Problems photos on Flickr

The world faces a problem: recession and a spiraling fall in trade. The Economist puts it like this, “Trade is contracting again, at a rate unmatched in the post-war period. This week the World Trade Organisation (WTO) predicted that the volume of global merchandise trade would shrink by 9% this year. This will be the first fall in trade flows since 1982. Between 1990 and 2006 trade volumes grew by more than 6% a year, easily outstripping the growth rate of world output, which was about 3% (see chart 1). Now the global economic machine has gone into reverse: output is declining and trade is tumbling at a faster pace. The turmoil has shaken commerce in goods of all sorts, bought and sold by rich and poor countries alike.” According to the Economist, “The immediate cause of shrinking trade is plain: global recession means a collapse in demand. The credit crunch adds an additional squeeze, thanks to an estimated shortfall of $100 billion in trade finance, which lubricates 90% of world trade.”

According to the Guardian, “On Thursday 2 April Gordon Brown is going to host the G20 summit in London. Leaders from 22 countries will be at the summit. The G20 is an organisation for finance ministers and central bankers, who in the past met once a year to discuss international cooperation in finance. There are 19 countries who are members: Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Italy, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea, Turkey, the United Kingdom and the United States. The 20th member is the European Union, which is represented by whichever country holds the EU presidency (currently, it's the Czech Republic). These countries represent 90% of global GDP, 80% of world trade and two thirds of the world's population. The IMF and the World Bank also attend G20 meetings, although technically the London event isn't a normal G20 meeting.”

This G20 meeting will be for the leaders of all G20 countries. According to the Guardian the policy agenda developed by the last G20 meeting “did not in fact go much beyond pre-existing international initiatives that had recently been developed in more technocratic international bodies.” According to the Guardian, “On the London summit website, the British government has explained what it hopes to achieve. At the summit, countries need to come together to enhance global coordination in order to help restore global economic growth. World leaders must make three commitments:

• First, to take whatever action is necessary to stabilise financial markets and enable families and businesses to get through the recession.

• Second, to reform and strengthen the global financial and economic system to restore confidence and trust.

• Third, to put the global economy on track for sustainable growth.

Gordon Brown has argued that the world must avoid protectionism. According to the Economist, “The World Bank says that, since the G20 leaders last met in November in Washington, DC, 17 of their countries have restricted trade. Some have raised tariffs, as Russia did on second-hand cars and India did on steel. Citing safety, China has banned imports of Irish pork and Italian brandy. Across the world, there has been a surge in actions against “dumping”—the sale of exports, supposedly at a loss, in order to undermine the competition. Governments everywhere are favouring locally made goods.” The Economist also says, “Kei-Mu Yi, an economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, argues that trade has fallen so fast and so uniformly around the world largely because of the rise of “vertical specialisation”, or global supply chains. This contributed to trade’s rapid expansion in recent decades. Now it is adding to the rate of shrinkage. When David Ricardo argued in the early 19th century that comparative advantage was the basis of trade, he conceived of countries specialising in products, like wine or cloth. But Mr Yi points out that countries now specialise not so much in final products as in steps in the process of production.”

Protectionism in itself sounds bad – but it is a policy option available and used in all political economies – including the most liberal. Protectionism can also lead to a more self-sustainable economy, and can lead to the internal development of an economy, which means the economy is less reliant and dependent on external sources of finance. Development will be slower, but it can be more secure and sustainable. It is likely that if countries do operate protectionist policies it will be a short-term opportunist and populist response to workers and unions, but it could be seen as an alternative economic model of development. It worked in Brazil and Argentina during the 1960s and 1970s for a while, until a more neo-liberal and external finance model was preferred.

The Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva was reported on Channel 4 News to have told Mr Brown the crisis was caused by "white blue eyed people". This overtly racist remark has been noted, but there has been no visible backlash. It is interesting how the whole agenda about racism never applies to the dominant one, i.e. you can racially slur white people, and white people with blue eyes without anyone batting an eye lid, whereas if you racially slur other ethnic groups you can find yourself battered. I find this state of affairs deeply offensive to the human race in general, and very patronizing to those groups who don’t come from the dominant ethnic group (i.e. its almost to say the whole anti-racist thing is a way of patting you on the head and saying there, there – because when it comes to racism we don’t really give a shit – see the way we couldn’t give a f*** if you slur our own dominant white ethnic group).

The reality is that the summit will represent a reshuffling of position, support and dependencies between the world’s twenty richest countries. Spectators are expecting China to come out feeling puffed up and proud, given that China has faired relatively in recent years, or so we are led to believe. Meanwhile national demonstrations seem to be focusing our attention to the fact that a different way of working is needed. In fact it will be work as usual – the question is who will come out on top.

In anticipation of the G20 summit a demonstration was held in London. 10,000 were predicted to attend the demonstrations. The police reported 35,000. I was there at the demonstration and I don’t believe I saw 35,000 people walk past Big Ben – and I saw it from start to finish. As one commentator, on the Guardian observed, “Apart from the small contingent of student SWP calling 'One solution, Revolution' and about 20 anarchists making noise the spirit was generally depressed and lacking any anger or sense of direction.” Cognitator joked, “Perhaps the police were adding their number to the protesters. As opposed to taking them away as per usual.”

According to the Guardian, “The Put People First march yesterday was organised by a collaboration of more than 100 trade unions, church groups and charities including ActionAid, Save the Children and Friends of the Earth. The theme was "jobs, justice and climate" and the message was aimed at the world leaders who will be gathering for the G20 summit here this week.”

The march started on the Embankment. When I arrived there I walked around desperately finding somewhere where I could have a piss for free. I tried Starbucks and Costa Cofee, but they seemed to have no toilets, I even tried the stamp collectors fayre a subterranean culture of badly dressed old people, with poor eyesight and even worse posture, which was momentary distraction from my full bladder, but which did not provide the answer to my pressing problem as the toilet door was locked and for staff only. Stephen Moss writing for the Guardian said, “Westminster is not a great place for someone like me, who has a weak bladder, to go on a march. The public loos there cost an outrageous 50p a go. The Socialist Worker magazine-seller next to Embankment tube station is on to this in a flash. "50p to have a piss – a lesson in capitalism," he is soon shouting. Later, I'm pleased to see someone has punched a hole in the wooden sign advertising the price.” In the end I walked all the way to the National Portrait Gallery where you can always be assured a good quality toilet seat.

The Guardian continued, “The marchers, estimated at 35,000 by police, accompanied by brass bands and drummers and a colourful assortment of banners and flags, walked the four miles from Embankment to Hyde Park, where speeches from comedian Mark Thomas and environmental campaigner Tony Juniper, and music from the Kooks, made for a party-like atmosphere.”

The Guardian reported, “A group of fewer than 200 anarchists joined the march and were kept isolated and surrounded by police. Chants of "Burn the bankers!" were the closest anyone came to any show of aggression.’ Yes I witnessed this, it was clear that the anarchists, dressed in black, some of them with scarves covering their faces, generally looked cool as fuck, like some post-nuclear vigilante gang, their black signifying the dark depressing reality from which humanity starts, and the point from which they wish to depart. Whether the police presence was heavy is debatable but they certainly had a line of police accompanying them, whereas no other group were honored with such a presence. Of the anarchists Stephen Moss says, “I fall in with some anarchists halfway through the march – a delightful young Greek called Alex and an Italian, who is happy to talk about Bakunin, but is, I sense, a little suspicious of me. The anarchists march together – with the police flanking them in a way they don't with the rest of the march – and I am intrigued that they never shout slogans or bang drums. Their mission is a serious one.” Moss goes on, “Alex tells me a reporter from the Sunday Times has already approached him to ask why anarchists wear masks. "Work it out for yourself – you're a journalist," he'd told him. "People always ask why we wear masks; they never ask about our ideology," he complains. In essence, that ideology is: power corrupts; all elites will be corrupt; so government should be by the people, for the people – a mass movement of the type they claim is emerging in South America. Hezbollah is also mentioned favourably, a movement they see as developing organically. "Organic" is a key word for anarchists, and it would save a lot of aggro and bad press if they were called organicists rather than anarchists.” Good point. But who wants to be called an organicist? And in any case everything is organic really – its just that some organisms develop in a way we or anarchists done like and some do. To call anarchists, organic is to miss the point, anarachists are like Christian, they dream of a reality which transcends human nature as it is and known. Structure, corruption, self-interest and greed underpin all human activity – the question is not how we can do away with it, but how can we manage it in a fair way.

Stephen Moss wrote about the variety of organizations on the march. He said, “Socialist Worker has a three-point strategy: "Seize their wealth," "Stamp out poverty," "End all wars." Sounds good, but I can't work out exactly who "their" refers to. The Socialist party is hot on slogans, colder on the mechanism by which they are put into practice. The likely outcome to the current crisis still appears to be government by Etonians.” Most of these movements are nothing to do with instituting political change. The people involved in them do not want to genuinely change things. Instead what these groups function as is self-help groups for people, for whatever reason, feel that they have been wronged in life, probably at a personal level, and feeling quite hopeless about their personal wrongs, they want to transpose their personal woe on to a faceless, unintelligible other – the government, the state, the capitalist, the rich and the greedy. Its not so much that socialist workers and anarchists want to change things, they know they are completely ineffectual, and too screwed up and traumatized, too aggressive, unintelligent and incapable of engaging people into a different way of organizing; they just want to shout out to people ‘we hurt’. Fair enough.

The TUC don’t seem to be turning up to do anything more than saying ‘there there’ to threatened workers, and stating the downright bloody obvious to the government. Their message is “The importance of this summit cannot be underestimated. Unemployment and deprivation will grow massively over the next two years unless governments work together. People need to know that there is an international solution to this crisis. If the summit suggests that there is not, many will turn to nationalist and protectionist politics with all that implies for the global economy and world peace.” Mind you they do go on to say that, “But while the immediate response to the crisis will be at the forefront of the leaders' minds, the unprecedented Put People First coalition shows there is a huge appetite for a new economic direction. Thirty years of the increasing dominance of the neo-liberal agenda has got us into this mess. The summit must show that the next 30 years need to be about a renewed era of economic growth based on a much fairer share of the proceeds. One that is environmentally sustainable and one that does not end in the burst of yet another financial bubble.” But what are they really saying? Nothing much.

There is of course something about how all of this is just about having a laugh, getting a kick, getting an emotional fix. There’s something very similar to the way that some of the more violent groups get ready for a rumble with the police and football hooliganism. Football hooligans are much more honest about the emotional kick they get from fighting. The protestors pretend that they are doing it for the people. Whatever the so called reasons, it is clear that a lot of protestors enjoy confrontation. They are much more focused on the enemy and combating the enemy than they are on creating peaceful societies. So Stephen Moss makes the interesting observation, “When the march eventually gets to Hyde Park, the anarchists refuse to join the "TUC bureaucrats" for the official rally and hold their own open-platform meeting at Speakers' Corner, dominated by elderly men in hats who talk less about Bakunin than about beating up the BNP and confronting the police on the streets of Whitechapel. It's all a bit depressing (and expletive-filled – I take serious exception to the denunciation of "Oxbridge cunts"), though I like the fact that the elderly men refuse even to use a megaphone – only the ordinary human voice is organic enough.” The media and police have both hyped the April 2009 marches as like the possible end of the British way of life, of democracy, of capitalism. Nothing could be further from the truth, but its like we all want to will it to happen – we all are looking for excitement – war may be bad but peace is fucking boring – I once read.

The Guardian also reported, “Thomas told the Observer he believed the protest marked "the start of a grassroots movement". He added: "This is a moment. This is the first time people have had a chance to come out on to the streets in a big way." But this is nonsense. This was just an opportunity for a plethora of groups, amongst whom there are more differences, and the only thing that can unite them is a general concern for jobs, justice and climate, which incidentally are three themes that unite most of the country, and all the main political parties, to catch the government at a weak moment, and hope to build up support for whatever cause they have, on the back of the anger and desperation amongst people at this time.

The protest ended up in Hyde Park. I didn’t go, it was too cold and rainy, and although I did aim to walk there via a short-cut through Victoria, I ended up taking refuge in Westminster Cathedral, where I saw another procession, of Catholic priests and altar boys, who were holding a service for the Union of Catholic Mothers. I listened to the Catholic priests, they sounded much more happy and at peace with themselves and their surroundings, than the rankerous socialist bile spitting leaders.

People are blaming the bankers, but there is in actual fact no-one to blame for this. The this needs to be qualified too. The ‘this’ is the fact that people are loosing their jobs, consumption will have to be reduced. It is ironic that it is precisely that people are facing the prospect of lower consumption that they are out on the streets protesting against greedy bankers, it is not so much the greed of the bankers that people resent, so much as the increased consuming power of the bankers that they are envious of. The bankers are not to blame for working within a system, which promoted risky investments, a system which was encouraged and deregulated by politicians who realized that whilst the bubble was growing there were huge financial gains to be made from encouraging bankers to reap the rewards both for themselves but through the state through taxation, and politicians who were encouraged by the people who voted them in, who probably formed the majority of people marching in demonstration and protest today, who voted in the governments believing the deregulation of banks not to be a serious enough issue to vote against a government for, and realizing that even if it was a risk, whilst the bubble was growing, they were happy enough to see their elected government ensuring that the country got a share of the pie. We all contributed to this fucking mess – if you can call it a mess – its only a mess for those who no longer have jobs and cannot consume so much – by voting in the government, who deregulated the banks and encouraged the lending of our money several times over to riskier and riskier ventures which in actual fact were not producing anything of material benefit, but were instead relying on house prices going up and up, as more people poured their money into it. Now we are in deep shit, because Gordon Brown has poured what little remaining money we have, and we have on credit into the black hole – it has simply disappeared.

There are some people who are saying the bankers should pay for the crisis they created. It doesn’t work like that – it works by people putting their money into a bank – and entrusting the bank to invest it wisely. Where the bank looses the money – the original investor looses the money. This creates a motivation on behalf of the investor to invest wisely, e.g. on the basis of what we know right now investing in Barclays rather than Lloyds TSB or the Royal Bank of Scotland. However reality begins to change once one’s livelihood is threatened – now it is solely the banker’s responsibility to have invested the money wisely, the public who invest their money into the banks are seen to be helpless, powerless twits, whose securities should have been looked after by a paternalistic and caring banking sector. So for example, according to Fox New, “Berlin police estimated that around 10,000 people gathered in front of the capital's city hall and more than 1,000 in Frankfurt, Germany's banking capital, for similar demonstrations under the slogan: "We won't pay for your crisis." Its not a crisis – its just that there are now lots of personal crises – the public didn’t bother to check whether their banks were investing their money properly or wisely and now they are paying for it. But the banks aren’t responsible for this – they really aren’t.

We have two problems. The first was created by the fact that banks lent out our money several times over – so we thought the country was several times as wealthy as it actually was. This led to inflationary pressures especially in the housing market – where the same money was lent to several different people – all investing in housing leading to unrealistic housing prices. We now realize we have a fraction of the wealth we thought we had. This creates deflationary pressures – i.e. where everyone has less money prices are reduced. This problem can be solved by creating a soft deflationary landing to a level where the price of labor and goods reflects the value of the money we have not the value of the money we have and we loaned. This means everyone has to accept lower wages – we can either do this peacefully based around a consensus and agreement between corporations, banks, trade unions or governments – or we can do it aggressively – letting perfectly good companies whose workers refuse to take pay cuts go to the wall – and then watch as millions of unemployed people try to reform and reorganize new companies and enterprises.

The second problem is that banks are no longer making such risky investments – so they are not looking to lend their money on to others – which means there is less money to be lent to people – which means less activity and less economy. We have to get used to less activity – but at least the activity will be invested in activities which are genuinely producing material benefit for people – not leading to an apparent generation of wealth – which is the artificial effect of lending x amount of money to people ten times, making it seem that we are ten times as rich as previously – when actual fact we are equally as wealthy – but with prices ten times as high. We should have also let the banks go to the wall – and started again with a heavily regulated banking sector – which was not allowed to lend out peoples’ money irresponsibly. No-one wants to have to feel the pain from this – i.e. the rich bankers who keep their pensions and bonuses, the people who have banked with them who want to keep their savings, and the businesses who are funded by the banks who want to hang on to their business and jobs. So what Gordon Brown is doing, is in the name of the people, funneling money into the banking system, paying for the debts, and thus, keeping the bankers sweet, keeping the investors sweet, keeping the businesses sweet. Who looses out? All of us – the poor! They never really had anything to loose in the first place, however whilst Gordon Brown borrows money to give to the banks so they can lend to businesses and pay bankers bonuses and salaries, we move a step closer to becoming bankrupt – i.e. not being able to borrow any more money because no-one believes we can pay it back. Once we become bankrupt, social services and welfare will be cut.

According to Gaby Hinsliff, “Many economists believe a recovery now requires bursting that artificial bubble and rebalancing the economy so that Chinese consumers are encouraged spend a little more - reducing America's trade deficit - and Americans a little less. Malloch Brown suggests Britons, too, will need to relearn the art of saving.”

According to the Guardian, “But Scotland Yard is expecting a greater challenge on Wednesday 1 April, dubbed "Financial Fools Day", with a series of protests aiming to cause disruption in the Square Mile and elsewhere.” The Guardian says, “On 1 April an alliance of anti-capitalist groups called G20 Meltdown is organising a carnival headed by "Four Horsefolk of the Apocalypse", which will converge in front of the Bank of England. Anarchists are planning to target the second day of the summit at ExCel. Other groups mounting demonstrations include Climate Camp, the Stop the War Coalition, and Government of the Dead. An alternative summit will be held a few hundred yards from the ExCel centre at the University of East London.”

The alternative G20 summit website provides the following manifesto: Can we oust the bankers from power? Can we get rid of the corrupt politicians in their pay? Can we guarantee everyone a job, a home, a future? Can we establish government by the people, for the people, of the people? Can we abolish all borders and be patriots for our planet? Can we all live sustainably and stop climate chaos? Can we make capitalism history? YES WE CAN!

According to the Daily Telegraph, “The G20 conference will lead to a London "lockdown" next week, with parks, roads and businesses closed to keep world leaders safe, Government officials are warning.” The media are really building this up, as an attempt to build readership and sell advertising. Its interesting how a force created by the desire to advertise and promote consumption causes papers to distort and promote a threat and confrontation to the very system upon which it is built. The Daily Telegraph article continues, “Protesters with armed with buckets and spades are among several thousand people who are planning to bring chaos to the heart of central London.Last night it emerged that City workers were being advised to "dress down" next week to avoid drawing attention to themselves.”

To anyone really wanting revolution bear in mind these words from Stephen Moss, “Changing society is hard, and usually starts with a split in the elite. The English civil war and the French revolution both began with a fissure in the governing classes; their falling-out created the space for populist movements to develop. For a grassroots movement to effect change is enormously difficult. It was only possible in Russia in 1917 because of the devastation wrought by war.”

The reality of the demo was perhaps best summer up by ‘one789’ who said, “My experience of the demo, in talking to people and observing, is that no one had any real clue of why they were there. They recognise 'blame the bankers' to be futile and a distraction, think capitalism 'is rubbish' and 'want change', but say nothing beyond that.I at least expected a high degree of frustration and anger, but more than anything what came across was disillusionment and confusion. But then, that's what you get I suppose from such a middle-class yummy-mummy bleeding-heart rally.”

As rabbit95 said, “Be glad we live in a society free enough to protest and where, apart from the police possibly taping your presence at such a demo, there will be no comeback.”

www.g20.org/

www.londonsummit.gov.uk/en/summit-aims/summit-progress/

www.altg20.org.uk/

www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13362...

www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13362027

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/29/g20-protests-london

www.guardian.co.uk/world/gallery/2009/mar/28/g20-protest-...

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/video/2009/mar/28/g20-su...

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/28/g20-protest

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/29/g20-summit-globalisa...

www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/25/g20-q-a

news.google.co.uk/news?q=G20+summit+London+2009&oe=ut...

www.londonsummit.gov.uk/en/

www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/g20-summit/5050...

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/29/g20-summit

www.londonsummit.gov.uk/en/global-update/cp-china/active-...

www.londonsummit.gov.uk/en/summit-aims/summit-progress/qu...

www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/domestic_politics...

www.channel4.com/news/articles/politics/international_pol...

For great photographs and the low down on the G20 Summit, Protests and Demonstrations visit www.ravishlondon.com/g20

Belinda sin ropa by Belinda (belindapop) on Twitter

3 1

Belinda sin ropa

DanaeeGC

No Problem / by Insomnia Cured Here

5 1

The perfect spare tire cover for a Jeep Wrangler. The license plate ain't bad either.

Consolidated B-24J Liberator "Bungay Buckaroo" by Benjamin Donnelly

2 2

Lessons learned over Europe and the Pacific showed that the B-24 was vulnerable to attacks from the front—a problem it shared with the B-17. In the field, B-24 crews jammed as many machine guns as possible into the glasshouse nose of the B-24D, but this was not the solution. Consolidated experimented with various kinds of modifications until settling on a redesigned nose with a manned turret. This would cause some loss of aerodynamics on an aircraft already known for its difficult handling, but it at least would give the B-24 better defense from forward attacks. The redesign also made the nose roomier, added chin windows for the bombardier, enlarged the dorsal and tail turrets for better visibility, and enclosed the waist positions. The wet wing used by the B-24D was deleted in favor of self-sealing fuel tanks, eliminating the B-24’s tendency to catch fire.

Production shifted to the B-24H in late 1943, but there was a shortage of the electrically-powered Emerson nose turret, and so a hydraulically-powered Sperry turret was used on the B-24J. If that was not confusing enough, Consolidated also produced a lighter version, the B-24L, with no ball or tail turrets, leaving it to individual groups to install heavier turrets, flexible mounts, or no armament at all. All three were produced at once, and all three were used in increasingly heavy combat over Europe. The B-24 would not only become the most produced bomber of World War II, it would be the most produced American combat aircraft in history—no less than 18,482 Liberators would come off the line by the end of the war.

B-24Js and like variants would see heavy service worldwide, replacing the B-17 entirely in the Pacific and supplementing it over Europe. B-24s would bomb both Berlin and attack the southernmost Japanese home islands. Besides acting as strategic bombers, Liberators would also act as antisubmarine maritime patrol aircraft for the RAF, the USAAF, and the US Navy as the PB4Y-1; the latter would also be converted to primitive cruise missiles in Operation Aphrodite against German V-weapon sites in Belgium. One Aphrodite mission would claim the life of Joseph Kennedy Jr., older brother of future President John F. Kennedy. By 1945, it was possible to find B-24s literally everywhere, from Alaska’s cold Aleutians to sunny Brazil, from China to Italy.

After the end of World War II, the USAAF rapidly scrapped nearly its entire B-24 fleet, but a few soldiered on in the 1960s, mainly in India, where they operated as maritime patrol aircraft. Others served as seed aircraft for postwar airliners, including Qantas of Australia. By 1968, however, nearly all B-24s had disappeared from inventories worldwide; today, only 14 complete Liberators are left, with two aircraft flyable.

"Bungay Buckaroo's" odyssey is a fascinating one. Built for the USAAF as 44-44175, it never entered service as a B-24J, and instead was modified in the US as an antisubmarine warfare aircraft; it was then diverted through Lend-Lease to RAF Coastal Command as a Liberator GR.VI, with the serial KH304. It was sent to India to serve with 354 Squadron at RAF Cuttack against Japanese shipping and submarines operating in the Bay of Bengal and Java Sea. When the war ended, KH304 and a hundred other B-24s were simply abandoned in place by the RAF as it began its withdrawal from India. After India gained its independence, it took the 100 aircraft and used them to build 36 complete B-24s, giving the nascent Indian Air Force aircraft to use as bombers, maritime patrol aircraft, and strategic reconnaissance. KH304 became HE877, and joined 6 Squadron at Poona.

HE877 would give the IAF 20 years of yeoman service; its record included supporting Sir Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay's first summit of Mount Everest. When India finally retired its B-24s in 1968, it was an incredible boon to warbird collectors: B-24s were extremely rare in 1968, and operational ones nearly unheard of. (Of the surviving 14 B-24s, half came from India.) The Pima Air and Space Museum was one of many who were interested in acquiring a B-24, and HE877 was donated to the museum by the Indian government. A team of USAF aircrew ferried it back to Arizona in 1968, a journey that took three days.

Since HE877 was still in good shape, the museum was able to restore it; the only large piece it lacked was a belly turret. It went on display as a B-24 of the 446th Bomb Group, based at RAF Bungay, UK; this group had the distinction of making the first airstrike of D-Day. It wears "Bungay Buckaroo" on the left side; on the right, as a tribute to India, it retains the markings of 6 Squadron IAF. This was another aircraft I had used a picture of as part of my master's program, so I was very happy to see it in person.

Problem solving by Lynn Tolay

13 5

I'm quite sure all of you have been caught up doing something and a thought comes into your head and you for some unknown reason feel the need to scratch your head. And your holding something or if your Italian, talking to someone........ And you don't really, really want to put down or stop talking..........

Well.... There is another way. ...

Seeeeeeeeeee......... Yoga can be used for practical things other than exercise and meditation.

Tuttles ❤️❤️❤️💋🌹🐒🐒

Get a complete solutions of termites infestation in Melbourne by Protech Pest Control

This video is all about Australian spiders. We've got the best chart here which is Australian spider’s identification.

The most common spider is that we have here is the Redback spider. How to identify a spider? The Redback spider has got a red line in the back of the body which is the abdomen and basically that's one way of identifying that particular spider.

Then you got the White tail spider which is going to white tip on the back of its abdomen. The huntsman is a hairy brownish colour depending on what's the process of this life is going through and they do vary in sizes.

Now going back to the Redback spider- very very common problem to us. I have had a client that actually a plumber, he actually young got bitten by red back way and he left his boots outside the house and he's put his boots on and he got beaten on toes, so that was yet a tragedy therefore inside you got all the right medication so he's all good now.

It is very important that we identify a spider before we do any treatments or anything that we need to do to fix these problems. So then you got the white tail spider who are venomous, so we need to be extremely careful what pest and what particular spider are we dealing with.

The White tail spider once again varies between 20 to 35 millimetres in size, that’s between the male and the female. Definitely a spider, which lives on other insects and they don’t web of course, so you do found in different areas for the home.

Linen is the most common one in bedding, sheets, cupboards and so forth.

The most important thing is if you're having a problem with any of these spiders and you're not sure which ones they are. Please feel free to contact us we're here to help.

Please give us a call or visit www.protechpestcontrol.com.au/spiders.

Thank you for listening

www.youtube.com/watch?v=eDauBqTjAd0

Twitter is Over Capacity I by Andy Carvin

3 3

Rev counter problem volvo 940 diesel by will van Gemeren

Problems...... by Kevin Lane

1 3

I have just noticed this at our local bus stop. Just two days into the new busway service, Grant Palmer have had to alter their route around the Beecroft Estate in Dunstable because of badly parked cars. This means that the Co-op supermarket, Post Office and other shops are no longer served by bus. This parking problem was obviously anticipated as double yellow lines were recently painted on certain stretches of road. Odd then that the service was pulled so soon.

I walk this way to said Post Office every afternoon and have wondered why I havn't yet seen one of the new Scanias along here yet; now I know!!

Any problems? by Sahab Shamilov

1

Any problems?

Teenage suicide problem by Yuliia Zaluzhna

14 1

Solved problem by Alvaro Martinez

14 8

Álvaro Martínez, accidental photographer

www.alvaromartinez.org

Valencia 2014 (9) 134 - Fun or Charity Run Finishing in Plaza del Ayuntamiento by Mark Schofield

2

This was the charity (I think) road race or run that we walken into the middle of on our Sunday in Valencia. No Idea what it was all about unless someone can enlighten me.

We decided to go for a city break rather than sun in Tenerife again this September. Other than a few days in the North East we haven’t been away since last March and wanted a change and hopefully some sun. The problem is getting flights from the north of England to the places we want to go to. We chose Valencia as we could fly from East Midlands – which was still a pain to get to as it involved the most notorious stretch of the M1 at five in the morning. In the end we had a fairly good journey, the new Ryanair business class pre-booked scheme worked quite well and bang on time as usual. It was dull when we landed with storms forecast all week, the sky was bright grey – the kiss of death to the photography I had in mind. I was full of cold and wishing I was at work. It did rain but it was overnight on our first night and didn't affect us. There has been a drought for eleven months apparently and it rained on our first day there! The forecast storms didn't materialise in Valencia but they got it elsewhere.

You May notice discrepancies in the spelling of some Spanish words or names, this is because Valencian is used on signs, in some guide books and maps. There are two languages in common use with distinct differences. There may also be genuine mistakes - it has been known!

Over the course of a Monday to Sunday week we covered 75 miles on foot and saw most of the best of Valencia – The City of Bell Towers. The Old City covers a pretty large area in a very confusing layout. There was a lot of referring to maps – even compass readings! – a first in a city for us. The problem with photography in Valencia is that most of the famous and attractive building are closely built around, some have poor quality housing built on to them. Most photographs have to be taken from an extreme angle looking up. There are no high points as it is pan flat, there are a small number of buildings where you can pay to go up on to the roof for a better view and we went up them – more than once!

The modern buildings of The City of Arts and Sciences – ( Ciutat de Las Arts I de les Ciencies ) are what the city has more recently become famous for, with tourists arriving by the coachload all day until late at night. They must be photographed millions of times a month. We went during the day and stayed till dark one evening, I gave it my best shot but a first time visit is always a compromise between ambition and realism, time dictates that we have to move on to the next destination. I travelled with a full size tripod – another first – I forgot to take it with me to TCoAaS! so It was time to wind up the ISO, again! Needless to say I never used the tripod.

On a day when rain was forecast but it stayed fine, albeit a bit dull, we went to the Bioparc north west of the city, a zoo by another name. There are many claims made for this place, were you can appear to walk alongside some very large animals, including, elephants, lions, giraffe, rhino, gorillas and many types of monkey to name a few. It is laid out in different geographical regions and there is very little between you and the animals, in some cases there is nothing, you enter the enclosure through a double door arrangement and the monkeys are around you. It gets rave reviews and we stayed for most of the day. The animals it has to be said gave the appearance of extreme boredom and frustration and I felt quite sorry for them.

The course of The River Turia was altered after a major flood in the 50’s. The new river runs west of the city flanked by a motorway. The old river, which is massive, deep and very wide between ancient walls, I can’t imagine how it flooded, has been turned into a park that is five miles long. There is an athletics track, football pitches, cycle paths, restaurants, numerous kids parks, ponds, fountains, loads of bridges, historic and modern. At the western end closest to the sea sits The City of Arts and Sciences – in the river bed. Where it meets the sea there is Valencia’s urban Formula One racetrack finishing in the massive marina built for The Americas Cup. The race track is in use as roadways complete with fully removable street furniture, kerbs, bollards, lights, islands and crossings, everything is just sat on the surface ready to be moved.

We found the beach almost by accident, we were desperate for food after putting in a lot of miles and the afternoon was ticking by. What a beach, 100’s of metres wide and stretching as far as the eye could see with a massive promenade. The hard thing was choosing, out of the dozens of restaurants, all next door to each other, all serving traditional Paella – rabbit and chicken – as well as seafood, we don’t eat seafood and it constituted 90% of the menu in most places. Every restaurant does a fixed price dish of the day, with a few choices, three courses and a drink. Some times this was our only meal besides making the most of the continental breakfast at the hotel. We had a fair few bar stops with the local wine being cheap and pleasant it would have been a shame not to, there would have been a one woman riot – or strike!

On our final day, a Sunday, we were out of bed and down for breakfast at 7.45 as usual, the place was deserted barring a waiter. We walked out of the door at 8.30 – in to the middle of a mass road race with many thousands of runners, one of a series that take place in Valencia – apparently! We struggled to find out the distance, possibly 10km. The finish was just around the corner so off we went with the camera gear, taking photos of random runners and groups. There was a TV crew filming it and some local celebrity (I think) commentating. Next we came across some sort of wandering religious and musical event. Some sort of ritual was played out over the course of Sunday morning in various locations, it involved catholic priests and religious buildings and another film crew. The Catholic tourists and locals were filling the (many) churches for Sunday mass. Amongst all of this we had seen men walking around in Arab style dress – the ones in black looked like the ones from ISIS currently beheading people – all carrying guns. A bit disconcerting. We assumed that there had been some sort of battle enactment. We were wrong, it hadn’t happened yet. A while later, about 11.30 we could hear banging, fireworks? No it was our friends with the guns. We were caught up in total mayhem, around 60 men randomly firing muskets with some sort of blank rounds, the noise, smoke and flames from the muzzles were incredible. We were about to climb the Torres de Serranos which is where, unbeknown to us, the grand, and deafening, finale was going to be. We could feel the blast in our faces on top of the tower. Yet again there was a film camera in attendance. I couldn’t get close ups but I got a good overview and shot my first video with the 5D, my first in 5 years of owning a DLSR with the capability. I usually use my phone ( I used my phone as well). Later in the day there was a bullfight taking place, the ring was almost next to our hotel, in the end we had other things to do and gave it a miss, it was certainly a busy Sunday in the city centre, whether it’s the norm or not I don’t know.

There is a tram system in Valencia but it goes from the port area into the newer part of the city on the north side, it wouldn’t be feasible to serve the historic old city really. A quick internet search told me that there are 55,000 university students in the city, a pretty big number. I think a lot of the campus is on the north side and served by the tram although there is a massive fleet of buses as well. There is a massive, very impressive market building , with 100’s of stalls that would make a photo project on its own, beautiful on the inside and out but very difficult to get decent photos of the exterior other than detail shots owing to the closeness of other buildings and the sheer size of it. Across town, another market has been beautifully renovated and is full of bars and restaurants and a bit of a destination in its own right.

A downside was the all too typical shafting by the taxi drivers who use every trick in the book to side step the official tariffs and rob you. The taxi from the airport had a “broken” meter and on the way home we were driven 22 km instead of the nine that is the actual distance. Some of them seem to view tourists as cash cows to be robbed at all costs. I emailed the Marriot hotel as they ordered the taxi, needless to say no answer from Marriot – they’ve had their money. We didn’t get the rip off treatment in the bars etc. that we experienced in Rome, prices are very fair on most things, certainly considering the city location.

All in all we had a good trip and can highly recommend Valencia.

Problemi coniugali * marital problems by Diego Santi

13 9

Heather Davis - Plastic Geologies: The Problem of Universality by Sonic Acts

Photo by Lucas van der Velden

www.darkecology.net/journey-2016/heather-davis---plastic-...

I know , it's Furry Friday-but I'm resting up for CATURDAY ! ヅ by Trish Hamme

10 48

HFF Everyone !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Having Internet Connection problems , cable co. was supposed to be here Wed.----hahaha----now coming on Sun. -Grrrrrrrrrrrr !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank You , Thank You for ALL your kind comments , faves , invites !!

Flickr Friends are the BEST !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Problems by Morten F

4

Live at Revolver's Goon bar

Фото Ивана Миско. Скульптура полет в космос. Photo by Ivan Misko. Sculpture space flight (40) by Ivan Yakimovich Misko

Spaceflight (or space flight) is ballistic flight into or through outer space. Spaceflight can occur with spacecraft with or without humans on board. Yuri Gagarin of the Soviet Union was the first human to conduct a spaceflight. Examples of human spaceflight include the U.S. Apollo Moon landing and Space Shuttle programs and the Russian Soyuz program, as well as the ongoing International Space Station. Examples of unmanned spaceflight include space probes that leave Earth orbit, as well as satellites in orbit around Earth, such as communications satellites. These operate either by telerobotic control or are fully autonomous.

Spaceflight is used in space exploration, and also in commercial activities like space tourism and satellite telecommunications. Additional non-commercial uses of spaceflight include space observatories, reconnaissance satellites and other Earth observation satellites.

A spaceflight typically begins with a rocket launch, which provides the initial thrust to overcome the force of gravity and propels the spacecraft from the surface of the Earth. Once in space, the motion of a spacecraft – both when unpropelled and when under propulsion – is covered by the area of study called astrodynamics. Some spacecraft remain in space indefinitely, some disintegrate during atmospheric reentry, and others reach a planetary or lunar surface for landing or impact.

History

Main articles: History of spaceflight and Timeline of spaceflight

Tsiolkovsky, early space theorist

The first theoretical proposal of space travel using rockets was published by Scottish astronomer and mathematician William Leitch, in an 1861 essay "A Journey Through Space".[1] More well-known (though not widely outside Russia) is Konstantin Tsiolkovsky's work, "Исследование мировых пространств реактивными приборами" (The Exploration of Cosmic Space by Means of Reaction Devices), published in 1903.

Spaceflight became an engineering possibility with the work of Robert H. Goddard's publication in 1919 of his paper A Method of Reaching Extreme Altitudes. His application of the de Laval nozzle to liquid fuel rockets improved efficiency enough for interplanetary travel to become possible. He also proved in the laboratory that rockets would work in the vacuum of space;[specify] nonetheless, his work was not taken seriously by the public. His attempt to secure an Army contract for a rocket-propelled weapon in the first World War was defeated by the November 11, 1918 armistice with Germany. Working with private financial support, he was the first to launch a liquid-fueled rocket in 1926. Goddard's paper was highly influential on Hermann Oberth, who in turn influenced Wernher von Braun. Von Braun became the first to produce modern rockets as guided weapons, employed by Adolf Hitler. Von Braun's V-2 was the first rocket to reach space, at an altitude of 189 kilometers (102 nautical miles) on a June 1944 test flight.[2]

Tsiolkovsky's rocketry work was not fully appreciated in his lifetime, but he influenced Sergey Korolev, who became the Soviet Union's chief rocket designer under Joseph Stalin, to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry nuclear weapons as a counter measure to United States bomber planes. Derivatives of Korolev's R-7 Semyorka missiles were used to launch the world's first artificial Earth satellite, Sputnik 1, on October 4, 1957, and later the first human to orbit the Earth, Yuri Gagarin in Vostok 1, on April 12, 1961.[3]

At the end of World War II, von Braun and most of his rocket team surrendered to the United States, and were expatriated to work on American missiles at what became the Army Ballistic Missile Agency. This work on missiles such as Juno I and Atlas enabled launch of the first US satellite Explorer 1 on February 1, 1958, and the first American in orbit, John Glenn in Friendship 7 on February 20, 1962. As director of the Marshall Space Flight Center, Von Braun oversaw development of a larger class of rocket called Saturn, which allowed the US to send the first two humans, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, to the Moon and back on Apollo 11 in July 1969. Over the same period, the Soviet Union secretly tried but failed to develop the N1 rocket to give them the capability to land one person on the Moon.

Phases

Launch

Main article: Rocket launch

See also: List of space launch system designs

Rockets are the only means currently capable of reaching orbit or beyond. Other non-rocket spacelaunch technologies have yet to be built, or remain short of orbital speeds. A rocket launch for a spaceflight usually starts from a spaceport (cosmodrome), which may be equipped with launch complexes and launch pads for vertical rocket launches, and runways for takeoff and landing of carrier airplanes and winged spacecraft. Spaceports are situated well away from human habitation for noise and safety reasons. ICBMs have various special launching facilities.

A launch is often restricted to certain launch windows. These windows depend upon the position of celestial bodies and orbits relative to the launch site. The biggest influence is often the rotation of the Earth itself. Once launched, orbits are normally located within relatively constant flat planes at a fixed angle to the axis of the Earth, and the Earth rotates within this orbit.

A launch pad is a fixed structure designed to dispatch airborne vehicles. It generally consists of a launch tower and flame trench. It is surrounded by equipment used to erect, fuel, and maintain launch vehicles. Before launch, the rocket can weigh many hundreds of tonnes. The Space Shuttle Columbia, on STS-1, weighed 2,030 tonnes (4,480,000 lb) at take off.

Reaching space

The most commonly used definition of outer space is everything beyond the Kármán line, which is 100 kilometers (62 mi) above the Earth's surface. The United States sometimes defines outer space as everything beyond 50 miles (80 km) in altitude.

Rockets are the only currently practical means of reaching space. Conventional airplane engines cannot reach space due to the lack of oxygen. Rocket engines expel propellant to provide forward thrust that generates enough delta-v (change in velocity) to reach orbit.

For manned launch systems launch escape systems are frequently fitted to allow astronauts to escape in the case of emergency.

Alternatives

Main article: Non-rocket spacelaunch

Many ways to reach space other than rockets have been proposed. Ideas such as the space elevator, and momentum exchange tethers like rotovators or skyhooks require new materials much stronger than any currently known. Electromagnetic launchers such as launch loops might be feasible with current technology. Other ideas include rocket assisted aircraft/spaceplanes such as Reaction Engines Skylon (currently in early stage development), scramjet powered spaceplanes, and RBCC powered spaceplanes. Gun launch has been proposed for cargo.

Leaving orbit

This section possibly contains original research. Relevant discussion may be found on Talk:Spaceflight. Please improve it by verifying the claims made and adding inline citations. Statements consisting only of original research should be removed. (June 2018) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)

Main articles: Escape velocity and Parking orbit

Launched in 1959, Luna 1 was the first known man-made object to achieve escape velocity from the Earth.[4] (replica pictured)

Achieving a closed orbit is not essential to lunar and interplanetary voyages. Early Russian space vehicles successfully achieved very high altitudes without going into orbit. NASA considered launching Apollo missions directly into lunar trajectories but adopted the strategy of first entering a temporary parking orbit and then performing a separate burn several orbits later onto a lunar trajectory. This costs additional propellant because the parking orbit perigee must be high enough to prevent reentry while direct injection can have an arbitrarily low perigee because it will never be reached.

However, the parking orbit approach greatly simplified Apollo mission planning in several important ways. It substantially widened the allowable launch windows, increasing the chance of a successful launch despite minor technical problems during the countdown. The parking orbit was a stable "mission plateau" that gave the crew and controllers several hours to thoroughly check out the spacecraft after the stresses of launch before committing it to a long lunar flight; the crew could quickly return to Earth, if necessary, or an alternate Earth-orbital mission could be conducted. The parking orbit also enabled translunar trajectories that avoided the densest parts of the Van Allen radiation belts.

Apollo missions minimized the performance penalty of the parking orbit by keeping its altitude as low as possible. For example, Apollo 15 used an unusually low parking orbit (even for Apollo) of 92.5 nmi by 91.5 nmi (171 km by 169 km) where there was significant atmospheric drag. But it was partially overcome by continuous venting of hydrogen from the third stage of the Saturn V, and was in any event tolerable for the short stay.

Robotic missions do not require an abort capability or radiation minimization, and because modern launchers routinely meet "instantaneous" launch windows, space probes to the Moon and other planets generally use direct injection to maximize performance. Although some might coast briefly during the launch sequence, they do not complete one or more full parking orbits before the burn that injects them onto an Earth escape trajectory.

Note that the escape velocity from a celestial body decreases with altitude above that body. However, it is more fuel-efficient for a craft to burn its fuel as close to the ground as possible; see Oberth effect and reference.[5] This is another way to explain the performance penalty associated with establishing the safe perigee of a parking orbit.

Plans for future crewed interplanetary spaceflight missions often include final vehicle assembly in Earth orbit, such as NASA's Project Orion and Russia's Kliper/Parom tandem.

Astrodynamics

Main article: Orbital mechanics

Astrodynamics is the study of spacecraft trajectories, particularly as they relate to gravitational and propulsion effects. Astrodynamics allows for a spacecraft to arrive at its destination at the correct time without excessive propellant use. An orbital maneuvering system may be needed to maintain or change orbits.

Non-rocket orbital propulsion methods include solar sails, magnetic sails, plasma-bubble magnetic systems, and using gravitational slingshot effects.

Ionized gas trail from Shuttle reentry

Recovery of Discoverer 14 return capsule by a C-119 airplane

Transfer energy

The term "transfer energy" means the total amount of energy imparted by a rocket stage to its payload. This can be the energy imparted by a first stage of a launch vehicle to an upper stage plus payload, or by an upper stage or spacecraft kick motor to a spacecraft.[6][7]

Reentry

Main article: Atmospheric reentry

Vehicles in orbit have large amounts of kinetic energy. This energy must be discarded if the vehicle is to land safely without vaporizing in the atmosphere. Typically this process requires special methods to protect against aerodynamic heating. The theory behind reentry was developed by Harry Julian Allen. Based on this theory, reentry vehicles present blunt shapes to the atmosphere for reentry. Blunt shapes mean that less than 1% of the kinetic energy ends up as heat that reaches the vehicle, and the remainder heats up the atmosphere.

Landing

The Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo capsules all splashed down in the sea. These capsules were designed to land at relatively low speeds with the help of a parachute. Russian capsules for Soyuz make use of a big parachute and braking rockets to touch down on land. The Space Shuttle glided to a touchdown like a plane.

Recovery

After a successful landing the spacecraft, its occupants and cargo can be recovered. In some cases, recovery has occurred before landing: while a spacecraft is still descending on its parachute, it can be snagged by a specially designed aircraft. This mid-air retrieval technique was used to recover the film canisters from the Corona spy satellites.

Types

Uncrewed

See also: Uncrewed spacecraft and robotic spacecraft

Sojourner takes its Alpha particle X-ray spectrometer measurement of Yogi Rock on Mars

The MESSENGER spacecraft at Mercury (artist's interpretation)

Uncrewed spaceflight (or unmanned) is all spaceflight activity without a necessary human presence in space. This includes all space probes, satellites and robotic spacecraft and missions. Uncrewed spaceflight is the opposite of manned spaceflight, which is usually called human spaceflight. Subcategories of uncrewed spaceflight are "robotic spacecraft" (objects) and "robotic space missions" (activities). A robotic spacecraft is an uncrewed spacecraft with no humans on board, that is usually under telerobotic control. A robotic spacecraft designed to make scientific research measurements is often called a space probe.

Uncrewed space missions use remote-controlled spacecraft. The first uncrewed space mission was Sputnik I, launched October 4, 1957 to orbit the Earth. Space missions where other animals but no humans are on-board are considered uncrewed missions.

Benefits

Many space missions are more suited to telerobotic rather than crewed operation, due to lower cost and lower risk factors. In addition, some planetary destinations such as Venus or the vicinity of Jupiter are too hostile for human survival, given current technology. Outer planets such as Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune are too distant to reach with current crewed spaceflight technology, so telerobotic probes are the only way to explore them. Telerobotics also allows exploration of regions that are vulnerable to contamination by Earth micro-organisms since spacecraft can be sterilized. Humans can not be sterilized in the same way as a spaceship, as they coexist with numerous micro-organisms, and these micro-organisms are also hard to contain within a spaceship or spacesuit.

Telepresence

Telerobotics becomes telepresence when the time delay is short enough to permit control of the spacecraft in close to real time by humans. Even the two seconds light speed delay for the Moon is too far away for telepresence exploration from Earth. The L1 and L2 positions permit 400-millisecond round trip delays, which is just close enough for telepresence operation. Telepresence has also been suggested as a way to repair satellites in Earth orbit from Earth. The Exploration Telerobotics Symposium in 2012 explored this and other topics.[8]

Human

Main article: Human spaceflight

ISS crew member stores samples

The first human spaceflight was Vostok 1 on April 12, 1961, on which cosmonaut Yuri Gagarin of the USSR made one orbit around the Earth. In official Soviet documents, there is no mention of the fact that Gagarin parachuted the final seven miles.[9] Currently, the only spacecraft regularly used for human spaceflight are the Russian Soyuz spacecraft and the Chinese Shenzhou spacecraft. The U.S. Space Shuttle fleet operated from April 1981 until July 2011. SpaceShipOne has conducted two human suborbital spaceflights.

Sub-orbital

Main article: Sub-orbital spaceflight

The International Space Station in Earth orbit after a visit from the crew of STS-119

On a sub-orbital spaceflight the spacecraft reaches space and then returns to the atmosphere after following a (primarily) ballistic trajectory. This is usually because of insufficient specific orbital energy, in which case a suborbital flight will last only a few minutes, but it is also possible for an object with enough energy for an orbit to have a trajectory that intersects the Earth's atmosphere, sometimes after many hours. Pioneer 1 was NASA's first space probe intended to reach the Moon. A partial failure caused it to instead follow a suborbital trajectory to an altitude of 113,854 kilometers (70,746 mi) before reentering the Earth's atmosphere 43 hours after launch.

The most generally recognized boundary of space is the Kármán line 100 km above sea level. (NASA alternatively defines an astronaut as someone who has flown more than 50 miles (80 km) above sea level.) It is not generally recognized by the public that the increase in potential energy required to pass the Kármán line is only about 3% of the orbital energy (potential plus kinetic energy) required by the lowest possible Earth orbit (a circular orbit just above the Kármán line.) In other words, it is far easier to reach space than to stay there. On May 17, 2004, Civilian Space eXploration Team launched the GoFast Rocket on a suborbital flight, the first amateur spaceflight. On June 21, 2004, SpaceShipOne was used for the first privately funded human spaceflight.

Point-to-point

Point-to-point is a category of sub-orbital spaceflight in which a spacecraft provides rapid transport between two terrestrial locations. Consider a conventional airline route between London and Sydney, a flight that normally lasts over twenty hours. With point-to-point suborbital travel the same route could be traversed in less than one hour.[10] While no company offers this type of transportation today, SpaceX has revealed plans to do so as early as the 2020s using its BFR vehicle.[11] Suborbital spaceflight over an intercontinental distance requires a vehicle velocity that is only a little lower than the velocity required to reach low Earth orbit.[12] If rockets are used, the size of the rocket relative to the payload is similar to an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM). Any intercontinental spaceflight has to surmount problems of heating during atmosphere re-entry that are nearly as large as those faced by orbital spaceflight.

Orbital

Main article: Orbital spaceflight

Apollo 6 heads into orbit

A minimal orbital spaceflight requires much higher velocities than a minimal sub-orbital flight, and so it is technologically much more challenging to achieve. To achieve orbital spaceflight, the tangential velocity around the Earth is as important as altitude. In order to perform a stable and lasting flight in space, the spacecraft must reach the minimal orbital speed required for a closed orbit.

Interplanetary

Main article: Interplanetary spaceflight

Interplanetary travel is travel between planets within a single planetary system. In practice, the use of the term is confined to travel between the planets of our Solar System.

Interstellar

Main article: Interstellar travel

Five spacecraft are currently leaving the Solar System on escape trajectories, Voyager 1, Voyager 2, Pioneer 10, Pioneer 11, and New Horizons. The one farthest from the Sun is Voyager 1, which is more than 100 AU distant and is moving at 3.6 AU per year.[13] In comparison, Proxima Centauri, the closest star other than the Sun, is 267,000 AU distant. It will take Voyager 1 over 74,000 years to reach this distance. Vehicle designs using other techniques, such as nuclear pulse propulsion are likely to be able to reach the nearest star significantly faster. Another possibility that could allow for human interstellar spaceflight is to make use of time dilation, as this would make it possible for passengers in a fast-moving vehicle to travel further into the future while aging very little, in that their great speed slows down the rate of passage of on-board time. However, attaining such high speeds would still require the use of some new, advanced method of propulsion.

Intergalactic

Main article: Intergalactic travel

Intergalactic travel involves spaceflight between galaxies, and is considered much more technologically demanding than even interstellar travel and, by current engineering terms, is considered science fiction.

Spacecraft

Main article: Spacecraft

An Apollo Lunar Module on the lunar surface

Spacecraft are vehicles capable of controlling their trajectory through space.

The first 'true spacecraft' is sometimes said to be Apollo Lunar Module,[14] since this was the only manned vehicle to have been designed for, and operated only in space; and is notable for its non aerodynamic shape.

Propulsion

Main article: Spacecraft propulsion

Spacecraft today predominantly use rockets for propulsion, but other propulsion techniques such as ion drives are becoming more common, particularly for unmanned vehicles, and this can significantly reduce the vehicle's mass and increase its delta-v.

Launch systems

Main article: Launch vehicle

Launch systems are used to carry a payload from Earth's surface into outer space.

Expendable

Main article: Expendable launch system

Most current spaceflight uses multi-stage expendable launch systems to reach space.

Reusable

Main article: Reusable launch system

Ambox current red.svg

This section needs to be updated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (August 2019)

The first reusable spacecraft, the X-15, was air-launched on a suborbital trajectory on July 19, 1963. The first partially reusable orbital spacecraft, the Space Shuttle, was launched by the USA on the 20th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's flight, on April 12, 1981. During the Shuttle era, six orbiters were built, all of which have flown in the atmosphere and five of which have flown in space. The Enterprise was used only for approach and landing tests, launching from the back of a Boeing 747 and gliding to deadstick landings at Edwards AFB, California. The first Space Shuttle to fly into space was the Columbia, followed by the Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and Endeavour. The Endeavour was built to replace the Challenger, which was lost in January 1986. The Columbia broke up during reentry in February 2003.

The Space Shuttle Columbia seconds after engine ignition on mission STS-1

Columbia landing, concluding the STS-1 mission

Columbia launches again on STS-2

The first automatic partially reusable spacecraft was the Buran (Snowstorm), launched by the USSR on November 15, 1988, although it made only one flight. This spaceplane was designed for a crew and strongly resembled the US Space Shuttle, although its drop-off boosters used liquid propellants and its main engines were located at the base of what would be the external tank in the American Shuttle. Lack of funding, complicated by the dissolution of the USSR, prevented any further flights of Buran.

Per the Vision for Space Exploration, the Space Shuttle was retired in 2011 due mainly to its old age and high cost of the program reaching over a billion dollars per flight. The Shuttle's human transport role is to be replaced by the partially reusable Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) no later than 2021. The Shuttle's heavy cargo transport role is to be replaced by expendable rockets such as the Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV) or a Shuttle Derived Launch Vehicle.

Scaled Composites SpaceShipOne was a reusable suborbital spaceplane that carried pilots Mike Melvill and Brian Binnie on consecutive flights in 2004 to win the Ansari X Prize. The Spaceship Company has built its successor SpaceShipTwo. A fleet of SpaceShipTwos operated by Virgin Galactic planned to begin reusable private spaceflight carrying paying passengers (space tourists) in 2008, but this was delayed due to an accident in the propulsion development.[15]

Challenges

Main article: Effect of spaceflight on the human body

Space disasters

Main article: Space accidents and incidents

All launch vehicles contain a huge amount of energy that is needed for some part of it to reach orbit. There is therefore some risk that this energy can be released prematurely and suddenly, with significant effects. When a Delta II rocket exploded 13 seconds after launch on January 17, 1997, there were reports of store windows 10 miles (16 km) away being broken by the blast.[16]

Space is a fairly predictable environment, but there are still risks of accidental depressurization and the potential failure of equipment, some of which may be very newly developed.

In 2004 the International Association for the Advancement of Space Safety was established in the Netherlands to further international cooperation and scientific advancement in space systems safety.[17]

Weightlessness

Main article: Weightlessness

Astronauts on the ISS in weightless conditions. Michael Foale can be seen exercising in the foreground.

In a microgravity environment such as that provided by a spacecraft in orbit around the Earth, humans experience a sense of "weightlessness." Short-term exposure to microgravity causes space adaptation syndrome, a self-limiting nausea caused by derangement of the vestibular system. Long-term exposure causes multiple health issues. The most significant is bone loss, some of which is permanent, but microgravity also leads to significant deconditioning of muscular and cardiovascular tissues.

Radiation

Once above the atmosphere, radiation due to the Van Allen belts, solar radiation and cosmic radiation issues occur and increase. Further away from the Earth, solar flares can give a fatal radiation dose in minutes, and the health threat from cosmic radiation significantly increases the chances of cancer over a decade exposure or more.[18]

Life support

Main article: Life support system

In human spaceflight, the life support system is a group of devices that allow a human being to survive in outer space. NASA often uses the phrase Environmental Control and Life Support System or the acronym ECLSS when describing these systems for its human spaceflight missions.[19] The life support system may supply: air, water and food. It must also maintain the correct body temperature, an acceptable pressure on the body and deal with the body's waste products. Shielding against harmful external influences such as radiation and micro-meteorites may also be necessary. Components of the life support system are life-critical, and are designed and constructed using safety engineering techniques.

Space weather

Main article: Space weather

Aurora australis and Discovery, May 1991.

Space weather is the concept of changing environmental conditions in outer space. It is distinct from the concept of weather within a planetary atmosphere, and deals with phenomena involving ambient plasma, magnetic fields, radiation and other matter in space (generally close to Earth but also in interplanetary, and occasionally interstellar medium). "Space weather describes the conditions in space that affect Earth and its technological systems. Our space weather is a consequence of the behavior of the Sun, the nature of Earth's magnetic field, and our location in the Solar System."[20]

Space weather exerts a profound influence in several areas related to space exploration and development. Changing geomagnetic conditions can induce changes in atmospheric density causing the rapid degradation of spacecraft altitude in Low Earth orbit. Geomagnetic storms due to increased solar activity can potentially blind sensors aboard spacecraft, or interfere with on-board electronics. An understanding of space environmental conditions is also important in designing shielding and life support systems for manned spacecraft.

Environmental considerations

Rockets as a class are not inherently grossly polluting. However, some rockets use toxic propellants, and most vehicles use propellants that are not carbon neutral. Many solid rockets have chlorine in the form of perchlorate or other chemicals, and this can cause temporary local holes in the ozone layer. Re-entering spacecraft generate nitrates which also can temporarily impact the ozone layer. Most rockets are made of metals that can have an environmental impact during their construction.

In addition to the atmospheric effects there are effects on the near-Earth space environment. There is the possibility that orbit could become inaccessible for generations due to exponentially increasing space debris caused by spalling of satellites and vehicles (Kessler syndrome). Many launched vehicles today are therefore designed to be re-entered after use.

Meadow Brown (Maniola jurtina) by Barry Watts

Complete with fetching red earrings. Most species at this site seemed to have red mite problem.

Land pollution by nz_willowherb

Like sea pollution, plastic waste seems to appear everywhere. This is used to protect or mulch plants. Here it appears to have been ploughed in and would be difficult to separate out. Maybe it is biodegradable in which case what sort of residue does it leave?

articles.extension.org/pages/67951/current-and-future-pro...

Valencia 2014 (9) 189 - Fountain in Plaza de la Virgen by the Catedral El Micalet by Mark Schofield