Moagricultuin zero-g

Hi Lucio,

Just a note to say I was utterly apalled at the conditions on this
nefarious agreement.

I know ESA already has Kurou, but Alcntara would be much better for
many launches, so I would very much suggest that Brazil approach ESA,
who I'm sure would agree to a much better and much more pro-Brazil
agreement.

Roy Gibson, the guy who founded ESA, is a personal friend of mine and
one of the Honorary members of ASTRA - the Association in Scotland To
Research into Astronautics, on whose Council I serve (in addition to
being president of the UK Space Settlers' Society). Even though he is
now officially retired, he is still active in space affairs, if you have
contacts with anyone in Brazil who would like a good word put in, just
ask and I'll do all poss to get Roy to do so.

By the way, have you come to any decision yet on putting the possibility
of a merger between the two Space Settlers' Societies to your Yahoo
group?

Best wishes, Andy.

"Dr. Omni" wrote:

> From:
> To:
> Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 4:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] More agriculture in zero-g
>
> [snikt]
> What is your perspective on the Alcantara issue?
>
> For those who are not familiar with the referred issue, I would
> suggest
> reading
> http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/09/10/brazil.us.space.ap/index.html
> as a
> startpoint.
>
> The most polemical points in the Alcntara issue are:
>
> 1) There will be *no* transfer of astronautic technology from
> Americans to
> Brazilians.
> 2) Brazilians would not be allowed to inspect American sealed
> containers
> entering the facilities; also there would be "Brazilian-free"
> restricted
> areas for Americans only.
> 3) Brazilians would no be allowed to use the money from the rental to
> further develop the embryonic Brazilian astronautics.
>
> I think that item (1) is perfectly reasonable. Everyone knows that the
> same
> technology that allows people to go to space can also be used to drop
> bombs
> over the heads of people somewhere, so Astronautics was always
> considered a
> strategic technology and therefore each country has to build it from
> scratch. As for items (2) and (3), well... I know that there are many
> Americans here in this list and I hope that you will not be offended
> by my
> "empathic" opinion, but... Items (2) and (3) are OUTRAGEOUS!
>
> As congressman Waldir Pires pointed out, item (2) has the potential to
>
> threaten the fairness Brazilian relationships with other countries.
> For
> instance, Brazil has normal diplomatic relationships with Cuba, a
> country
> that is not, let say, one of America's best friends. What if some of
> the
> "sealed-containers-that-cannot-be-inspected" has a spy satellite that
> will
> be used, among other things, to inspect Cuba? (Yes, I know that in the
>
> present world scenario that does not sound very likely, but it is a
> possibility anyway.) We would be unwillingly contributing to an
> unfriendly
> action committed against a friendly country.
>
> Item (3) sounds kind of strange when proposed by a nation that is
> often see
> as the champion of Capitalism, free market and free enterprise.
> Suppose that
> America is a car driver that wants to rent a park area from another
> guy,
> Brazil. However, America will sign the contract only if Brazil
> promises to
> not use the money to buy a car for himself. In *any* rental situation
> like
> that, the landlord would dismiss the unreasonable guy and continue to
> rent
> his property to more reasonable people... And, indeed, I don't think
> that
> our Congress will authorize this rental.
>
> That's it. Again, I hope that I did not hurt any patriotic feelings
> that you
> may have - that was not my intention at all - but I was asked to
> expose the
> situation from my (Brazilian) perspective...
>
> Ron Menich
>
> Lucio Coelho
>
> P.S.: Here's a URL that may be of interest to you re your side issue:
>
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010808135444.htm .
> [snikt]
>
> Interesting article. However, I think that the same reasoning would
> not
> apply to alcohol from sugar cane as used in Brazil. I've never seen
> any
> scientific study saying that the sugar cane alternative was
> energetically
> unviable, that is, saying that the process to make alcohol uses more
> energy
> than the one given by the alcohol. (Of course that may be biased by
> the
> following factors: (a) until recently, most of agricultural work in
> sugar
> cane fields was done not by machines, but by human workers and (b) our
>
> electricity is mostly hydro and therefore very cheap.) Anyway, I think
> that
> sugar cane would not be viable for the case of the United States: it
> is a
> tropical plant, and also the total amount of vehicles in the United
> States
> is enormously larger than the corresponding number for Brazil, so the
> whole
> US surface area would have to be covered with sugar cane to power
> American
> cars...
>

Just a note to say I was utterly apalled at the conditions on this nefariousagreement.
I know ESA already has Kurou, but Alcântara would be much betterfor many launches, so I would very much suggest that Brazil approach ESA,who I'm sure would agree to a much better and much more pro-Brazil agreement.
Roy Gibson, the guy who founded ESA, is a personal friend of mine andone of the Honorary members of ASTRA - the Association in Scotland To Researchinto Astronautics, on whose Council I serve (in addition to being presidentof the UK Space Settlers' Society). Even though he is now officially retired,he is still active in space affairs, if you have contacts with anyone inBrazil who would like a good word put in, just ask and I'll do all possto get Roy to do so.
By the way, have you come to any decision yet on putting the possibilityof a merger between the two Space Settlers' Societies to your Yahoo group?
Best wishes, Andy.
"Dr. Omni" wrote:
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2001 4:27 PM
Subject: Re: [spacesettlers] More agriculture in zero-g

[snikt]
What is your perspective on the Alcantara issue?
For those who are not familiar with the referred issue, I wouldsuggest
reading
http://www.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/09/10/brazil.us.space.ap/index.html
as a
startpoint.
The most polemical points in the Alcântara issue are:
1) There will be *no* transfer of astronautic technology from Americansto
Brazilians.
2) Brazilians would not be allowed to inspect American sealed containers
entering the facilities; also there would be "Brazilian-free" restricted
areas for Americans only.
3) Brazilians would no be allowed to use the money from the rentalto
further develop the embryonic Brazilian astronautics.
I think that item (1) is perfectly reasonable. Everyone knows thatthe same
technology that allows people to go to space can also be used todrop bombs
over the heads of people somewhere, so Astronautics was alwaysconsidered a
strategic technology and therefore each country has to build itfrom
scratch. As for items (2) and (3), well... I know that there aremany
Americans here in this list and I hope that you will not be offendedby my
"empathic" opinion, but... Items (2) and (3) are OUTRAGEOUS!
As congressman Waldir Pires pointed out, item (2) has the potentialto
threaten the fairness Brazilian relationships with other countries.For
instance, Brazil has normal diplomatic relationships with Cuba,a country
that is not, let say, one of America's best friends. What if someof the
"sealed-containers-that-cannot-be-inspected" has a spy satellitethat will
be used, among other things, to inspect Cuba? (Yes, I know thatin the
present world scenario that does not sound very likely, but itis a
possibility anyway.) We would be unwillingly contributing to anunfriendly
action committed against a friendly country.
Item (3) sounds kind of strange when proposed by a nation that isoften see
as the champion of Capitalism, free market and free enterprise.Suppose that
America is a car driver that wants to rent a park area from anotherguy,
Brazil. However, America will sign the contract only if Brazilpromises to
not use the money to buy a car for himself. In *any* rentalsituation like
that, the landlord would dismiss the unreasonable guy and continueto rent
his property to more reasonable people... And, indeed, I don'tthink that
our Congress will authorize this rental.
That's it. Again, I hope that I did not hurt any patriotic feelingsthat you
may have - that was not my intention at all - but I was asked toexpose the
situation from my (Brazilian) perspective...
Ron Menich
Lúcio Coelho

P.S.: Here's a URL that may be of interest to you re yourside issue:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/08/010808135444.htm
.
[snikt]
Interesting article. However, I think that the same reasoning wouldnot
apply to alcohol from sugar cane as used in Brazil. I've neverseen any
scientific study saying that the sugar cane alternative was energetically
unviable, that is, saying that the process to make alcohol usesmore energy
than the one given by the alcohol. (Of course that may be biasedby the
following factors: (a) until recently, most of agricultural workin sugar
cane fields was done not by machines, but by human workers and(b) our
electricity is mostly hydro and therefore very cheap.) Anyway,I think that
sugar cane would not be viable for the case of the United States:it is a
tropical plant, and also the total amount of vehicles in the UnitedStates
is enormously larger than the corresponding number for Brazil,so the whole
US surface area would have to be covered with sugar cane to powerAmerican
cars...

.