What's New - Friday, August 27, 2004 - Bob Park
From: Sam Wormley (swormley1_at_mchsi.com)
Date: 08/27/04
- Next message: Richard Henry: "Re: How much plutonium does it take"
- Previous message: Henri Wilson: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2004 21:23:48 GMT
Friday, August 27, 2004
1. SAVING HUBBLE: ROBOTS JUST GET BETTER, HUMANS NEVER CHANGE.
There's growing optimism at NASA about sending a robot to repair
Hubble. The big problem may be finding the money, with early cost
estimates at more than $1B. In other words, a robot repair mission
to Hubble might cost as much as a manned shuttle flight.
2. SPACE STATION: WILL U.S. ASTRONAUTS HAVE TO FLY TOURIST-CLASS?
The Iran Nonproliferation Act of 2000 makes it illegal to pay Russia
to take US astronauts to the ISS. Astronauts have been getting free
Soyuz rides since the shuttle grounding, but that deal ends in 2006.
After that, Russia says they need the seats for paying passengers
(WN 26 Apr 02) . I called Ada Parvenu, who handles billionaire
relations for NASA. "We're being shut out of the ISS," I shouted,
"after investing $35B." "Calm down" she soothed, "it's actually a
terrific deal. It cost $500M to fly a shuttle to the ISS. Russia
takes tourists there in a Soyuz for $20M. So we'll call astronauts
‘tourists'." I was yelling now, "the law won't let us pay
Russia for tourists either." "We've thought about that," she said
calmly, "we're recruiting billionaires to be astronauts. They'll be
able to pay for their own tickets."
3. MISSILE DEFENSE: CANADA OPENS TALKS ON NORTH-AMERICAN DEFENSE.
Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin wants to talk about possible
participation in Bush's non-existent ballistic missile defense
system. The Liberal caucus is sharply split over any Canadian
participation in the program, with critics saying the program is
unproven, expensive and likely to start a weapons race in space. It
has already prompted an escalation of language, with outspoken
Liberal MP Carolyn Parrish warning of a "coalition of idiots."
4. CLIMATE CHANGE: IS THE CLIMATE CHANGING IN THE WHITE HOUSE? The
U.S. Climate Change Program submitted its biannual report to
Congress this week. Two years ago, the President described the
report as "something put out by the bureaucracy." This time, it came
with a cover letter signed by the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary
of Commerce, and the President's Science Advisor. It reinforces what
most scientists said all along: emissions of carbon dioxide and
other heat-trapping gases are the only likely explanation for global
warming over the last three decades. Responding to claims that
increased CO2 makes crops grow faster, several important invasive
weeds were found that grew even faster. Although the President
finally seems to acknowledge that emissions are a problem, he's not
proposing to do anything.
Paul Gresser, What's New 2004 Summer Intern, contributed to this
week's issue, but now resumes graduate studies at U. of Maryland.
Bob Park can be reached via email at whatsnew@bobpark.org
THE UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND
Opinions are the author's and are not necessarily shared by the
University, but they should be.
- Next message: Richard Henry: "Re: How much plutonium does it take"
- Previous message: Henri Wilson: "Re: SR's velocity addition -- ANY Experimental Evidence?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
