Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

 
Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.

 

“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.

 

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


Bezos invites original female candidate for Mercury program to fly on New Shepard flight July 20th

Jeff Bezos has invited Wally Funk, 82, one of the original thirteen women astronaut candidates for the 1960s Mercury program, to fly on his suborbital tourist flight scheduled for July 20th, joining Bezos, his brother Mark, and the still unnamed winner of the auction to buy that seat.

Funk is a pioneer in aviation: She was the first female Federal Aviation Administration inspector and first female National Transportation Safety Board air safety investigator. She has logged 19,600 hours of flight time and taught more than 3,000 people to fly, she said in Bezos’s Instagram video. “Everything that the FAA has, I’ve got the license for,” Funk says in the video. “And, I can outrun you!”

In the Instagram video, Bezos describes the plan for the New Shepard’s journey to a wide-eyed Funk, down to the moment when the rocket returns to the desert surface and its doors open. “We open the hatch, and you step outside. What’s the first thing you say?” Bezos asks Funk.

She does not hesitate. “I will say, ‘Honey, that’s the best thing that ever happened to me!’ ” Funk declares, pulling Bezos into a bear hug.

This is a gracious gesture by Bezos, even some on the left will use it to slander the 1960s NASA and America by making both look bigoted against women. That was not what happened, and Funk’s own success as a woman pilot and FAA official at that time proves it.

Why Blue Origin has not named the winner of its auction to buy that last seat however is beginning to be a bit puzzling.

Readers!
 

Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.


Your support is even more essential to me because I keep this site free from advertisements and do not participate in corrupt social media companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook. I depend wholly on the direct support of my readers.


You can provide that support to Behind The Black with a contribution via Patreon or PayPal. To use Patreon, go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation. For PayPal click one of the following buttons:
 


 

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Patreon or Paypal don't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

34 comments

  • Alton

    Three Cheers 🥂🥂🥂

  • Questioner

    This step proves once again: Bezos is a kind of leftist, more precisely a cultural Marxist, who ostensibly cares about social justice. But not really, otherwise he would pay his workers more taxes and more money. No, he is interested in a utopian transformation of society and people. And for this, such symbolic acts are important. Just like for Zuckerberg. Musk doesn’t seem to be quite following that direction.

  • Chris Lopes

    Yeah it’s leftist virtue signaling, but the lady deserves her chance to fly. As I understand it, the women candidates weren’t considered because they weren’t military test pilots. Eisenhower, for a host of reasons, mandated that specific criteria so these women (as skilled and otherwise qualified as they were) were never in contention. Since this flight is a private one, presidential mandates don’t apply.

  • Lee Stevenson

    @Questioner, Quote “otherwise he would pay his workers more taxes “…. I wish my boss would pay me more taxes!…

    Being of a socialist leaning nature, I think Bezos is the worst of the wealth leaders , he treats his workers like crap, and had actively used his platform to put smaller businesses out of business. He also avoids paying taxes ( using legal loopholes) like a fox. Yet I still cheer blue origen… It gives me cognitive dissonance.
    At the end of the day, both blue origen and virgin are giving an extreme ” vomit comet ” experience, but B.O. ( funny!) Is at least giving a genuine rocket experience… I know which one I would prefer…
    ( And my answer is C! I will take a trans lunar journey with spaceX please! Musk is an Ahole also… But his sights are literally set higher)

  • Edward

    Amy Shira Teitel talks of the “Mercury 13.”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7GgER2Uxmcs (17 minutes)
    Eisenhower wanted military-trained jet pilots “not because that was a particular skillset that they wanted, it would probably be useful, but because if they were in the military they had [security] clearance.

    Lee Stevenson,
    An air-launched rocket is not a genuine rocket?

  • Lee Stevenson

    @Edward, would you consider a Virgin Galactic launch experience and landing anything even similar to a ground launched rocket/parachute capsule experience? You could be very pedantic and say the shuttle did a runway landing, but the shuttle.was a spacecraft. Virgin Galactic have ( given generous definitions ) a rocket powered airplane that can touch space..
    Given a huge amount of money, give me a “up on a rocket, down on a parachute” any time.
    Bob spoke recently on the John bachelor podcast that an extreme high altitude balloon flight was better value for money than a sub-orbital flight on anything rocket powered, I have to disagree… While I want to see the curve of the earth, and the darkness of the sky above the atmosphere, I also want the experience of riding a reverse volcano into the sky, and then weightlessness. Perhaps that’s just me. But like I said, my million bucks would not be booking me on a space plane

  • Edward

    Lee Stevenson,
    I will take that as a “no.”

  • Lee Stevenson

    @Edward, I can launch a rocket from my local park… I don’t understand your pedantry?
    Please explain, what is your point?

  • Lee Stevenson

    And I actually said blue origens, quote “Is at least giving a genuine rocket experience…”
    I never said the Virgin Galactic space plane was not rocket powered, I never said your 4th July fireworks are not rockets… If you want a debate about something, please make it clear, and I am willing to engage.

  • Edward

    Lee Stevenson,
    You wrote: “If you want a debate about something, please make it clear, and I am willing to engage.

    Not interested in a debate. Just wanted to be sure that I understood that in your mind an air-launched rocket is not a genuine rocket. If it were, then it could give a genuine rocket experience. I can understand why Blue Origin would want to suggest that New Shepard is a genuine rocket rather than SpaceShipTwo, but you seem to have bought the company’s propaganda.

    When we each buy something we have requirements and desires to be met (someone I once read called them “givens and ‘druthers”). Some may want to go to 100 kilometers but others may be satisfied going to 50 U.S. statute miles. Some may be satisfied with a balloon to high altitude for several hours, others with an air-launched spacecraft, others from a ground-launched rocket, and still others may require an orbital experience. Until today, I only saw three of these four distinctions for space tourism. In my mind, three of them are genuine rocket experiences, because they are genuine rockets. You see it differently.

    If you are eager for a debate, however, I could debate your insinuation that SpaceShipTwo and New Shepard are not spacecraft, even though the Space Shuttle was. I think of all three as spacecraft, as in: craft that travel in space, but you seem to feel otherwise.

  • Questioner

    Lee Stevenson:

    I copied something wrong back and forth while writing. Of course, I meant exactly what you wrote about Bezos and taxes.

  • Alton

    I wonder what Olde Chuck Yeager would say on rocket planes….
    He flew the Bell X-1 on the first recognized Mach One flight (F-86 may have actually been first during it’s flight test program,) And over two hundred other airplane types, even doing landing tests for Neil Armstrong on the X-15 test flights.
    Yeager’s own self written test program of the NF-104 rocket powered Starfighter he flew, because as the Commander of the Air Forces own astronaut training program, he wanted to prove the bird to plus 100,000 feet before sending new pilot trainees to get a feel of Space 🚀 much like both Virgin and Blue Origin birds will do today.
    Yeager in the last of several flights took the NF-104 well over 100k and found that the thrusters added to the system could not align the aircraft for atmospheric reentry, he ended up doing a flat spin that only got worst, as he rode the out of control aircraft all the way down with an ejection at the last moment. That was his worst Crash and the last time Yeager pushed the envelope.

  • Lee Stevenson

    Sighs…. Ok Edward, quote “I think of all three as spacecraft” , spaceship 2 is clearly not, as ( as far as I am aware) it doesn’t make it into space.
    You insinuate that I have bought into propaganda from somewhere… I wish I was so lucky! I cannot afford to buy into pretty much anything space related further than matchbox models, I just say it like I see it.
    The Virgin “spaceship” is a rocket assisted airplane that makes a long hyperbolic arc, giving an illusion of weightlessness, and gives a view of the curve of the earth. It will not however, go into space.

    New Shepard will quite definitely go into space, and thus is a “spaceship”, by being sub orbital it will technically also only give an illusion of weightlessness.
    It is however, launched by rocket power alone, on something that looks like.most people’s idea of “a rocket”, thus delivering , quote (myself) ”
    a genuine rocket experience”
    HA balloons…. Very cool, but no where near space.

    SpaceX trip around the moon….. Launched by a rocket, and more than likely a parachute landing in the ocean … THATS the real deal!

    I have been hanging around these parts long enough that you must realise I’m no numpty when it comes to space stuff, you can disagree with my politics all day long, but I still can’t figure out why you choose to question if I understand the difference between a rocket assisted airplane, or a rocket ship????

  • Lee Stevenson

    @Alton, I wonder what Chuck and his peers would think about many aspects of 2021… My guess would be not much of it positive!

  • Lee Stevenson

    @Alton…. I have to do some research here… I did not realize that he took the NF-104 well over the Karman line! ( Kinda makes spaceship 2 look old school!)
    Thanks for the factoid!

  • Lee Stevenson: That’s 100K feet, not kilometers.

  • Lee Stevenson

    @Bob… Ha! Thanks for the correction! Now I understand why I had brain fug earlier today while discussing that maniac that jumped from a HA balloon a few years ago with my daughter… Lol…

  • Edward

    Lee Stevenson,
    You wrote: “Edward, quote “I think of all three as spacecraft” , spaceship 2 is clearly not, as ( as far as I am aware) it doesn’t make it into space.

    The United States considers 50 miles to be space, so SpaceShipTwo does make it into space, and thus is clearly a spacecraft.

    The other things you said were not part of what I agreed to debate. You had implied that you didn’t want a debate, but now you seem overeager to have several debates covering a whole bunch of topics, and you even did the first topic after a sigh of exasperation. What’s up with that? How did you go from reluctance to overeagerness?

    Apparently, I misinterpreted your suggestion that I choose a topic for a debate, because after I suggested one topic that I was willing to debate, if you were eager, you chose a host of topics that went well beyond the topics previously discussed. Again, what’s up with that? Did you really intend to start a broad-ranging debate all along?

    But now I am curious. Why must a real rocket be launched only from the ground, and why must it splash down in the ocean under a parachute? Why are those the requirements for a “real deal” (genuine) rocket? However, New Shepard does not splash down in the ocean, so is it really the “real deal” genuine rocket experience after all?

    Now that I am down the rabbit hole,
    You insinuate that I have bought into propaganda from somewhere…
    Well, here is where that comes from, where you quoted Blue Origin:
    https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/points-of-information/bezos-invites-original-female-candidate-for-mercury-program-to-fly-on-new-shepard-flight-july-20th/#comment-1146645

    How did the Virgin Galactic “space plane” go from you feeling it is not genuine to you feeling that I had said you felt it was not rocket powered? Where did the Independence Day fireworks come from, and why do you feel that I think you feel they are not rockets? Where are you getting all these nonsequiturs?

    I’m no numpty when it comes to space stuff, you can disagree with my politics all day long, but I still can’t figure out why you choose to question if I understand the difference between a rocket assisted airplane, or a rocket ship????

    Actually, I didn’t question any such things, yet another of your nonsequiturs (where did rocket ships come from, and what is your definition of one of those?), but you kept harping on about the “genuine rocket experience,” which apparently one cannot get from a rocket assisted airplane, either. Apparently, it requires an ocean splashdown under parachutes. Fortunately, the Space Shuttle somehow still qualifies as a spacecraft, but I am unsure why you feel that it does.

    I’m beginning to wonder about your own statement about you when it comes to space stuff. There certainly is a lack of consistency and logic. Your definitions seem to change from comment to comment, and they sometimes seem to change within the same comment, making it difficult to know what you mean by anything that you say.

    Maybe your choice to be eager to debate was not a good one.

  • Lee Stevenson

    Edward…. I’m not saying you are arguing with me for arguments sake, but you are arguing with me for arguments sake.

    As far as I, and I would guess 90%+ of the world’s population are concerned ( if you disagree, do your own poll.) , A ” genuine rocket experience” involves being shot into space on a big pointy rocket, from the ground, into space.

    I can assure you I genuinely am no numpty when it comes to space related matters or subjects. If you think a ride on Bransons rocket plane is a ride into space, fill your boots, given the money I will go with Blue origen or even better SpaceX.

    I do appreciate you trying to break down my mostly flippant posts into points you can argue with, I just don’t understand why.

  • Ok…. I have to bite… Edward, you got me on one point amongst your stream of nonsense…

    Quote “to you feeling that I had said you felt it was not rocket powered? “….

    Can you please clarify?

  • Lee Stevenson

    And this … Quote “why do you feel that I think you feel they are not rockets?” … About rockets… Lol…

  • Edward

    Lee Stevenson,
    You wrote: “I’m not saying you are arguing with me for arguments sake, but you are arguing with me for arguments sake.

    Way to be clear. You consider my comments to be “streams of nonsense?” I would hate to know what you consider to be reasonable.

    As far as I, and I would guess 90%+ of the world’s population are concerned ( if you disagree, do your own poll.) , A ” genuine rocket experience” involves being shot into space on a big pointy rocket, from the ground, into space.

    I did, and my polling results shows 100% have a broader definition of a genuine rocket experience. Your guess is wrong. They all believe that the rocket can be smaller than a New Shepard, Mercury-Redstone and even SpaceShipTwo count. They all believe the nose can be rounded, like a New Shepard. And they all agree that a genuine rocket experience need not be launched from the ground but can even be launched while in space, too, such as from the ISS. It seems that a genuine rocket experience only requires a manned rocket.

    I can assure you I genuinely am no numpty when it comes to space related matters or subjects.

    Considering that you don’t know that the U.S. defines space as 50 miles, you aren’t as knowledgable about space related matters as you think you are. You always reject facts that disagree with your points, and that disagreement makes you feel that you are more cognizant than you are. The 50 mile line has been discussed here multiple times over the years. Surely you know about it, if you truly are learning anything from this site.

    I have the ability to answer your questions, but you are unable to answer even one of mine. How is that supposed to demonstrate that you are no numpty on space related matters or subjects? Instead, you try to turn around my questions into additional questions of yours. How are you demonstrating that you are not a numpty when it comes to debate, too?

    Keep in mind that after your invitation I had proposed only one topic for debate, if you were eager for a debate. Your response demonstrated your eagerness, but not any skill.

    Can you please clarify?

    You had said, “I never said the Virgin Galactic space plane was not rocket powered,” but I never said you did. Do you not follow your own comments? That would explain why you are so inconsistent. You keep saying that I said things that I didn’t say. But then again, you are just being flippant, even though you invited a debate. I hadn’t realized that you didn’t mean an intelligent debate.

    But then, it isn’t even debate, is it? It is just you being contradictory.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ#t=70 (Monty Python argument sketch)

    I present facts, but you merely deny those facts and at best present your own opinion as though it were fact. What do they teach kids in those socialist schools of yours?

  • Lee Stevenson

    Ok Edward, let’s take the gloves off…
    The US has a lower definition of “space” than the rest of the world …
    “The Fédération Aéronautique Internationale has established the Kármán line at an altitude of 100 km (62 mi) as a working definition for the boundary between aeronautics and astronautics. This is used because at an altitude of about 100 km (62 mi), as Theodore von Kármán calculated, a vehicle would have to travel faster than orbital velocity to derive sufficient aerodynamic lift from the atmosphere to support itself”

    This seems a more reasonable definition than an arbitrary “50 miles”.
    And it also explains my confusion regarding feet/meters/kilometres/miles ( it’s not always easy working in both imperial and metric at the same time..)

    If you take the definition above as correct, then Virgin will not actually make it into space, thus they do not have a spacecraft. They have a rocket plane.

    I have never said that new shepherd is not a spacecraft, it goes up on a kinda pointy long tube with fire coming out the back end, and the top bit floats back to earth on parachutes.
    It also will travel above 100km… Sub orbital, but still into space. ( And it has bigger windows, and more room to float around!)

    If you honestly don’t understand the difference in experience between being fired into space on a conventional rocket and travelling really fast and really high on a rocket airplane, then I guess no reasonable argument will convince you. I just suggest you ask any friends, or family which they would consider a genuine “space experience”

    It’s quite amusing you question my “space stuff” knowledge… I have to be honest, manned spaceflight has been a bit boring in my lifetime up until now… It’s not really my area of interest, but if your would like to debate or discuss exobiology, or planetary geology, either here or on a platform of your choice… I’m all in!

    Just let me know! … Love and light!

  • Lee Stevenson

    @Edward.. quote “I present facts”, no, you present YouTube videos… You complain that I contradict myself, then tie yourself in knots trying to prove I have. Just chill dude, life is too short,.and if you have anything to say about long chain hydrocarbons reactability on Titan, or the possibility of past or present life on Mars given the amount of perchlorate present… Go for your life dude! ;-)

  • wayne

    Gentlemen….

    “Heisenberg says, relax….”
    https://youtu.be/r_8ZdlezCV4
    0:18

  • Edward

    Lee Stevenson wrote: “This seems a more reasonable definition than an arbitrary ’50 miles’.

    Actually, 50 miles is based upon the same “reasonable” definition. The international organizations merely rounded off differently than the U.S. did.

    If you take the definition above as correct

    Actually, I think that there are other, even more reasonable, definitions, but they are not recognized by anyone at all. Why is one arbitrary definition better than another? Von Karman’s definition may not be nearly as reasonable as you think, as no aircraft can fly at such an altitude; it is merely theoretical. If an aircraft were to fly at the speeds necessary to maintain the required lift, then the angular momentum would have a far greater effect than the aerodynamic lift. Thus, at 50 miles the speed assumed is greater than such a theoretical aircraft would require to remain aloft.

    I have never said that new shepherd is not a spacecraft,

    I have never suggested that you said so. You continue to put words into my mouth by implication.

    Since you honestly don’t understand the difference in experience between being fired into space on a conventional rocket and being fired into space on another rocket, then no reasonable argument will convince you. Then again, no reasonable argument nor facts have ever convinced you.

    You may prefer entering your rockets on a gantry, but that is not the definition of rockets, spacecraft, or the experience of riding either.

    It’s quite amusing you question my ‘space stuff’ knowledge

    Actually, I don’t question it. You demonstrate it.

    Just chill dude, life is too short

    You requested a debate, but now that we almost have one you … what? Don’t like it? Can’t handle it?

    no, you present YouTube videos… You complain that I contradict myself, then tie yourself in knots trying to prove I have.

    There you go again. And still not a single question answered.

    but if your would like to debate or discuss exobiology, or planetary geology, either here or on a platform of your choice… I’m all in!

    Those topics might be fun for intelligent debates, but I will pass on these topics in “debates” with you. You don’t seem to understand the concept.

  • Lee Stevenson

    Quote .. “Actually, I think that there are other, even more reasonable, definitions, but they are not recognized by anyone at all.”….

    The fact that you have opinions you believe are true, but ” are not recognized by anyone at all.” is worrying, to say the least.

    We seem to be having an argument about angels and pinheads here. Under the European definition of “Space”, Virgin Galactic will not touch it. It will fly high, it is rocket powered, but at the end of the day it is an airplane. By your definition of “Space” it will just about graze it, so I guess in the US it is a spacecraft, but not in Europe.
    I’m sure that when the rocket fires up, Virgin’s rocket powered plane will give quite a kick to its passengers, but it is absolutely not, under any definition, a classic “rocket” experience. The only people to ever fly on an anything like SpaceShipTwo are test pilots, hundreds of people have traveled to space on conventional rocket based systems.

    Finally, quote.. “And still not a single question answered.”……. As far as I can make out, not a single question asked…

    I do not doubt your intelligence Edward, but I really do not understand why you choose to argue so venomously on such a basically opinion driven point, my opinion is that a classic “rocket” experience involves a launch pad, and a gantry. Of course I am aware that rocketry can take many forms, and yes, Virgin’s plane is a form of rocket, but 99% of the general public will reference Apollo era rockets or the SLS if asked what a rocket is.

    If you have anything specific to ask me, or to query, or to challenge me on, please go ahead, I am always open to having my mind changed by a good argument, ( contrary to your belief!), But I believe this discussion is becoming pointless.

  • Lee Stevenson

    I can’t stop myself…. Sorry folks…
    Quote ““but if your would like to debate or discuss exobiology, or planetary geology, either here or on a platform of your choice… I’m all in!”

    Those topics might be fun for intelligent debates, but I will pass on these topics in “debates” with you. You don’t seem to understand the concept.”

    Unless you hold some pretty controversial views, any discord regarding the above would be a discussion rather than a debate, but if you actually do have anything to say regarding the prevalence of life in our solar system and beyond, I’m all in! I have plenty to say, given my time again I would certainly have studied planetary geology and exobiology instead of driving a fork lift truck!

  • Edward

    I do not doubt your intelligence Edward, but I really do not understand why you choose to argue so venomously on such a basically opinion driven point

    It was your request. You asked for this debate, and now you are complaining that we disagree. You offer nothing but your own opinion, yet you complain when I offer mine. You have one set of rules for yourself and another for everyone else.

    As far as I can make out, not a single question asked

    Go back over my part of the “debate,” look for the sentences with question marks. Those are the questions that you have not answered. Why do I have to explain to you what a question is or looks like? What do they teach in those European schools?

    I am always open to having my mind changed by a good argument, ( contrary to your belief!),

    Not in my experience with you.

    But I believe this discussion is becoming pointless.

    Becoming? It was pointless with your first response.

    Unless you hold some pretty controversial views, any discord regarding the above would be a discussion rather than a debate

    You are the one who suggested that the discord would or could be a debate, but now you deny it. For you contradicting yourself passes as intelligent discourse? (By the way, the previous sentence is a question. Will you answer it?)

  • mkent

    Lee: Not that I particularly want to get in the middle of this food fight, but I’d like to ask you a few questions:

    1) Would a Starliner flight be a true “rocket experience” on a spacecraft? It launches on a rocket, crosses the Karman line, goes into orbit, re-enters, but lands by parachute on land, not water.

    2) Would a hypothetical manned X-37 flight be a true “rocket experience” on a spacecraft? The X-37 is a gliding airplane launched on a rocket, crosses the Karman line, goes into orbit, re-enters, and lands on a runway.

    3) Was a Space Shuttle flight a true “rocket experience” on a spacecraft? It was a rocket-powered airplane, crossed the Karman line, went into orbit, re-entered, and landed on a runway.

    4) Was a SpaceShipOne flight a true “rocket experience” on a spacecraft? It was a rocket-powered airplane, crossed the Karman line, re-entered, and landed on a runway.

    5) As originally designed, SpaceShipTwo was light enough to cross the Karman line. Instability in the vehicle’s hybrid propulsion system required the addition of additional systems, increasing its weight such that it now falls short of said line. As originally designed, would a SpaceShipTwo flight be a true “rocket experience” on a spacecraft?

    I think the answers to these questions will help us (and perhaps you) see where you’re coming from.

  • Lee Stevenson

    @ mkent and Edward, at the risk if going blue in the face, let me explain myself one last time. The Virgin space plane doesn’t go into space. Go figure yourselves if it is a spaceship or not.

    Pretty much every space mission ever has been launched on a vertical take off vehicle, from a launchpad., On some form of rocket propulsion. To say that a classic ” rocket experience” would follow this model, and not involve an airplane is self evident. I honestly do not see where the argument comes in.

    Yes “spaceship2” has rocket propulsion, but a genuine “space experience”, like we have all followed, from Uri until today … Hardly. If you are not able to comprehend the difference, I am not capable of explaining to you. ( And I put this down to your lack of comprehension, rather than my teaching skills… Some things are self evident)

    @mkent,, I hope that this answered your questions regarding my viewpoint… Feel free to ask if I missed anything.
    @Edward… Is there any chance of you actually asking me a question rather than just babbling about my comments? You have still failed to ask me a single.question I can give an answer to over many, many posts. I would love to engage with you, and have given you several subjects, but you just rant. Take a deep breath and ask me a civilised question.

  • Lee Stevenson

    @Edward…. For example,.how do you feel about the Viking Landers results given the pretty definitive proof of liquid water by the phoenix lander,.although full of perchlorates. I personally feel that perchlorate could give an energy gradient that life could utilize.
    A controversial view… but I’m no stranger to controversy! My opinion is that anywhere there is an energy imbalance then life.will evolve to exploit it… Mars seems fairly easy, the imbalances on Titan much harder to parse out, but given the complexity of the. Hydrocarbons present, I have no problem visualising extremely slow carbon based life, but also no problems with imagining life as we don’t know it… A constant energy influx from Saturn… A liquid rich environment.. if life can evolve on earth in a water based environment, why not in a liquid.methane one? Any comments or arguments?

  • Lee Stevenson

    This thread is going to disappear from my feed shortly, but before it does, I would like to point out something Edward, your last paragraph… Quote..

    “You are the one who suggested that the discord would or could be a debate, but now you deny it. For you contradicting yourself passes as intelligent discourse? (By the way, the previous sentence is a question. Will you answer it?)”

    The previous sentence is a statement, not a question. Adding a question mark to a sentence does not transform it into a question.
    Why do I have to explain to you what a question is or looks like? What do they teach in those US schools?

    If you are questioning why I stated that any discourse on the subject of extraterrestrial life would be more of a discussion than a debate, I had thought about it, and changed my mind. There are not enough solid facts for a debate right now, but certainly enough for speculation and discussion. The take away point from my previous sentence is ” I thought about it, and changed my mind”. Have a think about that!

  • Lee Stevenson

    And finally, @mkent,

    Upon reflection, I guess my idea of “a classic rocket experience” is more reliant on the take off than the landing. As I have stated, entering space on some form of winged vehicle ( and yes, I know the shuttle was winged, but they were not used until landing ) just is not the same as riding a rocket from launchpad to space. I am pretty sure that everyone here grasps my concept, but of course I could be wrong. With that said, and as I have also stated before on this thread, with SpaceShip2 utilizing a method to enter space that has only ever been used by test pilots, it is very hard to define the experience of being dropped by an airplane before rocket ignition as “classic”

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *