Arthur C. Clarke: Maelstrom II Updates: 2007

Sunday, December 16, 2007

Re: Maelstrom II Update: Clarke Turns 90, Dec 16

Feng,

you are welcome.
Yes, indeed, it feels like Sir Arthur is addressing us directly: the next generation.
It is now up to us to realise the full potential of our species.

-jeroen

On Dec 16, 2007 6:23 AM, Feng Hsu <Feng.Hsu@nasa.gov> wrote:

Thanks Jeroen for sharing with all of us the great video message from Sir.
Arthur C. Clarke on his 90th completion of traveling around our solar orbit.

It's indeed quite an emotional and inspiring experience from going through
his video speech recorded from his adopted home in Sri Lanka. I highly
recommend anyone on this list to spend a few minutes to listening through A.
Clarke's profound message. I am sure that everyone will find his/her time
well spent to listen to the calls from the deepest human conscious and
vision of this great human being as his great message was really meant not
only for the "space cadets", but rather recorded for all fellow human beings
on this planet..... Again, I believe that the greatest possible contribution
to humanity from the "Space Cadets" around the globe will be to making the
"vertical expansions" of human presence in the Universe as early as
possible, so that our species will be forever survived and saved through
conscious elevation and transformation into a whole new loving and harmonic
civilization under the true power of "Overview Effects"!

Cheers & and Happy holidays to all,

Feng
NASA GSFC

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeroen Lapre [mailto:jeroen@ilm.com]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:41 PM
To: Maelstrom II Updates Blog; Alexander Jaeger; Jeff Hatchel; Larry Hoki;
Bob Frey; Matt Blackwell; Will McCoy; Lanny Cermak; Greg Hyman; Michael
Sanders; Michael Jamieson; Christopher Barnett; Christopher D. Barnett;
Chuck Marra; Daniel Marriott; M. Zachary Sherman; Todd Daniele; Stanley
VonMedvey; Missing Pixels; Mike Ludlam; Josh Lowden; Jon Varner; Jeroen
Lapre'; info@ellenmeijers.com; George Sakellariou; Fred Meyers; Ellen
Meijers; Eric Berminder; Andy Newall; Kim and Damian Steel; Daniel D. Durda;
David Lackner; Jay Trimble; Susmita Mohanty; Russell Schweickart; Roger

Arno; Randall Clague; Michael H Sims; Ken Galal; Larry Kellogg; Rochael M.
Soper, Esq.; Sean Casey; William Marshall; Bruce Damer; Allinaday@aol.com;
Ann Druyan; David Trounstine; David Trounstine; Vince Gerardis; Dr Robert
Zubrin; Alex Goodwin; Andrew Goreff; Audra Koklys; Bill Gilman; Brian
Brecht; Sean Curran; Chris Stott; David Hoffman; David Morris; Dennis Turner
- nobody in particular; Winston Leong; Wilson Tang;
wendell.mendell@jsc.nasa.gov; Vince DeQuattro; Vernor Vinge; Steve Weintz;
Stacy Campbell; Rod Bogart; Prashant Maharaj; Peter Giles; Nos Lapre; Mike
Smithwick; Michael Min; Lydia Choy; Lisa Chu-Thielbar; Joel Hagen; Ed
Kramer; Ed Kramer; Hael Kobayashi; GARY HARRISON; Eric Machmer; Emily
Lakdawalla; Wil McCarthy; Bela Brozsek; Rochael M. Soper, Esq.; Stacy
Campbell; Russell Galen; Randy Jonsson; Paul Giacoppo; Paul & Erin Giacoppo;
Neil deGrasse Tyson; Mike Ludlam; Alan Tonisson; Anthony Shafer; Eric
Berminder; Thomas Cochrane; Kevin Foley; Dane Smith; Peter Daulton; Aaron
Rowe; Mary T Duda; Joni White; Tterrence Masson; 'Toshi Hoo'; Bruce Damer;
Andrea Maiolo; Philip Metschan; Allinaday@aol.com; Ann Druyan; David
Trounstine; David Trounstine; Vince Gerardis; Dr Robert Zubrin; Alex
Goodwin; Andrew Goreff; Audra Koklys; Bill Gilman; Brian Brecht; Sean
Curran; Chris Stott; David Hoffman; David Morris; Dennis Turner - nobody in
particular; Winston Leong; Wilson Tang; wendell.mendell@jsc.nasa.gov; Vince
DeQuattro; Vernor Vinge; Steve Weintz; Stacy Campbell; Rod Bogart; Prashant
Maharaj; Peter Giles; Nos Lapre; Mike Smithwick; Michael Min; Lydia Choy;
Lisa Chu-Thielbar; Joel Hagen; Ed Kramer; Ed Kramer; Hael Kobayashi; GARY
HARRISON; Eric Machmer; Emily Lakdawalla; Wil McCarthy; Bela Brozsek;
Rochael M. Soper, Esq.; Stacy Campbell; Russell Galen; Randy Jonsson; Paul
Giacoppo; Paul & Erin Giacoppo; Neil deGrasse Tyson; Mike Ludlam; Alan
Tonisson; Anthony Shafer; Eric Berminder; Thomas Cochrane; Kevin Foley; Dane
Smith; Peter Daulton; Aaron Rowe; Mary T Duda; Joni White; Tterrence Masson;
'Toshi Hoo'; Bruce Damer; Andrea Maiolo; Philip Metschan; Wil McCarthy; Neil
deGrasse Tyson; Paul Werbos; paul.werbos@verizon.net;
Paul.A.Eckert@boeing.com; Neville Marzwell; mjc; Michael H Sims; Andrew
Goreff; ahoppin@arc.nasa.gov; Stanley VonMedvey; Philip Metschan; Philip
Metschan; Apollo.busby@yahoo.com; Bob Citron; BobKrone@aol.com ;
Borntobewired311@aol.com; Bruce Damer; bmh@evolve.org;
bpittman@alliancespace.net ; David Beaver; David Livingston; Howard Bloom;
fschowen@spacepartnerships.com; gregallison@a2zaerospace.com;

amaraa@gmail.com; Carter Emmart; Dr Robert Zubrin; Paul.A.Eckert@boeing.com;
Neville.I.Marzwell@jpl.nasa.gov ; 'Manny Pimenta'; LonnieSchorer@aol.com;
LOBY4SPACE@aol.com; Feng.Hsu@nasa.gov; Ed Lantz; Stanley VonMedvey; Miked
Sneed; Peter Garretson; Ed; Robin; Jeroen Lapre'; Philip Metschan; Philip
Metschan; David Lackner; Susmita Mohanty; Worden, Simon P. (ARC-D); Andrew
Hoppin; Andrew Hoppin; Robert Schingler; William Marshall; Tom Cochrane;
Thomas Cochrane; George Whitesides; Kemp, Christopher C. (ARC-D);
Lisa.L.Lockyer@nasa.gov; David Lackner; Bert Ulrich; Delia L. Santiago; Sean
Casey; Peter Robinson; Jessy Cowan-Sharp; Jessy Cowan-Sharp; LeeAnne
Haworth; Matt Everingham; Daphne Dador; Aaron Rowe; Larry Niven; Greg Bear;
Vernor Vinge; Vince Gerardis; Kevin Braithwaite; Joaquin Alvarado; Barrett
Fox; Louise Riofrio; Prof. Frank Porter; ILM indeproj; Jean-Hugues Lauret;
Joaquin Alvarado
Subject: Maelstrom II Update: Clarke Turns 90, Dec 16

Dear Maelstrom II Cast, Crew, Consultants, and Friends,

it is with some emotion I share this Maelstrom II update.

Sir Arthur C. Clarke will be turning 90, 16th December, 2007, Sri Lanka
time.
Which will be tomorrow, 15th December, San Francisco time.

I have updated the Maelstrom II website, with a news link at the top,
and the Clarke Side Bar Link with same.
It features a 9 minute YouTube video retrospective, of Sir Arthur's 90
orbits around our Sun.

You may need to refresh your browsers to see the updates:

http://www.distant-galaxy.com/maelstrom2/MaelstromII.html

If you do not see the update on the Maelstrom II page, you can view the
video directly here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qLdeEjdbWE

Best wishes,

Jeroen Lapre'
technical director
www.ilm.com

producer/director
www.distant-galaxy.com

--
-jeroen lapre
www.distant-galaxy.com
making science compelling

RE: Maelstrom II Update: Clarke Turns 90, Dec 16

Thanks Jeroen for sharing with all of us the great video message from Sir.
Arthur C. Clarke on his 90th completion of traveling around our solar orbit.

It's indeed quite an emotional and inspiring experience from going through
his video speech recorded from his adopted home in Sri Lanka. I highly
recommend anyone on this list to spend a few minutes to listening through A.
Clarke's profound message. I am sure that everyone will find his/her time
well spent to listen to the calls from the deepest human conscious and
vision of this great human being as his great message was really meant not
only for the "space cadets", but rather recorded for all fellow human beings
on this planet..... Again, I believe that the greatest possible contribution
to humanity from the "Space Cadets" around the globe will be to making the
"vertical expansions" of human presence in the Universe as early as
possible, so that our species will be forever survived and saved through
conscious elevation and transformation into a whole new loving and harmonic
civilization under the true power of "Overview Effects"!

Cheers & and Happy holidays to all,

Feng
NASA GSFC

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeroen Lapre [mailto:jeroen@ilm.com]
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 9:41 PM
To: Maelstrom II Updates Blog; Alexander Jaeger; Jeff Hatchel; Larry Hoki;
Bob Frey; Matt Blackwell; Will McCoy; Lanny Cermak; Greg Hyman; Michael
Sanders; Michael Jamieson; Christopher Barnett; Christopher D. Barnett;
Chuck Marra; Daniel Marriott; M. Zachary Sherman; Todd Daniele; Stanley
VonMedvey; Missing Pixels; Mike Ludlam; Josh Lowden; Jon Varner; Jeroen
Lapre'; info@ellenmeijers.com; George Sakellariou; Fred Meyers; Ellen
Meijers; Eric Berminder; Andy Newall; Kim and Damian Steel; Daniel D. Durda;
David Lackner; Jay Trimble; Susmita Mohanty; Russell Schweickart; Roger
Arno; Randall Clague; Michael H Sims; Ken Galal; Larry Kellogg; Rochael M.
Soper, Esq.; Sean Casey; William Marshall; Bruce Damer; Allinaday@aol.com;
Ann Druyan; David Trounstine; David Trounstine; Vince Gerardis; Dr Robert
Zubrin; Alex Goodwin; Andrew Goreff; Audra Koklys; Bill Gilman; Brian
Brecht; Sean Curran; Chris Stott; David Hoffman; David Morris; Dennis Turner
- nobody in particular; Winston Leong; Wilson Tang;
wendell.mendell@jsc.nasa.gov; Vince DeQuattro; Vernor Vinge; Steve Weintz;
Stacy Campbell; Rod Bogart; Prashant Maharaj; Peter Giles; Nos Lapre; Mike
Smithwick; Michael Min; Lydia Choy; Lisa Chu-Thielbar; Joel Hagen; Ed
Kramer; Ed Kramer; Hael Kobayashi; GARY HARRISON; Eric Machmer; Emily
Lakdawalla; Wil McCarthy; Bela Brozsek; Rochael M. Soper, Esq.; Stacy
Campbell; Russell Galen; Randy Jonsson; Paul Giacoppo; Paul & Erin Giacoppo;
Neil deGrasse Tyson; Mike Ludlam; Alan Tonisson; Anthony Shafer; Eric
Berminder; Thomas Cochrane; Kevin Foley; Dane Smith; Peter Daulton; Aaron
Rowe; Mary T Duda; Joni White; Tterrence Masson; 'Toshi Hoo'; Bruce Damer;
Andrea Maiolo; Philip Metschan; Allinaday@aol.com; Ann Druyan; David
Trounstine; David Trounstine; Vince Gerardis; Dr Robert Zubrin; Alex
Goodwin; Andrew Goreff; Audra Koklys; Bill Gilman; Brian Brecht; Sean
Curran; Chris Stott; David Hoffman; David Morris; Dennis Turner - nobody in
particular; Winston Leong; Wilson Tang; wendell.mendell@jsc.nasa.gov; Vince
DeQuattro; Vernor Vinge; Steve Weintz; Stacy Campbell; Rod Bogart; Prashant
Maharaj; Peter Giles; Nos Lapre; Mike Smithwick; Michael Min; Lydia Choy;
Lisa Chu-Thielbar; Joel Hagen; Ed Kramer; Ed Kramer; Hael Kobayashi; GARY
HARRISON; Eric Machmer; Emily Lakdawalla; Wil McCarthy; Bela Brozsek;
Rochael M. Soper, Esq.; Stacy Campbell; Russell Galen; Randy Jonsson; Paul
Giacoppo; Paul & Erin Giacoppo; Neil deGrasse Tyson; Mike Ludlam; Alan
Tonisson; Anthony Shafer; Eric Berminder; Thomas Cochrane; Kevin Foley; Dane
Smith; Peter Daulton; Aaron Rowe; Mary T Duda; Joni White; Tterrence Masson;
'Toshi Hoo'; Bruce Damer; Andrea Maiolo; Philip Metschan; Wil McCarthy; Neil
deGrasse Tyson; Paul Werbos; paul.werbos@verizon.net;
Paul.A.Eckert@boeing.com; Neville Marzwell; mjc; Michael H Sims; Andrew
Goreff; ahoppin@arc.nasa.gov; Stanley VonMedvey; Philip Metschan; Philip
Metschan; Apollo.busby@yahoo.com; Bob Citron; BobKrone@aol.com;
Borntobewired311@aol.com; Bruce Damer; bmh@evolve.org;
bpittman@alliancespace.net; David Beaver; David Livingston; Howard Bloom;
fschowen@spacepartnerships.com; gregallison@a2zaerospace.com;
amaraa@gmail.com; Carter Emmart; Dr Robert Zubrin; Paul.A.Eckert@boeing.com;
Neville.I.Marzwell@jpl.nasa.gov; 'Manny Pimenta'; LonnieSchorer@aol.com;
LOBY4SPACE@aol.com; Feng.Hsu@nasa.gov; Ed Lantz; Stanley VonMedvey; Miked
Sneed; Peter Garretson; Ed; Robin; Jeroen Lapre'; Philip Metschan; Philip
Metschan; David Lackner; Susmita Mohanty; Worden, Simon P. (ARC-D); Andrew
Hoppin; Andrew Hoppin; Robert Schingler; William Marshall; Tom Cochrane;
Thomas Cochrane; George Whitesides; Kemp, Christopher C. (ARC-D);
Lisa.L.Lockyer@nasa.gov; David Lackner; Bert Ulrich; Delia L. Santiago; Sean
Casey; Peter Robinson; Jessy Cowan-Sharp; Jessy Cowan-Sharp; LeeAnne
Haworth; Matt Everingham; Daphne Dador; Aaron Rowe; Larry Niven; Greg Bear;
Vernor Vinge; Vince Gerardis; Kevin Braithwaite; Joaquin Alvarado; Barrett
Fox; Louise Riofrio; Prof. Frank Porter; ILM indeproj; Jean-Hugues Lauret;
Joaquin Alvarado
Subject: Maelstrom II Update: Clarke Turns 90, Dec 16

Dear Maelstrom II Cast, Crew, Consultants, and Friends,

it is with some emotion I share this Maelstrom II update.

Sir Arthur C. Clarke will be turning 90, 16th December, 2007, Sri Lanka
time.
Which will be tomorrow, 15th December, San Francisco time.

I have updated the Maelstrom II website, with a news link at the top,
and the Clarke Side Bar Link with same.
It features a 9 minute YouTube video retrospective, of Sir Arthur's 90
orbits around our Sun.

You may need to refresh your browsers to see the updates:

http://www.distant-galaxy.com/maelstrom2/MaelstromII.html

If you do not see the update on the Maelstrom II page, you can view the
video directly here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qLdeEjdbWE

Best wishes,

Jeroen Lapre'
technical director
www.ilm.com

producer/director
www.distant-galaxy.com

Saturday, December 15, 2007

Re: Maelstrom II Update: Clarke Turns 90, Dec 16

Please find attached digital birthday card I sent to Sir Arthur.
Cheers
-jeroen

On Dec 14, 2007 6:40 PM, Jeroen Lapre <jeroen@ilm.com > wrote:

Dear Maelstrom II Cast, Crew, Consultants, and Friends,

it is with some emotion I share this Maelstrom II update.

Sir Arthur C. Clarke will be turning 90, 16th December, 2007, Sri Lanka
time.
Which will be tomorrow, 15th December, San Francisco time.

I have updated the Maelstrom II website, with a news link at the top,
and the Clarke Side Bar Link with same.
It features a 9 minute YouTube video retrospective, of Sir Arthur's 90
orbits around our Sun.

You may need to refresh your browsers to see the updates:

http://www.distant-galaxy.com/maelstrom2/MaelstromII.html

If you do not see the update on the Maelstrom II page, you can view the
video directly here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qLdeEjdbWE

Best wishes,

Jeroen Lapre'
technical director
www.ilm.com

producer/director
www.distant-galaxy.com

--
-jeroen lapre
www.distant-galaxy.com
making science compelling

Friday, December 14, 2007

Maelstrom II Update: Clarke Turns 90, Dec 16

Dear Maelstrom II Cast, Crew, Consultants, and Friends,

it is with some emotion I share this Maelstrom II update.

Sir Arthur C. Clarke will be turning 90, 16th December, 2007, Sri Lanka
time.
Which will be tomorrow, 15th December, San Francisco time.

You may need to refresh your browsers to see the updates:

http://www.distant-galaxy.com/maelstrom2/MaelstromII.html

If you do not see the update on the Maelstrom II page, you can view the
video directly here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qLdeEjdbWE

Best wishes,

Jeroen Lapre'
technical director
www.ilm.com

producer/director
www.distant-galaxy.com

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Fwd: Save a half a trillion $ a year--SSP as WAR PREVENTION

TO: HU & ALL,

Having s similar USAF background (1952-1975) to Hu's, including being a bomb commander (F-100s and F-105s) and Chief of the Nuclear Policy Section for SACEUR/NATO (1971-1974) as well as

combat in Vietnam, I endorse Hu's comments and know that with very few exceptions, every military person who had to fight wished that society and policymakers had found other ways to resolve problems. In the end, we know that given a choice between fighting and losing the freedoms, liberty, and values of democracy ... we fought. But it always was with regret. And those of us with responsibility on the nuclear side knew that it was the awareness of impacts up to Nuclear Winters

that made deterrence work and contributed to winning the Cold War. Now the probability of that deterrence working has dropped.

I'm talking to the National Museum of the Air Force, at Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton on 23 October. The title is "The 2007 Meaning of the Vietnam War." The macro issues of science and technology's advances where human extinction is under serious study propells this "SSP as a

War Prevention Potential'" into a critically important emerging issue. I'll include it at Dayton.

Bob Krone

******************************** ***************************************
Bob Krone, Ph.D. E-mail= BobKrone@aol.com
Krone Associates of Fallbrook, California, U.S.A.

See what's new at AOL.com and Make AOL Your Homepage.

Tuesday, October 09, 2007

Arthur C. Clarke's Maelstrom II: 2nd Task - Shot CD003 Match-a-mation

Dear Maelstrom II match-a-mators,

here is our 2nd match-a-mation shot / task:

http://www.distant-galaxy.com/maelstrom2/Sequences/CountDownSeq/M2AnimaticCD0038OctK7.html

For those whom may have missed the 1st one, here it is again:

http://www.distant-galaxy.com/maelstrom2/Sequences/CountDownSeq/M2CD_R1B_S03T1_1OctK7.html

When time permits, I'll start building the digital board pages with image links to these tasks, as they grow.

Cheers
-jeroen

Thursday, October 04, 2007

[Fwd: Arthur C. Clarke's Maelstrom II Update: 1st Match-a-mation Task]

Tuesday, September 25, 2007

Please remove Maelstrom II Emails from Space Threads

Somehow my Maelstrom II mailing list has been included in Space-related
threads.
My apologies to Maelstrom II crew, consultants, and friends for the
unintended space-related emails.
Please take a moment to remove Maelstrom II email addresses (at end of
my reply) from any future space-related replies.

Sincerely,
Jeroen

================
Maelstrom II mailing list:

Paul Werbos wrote:
> At 12:05 AM 09/25/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>> Paul,
>>
>> Decision options don't have to be deterministic at all.
>
>
> Of course they don't.
>
> I mentioned how we have developed the mathematics for a new class of
> stochastic optimization methods which, for
> the first time, overcome the classic curse of dimensionality which has
> limited well-known
> classical methods like decision trees.
>
> However, I also mentioned a basic feature of these methods --
>
> under situations of serious uncertainty (both good uncertainty and
> bad, hopes and fears),
> the optimal strategy which pops out is often NOT a rigid future plan
> or rigid commitment, say, to
> a single energy source for the entire world. Even simple decision
> trees lead us to things
> like wildcat drilling, buying information, and keeping options open to
> the extent that
> this does not lead to paralysis or unaffordable delay. More
> sophisticated
> intelligent systems can account for the fact that there is OTHER
> INTELLIGENCE
> out there as well, such as that of energy producers; if we make
> decisions without
> accounting for that reality, we are acting on a false premise.
>
> One question in that vein: is it possible that there is a creative
> chemist out there who
> knows a noncarbon liquid fuel better for cars than hydrazine hydrate
> (HH)? Perhaps even in
> Exxon Research itself? I wouldn't assert that there is, but it's a
> possibility worth
> allowing for -- along with a lot of other possibilities.
>
> But still I have to admit that I see more hope for better batteries
> right now than for
> anything else to store energy for cars and trucks. As an example,
> someone really needs to follow up on the
> kind of new directions proposed by Sadoway last week... click on
> Sadoway at
> http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/phev/program.asp..
>
> Best of luck to us all,
>
> Paul
>
>
>
>
>

Re: Technology drive market or allowing market force to drive energy technologies?

At 12:05 AM 09/25/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>Paul,
>
>Decision options don't have to be deterministic at all.

Of course they don't.

I mentioned how we have developed the mathematics for a new class of
stochastic optimization methods which, for
the first time, overcome the classic curse of dimensionality which
has limited well-known
classical methods like decision trees.

However, I also mentioned a basic feature of these methods --

under situations of serious uncertainty (both good uncertainty and
bad, hopes and fears),
the optimal strategy which pops out is often NOT a rigid future plan
or rigid commitment, say, to
a single energy source for the entire world. Even simple decision
trees lead us to things
like wildcat drilling, buying information, and keeping options open
to the extent that
this does not lead to paralysis or unaffordable delay. More sophisticated
intelligent systems can account for the fact that there is OTHER INTELLIGENCE
out there as well, such as that of energy producers; if we make
decisions without
accounting for that reality, we are acting on a false premise.

One question in that vein: is it possible that there is a creative
chemist out there who
knows a noncarbon liquid fuel better for cars than hydrazine hydrate
(HH)? Perhaps even in
Exxon Research itself? I wouldn't assert that there is, but it's a
possibility worth
allowing for -- along with a lot of other possibilities.

But still I have to admit that I see more hope for better batteries
right now than for
anything else to store energy for cars and trucks. As an example,
someone really needs to follow up on the
kind of new directions proposed by Sadoway last week... click on Sadoway at
http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/phev/program.asp..

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

RE: hydrazine hydrate and energy from space

Hi, folks!

I am sorry if I came across too strong on the hydrazine hydrate option.

Looking more closely at the Daihatsu article... their proposal for how to
store the stuff on a car sounds a bit like a kludge, and they say
nothing about fuel flexibility.

In preliminary checks, I haven't yet heard any problems with HH
compared to say, methanol,
for hoses and valves and engines. But what they say about the gas
tank itself is not so encouraging.

--------------------------------------------------

Let's go back to the context.

There is something unpleasant about the idea of powering the US car
and truck fleet from reprocessing
fumes from coal plants.

Worst case -- the best we KNOW we can do cost-effectively with cars
is optimally
controlled plug-in hybrids with a 40 mile driving range, leaving us
still with about one-quarter of
the energy to come from liquid fuels, unless we cut into people's
standard of living.
Maybe biofuels can supply all that, if we have full GEM flexibility
in cars; maybe not.

So people have asked -- what could energy from space do here, to
improve the situation?

MAINLY it could supply electricity, which is not at all the same
thing. We already have electricity,
and the means to expand it. Energy from space can help us get better
and maybe even cheaper electricity,
but that doesn't really help us with the car fuel problem as such.

So some people have suggested... what about OTHER liquid fuels
besides biofuels?

It they have to have carbon, and we want some degree of economic
reality, it comes back to processing
waste streams from coal-fired plants. Unless we can think of something better.

This in turn comes back to an old question which has been nagging at me:

What are the chances of non-carbon LIQUID fuels? (Given that straight
hydrogen really is off the map.)

HH is better than hydrogen, but that may be like saying disease is
better than death;
it is true, but is it good enough?

*I really regret seeming to recommend that GEMH flexibility should be
an explicit part of
any legislation this year. It is certainly premature, at best, when
the questions are unresolved.
A better way for folks like the oil companies would be to support the
GEM proposals already there,
recognizing that it opens up markets for many CARBON-BASED
alternative fuels that are very real
product possibilities for them near-term, and that it MAY allow other
possibilities.*

An obvious question is: is HH really the best that NAIST and Toyota
could find, for noncarbon based fuels for
cars, after a very extensive and well-informed search?

Are we stuck with 40-mile batteries, biofuels and exhaust from coal
plants, short of a breakthrough?

One corollary, of course: since breakthroughs in batteries seem
POSSIBLE, we should be doing a whole
lot more to try to get them.

For a proposal to make this real, go to

http://www.ieeeusa.org/policy/phev/program.asp,
and then click on "Sadoway."

And there are a few other possibilities...

And there may yet be a noncarbon liquid fuel better for cars than HH.
Who knows?
Still, HH for aviation still sounds worth considering.

Best of luck to us all

Monday, September 24, 2007

RE: [global-energy] hydrazine hydrate and market-based energychoices in general

Dear friends, I followed your excited discussions about HH and other
alternative fuel options and would like to refer to my presentation in
Seattle, where I pointed out that the fuel age will be over very soon for
obvious reasons: low thermal engine efficiency, pollution, health hazards,
logistics, cost, resource depletion etc. - all thermal machines belong to
the technical museum for good, except maybe for space propulsion. Forget any
fuels including hydrogen, hydrogen peroxide, fossil derivates, bio fuels
(stealing fertile soils from food production of a growing and hungry
population) etc. We live in the electrical age for the remainder of
humanity - remember my speech "Energy in the next 1000 years" !! See also
www.uniseo.org > Clean Transport.
Kind regards Gustav

Gustav R. Grob, President
International Clean Energy Consortium ICEC
Gewerbezone 3d, CH-6315 Morgarten-Zug
T: +41-41-754-4090 F: +41-41-750-9020 E: grob@icec.ch
Chairman of ISO/TC203/WG3 Energy Systems Analyses & Statistics
Founder-Chairman of ISO/TC197 on Hydrogen Energy Technologies
Board Member of the International Energy Foundation IEF
Executive Secretary of ISEO, Geneva
POB 200, CH-1211 Geneva 20
T: +41-22-910-3006 F: +41-22-910-3014
E: info@uniseo.org mailto:info@uniseo.org
I:

www.uniseo.org <http://www.uniseo.org/>

-----Original Message-----
From: Feng Hsu [mailto:Feng.Hsu@NASA.GOV]
Sent: Montag, 24. September 2007 23:15

Paul,

"Deciding or making assessments on better energy or any technologies" does
not have to be "deterministic". In fact, it should be probabilistic-based or
use of both approaches. I agree that we can take full advantages of the
market forces (same as making use of full advantages of the positive side of
the human nature) while avoiding allow the market force to drive everything
to the realm of unknowns. Because in doing so, it makes no difference from
allowing the use of all attributes of human nature to drive the future of
our own fate. Again, it is a choice that human must make. If we allow the
commercial force to drive our economy, then there is a price to pay and a
risk to take. If the risk is too high, in terms of self-destructions and
man-made planetary ruins, then such risk level is simply unacceptable to
humanity!

The Russians and the Chinese style planning economy in communist forms were
extreme forms of the so-called planning socialist economies. The failure of
their planned economies was in their anti-democracy and anti-human nature
political system. Just to the contrary, under such corrupted political
system, the intelligent members of their society, the well-educated folks
were largely oppressed and even eliminated for the sake of fooling the mass
public just to try to hanging on to their power at whatever costs.....

Yes, there is also some price to pay for the consumers in adapting to a
clean energy source (hopefully for a short period), as far as such price is
relatively much lower: like what the German government is doing to their
consumers by charging a few cents extra per kilowatt to subsidize their
solar energy R&Ds, and like the states of California (or Nevada and Utah)
are charging a bit more from their citizens to subsidize the solar energy
development, and like what China is doing to require all public buildings 4
or more floors to install solar power systems. I am talking about things
like such government guided human creativities, and these are obviously the
right thing to do, in stead of curving to the pressures of the current
market (or political) forces that are primarily driven by industrial
establishments and by human greedy!

Best regards,

Feng

At 03:30 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>I realize and understand the needs and reasons why people doing all
>businesses for the conveniences of the consumers, therefore for
>maximizing profits of the established industries given the present
>market-driven (or
>money-driven) political systems. However, there is an issue of choice
>for humanity, as to whether mankind should always allow existing
>commercial market force to drive the future of our economy, or should
>we doing things
a
>bit smarter to allow sound & promising technologies driving our future
>economy? Professor Marty H. of NYU and I brought this issue for
>discussions at the FFF's Energy conference in Seattle and we both felt
>very strongly that the future of mankind will be much better-off and we
>will be encountering much less "troubles or unknown human disasters" if
>we choose the latter, meaning to allow sound and better technologies
>(especially energy technologies) to drive the future of humanity.

It is not at all a cheap shot to say that many very intelligent people in
Russia took a very similar position circa 1920 -- why do we not decide on a
better plan in advance, and stick to it? And if oil lobbyists get in the
way, why not do what was done recently to the Yukos guy?

It really worked to some extent for awhile... but as technology became more
and more complex, deterministic planning in advance from the center became
less and less viable. It collapsed. There comes a time when honest,
competent people need to admit that NO ONE ON EARTH has enough knowledge to
mandate such a fixed blueprint, defining the "winners."

DOE (having many folks who think a bit like some of those wise folks) has
discovered how it is possible to MAKE technology X the RELATIVE winner, by
simply starving all competent or high-potential alternatives. Space solar
power is not on their list for funding.

Furthermore -- those of us who fully understand the mathematics of trying to
find an optimal strategy of action in a nonlinear stochastic world
understand how the optimal strategy is typically just too complex for
planners to understand, or for the political process to handle. It is simply
a lot more efficient to WORK WITH NATURE, as they say in classical medicine,
rather than neglecting what it offers.
We don't need to let the market decide EVERYTHING, in order to get great
advantage from it.
Until this month, I thought that the new China government really understood
that.

I do not see China doing as well as the US, even, in following up on serious
possibilities for energy from space.
Whatever the reasons and whatever the excuses -- "by their fruits you will
know them."
Though I hope that both countries (both sets of people) have a lot more hope
to do things that are genuinely useful in the future.

In the case of car fuel, the lowest COST of generating liquid fuels is a
legitimate factor in making the future decision, as are consumer
preferences. The market tells us real information much better than any other
way to get the information. We will probably be able to improve on market
information later, ONCE WE HAVE IT as a starting point -- but we need to
have it first.

I do not see China passing laws requiring GEMH fuel flexibility OR global
progress on plug-in hybrids either.

Also.. the optimal strategy will involve an adaptive MIX of fuels over time,
different in different market segments and in different parts of the world.
One meataxe solution developed in Washington or Beijing would not fit the
whole world at all times! Because oil dependency is SO dangerous and growing
SO quickly, we cannot afford a less than optimal strategy which does not
mobilize ALL WE HAVE to make our world safer.

Best of luck, Paul

_________________________________________________________________
To Post: mailto:global-energy@mp.cim3.net Msg Archives:
http://mp.cim3.net/forum/global-energy/

Technology drive market or allowing market force to drive energy technologies?

Paul,

Decision options don't have to be deterministic at all. There can be
conditional options and choice of policies for technological and economic
development strategies. Our options today could be (by rank of expected
returns) "A" conditional of "C*D" or else "B" conditional of "E*F" or else
"C or C'" conditional of "G*H*I...."; It can be a stochastic-based decision
process that taking into considerations of both known & unknown parameters
and their uncertainty distributions while maximizing our expected societal
returns. In fact it's kind of multi-objective and multi-constraints
mathematical programming issues in technical terms. Say for instance, if the
US government allowed large amount of R&D funds for the nuclear industry and
the policy continued for nearly half a century, then it is wise to continue
the level of support if 40 decades later we do see that nuclear energy have
helped solving the bulk of our energy problems and that the unintended
troubles or consequences were not nearly what we all see today. Otherwise,
we need to reduce (or even stop) the support for nuclear power and allowing
options of renewable energies like solar/SSP or others to have a chance,
shouldn't we? If we allowed the creation of nuclear technology by ourselves,
in theory it is not possible to prevent other nations to do the same thing
or preventing others to follow the creative footsteps of our won fellow
human beings on the planet? That is why on the one hand nuclear brought us
good life styles of massive electricity consumptions while at the meantime
we are so busy and so close to going into wars to fight against others from
having the same technology. Doesn't that the neat returns of "improving our
quality of lives" through technology creations simply gets diminished by the
same very technology we have developed?! This is precisely why we need to be
smarter on technology creations and can't just do anything without using our
brains that God gave us for a reason.

SSP concept was studied and killed in the late 1970s by then the powerful
nuclear lobbyists and never allowed a chance and the government is now
continuing to ignore any activities in this regard. Isn't it a wise policy?
That is why I said nuclear has had 40 years of chance to thrive and it did
not meet expectations/conditions of what were believed to be, and it
certainly has not been too cheap for the utilities to even give up their
need of metering the consumers.....

Humans are capable of creating both constructive and destructive forces and
making tremendous progress toward economic developments while at the same
time we also making tremendous amount of troubles for ourselves and that is
why we see WARs and destructions on a daily basis. What we need to do is to
maximizing the constructive side of human activities while trying hard to
minimize the destructive side of our activities, and this will never be
possible if we just allow the "market force" (or raw human nature) to drive
the fate of our future. If we do things well, we should see relative
enduring world peace and quality of lives for majority of our fellow beings.
Otherwise, if we do see too many wars and too many issues and troubles for
everyone to bear, then we haven't done things so well, haven't we?!

Best of luck to us all,

Feng

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Werbos
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 5:47 PM
To: Feng.Hsu; 'Global Energy Network'; 'Richard Godwin'; of funding
BobKrone
Subject: RE: hydrazine hydrate and market-based energy choices in general

At 05:15 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>Paul,
>
>"Deciding or making assessments on better energy or any technologies" does
>not have to be "deterministic".

Making **A** choice for what **IS BEST** implies certainty about what is
best.
That's not a stochastic policy.

If we allow the
>commercial force to drive our economy, then there is a price to pay and a
>risk to take. If the risk is too high, in terms of self-destructions and
>man-made planetary ruins, then such risk level is simply unacceptable to
>humanity!

I have never said to use ONLY the raw market. I have actually called
for intervention
to strengthen market competition, and that is a kind of intervention.
And lots more effective R&D.

But as a practical matter, we cannot dictate a single energy source
or carrier for
the entire world. Improved market competition is an important PART of
the solution,
a tool we must make use of, along with all other tools.

I do not see China guiding us to a faster deployment of space solar power,
even though they trust markets less than we do.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

Arthur C. Clarke's Maelstrom II Update: Third of Edit Locked!

Dear Maesltrom II Crew, Consultants, and Friends,

I am pleased to inform you that the first third of the Maelstrom II edit is locked!

The website has been updated with these latest animatics:

http://www.distant-galaxy.com/maelstrom2/MaelstromII.html

There is now a link in the left sidebar called Animatics.
You may need to refresh your browser to see the updates.

Click on the Animatics link to go to the animatics page.

Now that these shots have been locked, this means that we can assign visual effects tasks for the shots, toward the completion of the film.

Best wishes,

--
-jeroen lapre
digital artist
www.ilm.com

producer/director
www.distant-galaxy.com
making science compelling

RE: hydrazine hydrate and market-based energy choices in general

At 05:15 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>Paul,
>
>"Deciding or making assessments on better energy or any technologies" does
>not have to be "deterministic".

Making **A** choice for what **IS BEST** implies certainty about what is best.
That's not a stochastic policy.

I have never said to use ONLY the raw market. I have actually called
for intervention
to strengthen market competition, and that is a kind of intervention.
And lots more effective R&D.

I do not see China guiding us to a faster deployment of space solar power,
even though they trust markets less than we do.

Best of luck to us all,

Paul

RE: hydrazine hydrate and market-based energy choices in general

Paul,

Best regards,

Feng

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Werbos [mailto:pwerbos@nsf.gov]
Sent: Monday, September 24, 2007 4:07 PM
To: Feng.Hsu@NASA.GOV; 'Global Energy Network'; 'Richard Godwin'; 'Paul J.
Werbos, Dr.'; BobKrone@aol.com
Cc: edillin@lucasfilm.com; hylanblyon@cebridge.net; missingpixels@gmail.com;
george_sakellariou@yahoo.com; lzielinski@comcast.net; sontermj@tpg.com.au;
sel@ilm.com; asuter@ilm.com; Neville.I.Marzwell@jpl.nasa.gov;
Aweisbrod@aol.com; studiomooncat@ntlworld.com; mindsmagic@nc.rr.com;
cacarberry@yahoo.com; info@hobbyspace.com; HowlBloom@aol.com;
jlowden@skysound.com; sendtochuck@charter.net; willjwatson@gmail.com;
lanny@ilm.com; jeroen-lapre.maelstrom2Updates@blogger.com; dslavin@ilm.com;
jamieson@ilm.com; kcox12@houston.rr.com; stanley.vonmedvey@gmail.com;
chrism@ilm.com; lead.3d.artist@gmail.com; fjmeyers@gmail.com;
ellen@ellenmeijers.com; LonnieSchorer@aol.com; nansens@centurytel.net;
amaraa@gmail.com; arcoscielos@yahoo.com; jeroen@ilm.com;
ericberm@bermweb.net; scurran@ilm.com; joshua@xprize.org;
hjarrett@futron.com; brianf@ilm.com; alx@ilm.com;
gregallison@a2zaerospace.com; edward.d.mccullough@boeing.com;
bpittman@alliancespace.net; damian@ilm.com; cbarnett@skysound.com;
mho@ilm.com; chrisbarnett@mac.com; Apollo.busby@yahoo.com;
mitc1615@bellsouth.net; bfrey@ilm.com; Rob.Coleman@lucasfilm.com;
bmh@evolve.org; jeroen-lapre@distant-galaxy.com; hyman@ilm.com;
info@ellenmeijers.com; jeffh@ilm.com; CRD9138@aol.com;
jthalterman@comcast.net; LOBY4SPACE@aol.com; aec@ilm.com;
charleslurio@mac.com; m.schwab@homeplanetdefense.org; amtravis@ilm.com;
jediarizona@yahoo.com; bkb@lucasfilm.com; anewall@comcast.net;
fschowen@spacepartnerships.com; moh@ilm.com; DrBeck@attglobal.net;
samurai@ilm.com; wmccoy@ilm.com; Jamesmsnead@aol.com; sanders@ilm.com;
dlivings@davidlivingston.com; phoebehelefante@gmail.com;
Manny@Lunarexplorer.com; Borntobewired311@aol.com; mattpb@ilm.com;
george@nss.org; johng@telascience.org; mikedludlam@hotmail.com;
tallguy@ilm.com; Wingod@assure.com; Astrolaw@aol.com; BobKrone@aol.com;
kimdamian@comcast.net; michael@clauss.com; rmains@mainsgate.com;
robin.snelson@gmail.com; joberg@houston.rr.com; Paul.A.Eckert@boeing.com;
smack@ilm.com; toddda2@todddaniele.com; ricktumlinson@gmail.com;
wendell.mendell@jsc.nasa.gov; cape@ilm.com
Subject: RE: hydrazine hydrate and market-based energy choices in general

At 03:30 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>I realize and understand the needs and reasons why people doing all
>businesses for the conveniences of the consumers, therefore for maximizing
>profits of the established industries given the present market-driven (or
>money-driven) political systems. However, there is an issue of choice for
>humanity, as to whether mankind should always allow existing commercial
>market force to drive the future of our economy, or should we doing things
a
>bit smarter to allow sound & promising technologies driving our future
>economy? Professor Marty H. of NYU and I brought this issue for discussions
>at the FFF's Energy conference in Seattle and we both felt very strongly
>that the future of mankind will be much better-off and we will be
>encountering much less "troubles or unknown human disasters" if we choose
>the latter, meaning to allow sound and better technologies (especially
>energy technologies) to drive the future of humanity.

It is not at all a cheap shot to say that many very intelligent
people in Russia
took a very similar position circa 1920 -- why do we not decide on
a better plan in advance, and stick to it? And if oil lobbyists get
in the way, why not do
what was done recently to the Yukos guy?

It really worked to some extent for awhile... but as technology became more
and more complex, deterministic planning in advance from the center became
less and less viable. It collapsed. There comes a time when honest,
competent people
need to admit that NO ONE ON EARTH has enough knowledge to mandate
such a fixed blueprint, defining the "winners."

DOE (having many folks who think a bit like some of those wise folks)
has discovered how
it is possible to MAKE technology X the RELATIVE winner, by simply
starving all competent
or high-potential alternatives. Space solar power is not on their
list for funding.

Furthermore -- those of us who fully understand the mathematics
of trying to find an optimal strategy of action in a nonlinear
stochastic world understand how
the optimal strategy is typically just too complex for planners to
understand, or for
the political process to handle. It is simply a lot more efficient to
WORK WITH NATURE,
as they say in classical medicine, rather than neglecting what it offers.
We don't need to let the market decide EVERYTHING, in order to get
great advantage from it.
Until this month, I thought that the new China government really
understood that.

I do not see China doing as well as the US, even, in following up on
serious possibilities for energy from space.
Whatever the reasons and whatever the excuses -- "by their fruits you
will know them."
Though I hope that both countries (both sets of people) have a lot
more hope to do things that are genuinely useful in the future.

In the case of car fuel, the lowest COST of generating liquid fuels
is a legitimate factor in making
the future decision, as are consumer preferences. The market tells us
real information much better
than any other way to get the information. We will probably be able
to improve on market information later,
ONCE WE HAVE IT as a starting point -- but we need to have it first.

I do not see China passing laws requiring GEMH fuel flexibility OR
global progress on plug-in hybrids either.

Also.. the optimal strategy will involve an adaptive MIX of fuels
over time, different in different market segments
and in different parts of the world. One meataxe solution developed
in Washington or Beijing would not fit the whole
world at all times! Because oil dependency is SO dangerous and
growing SO quickly, we cannot
afford a less than optimal strategy which does not mobilize ALL WE
HAVE to make our world safer.

Best of luck,

Paul

RE: hydrazine hydrate and market-based energy choices in general

At 03:30 PM 09/24/2007, Feng Hsu wrote:
>I realize and understand the needs and reasons why people doing all
>businesses for the conveniences of the consumers, therefore for maximizing
>profits of the established industries given the present market-driven (or
>money-driven) political systems. However, there is an issue of choice for
>humanity, as to whether mankind should always allow existing commercial
>market force to drive the future of our economy, or should we doing things a
>bit smarter to allow sound & promising technologies driving our future
>economy? Professor Marty H. of NYU and I brought this issue for discussions
>at the FFF's Energy conference in Seattle and we both felt very strongly
>that the future of mankind will be much better-off and we will be
>encountering much less "troubles or unknown human disasters" if we choose
>the latter, meaning to allow sound and better technologies (especially
>energy technologies) to drive the future of humanity.