Review of poker suits order::What is a Straight in Poker
Review of poker suits order::What is a Straight in Poker
On the Verge of the Third Space Age The next President will enter office in January, 2009 with a space program under his or her purview that is in transition. Since December, 1972, America's human space efforts have been confined to low Earth orbit, with exploration and scientific study beyond confined to robotic probes. However, in the wake of the Columbia space shuttle accident, President George W. Bush instituted the most sweeping change in space policy since President Richard Nixon approved the construction of the space shuttle fleet. In the coming years, by both Presidential directive and Congressional authorization, human explorers will voyage beyond low Earth orbit for the first time in a generation. If the Apollo Program constituted the First Space Age and the space shuttle/space station era constituted the Second Space Age, the nation stands on the verge of the Third Space Age. The development is taking place against another, perhaps far more important occurrence. In the summer and fall of 2004, a privately financed, built, and operated vehicle known as SpaceShipOne flew a series of suborbital flights to just over an altitude of 100 kilometers. SpaceShipOne, which was built by a company called Scaled Composites was flown as part of a private competition known as the Ansari X Prize. As a result of SpaceShipOne's winning the X Prize, a number of private companies have begun the development of space vehicles designed to take paying customers on suborbital jaunts. In the meantime, a company called Bigelow Aerospace has successfully orbited a prototype of an inflatable module of the type that will eventually become part of a private space station. Under NASA's Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems program, two companies-Space Exploration Systems Inc. and Kistler/Rocket Plane are development space craft to take people and supplies to low Earth orbit. Even a large, mainline firm such as Lockheed Martin is contemplating turning its Atlas V rocket into a launcher of manned space craft. The Space Shuttle and the International Space Station The space shuttle fleet, which has been in operation since 1981, will be retired by 2010, after having finished the construction of the International Space Station. The space station would be henceforth maintained with vehicles provided by international partners (primarily Russian Soyuz and Progress space craft) or commercially available vehicles if and when they become available at least until 2014, when a shuttle replacement vehicle called the Orion is planned to be in operation. The International Space Station itself would be maintained at least until 2016 and perhaps even until 2020 or beyond. The Vision for Space Exploration With primarily the money saved by retiring the space shuttle fleet, President Bush ordered NASA to undertake the Vision for Space Exploration. Under the VSE, NASA will return astronauts to the lunar surface by the year 2020, using a new set of vehicles. There will be a new space craft, called the Orion, which will be capable of carrying three, four, or six astronauts in various versions. The Orion will be lofted into space by a new launch vehicle called the Ares 1, built from various space shuttle and Saturn V parts. For trips to the Moon, a larger launch vehicle called the Ares V will be built to carry a Lunar Surface Access Module (LSAM), which would land astronauts on the Moon, and an Earth Departure Stage which will boost the Orion and the LSAM into lunar orbit. After an initial series of expeditions to the Moon, NASA proposes to establish a small, four person base, probably near the lunar South Pole. The lunar base would be a center of scientific exploration, studying the geological and geophysical makeup of the Moon and doing lunar based astronomy. There are also less well defined plans to send an Orion, along with other hardware, to Mars later in the twenty first century. A study is being conducted to send an Orion to rendezvous with an Earth approaching asteroid, to conduct studies and to ascertain how such a body could be diverted should it be on a collision course with the Earth. The mission, which would take place over three to six months, might actually be conducted before the lunar landing, but would certainly occur before the Mars expedition. NASA's plan, including the hardware architecture, for fulfilling President Bush's mandate has come under a degree of criticism. Some critics disagree with the hardware choices that NASA has made and have offered their own ideas, most of which are some variations of current, commercial launchers (Delta IV or Atlas 5). These alternatives would involve extensive modifications of these launchers to make them "man rated" and capable of launching the Orion into low Earth orbit. NASA maintains that their selection of the Ares family of launchers is the best one, given trade offs of cost, safety, and reliability. A more fundamental criticism lays in the methodology NASA has chosen to return to the Moon and eventually send explorers to Mars and other destinations. NASA has chosen the tried and true method for returning to the Moon, which is a government program that produces the hardware and infrastructure by government fiat, and then sends astronaut explorers to the Moon under government direction. It worked for Apollo. It will work in fulfilling President Bush's mandate. The problem, as critics point out, is that this method does not open the Moon or any other celestial body to other than highly paid, highly trained government employees. NASA envisions a lunar base of just four astronauts resulting from the return to the Moon program. The critics of this approach are rather vague as to what alternative they might propose. Some people make ambiguous statements about making the return to the Moon "more commercial" without actually spelling out what that means. Unfortunately there are no commercial space craft capable of sending people and supplies to the Moon. There are, as we will later see, ways to enhance NASA's return to the Moon program to open the Moon up to other participants. These ways are based on two other, lesser known NASA initiatives recently started. The Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems Program The Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems (COTS) program is designed to enable commercial services to transport people and supplies to and from low Earth orbit. Under COTS, two entrepreneurial space launch companies, Space Exploration Systems Inc (SpaceX). and Rocketplane/Kistler (Rp/Kistler) with divide among themselves a half a billion dollars which, added to money raised from private capital markets, will finance the construction of space launch vehicles. The money from NASA will be doled out in increments in a "pay for performance" arrangement in which the companies must meet certain milestones in order to receive the funds. It is hoped that one or both of the aforementioned companies will fly prototype vehicles by the end of the decade. The second phase of the COTS program will involve a competition for contracts to provide crew transfer and resupply services for the International Space Station. The competition will not be exclusive to SpaceX or Rp/Kistler, since it is recognized that other firms might be able to develop space flight hardware even without NASA seed money. The COTS program is considered an experiment and something of a risk. But if it works, it could constitute a new way for NASA to do business, using private business more as a partner and provider of services than as a contractor. It could serve as a win/win situation in which NASA gets an inexpensive way to service the International Space Station and private business gets the means to service other markets, such as space tourism or servicing private space facilities, for example the Bigelow private space station. The Centennial Challenges The Centennial Challenges consists of a series of competitions, inspired by the Ansari X Prize, designed to develop certain technologies or capabilities that could prove useful in opening the high frontier of space. The competitions are held in partnership with private organizations and have occurred in October of 2005 and October of 2006. Another round of competitions is planned for October, 2007. Currently funded are the following: The Tether Challenge, designed to produce super strong tethers, crucial for the development of space elevators. The Power Beam Challenge, designed to build a wirelessly powered, ribbon climbing robot, also crucial for the development of space elevators. The Lunar Lander Challenge, designed to build and fly a VTVL (vertical take-off, vertical landing) suborbital rocket that can achieve the altitudes and launch energies that are equivalent to what would be needed for a lunar lander. So far no one has won any of the challenges. Also planned are: The Astronaut Glove challenge, designed to build and test a dexterous astronaut glove in order to facilitate use for long space walks and planetary excursions while minimizing fatigue. The MoonRox Challenge, designed to demonstrate the ability to extract oxygen from simulated lunar regolith. The Regolith Excavation Challenge, designed to build autonomously operating systems to excavate lunar regolith and deliver it to a collector. The Personal Air Vehicle Challenge, to promote the popular use of self-operated, personal aircraft for fast, safe, efficient, affordable, environmentally-friendly, and comfortable on-demand transportation as a future solution to America's mobility needs. Further in the future, depending on availability of funds, such competitions are envisioned as delivering a payload to the lunar surface, micro space craft reentry missions, and solar sail demonstrations. The Centennial Challenges is currently funded with thirty million dollars. The FY2008 budget request contains an additional four million dollars in funding. Everything Else Everything else can be said to include non Vision for Space Exploration robotic probes (Cassini, New Horizons, etc), various space telescopes including the Hubble, basic space science, aeronautical research, and other activities. The Question of Why Have a Space Program When the next President takes office, he or she might consider answering once and for all the question of why the United States has a space program. It is not something that has been very well articulated, especially in the modern era. During Apollo, the reason might best have been defined as: "To beat the Russians to the Moon." That goal was achieved on July 20th, 1969, though. If beating the Russians to the Moon had been the reason for having a space program, then NASA could have been disbanded at that point, mission having been accomplished. But the United States decided in the early 1970s that it would be unthinkable not to have a space program. The reasons for this vary according to the individual. For the space advocate, the space program might represent an opening of the high frontier of space, much in the same fashion that the western frontier of America was opened a century before. For a member of Congress who would not ne cessarily care about all that, the space program might represent jobs in the district and government contracts to corporate campaign contributors. For others the space program meant everything from national prestige, to the pursuit of scientific knowledge, to opportunities for commercial development. Whatever the real reason for keeping the space program, the stated reason became to build the space shuttle in order to reduce the cost of space travel, hence to make useful things like space stations more affordable. Later, despite the fact that the space shuttle failed to achieve this goal, building a space station to do some useful things (science research primarily) was added as a reason. When President Bush announced the redirection of NASA to the exploration of space, the reasons he gave were quite vague. "We have undertaken space travel because the desire to explore and understand is part of our character," he said. "And that quest has brought tangible benefits that improve our lives in countless ways. The exploration of space has led to advances in weather forecasting, in communications, in computing, search and rescue technology, robotics, and electronics." He went on to say, "Mankind is drawn to the heavens for the same reason we were once drawn into unknown lands and across the open sea. We choose to explore space because doing so improves our lives, and lifts our national spirit. So let us continue the journey." In other words we have a space program because of our inherent desire to explore and because of technological spin-offs. This strikes the analyst as somewhat insufficient. Government funds should be expended to address the concrete needs of the United States that cannot be met any other way, not to assuage vague desires. And technological spin-off, while they do exist, have often been oversold as a reason for a space program. So is there a national reason to have a space program? The answer, fortunately, is yes and, oddly enough, has been articulated with surprising eloquence by NASA Administrator Michael Griffin in a number of speeches. In an address before the AIAA on August 31st, 2005, Griffin made the following statement: "The human imperative to explore and settle new lands will be satisfied, by others if not by us. Humans will explore the Moon, Mars, and beyond. It's simply a matter of which humans, when, what values they will hold, and what languages they will speak, what cultures they will spread. What the United States gains from a robust program of human space exploration is the opportunity to carry the principles and values of western philosophy and culture along on the absolutely inevitable outward migration of humanity into the solar system and, eventually, beyond. These benefits are tangible and consequential. It matters what the United States chooses to do, or not to do, in space." In a speech before the California Space Authority, Griffin had much to say about the relationship between exploration and national greatness. "Throughout history, the great civilizations have always extended the frontiers of their times. Indeed, this is almost a tautology; we define as "great" only those civilizations which did explore and expand their frontiers, thereby ultimately influencing world culture. And when, inevitably, some societies retreated from the frontiers they had pioneered, their greatness subsided as well." More recently, at the Quasar Award Dinner held by the Bay Area Houston Economic Partnership, Griffin expanded on the theme of why we have a space program in which he contrasted the "acceptable reasons" why we have a space program (science, economic benefits, etc), to the "real reasons." He maintained that the "real reasons" (i.e. competitiveness, curiosity and monument building) actually relate to the acceptable reasons, the ones that Congress and investment bankers get told. As a case in point, Griffin brings up medieval cathedrals. "What did the cathedral builders get? They didn't just build cathedrals and then stop there. They began to develop civil engineering, the core discipline for any society if it wishes to have anything more than thatched huts. They learned how to build high walls and to have them stand up straight. They learned how to put a roof across a long span. They learned which materials would work, and which ones would not. And by finding the limits on how high walls could be, how broad roof spans could be, and what materials wouldn't work, they created the incentive to solve those problems, so that they could build things beyond cathedrals, so that they could, fundamentally, build Western civilization. "They gained societal advantages that were probably even more important than learning how to build walls and roofs. They learned to embrace deferred gratification, not just on an individual level where it is a crucial element of maturity, but on a societal level where it is equally vital. The people who started the cathedrals didn't live to finish them; such projects required decades. The society as a whole had to be dedicated to the completion of those projects. To be able to do that for cathedrals was to be able to do it in other areas as well. We owe Western civilization as we know it today to that kind of thinking - the ability to have a constancy of purpose across years and decades. "The medieval builders formed guilds, establishing professional trades beyond that of agriculture. Now, agriculture is at the root of human technology. Nothing good happens to human beings without getting beyond the hunter-gatherer stage, and agriculture is that first step. But the second step is to be able to build physical works that didn't previously exist. The organization and systemization of that in Western society today began in medieval Europe, with the cathedral builders. They learned how to organize large projects, a key to modern society. And, probably most important of all, the cathedrals had to be, for decades at a time, a focus of civic accomplishment and energy. A society, a nation, a civilization, needs such foci." Think about what Griffin is saying. He is suggesting that the expansion of human civilization beyond the Earth, far from being an impossible dream, is inevitable. He is also stating that the purpose of the US space program should be to make sure that expansion carries with it the western (i.e. American) values of freedom and capitalism. He further states that exploration of new territories ensures the greatness of the nation that undertakes it. Finally he maintains that even the "frivolous" and the intangible motivations for space exploration must lead to practical benefits. What a noble purpose that is! We have a space program not just to do good science, or provide jobs for Congressional districts, or technological spin-offs, or corporate welfare, but to expand our civilization to the stars. If this is to be the goal of the United States space program, then it should follow that the initiatives undertaken under its auspices should advance that goal. The next question the next President should ask, does the current US space program advance the goal of expanding our civilization to the stars? The answer is no. Or rather, the answer is not sufficiently. In order to advance the goal of spreading civilization to the stars, the main thrust of the American space effort should be the establishment of human communities beyond the Earth, on the Moon, on Mars, and other places. The lunar base contemplated in the Vision for Space Exploration will have a crew of four people. Four people do not constitute a community. It barely constitutes a hand of poker. Fortunately the solution does not require a wholesale change of direction which would be, at best, politically difficult. In fact NASA already has the embryonic germ of a solution in the COTS and Centennial Challenge programs. Recommendation One: Expand the Centennial Challenges to the greatest extent possible. Prize competitions can prove useful in developing high risk/high reward technologies that would further the goal of expanding humanity beyond the Earth. They can also enable private space missions that will, among other things, gain the commercial sector operational experience. Examples of a technology development competition would include such things as space based rocket propellant storage, materials built of carbon nanotubes, and rocket engines that can be reused many times without maintenance. Examples of a mission competition would include landing a small payload on the Moon and launching microspacecraft to destinations such as an Earth approaching asteroid. The question arises, if prize competitions are so effective, why not cancel the Vision for Space Exploration and replace it with a prize awarding-say-five billion dollars to the first private group to land four people on the Moon and return them safely to the Earth. The problem is that there are diminishing returns as the purse becomes larger and the time frame necessary to win the competition becomes longer. Consider a thought experiment. Suppose that a future President were to persuade Congress to cancel VSE (and with it jobs in the district, contracts to campaign contributors, and so on)? Five billion dollars would be deposited in a Lunar Return Trust Fund to be awarded to the first group to fulfill the parameters of the competition. Because the prize is only awarded upon conclusion of the mission, a private group would have to raise funds to return to the Moon from private capital markets. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, a group estimates that the mission will take a billion dollars and five years. The group develops a mission plan that, on a technical level at least, looks very promising. With that in hand, they go searching for private capital. There is one question that an investment banker would be compelled to ask: Can it be guaranteed that the prize purse will still be there when the competition is won? One thing we know from history is that government are often fickle. What a government can give with one hand, it can take away with another. Suppose that half way through the competition, Congress decides that five billion dollars would be better spent on-say-health care rather than a private Moon race? The venture capitalist who puts up money for that competition would be out of luck. Hence, the difficulties of raising what would seem to be an immense amount of money would likely be too overwhelming. Best, then, to break up prize competitions into smaller, more digestible segments. As the prizes are won, technology and private, operational experience is gained, helping to bring closer the day that commercial flights to such places as the Moon become reality. Recommendation Two: Establish a Lunar version of the COTS program at some point in time. It has been pointed out by a number of critics that the Ares family of space vehicles will likely be more expensive to operate than something that can be developed commercially. There are, however, no commercial space vehicles at this time that can take people to and from the Moon. Even the EELV (Delta IV and Atlas V) was rejected by NASA as a means to loft the Orion to low Earth orbit because of safety issues and the difficulty/expense of "man rating" them. Finally, NASA feels that it needs a heavy lift launcher such as the Ares V for the eventual human missions to Mars. Carolyn Parco, a planetary scientist writing in the New York Times, suggested that the Ares V would greatly expand our capacity to send unmanned probes to destination at the Outer Planets. Clearly, though, commercial means should be explored to conduct resupply and crew transfer missions to the base NASA contemplates building at the lunar south pole. Decreasing the cost of such missions is also crucial for expanding that base into a full fledged settlement. The key phrase, though, is "some point in time." What point in time? The current COTS program is considered an experiment, which means that failure is a possibility. Fortunately, though, the success or failure of COTS should be apparent between and middle and the end of the first term of the next President. If COTS succeeds and leads to a commercial means of maintaining the International Space Station, then a precedence will have been set. A lunar COTS like the current one would be financed by performance. The competing companies would be doled out specific amounts of money based on achieving certain milestones. The participating companies will also have to raise a greater part of their financing from private, capital markets. The question arises, as per the discussion on Centennial Challenges, at what point will venture capitalists be assured that the return to the Moon is a done deal that cannot be realistically revoked? Certainly that will be the case when the lunar base is established. Unfortunately that won't be, on the current schedule, until 2024. One might want to establish a lunar COTS program before 2024, perhaps even before the first return to the Moon is scheduled to occur late in the next decade. One possible way this could change is the recent revelation that Bigelow Aerospace is working on an idea that could establish a fully functional lunar base a long time before 2024, before the first astronaut returns to the Moon. The idea is to use a number of Bigelow's inflatable modules to assemble the base intact at the L1 point, where the Earth's and Moon's gravity cancel one another out. Once assembled, the base could be lowered slowly onto the lunar surface and be ready for the first astronaut explorers. Reading between the lines of Bigelow's proposal, one imagines that the base could be ready as early as 2014. NASA appears to be very interested in the idea. In that particular case, with a tangible market for lunar transportation (i.e. taking people and supplies to and from a lunar base already deployed and ready) the lunar COTS program could commence earlier rather than later. In this particular case, the first people back to the Moon may not be NASA astronauts, at least those flying on the Orion-Ares space craft, but rather someone flying on a private space vehicle. Recommendation Three: Expand NASA partnerships with small, entrepreneurial firms. NASA has recently entered into agreements with firms such as Virgin Galactic, t/Space, and PlanetSpace. The space agency is in discussion with a number of other firms, such as Bigelow. None of these agreements involve the transfer of money for services, however. The Virgin Galactic agreement is a memorandum of understanding that could lead to further collaborative efforts in areas including space suits, heat shields for spaceships, hybrid rocket motors and hypersonic vehicles capable of traveling five or more times the speed of sound. The t/Space and PlanetSpace agreements involve the dispensation of advice and other free support. These arrangements are a good start in making NASA a support agency for small, entrepenuerial firms. They should be expanded to allow for the purchase of goods and services from these small firms, joint ventures, and the use of NASA facilities (such as wind tunnels, for example) by these firms. Recommendation Four: Place the lunar base under a private non-profit consortium that would lease space, as well as other services such as air and water, to companies and governments which will then pursue their individual goals, such as energy, research, tourism, or developing the technology and supplies needed for further space exploration. That would include, of course, NASA. Placing the lunar base under such a consortium would be a way to enable its evolution into an extraterrestrial community. At some point, presumably, the inhabitants of such a community will want to run their own affairs, to establish for themselves in effect a government. There should therefore be some provision that will invoke a resolution transforming the consortium into a self governing community. Recommendation Five: Establish the right of private property in space, especially the Moon. The Outer Space Treaty, which currently governs the activities of states in space, is largely silent about private property. However, the treaty does prohibit the establishment of sovereign control (i.e. claiming territory) on other worlds. Sovereign control is the means by which states ensure the private property rights of its citizens. There are a number of ways to establish private property rights on other worlds, such as the Moon. One is to adhere to a "loose interpretation" of the Outer Space Treaty to allow for private property rights. Another would be to negotiate an amendment to the treaty establishing a private property regime. The last, and perhaps the most radical, would be for the United States to withdraw from the treaty and claim the Moon as its national territory. This last method, while it has the most certainty for establishing the sort of private property regime desirable for the United States, is also the one that is the most diplomatically hazardous for obvious reasons. Amending the Outer Space Treaty has its own dangers. While the nature of property rights remains the subject of political argument, even in the United States, Americans traditionally hold with the least amount of government interference with the use of property as possible. Other countries, even European democracies, hold a differing view. Other countries believe in massive government control of private property and high taxes. America, as the likely senior partner in any program of space exploration, especially a return to the Moon, needs to insist that private property be treated on the American model. Indeed it would be best if property holders on other worlds be given even more rights that are currently enjoyed on Earth. Recommendation Six: Establish a Lunar Land Office and Sell Lunar land. A number of companies calling themselves names such as the Lunar Embassy purport to have the right to sell land on the Moon. They have made considerable money selling lots on the lunar surface, along with nice looking certificates of ownership. Unfortunately these transactions have no basis in law and the alleged "owners" of lunar land own nothing but their certificates. As part of arranging for private property rights on other worlds, the United States should push for the establishment of an international Lunar Land Office which will sell tracts on the Moon, exempting only those areas of cultural or historical significance such as the Apollo landing sites. The proceeds for these transactions should go to the private, non profit consortium mentioned above as running the lunar base. In turn, the consortium will use the funds to build infrastructure, using private contractors, to support the settlement and economic development of the Moon. There would also be a lunar land trading market that will allow property owners to buy and sell lunar land. Lunar land holders would receive rents and royalties from companies and individuals that seek to perform activities such as mining on their property. Recommendation Seven: Enact tax and other incentives to foster private space development and private development of technologies that would further space exploration and travel. A few years ago, Congressman Dana Rohrabacher proposed an amendment to the Internal Revenue Code called "Zero Gravity, Zero Taxes." The idea was to exempt from federal taxes goods produced in space as a means to provide an incentive for the economic development of space. In effect, space would become an enterprise zone. This bill should be part of a package providing tax incentives for private space endeavors. Another idea would be to provide for a tax credit for technologies developed for the purpose of space travel and other space activities. Conclusion The prospect of a Third Space Age, one in where the dream of humankind spreading civilization across the Solar System and, eventually, to the stars, is brighter than ever. Given smart and far sighted policy decisions, that dream can become reality within the lifetimes of most people. It will not be and cannot be a process primarily driven by government policy, however. Government can enable the process, encourage it, even guide it to a certain extent. But government cannot be the driving force. That role is best left to private individuals and entities doing things for their own reasons and motivations. NASA will play a role, but it will increasingly be a smaller role. That is not because NASA is going to be abolished or downsized. Even if it were desirable, it would be politically very difficult indeed to get rid of NASA. And that doesn't even consider other government players such as the military, which will increasingly see space as another venue for war fighting, much as the air, sea, and land is today. NASA's role will diminish because the role of the private sector will become so much greater. It behooves government policy deciders to encourage rather than discourage that process. NASA can be a customer for the private sector. The private sector can benefit from NASA's expertise and ability to do and encourage cutting edge exploration and research. And thus, in the exploration and settlement of space, everybody wins. |
Image of poker suits order
poker suits order Image 1
poker suits order Image 2
poker suits order Image 3
poker suits order Image 4
poker suits order Image 5
Related blog with poker suits order
Related Video with poker suits order
poker suits order Video 1
poker suits order Video 2
poker suits order Video 3
poker suits order
Labels: Card Suit Ranking, Does a Straight Beat A Flush, Poker Hands from Lowest to Highest, Suits in a Deck of Cards, Texas Hold Em Winning Hands in Order, Texas Holdem Hand Rankings, What Beats What in Texas Hold'em, What is the Best Hand in Poker
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home