Text Size

Stardrive

Tag » NASA
Dec 06

100 Year Starship Update Dec 6, 2013 Low Power Warp Drive

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Warp Drive, superconducting meta-material, NASA, DARPA, 100 Year Star Ship
  1. Jack Sarfatti ‏@JackSarfatti14h

    physicsworld.com/cws/article/ne…

    Expand
     
  2. Jack Sarfatti ‏@JackSarfatti13h

    @JackSarfatti superconducting metamaterial

     
     Hide conversation
     
     
     
    10:23 PM - 5 Dec 13 · Details
    Reply to @JackSarfatti 
    Image will appear as a link
  3. Jack Sarfatti ‏@JackSarfattinow

    @JackSarfatti I envisioned such a material for low power warp drive in my 11-1-11 @DARPA @NASA Orlando talk @100YSS

Aug 15

John Cramer's paper in Jim Woodward's Starship book

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: wormhole, UFO, NASA, Making Starships and Star Gates, John Cramer, James Woodward, flying saucers, DARPA, 100 Year Star Ship

 

Jack Sarfatti
2 seconds ago
John Cramer's paper in Jim Woodward's Starship book
Like ·  · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti 1) Cramer continues: “The propulsion effects observed so far are quite small, but not so small as to be useless … because of the G-in-denominator and their strong frequency dependence, the inertial transients can in principle produce very large propulsion forces. … Personal flying cars and reactionless heavy-lift Earth-to-orbit space vehicles cannot be ruled out …” That is precisely, what the good flying saucer evidence suggests. “ … the most interesting inertial transient … is the ‘second term,’ which is always negative and can in principle drive the inertial mass to zero or negative values … needed to stabilize wormholes and produce superluminal warp drives.” OK, here is the crux of Woodward’s conjectures that are beyond the fringe of mainstream physics today. For a long time I have wrestled with this. It seems obviously crackpot, so how can John Cramer take it seriously. Also Woodward is not a crackpot. So what was I missing? As Richard Feynman told me in his Cal Tech office in the late 1960’s. “What you cannot calculate yourself, you do not understand.” I saw a lot of nonsense about the reduction of inertial mass from the material binding energy, but of course, that really is nonsense, since it would destroy the material. Then it struck me. Analogous to Lenny Susskind’s “horizon complementarity” in his world hologram model, it all depends on who is looking. For example in the Alcubierre toy model for warp drive, Alice inside the warp bubble is not moving at all. More precisely, Alice is on a local timelike weightless zero g-force geodesic in her local tensor curvature field. In contrast, Bob outside the warp bubble of the starship “sees” superluminal speed of the starship. Similarly, in horizon complementarity, Bob far away from the black hole’s surface horizon never sees weightless Alice freely fall into the black hole on her radially inward timelike geodesic. Indeed, Alice’s image will appear to Bob to spread out all over the surface of the black hole. There is also the issue of a redshift.[i] Alice, however, will not feel anything unusual at the horizon if the classical equivalence principle[ii] is correct. – unless there is a firewall. Therefore, the apparent change in the inertia of the starship should only be seen by the external observer outside the warp bubble. Everything should appear quite normal inside the warp bubble. More precisely it is the nonlocal Mach screening factor C that changes not the intrinsic local inertia from the Higgs-Goldstone coherent vacuum superconductor field plus the confined real quarks in the virtual gluon/quark-antiquark plasma of SU3 quantum chromodynamics.[iii]

    [i] The gravity redshift only should apply for static LNIF emitters, for example, excited atoms of essentially fixed position (static equilibrium) in the Sun or emitters fixed in the Harvard tower etc.. Therefore, photons emitted by LIF electrons falling through the black hole surface horizon should not redshift if the equivalence principle is correct. A locally coincident static LNIF in the gravity curvature field outside the horizon will redshift.

    [ii] Special relativity works in a LIF.

    [iii] P = CmV = 4-momentum of center of mass of starship seen by external observer

    F = DP/ds = CDP/ds + PdC/ds Newton’s 2nd law of motion

    D/ds is the covariant derivative relative to the starships invariant proper time along its local worldline

    F = external real 4-force on starship’s center of mass

    The Woodward propellantless propulsion term is PdC/ds as far as I can make sense of his proposal. Propellantless propulsion corresponds to F = 0. 

    In contrast, the observer inside the warp bubble sees C = 1 and dC/dt = 0.
    a few seconds ago · Like
  •  
     
Aug 14

My review of James Woodward's Making Starships and Star Gates V1 under construction

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Warp Drive, UFO, time travel, Star Gate, NASA, James Woodward, DARPA, 100 Year Star Ship

 

Jack Sarfatti
August 11 near San Francisco
My review of Jim Woodward's Making Starships book - V1 under construction
"}" data-reactid=".r[4bjcr]">Like ·  · Share
  • Jack Sarfatti Sarfatti’s Commentaries on James F. Woodward’s book 
    Making Starships and Star Gates 
    The Science of Interstellar Transport and Absurdly Benign Wormholes

    The book has many good insights except for some ambiguous statements regarding:

    1) The equivalence principle that is the foundation of Einstein’s theory of the gravitational field. This seems to be due to the author’s not clearly distinguishing between local frame invariant proper acceleration and frame dependent coordinate acceleration. Thus, the author says that Newton’s gravity force is eliminated in an “accelerating frame.” In fact, it is eliminated in a Local Inertial Frame (LIF) that has zero proper acceleration, though it has coordinate acceleration relative to the surface of Earth for example. All points of the rigid spherical surface of Earth have non-zero proper accelerations pointing radially outward. This violates common sense and confuses even some physicists as well as engineers not to mention laymen. It is a fact of the Alice in Wonderland topsy-turvy surreal world of the post-modern physics of Einstein’s relativity especially when combined with the faster-than-light and back from the future entanglement of particles and fields in quantum theory and beyond. 
    2) I find the author’s discussion of fictitious inertial pseudo forces puzzling. I include the centripetal force as a fictitious force in the limit of Newton’s particle mechanics sans Einstein’s local inertial frame dragging from rotating sources. That is, every local frame artifact that is inside the Levi-Civita connection is a fictitious inertial pseudo force. This includes, Coriolis, centrifugal, Euler, and most importantly Newton’s gravity force that is not a real force. The terms inside the Levi-Civita connection are not felt by the test particle under observation. Instead, they describe real forces acting on the observer’s local rest frame. A real force acts locally on a test particle’s accelerometer. It causes an accelerometer’s pointer to move showing a g-force. In contrast, Baron Munchausen sitting on a cannonball in free fall is weightless. This was essentially Einstein’s “happiest thought” leading him to the equivalence principle the cornerstone of his 1916 General Relativity of the Gravitational Field. 
    3) A really serious flaw in the book is the author’s dependence on Dennis Sciama’s electromagnetic equations for gravity. In fact, these equations only apply approximately in the weak field limit of Einstein’s field equations in the background-dependent case using the absolute non-dynamical globally-flat Minkowski space-time with gravity as a tiny perturbation. The author uses these equations way out of their limited domain of validity. In particular, the Sciama equations cannot describe the two cosmological horizons past and future of our dark energy accelerating expanding observable universe. What we can see with our telescopes is only a small patch (aka “causal diamond”) of a much larger “inflation bubble” corresponding to Max Tegmark’s “Level 1” in his four level classification of the use of “multiverse” and “parallel universes.” Our two cosmological horizons, past and future, that are thin spherical shells of light with us inside them at their exact centers may in fact be hologram computer screens projecting us as 3D images in a virtual reality quantum computer simulation. This is really a crazy idea emerging from Gerardus ‘t Hooft, Leonard Susskind, Seth Lloyd and others. Is it crazy enough to be true? 
    August 11 at 2:40pm · "}" data-reactid=".r[4gf91].[1][4][1]{comment10151849877132323_30736319}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[1].[2]">Like · 2
  • Jack Sarfatti 4) John Cramer’s Foreword: I agree with Cramer that it’s too risky in the long run for us to be confined to the Earth and even to this solar system. British Astronomer Royal, Lord Martin Rees in his book “Our Final Hour” gives detailed reasons. Of course if a vacuum strangelet develops like Kurt Vonnegut’s “Ice-9”, then our entire observable universe can be wiped out, our causal diamond and beyond shattered, and there is no hope. That is essentially the apocalyptic worst-case scenario of the Bible’s “Revelations” and we will not dwell on it any further. Let’s hope it’s not a precognitive remote viewing like what the CIA observed in the Stanford Research Institute studies in the 1970’s.  Cramer cites the NASA-DARPA 100 Year Star Ship Project that I was involved with in the first two meetings. Cramer’s text is in quotes and italics. There is “little hope of reaching the nearby stars in a human lifetime using any conventional propulsion techniques … the universe is simply too big, and the stars are too far away. … What is needed is either trans-spatial shortcuts such as wormholes to avoid the need to traverse the enormous distances or a propulsion technique that somehow circumvents Newton’s third law and does not require the storage, transport and expulsion of large volumes of reaction mass.”
    Yes, indeed. I conjecture as a working hypothesis based on the UFO evidence that traversable wormhole stargate time travel machines are the only way to go with warp drive used only as a secondary mechanism at low speeds mainly for silent hovering near the surfaces of planets and for dogfights with conventional aerospace craft. The stargates do not have the blue shift problem that the Alcubierre warp drive has although the Natario warp drive does not have the blue shift problem (high-energy collisions with particles and radiation in the path of the starship). Newton’s third law that every force acting on a material object has an equal and opposite inertial reaction force on the source of that force is a conservation law that follows from symmetry Lie groups of transformations in parameters of the dynamical action of the entire closed system of source and material object. This is a very general organizing principle of theoretical physics known as Noether’s theorem for global symmetries in which the transformations are the same everywhere for all times in the universe. For example:
    Space Translation Symmetry Linear Momentum Conservation
    Time Translation Symmetry Energy Conservation
    Space-Space Rotation Symmetry Angular Momentum Conservation
    Space-Time Rotation Symmetry
    Internal U1 EM Force Symmetry Conserve 1 Electric Charge
    Internal SU2 Weak Force Symmetry Conserve 3 Weak Flavor Charges
    Internal SU3 Strong Force Symmetry Conserve 8 Strong Color Charges
    Yesterday at 3:20pm · "}" data-reactid=".r[4gf91].[1][4][1]{comment10151849877132323_30749131}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[1].[2]">Like
  • Jack Sarfatti In a propellantless propulsion system without the rocket ejection of real particles and/or radiation one must include the gravity curvature field (dynamical space-time itself) as a source and sink of linear momentum. Furthermore, if we include quantum corrections to the classical fields there is the remote possibility of using virtual particle zero point fluctuations inside the vacuum as a source and sink of linear momentum. However, the conventional wisdom is that this kind of controllable small-scale metastable vacuum phase transition is impossible in principle and to do so would violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics (extracting work from an absolute zero temperature heat reservoir). Even if we could do the seemingly impossible, propellantless propulsion while necessary is not sufficient for a true warp drive. A true warp drive must be weightless (zero g-force) timelike geodesic and without time dilation for the crew relative to the external observer outside the warp bubble that they were initially clock synchronized with. Localizing global symmetries requires the addition of compensating gauge connections in a fiber bundle picture of the universe. Indeed, the original global symmetry group is a smaller subgroup of the local symmetry group. The gauge connections define parallel transport of tensor/spinor fields. They correspond to the interactions between the several kinds of charges of the above symmetries. I shall go into more details of this elsewhere. Indeed localizing the above spacetime symmetries corresponds to generalizations of Einstein’s General Relativity as a local gauge theory. For example, localizing the space and time global translational symmetries means that the Lie group transformations at different events (places and times) in the universe are independent of each other. If one believes in the classical special relativity postulate of locality that there are no faster-than-light actions at a distance, then the transformations must certainly be independent of each other between pairs of spacelike separated events that cannot be connected by a light signal. However, the local gauge principle is much stronger, because it applies to pairs of events that can be connected not only by a light signal, but also by slower-than-light timelike signals. This poses a paradox when we add quantum entanglement. Aspect’s experiment and others since then, show that faster-than-light influences do in fact exist in the conditional probabilities (aka correlations) connecting observed eigenvalues of quantum observable operators independently chosen by Alice and Bob when spacelike separated. I shall return to this in more detail elsewhere. Finally, we have the P.W. Anderson’s anti-reductionist “More is different” emergence of complex systems of real particles in their quantum ground states with quasi-particles and collective mode excitations in soft condensed matter in which the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. This corresponds to spontaneous symmetry breaking of the quantum vacuum’s virtual particles, in its high energy standard model analog, to the Higgs-Goldstone “God Particle” now found at ~ 125 Gev in CERN’s LHC that gives rest masses to leptons and quarks as well as to the three weak radioactivity force spin 1 gauge W-bosons though not to the single spin 1 photon gauge boson and the eight spin strong force gluon gauge bosons. In this quantum field theory picture, the near field non-radiating interactions among the leptons and quarks are caused by the exchange of virtual spacelike (tachyonic faster-than-light off-mass-shell) gauge bosons continuously randomly emitted and absorbed by the leptons and quarks. To make matters more complicated unlike the single rest massless U1 photon, the three weak rest massive SU2 W bosons and the eight strong rest massless SU3 gluons carry their respective Lie algebra charges, therefore, they self-interact. A single virtual gluon can split into two gluons for example. The SU3 quark-quark-gluon interaction gets stronger at low energy longer separations. This is called quantum chromodynamic confinement and it explains why we do not see free quarks in the present epoch of our causal diamond observable universe patch of the multiverse. Free quarks were there in a different quantum vacuum thermodynamic phase shortly after the Alpha Point chaotic inflation creation of our observable universe that we see with telescopes etc. Indeed, most of the rest mass of protons and neutrons comes from the confined Heisenberg uncertainty principle kinetic energy of the three real confined up and down quarks and their plasma cloud of virtual zero point gluons and virtual quark-antiquark pairs. The Higgs Yukawa interaction rest masses of three bound real quarks is about 1/20 or less than the total hadronic rest masses.

    The author, James F. Woodward (JFW), introduces Mach’s Principle though in an ambiguous way to my mind. He says that the computation of the rest mass from local quantum field theory as has been in fact accomplished for hadrons by MIT Nobel Laureate, Frank Wilczek et-al using supercomputers is not sufficient to explain the inertia of Newton’s Second Law of Particle Mechanics. This does sound like Occult Astrology at first glance, but we do have the 1940 Wheeler-Feynman classical electrodynamics in which radiation reaction is explained as a back-from-the-future retro causal advanced influence from the future absorber on the past emitter in a globally self-consistent loop in time. Indeed, Feynman’s path integral quantum theory grew out of this attempt. Hoyle and Narlikar, and John Cramer have extended the original classical Wheeler-Feynman theory to quantum theory. Indeed, the zero point virtual photons causing spontaneous emission decay of excited atomic electron states can be interpreted as a back from the future effect. The electromagnetic field in the classical Wheeler-Feynman model did not have independent dynamical degrees of freedom, but in the Feynman diagram quantum theory they do. However, the retro causal feature survives. Therefore the only way I can make sense of JFWs fringe physics proposal is to make the following conjecture. Let m0 be the renormalized rest mass of a real particle computed in the standard model of local quantum field theory. Then, the observed rest mass m0’ equals a dimensionless nonlocal coefficient C multiplied by the local m0 renormalized rest mass. Mach’s Principle is then C = 0 in an empty universe of only real test particles without any sources causing spacetime to bend. Furthermore, C splits into past history retarded and future destiny advanced pieces. Now is there any Popper falsifiable test of this excess baggage?
    10 minutes ago · Edited · "}" data-reactid=".r[4gf91].[1][4][1]{comment10151849877132323_30749139}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[1].[2]">Like
  • Jack Sarfatti 1) Springer-Praxis Books in Space Exploration (2013)
    2) Einstein in Zurich over one hundred years ago read of a house painter falling off his ladder saying he felt weightless.
    3) I have since disassociated myself from that project, as have other hard    ...See More
    Yesterday at 3:22pm · "}" data-reactid=".r[4gf91].[1][4][1]{comment10151849877132323_30749160}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[1].[2]">Like
  • Jack Sarfatti 4) Roughly speaking, for particle mechanics, the dynamical action is the time integral of the kinetic energy minus the potential energy. The classical physics action principle is that the actual path is an extremum in the sense of the calculus of variations relative to all nearby possible paths with the same initial and final conditions. Richard P. Feynman generalized this classical idea to quantum theory where the actual extremum path corresponds to constructive interference of complex number classical action phases one for each possible path. There are more complications for velocity-dependent non-central forces and there is also the issue of initial and final conditions. The action is generalized to classical fields where one must use local kinetic and potential analog densities and integrate the field Lagrangian density over the 4D spacetime region bounded by initial history and final teleological destiny 3D hypersurfaces boundary constraints. Indeed, Yakir Aharonov has generalized this to quantum theory in which there are back-from-the-future retro causal influences on present weak quantum measurements made between the past initial and future final boundary constraints. Indeed, in our observable expanding accelerating universe causal diamond, these boundary constraints, I conjecture, are our past cosmological particle horizon from the moment of chaotic inflation leading to the hot Big Bang, together with our future dark energy de Sitter event horizon. Both of them are BIT pixelated 2D hologram computer screens with us as IT voxelated “weak measurement” 3D hologram images projected from them. The horizon pixel BIT quanta of area are of magnitude (~10^-33 cm or 10^19 Gev)^2. The interior bulk voxel IT quanta of volume are of magnitude (~10^-13 cm or 1 Gev)^3. This ensures that the number N of BIT horizon pixels equals the number of IT interior voxels in a one-to-one correspondence. The actually measured dark energy density is proportional to the inverse fourth power of the geometric mean of the smallest quantum gravity Planck length with the largest Hubble-sized scale of our future de Sitter causal diamond ~ 10^28 cm. This, when combined with the Unruh effect, corresponds to the Stefan-Boltzmann law of black body radiation that started quantum physics back in 1900. However, this redshifted Hawking horizon blackbody radiation must be coming back from our future de Sitter cosmological horizon not from our past particle horizon.
    Yesterday at 3:23pm · "}" data-reactid=".r[4gf91].[1][4][1]{comment10151849877132323_30749170}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[1].[2]">Like
  • Jack Sarfatti 5) Localizing the four space and time translations corresponds to Einstein’s general coordinate transformations that are now gauge transformations defining an equivalence class of physically identical representations of the same curvature tensor field. However, the compensating gauge connection there corresponds to torsion fields not curvature fields. The curvature field corresponds to localizing the three space-space rotations and the three space-time Lorentz boost rotations together. Einstein’s General Relativity in final form (1916) has zero torsion with non-zero curvature. However, T.W.B. Kibble from Imperial College, London in 1961 showed how to get the Einstein-Cartan torsion + curvature extension of Einstein’s 1916 curvature-only model by localizing the full 10-parameter Poincare symmetry Lie group of Einstein’s 1905 Special Relativity. The natural geometric objects to use are the four Cartan tetrads that correspond to Local Inertial Frame (LIF) detector/observers that are not rotating about their Centers of Mass (COM) that are on weightless zero g-force timelike geodesics. Zero torsion is then imposed as an ad-hoc constraint to regain Einstein’s 1916 model as a limiting case. The ten parameter Poincare Lie group is subgroup of the fifteen parameter conformal group that adds four constant proper acceleration hyperbolic Wolfgang Rindler horizon boosts and one dilation scale transformation that corresponds to Herman Weyl’s original failed attempt to unify gravity with electromagnetism. The spinor Dirac square roots of the conformal group correspond to Roger Penrose’s “twistors.”
    Yesterday at 3:24pm · "}" data-reactid=".r[4gf91].[1][4][1]{comment10151849877132323_30749174}.[0].[right].[0].[left].[0].[1].[2]">Like
  •  
     
Sep 30

DARPA, NASA, Star Ships, Warp Drive & WMDs

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: WMD, Warp Drive, UFO, NASA, DARPA


If you could with small power (as in my DARPA-NASA paper) and at a distance manipulate the curvature field around an enemy ship for example you could crush it.


On Sep 30, 2012, at 10:19 PM, Ron S wrote:

. . ."there is no need to imagine they come here in the machines we see."

Well except that when we see something make what appears an impossible turn in the sky generating hundreds or thousands of gees, the only way we have to explain that is that those inside and the craft itself are experiencing no acceleration, meaning they're on a time-like geodesic in a warp ship.  The only way we know of nulling these sorts of gee forces is to not generate them at all, which is what warp does.

Exactly my point.

The skies are full of evidence of warp ships.  We just need to build them for ourselves.

Yes. By Jove, I think Ron S has finally understood what I have been saying although I don't think Paul Murad and some others have gotten it yet.

On Sun, Sep 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Adam C wrote:
Precisely. Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud contain a huge terrain for ETIs to use. Even if they have warp there is no need to imagine they come here in the machines we see.

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note

"Bushnell, DM. (LARC-A)"  wrote:

  Unless they are hiding out in this solar system somewhere they pretty much MUST have FTL capability.......Reverse Engineering anyone?


On 9/30/12 4:26 PM, "Adam  wrote:

Not yet convinced the machine Ufos have warp. Insufficient data.

Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note

Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net> wrote:
The WMD effect would be the ability to manipulate the fabric of space evolving in time with small applied power even if warp bubble is standing still above say a nuke missile site. Imagine the controlling intelligence inside the saucer decides to expand the boundary of the bubble.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 30, 2012, at 8:38 PM, Adam C wrote:

Hi Angelo
Anything moving fast enough is more powerful than nukes from kinetic energy alone. Modern warheads have energy densities equivalent to a speed of 3000 km/s - thus everything faster is more potent than nukes.


However speed is distance so the acceleration track is very long for realistic accelerations.




Sent from Samsung Galaxy Note

Angelo wrote:
I find this point really crucial. Can a warp drive be turned into a weapon of mass destruction? If yes, how destructive can it be? More than a nuclear bomb?
Angelo

   

   Da: Mike.L  
 Inviato: Domenica 30 Settembre 2012 19:06
 Oggetto: Re: 29 September 2012
   
The problem with this, from the point of view of any government, is that putting a space drive in the hands of an average person means putting WMD into the hands of the lowest common denominator. Anybody with a gripe against any government, corporation, or person will be able to turn an affordable space drive propelled object into a hypervelocity ballistic weapon to attack that which they hate/fear/despise. This is of course intolerable to any government that wishes to act in a way that will upset anybody, i.e. all of them. If someones space drive technology proves truly a breakthru and is so revolutionary that it will make space travel affordable to the average person, you can pretty much guarantee that it, and anybody that knows the details of how it works will be erased/classified/killed or discredited by the powers that be with as much energy as they can muster.


So OF COURSE a government backed 100 year starship group is going to say that "Travel to the stars will be difficult and expensive. It will take decades of time, GW of power, kg of mass-energy and trillions of dollars…interstellar travel will always be difficult and expensive, but it can no longer be considered impossible." and they will continue saying this even as the government seizes working space drives and sends out their own missions. So long as Earth is the only known habitable world, the planet will remain a pressure cooker that those in power will cling to power over. Jack Sarfatti's masters in the intelligence community, in particular (Hi guys!).


They need options to give to people. Places for disaffected humanity to go in a diaspora. When we advance our astronomical science enough to spot habitable earthlike worlds around nearby star systems, then I am convinced that, if space drives are achievable, they will only be made available to the public once there are places for the public to go to get away from earth's authoritarians without feeling the need to return to wreak relativistic vengance upon the planet that birthed them and the tyrants that sent them into exile....

Mike L

 
 
 


Sep 30

Report from London, Sept 30, 2012 Astronaut Mae Jemison to build a Star Ship?

Posted by: JackSarfatti |
Tagged in: Star Ship, Obama, NASA, Mae Jemison, DARPA, Bill Clinton


A website means nothing. It's the funding that counts. I never heard of this group.
Mae Jemison has a lot of fund-raising clout in the Democratic Party. Mae can call up Bill Clinton, Obama's top people etc.
If Obama gets re-elected she has a very good chance of raising big private $.
How effective that will be in terms of technological development is another story of course because her tech people are afraid of the UFO flying saucer issue even though some of them worked on it in the past with Joe Firmage and Robert Bigelow.
In any case, all bets are off until the POTUS election is over.
It's clear that the Star Ship effort will split into parallel competing efforts. This is a good thing.

On Sep 30, 2012, at 9:54 AM, Angelo wrote:

Jim,

regarding Mae Jemison's institute "the Way", it seems that there is already a brand new interstellar research institute:

http://www.i4is.org/

Best,
Angelo


Inviato: Domenica 30 Settembre 2012 8:52
Oggetto: Re: 29 September 2012

Gentlefolk,

..
In a related vein, Mike L. put me on to an article about the recent 100YSS meeting where in an interview with Mae Jemison, she allowed that maybe the 100YSS operation was not the ideal way to actually get work done on the starship project. . . .  She's tinkering with the idea of another operation (she calls "the way") as the thing that actually tries to get something done.  My sense is that that isn't what the creators of the 100YSS project had in mind. . . .  But we'll see.  :-)

Have a good what's left of the weekend,

Jim Woodward