text:
Book Review: Inventing a Space Mission

Artist's impression of the Herschel Space Telescope. Credit: ESA/AOES Medialab/NASA/ESA/STScI

Inventing a Space Mission
Inventing a Space Mission
Where will science’s next big advance arise? Like Archimedes, maybe someone will jump up out of a tub of hot water, shout ‘Eureka’ and direct everyone to use the next great discovery. Or maybe some science-bureaucrats will gather together via some on-line meeting tool and choose to chase down the most promising opportunity. Given that experiments seem to be getting harder and harder to undertake, then it’s no surprise that one hugely successful space observatory arose from the latter. This is the main message of the book “Inventing a Space Mission – the Story of the Herschel Space Observatory” by a group of authors: Minier, Bonnet, Bontems, de Graauw, Griffin, Helmich, Pilbratt and Volonte. And in this book they really promote this collaborative method of advancing science.

Succeeding with any big space project requires the alignment of so many factors. There is need for an objective that has support across a broad swath of decision makers. There is need for perseverance as the project may need many decades to come to fruition. And there is need for stable funding to maintain impetus. This book illustrates how all these and many other factors made the Herschel Space Observatory successful. First, it acknowledges the skill of decision makers in choosing a science objective that was hugely challenging yet reasonably achievable. The book has a simple figure showing this; it’s the Technical Readiness Level (TRL) for the observatories subsystems over the years of development. In it one sees that all were at TRL Level 1 to begin in 1982. And the book then describes some of the progressive, subsequent  steps to bringing these to the necessary TRL 8. The book also ably demonstrates perseverance as industry and government scientists were pushed continually to modify deliverables to meet budgets and requirements. And perhaps understated in the book is the underlying acknowledgement that none of this would have come to pass without stable, continual funding from the European Space Agency; funding be so vital for all science projects.

Perhaps most interesting about this book is that the authors do not deal much with the results of the observatory. At most the book recites numbers of dissertations and research papers that derived from the observatory’s data. Rather, this book pushes two main considerations: one, that ‘coopetition’ and ‘fair sociality’ were necessary community ideals and two, that TRL levels should not restrict science. Regarding the first, the book champions the differing attitudes within the Herschel community yet their necessity to cooperate in order to progress. The community needed to amicably pick and choose competing options, so as to allow some efforts to succeed and let other efforts disappear. Regarding the second, the book demonstrates that allowing for growth in the capabilities of industry and knowledge of science can actually be a solid instigator for change. Both of these were considered so valuable that the book continually championed them for future science projects.

So what does this book tell you about the Herschel Space Observatory itself? Simply put, it was a calculated, solid advance in viewing capability. By choice, it measured the very low wavelengths from 55 to 672 micrometres. It was huge with a 3.5metre antenna and, amazingly, over 2300litres of liquid Helium. Its measuring devices were kept at temperatures about 0.3Kelvin. And it spent a little over 4 years at the L2 location taking observations. It was conceived in 1982 and ended its capability in 2013. Over 23 institutes and 11 countries contributed, together with hundreds of people. Through its requirements, many technologies were advanced and it prepared the road to further advancements. As a science project, this book speaks proudly of the Herschel Space Observatory’s success.

Keep in mind though that this book is a report with many authors. As such, it is very formal and perhaps slightly political. The writing is dry. The subject material is wholly big science. Most figures are graphs and plots, likely from slide shows. Sometimes the detail seems too fine, as with that for the cold SQUID multiplexer. And sometimes the focus seems too diverse, as with the co-citation map. Nevertheless, it’s obvious that the authors were passionate about their subject and this comes across solidly throughout the book.

Advances to science and knowledge can come from anywhere at any time. But today most advances require a huge amount of preparation and effort. Space missions are prime examples of this and the book “Inventing a Space Mission – the Story of the Herschel Space Observatory” by Minier, Bonnet, Bontems, de Graauw, Griffin, Helmich, Pilbratt and Volonte presents a very solid view of the mission as a well-managed, research project. And it describes a very reasonable and perhaps optimal way for continuing the use of particular projects to advance big science.

Book Review: Cosmology for the Curious

What will Curious George grow up to be? Being curious, then George will ask a lot of questions. And if lucky then physics will be George’s destiny, for physics seems to have so many answers. From the biggest to the smallest, that’s its purview. And for Delia Perlov and Alex Vilenkin in their book “Cosmology for the Curious” aim to answer a great many of those questions. Or at least those questions pertaining to mankind’s place in space.

Cosmology is all about space and time. Which means that this book begins by traveling back in time. Traveling to the time of the Greeks. Hundreds of years b.c.e.  Apparently the Greek philosophers did a lot of pondering about the smallest of things they called atoms. And the largest, they called planetary epicycles. From this baseline the book very quickly progresses through the traditional growth of knowledge with some choice descriptions.

As an example it proposes energy as nature’s ultimate currency. And it allows the reader to wonder. Wonder why the sky is black at night. And ask questions. As in “why is the speed of light the same as the Earth travels about the Sun?”

Most of the descriptions rely on Newtonian mechanics for explanation but it is only a slight passing for the book quickly raises Einstein’s field equations, particularly emphasizing inertial frames of reference. With this, the reader is accorded a pleasant view of Lorentz transforms, a somewhat abstract view of the Sun being flung out of the solar system by a very large golf club and a realization of how the GPS navigation system incorporates gravitational time dilation. Still all this is simply the cosmological baseline for the reader.

Now the neat thing about cosmology is that there is simply no first hand observation. Most everything of interest happened a long time ago and in a somewhat different relative location. And this is the book’s next and most rewarding destination. Through many arguments or thought experiments, it associates the cosmic microwave background with redshifts and the changing spatial dimensions.

Later, postulated dark matter and dark energy refocus the reader’s attention on the very beginning of the universe in a big bang. Or perhaps a multiverse of many shapes and various physical laws. Which of course leads to considerations about what’s next. How will our universe continue? Will it go to a quiet heat death or will we be gobbled up by another bubble universe? We can’t determine from our vantage point on Earth. But this book does provide its own vantage point.

Helping this book along are a number of pleasant additions. For one, often when an accomplished researcher is mentioned, there’s an accompanying, quite complementary photograph. And equations are liberally spread throughout as if teasing the reader to explore more. But the book has very little math. And best of all are the questions at the end of each chapter. Now these questions aren’t your typical textbook questions. For example, consider “Inflation is almost certainly eternal to the future. Is it eternal to the past too? Why/why not?” Isn’t this a great question? And one that you really can’t get wrong.

Which of course begs the question “Why aren’t you as curious as George?” There’s a whole universe out there waiting for us to explore and understand. Let’s not take it for granted. Let’s satisfy our curiosity perhaps with reading the marvellous book “Cosmology for the Curious” by Delia Perlov and Alex Vilenkin. After all you don’t want to be upstaged by George, do you?

Star Ark: A Living, Self-Sustaining Spaceship

Think of the ease. With a simple command of “Make it so” humans travelled from one star to the next in less time than for drinking a cup of coffee. At least that’s what happens in the time-restricted domain of television. In reality it’s not so easy. Nor does Rachel Armstrong misrepresent this point in her book of essays within “Star Ark – A Living Self-Sustaining Spaceship“; a book that brings some fundamental reality to star travel.

Yes, many people want to travel to other stars. We’re not ready for that. We’re still just planning on getting outside Earth’s protective atmosphere (again). Yet making preparations and doing judicious planning is the aim of this book. Wisely though, this book isn’t technical. It has no mention of specific impulse calculations or ion shields. Rather, this book takes a very liberal view of space travel and ponders deep questions such as whether the cosmos is an ecosystem.

Does our species have an appropriate culture for space travel? What exactly is a human? These concerns get raised in some very thought provoking sections. And given that the editor is an architect and one who apparently considers the emotional qualities of a structure as much as functional qualities, then this book’s presentation tends to be a little more on the philosophical side of things.

In particular, it looks at the benefits of living entities. For instance it notes that humans live in symbiotic relationships with a host of internal and external organisms. Most have already gone into space either within people who have traveled in space or possibly upon probes sent to other planets. So we aren’t the only species that’s traveled beyond Earth. But which beings are sufficient and necessary to keep humans alive for the generations needed to travel to another star? That question and many answers come up often.

As well, the essays get into bigger questions such as: What is life? Could the vessel be an organic construct? How might today’s humans evolve to tomorrow’s star travelers? Should humans travel in space and promote/continue panspermia? Yes, these questions and many more are raised in the essays collected within this book. And true to form for any book considering star travel, there aren’t any strict answers. There are however lots of ideas and concepts to better prepare humans.

Much of this book seems to center around the authors’ involvement with the Persephone project of Icarus Interstellar. Yet there’s very little description of either. However, the book does have wonderful descriptions of Biitschli experiments, explanations of living walls and critiques of theatrical productions.

There are a few fictional passages and some poetry. The long list of references indicates a broad knowledge of the technical issues, though the focus is on humanity and the living aspect. This focus flows through the essays, but having a collection of many authors makes for a disjointed flow. The writing styles are unique, the viewpoints are particular and the emphasis specialized for each. One common viewpoint does keep arising though. That is, we are already on a living spaceship; the Earth. Earth gives a unique platform for assessing the ability to travel to other stars. The essays state that it is or at least was a veritable, closed self-sustaining life support system. And, as seems to be the norm these days, the essays acknowledge that solutions for space travel would be just as good for people remaining behind upon Earth or travelling to the Moon or to Mars and so on. This care and concern for living organism keeps the book grounded, so to speak.

The all-encompassing-solution-finder may be a strength or a weakness to Rachel Armstrong’s collection within the book “Star Ark – A Living Self-Sustaining Spaceship”. As the book’s essays describe, humans have an incredible ability to think and act in abstract fashion. Just envisioning an attempt to send sentient beings to another star demonstrates this. But will we be able to enact this idea and what form might a star vessel take? Reading of this is easy. Will taking the necessary steps be just as easy?

The book is available here through Springer.
Learn more about the author, Rachel Armstrong, here.

Time Machine Tales

“Tell me what time is it?” asked the stranger on the street.

A simple enough question that can be answered with a simple enough glance at the watch on your wrist. And so goes the appreciation of time for the average person. But is time simply a notation of events in our life? Or is it a truly robust dimensional attribute? For one answer read Paul Nahin’s book “Time Machine Tales” and you will soon discover that it is the latter. And that time may be much, much more.

If time is a dimension, then Nahin’s book has us believe that we can move along this dimension as easily as we move along a Euclidean spatial dimension. This means that time travel should be possible. Yet, as someone said, “If people can travel in time then why aren’t we seeing time travelers popping up all over?”

And in a sense, this conundrum shapes this book. From very many perspectives, Nahin explores and conjectures. From the viewpoint of ancient Greeks or Catholic scholars long since gone, the book gives rise to, what is time? does the past stop at the Big Bang? and is our future predefined?

This book presents philosophers’ quotes and their views from yesteryear and from today. Now philosophy is fascinating unto itself but throw in large quantiles of technical lore and this book’s perspective on time expands to a much larger knowledge base. That is, the book brings up exotics like Dirac radios, block universes, the bilking paradox, chronons and things smaller than the Planck length.

Intrigued by this?  It gets better as the book takes the reader through the derivation of the Lorentz transformation and on to the backward and forward tilt of light cones. If this doesn’t get your interest up, then also consider that Nahin has liberally strewn quotes and references from science fiction throughout. This leaves the reader pondering if the fiction stories are forerunners to reality or merely offshoots of very active imaginations.

And a lasting question revolves around whether scientific discovery is attained through hard work, through thoughtful imagination or through provisions by a time traveler. That’s just one of the choices that you, as the reader, get to make. Just give yourself the time to decide.

Given the fascinating, current discussions on dimensionality, it’s not difficult to pique a science reader’s interest on time travel. And this book grabs and holds such a reader. However, abrupt swings like from the musings of H.G. Wells to the showcasing of the concerns of John Wheeler make for bumpy reading on occasion. Further, the introduction implies that teachers could use the book; implying that this book is a textbook. Yet where are the courses on time travel? Nevertheless, from the view of simply enjoying science, this book makes for enjoyable reading, homework assignments and all.

Will people travel in time? Will they only travel forward in time? Can they only travel between here and other universes? When will this take place? There are so many questions about time. If nothing else, use the time you have wisely.

Read Paul Nahin’s book “Time Machine Tales – The Science Fiction Adventures and Philosophical Puzzles of Time Travel” and ponder why that stranger on the street asking for the time looked so familiar.

Find out more about the author Paul Nahin here.

Rock Legends – the Asteroids and Their Discoverers

If we are indeed stardust, then what will our future hold? And what happened to all that other dust that isn’t in people or planets? These are pretty heady questions perhaps best left for late at night. Since the age of Galileo and perhaps even beforehand these inquisitive night goers have sought an understanding of “What’s out there?” Paul Murdin in his book “Rock Legends – the Asteroids and Their Discoverers” doesn’t answer the big questions directly but he does shed some capricious light upon what the night time reveals and what the future may hold.

We’re pretty confident that our solar system evolved from a concentration of dust. Let’s leave aside the question about where the dust came from and assume that, at a certain time and place, there was enough free dust that our Sun was made and so too all the planets. In a nice, orderly universe all the dust would have settled out. However, as we’ve discovered since at least the time of Galileo this didn’t happen. There are a plethora of space rocks — asteroids — out wandering through our solar system.

And this is where Murdin’s book steps up. Once people realized that there more than just a few asteroids out there, they took to identifying and classifying them. The book takes a loosely chronological look at this classification and at our increasing knowledge of the orbits, sizes, densities and composition of these space wanderers.

Fortunately this book doesn’t just simply list discovery dates and characteristics. Rather, it includes significant amounts of its contents on the juicy human story that tags along, especially with the naming. It shows that originally these objects were considered special and refined and thus deserved naming with as much aplomb as the planets; i.e. using Greek and Roman deities. Then the number of discovered asteroids outpaced the knowledge of ancient lore, so astronomers began using the names of royalty, friends and eventually pets. Today with well over a million asteroids identified  setting a name to an asteroid doesn’t quite have the same lustre, as the author is quick to point out with his own asteroid (128562) Murdin. Yet perhaps there’s not much else to do while waiting for a computer program to identify a few hundred more accumulations of dust, so naming some of the million nameless asteroids could happily fill in some time.

With the identifying of the early asteroid discoverers and the fun names they chose, this part of the book is quite light and simple. It expands the fun by wandering a bit just like the asteroids. From it you learn of the discovery of palladium, the real spelling of Spock’s name and the meaning of YORP.  Sometimes the wandering is quite far, as with the origins of the Palladium Theatre, the squabbling surrounding the naming of Ceres and the status of the Cubewanos. Yet it is this capriciousness that gives the book its flavour and makes it great for a budding astronomer or a reference for a generalist. The occasional bouts of reflection on the future of various asteroids and even of the Earth add a little seriousness to an otherwise pleasant prose.

So if you’re wondering about the next occultation of Eris or the real background of the name (3512) Eriepa then you’re into asteroids. And perhaps you’re learning how to survive on a few hours of sleep so you can search for one more faint orbiting mote. Whether that’s the case or you’re just interested in how such odd names came to represent these orbiting rocks then Paul Murdin’s book “Rock Legends – the Asteroids and Their Discoverers” will be a treat. Read it and maybe you can use it to place your own curve upon an asteroid’s name.

The book is available on Springer. Find out more about author Paul Murdin here.

Book Review: A History of the Solar System

The value of a good analyst is priceless. They can synthesize data from disparate sources and weave a reasonable story to bring sense out of historical events and to provide guidance to planning for the future. Adding a sense of scale to space analysis so as to make things relevant to people living on the Earth today adds even more to their value. This is what Claudio Vita-Finzi provides in his book “A History of the Solar System.” It’s a collection of analyses of our grand backyard from a variety of perspectives and it offers great value to the reader.

We know so much about our solar system. And at the same time we realize that we know so little. That’s the main story of this book. It notes the common lore: there are planets, asteroids, comets and dust. That’s today. Long, long ago, a great expanse of dust got localised and made the Milky Way, so at least is postulated in the book. The future should see our Sun expand, larger than the orbit of the nearest planets.

But this book also connects lots of current scientific research to these stories. This is where the spirit of the analyst comes into play. For instance, the inner planets have certain ratios of crust to mantle to core while the outer bodies could be awash in oceans that are slightly sealed with solid caps. Why? The book provides some ideas but we’re still just learning to ask the questions.

The book postulates, “Why does water have different Hydrogen/Deuterium ratios throughout the solar system”. Or “What do calcium-aluminium-rich inclusions tell us about the construction of our universe”.  And the book goes on to hypothesize on possible accretion processes for our solar system as based upon observations of other planetary systems. With explanations helped by current events, such as the “record of cosmogenic isotopes … that can be recovered from ice cores and tree rings” we see how the analysis extends to particulars of the heliosphere.

Be warned though, the book expects a deep level of knowledge from the reader, such as with its comparison of our Sun to the star ?01 Uma or the magnetic lineations offsets across Valles Marineris indicating crustal plate interactions. And where might all this knowledge lead the reader? Perhaps the author’s frequent allusions to abiotic and living processes, together with methods to determine the presence of life gives a clue. That is, the reader might realize just how possible yet how difficult would be to detect life elsewhere in our solar system and indeed elsewhere in the universe.

As far as writing styles, this book could be considered tight. In less than a hundred pages it covers a huge amount of the key indicators used to define our solar system. The text is heavily referenced with 20-30 for each of the 8 chapters. A sprinkling of pictures and illustrations amplify its explanations. But, as the author says, this is not a textbook of “one era after another”. Rather the author tries to link how today derives from a long ago cloud of dust which will likely lead to some very interesting times for tomorrow. And this may be indicative of what’s happening throughout the universe. As the reader will learn, humans are gaining the knowledge that can bring some order into the understanding of processes of the universe and we have only to appreciate the connections in order to heighten our understanding.

With a few billion years of formation behind it, our solar system certainly seems special. The obvious is that we know it harbours life. Us! Yet a complex web of processes and interactions bind all substances together and are the baseline to our future. Perhaps by looking at the past then we can better hypothesize what the future will hold. If you want to try this then Claudio Vita-Finzi’s book “A History of the Solar System” is a great place to get ideas and capture some of excitement of the vivacity of our life. Take if for a read and from it free up your imagination to wonder and assess where we stand in time and space.

The book is available through Springer. Learn more about the author, Claudio Vita-Finzi here.

Spaceports and the Future of Space Exploration

Let yourself imagine a spaceport. I bet you put a grand concourse in the center with a fine selection of rockets descending and ascending together with space planes making their final approaches or taking off to worlds who knows where? Perhaps just behind snaking off toward the horizon is a common asphalt road with autonomous electric cars whizzing their passengers to and from the concourse. And assuredly there’s an above ground or below ground rail system that provides convenient access to those in the nearby city. At least that’s what my imagination pictures.

While my idea of space transportation may seem somewhat farfetched, the idea of a spaceport isn’t. Actually the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States of America has already licensed 10 spaceports or Launch Site Operators as they call them. Interestingly the same FAA also licenses 12 Active Launch providers.

Curious that NASA isn’t on the list of licensed Active Launchers. I wonder if they will be allowed to launch their new Space Launch System. Anyway, there’s been another treat for us in that the FAA has recently approved a commercial venture to the Moon. Can this be any more exciting? It seems that we’ve made the grade with space ports launchers and we’ve become a space faring species. There’s nothing farfetched about this reality.

Let’s dig a little deeper. The commercial company is Moon Express. It’s not surprising that they’ve sought approval as their ultimate goal is to win the Google Lunar X Prize. Presumably if they purchase a launch from the United States then they need a licensed one. And the launch company will only loft the Moon Express robot to the Moon with permission.

Illustration of Moon Express MX-1 lunar lander. Credit: Moon Express
Illustration of Moon Express MX-1 lunar lander. Credit: Moon Express

Now this is where things get a bit interesting. Moon Express has mentioned that they will use Rocket Lab to hurl their robot to the Moon. But Rocket Lab launches from New Zealand and they aren’t on the FAA list of Active Launchers. You may understand more by perusing the licensing. It seems that any United States citizen must comply with the rules wherever in the world they launch. Nevertheless it seems that we can sleep with warm hearts as apparently our space faring dreams are coming to fruition.

Yet I wonder if all really is the lotus lands that it seems. For one, why does the FAA or any government on Earth have any jurisdictional rights on accessing the Moon? Did the Chang’e 3 team need permission before they flew? I think not.

Further, does granting permission make the granter liable? Do you have any memories of the furor over the Skylab vessel re-entering on top of Australia in 1979? And whether the United States was found liable? I guess this is where 51 USC Code 50914 comes in. It shows that the licensing is apparently all about managing the risk. Does this imply that the existing judicial structure on Earth is inappropriate for space? Can you imagine the fun that journalists would have if they heard of a theft occurring on the International Space Station? Who would investigate? Who would oversee the trial and make judgement? There are some big questions remaining to be answered before people can sit idly watching rockets roar up from a spaceport with their loved ones safely tucked in.

Nevertheless while uncertainties remain, we are seeing progress. We see the basis of an international legal system. We see space transportation infrastructure that serves the customer rather than the scientist. We see individuals achieving feats that previously were the sole domain of governments. So I say, “Yes imagine your spaceport! Believe in the ability to travel far above Earth and into the furthest reaches of our solar system. Believe in a future of our making.”

Book Review: The Caloris Network

Thinking of taking a vacation this summer? Maybe you want to distract yourself with a bit of light science fiction fun. How about a deadly alien life form harbored within our solar system? That’s what Nick Kanas presents in his scientific novel “The Caloris Network.” Being placed not too far into the future, this novel lets the reader enjoy a believable taste of first contact that’s hopefully just as good as the contact from their first summer kiss.

caloris network
A pleasant novel has an intriguing plot that’s embellished with the interaction of fun characters. Sometimes it will also carry a somber undertone ringing in the background. So unravels the novel “Caloris Network.” The main character, Sam, is an astrobiologist fresh from looking at multicellular life on Europa. At home, her family suffers serious health concerns but she’s continuing with her efforts. Her research takes her to Mercury where something is raising the concern of the spacefaring military. Her fellow crew members involve a possible Martian secessionist, a cranky commander and a love triangle. All this is pretty typical fare.

Next up you may think there’d be the traditional English speaking alien biped threatening the very existence of the human race. But not this time. Instead Kanas identifies the protagonist as a silicate based lifeform on Mercury. No legs for walking and no lips for speaking. Further, this is the proverbial first contact between the human race and a living, thinking organism from another world. Will it be confrontational? As usual. Will it involve death rays? Kind of. Will it force the reader to ponder how to interact for the first time with an alien? Certainly! This is the best part of the book in that it places the reader not so far into the future so as to make the story readily believable. Being barely over a hundred years away, the reader can connect with the technological advances for an expedition on Mercury, for living on Mars and for the poor environmental state of Earth. With the simple lives of the expedition’s crew, the constrained space travel and the understated alien, Kanas has written a novel that would be fun for that long car ride or a day on the beach.

As a bonus, the author includes a chapter at the end of the book that discusses some of the science presented. It has details on what we’ve discovered of Mercury, particularly with regard to what a human visitor might encounter if standing on its surface; the temperature from searing heat to mind numbing cold, a Sun that changes direction in the sky and effects of a molten interior.

For even more fun when you’re at the beach, there’s an inclusion of how to define life. For instance, “Does it need to move?” “What do we mean by reproduction?” “How do we test for the ability to think?” and most entertaining of all, “How do we communicate with it when we can’t even communicate with dolphins yet?” These and other ideas in the novel may keep you up late discussing our very existence while watching the embers of the cottage campfire settle to a deep dark red.

Certainly something on Europa, Titan and Venus awaits people. Maybe it’s alien life. Maybe the life prefers to exist without humans coming to explore. Maybe they will be exactly as what Nick Kanas writes in his scientific novel “The Caloris Network”. With your imagination, take this novel’s plot as believable and see where it takes you. And maybe by reading this on your vacation, you may think that you’ve waited long enough and it’s time to go find out.

This book is available through Springer.
About the author, Dr. Nick Kanas.

Finding “The Lost Science” of 2001: A Space Odyssey

The film 2001: A Space Odyssey brought space science to the general masses. Today we may consider it as common place, but in 1968 when the film was released, humankind had yet to walk on the Moon. We certainly didn’t have any experience with Jupiter. Yet somehow the producer, Stanley Kubrick, successfully peered into the future and created a believable story. One of his methods was to employ Frederick I. Ordway III as his science consultant. While Ordway has since passed, he left behind a veritable treasure trove of documents detailing his work for Kubrick. Science author and engineer Adam K. Johnson got access to this trove which resulted in the book “2001: The Lost Science – The Scientist, Influences & Designs from the Frederick I. Ordway III Estate Volume 2“. It’s a wonderful summary of Ordway’s contributions and the film’s successes.

What makes a movie? A plethora of ingredients must come together. But most of all, the audience must accept it for what it proclaims to be. For instance, a science fiction show must wander about in space and/or time. And the audience has to believe the wandering. In the 1960s, the general audience had little knowledge of space and could conceivably believe in anything.

Many films used expediency over truth, such as using a gun to shoot a capsule to the Moon. However, to validate his film, Kubrick enlisted Ordway from the Future Projects Office of the Marshall Space Flight Centre. Presumably this alone would have added large amounts of veracity, but Ordway took on the challenge as we see in Johnson’s book and pushed further.

Ordway interviewed many scientists and engineers. Many of these came to the set to provide advice. Ordway acquired drawings as well as made his own schematics. He went to industry, academia and governments. Johnson skillfully brings this all to light. How did the results mesh with this effort? That is the value of Johnson’s book. It gives credit to the breadth and depth of Ordway’s research.

The book’s first section identifies the knowledge sources; people like Willy Ley, books such as Beyond Tomorrow The Next 50 Years in Space, and organizations such as Boeing and its PARSEC project. It identifies the individuals who came to the filming sets to give advice and has many images of the sets as well.

The second section gives credit to preceding films, though it’s not certain from Johnson’s book as to how or if Ordway drew inspiration from them.

Its third and final section is probably the most fun as it provides many figures of the mock-ups, drawings and schematics. It includes a great full page image of Space Station V and a four page pullout section of Discovery X-Ray Delta One. There’s also an interesting note therein that indicates that the sets and props had to be thoroughly believable from every perspective, as they didn’t know where Kubrick may place the camera. Thus, the book gives the reader a taste of the fine detail for some graphics such as for the Moon Bus. With Johnson presenting all this from Ordway’s collection then it’s easy for the reader to understand why there’s a high sense of believability to the film.

Yes, Johnson’s book shows the amount of knowledge that was available in the early 1960s and that Ordway gained access to much of this information. The very large size of this book, about 11in by 14.5in helps show off many great images throughout. However, its size also suggests the style of the book; that is, it is a scrapbook. The book is a wonderful compendium of information relevant to the film 2001: A Space Odyssey. But it doesn’t add to the knowledge base. It’s an excellent repackaging of existing material with only a little suggestive comments on cinematic technique that might be original. And, as with most scrapbooks, the value of this book is the images. While the text is informative, it’s also somewhat dry, so the reader will probably feel much greater reward from feasting on the many print reproductions, drawings and photographs within Johnson’s book.

Perhaps the greatest value of this book is what goes unstated. That is, with enough effort and research people can construct a likely overview of humankind’s progress into the near future.  A future than can be thrilling. The book “2001: The Lost Science – The Scientists, Influences & Designs from the Frederick I. Ordway III Estate Volume 2” by Adam K. Johnson captures some of the excitement and thrill as humankind lay poised upon the edges of travelling into space. Reading it will give you pause at just how far we’ve progressed in the last 50 years. And perhaps get you thinking about what the films of today might be telling us about the next 50 years.

Book Review: The Chang’E-1 Topographic Atlas of the Moon

I like hiking. Particularly, I like wandering in places I’ve never been before. Sometimes only a map, a compass and a good sense of direction gets me returning to where I began.

Many people on Earth enjoy this simple pleasure. But what to do if you’re on the Moon?

Well, assuming you’ve got the right equipment, like a spacesuit, then all you’d need is a good map because, of course, compasses aren’t of much use. So which map do you use? Well, take a look at “The Chang’E-1 Topographic Atlas of the Moon” by Chunlai Li, Jianjun Liu, Lingli Mu, Xin Ren and Wei Zuo. This lovely, featured book will have you easily finding your way about the lunar surface.

“An atlas?” I hear you asking. “Who’s going to sit down and read an atlas?”  Good question, as I didn’t think I would either, but I definitely will use this book.

For me, a good atlas allows me to understand the shape of the land; almost to feel the topology without actually being there. When I hike, I use maps to find interesting outlooks, amazing drop-offs or dry land between swamps. On the Moon we certainly don’t have to worry about water features. But there are many other features that are at least interesting enough to warrant a particular nomenclature according to the International Astronomical Union. This book includes eleven of such nomenclatures.

For instance, there are the very dry Oceani, the Maria that hint at water courses, circular craters with astoundingly sharp edges and the knife edge rimae that slice along. How do I know of these descriptions? Simple. I look at the maps in the book. There are 188 maps each on their own page; all of them presenting an equal and fine finishing. And they include the complete Moon surface, with a space resolution of 500m, a horizontal accuracy of 192m and vertical of 120m. Actually, that’s most of the book. There’s an appendix. It includes a list of 3,698 features placed on the maps with each feature having; its name, its latitude, its longitude, its size in kilometres and its page. With this appendix, one can quickly and easily find the common lunar geographic features. There are a few pages of introduction. And that’s all. It’s just like an atlas should be; straightforward, simple and to the point.

I bet you’re wondering about where the data came from? The title says it all. It’s from China’s Chang’E-1 probe. This book is a re-issue in English of their initial production of 2012. Nicely located in the preamble is a description of the data processing. This includes specifications of the CCD camera, the characteristics of the probe’s orbit and the actual data processing. It’s apparently no mean feat, as the data came from a three-line array CCD stereo imager and resulted in the Mercator or Azimuthal projections. Some additional information is at this link (in English).

However, what’s most impressive for me is that this book shows that China is actively and capably adding to the scientific knowledge of space. Yet, in acknowledgement to lunar mapping already done, the authors included a very informative history of lunar mapping in the book’s preface. So you get to know both where this mapping data came from and where other data may be found.

In any case I suspect that you nor I will be going hiking on the Moon anytime soon. But perhaps you want to study lunar topography, lunar morphology or lunar geologic structures? Maybe you want to know where is the water that’s hiding on the Moon. I recommend “The Chang’E-1 Topographic Atlas of the Moon” by Chunlai Li, Jianjun Liu, Lingli Mu, Xin Ren and Wei Zuo. It may guide you to all sorts of interesting features and finds.

The book is available through Springer.


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: text/html

WARC-Type: response

text:
The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Moon Landing Skeptic Archive
The Moon Landings: A Giant Hoax for Mankind?
An introduction to the mother of all conspiracy theories
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Are believers in danger of extinction?

Coming up is the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 moon landing. In 2016, a survey showed that 52 percent of the British public thought that Apollo missions were faked. Skepticism is highest among those who were too young to see it live on TV: 73 percent of aged 25-34 believe we didn’t land on the moon, compared to 38 percent of those aged 55 or more. These numbers seem to be rising every year. British unbelievers were only 25 percent ten years ago. It is not known how may they are today, but a 2018 poll by the Russian Public Opinion Research Center revealed that 57 percent Russians believe that there has never been a manned lunar landing. The percentage rises to 69 percent among people with higher education: in other words, the more educated people are, and the more capable of rational reasoning, the less they believe in the moon landings. In the US, the percentage seems much lower: A 1999 Gallup poll indicated just 6 percent Americans doubting the moon landings, and a 2013 Pew Research showed the number to have risen to a mere 7 percent. Not surprisingly, then, a 2010 Pew Research poll showed that 63 percent of Americans were confident that NASA would land an Astronaut on Mars by 2050.

The moon hoax theory was almost unheard of before the spread of Internet, and gained momentum with the development of YouTube, which allowed close inspection of the Apollo footage by anyone interested. Before that, individuals who had serious doubts had little means to share them and make their case convincing. One pioneer was Bill Kaysing, who broke the subject in 1976 with his self-published book We Never Went to the Moon: America’s Thirty Billion Dollar Swindle. He may be called a whistleblower, since he had been working for Rocketdyne, the company that designed and built the Apollo rockets. Then came Ralph René with his NASA Mooned America!, also self published.

Research gained depth and scope, and disbelief became epidemic around the 30th anniversary of Apollo 11, thanks in great part to British cinematographer David Percy, who co-authored the book Dark Moon with Mary Bennett, and directed the 3-hour documentary What Happened on the Moon? An Investigation into Apollo (2000), presented by Ronnie Stronge. It remains to this day greatly valuable for anyone willing to make an informed opinion.

Then there was the much shorter A Funny Thing Happened on the way to the Moon (2001), directed by Bart Sibrel, which brings in valuable insight into the historical context. Sibrel also went around challenging NASA astronauts to swear on the Bible, in front of the camera, that they did walk on the moon, and he compiled these sequences in Astronauts Gone Wild, together with more useful footages of embarrassingly awkward statements made by NASA astronauts who are supposed to have walked on the moon but sound hardly competent and consistent; Alan Bean from Apollo 12 learning from Sibrel that he went through the Van Allen radiation belt is a must-see.

Then, using materials from those films and other sources, came the groundbreaking TV documentary Did we land on the moon? (2001), directed by John Moffet for Fox TV. To my knowledge and judgment, this is still the best introduction to the arguments of the “moon hoax theorists”: You can watch it here from its 2013 rebroadcast on Channel 5:

There are very few books available on the subject. I am not aware of a more researched one than One Small Step? The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth From Space by German researcher Gerhard Wisnewski, originally published in 2005, from which I will quote repeatedly.

I am not going to discuss all the evidence presented in these sources. I can only recommend them and a few others on the way. I will simply sort what I see as the most convincing arguments, add a few recent developments, give my best conclusion, place the issue in the broader historical perspective, and draw some lessons from it all about the Matrix we have been living in.

First of all, we need to be clear about the aim of such an inquiry. We should not expect any conclusive proof that Neil Armstrong, or any other Apollo moon-walker, didn’t walk on the moon. That cannot be proven, absent some indisputable evidence that he was somewhere else (orbiting around the earth, for example) at the precise time he claimed to have spent on the moon. In most cases, you cannot prove that something didn’t happen, just like you cannot prove that something doesn’t exist. You cannot prove, for example, that unicorns don’t exist. That is why the burden of proof rests on anyone who claims they do exist. If I say to you I walked on the moon, you will ask me to prove it, and you will not take as an answer: “No, you prove that I’m didn’t go.” Does it make a difference if I am the NASA? It does, because calling the NASA a liar will inevitably lead you to question everything you have been led to believe by your government and mainstream media. It is a giant leap indeed! Just like children of abusive parents, decent citizens of abusive governments will tend to repress evidence of their government’s malevolence. And so, people choose to believe in the moon landings, without even asking for proofs, simply because: “They wouldn’t have lied to us for more than 50 years, would they? The media would have exposed the lie long ago (remember the Watergate)! And what about the 250,000 people involved with the project? Someone would have talked.” I can actually hear myself speaking like that just 10 years ago. All these objections must indeed be addressed.

But before that, the scientific thing to do is to start with the question: can the NASA prove they sent men to the moon? If the answer is no, the next step is to decide if we take their word for it or not. That requires pondering what could have been the reasons for such a massive lie. We will get to that.

But, first of all, can the NASA provide hard evidence of the moon landings?

Rock-solid evidence from Antarctica

Yes, they can. They brought back pieces of the moon: roughly 380 kilograms of moon rocks and soil samples, all Apollo missions combined. Moon rocks prove the moon landings, don’t they? Yes they do, but only if it can be firmly established that they were not dug out from the earth. And that is the problem. As explained here, “meteorites have been found in Antarctica which have proved to have the same characteristics as the moon rocks.” It may be helpful to know that in 1967, two years before Apollo 11, the NASA set up an expedition to Antarctica, joined by Wernher Von Braun, the leading NASA propagandist for the lunar missions; Antarctica is the region of the earth with the biggest concentration of meteorites, but it is not known whether the expedition included geologists, nor if meteorites were brought back. In fact, it was not until 1972 that lunar meteorites were officially discovered in Antarctica; their lunar origin, of course, was determined by comparison with the moon samples brought back by Apollo crews (Wisnewksi 202).

So the moon rocks are a far cry from proving the moon landings. As a matter of fact, none of the so-called moon rocks can be proven to have been brought back from the moon rather than from Antarctica or somewhere else on earth. But it gets much worse: some of the so-called moon rocks have been conclusively proven to be fake. In the 1990s, British astrobiologist Andrew Steele was granted the special privilege to get close to some of the precious samples locked in NASA safes, and imagine his surprise when discovering in them a bristle, bits of plastic, nylon and Teflon and tiny earthly animals (Wisnewski 207). Another moon rock made the headlines when, 40 years after having been handed personally by Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin to the Dutch prime minister, it was scrutinized and proven to be petrified wood. Granted, a few fake moon rocks don’t prove that all moon rocks are fake. But it should be reason enough for starting a systematic scientific examination of the dozens of other samples that the USA ceremoniously gave away in 1969 and the 1970s.

The photographic evidence

What other proofs does the NASA have of the moon landings? The films and photographs, of course! The films are notoriously blurry, which makes their examination difficult. How, for example, can you be sure that astronaut David Scott from Apollo 15 is dropping a real hammer and a real feather to demonstrate Newtonian gravity in an atmosphere-free environment, when you can hardly see the objects? We do have a clear photo of the hammer and the feather on the ground, but how do we know they are the same as the blurry objects dropped in the film?

What would be helpful for a proper investigation is the original NASA footage. Researchers have been asking for access to these films for decades, under the Freedom of Information Act. In 2006, they were given an answer. Here is what you can read on Reuters:

“NASA admitted in 2006 that no one could find the original video recordings of the July 20, 1969, landing. Since then, Richard Nafzger, an engineer at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland, who oversaw television processing at the ground-tracking sites during the Apollo 11 mission, has been looking for them. The good news is he found where they went. The bad news is they were part of a batch of 200,000 tapes that were degaussed — magnetically erased — and re-used to save money.”

Russians are so evil-minded: as a result of this NASA admission, Russian officials have started demanding an international investigation.

Fortunately, we have the photos. Besides planting a US flag and collecting rock samples, the astronauts spent much time taking photos on the moon. And let’s be fair: in 2015, the NASA released to the public thousands of them in high resolution. They are accessible here, and can be examined in detail. Most of them are remarkable for their quality.

The Apollo 11 crew used a standard Hasselblad 500C with a few alterations, including the removal of the reflex mirror. The film used was a standard Kodak Ektachrome diapositive film, 160 ASA. That is a surprisingly sensitive film for a place where the sunlight is unfiltered by any atmosphere, especially considering that some photos, which came out perfectly exposed, were taken directly against the sun. There are also technical issues with the reliability of this material on the surface of the moon, where temperatures go from under 100°C minus to over 100°C plus: the only protection against heat for both camera and magazine was a reflexive coating. (How the astronauts survive such temperatures is an even more serious issue.)

Another problematic aspect is the professional quality of most of those pictures. Every single shot taken by Neil Armstrong, for example, is perfectly framed and exposed. Wisnewski (144-149) quite correctly points out how incredible that is, given the fact that Armstrong (or any other astronaut) could not take aim, since the camera was fixed on his chest where he could not even see it. Not to mention the difficulty of setting aperture, exposure time, focus and field of view manually with his pressurized gloves and no vision of the camera, and with no experience of photography on the moon environment. We need to remember that photography was a very skilled occupation in those days, even on earth, and it is quite astonishing to see that all of Armstrong’s shots were just perfect.

More to the point, is there any evidence that these pictures were shot on the moon? None whatsoever. They are easy to make in studios. As a matter of fact, the NASA went to great length to train the astronauts in indoor settings reproducing the condition of the moon surface as they imagined it, fabricating tons of “moon dust” for that purpose (even before anyone had seen real moon dust), and even simulating the black sky. Some of the photographs taken in these movie-like studio settings, such as the following one from NASA archives, would be hard to distinguish from the “real” thing, if framed differently.

Armstrong and Aldrin practicing on fake moon dust under fake black sky
Armstrong and Aldrin practicing on fake moon dust under fake black sky

Let’s face it: there is no proof that any of the Apollo photographs are genuine. That may not be enough to destabilize the believers. But what should is that quite a few of these photographs are “replete with inconsistencies and anomalies,” in the words of David Percy, who proves his point in What Happened on the Moon? The film contains an interview of Jan Lundberg, the Project Engineer for the Apollo Hasselblad. When asked to explain some of the inconsistencies concerning shadows and exposure (for example, astronauts fully lit despite being in the shadow of the lunar module, as in the photo reproduced on the cover of Wisnewski’s book), he answers: “I can’t explain that. That escapes me… why.”

Incidentally, Lundberg’s embarrassed admission is the perfect illustration of how compartmentalization may have made the moon hoax possible. Like the hundreds of thousands of people involved in the project, he worked on a “need to know” basis, and had no reason to suspect he was working for something else than what he was told, at least until someone challenged him to explain impossible pictures. Just a handful of people had to know the full picture, and it is not even certain that President Nixon was among them. As Wisnewski (121-126) illustrates with the Corona alias Discoverer program (a US research satellite launched around 1959 with the secret purpose of spying over the Soviet Union), it is wrong to assume that the US military, spatial and intelligence communities cannot keep a secret. To take another example, hundreds of thousands of people worked on the Manhattan Project, which remained completely hidden from the public until the bomb was dropped on Hiroshima.

I will not list and examine the anomalies of the Apollo photographs, since they are analyzed in the documentaries mentioned above. But I do recommend browsing through and zooming on the high definition photographs on the NASA archive site, with the aim of assessing their credibility with basic common sense. Ask yourself, for example, if you can believe that the Apollo 11 Lunar Module Eagle (here, here, or here) could have landed two astronauts on the moon and sent them back into lunar orbit to reconnect with the orbiting Command Module. Or pick Apollo 14’s LM Antares (here), or Apollo 16’s LM Orion (here, or here with the rover that miraculously came out of it), or Apollo 17’s LM Challenger (here). Keep in mind that these shabby huts had to be hermetically pressurized in a vacuum environment, and that, in the last two cases, two astronauts spent more than 3 days (respectively 71 hours and 76 hours) on the moon and slept 3 nights in the module. If you want to be guided along this reflection, I can recommend this 15-minute video.

Apollo 11 Lunar Module with Neil Armstrong
Apollo 11 Lunar Module with Neil Armstrong
Ascent Stage of Apollo 17’s Lunar Module, photographed from the Command Module before rendez-vous
Ascent Stage of Apollo 17’s Lunar Module, photographed from the Command Module before rendez-vous

Where have all the stars gone?

If the Apollo crews had photographed the moon’s starry sky, that could have served the NASA to counter the accusation of fraud. For back in the 1960s, it would have been very hard to make the computer calculation to make the stars constellation consistent. Unfortunately, no one thought about it at the NASA. The astronauts were asked to look down and collect rocks, not to look up and study the stars. It is as if the NASA were a congregation of geologists who despised astronomy. And to think that they spend billions of dollars sending telescopes into earth’s orbit! To be fair, I have read about a telescope installed by the Apollo 16 crew, but it seems that no one has ever seen what came out of it. In any case, not a single picture of the NASA archives show any star in the sky.

The official explanation? There simply were no stars visible in the moon sky. Period. It is so incredible that even some “moon hoax debunkers” prefer to explain the black sky in all Apollo photographs as resulting from low exposure. But they are wrong: the astronauts saw no stars with their own eyes. All of them, from Apollo 11 to Apollo 17, consistently declared that the sky was completely black, “an immense black velvet sky — totally black,” in the words of Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man on the moon.

Was it because the luminosity of the moon surface was too strong, so that their eyes couldn’t adjust (a day on the moon lasts 27 earth days, so the astronauts who landed on the illuminated side of the moon never experienced a night on the moon)? If that was the reason, then at least, the astronauts should have seen plenty of stars when travelling between earth and moon. They didn’t report seeing any. When they orbited around the moon and passed in its shadow, they found themselves in pitch darkness, and saw no stars. Michael Collins, who orbited around the moon several times in the Command Module while Aldrin and Armstrong were on the moon, declared in their 1969 press conference: “I can’t remember seeing any!” That is one of the weirdest remarks you can think of from an astronaut, but the whole press conference is a bizarre experience to watch.

Don’t ask Neil Armstrong

Neil Armstrong’s November 1970 interview is just as bizarre. It has been used by several skeptics as evidence that he is lying. I highly recommend this very professional analysis commissioned by Richard D. Hall of RichPlanet TV from by Peter Hyatt, a nationally recognized expert in deception detection. I find it devastating for the credibility of Armstrong.

After that, Armstrong must have been ordered to keep away from interviews. But when he was allowed to make a last appearance on the the 40th anniversary of his moonwalk, he took that opportunity to compare himself to a parrot, “the only bird that could talk” but “didn’t fly very well,” and to conclude with a cryptic remark about “breakthroughs available to those who can remove one of truth’s protective layers.” God knows what he would say if he was now invited to speak for the 50th anniversary! Fortunately for the credibility of the Apollo missions, he has now left the earth for good, and his story can now be told by Hollywood.

Fasten your Van Allen Belt

We set out to find out if there is any proof that the moon landings were real. We have not found any. Instead, we have found evidence that they were not real. But in fact, it was hardly necessary: NASA engineers themselves tell us they are impossible, for the simple reason that the astronauts would have to travel through the Van Allen Radiation Belt, which would kill them, and damage the electronic equipment as well. Listen, in the 10-minute video below, to astrophysicists and astronauts inadvertently admitting that the technology to send men beyond lower earth orbit is not yet available.

That may be the reason why, since the presidency of Tricky Dick, no manned mission to the moon, or even beyond low earth orbit, has ever been attempted. Remember, the International Space Station is orbiting at a distance of 250 miles from the earth, whereas the moon is about 237,000 miles away. On January 14, 2004, President George W. Bush, speaking at NASA headquarters, announced a new endeavor to “gain a new foothold on the moon” and beyond, remarking: “In the past 30 years, no human being has set foot on another world, or ventured farther into space than 386 miles—roughly the distance from Washington D.C. to Boston, Massachusetts” (quoted in Wisnewski 329). No manned mission to the moon came out of this announcement.

Time is working to the advantage of the moon hoax theorists, for every year that passes makes people wonder: “If it was so easy to send a man to the moon between 1969 and 1972, why has it not been done again ever since?” Less that half of the British and Russians still believe in the moon landings. Among the educated, this percentage is falling fast. What will happen in twenty years, when Americans realize hardly anybody but them believes it? Will the United States of America survive the exposure of this giant hoax?

Manufacturing belief

If the Apollo moon landings were faked, serious questions ought to be asked about the NASA, to start with. Then, there is a need for some deep thinking about what has become of the United States since World War II. And beyond that, the moon hoax is the ideal starting point for reflecting on the hypnotic control that television and the news media have gained over our mind. It is not just a political issue. It is a battle for our souls.

The first step is to grow out of our infantile beliefs about the NASA, and do some basic study on what it is all about. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration was founded in 1958 by President Eisenhower. Many people today commend Eisenhower for warning Americans, on leaving office, against the growing threat of the military-industrial complex, and the “potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.” Ironically, the foundation of NASA was itself a giant leap for the military-industrial complex. There is no question that NASA’s so-called “civilian space program” was first and foremost a cover for a military program. The NASA Act of 1958 made explicit provisions for close collaboration with the Department of Defense, and in practice, the Pentagon was involved in all decisions regarding the Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo programs. Erlend Kennan and Edmund Harvey documented this point in Mission to the Moon: a critical examination of NASA and the space program, as early as 1969, and concluded:

“It remains imperative to have NASA keep its status as the decorous front parlor of the space age in order to reap public support for all space projects and give Defense Department space efforts an effective ‘cover’.” (quoted in Wisnewski 296)

Besides launching satellites for espionage purposes, the NASA was to contribute to the development of transcontinental rockets. For after WWII, the equation was simple: “Rocket + atom bomb = world power” (Wisnewski 62).

The para-military purpose of NASA is essential to understanding the Apollo hoax. For in matters of military programs, “what the public knows is also known to the enemy. This means that in principle the public and the enemy can be seen as essentially one and the same thing” (Wisnewski 7). Therefore, we should understand that deceiving the American public was not a perversion of NASA’s original purpose, but an integral part of it.

It fell upon Kennedy to sell the moon program to the Congress and to the American public in order to increase NASA budget dramatically. On May 25, 1961, a mere 43 days after Yuri Gagarin allegedly completed one orbit around the earth, Kennedy delivered before the Congress a special message on “urgent national needs.” He asked for an additional \$7 billion to \$9 billion over the next five years for the space program, for the purpose, he claimed, of “achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth. No single space project in this period will be more impressive to mankind, or more important for the long-range exploration of space.”

Kennedy can be blamed for fooling the American public, but it is likely that he had been fooled himself, just like he had been tricked by the CIA into the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion, a mere month earlier. Whatever the case, the moon was Johnson’s idea, not Kennedy’s. It is believed that Kennedy was convinced by a memorandum of Lyndon Johnson, titled “Evaluation of Space Program” and dated April 28, 1961, supposedly based on deliberations with top NASA officials. The memo assured the president of the feasibility of “a safe landing and return by a man to the moon” “by 1966 or 1967”, if “a strong effort” is made. As for the benefit of it, Johnson put it this way:

“other nations, regardless of their appreciation of our idealistic values, will tend to align themselves with the country which they believe will be the world leader—the winner in the long run. Dramatic accomplishments in space are being increasingly identified as a major indicator of world leadership.”

A month after his Congress speech, Kennedy officialy made his vice-president head of the National Aeronautics and Space Council with the charge of exploring the moon project. As Alan Wasser has said:

“Few people today realize or remember, but a single man, Lyndon Baines Johnson, ‘LBJ’, is primarily responsible for both starting and ending ‘The Space Race’”.

That explains why Texan industries were the greatest beneficiary of the space program, and why the NASA Manned Spacecraft Center in Houston was renamed the Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center in 1973.

Under Eisenhower, Johnson was both the Senate Majority Leader, and a key player in the Texan sector of the military-industrial complex. It is interesting to know that the original draft of Eisenhower’s farewell address, written by his assistants Malcolm Moos and Ralph Williams, spoke of the “Military-Industrial Congressional Complex”, but Eisenhower dropped “congressional”—in fear, perhaps, of Johnson. Johnson’s corruption aggravated after he became vice-president and appointed his Texan friends at the head of the Navy: first John Connally, then Fred Korth, who resigned in October 1963, after the Justice Department (led by Robert Kennedy) implicated him for corruption in the contract for the joint Navy-Air Force TFX aircrafts.

NASA was not just a camouflage for military developments. It was a manufactured dream to keep Americans looking up at the sky while their government was committing atrocities in Vietnam. And so, NASA had also close ties with the movie industry. Its first boss, T. Keith Glennan (1958-1961) had a long experience in running film studios in Hollywood (Wisnewski 298).

Walt Disney with Wernher von Braun, “Father of Rocket Science”, in 1954
Walt Disney with Wernher von Braun, “Father of Rocket Science”, in 1954

During the transition period between Johnson and Nixon, Apollo 8 allegedly carried three astronauts ten times around the moon. Then, after two more testing missions (Apollo 9 and 10), six Apollo crew landed on the Moon from 1969 to 1972, all during Nixon’s presidency. Wisnewski (130-139) provides a spectacular parallel showing how breaking news related to the Apollo program conveniently turned the American public’s eye away from Vietnam war crimes. Apollo 11 landed on the moon two months after the media revealed illegal bombardment in Cambodia, and the Apollo program stopped just after the official end of America’s involvement in Southeast Asia. So, writes Wisnewski,

“while the United States of America was murdering thousands of Vietnamese people, burning down one hectare after another of virgin forest and poisoning the land with pesticides, it was at the same time trying to fascinate—or should one say hypnotize?—the world with a conquest of quite another kind.” (131)

“For the rest of the world the cultural and technological thrill caused by the lunar landings must have been as overwhelming and disarming as the negative blow of September 11. To this day the USA draws strength from the boundless admiration generated by those lunar landings. And I still maintain that this ‘conquest’ of the moon, that ancient myth of humanity, elevated America to the status of a quasi-divine nation. / The moon landings fit in with the country’s overall psychological strategy of self-aggrandizement coupled with subjugating, undermining and demoralizing others.” (287)

“Civilian space travel became a form of ‘opium for the people’, a promise of redemption bringing a new and better future for the universe.” (63)

Indeed, travelling to the moon and coming back alive is a feat of mythical proportions. It is tantamount to travelling to the Other World and coming back to the world of the living with your physical body. That makes the NASA astronauts the equals of ancient supernatural heroes, immortal demi-gods, and that semi-divine quality reflects on the USA as a whole. Such was the significance of the Apollo moon landings: it was about a new world religion that elevated the United States above all other earthly nations. A lot has been said about institutional religions as means of collective mental control. But no religious belief can compare to the moon landings in terms of the cynical abuse of people’s gullibility. And no religion could compete, until recently, for the numbers of believers worldwide.

The deeper lesson is that it was made possible by television, and would have been impossible otherwise. Hardly anybody would have believed it if they hadn’t seen it with their own eyes.

In Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, Alice tells the White Queen “one can’t believe impossible things,” but the Queen insists it is possible with enough practice: “When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.” With television, believing in six impossible moon landings came without effort.

Appendix: the Kubrick hypothesis

Before being broadcast on TV, the Apollo moon landings were studio productions. No wonder, then, that one of the most influential whistleblowers was Hollywood filmmaker Peter Hyams with his film Capricorn One (1978).

Although it has no bearing on the issue of the reality or possibility of the moon landings, and should not be taken as argument, I’d like to mention here one of the most intriguing developments of the moon hoax conspirarcy theory: the suggestion that director Stanley Kubrick collaborated with the NASA in the making of the Apollo moon films while making his 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), on which he started working as early as 1964, just after finishing his antimilitary film Dr Strangelove. The rumor has that Kubrick was then pressured into a Faustian pact in exchange for fundings and other help. That Kubrick received support from the NASA for 2001 is actually no secret: the scenario was co-written by Arthur C. Clark, an enthusiastic supporter and contributor of NASA adventures, and several assistants for the film, such as Harry Lange and Frederick Ordway, had worked for NASA and aerospace contractors. Some therefore believe that 2001 was part of a NASA program both to fascinate the public with space travel and to test production techniques.

That hypothesis first arose when skeptics studying the Apollo photos and films became convinced that they had been made in movie studios using the technique called frontscreen projection, which had been perfected by Stanley Kubrick for his film 2001.

The theory had already been around for some time, when a French “mockumentary” called Dark Side of the Moon, directed by William Karel, was aired on Arte channel in 2002, as a very smart but futile attempt to debunk it.

But the theory gained a new vigor when film director Jay Weidner added to it the hypothesis that Kubrick cryptically confessed his participation through his 1980 film The Shining. Weidner presents his arguments in his 2011 documentary film Kubrick’s Odyssey: Secrets Hidden in the Films of Stanley Kubrick. Part One: Kubrick and Apollo. He also gives a brief summary of his theory in the documentary film Room 237 (2012), available on vimeo (Weidner’s contribution is between 00:44:25 and 00:51:55, and between 1:16:00 and 1:16:45). You can watch here Weidner’s contribution on YouTube:

When I first heard of that theory and watched Room 237 (I haven’t watched Kubrick’s Odyssey), I didn’t think much of it. But after watching anew The Shining with it in mind, studying Kubrick’s other films (especially Eyes Wide Shut, which one way or another killed him) and their layers of hidden meanings , and learning of his perfectionist obsession with every detail, I find the theory not only fascinating, but highly plausible.

Weidner’s starting point is the observation that, although the film The Shining is allegedly based on Stephen King’s novel of the same title, Kubrick ignored the scenario adapted by King himself, and changed so many things in the story that it can be said to be a totally different story—which made King quite resentful. Kubrick seems to have used King’s novel as a cover for a story of his own. What is therefore interesting is to focus exclusively on the elements of the film that depart from King’s novel, and on the details that seem to have no direct bearing on the main narrative. Weidner is not alone in taking this approach: many Kubrick admirers believe that the film has hidden meanings. Some argue, convincingly I believe, that it contains cryptic references to child abuse, also an underlying theme in Eyes Wide Shut. But Weidner reads into the film a subtext that amounts to an autobiographical confession of Kubrick’s role in faking the Apollo moon landings eleven years earlier.

According to that interpretation, Jack Torrance (Jack Nicholson) represents Kubrick himself, while the Overlook Hotel (built on Indian burial ground), represents America. The manager of the hotel, Stuart Ullman (Barry Nelson), made to look like JFK, represents the US government (as well as perhaps the JFK Space Center), while his assistant Bill Watson, who keeps observing Torrance without uttering a word, represents the Intelligence underworld.

Stuart Ullmann (the State) and Bill Watson (the Deep State)Stuart Ullmann (the State) and Bill Watson (the Deep State)
Stuart Ullmann (the State) and Bill Watson (the Deep State)

Two scenes in particular give the keys to this cryptic narrative. The first one is when Danny (representing Kubrick’s child, that is, the Apollo films) rises up wearing an Apollo 11 sweater, on a rug with a design similar to the Launch Complex from which the Apollo rockets were launched. Soon after, Danny enters room n°237, which contains the secret of the hotel. The room number was 217 in King’s novel, but Kubrick changed it to 237 in reference to the distance of 237,000 miles that separates the earth from the moon (according to the common estimation at the time). The “room n°237” is in fact the “moon room”, because “room” looks similar to “moon” when read backward, and Kubrick has taught us to read words backward in the scene where the word “redrum” becomes “murder” in the mirror.

Danny (Jack/Kubrick’s child) is Apollo 11 (a Disney production?)Danny (Jack/Kubrick’s child) is Apollo 11 (a Disney production?)
Danny (Jack/Kubrick’s child) is Apollo 11 (a Disney production?)

The second most important scene from the point of view of Kubrick’s cryptic subtext is when Wendy discovers that Jack, who is supposed to write a novel, has been typing one single sentence over and over again: “All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy.” That sentence, which must have been chosen by Kubrick for a very specific purpose, takes a secondary meaning once you realize that All, in American typewriter script, is indistinguishable from A11, which can stand for Apollo 11.

Director’s wife finds out he makes A(pollo) 11 work, and no playDirector’s wife finds out he makes A(pollo) 11 work, and no play
Director’s wife finds out he makes A(pollo) 11 work, and no play

When Jack then catches Wendy reading the pages, he tells her how deadly serious his contract is:

“Have you ever thought for a single solitary moment about my responsibilities to my employers? […] Does it matter to you at all that the owners have placed their complete confidence and trust in me, and that I have signed a letter of agreement, a contract, in which I have accepted that responsibility? […] Has it ever occurred to you what would happen to my future if I were to fail to live up to my responsibilities?”

Besides these two scenes, there are a number of other clues that support this subtextual reading. Why did Kubrick, for example, make the design of the Indian tapestry in the main lounge resemble rockets? Does Jack aiming at them with a ball represent Kubrick “shooting” the Apollo films?

Just after that shot, Wendy and Danny go into the hedge maze. Jack then looks over a model of the maze inside the lounge, which merges with the real maze in cross fading, suggesting that the maze is not real. This is also hinted by the aerial shot of the Overlook Hotel, which clearly shows that there is no maze next to it. Coming from Kubrick, this cannot be a continuity error.

Puzzling spatial impossibilities in the film have also been discovered by careful students of the film such as Rob Ager. They are no mistakes, for Kubrick gave himself a lot of trouble to produce them. Therefore, they must have a message to tell, possibly that what appears to be outdoor was in in fact filmed indoor.

There are also two brief allusions to television that fit with the alleged subtext: a sarcastic remark on the notion that what is seen on television is “OK” (watch the scene here), and a mysteriously wireless television (impossible in 1980) showing the film Summer of 42.

“See, it’s OK, he saw it on television!”“See, it’s OK, he saw it on television!”
“See, it’s OK, he saw it on television!”

Another possible clue left by Kubrick to let us know that he intended The Shining to be read as cryptically autobiographical, is the documentary that he asked his daughter Vivian to shoot on the set of the film (now included as bonus in DVDs). It makes Kubrick appear as a mirror image of Jack Torrance. This has been detected even by critics with no interest in the Apollo theory, such as Rob Ager, who writes:

“Kubrick’s decision to allow a documentary film to be shot on the set of The Shining was an unprecedented departure from his usual ultra-secretive work policy. All of the behind the scenes footage was shot by his daughter Vivian. Without realizing it, many film critics and biographers have accidentally identified Kubrick’s motive for releasing this documentary. Time and time again they have described his edgy behind the scenes behavior as being comparable to the film’s main character Jack Torrance. One of the biographies I read […] even claimed that there were running jokes on set about the similarities in appearance and behavior between Jack Nicholson’s character and Stanley Kubrick. My theory is that Kubrick was deliberately creating these character parallels between himself and Jack, both in the documentary and among his crew in general. But the most prominent example of this parallel is Kubrick’s degrading treatment of the actress Shelley Duvall (Wendy) and the actor Scatman Crothers (Halloran), both of whose on screen characters are victims of Jack Torrance’s madness.”

Jack is writing a horror story, and so is Stanley, here shown typing in his daughter’s documentaryJack is writing a horror story, and so is Stanley, here shown typing in his daughter’s documentary
Jack is writing a horror story, and so is Stanley, here shown typing in his daughter’s documentary
All Comments Hidden • Show  1,563 Comments • Reply

warcinfo:
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2021-43
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for October 2021
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-180
software: Apache Nutch 1.18 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/


WARC-Identified-Payload-Type: application/xhtml+xml

text:
School of Nursing

With a degree in nursing or integrative health and wellness studies from University of Portland's School of Nursing you'll become a health care professional who empowers patients, families, and communities to embrace healthy living and strive for wellness. At the School of Nursing, we believe that all nurses are healers, advocates, and health care leaders who believe that social justice lies at the head, heart, and hands of all that we do.

School of Nursing Overview I

School of Nursing Overview II

Simulated Health Center

Nursing Students Say

Learn more about the School of Nursing

Office of Admissions is open Monday-Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.


text:
1. What is an Assignor?
2. Assignor Examples
3. What is an Assignment of Contract?

An assignor definition is an entity that owns rights to a piece of property and then grants those rights to a different entity.

What is an Assignor?

When a person or business owns rights to some type of property, and they then give those rights to another person or business, they are known as an assignor. The person granted the rights is called the assignee.

Assigning rights to property is quite common, and when it occurs, the assignor is allowed to place restrictions on how the assignee can use the property. Before property can be assigned, a contract will need to be created. This contract should name the person or entity who is receiving rights to the property.

In the contract, the assignor should list any limitations that they wish to place on the assignee. If both the assignor and the assignee approve of the language of the contract, they can sign the contract and exchange the property. Assignors can only sell a piece of property if they own property rights.

The sale can be contested if someone else feels that the assignor does not hold property rights. If the sale is contested in court, the assignor will need to provide documentation proving their rights, such as a:

  • Contract.
  • Deed.
  • Title.

One of the most common situations, when property is assigned, takes place before construction of a home. The assignor buys the property rights and then sells those rights to the assignee for a profit. Depending on the type of property being assigned, different rules and requirements can apply. For example, there are a variety of conditions that must be fulfilled before intellectual property can be assigned.

Assignor Examples

There are several types of property that can be assigned besides physical property, such as real estate. For example, it is possible to assign contractual rights or intellectual property. However, regardless of the type of property being assigned, the assignor will need to prove that they actually own those rights before the contract can be executed.

When assigning a piece of real estate, the assignor will need to own the property's deed or have land rights. Once the assignment has occurred, the assignee will be responsible for all fees and taxes resulting from the transfer of rights. Although less common than assigning property, it's also possible to assign intellectual property rights, including:

Intellectual property rights can only be transferred by contract. Contractual rights are another type of right that can be assigned. When an assignor transfers their contractual rights to the assignee, this person will be responsible for fulfilling the duties of the contract, even though they are not a named party. However, if it is found that the assignment is illegal or alters the contract in some way, courts usually will not uphold the assignment.

There are a few circumstances where an assignment is prohibited:

  • Personal injury lawsuits.
  • Claims that involve the government.
  • Future wages.

What is an Assignment of Contract?

An assignment of contract is when a party who is named in a contract grants their rights and responsibilities to a third-party. In most cases, contract assignments occur when the assignor wants someone else to take over their contractual duties. For this to occur, the assignee must be informed of their obligations, as well as their rights.

For an assignment to be successful, there are several factors that come into play. However, the most important part of an assignment is the wording of the contract. In certain cases, it's possible that a contract will expressly forbid assignment, meaning transferring contract rights would be in possible. It may also be possible that a contract will only allow assignment after the third-party has consented.

If you sign a contract to have milk delivered to your house on a daily basis, and the dairy assigns this responsibility to another dairy, your contract would now be with the new company.

When assigning contractual rights, the assignor should be aware that they may still be liable for breach of contract. Certain contracts will include language that requires that the original party guarantee contractual performance, even if they have assigned their duties to another person. If a contract has this provision, and you are the assignor, you can be sued if the assignee does not fulfill their obligations.

If you need help understanding the assignor definition, you can post your legal needs on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.


text:
Share this page :

In the autumn of 1950, Burnley had suffered a run of six consecutive Division One games without a win but that was all put right with an exhilarating performance at Turf Moor in mid October with Charlton Athletic beaten 5-1.

One week later, on the 21st, we were due at Roker Park for an away game against Sunderland with supporters expecting manager Frank HIll to name the same team, but that was not the case with us selling inside-forward Harry Potts to Everton in the week leading up to the game.

progs5051 sunderland away frontHarry had been a regular in the side throughout the post-war period and there was no doubt the supporters of the time knew he would take replacing. The big question was whether we would reshuffle the pack or make a signing; we did neither. Two days before the game, the club confirmed that his place would be taken by teenage rookie Jimmy McIlroy who would make his debut.

If he is successful, as we all hope he will be, he may be the answer,” it said in the Burnley Express. “It is asking a great deal of a youngster who needs experience. This is his first step towards gaining it.”

And so, this youngster, of whom many had high hopes, lined up for the first team at Roker Park in a game that ended 1-1 and one that would have been won with kinder administration, according to our local reports who commented that Burnley played well and Sunderland played hard with the Roker men being satisfied and the Clarets feeling that they had been robbed.

Official control of the game left much to be desired and far too many bruises were collected as unwanted and unwarranted souvenirs. The Sunderland defence was more robust than classy, and no quarter was asked or given by either side.

The Burnley inside-forwards, Billy Morris and McIlroy, came in for rough treatment. Young Jimmy’s debut could be described as a Baptism by the Boot, but Burnley’s spasms of attacking brilliance owed much to the trickery of the youthful Irishman and the thoughtful ball play of Morris.

McIlroy combined the craft of the veteran with the enthusiasm of the youngster. His passing was accurate, particularly his through ball and the diagonal pass; he thought fast, moved quickly with the genius of anticipation and helped to make the line go. His inclusion in the side was a bold move, but it was justified, and on this display the youngster can be classified as a discovery. He took more hard knocks than a boy has a right to expect on an initial experience in Division 1 football, and remained limping slightly but undeterred.

It was Morris who engineered our goal just ten minutes in for Bill Holden. It came from a sample of his artistry. He killed the ball, feinted one way, kidded John Mapson that he was about to shoot and slipped a short pass to his centre-forward HOLDEN who crashed it into the net first time.

Then came the poor administration with two particularly poor decisions. Holden went through, drew Mapson and dribbled round the sprawling goalkeeper. He was about to shoot into the empty net when Mapson grabbed his leg and pulled him down. The referee looked at his linesman, but no action was taken. The crowd laughed as well it might.

The second decision assumed even graver proportions. Sunderland centre-forward Davis never attempted to reach a ball into the penalty box. He bent forward so that Reg Attwell, standing immediately behind him, was forced into putting his hands on Davis’ back as he was jumping. A penalty was awarded with the indignant Attwell protesting.

Right-back Jack STELLING took the kick and scored off the underside of the bar for the equaliser which earned Sunderland their much undeserved point.

But, overall, it had been a good day for Burnley. It was a performance to enthuse everyone along with the excellent debut from McIlroy.

“More football of this vintage from the Clarets and the crowds will again be clamouring for admission to Turf Moor, but referees will have to protect the ball player from those who are more indiscriminate. The game is supposed to be football, not all-in wrestling,” wrote Sportsman in the Burnley Express.

The teams were;

Sunderland: John Mapson, Jack Stelling, Arthur Hudgell, Willie Watson, Billy Walsh, Arthur Wright, Len Duns, Tommy Wright, Dick Davis, Ivor Broadis, Tommy Reynolds.

Burnley: Jimmy Strong, Arthur Woodruff, Harold Mather, Reg Attwell, Tommy Cummings, George Bray, Roy Stephenson, Billy Morris, Bill Holden, Jimmy McIlroy, Jack Hays.

Referee: Mr F. B. Coultas (Hull).

Attendance: 38,983.

Share this page :

Follow UpTheClarets:


text:
IP: The Next Evolutionary Step for IT Service Firms

In its February newsletter, Revenue Rocket Consulting Group explores Intellectual Property as the next evolutionary step for IT service providers. In the article, Revenue Rocket interviews Dennis Dimka, Managing Director for Uptime Legal Systems, on the importance of an IP strategy as an IT service provider.

Revenue Rocket Consulting Group is a strategy consultancy for IT service providers. Revenue Rocket helps their clients reach the next level of growth and profit. Revenue Rocket works with a variety of technology companies including Managed and Cloud Service Providers on both strategy and M&A work. Revenue Rocket promotes a strategy of specialization and verticalization in the crowded IT service provider marketplace.

Uptime Legal Systems is the world’s leading provider of cloud services to law firms. Uptime is a pioneer not just in cloud computing but in specialization, verticalization and evolving beyond being “just” an IT service provider.

In the article, Revenue Rocket and Dennis Dimka address the broader IT service provider community, and discuss how IT companies can grow and thrive in a market with increased competition and shrinking margins. Within this strategy, Revenue Rocket and Dimka discuss the importance of a long-term IP strategy.

“The prerequisite to developing the right IP,” Dimka says, “Is to have a verticalization strategy. With verticalization: everything comes into focus, and it defines the playing field in w hich to create IP that adds value to your clients, differentiates your company, and gives you something unique to sell.”

Read the Full Article Here


text:
“I’d take her in a heartbeat. She’s brilliant. She knows the way around. She is a really fine woman. The Obamas are great friends. I don’t think she has any desire to live near the White House again.”

“In terms of who to pick, we’re just beginning the process. We’ll shortly name the committee to review this and begin to look through the backgrounds of the various potential nominees. And that’s just getting underway.”

— Joe Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential candidate, reveals that he would ask former First Lady Michelle Obama to be his running mate in an interview with CBS Pittsburgh’s Jon Delano. Biden also says his campaign is in the early stages of choosing a committee to review potential vice president candidates. Biden, however, did not commit to choosing a non-white woman on his ticket, but he didn’t completely rule it out. “I’ll commit to that be a woman because it is very important that my administration look like the public, look like the nation. And there will be, committed that there will be a woman of color on the Supreme Court, that doesn’t mean there won’t be a vice president, as well,” Biden added.


text:
Contact us on 01792 721 725 or

Data law has changed

Data law has changed

Unless you’ve been hiding under a rock you’ll have been bombarded by information in recent weeks (and probably vast amounts of unwanted email) about how the law on how personal data is gathered, processed and stored has changed (as of today – 25th May). The new legislation that replaces the Data Protection Act is called the General Data Protection Regulations (GDPR).

You may also have noticed that we haven’t sent out our own email to add to the terabytes of emails on this subject (largely unwanted if our experience is anything to go by, the irony of which seems to be lost on many!). The reason we haven’t done so is because we have always worked on the basis of having a clear lawful reason for gathering, processing and storing of personal data, so if your data is in our system we are confident that we had a sound legal basis for having it in the first place. We follow (and always have done) Market Research Society best practice and we are a company formed by and employing highly trained and experienced social researchers. As a result, we have always held ourselves to the highest of standards in the gathering, processing and storage of personal data.

That doesn’t mean we have been complacent – we’ve been learning about the new GDPR rules and auditing our data to ensure that we are compliant, and we have made amendments to our privacy policy to further clarify key points. If you would like to know how we gather, process and store data you can view our privacy policy via the link in the footer of this website. We’re always learning and if you think we could be clearer in any areas we’ll be very happy to hear your suggestions.

If you are ever uncertain or would like to raise any query about personal data that we may hold about you then you can ask us about this – our contact details are on the Contact page of this site and we will be happy to answer any queries you have.


text:
MDW Beer Chugg Surf Contest

Dom (Silver), Ryan (Gold), CJ (Bronze).

The now-annual Beer Chugg Surfing Competition on Rambler Road in Wildwood Crest, NJ has run for two straight years. The competitors have enjoyed sunny, offshore conditions and 2-3 foot surf both years–signaling that the gods are smiling upon our high-performance activities.

The Rulez

In the end it was Ryan Gallagher (Rambler Surf Mag Editor and this year’s contest organizer) who took home the gold. In second was longtime rabble-rouser Dom Bilello. And CJ Serratore with the bronze.

You might be shaking your head… What a rigged affair–Gallagher organized the contest and won? However, Gallagher had actually been knocked out in the second round after a close loss to Joey Chapman–a local lifegaurd. However, Chapman (who is also planning to open a new Dairy Queen in Sea Isle with our buddy Rich Martin) had to go to work. By default, Gallagher advanced.

Even more surprising, Dom (who hasn’t surfed in almost a year) came from a first round loss, to the losers bracket, beat CJ and made it all the way to the final heat against Gallagher after implementing an intense training regimen of prison workouts and hard boiled eggs.

The contest ran all day from 11am to 5pm. Competitors rode more than 25 waves, drank over 40 beers, consumed 6 hard-boiled eggs, slurped down over a quart of pasta salad, and chowed on 6 protein bars. Twas a day we hope to re-live for many more MDWs.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , ,


text:
University of Southern Indiana
older adults with a caregiver looking at a tablet

Dementia Friendly Petersburg

What is dementia?
Dementia is a general term for loss of memory, language, problem-solving and other thinking abilities that are severe enough to interfere with daily life. Alzheimer's is the most common cause of dementia.                                                                                – Alzheimer’s Association

What is a Dementia-Friendly Community?
A dementia friendly community is a village, town, city or county that is informed, safe and respectful of individuals with the disease, their families and caregivers and provides supportive options that foster quality of life.                                                            – Dementia Friendly America

Meeting Information
Date: Last Friday of every month
Time: 10 a.m. ET / 9 a.m. CT
Location: Petersburg Courthouse, basement level (add Google map or directions) and on Zoom (Email Coordinator for more information)

Action Team Members

                       AseraCare logo

 Memorial Hospital Logo

This project is supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) as part of an award totaling $3,691,706 million with zero percentage financed with nongovernmental sources. The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by HRSA, HHS or the U.S. Government.

Contact Dr. Katie Ehlman

Send Email to


text:
Skip to main content Skip to footer site map

USNA Academic Instructions

Number Subject Date Originator
Instructions <1500-4999
1500.3 Orientation Program for Newly Reported Military and Civilian Personnel 13JUL93 ADFMA
1531.33F Midshipmen Academic Performance Reports 31OCT08 ADAA
1531.34C Service Academy Exchange Program 27SEP11 CMDT
1531.47C Premedical/ Predental Advising and Selection for Medical/Dental Corps 21AUG01 ADAA

Graduation and Degree Requirements 9MAY08 ADAA
1531.51B Class Standings 8AUG17 ADAA

Policies Concerning Graded Academic Work 22FEB21 APAA
1560.3G Voluntary Graduate Education Program 4SEP14 GRADEDPRGM
Instructions 5000-11999
5060.5G Honorary Title of Professor Emeritus 6APR16 ADFMA
5420.24G Policies and Procedures Governing the Academic Board 5JAN10 ADMISSIONS
5420.33B Faculty Senate  7JUL14 ADP
Instructions 12000+
12430.4B Performance Appraisal of Civilian Faculty Members 28AUG98 ADFMA
12831.1B Privileges of Retired Civilian Professors 27APR15 ADFMA
go to Top