- Congress does not seem sold on the idea of NASA’s space taxis. When leaders of various commercial space companies appeared before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, members of the panel expressed serious skepticism over the projected costs and benefits of helping to develop commercial spaceships, part of NASA's plan to focus on exploration rather than transportation. When the space industry executives encouraged lawmakers to support the effort, committee members questioned whether there will be enough of a market in space transportation and tourism to justify taxpayer investment in new, private vehicles. The lawmakers all seemed to return to the reality that such ships will need more customers besides NASA astronauts to be profitable, the lawmakers said. "NASA seemingly takes the position of 'Build it and they will come,'" said committee Chairman Ralph M. Hall, R-Texas. "From my perspective, the business case is not very compelling." Not compelling? Who doesn’t want to be shot into outer space, Ralphie? And let’s face it, Earth-bound taxis are not expensive enough and getting shot into space is the only real way to see cab fares that are astronomical in more ways than one. Yet Hall raged on, postulating that if there are no customers beyond NASA to buy seats on these new spaceships, it "could put the government in the position of supporting, or bailing out, commercial companies" in order to preserve a national space transportation capability. Speaking out against Hall, billionaire founder and chief executive officer of Space Exploration Technologies Corp. Elon Musk (whose name still sounds like some bad department store cologne), said he "will personally guarantee" that taxpayers won't have to bail out his company. Also on hand for the hearing were executives representing Boeing, Sierra Nevada Space Systems, ATK Space Launch Systems and United Launch Alliance. All of the executives said their businesses would be successful even if NASA were the only customer for their space transportation services. They cited other likely sources of income for their private space taxis, such as cargo transportation and satellite servicing, as well as selling rides to private citizens and to astronauts from countries without their own space programs. "It's been demonstrated that there are individuals that would pay to fly to the space station," said John Elbon, vice president and general manger of Boeing's Space Exploration Division. "There are also other countries in the world that would like to have their own space program but can't afford the infrastructure associated with that." Those arguments did not sway lawmakers either, who seemed much more enthusiastic about what they view as a cheaper mode of transport: Russia's Soyuz spacecraft. A cost of $63 million per passenger may not seem cheap and that rate is expected to rise to $80 million in the future, but the idea still sounds appealing to Rep. Brad Miller, D-N.C. "It certainly appears that we're paying a lot more per seat than we're paying the Russians now," Miller said. "It sounds like it's a lot more expensive than the deal we have now." Musk was adamant that his company could bring the ticket price per astronaut down to $20 million, but the overall vibe from the meeting was best described as negative for those trying to win over the committee……….
- Score one for gender equality in the United Kingdom. As of today, sons and daughters of British monarchs will have an equal right to the throne thanks to changes to the U.K.'s succession laws agreed to Friday, British Prime Minister David Cameron said. The announcement came after leaders of the 16 Commonwealth countries that have the queen as head of state approved the changes unanimously at a Commonwealth of Nations summit in Australia. While the individual governments of those 16 countries still must agree to the changes for them to take effect, those votes are expected to be a formality. Under the new laws, a first-born girl would have precedence over a younger brother and would also allow a future British monarch to marry a Catholic. These laws would apply to any future children of Prince William and Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge, who married this year. Cameron hailed Friday's agreement by the heads of government of the 16 nations as "something of a historic moment." He cited the decision as evidence that attitudes and cultural norms and values have changed fundamentally over the centuries, meaning outdated rules should evolve with them. Speaking in a televised address from Peth, Cameron appeared alongside his Australian counterpart Julia Gillard. "The idea that a younger son should become monarch instead of an elder daughter simply because he is a man, or that a future monarch can marry someone of any faith except a Catholic -- this way of thinking is at odds with the modern countries that we have become," Cameron said. "Put simply, if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge were to have a little girl, that girl would one day be our queen." Cameron also announced plans to eliminate the Act of Settlement, a law passed in 1701 which bans the UK monarch from marrying a Catholic. The purpose of the act at that time was to ensure that Protestants held the throne and remained head of the Church of England. "Let me be clear: the monarch must be in communion with the Church of England, because he or she is the head of that church, but it is simply wrong that they should be denied the chance to marry a Catholic if they wish to do so," Cameron said. "After all, they're already quite free to marry someone of any other faith." The constitutional change is supported by Buckingham Palace and is expected to be approved by parliament in the United Kingdom and the other 15 countries that have the queen as head of state. In detailing the new measures, Cameron observed that the current standard under which a younger brother would take precedence over a first-born sister is discriminatory under European law. The U.K. has long lagged behind on this issue, as Denmark changed its rules to make them gender neutral in 1953, Sweden followed suit in 1980 and other countries across Europe have since followed suit. Spain still has laws mandating male primogeniture, or male heirs taking precedence over female ones, in place. In other news, Spain needs to get with the times…………
- It’s now official: Charlie Sheen is headed for TV screens again. For the first time since being fired from his gig as the highest paid actor on TV for his work on "Two and a Half Men," Sheen will return to the small screen as a permanent cast member for a show. John Landgraf, president of FX Networks, announced Friday that Sheen's new project, "Anger Management," will air on cable network next summer. Yes, Sheens’ big return is on basic cable and yes, the show is named after and based on a crappy, über-forgettable 2003 Adam Sandler-Jack Nicholson film. Naming anything after a Sandler movie doesn’t exactly portend acting and screenwriting greatness, but the network has ordered 10 episodes of "Anger Management." If the show starts well, FX will order another 90 episodes. "We think that (producers) Bruce Helford, Joe Roth and Charlie Sheen have come up with a wonderful, hilarious vehicle for Charlie's acting talents — and a character we are very much looking forward to seeing him play," Landgraf said in a statement. What incentive is there for Sheen to stay on track and not go, well, go Charlie Sheen? He has stated repeatedly that he wants to do the show because he will have a significant ownership stake in it. "I chose 'Anger Management' because, while it might be a big stretch for me to play a guy with serious anger management issues, I think it is a great concept," Sheen said in a statement back in July. "It also provides me with real ownership in the series, a certain amount of creative control and the chance to be back in business with one of my favorite movie producers of all time, Joe Roth." One detail that has not been unearthed so far is what Sheen will be paid for the show. His salary probably won't approach the bloated amount he received on “Two and a Half Men,” but at this point he (allegedly) doesn’t have the cocaine habit to support so his money should go further………..
- The topic of God and sports is always a testy one. Those who are religious and those who have no use for God don’t see eye to eye on the issue and even within those two groups, there is often disagreement. Most people seem to agree that God isn't up in the sky steering the outcome of sporting events because there are bigger things to be concerned with, but the Almighty’s potential influence in Game 6 of the World Series is now up for debate after Texas Rangers outfielder Josh Hamilton said God told him he'd hit a homer Thursday night. The supposed message proved prophetic after Hamilton belted a towering home run into the Busch Stadium lights in the top of the 10th inning to stake the Rangers to a 9-7 lead and moved the franchise for a second time in two innings to the brink of its first World Series championship. Ultimately the win was not theirs to claim as St. Louis third baseman David Freese hit a walk-off homer in the 11th for a 10-9 win. Hamilton, who has been playing with a painful injury this postseason that is believed to be either a sports hernia or a groin pull, was undeterred by the loss and said divine intervention took over when he stepped to the plate in the 10th. "He told me, 'You haven't hit one in a while, and this is the time you're going to,' " said Hamilton, who had gone 65 at-bats in the postseason without a home run. "You know what? I probably had the most relaxed, peaceful at-bat I've had of the whole series at that moment. It's pretty cool. You ought to try it sometime." Unfortunately for Hamilton and the Rangers, God promised him a home run but did not promise that Hamilton’s team would win the game. "There was a period at the end of [the sentence]," Hamilton said. "He didn't say, 'You're going to hit it and you're going to win.'" And so it was that Hamilton smacked Cardinals closer Jason Motte's first-pitch fastball high and deep, well beyond the right-center wall and into the bleachers. For the sake of Hamilton and his team’s choking bullpen, hopefully God makes some more promises in their favor for Game 7………….
- Students at the University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg may not feel all that secure if this is the sort of service and protection they’re going to receive. Having one of your campus’ finest going Plaxico Burress on himself doesn’t exactly inspire confidence in the men in blue. And no, “going Plaxico Burress” doesn’t mean going up high to catch a fade pattern in the corner of the end zone from one of your buddies in a pickup football game at the local park. In this case, it means failing to successfully control a loaded gun, blasting yourself in the leg and making a run to the emergency room because of it. The officer in question, Simeon McClain, was participating in a training session at the state police barracks in Greensburg when he attempted to holster his weapon and it went off. A bullet grazed his leg and McClain was taken to the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center Presbyterian Hospital, where he was treated and released. The university’s website states that “Campus police officers are armed and on duty 24 hours a day. They're certified through the Pennsylvania Police Officer Educations and Training Commission as municipal police officers." Mmm hmm, sure. In all fairness to McClain, he is a campus police officer and not a real cop. His job is enforcing noise ordinances and issuing citations for underage drinking, not using his weapon to stop hardened criminals in their tracks. State police officials are investigating why the gun discharged but have not issue any official statement thus far. Maybe next time, just give McClain a flashlight and a rape whistle and keep everyone safer…………
No comments:
Post a Comment