magnetized only thousands of years ago.

In 1984, Humphreys also predicted a range for the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune.

http://www.icr.org/article/329/

Voyager Tests the Theory

Two years later, on January 20, 1986, Voyager II passed by Uranus. It showed that Uranus has a magnetic moment of 3.0 x 1024 A m2, well within the bounds of my prediction. In contrast, many evolutionists had predicted that Uranus would have a much smaller field, or none at all.7 This prediction grew directly out of their “dynamo” theories, which assume that the fluid interior of a planet is like an electrical generator (dynamo) maintaining the magnetic field forever. The generator mechanism would be driven by heat in the interior, which would manifest itself by a significant heat outflow from the planet’s surface. However, astronomic measurements had shown that Uranus has very little heat outflow. Hence, by their theories, Uranus should not have a strong magnetic field. But it does!

On August 25, 1989, Voyager II passed by Neptune and found that it has a magnetic moment of 1.5 x 1024 A m2, again about in the middle of my prediction. Neptune has a significant heat outflow, so dynamo theorists expected it to have a field as strong as the one I predicted. Thus for Neptune, the creationist and evolutionist theories did equally well, as far as predicting the strength of the field is concerned. However, in other aspects of the magnetic field, Neptune gave the dynamo theorists a rude surprise.

Humphreys extrapolated his predictions based on the creation narratives in Genesis, taken in straightforward fashion.

You can catch up on Dr. Russ Humphrey’s bio and credentials here:

http://creation.com/d-russell-humphreys-cv

What’s behind the record heat? | Fox News

July 4, 2012
A sunspot viewed close-up in ultraviolet light...

A sunspot viewed close-up in ultraviolet light, taken by the TRACE spacecraft (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Fox News should develop an alternative news source and drop AP. This one about the record heat looks identical to one getting printed all over the place, with a couple of word changes maybe, and maybe they got it from Live Science.

What should puzzle us, or get our suspicion antennae aquiver, is why, in a report about record heat, they didn’t even think about including a mention about the record sunspot energy this year:

What’s behind the record heat? | Fox News:
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/07/03/what-behind-record-heat/?intcmp=features

At the next link, we find that back in March of 2006 NASA itself was saying that a solar maximum would probably start building in 2010 and 2011 and solar physicist David Hathaway says would most likely hit maximum during 2012 –this year of record heat:

From http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10mar_stormwarning/

“The top of the conveyor belt skims the surface of the sun, sweeping up the magnetic fields of old, dead sunspots. The ‘corpses’ are dragged down at the poles to a depth of 200,000 km where the sun’s magnetic dynamo can amplify them. Once the corpses (magnetic knots) are reincarnated (amplified), they become buoyant and float back to the surface.” Presto—new sunspots!

Right: The sun’s “great conveyor belt.” [Larger
image
]

All this happens with massive slowness. “It takes about 40 years for the belt to complete one loop,” says Hathaway. The speed varies “anywhere from a 50-year pace (slow) to a 30-year pace (fast).”

When the belt is turning “fast,” it means that lots of magnetic fields are being swept up, and that a future sunspot cycle is going to be intense. This is a basis for forecasting: “The belt was turning fast in 1986-1996,” says Hathaway. “Old magnetic fields swept up then should re-appear as big sunspots in 2010-2011.”

Like most experts in the field, Hathaway has confidence in the conveyor belt model and agrees with Dikpati that the next solar maximum should be a doozy. But he disagrees with one point. Dikpati’s forecast puts Solar Max at 2012. Hathaway believes it will arrive sooner, in 2010 or 2011.

“History shows that big sunspot cycles ‘ramp up’ faster than small ones,” he says. “I expect to see the first sunspots of the next cycle appear in late 2006 or 2007—and Solar Max to be underway by 2010 or 2011.”

Who’s right? Time will tell. Either way, a storm is coming.

Good smart and honest reporters should be laughing the latest attempt to blame carbon dioxide on Earth for record heat obviously coming from the sun itself.

No wonder the framers of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution held such high esteem for a truly educated and informed people.

Report denying danger EMP danger called ‘junk science’

March 6, 2012

Posted in the spirit of “for what it’s worth”:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/report-denying-danger-emp-danger-called-junk-science/

But you always have to be skeptical of “research” when it comes out of the government or government funded programs anyway. Especially when the conclusions change shortly after there is a new political appointee….

Government funding of anything always politicizes its target, count on it. And if the funds allocated by Congress seems to go to research that goes against the principles mouthed aloud by Congress, then you have to wonder about those Congressmen themselves, why are they going against themselves and their constituents. And make no mistake, the research conclusions are tainted, and the facts can be arranged for impact.

I know the military has underground bases that are “hardened” against the effects of EMP above-ground and it does not take such things so lightly.

This report is corporation-friendly, very strange for an anti-corporation administration, don’t you think?

Remember when a solar flare knocked out most cell phones for a few days? And that wasn’t the strongest.

Demoted for views, NASA specialist going to court

March 5, 2012

Well, at least they’re not sending us to insane asylums… Yet…

http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/demoted-for-views-nasa-specialist-going-to-court/

A trial is starting in just days on a claim by a space scientist that he was demoted for expressing his views on intelligent design, the theory that the universe and life are too complex to have randomly erupted from a puddle of sludge on some prehistoric landscape.

The case is a response to a punishment handed down to David Coppedge, a worker at the NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, which sent the unmanned spacecraft Galileo to Jupiter and dispatched a ship named Dawn to orbit asteroids Vesta and Ceres.

Looks suspicious already, said the judge:

“A trier of fact would be entitled to disbelieve defendant’s stated reasons for the adverse employment actions,” the court opinion continued. “A trier could find it suspicious that defendant initially investigated plaintiff for workplace harassment, issued a written warning that was later rescinded, and demoted plaintiff for reasons separate from the alleged workplace harassment. The shifting nature of defendant’s response to the alleged workplace harassment could cause a trier of fact to question the legitimacy of the demotion and written warning.”

And it seems that the Jet Propulsion Laboratories, run by the California Institute of Technology, actually brought religion into the reason they were punishing him:

Coppedge was a high-level “team lead” technical specialist before his demotion and later removal. The California Institute of Technology runs JPL under a contract with NASA.

Employees shouldn’t be threatened with termination and punished for sharing their opinion with willing co-workers just because the view being shared doesn’t fit the prevailing view in the workplace,” said Becker.

“Mr. Coppedge has always maintained that intelligent design is a scientific theory, but JPL has illegally discriminated against him on the basis of what they deem is ‘religion,’” Becker said.

 

 

 

 

A trial is starting in just days on a claim by a space scientist that he was demoted for expressing his views on intelligent design, the theory that the universe and life are too complex to have randomly erupted from a puddle of sludge on some prehistoric landscape.

The case is a response to a punishment handed down to David Coppedge, a worker at the NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, which sent the unmanned spacecraft Galileo to Jupiter and dispatched a ship named Dawn to orbit asteroids Vesta and Ceres.

The case will be tried starting Wednesday in Los Angeles, where the Superior Court of California earlier refused to rule in favor of the lab without a trial. The court determined there is sufficient evidence for a jury to consider.

The court then found “there are triable issues of fact as to whether plaintiff’s demotion, written warning, negative performance evaluations, and ultimate termination were adverse employment actions. … While the written warning or negative performance evaluations may not be actionable in isolation, a trier of fact would be entitled to consider them as a part of a generalized discriminatory response to plaintiff’s religious views or protected activities.”

“A trier of fact would be entitled to disbelieve defendant’s stated reasons for the adverse employment actions,” the court opinion continued. “A trier could find it suspicious that defendant initially investigated plaintiff for workplace harassment, issued a written warning that was later rescinded, and demoted plaintiff for reasons separate from the alleged workplace harassment. The shifting nature of defendant’s response to the alleged workplace harassment could cause a trier of fact to question the legitimacy of the demotion and written warning.”

15 years of global cooling and counting

January 31, 2012

Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html

Anybody can see that the sun overwhelms everything men can do in the space of 12 hours! The temperature fluctuates with differences of anywhere from 10 to 20 to 50 degrees in ONE DAY, actually HALF a day, just by whether it’s facing the sun or turned away from the sun!

Of course the sun is the overwhelming influence on the climate!

Heat and carbon dioxide are fantastic for plant growth!

The moon: another sign of the times and decline of the West

January 21, 2012

China builds new rockets, fuels, a space station and plans to put crews on the Moon by Andrew Malcolm – Investors.com:
http://news.investors.com/Article/596298/201112300816/China-space-program-Moon-landing-plans-NASA.htm

Private enterprise could do, or could have done, a better job in space than NASA, with two disclaimers, in my opinion.

One is, such private efforts would have run into the same regulatory balls and chains as the rest of the private sector has to face.

Two, NASA no doubt sucked up much of the private industry resources that could have gone to space exploration. It is easier to make more money from the organization that can just go get more “unlimited” budget by forced confiscation, which is what taxation is.

Three, the military participation in NASA meant that one of the best parts of government had a say in much of it.

So one of the least odious and least wasteful of government programs has been shut down by the current administration.

And get this screamer. When he announced the shutdown of the space shuttle program, Obama said private enterprise could do it better! Does anybody else see the disconnect here, from a guy who said government central planning could do better than bankruptcy court for saving the auto industry, the financial industry, and private sector prosperity in general?

This from the guy who shut down the wildly successful voucher program that helped some of the poorest D.C. kids get a better education?