Experimenting with a long exposure while moving a digital clock around in the air.
Long exposures are great...they make waterfalls silky, stars into trails, and waves into foam.
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Future Past
San Francisco Chronicle Wednesday, October 12, 1977
Cities in Outer Space—Answering the Critics
By Harold Gilliam
It didn’t look like the kind of place you would expect to find a mad scientist.
No Charles Addams mansion, just a large white gabled house on a street in Palo Alto with wide lawns and big sycamore trees, very much like a friendly neighborhood in Grand Rapids.
Nevertheless I walked toward the front door with a case of mild anxiety. There are people who think Gerard O’Neill is, if not a mad scientist, at least a dangerous fanatic.
He is the Princeton physicist who has conjured up this vision of cities in space,
housing thousands of people, and he says we can build the first one in about 15 years.
Space solar power stations would beam almost unlimited cheap energy back to earth, day and night. Good-by, Arab oil. Good-by, energy crisis.
O’Neill’s colonies, built in space with materials mined from the moon and the asteroids, would proliferate until they could hold millions of people, absorbing the earth’s entire annual population growth – people attracted by the prospect of high incomes and exotic surroundings. Good-by, population problems.
The colonies would be fully enclosed with their own atmosphere, but otherwise would closely resemble earth all cleaned up like some roofed-over Disneyland – trees, flowers, parks, farms, rivers, woods, lakes.
The man who came to the door wore a white polo shirt and a friendly smile. He appeared an athletic 40. I learned later he was 50 and a glider pilot in his spare time.
“I’m Gerry O’Neill,” he said. “Come on in.”
He said he was here temporarily from Princeton to join 60 other scientists from all over the country in a six-week space colony study at NASA’s Ames Research Center.
As we sat down I told him that I had always taken a dim view of space activities because they seemed a high-priced escape from the problems facing us on earth.
“I used to feel the same way,” he said. “Then a few years ago I developed a space project for my first-year physics students at Princeton – purely as a class exercise. They were assigned to investigate the possibilities of permanent space habitats, using only existing technology. Much to everybody’s surprise, all the numbers came out right.
“And up to now they’ve continued to come out right, even with large teams of scientists working on them.”
I told him I had talked to some authorities who couldn’t believe his space statistics. University of California energy specialist Lee Schipper, for one, has said that he believed nobody had any idea of the cost of building a colony on the moon or in space, since there’s no experience to base it on. Big projects always have colossal cost overruns, and if the space stations can’t supply cheap energy, their economic base disappears.
O’Neill nodded, as if he’d heard that before.
“These aren’t just my figures,” he said. “They’ve been checked out by many scientists in studies funded by NASA.
“In the next 25 years utility companies are planning to spend $800 billion for new nuclear and coal plants to quadruple their generating capacity. It would take much less – $30 to $60 billion – to bring on line our alternative to coal and nuclear.
“That amount would buy an industrial habitat in space turning out two power satellites a year, generating ten thousand megawatts each. Seven years later an expanded facility could supply the country’s entire need for new generating capacity.
But with all the expenses of going into space, I asked, how could he expect to do it so much more cheaply than developing earth-based energy sources?
“Manufacturing power stations – or almost anything else – is much easier in space than on earth because you don’t have to spend energy overcoming gravity. And there’s an uninterrupted supply of sunlight we can convert to microwaves beamed to earth day and night.”
I asked O’Neill about the critics who say it wouldn’t be possible to raise food in space because organic soil depends on the interactions of millions of micro-organisms, plus assorted worms, bugs, birds and bees all combined in the intricate balances of a complex ecosystem.
“I think the ecologists have brainwashed many of us into thinking ecological stability is necessary. The fact is that we have never grown food that way. The farmer puts in a plant, pulls the weeds and kills the pests.
“Greenhouse agriculture is the most efficient kind there is. And basically that’s what we would be doing in space.”
I told O’Neill that some environmentalists regard him as a very dangerous person, diverting us from the job of learning how to conserve energy and live within the limits of the earth, offering us an escape in the sky as a solution to all our problems. Don’t insulate, emigrate.
“Well, I think a lot of attacks on this idea have been emotional and based on misinformation. The critics aren’t willing to do the hard work of reading and understanding the technical documents.
“The stupidest thing we could do is to limit our ways of solving problems. We should look at all solutions and find out which is best. Including space.”
Later, as I left the house and walked down the shady street beneath the sycamores, I recalled a remark by Schipper: “O’Neill can put price tags on his hardware, but he’s talking about building complete social order in space. There’s absolutely no basis in experience to know how much it would cost or whether it would work at all.”
I could not avoid the feeling that O’Neill was promising too much too soon. Taking earth experiments into space is climbing into another order of magnitude where the unknowns out-number the knowns by a thousand to one.
And yet…
Are the unknowns any greater than those faced by Columbus sailing from Spain, or Lewis and Clark starting up the unknown Missouri? If we have lost our capacity to take risks, to venture, to dare for the sake of great purposes, our civilization is surely moribund.
Strolling down the quiet street beneath the sycamores, I had to admit that my imagination was fired by the idea of a new step in human evolution, opening up the blind alleys of our time and providing the electrifying prospect of unlimited new frontiers.
Was it a vision of a possible future – or a dangerous delusion?
Next week: Can humans survive in space?
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
New Sony Digital SLRs
The new Sony A350 and A300 digital SLRs. The A350 has a really nice pull-out 2.7-inch LCD. Very cool.
Samsung PMA Booth LED Curtain Display
The Samsung booth at PMA had a huge LED curtain that could display messages.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Saturday, February 9, 2008
The New Sony Mylo
I thought the new Mylo was very cool. The design was much improved over the previous version's egg-like shape.
The Pentax K20D
The new 14.6 megapixel DSLR from Pentax. A very nice camera, with excellent ergonomics.
The Hyper-Fast Canon EOS 1D-Mark III
I used this lens and camera combo at PMA 2008. The 10fps speed is incredible!
The Casio EX-F1
The new Casio EX-F1 is truly amazing. It can capture 60fps full-resolution 6 megapixel images, and an incredible 1200 frames per second at lower resolution.
Canon EOS Digital Rebel XSi at PMA 2008
This is the new Digital Rebel XSi. I had a chance to play with it at PMA 2008 and I was very impressed. The LiveView and larger viewfinder are really great, and the higher FPS-rate is noticeable.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)