The Newsletter of the USS Ronald E McNair

Special Double Issue: May-June and July –August 2011

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

XO Stephen Stott and CO Pam Michaud

USS Ronald E McNair receives Awards at Region One Summit

USS Ronald McNair is named Chapter of the year.This was only the beginning of the awards for the McNair. CO of the year goes to our beloved CO Pam Michaud and Officer of the year goes to our exceptional Vulcan Stephen Stott. Commander Hayden Segel who is the commander of our chapter in training (shuttle) was promoted to Captain. New members Barbara Lariscy and DJ Powers came in second in the scavenger hunt. Barbara Lariscy, Chris Lariscy and DJ Powers also received 15 year Good Conduct awards. Our attendees represented us well.

Region One Photo Gallery

pictures by Barbara LariscyCommodore Barbara LariscyReceives DSA. Also received 15 year good conduct award

Captain D J Powers AKA Ambassador ModocCaptain D J Powers AKA Ambassador Modoc15 year Good Conduct15 year Good Conduct

Fleet Admiral Blaser Fleet Admiral Blaser Models his “Got Wood” shirtModels his “Got Wood” shirtThe hot item at the summit The hot item at the summit

Courtesy of the McNair attendeesCourtesy of the McNair attendeesAfter being suitably bribed with Romulan aleAfter being suitably bribed with Romulan ale

Fleet Admiral names McNair bartender for Region OneFleet Admiral names McNair bartender for Region One

Who is that Romulan?Who is that Romulan?

Wanted !!! suspect in trafficking in Romulan ale

Notice XO Stott in line honoring Region One’s military membersNotice XO Stott in line honoring Region One’s military members

Pictures by Carnell Eubanks

We did work a little. Honest!!!

Duck racing anyone

Party anyone?

What happened to my pic of the dancing XO??? Captain Stott, you know it wasn’t supposed to go to Washington D C

Well I’ll keep the rest in my private vault. Never know when a special picture can be useful.

The summit was great. We all had a great time and hope we can have a larger group next year. Same place Pigeon Forge Tennessee. Registration is open. See the 2012 Region One website for details.

Trek Trax Atlanta Ga

Ensign Mason and I returned from our away mission to Trek Trax.  Mission was a huge success.  Congratulations to Ensign Elise Mason for finishing second place in the trivia contest.  We represented the ship well.  For those of you that are Facebook friends you can see the pictures I posted on my page.

Live long and prosper,

First Officer Stott

Dragoncon 2011

Dragoncon is coming Labor day weekend. Commodore Lariscy and spouse Dale Carter will attend. A Full report and Pictures in next newsletter.

STARFLEET Academy report

Here are the courses that Mark Tyler aka Kapact has taken. he's a new member and lives in Las Vegas.

    IOAS - Klingon Warrior Academy (IOAS:KWA)        KWA 101 - History & Government   DISTINCTION  02/27/2011        KWA 102 - Klingon Military   HONORS   03/06/2011        KWA 103 - Physiology   DISTINCTION  03/11/2011        KWA 104 - Klingon Culture   HONORS   03/13/2011        KWA 202 - Treaties of the Empire   HONORS   04/03/2011        KWA 301 - Klingon Project 1   HONORS   04/15/2011      IOLS - Officer's Training School (IOLS:OTS)        OTS   DISTINCTION  02/21/2011      IOMS - College of Strategy and Tactics (IOMS:COST)        SOST 101 - Strategy and Tactics: The Basics   DISTINCTION  03/26/2011        SOST 102 - Strategy and Tactics: Advanced Concepts  DISTINCTION  04/08/2011        SOST 201 - Strategy and Tactics In Star Trek   DISTINCTION  04/30/2011

Come on Gang let’s take some classes. The Academy is a STARFLEET jewel. There are classes for everyone level and interest. Let’s not let Mark study alone. Congrats Mark keep up the good work.

Security Report received in MaySecurity report , this will be short but easy to read. On the McNair all is well. Occasional reports are sent out concerning safety for crew and officers for both on duty and off duty ventures. Brig at this time is empty. I will be in attendance at the putt putt tourney on Sunday to keep a ever watchful eye upon the Captain and crew for their safety.   Ensign Walter E. BrookerChief of SecurityU.S.S. Ronald E. McNair, NCC-61809STARFLEET, Region One

Crewman of the Quarter

It's my privilege as CO to announce our crew member of the quarter.Ensign Mark Tyler aka Kapact.

As Tactical Officer he is taking the position seriously. He has taken SFA tactical courses and is now taking SFMC tactical courses. He always keeps me apprised of what the dept is doing. Kapact will be receiving a McNair tshirt.

the Captain

The Case for Parallel UniversesWhy the multiverse, crazy as it sounds, is a solid scientific ideaBy Alexander Vilenkin and Max Tegmark  | July 19, 2011 | 84

Editor's note: In the August issue of Scientific American, cosmologist George Ellis describes why he's skeptical about the concept of parallel universes. Here, multiverse proponents Alexander Vilenkin and Max Tegmark offer counterpoints, explaining why the multiverse would account for so many features of our universe—and how it might be tested.

 

Welcome to the MultiverseBy Alexander Vilenkin

The universe as we know it originated in a great explosion that we call the big bang. For nearly a century cosmologists have been studying the aftermath of this explosion: how the universe expanded and cooled down, and how galaxies were gradually pulled together by gravity. The nature of the bang itself has come into focus only relatively recently. It is the subject of the theory of inflation, which was developed in the early 1980s by Alan Guth, Andrei Linde and others, and has led to a radically new global view of the universe.

Inflation is a period of super-fast, accelerated expansion in early cosmic history. It is so fast that in a fraction of a second a tiny subatomic speck of space is blown to dimensions much greater than the entire currently observable region. At the end of inflation, the energy that drove the expansion ignites a hot fireball of particles and radiation. This is what we call the big bang.

The end of inflation is triggered by quantum, probabilistic processes and does not occur everywhere at once. In our cosmic neighborhood, inflation ended 13.7 billion years ago, but it still continues in remote parts of the universe, and other “normal” regions like ours are constantly being formed. The new regions appear as tiny, microscopic bubbles and immediately start to grow. The bubbles keep growing without bound; in the meantime they are driven apart by the inflationary expansion, making room for more bubbles to form. This never-

ending process is called eternal inflation. We live in one of the bubbles and can observe only a small part of it. No matter how fast we travel, we cannot catch up with the expanding boundaries of our bubble, so for all practical purposes we live in a self-contained bubble universe.

The theory of inflation explained some otherwise mysterious features of the big bang, which simply had to be postulated before. It also made a number of testable predictions, which were then spectacularly confirmed by observations. By now inflation has become the leading cosmological paradigm.

Another key aspect of the new worldview derives from string theory, which is at present our best candidate for the fundamental theory of nature. String theory admits an immense number of solutions describing bubble universes with diverse physical properties. The quantities we call constants of nature, such as the masses of elementary particles, Newton’s gravitational constant, and so on, take different values in different bubble types. Now combine this with the theory of inflation. Each bubble type has a certain probability to form in the inflating space. So inevitably, an unlimited number of bubbles of all possible types will be formed in the course of eternal inflation.

This picture of the universe, or multiverse, as it is called, explains the long-standing mystery of why the constants of nature appear to be fine-tuned for the emergence of life. The reason is that intelligent observers exist only in those rare bubbles in which, by pure chance, the constants happen to be just right for life to evolve. The rest of the multiverse remains barren, but no one is there to complain about that.

Some of my physicist colleagues find the multiverse theory alarming. Any theory in physics stands or falls depending on whether its predictions agree with the data. But how can we verify the existence of other bubble universes? Paul Steinhardt and George Ellis have argued, for example, that the multiverse theory is unscientific, because it cannot be tested, even in principle.

Surprisingly, observational tests of the multiverse picture may in fact be possible. Anthony Aguirre, Matt Johnson, Matt Kleban and others have pointed out that a collision of our expanding bubble with another bubble in the multiverse would produce an imprint in the cosmic background radiation—a round spot of higher or lower radiation intensity. A detection of such a spot with the predicted intensity profile would provide direct evidence for the existence of other bubble universes. The search is now on, but unfortunately there is no guarantee that a bubble collision has occurred within our cosmic horizon.

There is also another approach that one can follow. The idea is to use our theoretical model of the multiverse to predict the constants of nature that we can expect to measure in our local region. If the constants vary from one bubble universe to another, their local values cannot be predicted with certainty, but we can still make statistical predictions. We can derive from the theory what values of the constants are most likely to be measured by a typical observer in the multiverse. Assuming that we are typical—the assumption that I called the principle of mediocrity—we can then predict the likely values of the constants in our bubble.

This strategy has been applied to the energy density of the vacuum, also known as “dark energy”. Steven Weinberg has noted that in regions where dark energy is large, it causes the universe to expand very fast, preventing mater from clumping into galaxies and stars. Observers are not likely to evolve in such regions. Calculations showed that most galaxies (and therefore most observers) are in regions where the dark energy is about the same as the density of matter at the epoch of galaxy formation. The prediction is therefore that a similar value should be observed in our part of the universe.

For the most part, physicists did not take these ideas seriously, but much to their surprise, dark energy of roughly the expected magnitude was detected in astronomical observations in the late 1990s. This could be our first evidence that there is indeed a huge multiverse out there. It has changed many minds.

The multiverse theory is still in its infancy, and some conceptual problems remain to be resolved. But, as Leonard Susskind wrote, “I would bet that at the turn of the 22nd century philosophers and physicists will look nostalgically at the present and recall a golden age in which the narrow provincial 20th century concept of the universe gave way to a bigger better [multiverse] ... of mind-boggling proportions.”

 The Multiverse Strikes BackBy Max Tegmark

Do you really live in a multiverse, or is this notion beyond the pale of science?

Inspired by an interesting critique of multiverses in the August issue of Scientific American, penned by relativity pioneer George F. R. Ellis, let my give you my two cents' worth.

Multiverse ideas have traditionally received short shrift from the establishment: Giordano Bruno with his infinite-space multiverse got burned at the stake in 1600 and Hugh Everett with his quantum multiverse got burned on the physics job market in 1957. I've even felt some of the heat first-hand, with senior colleagues suggesting that my multiverse-related publications were nuts and

would ruin my career. There's been a sea-change in recent years, however. Parallel universes are now all the rage, cropping up in books, movies and even jokes: "You passed your exam in many parallel universes—but not this one."

This airing of ideas certainly hasn't led to a consensus among scientists, but it's made the multiverse debate much more nuanced and, in my opinion, more interesting, with scientists moving beyond shouting sound bites past each other and genuinely trying to understand opposing points of view. George Ellis's new article is a great example of this, and I highly recommend reading it if you

haven't already.

By our universe, I mean the spherical region of space from which light has had time to reach us during the 13.7 billion years since our big bang. When talking about parallel universes, I find it useful to distinguish between four different levels: Level I (other such regions far away in space where the apparent laws of physics are the same, but where history played out differently because things started out differently), Level II (regions of space where even the apparent laws of physics are different), Level III (parallel worlds elsewhere in the so-called Hilbert space where quantum reality plays out), and Level IV (totally disconnected realities governed by different mathematical equations).

In his critique, George classifies many of the arguments in favor of these multiverse levels and argues that they all have problems. Here's my summary of his main anti-multiverse arguments:

1) Inflation may be wrong (or not eternal)

2) Quantum mechanics may be wrong (or not unitary)

3) String theory may be wrong (or lack multiple solutions)

4) Multiverses may be unfalsifiable

5) Some claimed multiverse evidence is dubious

6) Fine-tuning arguments may assume too much

7) It's a slippery slope to even bigger multiverses

(George didn't actually mention (2) in the article, but I'm adding it here because I think he would have if the editor had allowed him more than six pages.)

What's my take on this critique? Interestingly, I agree with all of these seven statements—and nonetheless, I'll still happily bet my life savings on the existence of a multiverse!

Let's start with the first four. Inflation naturally produces the Level I multiverse, and if you add in string theory with a landscape of possible solutions, you get Level II, too. Quantum mechanics in its mathematically simplest ("unitary") form gives you Level III. So if these theories are ruled out, then key evidence for these multiverses collapses.

Remember: Parallel universes are not a theory—they are predictions of certain theories.

To me, the key point is that if theories are scientific, then it's legitimate science to work out and discuss all their consequences even if they involve unobservable entities. For a theory to be falsifiable, we need not be able to observe and test all its predictions, merely at least one of them. My answer to (4) is therefore that what's scientifically testable are our mathematical theories, not necessarily their implications, and that this is quite OK. For example, because Einstein's theory of general relativity has successfully predicted many things that we can observe, we also take seriously its predictions for things we cannot observe, e.g., what happens inside black holes.

Likewise, if we're impressed by the successful predictions of inflation or quantum mechanics so far, then we need to take seriously also their other predictions, including the Level I and Level III multiverse. George even mentions the possibility that eternal inflation may one day be ruled out—to me, this is simply an argument that eternal inflation is a scientific theory.

String theory certainly hasn't come as far as inflation and quantum mechanics in terms of establishing itself as a testable scientific theory. However, I suspect that we'll be stuck with a Level II multiverse even if string theory turns out to be a red herring. It's quite common for mathematical equations to have multiple solutions, and as long as the fundamental equations describing our reality do, then eternal inflation generically creates huge regions of space that physically realize each of these solutions. For example, the equations governing water molecules, which have nothing to do with string theory, permit the three solutions corresponding to steam, liquid water and ice, and if space itself can similarly exist in different phases, inflation will tend to realize them all. String theory certainly hasn't come as far as inflation and quantum mechanics in terms of establishing itself as a testable scientific theory. However, I suspect that we'll be stuck with a Level II multiverse even if string theory turns out to be a red

herring. It's quite common for mathematical equations to have multiple solutions, and as long as the fundamental equations describing our reality do, then eternal inflation generically creates huge regions of space that physically realize each of these solutions. For example, the equations governing water molecules, which have nothing to do with string theory, permit the three solutions corresponding to steam, liquid water and ice, and if space itself can similarly exist in different phases, inflation will tend to realize them all.

George lists a number of observations purportedly supporting multiverse theories that are dubious at best, like evidence that certain constants of nature aren't really constant, evidence in the cosmic microwave background radiation of collisions with other universes or strangely connected space, etc. I totally share his skepticism to these claims. In all these cases, however, the controversies have been about the analysis of the data, much like in the cold fusion debacle. To me, the very fact that scientists are making these measurements and arguing about data details is further evidence that this is within the pale of science: this is precisely what separates a scientific controversy from a nonscientific one!

Our universe appears surprisingly fine-tuned for life in the sense that if you tweaked many of our constants of nature by just a tiny amount, life as we know it would be impossible. Why? If there's a Level II multiverse where these "constants" take all possible values, it's not surprising that we find ourselves in one of the rare universes that are inhabitable, just like it's not surprising that we find ourselves living on Earth rather than Mercury or Neptune. George objects to the fact that you need to assume a multiverse theory to draw this conclusion, but that's how we test any scientific theory: we assume that it's true, work out the consequences, and discard the theory if the predictions fail to match the observations. Some of the fine-tuning appears extreme enough to be quite embarrassing—for example, we need to tune the dark energy to about 123 decimal places to make habitable galaxies. To me, an unexplained coincidence can be a tell-tale sign of a gap in our scientific understanding. Dismissing it by saying "We just got lucky—now stop looking for an explanation!" is not only unsatisfactory, but is also tantamount to ignoring a potentially crucial clue.

George argues that if we take seriously that anything that could happen does happen, we're led down a slippery slope toward even larger multiverses, like the Level IV one. Since this is my favorite multiverse level, and I'm one of the very few proponents of it, this is a slope that I'm happy to slide down!

George also mentions that multiverses may fall foul of Occam's razor by introducing unnecessary complications. As a theoretical physicist, I judge the

elegance and simplicity of a theory not by its ontology, but by the elegance and simplicity of its mathematical equations—and it's quite striking to me that the mathematically simplest theories tend to give us multiverses. It's proven remarkably hard to write down a theory which produces exactly the universe we see and nothing more.

Finally, there's an anti-multiverse argument which I commend George for avoiding, but which is in my opinion the most persuasive one of all for most people: the parallel universes just seems too weird to be true.

Having looked at anti-multiverse arguments, let's now analyze the pro-multiverse case a bit more closely. I'm going to argue that all the controversial issues melt away if we accept the External Reality Hypothesis: there exists an external physical reality completely independent of us humans. Suppose that this hypothesis is correct. Then most multiverse critique rests on some combination of the following three dubious assumptions:

1) Omnivision assumption: physical reality must be such that at least one observer can in principle observe all of it.

2) Pedagogical reality assumption: physical reality must be such that all reasonably informed human observers feel they intuitively understand it.

3) No-copy assumption: no physical process can copy observers or create subjectively indistinguishable observers.

(1) and (2) appear to be motivated by little more than human hubris. The omnivision assumption effectively redefines the word "exists'' to be synonymous with what is observable to us humans, akin to an ostrich with its head in the sand. Those who insist on the pedagogical reality assumption will typically have rejected comfortingly familiar childhood notions like Santa Claus, local realism, the Tooth Fairy, and creationism—but have they really worked hard enough to free themselves from comfortingly familiar notions that are more deeply rooted? In my personal opinion, our job as scientists is to try to figure out how the world works, not to tell it how to work based on our philosophical preconceptions.

If the omnivision assumption is false, then there are unobservable things that exist and we live in a multiverse.

If the pedagogical reality assumption is false, then the objection that multiverses are too weird makes no logical sense.

If the no-copy assumption is false, then there's no fundamental reason why there can't be copies of you elsewhere in the external reality—indeed, both

eternal inflation and unitary quantum mechanics provide mechanisms for creating them.

We humans have a well-documented tendency toward hubris, arrogantly imagining ourselves at center stage, with everything revolving around us. We've gradually learned that it's instead we who are revolving around the sun, which is itself revolving around one galaxy among countless others. Thanks to breakthroughs in physics, we may be gaining still deeper insights into the very nature of reality.

The price we have to pay is becoming more humble—which will probably do us good

but in return we may find ourselves inhabiting a reality grander than our ancestors dreamed of in their wildest dreams.

Gee and on Star Trek they make it look so easy to move between parallel universes.

Proposed New Star Trek Series?There is talk of a proposed new Trek series, very preliminary, not even in the pitch stage that is gaining attention, not for its storyline or era, but because the concept includes gay main characters. The proposed project, the work of a company called 1947 Entertainment would continue the storyline set in the original series and movies, and follow the tone of the latest J J Abrams film, with grittier action, faster-pacing and complex characters. As it in such an early stage any details are extremely subject to change. It should also be noted that CBS is reluctant to 'water down the brand' by running a series and movies at the same time.

According AfterElton.com, 1947 Entertainment is currently looking for an executive producer of sufficient “Trek” stature to be associated with the project and that talks are underway with several individuals. Once an executive producer is secured, the pitch will be made to CBS.

The project also has the unofficial support of the estate of original Star Trek creator Gene Roddenberry and the official support of several Star Trek alumni, including The Next Generation writer Harris Dvores, who co-wrote the proposed pilot.

So what are the odds that this series might actually get produced?

1947 Entertainment is owned by David Foster, who created the proposal for this Star Trek series with Kevin Severson, who died in September 2010. Foster and his current associates have a smattering of minor Hollywood credits, but the company hasn’t produced anything to date; their projects are all in development.

In short, with a franchise as important as Star Trek, this project definitely needs an experienced, high-profile executive producer willing to sign on.

The pitch for this series is more extensive than other recent series pitches and includes a five-year series plan, a pilot script, and most of a series “bible.” The intent is to keep Gene Roddenberry’s original optimistic view of the future while also giving the show a more contemporary, character-driven feel.

Star Trek: Infinite Space

Just as Atari announces that it is going to sell Cryptic Studios, developer of Star Trek Online barely past its one year anniversary, Gameforge is gearing up its own web-based, free-to-play MMO Star Trek: Infinite Space.

Slated for a summer release, ST:IS is set during the Star Trek timeline’s Deep Space Nine period, providing intriguing opportunities. Federation and Klingon factions will each have their own story arcs set in this tumultuous time, crafted with the assistance of The Next Generation screenwriter Lee Sheldon. Lore-masters Denise and Michael Okuda will lend their expertise to the visual design of the game, particularly the ships.

“Deep Space Nine is an action-packed era, since it includes the conflict between the Federation and the Klingons and features some of the biggest battles in Star Trek history with the Dominion War,” explained Executive Producer Ralf Adam. “One great thing about the storyline in Star Trek – Infinite Space is that we’ve built in the possibility for crossovers with other series. We can use anything from Deep Space Nine, The Next Generation, or Voyager, and even reference back to Enterprise and the original series.”

“In terms of the timeline, both will start approximately where Season 3 of Deep Space 9 begins and will reach deep into the Dominion War of Season 6. What’s also important is the fact that we are not simply recreating the series. While most of the action in the TV series takes place at Deep Space 9 and is simply discussed by the main characters, in Star Trek: Infinite Space, the player will be out on the frontiers of space to encounter each battles directly. They will follow one of two unique storylines as they head into battle depending on whether they choose to align with the Klingons or Federation.”

Being free is obviously a compelling plus, but another advantage ST:IS has is that it will run entirely through a web browser. Don’t think that means sacrificing graphics or gameplay; players can expect fantastic 3-D graphics from the Unity browser plug-in. No client install also means players can quickly squeeze in game time from just about anywhere.

“The game is not targeting hardcore MMO players alone – we want to give the Star Trek and SciFi fan a great gaming experience,” Adam said. “You can spend a lot of time in the game, much like an MMO, but you don’t necessarily have to in order to progress or have a lot of fun. You can simply hop in and play a mission on your lunch break if you’d like.”

ST:IS will also address a big hurdle that prevents many gamers from enjoying space-based MMOs. “We’ve found that the most intimidating part for casual gamers is the combination of controls and cameras; especially if you’re in 3-D ,” Adam explained. “A lot of players get confused and lost and will quit the game immediately. That’s why we’re going for more of a top-down view with your ship always centered in the middle of the screen. We also have direct control mechanics that are very easy to access and intuitive. Furthermore, all menus will use the original LCARS system all Star Trek fans are familiar with, which is pretty cool.”

Although ST:IS is targeting casual gamers, it also offers depth likely to attract more hardcore Star Trek gamers. You’ll have a bridge crew that greatly impacts combat and freedom to extensively tweak your ship. In addition to quests, there will be exploration activities and multiple PvP modes. Best of all, captains will be able to approach problems with a variety of tactics. “You can solve missions in different ways,” Adam reveals. “You can try a diplomatic approach and stick to the Prime Directive or play more, well… ‘Kirk-style.’” Fire phasers!

Here are a few final tidbits from the interview with Ralf Adam:

Character classes and development:"We have not revealed too much about these systems yet. What we can say at this stage is that aside from the Captain – who is your alter ego and avatar in the game – the different officers include the Tactical Officer, Science Officer, and Medic Officer. Regarding the ship systems, we will give the player a lot of freedom in what they want to put into their ships."

Gameplay types:"Away Team Battle Missions will take place in space and not on planets. The interaction with your Away Teams during battle will happen through dialogues and animated sequences where the outcome depends heavily on the skills of your officers. There is a huge exploration part in the game where you can beam teams down to planets or classify luminaries by sending probes. Furthermore, we will have different starbases that will

serve as lobbies where players can walk around with their avatars, meet with friends, chat, receive assignments for new missions, and more."

PvP:"We will have many different PvP game modes, including a Capture-the-Flag kind of battle. We will also allow for battles between Federation vs. Federation (or Klingon vs. Klingon)… playable only in a 'Holodeck simulation,' of course. :-)"

Release date:"Right now we’re on track to release in Summer 2011 and will announce game updates, closed beta, etc. on our website, http://startrek-is.com/. I would encourage any fans out there excited about the game to sign up for our newsletter, since we have plans to start running fun promotions for subscribers and Star Trek fans very soon."

Fantasy Trek: New Ships, New Crews, Unlimited Challenge…(My attempt at a Trek comic strip)

The Tactical PositionI'd like to start off by thanking you all for welcoming me to the McNair. I am very happy to a part of this ship. And of course, giving me the tactical position has inspired me to further my education in a direction that has always interested me. Thanks. Even though Star

Trek is a about moving beyond the need for warfare, the modern world shows us that it is wise to be prepared to defend ourselves and our loved ones. The art and science of doing that fascinates me, and in "The Tactical Position" I'll try to share some of that with you. In the past few weeks I've been taking Starfleet Academy's College of Strategy and Tactics, and so far I've really enjoyed stretching my creative muscles working through this interesting course. Now I'm getting ready to complete the course and move on to a challenging series of courses served up by the Starfleet Marines.As I've said before, I'm a Starfleet Marine reservist strictly for the purpose of furthering my tactical education. Having said that, I'm proud to let you know that I've passed SFMC's basic training, and I'm looking forward to getting started on their advanced Military Science degree program. As of this writing, I don't have a name and number for what will be the McNair's Marine Strike Group (and bear with me as I learn my way through this), but as soon as I have all of these details, I'll pass them on In the meantime, I'm including some of the work I've done in the SFA's College of Strategy and Tactics:Part One:You are the Commanding Officer of a Fleet of 25 Federation Vessels. (For the sake of this question, all vessels are similar in ability). The area of operation is a binary solar system with seven planets. Only the fourth and fifth planets have moons, and they have two and six respectively. An enemy fleet is approaching the system. Your orders are to hold this system. Sensors indicate that the fleet is composed of 5 ships.

1. Please indicate how you would prepare for this threat, set up and deploy your forces and engage in battle. Detail on paper how you plan to maintain this system.

There is a danger of scaring the the ships away, having them withdraw to bring in reinforcements. Have all but one ship conceal themselves among planets and moons and deactivate all systems. The one powered ship will simulate damage and issue an automated distress signal (in order to give the psychological effect of being unmanned or helpless). When the enemy fleet arrives, spring the trap. In this case, with such an overwhelming advantage, consider capturing the enemy craft.Do the same with the opposing force consisting of 70 vessels.First off, fighting fair is not going to win this battle. Nor are conventional tactics. Taking that into account, this is one of the rare times when I'm willing to employ exotic (but based on canon) technologies. My first step would be to deploy a series of probes to blanket the system with tachyons in order to disrupt the enemy's ability to scan the area. Then I would create a false distress signal (channeled through a series of deep space comm relays) designed to appear to originate from the border between you and your adversary. This is not likely to draw many ships away, but the chance has to be taken. Any tactic that might add to your chances of survival must be employed. At the same time, I would create a perimeter no less than five light years from the system, with ten starships fitted with phased polaron weapons (The Jem'Hadar ship captured during the Dominion War [DS9: "The Ship"] provided this technology) that pass through shields as if they weren't there, and all but one configured to present warp and sensor profiles of enemy craft. The remaining ship will simulate extensive damage, with the hope of drawing the enemy into a trap. As the enemy fleet enters sensor range, deploy the ships into two groups of five, and have each group concentrate their fire on a single ship at a time. This should provide sufficient fast killing power to destroy at least four or possibly as many as twelve enemy ships. Considering that they've committed 70 ships to a single system, the system is obviously vital to them, and the loss of even twelve ships is not

likely to dissuade them, but every kill counts. Maintain this offensive as long possible without suffering serious damage. As soon as that changes, dispatch a distress signal to call for reinforcements, and staying in two groups, set course away from the system and engage at maximum warp. This attempt to draw the enemy away from the system stands little chance of helping, but as before, any tactic that might possibly help must be employed. It might also draw away even part of the enemy fleet, increasing the chance of winning the battle in the system.Assuming that they are not successful in either destroying or drawing away elements of the enemy fleet, they are to circle around and follow an evasive course back to the system, with a destination designed to conceal themselves (and presumably their approach) behind the system's suns. In the meantime, the following preparations should be completed within the system:At the barycenter (the gravitational center between the two stars in a binary system) there is likely to be an asteroid field, considering the gravitational tug-of-war between the two stars. Conceal fifty active but stationary quantum torpedoes, set to detonate on impact with a ship's hull in the asteroid field, and surround the field with thirty shuttles fitted with graviton pulse emitters (VGR: "False Profits") to create a massive gravity well. Eight of the remaining fifteen starships will position themselves within the orbit of the six moons surrounding the fifth planet, with the other seven in a similar position relative to the fourth planet (two moons). As the enemy fleet enters the system, the gravity well created by the shuttles should drag the ships out of warp and draw them to the asteroid field. At this point, the separate elements of the friendly fleet converge and fire shape-charged (for precise directional effect) probes set for magnetic disruption (the small device that Jonathon Archer used in ENT: "Broken Bow" was able to break up an entire Suliban Helix. Two centuries later, the technology should be proportionately more advanced), intended to disrupt the magnetic constrictors on the ships' warp cores. Any ship suffering from this should suffer a catastrophic core breach and damage nearby ships. The quantum torpedo 'mines' should add nicely to the ensuing chaos. By this time, the other ten ships should be reentering the system. All twenty five ships surround the asteroid field and maintain fire as long as possible. It can be hoped that reinforcements will arrive before too long.Additional Notes:Assuming that your opponents are Klingon, you may find their aft shields are a weak spot. In the late 23rd century, Klingon aft shields tended to be weaker, reflecting a cultural distaste for retreating. And while Klingon anatomy features multiple redundancies, known overall as Brak'lul, their ships tend to have glass jaws. They aren't unlike Harley Davidsons. Glorious to fly but with an unfortunate tendency to break down. Continual, relentless hammering at a Klingon ship will usually bring it down.When attempting to capture a ship, try beaming stun grenades in just before your troops do. They can soften up the opposition nicely.Regarding fighting against overwhelming numbers, it can help if you don't think in terms of winning individual battles, but rather how you can take and hold the initiative and take every opportunity to delay and confuse your opponent, as well as doing everything you can to make them waste time and attention (and weapons fire) on anything but you. As I said, conventional thinking and playing fair aren't going to work when you are grossly overmatched. That's when you have to use the terrain (asteroid fields in this case), the latest weaponry that may or may not help you (the polaron weapon), and a knowledge of how ships work and what aspects you can exploit (the magnetic disruptor used to bring down magnetic constrictors). I am not a fan of gadgets, but I also firmly believe that everything can be a weapon.

151 Marines-USS Ronald McNairThe Captain reminded me that I need to inform you that there is now a Marine Unit on the McNair... consisting of one member :). Me.... Here is the info: UNIT NUMBER *: 151 NAME *: Wolves of the StarsBRANCH *: MaritimeSTATUS (MSG/MEU) *: MSGMOTTO *: “The Arsenal of Freedom”NEWSLETTER *: “The Tactical Position”CHAPTER *: USS Ronald McNairUNIT OIC *: ENS Mark Tyler/”Kapact”  Thanks Team,

I head off to Washtington DC on the morning of 9 June.  I will still be performing my duties as first officer but at a distance.  I just want to say thanks to Pam and the great crew of the McNair for another fun filled tour during my stay in Columbia, SC.  I will be reachable by email and Facebook of course.  I will be visiting Fort Jackson from time to time in my new job and of course since my wife is remaining in SC for the time being I will periodically be coming down to stay for a couple of days.  If mission permits I will attend any meetings taking place while I am in town.  Again thanks crew for all you do and continue to support Commodore Michaud in keeping this as the best ship in the region.

First Officer Stott out.

The following sent in by Victor Swindell

Science Fiction or Science Fact: Alien Life – Part 1

By Tom Caldwell | May 21, 2011 to explore strange new worlds, to seek out new life and new

civilizations…

These immortal words stand as a testament to why Star Trek is one of the best science fiction genres of all time.

While sci-fi tends to focus on the bad aspects of alien life, such as H.G. Wells’ classic War of the Worlds, Star Trek

is famed for its spotlight on peacefully contacting other civilizations, sharing technological and cultural knowledge,

and building friendships. Star Trek sets itself apart from all the rest by showcasing aliens in a peaceful light, rather

than a violent one (of course, that doesn’t mean we can’t have a little fun from watching space battles involving the

Borg and the Dominion). The big question of the day, however, is whether or not life can exist on other worlds, and

if so, what kind of life should we expect to see: a technologically advanced civilization or single-celled organisms?

In order to evaluate the probability of life existing elsewhere in the universe, one must understand the origin and

evolution of life; more specifically, one must examine the scientific theories of abiogenesis and evolution and what

they mean for life in general. Before we begin, let’s get one thing straight: evolution is not the same thing as

abiogenesis. While they are related and the same rules can apply to both (i.e. natural selection), evolution pertains

to the diversity of life and how it changes over time, whereas abiogenesis is simply the origin of life from non-

biological sources. For matters of simplicity, I’m going to discuss the abiogenesis aspect; the beginnings of life is

just as important as, if not more than, the evolution of simpler organisms to more complex ones (i.e. from bacteria

to humans).

The Breakdown

Surely Trekkers remember the series finale (All Good Things…) of Star Trek: The Next Generation, where Q visits

Picard to inform him he single-handedly destroyed life on Earth before it began. Remember the scene where Q

and Picard stand over a “little pond of goo” at a time 3.5 billion years in the past? Q ponders the goo and finds that

the amino acids failed to form the first protein that made life possible, which led to the extinction of all living

organisms on Earth before they even emerged and evolved. This scene always haunted me as a child, and it still

haunts me today as a scientist, but rest assured, there were trillions (a severe underestimate of the real thing) of

amino acids in that pond and probably trillions of ponds just like it all over the Earth. And the formation of proteins

is a thermodynamically spontaneous event, so it is highly likely to occur not once, not twice, but trillions upon

trillions upon trillions of times (again, a severe underestimate of the real thing) over the course of a billion of years.

Nevertheless, life cannot emerge without the proteins to support it, and that is why this Star Trek scene was so

terrifying and so breathtaking at the same time.

Now that peptides have been formed with life-supporting properties, now comes the hard part: the formation of

self-replicating polymers. Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a self-replicating polymer composed of nucleic acids in single-

stranded form. Base pairing among RNA strands allows new, complementary strands to be created, which they

themselves base pair with other nucleic acids in order to recreate the same sequence. It is this phenomenon which

has led scientists to refer to RNA as a self-replicating molecule with the ability to catalyze its own copying

mechanism. It is an observable feat and can be reproduced in a test tube (without the aid of bacteria or enzymes).

It, like DNA, forms the genetic basis of life; in other words, RNA provides simple cells (like those expected to

initially emerge from abiogenesis) with the essential instructions required to produce proteins. Specific RNA

sequences can be associated with a particular protein sequence, meaning that a certain blueprint sequence on

RNA (or DNA in the modern world) can be used to produce the amino acid sequence on a given protein. Natural

selection would favor the association of these sequences because it is essential for life to have both DNA/RNA

(the “blueprint” of life) and proteins (the “machines” of life). Therefore, the first unicellular organisms that emerged

from the “muck of life” likely adopted RNA as its genetic material, since it is simple enough to replicate itself without

the assistance of complex enzymes and pathways as those seen in today’s organisms.

The mechanisms developed by the simple protobionts that emerged 3.5 billion years ago were likely to be

extremely primitive by comparison and no where near as complex as today. In fact, the self-replicating nature and

base-pairing ability of RNA may be sufficient and simple enough to establish a direct link between RNA sequences

and amino acid sequences in the pre-biotic world.

The next step is the formation of micelles and vesicles from fatty acids. The formation of micelles involves fatty

acids in an aqueous (watery) environment. Fatty acids are mostly hydrophobic, which means they pack together in

the presence of water, with water soluble portions exposed to the surface. When enough micelles are formed, they

clump together and fold around themselves, generating a vesicle with water and other molecules trapped on the

inside. We see a similar phenomenon in soap bubbles; in fact, the formation of bubbles from the conglomeration of

soap molecules is not unlike the packing of fatty acids to form a vesicle. It is the hydrophobic nature of fatty acids

in soap that forms the spheroid shape of bubbles in the presence of water and air. The formation of this vesicle

(fatty acid membrane) is very important because it is the component of living cells that gives it its basic structure

and physical barrier from the environment; it protects whatever is on the inside from the potential hazards outside

(this is the main function of cell membranes).

The fatty acid vesicle is a thermodynamically stable

structure that spontaneously forms on their own in the presence of fatty micelles (the smaller sphere-like objects

floating near the vesicle) and water (the white particles). No intervention, chemical or otherwise, is required to form

this spherical shell, and it is one of the most important steps in the abiogenic formation of cell membranes. When

these fatty acids form vesicles, some of them will trap proteins in the interior. Others capture RNA. But only a small

percentage will capture both, and these small, non-living networks of self-replicating polymers (RNA) and their

associated molecular machines (proteins) trapped inside a protective barrier of fatty acids (the cell membrane)

form the basis of life. Scientists have already developed these self-replicating, self-maintaining structures (termed

protobionts) in the laboratory using organic and inorganic molecules; they aren’t “life” yet, but it is the final step in

the abiogenesis process before protobionts evolve into living, simple bacteria. It is a thermodynamically probable

outcome and when all the conditions for life are present, it is only a matter of time (billions of years to be exact)

before single-celled organisms can develop, grow, and evolve from non-biological sources into complex, intelligent

life forms.

It is important to note that while Earth was one of those few planets in the galaxy fortunate enough to have water in

the liquid state, carbon sources, reductive molecules, and to be located sufficiently close enough to its local star to

provide the energy necessary for the emergence of life (too far: Earth would be frozen over and lifeless; too near:

Earth’s oceans would’ve evaporated and a runaway greenhouse effect would turn Earth into another lifeless

Venus), not all planets are quite so “lucky.” Not all solar systems have planets, and those that do are mostly

composed of gas giants. Most terrestrial planets may be too far or too near its local star to stabilize water in the

liquid state, and, even if they are in that happy range, some planets probably don’t have any water or abiogenic

compounds. But for the select few that do, the origin of life isn’t just possible; it is probable and the existence of life

elsewhere in the universe is a calculable outcome. This brings us to the final determination of whether life can exist

on other planets: the Drake Equation.

Astrophysicist Frank Drake developed a probabilistic expression that would approximately determine how difficult it

was to detect technologically-advanced civilizations in the galaxy using radio waves. The variables of the equation

are based on the step-by-step process of abiogenesis and evolution, starting with the habitability of planets and the

emergence of life to the evolution of intelligent, sentient beings. The probability of the existence of life on other

worlds is based on the number of stars in the galaxy, the number of stars with planets, the number of those planets

with life-supporting properties, the probability that life evolves on those planets, the fraction of those life forms that

evolve into intelligent beings, the probability that those intelligent beings develop advanced technology, and finally

the probability and the time it would take for us to detect them—or rather it begs the question: do these civilizations

last long

enough for us to detect them before they go “extinct”? The following is the formulation of the Drake Equation:

Where R* is the rate of star formation in the galaxy, fp is the probability that those stars have planets, ne is the

average percentage of those planets that could potentially support life, fl is the probability that life emerges on

those planets, fi is the probability that single-celled organisms evolve into intelligent life forms (this doesn’t occur

overnight, it takes a REALLY long time), fc is the probability that these life forms develop advanced technologies,

and L is the life expectancy of these advanced civilizations. Multiplying all these variables calculates the

approximate number (N) of detectable, alien civilizations in the Milky Way galaxy.

Though some of these variables are determinable (such as the number of stars in the galaxy that have planets),

other variables are a little harder to predict (like the number of planets with the capability of supporting life). The

final variable L is completely arbitrary. If one were to assume advanced civilizations tend to destroy themselves

very quickly, then this number will be small and therefore the galaxy would be sparsely populated with intelligent

life. But if advanced civilizations, like the Federation, were able to solve their own socio-economic problems,

evolve past the need to destroy, conquer, or consume beyond their means, and live peacefully in their own self-

sustainable culture, then we can expect the existence of many alien races, exploring the stars and the planets in

very much the same way Starfleet does.

The Final Verdict

Looks like E.T. will have to “phone home” because the existence of life on other worlds isn’t just possible, it is

probable! Therefore, the emergence of life on other worlds is a Science Fact. Bear in mind!!! This doesn’t confirm

the existence of life on other worlds, it simply means that the prospect of alien civilizations is no longer science

fiction because there is a measurable certainty that they can exist and the emergence of alien life is based on real

science; however, it doesn’t prove their existence and we will never know until someone somewhere makes first

contact (be it Zefram Cochrane or not).

When inputting the appropriate, most logical values for each variable in the equation, Frank Drake found the

number of civilizations currently in existence to be “astronomical” (excuse the pun). However, they are very difficult

to detect, and Drake hypothesized it is probably because they are too far away for our radio telescopes to detect or

these alien civilizations do not stand the test of time long enough for us to detect them. Furthermore, there is a

more serious issue we haven’t yet considered, and it may very well determine the fate of our own civilization if we

aren’t too careful.

Stephen Hawking concludes that the existence of intelligent life on other worlds in the galaxy is highly probable,

and it is likely there are hundreds of alien races thriving in the galaxy, perhaps even exploring other star systems;

however, he warns that seeking them out may not be a smart idea. If aliens are indeed traveling around the galaxy,

they may not greet us with a peaceful banner of exploration and friendship (and they certainly won’t be Vulcans).

Rather, if they are searching the stars for something, they may be scouring for resources and food in a near-death

struggle to survive. If they are more advanced than we are, they may see humans as inferior beings, and enslaving

us might be at the top of their to-do list. Sending out radio signals with the intention of “seek[ing] out new life and

new civilizations” may just mark the nadir of our own existence (assuming aliens do exist and that they are

anything like the Borg, the Dominion, the Klingons, the Romulans, the Cardassians, or even…the profit-seeking

Ferengi).

 

Tom Caldwell is upperclassman at UCLA, currently investigating functional kinases that down-regulate muscle

growth and studying biochemistry with a career goal of earning a Ph.D. in molecular biology

So you thought you knew all the historical Enterprises. Not!!!

Published in the Augusta Chronicle on June 16, 2011

Washington—The national Air and Space museum will recreate a key moment in

the nation’s first attempt at an air force during the Civil War 150 years ago-

decades before the first airplane flight.

In June 1861, Thaddeus Lowe flew 500 feet above the National Mall in a gas

filled balloon to show President Abraham Lincoln how balloons could be used to

spy on the Confederates. Lowe’s balloon, the Enterprise, remained tethered to

the ground, and Lowe sent Lincoln the first telegram ever sent from the air.

“The flight was designed to draw Abraham Lincoln into the business, said

Smithsonian flight historian Tom Crouch. ”Lincoln was fascinated by technology”

Lowe’s handlers then pulled the balloon close to the ground and guided it to the

White House. The “aeronaut” was invited to stay and discus its potential with the

president. They talked into the early morning hours, according to historical

accounts.

Lowe’s flight eventually led to the creation of the Union balloon Corps and the

start of aerial espionage in the United States.

The idea came earlier in 1861 when Lowe launched a balloon flight from

Cincinnati to South Carolina to try to raise interest in ballooning. Fort Sumter had

just been fired on at the start of the war, though, and Lowe’s balloon came down

in enemy territory.

“Here was the Yankee” with a thick Northeast accent, Crouch said, ”And they

arrest him. They think he’s a spy.

After Lowe was released, he took his idea to Smithsonian Secretary Joseph

Henry, who coordinated the flight demonstration in Washington and introduced

the balloonist to Lincoln.

“Without Lincoln’s interest, it probably wouldn’t have happened.” Crouch said.

“There was resistance in the War Department. It was new and untried. Nobody

was sure how it would work.”

Soon Lowe was leading a corps of nine civilian aeronauts and seven balloons.

They operated with the Army of the Potomac, coming under fire at

Fredericksburg, Va., and elsewhere and sent balloons to the southern coast and

western rivers.

The Confederates followed with a balloon of their own. Their first was a hot air

balloon that didn’t work well. Then they commissioned a balloon made of dress

silk called the Gazelle that conducted espionage for years before being captured

by Union forces. Today, the museum will inflate a balloon similar to Lowe’s

Enterprise and host re-enactors portraying Lowe and Lincoln with presentations

on Civil War ballooning. The National Park Service won’t allow the balloon to fly.

The events will run from 10am to 3pm.

The museum also has photographs and Lowe’s binoculars on display.

This article appeared in The Augusta Chronicle in March 2011

Chief of NASA honors fallen astronaut

Associated press

Lake City, SC—Standing a few hundred feet from the memorial to the fallen Challenger astronaut, NASA administrator Charles Bolden told hundreds Monday that he owed his career to Ron McNair.

“He was my very good friend and a person I owe everything to because I would not be standing here today were it not for Ron” Bolden, a Columbia native who is black, told about 400 people attending the dedication o the Ronald McNair Life History Center. “I stood on his shoulders.”

McNair died when the space shuttle Challenger exploded 25 years ago.

The center, which offers space for community meetings and events in a room lined with exhibits about McNair’s life, is in the same building where a librarian once famously called the police and McNair’s mother when the 9 year old tried to check out a couple of books in Jin Crow South Carolina.

The youngster held his ground. When police refused to arrest him for trying to check out a library book, the librarian relented and let him have the books.

“The lesson from Ron McNair’s life is to believe in yourself when nobody else will” said U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who said that in 1950’s South Carolina, reaching the moon and stars must have seemed easier than what McNair and Bolden accomplished. “If you’re a librarian and a kid asks for a book, give it to them, because you don’t really know what that man or woman is all about.”

Bolden recalled that when he was a Marine test pilot, McNair asked him whether he planned to apply to the astronaut corps.

“I said ‘Not on your life,’ and he looked at me strange. I said, ‘Ron, I would not be selected. They would never select me.’ And he looked at me and said, ’ That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard. How do you know you won’t be selected unless you at least try?”

Bolden said he applied and soon was flying on the shuttle himself.

Star Trek Park Theme Park in Jordan Will be Fit for a Kingby AOL Travel Staff Subscribe to AOL Travel Staff's postsPosted Aug 2nd 2011 09:45 AM

TEXT SIZE:

AAA2 comments259183247

Callison

Star Trek is getting a theme park. Just don't look for it in the United States. Jordan's King Abdullah II is getting into the theme park business in the nerdiest way possible – by investing in a $1.5 billion Star Trek theme park on the Gulf of Aqaba.

The National reports that the King, a well-known Trekkie, has partnered with Middle Eastern and American investors to create the Red Sea Astrarium, which will feature a massive "space-flight adventure" ride based 2009's "Star Trek" film reboot.

The park will likely feature some Trekless attractions as well. Rubicon Group Holdings, the company that will oversee the park, has rights to the "Pink Panther" and several popular Arabic-language animated characters.

King Abdullah II has recently been in the news discussing potential political reforms that could arise out of the Arab Spring movement, but this has apparently not kept him away from the politics of the Federation. This is nothing new: The King actually had a non-speaking role on Star Trek in the '90s. He's the one in green.

The massive park is set to be built near Aqaba, where the borders of Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Israel almost touch, a spot that is somewhat difficult to get to, so it would be unsurprising if the park's construction led to the creation of more tourist-friendly infrastructure.

Aqaba is currently a fairly quiet place, but it has the makings of a resort town. The beaches are beautiful, the diving off the coast is excellent, and it is only a day away from the ancient city of Petra, which makes the announcement of the Astrarium good news for both indoor and outdoor kids.

And unlike China's Joyland ripoff of Blizzard game World of Warcraft, the Star Trek theme park in Jordan is to be fully licensed.

Road trip anyone!!!!

McNair is bursting at the seams.

Engineering ,get more crew quarters ready. Barbara Lariscy, Dale Carter, Chris Lariscy, DJ Powers, Victor Swindell, Denise and Wil James(and their companions Leader dogs Titan and Max),Gary Hollifield,

Jr. Gary Hollifield, Sr. Donna Hollifield Jacob Hollifield Angelica Hollifield and Kevin Cozart

Also the 6 members just added from the decommissioned StarRunner

This gives us 37 members if everyone due to renew does.

Name the Ship's LoungeThe Bridge 0.00% (0 votes)

The Nexus 50.00% (7 votes)

Ron's Place 7.14% (1 vote)

Ronnies 7.14% (1 vote)

Someplace Else 35.71% (5 votes)  

So The Nexus it is...

Upcoming events

Dragoncon 9/2-9/5 Atlanta Ga

September 17 Alaric away mission

October 15 Riverbanks Zoo

A word from the editor:

Thanks to all who contributed to this rather large edition. I would like in the future to feature a different department , spotlight different crew members and feature department reports. I also hope to include some games, contests, comics, book reviews, science and space articles, book ,game and movie reviews. I want to recognize Academy accomplishments etc. I would also like a regular article from our CO and XO. Basically, if you want to see it in the newsletter send it to me and I’ll put it in. Please send pictures in jpg format please as that’s easiest for me to use. Also be sure and list who is in the picture and where taken and by whom. For our next issue I’d love to post brief comments from everyone about 2 topics the end of the shuttle program and what did you do on your summer vacation. Deadline for the September/October issue is 9/20/11.

Commodore Barbara Lariscy

Whew I’m off to Nexus for a drink or 2 or 3….