Pages

Showing posts with label space law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label space law. Show all posts

Monday, August 03, 2009

Potpourri LXXXVII

Let's see, what's out there today? Oh yeah, a weird world. Let's surf together, shall we?

Dar the Science Cheerleader talks about a citizen science workshop at Chicago's Adler Planetarium. Huzzah!

Our British cousins are calling for a debate on the use of autonomous robots capable of killing without a human order. About bloody time. Friendly fire never is, but who do you blame if the machine does it? Whom do you hold liable?

Speaking of robots, here's their warmer, fuzzier side: companion robots.

The Down Under Defense Expert (DUDE) has another weekend sojourn recommendation (so far he's about 8 for 10): this time, a fly-in for Beechcraft airplanes in Tullahoma.

Taylor Dinerman reviews the potholes in space law and policy. Also on The Space Review, my buddy and fellow space geek Pete Garretson analyzes the requirements of space policy.

Another good take on the Augustine Panel. Keep an eye on the public meetings August 5 and 12. That's where we might learn where the Panel will take us. At least we'll know a little more before their report comes out at the end of the month.

New from Hu:

  • Lockheed's Aegis ballistic missile defense system has destroyed additional targets. Good timing, because...
  • Iran might be a year away from building a nuclear weapon.

Another plane had a bad day on the way from Brazil to somewhere else. Wonder how long before someone blames it on global warming producing stronger thunderstorms.

A good article from The New York Times on how and why we visit museums and what we continue to get out of them. Food for thought as my countdown to museum overload continues.

No doubt there's more excitement out there, but that's it for now.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Democracy, Polls, and the Progress of Space Exploration

These came to me from my AIAA daily news feed, in this order.

Study finds U.S. losing space dominance.
India's
ANI (4/20) reported, "A new study has determined that India and China, along with Russia, Japan and Europe are all set to reduce the dominance that U.S. has over space activities." The study was based on the Authoritative Guide to Global Space Activity by the Space Foundation and the 2008 Space Competitiveness Index by the Futron Corporation. According to the trends, "the commercial space sector will continue to grow in comparison to government space exploration and operations potentially becoming the most important driver of overall space activities." Futron's Index especially "points out that advantages the United States has historically enjoyed in all three major dimensions of space competitiveness -- government, human capital, and industry -- are being narrowed by a an emerging India and China, a robust Europe, a resurgent Russia, and a steady Japan."

Space exploration ranks low on tech poll.
Space Politics (4/18) reported, "The Fairfax County (Virginia) Economic Development Authority released a poll ranking the top priorities for 'technological breakthroughs' as perceived by the American public." Space exploration "made the list, but only barely: just three percent ranked it as their highest technological priority." A similar result was seen in the U.K. poll.

Democracy has its pitfalls. There was a time when this nation actually behaved like a representative republic, and the congress sometimes passed things for the good of the whole rather than following what polls were telling them. Alas.

***

Oh, and then there's this bit...

Richard Branson wants to conduct a marriage ceremony in space http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/showbiz/showbiznews.html?in_article_id=560792&in_page_id=1773

Apparently Sir Richard is a notary public, in addition to all his other talents.

Think of the possibilities, though. Instead of going to Vegas for a quick marriage or Reno for a quick divorce, people could go to LEO or L5! There would be entirely new law practices set up to address the implications of zero-gravity legal transactions. Say one of the partners is afraid of heights--would that constitute coercion? Temporary insanity? The possibilities are endless!

What do you mean, nobody asked?