let me say why.

scientific knowledge is for the benefit of us all. take the ability to cure diseases (well, the ones that we can cure.) this knowledge is available to everyone who can get their hands on it, and those who can't can't for two reasons, 1. they can't understand it (and this is a large amount of scientific information, as few people would, i would wager, be able to explain what a Higgs boson is and why it is so important) and the second reason is that it is not financially accessible. this latter point needs no explanation. people in poverty all over the world would be able to be freed from large amounts of suffering through disease if medicine and doctors were free. but they are not. that is the way things are. but how does this relate to space funding?

like this.

we are genetically selfish automatons at the lowest level (think about it, there are few people out there who aren't bonking away, and reproduction is the effect of bonking away. it's good for our children to survive. and to survive, we must get off this rock, as an asteroid is coming, and there will be one big enough to destroy life on the planet, if not the whole bloody thing. it can't be stopped. but what we can do is get off the planet and settle in numerous places. despite the fact that this would lead to the very bad days i talked of in another post, it seems that this is the right way to go. (if one argues that continued human existence is a good thing. i'm not sure about this. Stephen Hawking had something very wise to say along these lines "it says a lot that the only thing we have created that comes close to life is the computer virus, and this is incredibly destructive." however, a computer as a virus itself (ie the computer is the virus) is a notion i may ponder over later.) anyway, we need to get off the planet.

to get off the planet and get to other habitable places (we need to get out of the solar system, as the sun will swell up and swallow the inner rocky planets and then go out and leave a big patch of darkness (well, it may be a bit red, but it still won't be anywhere near as bright as it is now when it's finished doing its thing) and that will make survival a lot more difficult. so we need to be on multiple planets, preferably, in multiple solar systems and even better, multiple galaxies.

how to achieve this? the ISS is one of the first steps. we need to know how to survive long term in space (it takes the rather speedy photon in a beam of light 8 years to get to the closest star, and lot longer to get to the next galaxy. NZ doesn't have a space program. very few countries do. Japan, US, Russia, China have their own programs, and the ESA is Europe's collective effort. should these countries foot the bill alone? no. if we all want to share in the benefit of intergalactic colonisation, we should all pay our dues, and yes, that means tax. this tax should go towards some sort of global fund. that seems fair. but what about the gate keepers? so far, only Russia, the USA and China have put people into space in their own programs (ESA dudes mostly use the US program to get up there and some others use the Russian method, to the best of my knowledge, and the Chinese have only put one guy up there.

getting into space needs to get to the same stage as getting in the car and going to the mall (not that anyone goes to the mall with high gas prices, the wonderful state of the economy and the internet.) and it seems to have taken the first step. but this step doesn't seem to be very well liked.

i wasn't alive back in the late 50s and early 60s when going into space was a way-out concept. i grew up in the 90s when the shuttle would go up numerous times a year and the russians would go up when they could afford to fill up the gas tanks. it all seemed to be like clockwork. then came Challenger and years later Columbia. but neither of these tragedies made gave space-flight its edge back. they reminded us that going into space was dangerous, but they didn't give it the excitement there once was. i have to make this judgment from what i see in the media, history books etc, but Armstrong and Aldrin may well be one of the greatest days in human history. Gagarin's flight goes along with it. remember the ticker-tape parade for Al Shepherd when he got back from his massive slingshot ride? everyone was ecstatic. same for John Glenn's flight. (I call Shepherd's flight a slingshot as that's what it was, he didn't orbit, like Gagarin and Glenn did, he was shot straight up and landed a few hundred miles away. it was an attempt for the struggling American space program to save face and needs to be seen as such. not to belittle the man or the accomplishment. it was very impressive, but the Soviets had already been to the party, had too much vodka, woken up the next afternoon, worked out what the hell had happened and started working on sending Ghermain Titov into space, who orbited before Glenn did, to set the score 2-0 to the soviets.) the point is that the space-flight was the highlight of the year/one of the biggest stories of the year. everyone knew who went and the name of the ship. anyone know which shuttles have been up so far this year? there was a Simpsons episode on this phenomena, space-flight had become boring. and going on a car trip is boring. it certainly doesn't make world headlines. lack of publicity for the space program for this reason is a justifiable problem, but it also has this benefit- we have come to see it as part of our advancement. we now need to see it as part of our everyday lives. and spaceship one, for example, is another step in that direction.

there can't be a gatekeeper, as there is at the moment. there have been a couple of space tourists, who paid the russians to fill up the tanks and light the match, but spaceflight won't be part of everyday life until everyone has done it so much that it's just another trip in the car. and more funding for space-happenings, research and other spacey things (nothing to do with Kevin) will help this along. the X-prize that SpaceShipOne won was another first step. but it needs to be followed up with another advancement. and a fund for research, development and implementation would do that. the X-prize was a million dollars, which comes nowhere near paying the costs or bringing in the publicit. and as No. 2 said, a million dollars isn't a lot of money. if this fund put up a prize of a BILLION dollars, it would attract a lot of attention, and lots of people working towards a goal of getting space-flight turned into a mall trip.a billion dollars is a colossal amount of money. no one person would be willing to put up a billion of his own for something (well, it would be a way for Gates to be charitable, and it would also give him something to do now that the Gates/Seinfeld ad campaign for Windows has fallen flat on its arse.) and that money can't come from Americans who foot the bill for NASA. it can't come from the Russians, who pay the bill for the Russian Space Program. it can't come from the people of Europe who pay for the ESA. it needs to come from everyone, for we will all benefit from it. the billion dollars would be around 16 cents per person on the planet. many many persons cannot afford 16 cents extra on their taxes, but these can be balanced out be the wealthier persons. i for one would pay my 16 cents (or even a dollar) if i knew it was going towards space research, rather than paying some bums to sit around their state houses and cook up p, and cause the house to need to be demolished and rebuilt at the taxpayers expense.

would you pay your 16 cents?

I would.

It’s always been my hope that humanity can embrace a glorious future among the stars. I just wish we’d get a move on. Thankfully, on Monday Richard Branson’s Virgin Galactic opened the hangar doors to reveal WhiteKnightTwo, the launch vehicle that is intended to begin the sub-orbital journey for passengers aboard SpaceShipTwo in eighteen months’ time.

Until recently, space travel was the sole preserve of governments, and very few of those at that. Then came the Ansari X Prize offering $10 million for the first ship to reach an altitude greater than 100 km twice in the space of a fortnight. Many teams took part, but on 4 October 2004 it was Burt Rutan’s Scaled Composites that took the money with SpaceShipOne.

Branson and Rutan teamed up; fast forward four years and for the princely sum of $200,000 you can buy a seat along with two pilots and five fellow passengers that will give you a view of the curvature of Earth from space and about five minutes of weightlessness. And let’s not forget the rush of the launch and then the glide back down to collect your spacewings.

SpaceShipTwo is still in the hangar, apparently 70% built, but WhiteKnightTwo is expected to begin flight tests later this year. It’s like a catamaran for the skies, with two hulls that between them will carry the space vehicle to a height of 15 km before its hybrid rocket engine lifts it to sub-orbital altitude. At first, Virgin Galactic aim to manage a flight each week, but when everything is up and running at full capacity there should be four flights a day from their New Mexico spaceport.

Branson’s mother officially christened the launch vehicle – it was named “Eve” after her, as well as symbolizing a new beginning for space exploration (let's hope Apple stays well away from the computer systems). WhiteKnightTwo could also herald a new age in more traditional aviation, being the largest all carbon composite aircraft with the huge benefits in efficiency that promises.

Apparently more than a hundred future Virgin Galactic astronauts are fully paid up and ready to fly. My name officially went on the list on 28 September 2004, but they’ve still not asked me to show them the money. Maybe, if my astronaut application with the European Space Agency comes through, I won’t have to.

postat de Ben

Dacă vă mai aduceţi aminte, acum vreo 4 ani avea loc primul zbor spaţial al unei nave civile - numită sugestiv SpaceShipOne. Ce-i drept, nava nu a atins nici pe departe altitudinile la care ajunge naveta spaţială de exemplu, dar tehnic vorbind, depăşind 100km, a ajuns în spaţiu. Imediat după aceea, multimiliardarul aventurier Richard Branson a pus bazele unei linii de turism spaţial - Virgin Galactic -, care urma să folosească o versiune îmbunătăţită a SpaceShipOne.

Deşi aşa-numita SpaceShipTwo nu e încă gata, zilele trecute Virgin Galactic a dezvăluit nava EVE (numită după mama lui Branson), care va purta nava spaţială propriu-zisă până la o altitudine ridicată, de unde poate porni spre limita spaţiului. Ştirea în sine e nespectaculoasă, dar faptul că lucrurile merg înainte destul de repede cu proiectul ăsta (pe EVE vor începe deja să se antreneze piloţii) arată că turismul spaţial nu mai e deloc SF.

Dacă acum îţi trebuie vreo 20 de milioane de dolari ca să îi convingi pe ruşi să te ia cu ei în spaţiu, navele Virgin Galactic o să te transporte pentru doar 200.000 de dolari - ştiu că pare mult, dar asta arată că în 10-20 de ani turismul spaţial ar putea să devină chiar relativ accesibil. Să fim serioşi, câţi n-ar plăti echivalentul unei case sau al unui Lamborghini ca să poată vedea Pământul curbându-se sub un cer negru şi să poată simţi imponderabilitatea?

via Gizmodo, Wired

I wonder if we will have space orbit tours within our lifetime. You know, fly up in space, call your friends, "you'll never guess where i am", etc...  

The Facts:
British billionaire Sir Richard Branson and American aerospace designer Burt Rutan are due Monday to show off their mothership, which is designed to air launch a passenger-toting spaceship out of the atmosphere.

"They've been hyping this and selling tickets," said Alan Radecki, a helicopter mechanic and aviation photographer who follows the private space race. "This is the first time they're going to have hardware to show people."

Branson previously heralded 2008 as the "Year of the Spaceship." In January, he and Rutan offered a sneak peek of their commercial partnership, showing off scale models of the mothership and the spacecraft it will launch. SpaceShipOne ushered in a new space age dominated by deep-pocketed entrepreneurs with dreams of making space voyages as mundane as airplane travel. That vision remains unfulfilled.

This is a CGI depiction of a hypothetical flight in the new Virgin Galactic SpaceShipTwo, from take-off while mated to the carrier craft, through boost phase, then the ballistic phase where passengers can float freely in space, then reconfiguration for re-entry, then the return flight, and finally the landing back at the spaceport.

Wow this is really something, I mean space the final frontier, it can´t be cooler the that.

I would definitly go if I got the chance, It´s just a shame that the tickets cost $200,000 and deposits start from $20,000, which is nuts..... Oh well I´ll just have to wait to some competitors to push the prices down. :D

Here is a introduction by Richard Branson, interviews with Brian Binnie and Mike Melvill, with video footage from the SpaceShipOne test flights.

More info here.

WOG out.

Bottom Line: Conservatives have an opportunity to demonstrate the value of limited government by opening space to private development and settlement.

If conservative lawmakers wish to usher in a space economy fueled by consumer demand, that economy could radically change Americans' relationship with their government. This would not be the first time such a change has occurred. We had such revolutions in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan and in 1994 with the Republican takeover of the House of Representatives under Newt Gingrich and the "Contract with America." It can happen again.

The Next Step in Our Evolution: The Market State

Historian Phillip Bobbitt writes in The Shield of Achilles that we are in the process of transforming from a nation-state to a "market state," where the government or privatizes "non-critical" activities like social welfare. Assuming this transformation is in fact happening, conservatives can use the situation to create a radical shrinking of our national government.

The market-state offers an attractive model for the future because it is more in line with our national traditions than the welfare state. According to The Shield of Achilles, the market state will aim for a smaller role in public affairs, both social and economic. Decisions made by the American public since 1991 bear this out, from the rejection of socialized medicine ("Hillarycare") in 1993 to the Republican revolution of 1994 election to the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. The common factor in all of these actions has been the public desire for smaller government. We have an opportunity to affect the course of future history by backing away from massive domestic spending and large-scale interventions overseas. Space settlement can provide a central part of that revolution.

***

Instapundit.com's Glenn Reynolds writes in An Army of Davids that "Nineteenth- and twentieth-century technology seemed to favor aggregation, uniformity, and large size. Twenty-first century technology seems to favor diversity, variety, and small size-along with a much higher degree of interconnection." In discussing space, Reynolds states that only private sector competition can reduce the cost of spaceflight, which means less government activity.

Libertarian, state-shrinking ideas are gaining more popular currency. The FairTax Book by Congressman John Linder and radio talk show host Neal Boortz proposes a means of eliminating the IRS through indirect consumption taxes. Meanwhile, on the spending side of the equation, Charles Murray's In Our Hands proposes eliminating vast portions of the welfare bureaucracy by simply doling out $10,000 to every American every year. These examples of limited government can be expanded to space. George W. Bush has placed a lot of emphasis on promoting freedom and democracy, individual responsibility, and an "ownership society." And while he is more partial to strong government than many conservatives, he is at least continuing the progress of the market state by promoting individual opportunity. The next best place to demonstrate the value of an ownership society would be in orbit or on the Moon.

The Government's Monopoly on Space

Space is an immense, unknown place, into which we might expand our civilization. Yet what sort of civilization will expand into it--a society that believes in government management of all activities--or one that trusts its citizenry?

Right now, the space frontier more closely resembles socialism than capitalism. Government is the primary consumer of space services and the primary designer of space transportation hardware. Instead of allowing the private sector to design spacecraft that might meet public demand, our government has dictated all space technology development-usually based on military or political considerations than on what the market might demand.

The Beginnings of the Space Economy

A robust market has multiple customers and producers or service providers. Space tourism can utterly transform the space economy. Richard Branson, by creating Virgin Galactic, has bet that he can make money on tourist flights into space. Assuming all 7,000 people who signed up for a $200,000 ticket actually put down their money, Branson stands to make $1.4 billion in revenue!

This is the starting point of an economy that can be built on consumer demand rather than government demand. Of course that $1.4 billion assumes that Branson will have no competition, that his operating costs won't go up or down, and that he won't get any repeat business. Nevertheless, tourism is a known commodity, and that knowledge brings investors. Left to itself, the space tourism business can develop and grow just like any other new business.

If Americans want to see private industry in space, they need to support government officials and policies that increase private sector development, not only government activities.

Why Government Management is Bad for the Space Economy

As I explained in Chapter 2, NASA is the wrong organization to build and expand widespread human presence in the solar system. Government has had a miserable history of trying to pick "winners and losers" in technology (e.g. canals, railroads, trucking) and often ends up subsidizing businesses its policies had previously run out of business. As Ronald Reagan put it, "The government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." Rather than take that route, conservative members of Congress need to encourage the revolution that is slowly building among smaller space launch companies, like Burt Rutan's Scaled Composites and Elon Musk's SpaceX.

Another way to reduce government interference in space activities would be to transfer existing government space activities to one or two jurisdictions, instead of the five or six that exist now--by treating space activities as transportation issue rather than a national security issue. At present, the following government agencies have a say in whether a space launch company can send something into orbit: the Department of Defense, Department of Commerce, Department of State (if the launch involves international trade), Department of Energy (if the payload is nuclear-powered), the Environmental Protection Agency (to verify the environmental impact of any space-related activity) and the Federal Aviation Administration (to license and set rules of conduct for space vehicle operators).

The Space Economy Can Open without Compromising Security

Several retired military officers have told me that I am naïve in trying to extract space activities from the realm of "national security." This concern has been part of the space program since the Soviets launched Sputnik in 1957. As recently as the late ‘90s, Loral Space Systems was charged and fined by the State Department for exporting rocket-related technology to the People's Republic of China. Why? Because rockets and the fuels they carry are considered munitions under current International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Under ITAR, space hardware export approvals are the responsibility of the State Department, not the Department of Commerce.

Given the unsettled state of the world, ITAR won't go away any time soon. We now have two hostile states developing rocket technologies capable of launching nuclear weapons: North Korea and Iran. The threat posed by hostile nations launching missiles at us or our allies is still real, so we want to ensure that our technology does not get into the hands of al-Qaeda or some other terrorist group.

However, the International Space Station--a project dedicated to international cooperation in space--also is suffering from ITAR problems because engineers from different nations cannot share information with each other without clearance. In fact, a case can be made that ITAR actually hurts national security by putting space-related companies out of business or out of the aerospace industry because they are unable to sell their products. Such a situation can erode our skills as a spacefaring nation.

The good news is, there may be ways to change the regulations incrementally, using a form of "legislative jujitsu." Some items, of course, will always be subject to scrutiny, such as rocket engines or guidance hardware. However, ITAR hurts second- and third-level suppliers and small businesses as well, as it blocks sales of non-critical parts that are commercially available on the worldwide open market. If the regulations undermine the very security they are supposed to protect by closing critical American businesses, Congress is more likely to modify ITAR to allow sales of low-sensitivity space hardware to reliable allies.

There may be other ways to ensure the security of American-made rockets abroad. For instance, space tourism launch facilities could be placed at U.S. military bases, most of which are used to handling high-energy fuels and security. The same security precautions used to protect our fighters, bombers, and other military aircraft also could be used to protect parked spacecraft. I would argue, however, that this is a fallback position; the goal is LESS government involvement, not more.

Also, it must be noted that a 600,000 lb. spacecraft (the proposed weight of the Lockheed Martin X-33 VentureStar, which never flew) still would be less dangerous to the public than the crash of a fully-loaded 910,000 lb. 747-400 or a million-pound A380, and those vehicles continue to be sold worldwide.

Ideally, the Department of Transportation could regulate space activities much like commercial aviation, acting only to keep competition honest and protect consumers from dangerous practices.

Consumer Demand Drives the Space Economy

Burt Rutan's SpaceShipOne, the winner of the $10 million dollar X Prize in 2004, is opening a new frontier of economic development by building suborbital tourism rockets for Richard Branson's Virgin Galactic. Rutan, Branson, and other entrepreneurs are creating a new market niche.

Much like the aviation industry in the last century, money from these early adventurers will in turn fund new technologies and vehicles to meet the needs of a growing industry. As the space tourism industry grows, travel will become safer, more efficient, and more affordable to more customers. Space tourism also will provide opportunities to advance the aerospace disciplines, reduce the cost of all space activities (including exploration and settlement), and enable the United States to remain a leader in science and technology.

The commercial space market has existed since 1970, beginning with communication satellites. Today, the world market for satellite-based services--including telecommunications, television, global positioning systems, and Earth observation (weather, environmental, search and rescue)--is valued at nearly $100 billion. The problem with the commercial space market so far is that it hasn't been large enough to attract private investment in the technologies needed to lower the cost of access to space. Space tourism holds great promise as an economic "driver" for more frequent flights, leading to lower launch costs, which will in turn attract other customers to the space market.

Government Should Be a Facilitator, Not a Primary Customer

Consumer demand for space launch services would require aerospace companies to develop reusable, highly reliable spacecraft. This demand for reusable spacecraft will push our design and manufacturing technology to new levels, and our nation's best and brightest individuals will be drawn to the challenge of building this new frontier.

Private-sector and government research into space technology for commercial flight operations will improve spaceflight capabilities; develop spinoff technologies which could benefit NASA and other government space endeavors as well as non-space activities; and help maintain our nation's technological pre-eminence in science and technology. Reusable, reliable spacecraft can also reduce the current costs of satellites, on which we depend for communications, entertainment, weather forecasting, environmental management, search and rescue operations, and national security.

National investments in space technology are critical for our nation to remain a nexus of scientific and technological creativity. U.S. market share of commercial space launches has dropped from 100% in the early 1970s to around 30% today. That percentage will continue to drop as Europe, Russia, Japan, and China develop and improve their own rocket systems. The engineers and scientists who sent Americans to the Moon are retiring or, sadly, dying off. The United States has lost over 600,000 scientific and technical jobs in the past 13 years. NASA's over-60 staff outnumbers its under-30 staff three to one and there are no signs of replacement on the horizon. The number of American-born students taking degrees in aerospace and related technologies has been steadily decreasing since the 1980s. An open frontier with opportunities for all can offer the best incentive to our young people to reach for the stars.

Clearly the space tourism market exists, and the time has come to exploit it. It is time for the private sector to take the lead in expanding the frontiers of human possibility and for government to return to its role as explorer and incubator of innovative technologies. Private sector ingenuity applied to government research goals can revolutionize space travel and bring our nation back to its pioneering heritage of exploring new frontiers.

Space Can Be a Laboratory for Decentralized Government

A primary lesson in Western history has been the importance of decentralized power. Other cultures have centered around a single, powerful city or empire ("universal state"), which has prevented the development of, and need to accommodate, competing ideas and political players. The Western process has not always been even, smooth, or peaceful, but it has led to broader political participation by more citizens than anywhere else on Earth.

The largest, longest-lasting universal state was the Roman Empire. After Rome fell, Europe splintered along linguistic, tribal, and religious lines into many nations, which constantly fought each other to maintain a balance of power. After Rome, Spain and Britain each built empires that were larger than Rome's, but neither lasted as long or, more importantly, held dominion of competing nations within Europe. Nations that did attempt single-nation rule like Napoleon's France and Hitler's Germany were eventually defeated by coalitions of nations unwilling to accept a single sovereign over all of Western Civilization.

The United States learned its own lessons in the value of decentralization. The American system was designed by our Founders to encourage as much freedom at the local level as possible. Successful experiments in one locale could be copied elsewhere, just as unsuccessful or distasteful communities could be held up as examples of "what not to do." It is this tradition of strong local autonomy and identity that has kept American civil society prominent in national decision-making while in Europe and elsewhere, the default assumption is that the government speaks for all or sometimes simply dictates to all.

The problem we have faced since the Great Depression and World War Two is that Franklin D. Roosevelt (followed later by his protégés John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson) changed the nature of government's relationship with the American public. More and more experimentation has been done at the federal level, with a corresponding loss of power and freedom at the local and state levels. While this centralized structure might ensure more national consistency in laws and practices, it does have one major defect: if the federal government's experiment fails, the entire nation suffers, not just a single state, city, or township.

So what does this little civics lesson have to do with settling space?

Our nation has over two centuries of history lessons to draw upon for developing new frontiers and new economies. We know what works: ensuring the rule of law, protecting individual property rights, lowering taxes, reducing regulations to make it easier to start legal businesses, and ensuring free and unfettered trade.

Now consider the potential political arrangements small colonies of human beings could design across the craters of the Moon, the hills and canyons of Mars, or in self-contained space habitats in Earth orbit. The more experiments individuals are allowed to try on a local level, the less likely they will be to submit to an overarching, uniform system of laws and practices.

One source of political disengagement in America has been the individual's feeling that his or her vote does not matter in the face of a massive, convoluted political process and state. In a society of small towns and smaller jurisdictions, the voice of one person has more weight and a better chance of being heard. If such a state is not available here on Earth, it is left to communities of individuals on other worlds to establish their own way of doing things.

Paul Allen wants a space ship for Christmas---a full size, fully operational space ship of his very own. He also wants a machine that can make stuffed animals come alive.

Check out this article:

 'Dear Santa': Kids ask for their heart's desire” See.. http://www.democratandchronicle.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071224/LIVING/712240337/1032From the article:
December 24, 2007) — “Whittling down a wish list can be tough for a wide-eyed child at Christmas.But some kids aren't that picky."Dear Santa, You can bring me whatever you want, because I like everything," writes 5-year-old Sophia Triassi of Greece………..…..Some letter writers showed their artistic side by offering illustrations of their Christmas wish. Take Paul Allen of Geneseo, Livingston County, for instance. "For Christmas I want a reel spas ship — like the one on the back — and a machine that can turn stuff anmls too life," writes Paul, 8, a second-grader at Geneseo Elementary School. Paul's mom, Deb Allen, says Paul has acquired an interest in Star Trek during the past year."I dunno if he thinks he's gonna get one with warp drive," says Allen of Geneseo. "He insists it's gonna be full-size. I said, 'Now, where are you gonna store this? Santa's not gonna fit that under the tree.' He said, 'He can put it in the front yard, that's OK.'"  

Of course, the person who asked Santa for a full-sized space ship is Paul Allen, a second-grader from Geneseo Elementary School, not Microsoft Co-founder, Paul Allen.  The latter wouldn’t put a space ship on his Christmas list because he already has one.

See….. http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/xprize2_success_041004.html 

In fact, Santa Claus may have a hard time this year trying to find the perfect gift for the Microsoft co-founder, because there aren’t many things in the world that this Paul Allen doesn’t already own.

 Can you imagine having the Microsoft Co-founder on your Christmas list?

What do you get a guy who already has everything?

To begin with, it’s a good bet that whatever most people could afford is probably a lot less than what Allen spends just filling up his Megayacht, Octopus. A mere tank of gas for his 414 ft yacht will set you back at least $150 thousand dollars.

See…. http://powerandmotoryacht.zeroforum.com/zerothread?id=20&page=6 http://memex.naughtons.org/archives/2007/12/22/4634  

And I’m thinking that he probably already has enough ties.

So what are some other options? Sports, maybe?…..Let’s see, he already has a football team and a basketball team---what about a Soccer team?

Nope, he just bought one of those a few months ago.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/writers/the_bonus/11/27/paul.allen1203/http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2007/11/26/story2.html?b=1196053200%5E1554524  

And the “Pharoah of the Pacific Northwest” doesn’t need anymore real estate.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22366706/

 http://www.forbes.com/forbeslife/2007/03/06/estate-rich-home-forbeslife_07billionaires_cz_mw_0308homes_slide_5.html?thisSpeed=30000 http://www.nyobserver.com/2007/field-dreams-interscope-head-ted-teams-frisky-fruit-scion-big-halloween-bash
http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:qL2VuUFlFjYJ:www.virtualtourist.com/travel/Europe/France/Provence_Alpes_Cote_dAzur/Saint_Jean_Cap_Ferrat-91744/Warnings_or_Dangers-Saint_Jean_Cap_Ferrat-BR-1.html+villa+maryland+paul+allen&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us  

He’s got a killer art collection…..

See….

 http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002652590_allenart29.html ….and a really nice guitar---well, actually, quite a few really nice guitars.. See… http://www.city-data.com/picfilesc/picc26147.php  

And though a model airplane might make a good gift, Allen already has a few of those. His collection of World War II planes is just as nice as you can get ---especially when you consider that the planes he owns are also full size and fully operational. See…

http://www.flyingheritage.com/

So there isn’t much that you could get Paul Allen that he doesn’t already own. 

But I have an idea about what might be the perfect gift for him---something he really, really wants. 

 If you happen to have a few billion dollars to spare and are an ace at bidding at auctions, Paul Allen could really use a few wireless airwaves. See, there’s this FCC auction coming up next month, and the new 700 MHz band airwaves would match perfectly with the licenses he bought just about 5 years ago……

Check it out---

 http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=310  http://www.news.com/Paul-Allen-applies-to-bid-in-U.S.-wireless-auction/2100-1033_3-6223441.html   

Just an idea… J

But to be serious for just a moment, I do hope that you all have a wonderful, blessed, and happy Christmas!!!

And, in holiday tradition, here are a few interesting sites that I’ve come across this year—which will hopefully give you some Christmas cheer: 

If you want to track where Santa is headed right now, check out this site….

 Norad Tracks Santa http://www.noradsanta.org/en/home.htm 

And if you’d like to listen to a terrific radio station online, try

www.pandora.com

(My favorite Christmas “station” is “The Nutcracker”)

If you’d like to go caroling, but can’t remember the words to your favorite Christmas songs, here’s a helpful site:

www.midomi.com

And for a lovely last minute Christmas card:

 http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?code=0212320003  

If you’d like to read a few classic Christmas stories, check out www.wowio.com ebooks:

A Christmas Carol

http://www.wowio.com/users/product.asp?BookId=447

‘Twas the Night Before Christmas

http://www.wowio.com/users/product.asp?BookId=448

For how to say “Merry Christmas” around the globe:

http://www.santas.net/howmerrychristmasissaid.htm For the First Christmas Story: http://www.holidays.net/christmas/story2.htm  And for the story behind the story: http://www.ccel.org/bible/phillips/CN154-CHRISTMAS.htm   

And finally, here are a few great Holiday Videos:

It’s a Wonderful Life (Ending)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErrzjGCi3gY

2 Josh Groban songs:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3su0ez4mrU

Polar Express “Believe”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44ZeNXqEuTQ

Thankful

 And.....

What Christmas is all about: A Charlie Brown Christmas

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKk9rv2hUfA

 MERRY CHRISTMAS!!!

在林白那個年代，人類對飛行充滿了憧憬與狂熱，但是並沒有人想像得到飛行可以有實際的用途。飛行在那時是一種探險活動，帶有很強的夢幻色彩，許多嘗試飛行的人其實只是想自我突破，挑戰不可能。

由於想像不到飛行可以真的應用到日常生活，政府對於贊助飛行相關的研究並沒有太大的興趣。私人的企業主對此一樣興趣缺缺，因為他們看不出將金錢投入這些研究，有回收的可能。

幸運的是，當時存在許多航空獎(aviation prizes)，來自部分有錢人的捐贈。這些人基於個人對飛行的興趣與夢想，提供獎金贊助那些血液裡充滿挑戰因子的人，幫他們追求飛行的夢。

林白成功飛越大西洋以後，獲得優渥的Orteig Prize(美金25,000)，這些獎金是維持林白等探險家持續追求飛行之夢的主要動機之一，也是這些探險家的主要經濟來源之一。

Orteig Prize是由當時的旅館業鉅子Raymond Orteig所創立，純粹贊助性質，並沒有想要做飛行的生意。他提出這個獎金以後，總共有九個團隊報名爭取這個獎，他們總共花了$400,000去追逐這個獎，從這個角度來看，設立獎項是個非常划算的投資，因為Raymond Orteig花了25,000的同時，有許多其他人總共花了$400,000，如果Raymond Orteig一開始選擇獨立完成這樣的理想，說不定他花完所有25,000元，還達不到目的呢!而Charles Lindbergh的成功飛越大西洋，啟蒙了整個航空業的發展，至今航空業已經是一個淨值達到兩兆五千億美元的產業了。

有些開創性的基礎研究，並不能馬上應用到人類的生活上。但是人類文明史上許多重要的突破，其實都是許多看似無用，甚至無聊、瘋狂的研究而來。鼓勵這樣的研究，有時會有意想不到的結果。

體會到這樣的道理，也看清了當年aviation prizes對飛航技術突破的重大貢獻，Dr. Peter H. Diamandis等人設立了X Prize Foundation。一開始仍聚焦在飛行上，希望找到人克服太空飛行的困難。所以X PRIZE Foundation的第一個獎項就是，提供一千萬美元給，首先達成"在兩週內，兩次將可反覆使用的載人太空船送到328,000 feet 以上的高空，並平安歸來的非政府機構"。

2004年五月, X PRIZE更名為Ansari X PRIZE，因為Ansari家族捐贈了數百萬美元給X PRIZE Foundation。同年的十月，史上第一個Ansari X PRIZE頒給了SpaceShipOne 的創造者Mojave Aerospace Ventures這家公司，它完成了任務，拿到高達一千萬美元的獎金。想想看，今天一加私人公司就有能力製造出可以往返太空的載人飛行器，太空旅行想必也指日可待了，而X PRIZE正是扮演了一個推波助瀾的角色。

X PRIZE Foundation後來與Google合作，設立了Wirefly X Prize cup 2006, 2007以及Google Lunar X PRIZE等等。不過，X PRIZE Foundation的眼光並不侷限於飛行與太空，他們對汽車的革命也有興趣。

最近他們更將眼光轉移到基因醫學上，提出Archon X PRIZE for Genomics，這次他們提供一千萬美金，給任何可以在10天內為100個人類基因定序的團隊。目前為一個人的所有基因定序，速度最快也需要兩個月以上，想要在10天之內完成100個人的基因定序，難度是相當高的。想賺一千萬美金可不容易。不過，已經有至少六個來自學術機構或生技公司的團隊摩拳擦掌，準備挑戰這個高難度的任務。一旦快速定序人類的基因序列成為一項隨手可得的檢驗，人類的醫療模式勢必又將有一番大革命。這無非也是X PRIZE帶來的一項深遠的影響。

[2007/12/22]
來自X PRIZE Foundation的賀歲卡

Quelle: Medgadget