Richard Gray

London Telegraph . February 25, 2007

Attempts to save mankind by smashing asteroids as they head towards Earth may do more harm than good, scientists believe.

Rather than Hollywood’s preferred option, engineers are trying to develop unmanned rockets that can land on space rocks and use the asteroids’ own material to propel them into a safer orbit.

The plan will be detailed at a conference, sponsored by Nasa next month, at which its scientists will reveal their -estimate that 100,000 asteroids orbiting near Earth are large enough to destroy a city. So far the agency has only been able to identify and track 4,000 of them.

Just one football pitch-sized asteroid smashing into the planet would create destruction on a terrifying scale, wiping out any area it hit, sending flaming debris into the atmosphere and causing tidal waves. Scientists claim that it is only a matter of time before one is found on a collision course.

Research to be unveiled at the three-day Planetary Defence Conference in Washington DC will reveal that defending the Earth may not be as simple as suggested by films such as Armageddon in which Bruce Willis’s character destroys a giant asteroid using a nuclear bomb.

Gianmarco Radice of Glasgow University will be one of more than 200 scientists at the conference. He said: “A nuclear blast may cause it to fragment. So instead of having one large object on an impact course, you have five largish objects.

“Also, we do not know a huge amount about the composition of these asteroids. Some are made of rock, others are ice while others are just piles of rubble. If you smash something into a pile of rubble, it will just break up and then reform by gravity.”

Nasa has already tested the approach by smashing a spacecraft into an asteroid in its Deep Impact mission last year. The European Space Agency is planning a similar test, sending a craft to smash into a 500-yard wide asteroid while another spacecraft -monitors the results.

Now an engineering firm in Atlanta, Georgia, has been commissioned by Nasa to develop a new kind of mission to land on an asteroid, drill through the surface and pump the debris into space. Anchoring several unmanned spacecraft, nicknamed Madmen, to an asteroid and ejecting material, would produce enough force in the opposite direction to push an asteroid slowly off its dangerous course.

“It is like throwing rocks out of a rowing boat on a lake. The rocks go in one direction and the boat is slowly pushed in the other under the laws of physics,” said John Olds, the chief executive of SpaceWorks, the firm behind the scheme. “Over several months we think we can make the difference between a hit and a miss.” Astronomers fear that a 400-yard wide asteroid will pass dangerously close to the Earth within 30 years. Typically, one the size of a football pitch strikes every 100 years or so, and it is also almost 100 years since the last major impact which caused an explosion equivalent to a 15 megaton nuclear bomb in Tunguska, Siberia on June 30, 1908.

Fears were heightened in 2004 by the discovery of a 45 million-ton rock orbiting the Sun called Apophis, which will pass just 22,000 miles from the Earth in April 2029. In 2036, it will have a close encounter. Some scientists calculate it may even hit the planet.

Nasa believes that it has managed to identify nearly 90 per cent of all asteroids larger than 1,000 yards. These are capable of causing a -global disaster, throwing huge amounts of debris into the air and have historically caused widespread extinction.

If Earth had a mountain so incredibly high that its peak poked through the outermost layer of our atmosphere, mountain climbers smart enough and hardy enough to reach the top would have some idea what it will be like to be camped on the moon.

Physorg . February 25, 2007

For those mountain climbers, it would be quiet and there would be no wind or weather to overcome. But without long and careful preparation, those mountain climbers would have no air to breathe, no food or water and no protection from the sun’s radiation. All around them would be rocks and, if they were lucky, perhaps a bit of frozen ice in the crevices that never saw the sun.

Now imagine that instead of reaching the peak and glorying in the accomplishment and beauty of the view for a day or two then returning to the meadows at the base of the mountain, the mission was to climb those unforgiving miles to the top and create a base camp suitable for living months at a time.

That is the enormous challenge that NASA and its future exploration partners face now that the agency has announced its intention to build an outpost on the surface of the moon — a base camp that would become busy when visitors are there, but that could be abandoned for long periods without long-term harm.

With such an outpost, NASA could learn to use the moon’s natural resources to live off the land, make preparations for a journey to Mars, conduct a wide range of scientific investigations and encourage international participation.

The first mission could begin by 2020.

As currently envisioned, an incremental buildup would begin with four-person crews making several seven-day visits to the moon until their power supplies, rovers and living quarters are operational.

At that point, missions would be extended to two weeks, then two months and ultimately to 180 days. Over the first decade of lunar habitation, space travelers would learn the techniques and skills needed for the eventual journey to Mars.

One team of experts from NASA’s Langley Research Center, NASA’s Johnson Space Center and NASA contractor ILC Dover LP is looking at inflation-deployed expandable structures as one possible building block for a lunar base.

“Inflatables can be used as connectors or tunnels between crew quarters and can provide radiation shelter if covered with lunar regolith (soil),” said Chris Moore, Exploration Technology Development Program program executive at NASA Headquarters.

As a starting point, ILC Dover has delivered a 12-foot (3.65 meter) diameter inflatable structure made of multilayer fabric to Langley for ground-based evaluation of emerging technologies such as flexible structural health monitoring systems, self-healing materials and radiation protective materials. Attached to the structure is a smaller inflatable structure that serves as a demonstration airlock. Both are essentially pressurized cylinders, connected by an airtight door.

The “planetary surface habitat and airlock unit” can also be used to evaluate materials, lightweight structure technologies, astronaut interfaces, dust mitigation techniques, and function with robotics and other lunar surface equipment.

“Inflatable structures are very robust and adaptable. This demonstrator will show the capabilities of inflatable structures in future demonstrations at Langley and Johnson,” said Dave Cadogan, research and development manager at ILC Dover.

In the next phase, the team will perform an architecture study comparing inflatable and rigid structures for crew habitats.

“This follow-on work will allow us to mature inflatable technology by designing and fabricating sub-scale inflatable components for more detailed testing,” said Inflatable Structures Project lead Karen Whitley of Langley.

In a related development, the government-industry team — spurred by a NASA Johnson proposal led by Larry Toups, space architect at Johnson — will work with the National Science Foundation to build an inflatable structure for demonstration in the Antarctic. While not the lunar surface (or the top of an imaginary mountain), the harsh environment of the Antarctic will provide valuable lessons.

Once inflated, the unit will likely serve as a dry storage facility and be monitored for its behavior. The work is expected to start shortly. ILC Dover is contributing to the manufacturing of the unit, while Langley and Johnson will contribute a modest amount of manpower. The goal is to transport the unit to the Antarctic in 2008 — in time to learn more about inflatable structures before decisions must be made between competing technologies for NASA’s first habitable lunar base.

Whether lunar habitats are ultimately inflatable or constructed in some other way, designing for extreme living and working conditions will likely result in yet-unseen applications for everyday life right here on Earth.

Source: NASA

RAYMOND HAINEY

Scotsman . February 22, 2007

A £150 MILLION space mission should be launched to deflect an asteroid which is set to pass dangerously close to Earth, experts warned yesterday.

The call for action to protect the world from Apophis - named after the Egyptian god of destruction - came from a coalition of astronauts, engineers and scientists with close links to US space agency NASA.

Scientists have estimated the asteroid has a one-in-45,000 chance of striking Earth on 13 April, 2036. Travelling at 28,000mph it could release 80,000 times the energy of the Hiroshima bomb.

The group believes the United Nations should assume responsibility for a space mission - using a vessel called a “gravity tractor” - to knock Apophis off course.

Experts says that the recent approval of a NASA mandate to upgrade its tracking of near-Earth asteroids is expected to uncover hundreds, if not thousands of threatening space rocks in the near future.

Rusty Schweickart, a former astronaut who orbited the moon in the 1969 Apollo 9 mission, said: “It’s not just Apophis we’re looking at.

“Every country is at risk and we need a set of general principles to deal with this issue.”

Mr Schweickart, a member of the Association of Space Explorers, is planning to present an update to the UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space this week on plans to develop a global response to an asteroid threat.

Scientists believe that a gravity tractor - a spaceship which flies alongside the asteroid - is the best way to neutralise the threat of Apophis.

A gravity tractor spaceship exerts a slight pull on the targeted mass, slowly pulling it off course and potentially rendering it harmless to life on Earth.

Ed Lu, a veteran of the International Space Station, said that an asteroid the size of Apophis would take nearly a fortnight to deflect away from a collision course with the Earth.

The US is taking asteroid threat seriously, with a massive upgrading of its tracking of near-Earth asteroids.

The Association of Space Explorers, which also includes Russian cosmonauts, is to host a series of workshops this year to refine plans to avoid a potential disaster, then make a formal proposal to the UN in 2009.

Mr Schweickart said that the UN had to adopt a global plan for assessing asteroid threats and deciding when action would need to be taken to avert a massive rock on a collision course with the Earth. He added that launching an asteroid deflection system early to deal with Apophis would not only increase the chances of success, but need far less energy to put the asteroid on a course which will take it far away from Earth.

Typical stony-type asteroids generally burn up on entry to the atmosphere, but asteroids with a large iron content could survive entry and smash into the ground with devastating effect.

But Paul Slovic, president of the US-based Decision Research, which studies judgment, decision-making and risk assessment, said Apophis could destroy a major city or even a entire region.

The most severe asteroid hit in recent times was the Tunguska airburst explosion in Siberia in 1908. The asteroid exploded with the force of a ten-megaton nuclear bomb, flattening huge areas of forest.

Earth had a narrow escape in 1992, when the one to two-mile wide Toutatis asteroid passed within 2.2 million miles of the planet - very close in space terms. And they warned that if Toutatis had hit Earth, it would have had an impact equivalent to between 100 and 150 hydrogen bombs.

The explosion would have blotted out sunlight, caused rocketing global warming and killed off all plant life.

Scientists have calculated that if even if an asteroid misses Earth, if it passes close enough, the planet’s gravitational pull could be enough to drag it on to a collision course.

In 2004, NASA issued its highest ever warning on the Torino threat scale for when it gave the MN4 asteroid a rating of four on a scale of one to ten. The previous highest intergalactic threat warning was just one on the Torino scale. However, it failed to strike the Earth.

Astronomers warned then that between now and 2079, there would be at least 38 potentially hazardous encounters with rogue asteroids.

It is thought that dinosaurs were wiped out 65 million years ago after an asteroid hit earth, creating a greenhouse effect which lasted 10,000 years.

It is estimated that asteroids larger than 800 metres wide strike earth about once every 500,000 years.

Major impacts, however, occur around once in a 1,000 years and the chance of dying due to an asteroid impact is estimated to be 20,000/1 - about the same as death from hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes and major floods.

Experts say that nuclear missiles could be used to blow up asteroid threats - but the weapons would have to be triggered some distance away to prevent the asteroid breaking up into smaller, but still dangerous, pieces.

Other suggestions - including using kinetic energy devices to pulverise asteroids and using lasers or solar sails to push threats off-course - have all been dismissed as ineffectual or requiring massive investment in new technology.

Contrary to predictions, two planets orbiting distant stars show no signs of water and other simple compounds; dark clouds or haze may hide them

JR Minkel

Scientific American . February 21, 2007

For the first time, telescopes have captured the light spectra emitted directly from planets outside of our solar system. Researchers trained the infrared-sensitive Spitzer Space Telescope on two extrasolar gas giant planets, called HD 209458 b and HD 189733 b.

The atmospheres are most notable for what they lack: “We find no evidence for water in the spectrum, and all the theorists will tell you that there should be water (in the form of vapor) in the atmosphere[s] of these planets,” says astrophysicist Jeremy Richardson of the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, a member of a team that analyzed HD 209458 b. A second group measured the spectrum of HD 189733 b, which is about 60 light-years away, and a third one reanalyzed the data from the former, which resides in the constellation Pegasus, more than 150 light-years distant.

Both planets’ spectra are missing water along with carbon monoxide and methane—at least some of which researchers had expected to find. Richardson’s group did identify what seem to be clouds of fine dust high in HD 209458 b’s atmosphere, suggesting that dark clouds could be obscuring light from the missing constituents in at least one case. “Our idea is there is a really thick bank of clouds high in the atmosphere,” he says, “so you just can’t see deep enough.

The two planets are members of a large class of extrasolar planets known as “hot Jupiters” because they are gaseous like Jupiter but orbit closely to their stars, giving them high temperatures of 1,000 to 2,000 kelvins. Based on the inferred quantities of elements in the planets and their temperatures, researchers had deduced that certain compounds, including water, should form, Richardson says.

As seen from Earth, both planets travel in front of and behind their stars during their orbits, which last only a few days. To make their measurements, two separate groups had Spitzer’s infrared detector take a steady bead on the planets’ stars while the planets were eclipsed by them. The researchers determined the planets’ spectra by subtracting the light emitted by each star from the combined light radiated by the star and planet, leaving just the planet’s light spectrum.

Prior observations of extrasolar planets had detected elements by analyzing light passing through their atmospheres, but Richardson says this is the first measurement of the energy coming directly from the planets at many different wavelengths. Researchers can get clues about the types of chemicals in the atmosphere by analyzing the brightness of wavelengths emanating from it, because all chemicals absorb light of characteristic wavelengths.

“The spectra certainly seem to lack water. These are very important observations,” says Jonathan Fortney of NASA Ames Research Center, who has modeled extrasolar atmospheres but was not involved in any of the new reports.

In a paper published online February 21 by Nature, Richardson’s group reports that HD 209458 b’s spectrum does suggest the presence of clouds of perhaps 10-micron-wide particles of dustlike silicate, or silicon oxide. According to Fortney, “We know silicate clouds affect the spectra of brown dwarfs at similar atmospheric temperatures.”

But Fortney notes that the two planets differ in temperature by 200 K, which suggests clouds of the same composition are not present in both. Because the planets are so close to their suns, the star shine may burn off a haze that also obscures light, he says. Another possibility, he adds, is that the atmospheres might have uniform temperatures all the way down, which would flatten out their light spectra because molecules would not transfer energy as easily.

The study of HD 189733 b is slated for publication in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, where a team has also submitted the second report on HD 209458 b.

Mel Acheson

Thunderbolts.info . February 18, 2007

Attempts to measure the size, age, and “expansion” of the universe may be a good deal less precise than advertised. But the problem is much worse if the astronomers’ assumptions are incorrect.
 
An astronomer at Ohio State University, using a new method that is independent of the Hubble relation (which relates redshift to distance), has determined that the Hubble constant (the rate at which the universe is expanding) is 15% lower than the accepted value. His measurements have a margin of error of 6%.
 
Meanwhile, NASA astronomers, using another new method that is independent of the Hubble relation, have determined that the Hubble constant is 7% higher than the accepted value. Their measurements have a margin of error of 15%.
 
Because traditional astronomers never question traditional assumptions (and appear not to recognize they even have any), they cannot be expected to mention that their margin of erroneous assumption is somewhere around 500%. That, of course, can account for their two “more precise” determinations in exactly opposite directions. They are in the same position as the clockmaker who attempts to determine the exact time of day by measuring the position of the minute hand and fails to notice that the hour hand is missing. Without recognizing that plasma makes up 99% of the universe and that it has dominant electrical properties, astronomers inhabit a make-believe universe in which precise measurements can mean precisely opposite things.
 
The first astronomer studied a bright eclipsing binary star system in the nearby spiral galaxy M33. He measured with state-of-the-art instruments the stars’ orbital period and apparent brightness. He calculated the stars’ masses, and then their absolute luminosities, and then their distance. His result was 3 million light-years instead of the 2.6 million that had been accepted.
 
One can presume that his measurements were accurate, at least to within 6%. But the assumptions that he took for granted were entirely erroneous:
 
He assumed that gravity was the only force holding the stars in their orbits. Without this assumption, he would have been unable to calculate their masses. But in the past century, we discovered that the Law of Gravity loses its jurisdiction outside the Solar system: stellar jets and rings don’t obey it, globular clusters don’t obey it, galactic arms don’t obey it, galactic jets don’t obey it, galaxies in clusters don’t obey it. (To save their belief in the Law, astronomers had to imagine that the universe was composed mostly of invisible stuff-Dark Matter and Dark Energy.) A universe made of plasma will exhibit a variety of motions in addition to the “inverse square” force relationship that we call gravity. (See Seeing Electricity In Space, http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/ arch05/050627seeelec.htm)
 
He assumed that the mass-luminosity relationship was constant for all galaxies. Astronomer Halton Arp’s observational work indicates that luminosity may decline with increasing redshift. A plasma universe powers stars electrically from external sources, so luminosity is not restricted to the mass-dependent output of thermonuclear fusion.
 
He assumed that the “K effect” could be ignored. It’s been known since the early 1900s that the brightest stars (O and B spectral classes) have anomalous redshifts — if interpreted as a Doppler effect, they appear to be receding from Earth. In view of Arp’s finding mentioned above, bright stars may be less luminous than is assumed for their (gravity determined) mass, and hence calculations would overstate their distances.
 
NASA astronomers studied 38 compact galaxy clusters with the Chandra X-ray Telescope to “measure the precise X-ray properties of the [hot] gas” in them. They combined this with measurements from radio telescopes of the increase in energy of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation coming from the direction of the clusters. Then they used the Sunyaev­Zel’dovich effect, in which radiation gains energy from electrons in proportion to the electron density, temperature, and physical size of a region, to calculate the physical size of the clusters. After that, a simple trigonometry calculation gave them the distance. Dividing the redshift-determined speed of the cluster by the distance gave them the new Hubble constant.
 
“The reason this result is so significant is that we need the Hubble constant to tell us the size of the universe, its age, and how much matter it contains,” said NASA’s Max Bonamente, lead author of the paper describing the results. “Astronomers absolutely need to trust this number because we use it for countless calculations.”
 
But again, the precise measurements were joined with precisely erroneous assumptions:
 
They assumed that the x-rays were produced by hot gas. What they actually measured was x-ray intensities, and they applied standard gas laws to calculate how hot a gas had to be to radiate those x- rays. Plugging this figure into the Sunyaev­Zel’dovich equations resulted in a number for physical size. But a gas that hot will be ionized: It will be a plasma. It will have electromagnetic effects. In fact, a plasma can have electromagnetic effects — in this case, radiate x-rays — even if it’s not hot: fast electrons will spiral in a magnetic field and give off synchrotron radiation. Space plasmas routinely develop double layers that accelerate electrons (and positive ions) to high speeds. It shouldn’t be surprising that most x-ray radiation is synchrotron radiation.
 
They assumed that the clusters were large, bright, and far away, and they were looking for some method to tell them how far. The observations of Halton Arp and others indicate that compact galactic clusters are small, faint “buckshot” ejections (rather than the “single shot” quasars) from nearby active galaxies. Like quasars, they are often paired across an active “parent” galaxy and may be enmeshed in radio-emitting and x-ray-emitting lobes of material coming from the parent galaxy.
 
They assumed that the CMB is coming from the farthest reaches of the universe, passes through the cluster, and is energized. In a plasma universe, ubiquitous Birkeland currents will absorb and re- radiate microwaves: The CMB is a local effect, a kind of electromagnetic fog. Enhancement of CMB in front of clusters is simply an additive effect, not Sunyaev­Zel’dovich.
 
They assumed that redshift was a Doppler effect, indicating velocity. Arp’s work (and others) demonstrates that galactic redshifts are mostly intrinsic: Galaxies with different redshifts are physically connected with bridges of luminous material, and the redshifts, when adjusted to the reference frame of the dominant galaxy, are periodic, occurring only at preferred values. (See Thirty Years Later)
 
As Arp wrote in Seeing Red, “The greatest mistake in my opinion, and the one we continually make, is to let the theory guide the model. After a ridiculously long time it has finally dawned on me that establishment scientists actually proceed on the belief that theories tell you what is true and not true!”
 
Postscript Invitation: The full 64 minute documentary film “Thunderbolts of the Gods” may now be viewed for free on Google video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4773590301316220374

Stephanie Nebehay

Reuters . February 13, 2007

GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States said on Tuesday that China’s recent anti-satellite missile test had endangered hundreds of satellites and left debris in orbit for a century, but reiterated its opposition to a new global treaty on space.

Christina Rocca, U.S. ambassador to the Conference on Disarmament, said that a treaty to prevent an arms race in outer space would not have banned China’s use of a ground-based missile to destroy a weather satellite on January 11.

“Despite the ASAT (anti-satellite) test, we continue to believe that there is no arms race in space and therefore no problem for arms control to solve,” Rocca said in a speech to the United Nations-sponsored forum in Geneva.

The 65-member forum has tried for years to launch global negotiations on treaties to ban production of nuclear bomb-making fissile material and prevent an arms race in outer space, known as PAROS.

The United States has asserted its right to develop weapons for use in outer space to protect its military and commercial satellites and has ruled out any negotiations to limit them, arguing that an existing 40-year-old treaty is adequate.

Rocca said that China’s test had “created hundreds of pieces of large orbital debris, the majority of which will stay in orbit for more than 100 years”, endangering satellites.

The test was a reminder that a small number of countries were exploring and acquiring the ability to “counter, attack, and defeat vital space systems, including those of the United States”, she said. “These capabilities include jamming satellite links or blinding satellite sensors …” Rocca said.

The United States was committed to preserving the use of space for peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind, but would also work to protect its space assets, she said.

“Put simply, these assets are vital to our national security, including our economic interests, and must be defended,” Rocca said.

SPACE-BASED MISSILES

President George W. Bush last week sent Congress a fiscal 2008 budget seeking an initial $10 million for studies on what could be the first space-based interceptor missiles, despite opposition from China, Russia and many others.

If approved, it would be Bush’s first outlay for potential multibillion-dollar missile-defense systems in space other than for tracking and surveillance.

“Let me state it clearly and to the point: the president’s policy does not advocate, nor direct the development or deployment of weapons in space,” Rocca said.

China and Russia on Tuesday issued their latest “working paper” on space, updating one first presented five years ago.

The 18-page document, in a thinly veiled reference to the United States, singled out “one state” as arguing that the existing multilateral arms control regime on space was enough.

“Security in outer space must be guaranteed. This is a call of our time,” Russian envoy Valery Loshchinin said in a speech.

German ambassador Bernhard Brasack, speaking on behalf of the European Union, called for a gradual approach, using confidence-building measures to prevent an arms race in space.

“The recent test of an anti-satellite weapon should serve as a wake-up call … and remind us of the urgency of the matter and our responsibility to act,” Brasack said in a speech.

Lucy Sherriff

The Register . February 5, 2007

Scientists have discovered that the surface of the moon can accumulate a huge charge of static electricity - up to 4,500 V has been detected so far. The scientists, writing in Geophysics Research Letters number 34, say that their findings could have significant implications for those planning to colonise the rocky globe.

While astronauts would most likely be protected from any discharge by his or her suit, a spark from the surface could disrupt or even burn out electronic equipment.
Click here to find out more!

The charge could also be responsible for levitating the ultra-fine moon dust. The dust is so fine it gets into absolutely everything, getting past vacuum seals and clogging equipment.

The scientists analysed data from the Lunar Prospector, which orbited the moon in 1998/1999. They were looking for traces of charge that would have built up as the solar wind slams into the lunar surface.

One of the authors of the research, Jasper Halekas of the University of California, told Nature.com that the 4,500V they detected is “more than enough to do some damage, if the electric field only extends over small distances”.

If the charge is very diffuse, it might not cause a shock at all, he added.

A charge builds up on the lunar surface when it is hit by electrically charged particles. This is particularly intense when the moon passes through the Earth’s magnetotail, and during solar storms.

Although the local field strength is not known, if the charge accumulates in sufficiently small areas, it could cause problems for colonising astronauts, particularly during dangerous solar activity.

With no atmosphere, the lunar surface would be a very dangerous place during either a solar storm or a sweep through the magnetotail.

The latter can be predicted and planned for, but astronauts would rely on their instruments, vulnerable to the effects of the static build up, to warn of a coming solar storm. This means instruments heading for the moon would need the same kind of spark-proof protections as satellites orbiting Earth.

Prof. Rodrigue Tremblay

Global Research . February 11, 2007

The New American Empire

“The dangerous patriot: “The one who drifts into chauvinism and exhibits blind enthusiasm for military actions. He is a defender of militarism and its ideals of war and glory. Chauvinism is a proud and bellicose form of patriotism . . . which identifies numerous enemies who can only be dealt with through military power and which equates the national honor with military victory.” James A. Donovan, Colonel, US Marine Corps

“Where you have a concentration of power in a few hands, all too frequently men with the mentality of gangsters get control.” Lord Acton (1834-1902)

“If you want war, nourish a doctrine. Doctrines are the most frightful tyrants to which men ever are subject… ” William Graham Sumner

On September 20, 2002, George W. Bush, in conformity with the path that Cheney-Rumsfeld-Wolfowitz-Rice and Co. had traced for him, adopted a hegemonic foreign policy and issued the famous hubristic “Bush Doctrine“. His then Security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, and her assistant, Philip D. Zelikow, drafted much of the 2002 report titled “The National Security Strategy of the United States”, which has come to be known as the “Bush Doctrine” of pre-emptive wars and of American assertive military hegemony around the world.

Eight months before, in his January 29, 2002 first State of the Union Address, Bush, inspired by his neocon and theologian speech writers, had singled out three disparate countries as belonging to an “axis of evil” (Iran, Iraq, and North Korea), even though two of these countries had been at war at each other for years (Iraq and Iran) and the third (North Korea) had no visible political ties to the first two. Bush also expressed his intention that the United States control both the Earth and Outer Space, no matter what the other 191 countries of the world think and no matter what international law and international treaties call for.

On Earth, the neocon Bush-Cheney administration’s goal was to invest so much in military gear, and to take military actions if necessary, that no other country would ever challenge its status as the world’s sole military superpower.

The intention was to establish a military New American Empire for the 21st Century, along the lines of the  British Empire in the 19th Century.

In Space, the administration asserted the “far out” claim that the United States has the right to control Outer Space and to deny access to space to any country not in sync with U.S. interests. Bush’s then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the so-called report on “Counterspace Operations Doctrine” (2004), even stated that the U.S. should not refrain from using such tactics as “cover, concealment, and deception” and “satellite jamming” to control Outer Space. —The chairman of the U.S. joint chiefs of staff, General Peter Pace, said that (Donald) Rumsfeld must truly be ‘inspired by God!‘ This hairy policy was revisited and signed into law by President George W. Bush, on October 18, 2006, thus initiating a new and dangerous Space arms race.

The U.S. already has a ‘Air Force Space Command‘, which was created on September 1, 1982, by the Reagan administration. But to indicate that nothing is off-limits, the U.S. Air Force also announced, on November 2, 2006, that it was setting up what could become a new four-star command to fight in cyberspace, where officials say the United States has already come under attack from China, among others. In the words of Air Force Secretary Michael Wynne, “The aim is to develop a major command that stands alongside Air Force Space Command and Air Combat Command as the provider of forces that the President, combatant commanders and the American people can rely on for preserving the freedom of access and commerce, in air, space and now cyberspace.”

However, the goal of preserving free access to Space and cyberspace is paramount. Worldwide, most people believe that Space should not be militarized. The underlying principle here is that Space, Outer Space and celestial resources, such as the Moon or the planets, are the common heritage of humanity as a whole and should not be appropriated by any one country or any nation in particular, through military means or otherwise. Besides, any attempt by one nation to militarize Space, and even to take control of cyberspace, would be in violation of the spirit of the 1967 “Outer Space Treaty” (OST). This fundamental treaty has been signed by 125 countries and ratified by 98, and it solemnly bars participating nations from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in orbit of Earth, installing them on the Moon or any other celestial body, or to otherwise station them in Outer Space.

That is why the world entered into a new era when China, on January 11 (2007), launched a missile strike against one of its old orbiting weather satellites, 800 kilometers above Earth. The Chinese government also announced that the deployment of its anti-satellite (ASAT) weapon was a move to demonstrate the danger of having weapons in Space, and that its objective was to encourage the Bush-Cheney administration to enter into talks aiming at abolishing weapons in Space. Unfortunately, the current administreation had already announced that it opposes the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that would seek to prohibit or limit access to, or use of, Space. —It acts like it would welcome a new arms race in Space and possibly would like to start a new ‘Cold War’ with China and Russia.

The issue of weapons in Space is not new. In 1981, the old Soviet Union developed an ASAT system consisting of a bomb-carrying satellite, which was positioned next to a target satellite to be destroyed. During the same period, the United States developed an ASAT system, whereby an F-15 fighter would carry a two-stage missile to a high altitude and let the missile tracking system guide it to a target missile set to be destroyed. Since Congress voted a moratorium on the development of ASAT systems, in 1985, the United States has not tested any new ASAT system.

However, the Chinese demonstration and the Bush-Cheney avowed policy of taking military control of Space indicate that urgent action is required on this issue, if Space is to be kept demilitarized. A U.N. agency tailored along the International Atomic Energy Agency should have the responsibility to inspect any rocket launch to make sure that it does not carry armaments into Space. That may be the only way to make sure that no national government place armaments into Space.

Therefore, it would seem appropriate that the United Nations, under its new leadership, convene an international conference and adopt necessary measures to reinforce the Outer Space Treaty and make sure that no single nation-state can dominate Space or could ever claim that Space belongs to it. 

Rodrigue Tremblay lives in Montreal and can be reached at  rodrigue.tremblay@yahoo.com

Also visit his blog site at www.thenewamericanempire.com/blog.

Author’s Website:  www.thenewamericanempire.com

Richard Gray

London Telegraph . February 11, 2007 

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth’s climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century.

Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.

He said: “It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.

“This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.

“We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted.”

Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years’ research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

Mr Svensmark’s results show that the rays produce electrically charged particles when they hit the atmosphere. He said: “These particles attract water molecules from the air and cause them to clump together until they condense into clouds.”

Mr Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming.

Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth.

He said: “Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.

“Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man’s impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted.”

Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as “tenuous”.

Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.

Mr Harrison said: “I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small.”

But there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the effect may be genuine.

Among them is Prof Bob Bingham, a clouds expert from the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils in Rutherford.

He said: “It is a relatively new idea, but there is some evidence there for this effect on clouds.”

U.S. Military Space Satellite Defense: A Potential Solution?

David Crane

Defense Review . February 9, 2007

By now, everyone who hasn’t been living under a rock in the middle of the Sahara desert (or similar-type isolated location) has heard about China’s supposedly successful anti-satellite shoot-to-kill missile test that has the West, including the U.S., “up in arms” (excuse the pun) about the safety of our military and civilian communications and GPS satellites. It’s a disturbing thought for us here in the U.S. that China (and Russia, too, most likely) can take out our strategic (i.e. military) and civilian satellites at they’re whim. That being said, instead of crying about getting a little sand kicked in our face, it’s our responsibility to figure out a solution to the problem, and figure out how to fight the bully. We obviously need a viable satellite defense solution, and right quick.

It’s a two-fold problem. The first aspect, China potentially being able to target and destroy our satellites one-by-one with pinpoint precision is disturbing enough. However, there’s also the matter of all that space debris caused by the impact, which can threaten all the other satellites whizzing around the planet. We just can’t have that. So, what are we going to do about?

Well, one solution, of course, would be a…

missile-based (hit-to-kill) or, better yet, laser-based weapon system that can blast the Chinese missiles out of the air before they even get out of earth’s atmosphere and enter space. If we can’t do that, we would at least want to be able to target and kill the warhead once it enters space. But, again, the latter scenario would create more dangerous space debris.

Fortunately, there’s a secondary solution: a passive defense system that cloaks our satellites’ radar and optical signatures from the Chinese and Russians (and everyone else). As it happens, Advanced American Enterprises (AAE), a company DefenseReview has been writing about for some time now, believes that its optical cloaking technology (a.k.a. invisibility cloak, a.k.a. adaptive camouflage, a.k.a. electro-optical camouflage a.k.a. active camouflage a.k.a. chameleonic camouflage) may be able to assist in protecting U.S. military satellites from enemy ballistic missile and laser threats, provided that it’s combined with anti-radar stealth technology.

AAE has two separate technologies: The first is their “invisibility stealth” tech (AAE actually calls this product “Visibility-Stealth”.), which works in the visible light spectrum. The second is their IR/NV-Stealth tech, which works in both the thermal/infrared (IR) spectrum and night vision (NV) (a.k.a. near-infrared) spectrum simultaneously. Together, AAE believes it’s possible that the two technologies could virtually completely mask a satellite’s visual signature. However, the AAE optical stealth tech, by itself, won’t mask the satellite’s radar signature, which is crucial.

So, how do you mask the satellite’s radar signature? Well, the AAE Stealth Technology System (STS) tech (AAE’s Visibility-Stealth and IR/NV-Stealth products) can be applied to fabric. So, theoretically, you could apply the AAE optical camouflage to radar absorbent fabric (made from radar absorbent material). You could then use this STS-treated radar-absorbent fabric to create a kind of Stealth cocoon around the satellite. Ideally, the cocoon should be angulated (i.e. shaped) in such a way that further enhances its anti-radar stealth effect. U.S. Air Force experience with anti-radar stealth tech on current fighter and bomber aircraft would likely come in handy, here.

Again, the above paragraph outlines a theoretical space satellite defense solution that relies solely on anti-radar stealth and invisibility stealth (visible light spectrum, thermal/IR (infrared), and night vision (NV) spectrum). Defense Review would, of course, also want to combine the proposed passive sytems with active satellite defense systems like hit-to-kill ballistic systems (land, sea, airborne, and space-launched hit-to-kill ballistic missiles, for example) and anti-missile lasers (most likely the optimal choice, once they’re developed enough).

When we called AAE about the relevance of their STS tech for satellite defense applications, Dr. Zeineh, STS’ inventor/developer, informed us that AAE has not tested either of the aforementioned optical camouflage / stealth technologies involved (Visibility-Stealth or IR/NV-Stealth) against radar, nor have they tested their applicability to space satellites, specifically (or anything else in space, for that matter). When we asked Dr. Zeineh point blank whether or not AAE’s technology would work on military satellites in space, he told us point blank that he doesn’t know. He simply can’t be sure until it’s tested.

So, right now, the idea of applying the AAE STS adaptive camouflage tech to an anti-radar stealth fabric shroud / cocoon encasing U.S. military communications satellites (and GPS satellites) is purely theoretical. However, we believe the goals are realistic, considering that all the technolgies discussed already exist and should be functional in space (unless there’s something we’re missing). DefenseReview’s proposed solution should be viable, provided the shrouded satellite can still perform it’s necessary function(s) unhindered. The stealth shroud must be designed in such a way that while it’s absorbing and/or deflecting enemy radar and thwarting enemy optical surveillance, it’s not simultaneously interfering with the satellite’s data transmission and reception capabilities. Cost-effective and maintainable long-term space satellite defense–without any functional deleterious or hindering effects–is the goal.

AAE Document on Satellite Defense Tech:

Right-Click here and then click on “Save Link As” (Mozilla Firefox) or “Save Target As” (Microsoft Internet Explorer) to download and view an AAE document that describes and demonstrates in pictures how the AAE Optical Camouflage technology a.k.a. visual cloaking tech could potentially assist in cloaking U.S. military satellites against enemy ballistic threats)

Company Contact Info:

Advanced American Enterprise (AAE) can be contacted by phone at 714-287-0490, by fax at 714-870-6385, or by email at aab@ix.netcom.com.