The death of a cosmonaut

This was one of the saddest things I read. Once upon a time, I dreamt of being an astronaut. Had tons of books on space and the stars and the moon mission and Soyuz. Even had a poster of Yuri Gagarin. Knew about Laika the dog and Valentina Tereshkova. The space race. On certain summer days, while sleeping in the garden, we could lie and see up observing the satellites with my mum.

Those days came back when i read this story. such a sad story.

A cosmonaut knowingly going to his death and then crying with rage at the bloody politicians and engineers who sent him to his death. See the charred remains? that’s all that was left of him once the capsule met the earth in a fiery end.

And willingly going to his death so that his friend, Gagarin (on the left), who was the backup pilot, would survive.

Go to the link, you can actually listen to his last words. You can also buy this recording. The capsule is overheating. Felt very very sad. How lonely can you be? utterly, up there in space, raging against the bastards.

Dreams of being an astronaut

Beautiful time lapse views of a shuttle being prepared

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=KZrFC988Thc

check it out.

India launches a rocket with a cluster of 10 satellites in it

Very nice and good, but you know what this reminded me of? It reminded me of this technology. Did anybody twig?

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

Galileo, Europe needs it as it needs a hole in the head!

Now why is Angela Merkel saying that Europe needs this white elephant in the sky? Nobody asked me! But joking apart, you do realise, Ms. Merkel, that no private company is wanting to invest in this project? So this is another gigantic taxpayer funded public sector stupidity. If you want proof, see here. You are happy to pay for it provide the money is spent on German Companies. How stupid and frankly silly of you. I expected better but then again, sucking on the public purse tit is far too easy for you guys.

The German government on Friday welcomed concessions by the European Commission that could see the long-delayed European rival to the US Global Positioning System finally take off.

A spokesman for the transport ministry told journalists the concessions – a redrafting of the tender rules – had answered Berlin’s concerns that German companies might be excluded from working on the project.

“If a proposal like that comes through and the financing is secured, it would offer a decisive benefit for Germany's aerospace industry,” the spokesman told a regular government press conference.

Under the new tendering proposals, prepared by Jacques Barrot, the transport commissioner, the tenders for Galileo would be divided into six segments, with no one company acting as prime contractor on more than two segments.

Germany has led a group of countries blocking the use of unspent EU budget funds to finance the €3.4bn ($5bn, £2.4bn) project. Instead, it has suggested tapping the European Space Agency, which is not an EU institution, to top up the €1bn allocated to Galileo in the current EU budget.

Unspent EU funds are normally returned to member states and, like other net contributors such as the UK, Sweden and the Netherlands, Germany has been wary of creating a precedent in diverting the money. Berlin says this would cost it an extra €500m between 2008 and 2013.

However, Germany’s resistance on the funding issue is understood to be linked to concerns that the original tendering procedure would have resulted in Thales, the French satellite maker, dominating the entire project.

Analysts believe Berlin, as the EU budget’s largest net contributor, may yield on the financing issue given assurances that German contractors could participate. Ten days ago, Angela Merkel, the chancellor, said: “Europe needs this system.”

Under the commission’s updated tender rules, EADS Astrium, a subsidiary of the Franco-German EADS, has a bigger chance of securing one or two segments. The tendering rules dictate that prime contractors must sub-contract 40 per cent of their contract’s total volume.

A spokesman for Mr Barrot said: “The goal is to strike the right balance between open and transparent competition, and on the other hand the need to guarantee that the whole of the European industry can take part in the construction of Galileo.”

Although the Commission’s concessions offered a way out of the deadlock, a Berlin government official said the financing issue would have to be settled at the level of EU finance ministers.

The Ecofin group of the EU’s 27 finance ministers will meet on December 3 and 4, following a meeting of transport ministers next Thursday. However, a final agreement is not expected until the next summit of EU heads of states and governments on December 14.

Technorati Tags: Europe , Germany , EU , Public Sector

The White Elephant Salesman says that White Elephants are good!

The British MP's committee rightfully castigated the UK Government and the EC for wanting to find this white elephant of a public sector behemoth. But never under-estimate the power of the public sector to suck on the tit of the taxpayer. Read this full column in the FT and try to figure out 2 things (1) what's the tangible cost benefit analysis to my tax pounds investment and (2) why did the private sector not invest the money that you have to come to me? No answers!

When will these chaps stop this habit of hitting the taxpayer for elitist projects?

I suppose the writers are totally disinterested observers in this Galileo project?

Read and Weep!

Why the Galileo project must go ahead
By Pierre Bartholomé and Kevin Madders

Published: November 18 2007 17:55 Last updated: November 18 2007 17:55

Galileo, Europe’s answer to the US global positioning system, is in trouble. Finance ministers are squabbling over a €2.4bn ($3.52bn) funding gap after a private consortium pulled out. A committee of British MPs has called for it to be put on ice unless there is a more convincing cost-benefit analysis.

The system was supposed to be available from 2010. Its accuracy would be measured in centimetres, not metres as with GPS, and visibility would improve – making it perfect for aircraft and other purposes, adding up to a huge civilian market. But GPS III, due in 2012, will also be more precise and reliable. So, if Galileo comes on line only around 2013, as present estimates suggest, it will not be able to steal a march on GPS.

Given the strength of the case against, it is hardly surprising to find ministers tongue-tied when defending Galileo. However, we believe Europe should go ahead with Galileo – but only under certain conditions.

Galileo is a technological place-marker. Have it, and you will be a leader in understanding and exploiting the potential of one of the biggest technologies to have arisen in the past 50 years. Shun it, and you will end up less well equipped to reap the benefits of positioning from space.

It is true that investing only in applications, not the system itself, could produce some of the benefits. But not all. There is no substitute for knowing a fundamental tool such as this one inside out, for the simple reason that we do not know many of the applications yet. The best way to make the innovative jump comes from making and then running the system.

There is no doubt Galileo can fulfil this role. It is superbly designed. We do not think it necessary for Galileo to be better than GPS III. It needs to be equivalent, so that Europe is in the game. If it stays out now, it will be much harder ever to get in, because this is technology that evolves rapidly.

There is also the chance that the additional services – for example, early warning of failure for safety-critical users such as airlines – will pay handsomely. The market is there. But this is not really the point when one enters a world game such as this. Contrary to what the UK House of Commons transport committee’s report suggests, not much trust can ultimately be placed in mere cost-benefit analysis with fundamental ­enabling infrastructures of this kind. Such analysis tends to be too crude because hard data are necessarily unavailable.

It was for the same reason that the UK could not see the value of communications satellites for Europe in the 1970s, which in fact turned into a ­powerful market for applications such as television and the internet.

Spatial positioning technology is in the same league as previous fundamental technologies, such as transistors, computers and mobile phones. We must get on with making sure the chances can be seized.

However, there are many ways ­Galileo can come unstuck, especially managerial and political. It is essential that delays are minimised. The system’s design should not be tampered with to play catch-up with GPS, for example, or downgraded as suggested by the transport committee report.

The European Commission must assume clear ownership and top-level management responsibility, and equip itself to exercise the role of supremo effectively. All those involved will have to allow it to meet its targets, working with and directing the European Space Agency as prime contractor.

European Union member states must resist the temptation to interfere in the project once it kicks off anew. On the Commission’s side, it needs to be more pragmatic about allocating work between countries. The normal rigours of open competitive bidding will ­probably have to be relaxed for this case. The Commission should aim for a compromise.

Policymakers need to stop duping themselves and others: it is idle to assume commercial revenue will cover all operations costs. The EU must plan for a sustaining budget. However, it should also look at the merits of slicing up and auctioning individual Galileo commercial services as the market ­ripens. The EU should guarantee far better transparency.

If ministers endorse a Galileo reorientated on these kinds of premises, it can turn the system into an asset for the citizens and security of Europe.


Mr Bartholomé, former head of the European Space Agency’s satellite communications design team, and Mr ­Madders are partners in the consultancy, Systemics Network International. Tony Ballard of Harbottle & Lewis also contributed to this article


All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

The natives are restless at the thought of feeding the European White Elephant

I spoke earlier about Galileo, the great white shining hope of the European bureaucrats to pip the Americans at their game of international satellites and global positioning systems. Now the FT is reporting that the funding for this white elephant is in danger. As I mentioned earlier, they were going to take money from the other white elephant, CAP, and plonk it into here. Why? Why aren’t you returning that money back to me, the taxpayer? Typical, very quick to tax, very very slow to return it or show any returns for it either.

I quote:

The future of Europe’s rival to the US global positioning system was in doubt on Tuesday after transport ministers bickered over how it should be funded. Germany, the UK and the Netherlands rounded on a European Commission plan to raid farming subsidies to build the €3.4bn ($4.8bn) Galileo satellite navigation project.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!

Another bloody European White Elephant

As I was moaning about public investment before, here's another classic example of  a bureaucrat chasing a foolish dream with my money. Why does Europe need another GPS system? Why does the world need another one? And why am I paying for this? and when was this discussed? or even inquired? My MEP never told me about this nor was this discussed in any shape or form with the national parliaments. (I might be wrong, but don't think so!).

It was supposed to be done by private companies, and that's fine, I don't have an issue. But the private companies knew that there is no money to be made, so they went off to the governments and told them to forget about it.
So since the private companies wouldn't invest their capital, why is the EU wanting to invest mine? If the business case didn't stack up for the private companies, how is it that it is stacking up for my tax euro's?

And now, they decided to make a grab for the unused CAP funds. On the other hand, food prices are rising. Talk about stupidity compounded with idiocy.

Technorati Tags: Europe , European Commission , Space , Agriculture

China's Anti Satellite Test and what the world needs to think about it

China tested an Anti Satellite Kinetic Missile early part of this year. This was quite a serious step for many reasons. (1) It was the first time that there was an ASAT test, directly 1-2-1. Even the USA has problems in achieving this. In other words, the kinetic kill missile impacted directly on the target rather than exploding in the vicinity and hoping the shrapnel will riddle the target satellite. Witness the many failures of the Star Wars missile defence system. (2) It came as a total surprise to all the world and intelligence agencies. Furthermore, many of the Chinese diplomats and other government bodies did not know either. So this intelligence failure is at par with the Indian Nuclear Tests (both sets of them) and the collapse of the USSR.

You see, if this is quite possible (and we have no reason to believe that it is not), then the USA has suddenly lost its crucial satellite strategic reconnaissance ability. Given that the USA is still building up its HUMINT ability, it is crucially dependent upon ELINT. So in case of a conflict, the threat levels can rise very dramatically. See the current American satellite footprint and the potential Chinese responses here from a recent research paper that I came across.




This situation explains a bit as to why the Pentagon is in a bit of tizzy about the Chinese buildup. Oh!, by the way, the Chinese ASAT test singlehandedly increased the space pollution footprint by 10%. Read the intro of the article, it is very interesting

In the predawn darkness of 11 January 2007, a Chinese medium-range ballistic missile lifted off from a launch site at the Xichang space facility in Sichuan province. Fired from a mobile transporter-erector-launcher, the new two-stage, solid-fuelled missile - designated the SC-19 by the US intelligence community - carried a kinetic kill vehicle that slammed several minutes later into an ageing Chinese weather satellite deployed in low Earth orbit at an altitude of some 864 kilometres. Since the satellite, the Fengyun-1C (FY-1C), was heading south at the time of its intercept, and since the azimuth from the interceptor launch point to the target was approximately 346?, the attack involved a virtual head-on collision at extremely high velocity with thousands of blast fragments ejected at speeds of up to some 2,253km per hour into various orbits ranging from 3,800km to 200km in altitude.1 As of 30 May 2007, over 1,736 objects of trackable debris, each at least 10cm in diameter, had been catalogued and monitored. And NASA's Orbital Debris Program Office has estimated that the explosion produced more than 35,000 shards larger than 1cm, justifying the judgement that this test was undoubtedly the 'worst single debris event ever'2 since it instantaneously produced a 10% increase in the 50-year total of space artefacts capable of threatening spacecraft flying in low Earth orbits.

All this to be taken with a grain of piquant salt!!!