AdamSmith

Teledildonics has arrived! http://www.realtouch.com/dispatcher/index (I must credit Daddy for linking to a news item about this today.)

Please! I cop to highjacking most threads that I touch. Anyway, I enjoy highjacks of my threads as, usually, a sign that somebody had a more interesting thought than the original post. Well, there are the possible pragmatic benefits, such as the lunar-based power generation idea you mentioned. There also seems to be the longer-range but, I think, valid argument that colonizing other worlds strengthens the species' likelihood of survival. (Assuming one views that as a good.) And I strongly believe in the value of space as the imaginative frontier. Magellan didn't feel compelled to stay home because of all the problems still to be solved there. Some of the most moving days I can remember were such as the first moon landing. And, before that, listening to the Apollo 8 astronauts read Genesis from lunar orbit.

Likewise, I lusted for one of these. And likewise, the maternal unit wouldn't hear of it. Luckily I met a friend in 8th grade who spent his Saturdays assembling and launching rockets. And occasionally dodging them. I never got a rocket of my own. But I did discover that the little powder-coated electric igniter wires used to light the engines could also -- with proper hiding of the current-carrying wires and other preparation of the scene -- be used to remotely set off strings of firecrackers, startling passers-by. I think that was my favorite practical joke of all time. With the exception of the plate-lifter: http://www.etrickshop.com/Jokes_and_Pranks-PLATE_LIFTER_Joke_Prank_Gag_Gift.html

Will NASA never get its mojo back? Buzz Aldrin's indictment of the current return-to-moon program: Why We Need Better Rockets By Buzz Aldrin Well, it looked spectacular. I'm referring to NASA's recent launch of the Ares 1-X, billed as the prototype of the Ares 1 as a crew launch vehicle, a fancy term for a manned space booster. The rocket is said to have performed as planned, and ushered in the era of the Ares rockets to replace the Space Shuttle next year. Only it won't. In fact, the much-hyped Ares 1-X was much ado about nothing. Yes, the rocket that thundered aloft from NASA's Launch Pad 39B sure looked like an Ares 1. But that's where the resemblance stops. Turns out the solid booster was - literally - bought from the Space Shuttle program, since a five-segment booster being designed for Ares wasn't ready. So they put a fake can on top of the four-segmented motor to look like the real thing. Since the real Ares' upper stage rocket engine, called the J-2X wasn't ready either, they mounted a fake upper stage. No Orion capsule was ready, so - you guessed it - they mounted a fake capsule with a real-looking but fake escape rocket that wouldn't have worked if the booster had failed. Since the guidance system for Ares wasn't ready either they went and bought a unit from the Atlas rocket program and used it instead. Oh yes, the parachutes to recover the booster were the real thing -- and one of the three failed, causing the booster to slam into the ocean too fast and banging the thing up. So, why you might ask, if the whole machine was a bit of slight-of-hand rocketry did NASA bother to spend almost half a billion dollars (that's billion with a "b") in developing and launching the Ares 1-X? The answer: politics. Technical problems, the kind that follow every new rocket's development, have haunted the Ares like leftovers from Halloween. The rocket as currently designed shakes so much during launch that shock absorbers are needed beneath its capsule payload. All of this takes time to fix -- and money, money that NASA really doesn't have. To stave off critics, three years ago the Project Constellation managers conceived of the 1-X flight to supposedly show some progress. They could instrument the rocket with hundreds of sensors gathering information never before obtained during a booster use in a Shuttle mission. It would give the launch team some practice in the assembly of an Ares. And NASA would find out if something as ungainly as the Ares 1 design - a thicker top than the bottom booster - could survive during ascent through the Earth's atmosphere. Of course, all of the changes to the Shuttle launch pad to accommodate the Ares wouldn't be ready in time, so they decided to just leave all of the Shuttle hardware, such as the rotating tower that envelops the Shuttles there. A success might just buy more time for Ares to fix its problems. And that's just what happened. Meanwhile, the huge Ares V super booster is just a series of drawings. Unlike the plan used to send Neil Armstrong, Mike Collins and me to the Moon in 1969, whereby we used just one rocket to lift all of the elements of our Apollo spaceships, the current return-to-the-Moon plan requires not one rocket but two-one launch of an Ares 1 carrying the astronauts in the Orion capsule, and an Ares V lifting a big upper stage, a sort of space tug, and the lunar landing craft called Altair. Together, the two ships dock in orbit and then the tug, called the Earth Departure Stage, fires up for the outbound trip to the Moon. Two rockets in development; two launching systems. And two price tags. Two ways for failure to occur. Or delays to develop. Worse yet, neither rocket alone can accomplish a deep space mission. And deep space, such as Mars is, as our friends in the recent Augustine report stated, our destination in space. These rockets were originally supposed to all be derivatives of the Space Shuttle-using four segment boosters and Shuttle engines - but the designs were changed to save money and development time. Neither of which has proven to be the case today. Our Augustine panel colleagues stated flatly that some new heavy lift rocket would be needed no matter which direction President Barack Obama chose for the space program. But Ares 1 is too small, barely able to lift the crew space capsule. And Ares V is too weak to boost all of the elements together. What do we need? One rocket for all our deep space missions. Save the taxpayer's money by canceling the Ares 1 and V. And go "back to the future" in designing the big beast. So how do we get to the space station without Ares 1? Let the commercial space firms develop their own crew launchers, and crew vehicles. Why should Uncle Sam be in the people hauling business? Here's my plan -- and yes, I am a rocket scientist -- cancel Ares 1 now and the version of the Orion capsule that is supposed to fly astronauts back and forth to the International Space Station. Instead, unleash the commercial sector by paying them for transportation services to the station. Could be capsules. Could be winged ships like the Space Shuttle, capable of flying back to a runway with its crews and cargoes, not splashing in the ocean like a cannonball. With the money saved, start developing a true heavy lifter worthy of the Saturn V's successor. Could be a side-mount rocket like the Shuttles, with a tank-and-booster set flanked by a payload pod jammed full of cargo-or a space capsule with astronauts in tow. Or new upper stages capable of deep space missions. Let's open 'er up to a true competition, with designs from inside -- and outside -- NASA. If we bypass a foolish Moon race and let the development of the Moon be an international affair, we will have time to refine the super booster to make sure it is compatible with our deep space goals, like missions flying by comets or asteroids -- or to the moons of Mars. Such a rocket would be ready when the time comes to colonize Mars. No more false starts and dead end rockets. Maybe use innovative elements like new upper stage engines, or entirely new propulsion systems. Or designs truly evolved from the Shuttle era. The idea is to get the best thinking from rocketeers before we start spending Uncle Sam's space bucks. I confess I have a design in mind that I and my team have worked on for years. It's called Aquila, and it is a true offspring of the Space Shuttle. It makes maximum use of the existing Shuttle infrastructure -- unlike the real Ares -- and Shuttle boosters, engines and the side-mounted design where today the winged orbiter rides into space. If we need bigger rocket engines, Boeing's RS-68 behemoth is always available, flight proven and flight tested aboard the Delta IV commercial launchers. You see, heavy lifting doesn't need to be heavy spending, if we do the job right. But let the designers take the field-and may the best booster win. To paraphrase David Letterman, we don't need any stupid rocket tricks. Just good sound engineering. For without good new rockets to carry our payloads and crews, nobody is ever going to follow in Neil, Mike and my footsteps into deep space. And that's where we are destined to go. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/why-we-need-better-rocket_b_351335.html'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin/why-we-need-better-rocket_b_351335.html Buzz Aldrin was born in Montclair, New Jersey on January 20, 1930. His mother, Marion Moon, was the daughter of an Army Chaplain. His father, Edwin Eugene Aldrin, was a Colonel in the Air Force, a ScD from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and an aviation pioneer. Buzz was educated at the US Military Academy at West Point, graduating third in his class with a BS in mechanical engineering. He then joined the Air Force where he flew F86 Sabre Jets in 66 combat missions in Korea, shot down two MIG-15's, and was decorated with the Distinguished Flying Cross. After a tour of duty in Germany flying F100's, he went on to earn his Doctorate of Science in Astronautics at MIT and wrote his thesis on Manned Orbital Rendezvous. Selected by NASA in 1963 into the third group of astronauts, Aldrin was the first with a doctorate and became known as "Dr. Rendezvous." The docking and rendezvous techniques he devised for spacecraft in Earth and lunar orbit became critical to the success of the Gemini and Apollo programs, and are still used today. He also pioneered underwater training techniques, as a substitute for zero gravity flights, to simulate spacewalking. In 1966 on the Gemini 12 orbital mission, Buzz performed the world's first successful spacewalk, overcoming prior difficulties experienced by Americans and Russians during extra-vehicular activity (EVA), and setting a new EVA record of 5 ½ hours. On July 20, 1969, Buzz and Neil Armstrong made their historic Apollo 11 moonwalk, becoming the first two humans to set foot on another world. They spent 21 hours on the lunar surface and returned with 46 pounds of moon rocks. An estimated 600 million people - the world's largest television audience in history - witnessed this unprecedented heroic endeavor. Upon returning from the moon, Buzz was decorated with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest American peacetime award. A 45-day international goodwill tour followed, where he received numerous distinguished awards and medals from 23 other countries. Named after Buzz are Asteroid "6470 Aldrin" and the "Aldrin Crater" on the moon. Buzz and his Apollo 11 crew have four "stars" on each corner of Hollywood and Vine streets on the renowned Hollywood Walk of Fame. Since retiring from NASA and the Air Force, Col. Aldrin has remained at the forefront of efforts to ensure America's continued leadership in human space exploration. He devised a master plan for missions to Mars known as the "Aldrin Mars Cycler" - a spacecraft system with perpetual cycling orbits between Earth and Mars. Dr. Aldrin has received three US patents for his schematics of a modular space station, Starbooster reusable rockets, and multi-crew modules for space flight. He founded Starcraft Boosters, Inc., a rocket design company, and the ShareSpace Foundation, a nonprofit devoted to advancing space education, exploration and affordable space flight experiences for all. Buzz also promotes his Rocket Hero brand launched in 2008 through his newest entity, StarBuzz LLC. Dr. Aldrin has penned his dramatic memoirs in a new autobiography due out in 2009. He continues to inspire today's youth with his illustrated children's books: Reaching for the Moon, a New York Times best-seller, and his latest, Look to the Stars, a 2009 release. He has also authored two space science-fact-fiction novels: The Return and Encounter with Tiber. His non-fiction works include the best-seller historical documentary, Men from Earth, and an early 1970's autobiography, Return to Earth. On Valentine's Day 1988, Buzz married Lois Driggs of Phoenix, Arizona. She is a Stanford University graduate, an active community leader in Southern California and Co-Chairman of StarBuzz Enterprises. Their combined family includes six adult children from previous marriages and one grandson. Sharing a similar passion for adventure, their worldwide business travels include leisure time ocean scuba diving and winter mountain skiing. As one of the leading space exploration advocates, Buzz continues to chart a course for future space travel from Planet Earth to the moon and on to the stars. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/buzz-aldrin

Mistah Kurtz, you bad!

No, only where they need to be. ... I know one escort who sometimes travels in a t-shirt and long silk jockey shorts. Nothing else! Except socks and shoes. Those shorts as the only layer between a substantial John Thomas and the inspection doings visibly intimidate some TSA types. Hilarious.

Login function: There (still?) appear to be two not-well-integrated login functions. If I log in from a page showing the Forum, then I am in the Forums. But not necessarily recognized by the Home Page of the overall site. Still have to log in, a second time, there to get to those functions. In parallel, the logout seems in general to mirror that Two-Worlds scenario.

From experience tonight, looks like the time to edit posts is 20 minutes. Then it gets locked. Is this right? And if so, could you think about extending it? At least to 30 minutes, preferably (to me) to an hour? Thx.

One of stupidest & funniest things I know:

TNTTed sounds a useful warning note. My impression is that, once the rotation feature is implemented and you expand to include more than just 2 escorts in the rotation, the risk of perceived favoritism will drop. I do think it is a nice come-on/come-in to have some thematically appropriate eye candy on the splash page.

Yes! Thank you.

Re: Messages. How do I create a new message to send to a member who has not sent me a message to which I could reply? I see how to get to my inbox. But I don't see how to create a new message. Help.

Pardon the echo.

Not to be too inverse-jingoistic, but we Amurricans eat ridiculously. A Dutch business acquaintance brought his family to the States a few years back. One day we sent his two teenage sons to the deli up the street to buy sandwiches for lunch. They came back with a bulging bag of food, and looks of disbelief on their faces. They declared that each one of those sandwiches could easily be a meal for three people. Somebody wrote a book a couple years back on why French women are thin, with much the same thesis. Reasonable meal portions, plus using the feet instead of the internal combustion engine every now and again.

Not to be too inverse-jingoistic, but we Amurricans eat ridiculously. A Dutch business acquaintance brought his family to the States a few years back. One day we sent his two teenage sons to the deli up the street to buy sandwiches for lunch. They came back with a bulging bag of food, and looks of disbelief on their faces. They declared that each one of those sandwiches could easily be a meal for three people. Somebody wrote a book a couple years back on why French women are thin, with much the same thesis. Reasonable meal portions, plus using the feet instead of the internal combustion engine every now and again.

Re: Hyperlinks. At present, clicking a hyperlink in a message sends your home screen to the linked location, and away from this site. I would like it better if clicking a hyperlink opened the linked content in a new window (target=_blank), but left the source window still where it was.

It is a delight. Couple years ago I had the pleasure of watching Peter Sagal emcee a software event I was attending on business. He had fun trying not to stumble too much over the technological tongue-twisters infesting the script they had written for him. Even better, for my pound sterling, is getting in the car and finding on-air the old Brit standard 'My Word.' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Word!

There it is. Daddy may be the planet's greatest tech. But a salesperson/customer-service type, he ain't. This has been clear since he first started trying to fill Hooboy's shoes. Why, after all this time, does it continue to surprise us?

As I noted elsewhere, Brown v Board of Education was moving. Until people saw how "all deliberate speed" was interpreted and implemented: take your sweet damned time. I all but smelt the stench of that phrase hovering over Obama's remarks. More broadly, the question does start to take shape: Will Obama turn out to be a president who senses just how fast the public is willing to move, then does all he can to the very edge of that possibility and just beyond -- a la Doris Kearns Goodwin's portrayal of Lincoln that BO so admired? Or will he be another Carter? Or, say, a Wilson?

Alan Dershowitz: You are a very strange man. Claus von Bülow: You have no idea. -- Memorable quotes from 'Reversal of Fortune' http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0100486/quotes

Great idea! Likewise, it may just incent me to quit polluting the forums long enough to clear my 17-review backlog. Or 19? As for staying under the radar -- no prob! To collect (ahem) my prize $ the last time around, I had simply to give Oz an email address linked to my PayPal account. This happened to be my real name (as I trust Oz absolutely, despite knowing him only through email and this site). But one could easily create a fictional email address and use it to set up a PayPal account. And when I took Andre to NYC to blow the dough, he assured me there was no scarlet "MER" blazoned across my chest as we went about town.

After reading Oz's post above, but before reading TY's, the figure '120 days' came to my mind as well. Some of the most (to me!) attractive are twinks who are not exactly on top of their game, administratively speaking. The extra 30 days might help them, and hardly seems to harm us. Especially if there is thought of adding a 'last verified' date to the listing.

Verizon FIOS. (Hobbled by wireless in-house.)

This sounds great. I am looking for the same thing. Would you mind naming the provider?