Posts Tagged ‘NASA’
I had to say something about this recent article from DeZeen: “NASA Develops 3-D Printing Factory in Space.” I just finished the draft for The Portent, and there’s a scene in it that involves the marriage of nanotechnology (and/or synthetic biology) and 3-D printing. I hinted at that scene during my interview with Art Bell a week ago.
But NASA and the military industrial complex would never contemplate anything like that.
Here’s the Rebecca-from-Sunnybrook-Farm spin from NASA about the venture:
“This radically different approach to building space systems will enable us to create antennas and arrays that are tens-to-hundreds of times larger than are possible now, providing higher power, higher bandwidth, higher resolution, and higher sensitivity for a wide range of space missions.”
Sure. It’ll do that. It’s a great idea to make hardware in space. Why not?
The problem is that it doesn’t take too much imagination to speculate on what sort of other kinds of recipes and ingredients NASA could put into a technology like 3-D printing (“What would you like to make today . . . with organic materials?”). Garbage in, garbage out. Organic material in …
The unpopular reality is that, if and when NASA or anyone else is able to wield synthetic biology (that’s writing new, unique DNA from the atomic and molecular level up), it would be painfully easy to fabricate non-terrestrial DNA and claim it’s alien life. That’s not debunking. It’s a frank admission that those who don’t wield such technology would have no hope of critically evaluating such a claim in a world where some people did wield that technology. And once someone achieves the ability to manufacture non-terrestrial DNA right here on earth (again, think about that one), then what’s to stop any tethering of it to 3-D technology?
In other words, in such a world, how would we tell truth from falsehood with respect to a claim that ET life had been discovered? Granted, I’m with you if you’re thinking most scientists could be trusted with such a research claim (i.e., they’d be doing honest science). But I hope no one is so gullible to think that science is never politicized, and that this particular science would never be politicized.
It’s a shame that this sort of technology has the potential to take something that’s true and undermine it with skepticism, and to take something false and celebrate it as truth. But it might not be that way had those in power in these areas for so many years been more ethical and high-minded. We reap what we sow.
I recently received this URL from someone asking me to take a look – it’s a site about the NASA cover-up of alien bases on the moon. Familiar conspiracy silliness, new source (for me anyway).
The URL gives me the opportunity to direct readers to a blog that I follow called “The Emoluments of Mars,” written by someone (Expat) who has a deep knowledge of spaceflight, NASA photographs, and photographic analysis.
Basically, “Expat” is the “anti-Hoagland”. He’s intimately familiar with all of what Richard Hoagland, Mike Bara, and Ken Johnston have written and said to prop up the idea of alien base / artificial structures on the moon and Mars. News flash: there are piles of problems with their use/abuse of images, analysis, and thought processes. Since I have no knowledge of such things, Expat’s blog is a wonderful resource to get critical evaluation of these claims. It’s great knowing there are experts in such fields that bother to get involved (akin to my geneticist friend to whom I regularly send “alien DNA” hokum for expert opinion).
I decided to send the URL I received to Expat to see if he’d comment (I did so in the comments to one of his posts). He replied:
No, I hadn’t seen that page before, but I face-palmed as soon as I read this:
“photos revealing artifacts and structures are routinely modified by NASA higher-ups.”
DarkGovernment.com [the source of the photos at the aforementioned URL - MSH] doesn’t know what it’s writing about. As I’ve often mentioned on this blog, all data processing for Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter and Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter is done at the School of Earth and Space Exploration at Arizona State Univ. “NASA high-ups” don’t even get to see it until the processing is done.
Use Google advanced search to pull out everything I’ve written about Ken Johnston, and you’ll read my opinion of him. Someone who claims expertise in NASA photography, and says the blue flare in AS14-66-9301 is a spaceship, IS NOT a reliable source.
So there you go, alien conspiracy fans – take Expat up on the search for a taste of what he does. Better yet, follow his blog!
Popular Science recently published an article of interest to fans of UFO inquiry (and of course, The Facade). Although it’s dated April 1, it’s an article about a real event and real project. Here’s the opening paragraph of the PopSci piece:
Last September, a few hundred scientists, engineers and space enthusiasts gathered at the Hyatt Hotel in downtown Houston for the second public meeting of 100 Year Starship. The group is run by former astronaut Mae Jemison and funded by DARPA. Its mission is to “make the capability of human travel beyond our solar system to another star a reality within the next 100 years.”
The article notes that the program goals follow in the footsteps of physicist Miguel Alcubierre, the scientist credited with developing a mathematical model for warp drive. Another paragraph notes:
Alcubierre envisioned a bubble in space. At the front of the bubble, space-time would contract, while behind the bubble, space-time would expand (somewhat like in the big bang). The deformations would push the craft along smoothly, as if it were surfing on a wave, despite the tumult around it. In principle, a warp bubble could move along arbitrarily quickly; the speed-of-light limitation of Einstein’s theory applies only within space-time, not to distortions of space-time itself. Within the bubble, Alcubierre predicted that space-time would not change, leaving space travelers unharmed.
Not surprisingly, there are problems to be overcome in the model. NASA engineer Harold “Sonny” White says he’s solved them (in theory). You can read the whole piece and find out how physicists and engineers are now using words like “plausible” for warp drive.
I recently came across the YouTube segment below that debunked the famous “Tether UFOs” allegedly caught on film by NASA. Back at one of the Ancient of Days UFO conferences (I think it was 2003) at which I spoke, another presenter, David Sereda, touted this video as absolute proof of intelligent extraterrestrial craft in earth’s orbit. David and Dan Aykroyd had collaborated on a video project (that I presume sold well) focusing on the STS-75 Shuttle mission and this video. Turns out it isn’t a video of extraterrestrial UFOs at all (I’ll pause while you catch your breath).
I remember suspecting that something was amiss in this video the first time I saw it. It made little sense to me that any camera could capture an object that was less than the circumference of my pinky at a distance of miles away, but David had a lot of physics mumbo-jumbo in its defense. I went back home to Madison and showed the video to a friend of mine who was a PhD student in electrical engineering (who also happened to have worked on the radar used in the famous Mexico “UFOs on radar” incident — they weren’t alien craft, either). At any rate, my friend, Daniel Rodriguez, tore apart the claims offered by Sereda for the STS-75 video using lots of electrical-engineering-speak which I didn’t understand either (but did appreciate). This YouTube video confirms that the Tether incident video was an optical illusion — the fellow on the video replicates the incident rather nicely. I kept waiting for Bill Birnes to just burst in and accuse the guy of being on the government dole. Bill can turn a peanut butter and jelly sandwich into evidence for aliens. But alas, the segment doesn’t include Bill’s reaction.
I recently received a link to this critique of Richard Hoagland’s occult theories related to Mars: “Hoagland’s and Bara’s Dark Nonsense.” Though I don’t doubt Richard’s sincerity as to his beliefs (spent enough time with him to know he’s truly committed to his ideas — as if his history on that isn’t enough evidence), and can’t really process all his physics ideas, I know non sequiturs when I see them, and the Hiram Key by Knight and Lomas is riddled with them. The whole “Jesus is connected to ancient Egypt” trajectory is cluttered with logical flaws and imaginary evidence, as scholars of all religious persuasions of the New Testament and Egyptology have known for centuries. Any idea using Knight and Lomas is DOA.