I.S.S. to end in 2016?!!

Yep you are reading that right! According to an article in Popsci.com send in by Shaun Saunders, NASA plans on de-orbiting the international space station in 2016! If that little fact don't grind your ass, think of it this way....this would mean that the ISS will have spent more time being build than fully functional!!! As idiotic as this sounds...it really is just an add on to a list of what would be construed as blunders by any other commercial entity. Allowing the shuttle program to shudder to an end without a follow-on transportation system at the ready is bad enough but ending the only continuous space presence that humanity has available?!!! Oh and it gets better...

From the article:

• Many of the station's research programs have already been cut and the US Space Shuttle program is ending in 2010, which leaves few big-ticket programs left on the agenda (save for the station's yet-to-be-installed Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer, which searchers for dark- and anti-matter).

Unbelievable! Where are the international partners in this boondoggle?

So we have the new lifting system that is still in R&D but heavy lift to where? The Moon?!!! Lets get real here, if the ISS has this many opponents what does an ongoing presence on the Moon have for a chance? Give it one or two launches before they start to understand the staggering cost of a manned Luna presence and they will question NASA's sanity.

And NASA's spin? Well seems there is a "study" to study an extending its lifespan into the 2020s...
NO KIDDING! I have a strong suspicion that if the decommissioning plan trickled down to the general public, there would be calls for a lynchin!

As Shaun puts it:

• "Is it any wonder why space will be left to the small commercial outfits? Heinlein (i.e., 'the Man Who Sold the Moon') was right after all.

read complete article here

Commentary: Why the original "Star Trek" still matters

The original Star Trek offered an Apollonian beacon of hope amid the darkness of '70s culture.

Its narrative ambition, its talky, theatrical density, its high-minded moral tone and its nerdy philosophizing, .... captures a great deal about what made "Star Trek" such a potent cultural force.

In his commentary for Salon.com, Andrew O'Hehir speaks on why Star Trek was such an important part of my and obviously his, childhood. As odd as some people might find the statement, Star Trek had a great deal to do with how I formed early, and admittedly simplistic, an adolescent moral high ground.

Mr. O'Hehir's commentary on what made Star Trek relevant still rings true 40 years later and in it's day set a good counterpoint to the 70s counter culture. As he puts it:

• Even if some of its flaws look more glaring 30-odd years later, I think the original "Star Trek" still has a passion and vitality that partly stem from its cheapness; the threadbare sets and effects created a coherent, suggestive atmosphere, and forced your attention onto the storytelling and the characters. It stands out, even after all this time, as something unique in television history.

read more of Andrew O'Hehir's commentary here

Thanks Nelson for the post

Nanotech ain't living up to the hype!

Yep as IO9 puts it: Gray Goo Can't do all the things you say it can do. Science fiction authors give too much credit to nanotech, which hasn't achieved all that much in real life. But science fiction authors claim it can do everything, from destroying the world to turning you into a superhuman. Complains Santa Cruz SF writer Christopher Bradley:

• Never before has a technology that's done so little gone so far in literature. We can basically do almost nothing useful with nanotechnology, but sci-fi writers dream up these magical scenarios where nanotechnology can do anything and everything. It can make people gods or destroy the world in a variety of gray goo scenarios.
  

Bradley's core observation and angst stems from the fact that there exists very little actual nano technology, but the very mention in a story and it adds weight and depth, which he says happens a lot in today's SF literature.

And that is what gave me pause in reading this article - my whole supposition rests on that very observation. A good author will see the science and technology of today and be able to extrapolate it into the future. Some authors have seen with amazing clarity! All I have to say is Arthur Clarke. Here is an author that envisioned geostationary orbits and telecommunications in an era where space travel was a pipe-dream and commercial utilization was pie in the sky. The reasoning was sound for arguing against Clarke's dream. Why spend fiendish amounts of money doing something that land lines, antennas and undersea cables was doing quite well. Today we think nothing of placing international phone calls by ourselves and we have come to expect television, phone and data served to us fast anywhere in the world from anywhere and we expect it instantly.

If someone can see possible tech from the nano research and extrapolate it....that to me is the heart of science fiction. Of course there are those authors that treat fringe tech as window dressing, not significantly adding to the work what so ever, then again it comes down to comfort ' expertise and expertise. An example here is Pern for one. Space travel, AI and advanced genetics are virtual window dressing in McCaffree's Dragon Riders...somebody has got to say so what here.... As her series progressed these elements were added to yes add some depth and believability but otherwise it means a world without Dragons....I am not ready for a world like that yet...you?