WASHINGTON - NASA's International Space Station Program has won the 2009 Collier Trophy, which is considered the top award in aviation. The National Aeronautic Association in Washington bestows the award annually to recognize the greatest achievement in aeronautics or astronautics in America.

The association says it selected the station "for the design, development, and assembly of the of the world's largest spacecraft, an orbiting laboratory that promises new discoveries for mankind and sets new standards for international cooperation in space."

"We are very proud to receive the Collier Trophy," NASA Administrator Charles Bolden said. "This prestigious award is a testament to the dedication and hard work of thousands of people around the world. With our intention to extend station operations to at least 2020, there are limitless possibilities for science and technological breakthroughs."

The station is a joint project of NASA, the Canadian Space Agency, the European Space Agency, the Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency and the Russian Federal Space Agency. The orbiting laboratory is nearing completion and will mark the tenth anniversary of a continuous human presence in orbit later this year.

"We're honored to be recognized for our past achievements for building and operating the space station, and we're excited about the future," said Bill Gerstenmaier, associate administrator for NASA's Space Operations Mission Directorate. "There's a new era ahead of potential groundbreaking scientific research aboard the station."

Congress designated the space station a national laboratory in 2005. The station provides a research platform that takes advantage of the microgravity conditions 220 miles above Earth's surface across a wide variety of fields. These include human life sciences, biological science, human physiology, physical and materials science, and Earth and space science.

After completion of assembly later this year, the station's crew and its U.S., European, Japanese and Russian laboratory facilities will expand the pace of space-based research to unprecedented levels. Nearly 150 experiments are under way on the station. More than 400 experiments have been conducted since research began nine years ago. These experiments already are leading to advances in the fight against food poisoning, new methods for delivering medicine to cancer cells and the development of more capable engines and materials for use on Earth and in space.

Supporting an international crew of six, the station has a mass of almost 800,000 pounds and a habitable volume of more than 12,000 cubic feet. It is approximately the size of a five-bedroom home. The station uses state-of-the-art systems to generate solar electricity, recycle nearly 85 percent of its water and generate much of its own oxygen. Nearly 190 people have visited the station, which is supporting its 22nd resident crew.

The award will be formally presented to the International Space Station Program team on May 13. The trophy is named for Robert J. Collier, a publisher who commissioned it in 1910 with the intent to encourage the U.S. aviation community to strive for excellence and achievement in aeronautic development.

For more information about the Collier Trophy, visit: http://www.naa.aero/html/awards/index.cfm?cmsid=62

For more information about the space station, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/station

Source: NASA

Additional, suggested searches:

Bibliography.

Related Products.

More about this topic at Andinia.com.

Debates about this in our forum.

Related games and entertainment.

If a spaceship with aliens from other part of the universe would come to our planet and enter a low Earth orbit in order to observe us, where would they find the most savage humans?

This would make a lot of sense as a question for any exploration leader: It is evident that before landing, risks should be properly assessed and understood. So, what could they do? They could see us using some sort of telescope, or they could enter our data networks and take a look at our history, or they could simply watch TV.

Without doubt, the leader of such an expedition would be interested in anything and everything, but in order to understand the risks involved in meeting us he, she or it would probably be less interested in the beginning about our ancient history than in current events, relative power ratios, recent history and future trends. So, he would look back at our resume for - perhaps - a hundred years.

And within that time span, the leader of such an expedition would see that we humans had our share of self-provoked disasters. He - we assume that we are speaking about a "he", although it could be she or it, of course - would learn a bout Stalin, Hitler, Lenin, Mao and the factions that took part in the most destructive events that happened in our planed within that span of time: the United States, China, Russia, Germany, Japan, France and the United Kingdom.

He would further see that two of those factions - what we know as countries - are no longer in the destruction business, so Japan and Germany would soon be taken out of the sample. But he would also see that two additional factions have already replaced them: Israel and its neighbours.

And among the remaining factions, it would be interesting for the alien expeditionaries to establish which ones would represent the highest danger in terms of both their destructive capacity as well as their intentions: Russia would certainly impress and disquiet them for the nation's arsenals as well as its bloody history, but since they and the Chinese have been quiet lately, they would have to be monitored but they seem to be at least thoughtful. Israel and its neighbours are quarrelling bitterly, but their troubles are relatively domestic, while the faction known as France seems to be not quite active in this regard, so, they could also be taken out of the picture.

And what is left? Two factions: the United States and the United Kingdom. These have been at war for decades, unabated, with a myriad of enemies. Considering that they call themselves "democracies" - a concept to be pondered aside by our alien friends - it becomes apparent that the people living in those nations just love destruction because they actually chose to be so. If there is something that could be seen constantly in the history of these two factions - or countries, as Earthlings call them - is that they have been fighting wars all around their planet against scores of enemies from which, naturally, they have nothing good to say. But as it doesn't speak well about a person to have more enemies than friends, it doesn't really speak well about a nation to have so many wars, from a place called "the Falklands" (other factions call it "Malvinas", so who's right?) to other place known as "Ulster", to "Vietnam", "Iraq", "Afghanistan" and so on, they seem to be poised to take part in destructive events all around the planet.

Strange indeed if they consider themselves to be "democracies", a form of government that implies that Earthlings solve their issues by negotiating. Clearly, those countries are not democracies despite the fact that they believe they are, for any sufficiently advanced society would act upon others in the same way that they would like to be acted upon by others, and not by force. At the very least, they are incapable of talking so the leadership that they want to have in their world is completely questionable. I other words: those in the so-called United States and United Kingdom are the most disunite regards other human beings. They are clearly very competent in technical and military terms, but more inept than average at solving disputes in a peaceful manner. They cannot be considered as the best Earthlings to talk to, save for starting an interplanetary war.

Source: Pablo Edronkin, Andinia.com

Additional, suggested searches:

Bibliography.

Related Products.

More about this topic at Andinia.com.

Debates about this in our forum.

Related games and entertainment.

There are lots and lots of blogs, books, magazines and people who assume that a leader and a manager are the same thing, but they are not.

Just take the name of someone famous in history, someone who used to lead people, like General Patton or Field Marshall Rommel. These men had high military ranks and undoubtedly, they were very good at what they used to do. Fighting in a war is not just to know where to drop bombs or put your tanks; as any military commander could tell you, there is a lot about knowing how to deal with people under terrible circumstances. Managing an army is a complicated thing indeed, but there are thousands of officers and NCOs to do that. You have plenty of sergeants and lieutenants but, are they all leaders? You have even quite a few generals and marshals of equal or even greater rank than Patton or Rommel yet, does that turn them into leaders?

The military metaphor is very good to explain the difference between a manager and a leader: all non-commissioned and commissioned officers mage resources, weapons and personnel. Maybe a corporal manages two soldiers and a general twenty thousand, but they essentially do the same at different levels. Yet, not all people with some rank in an army rises to become a true leader that inspires its troops and gains respect not only by his nationals, but even by his adversaries. Unfortunately, common knowledge seems to make people who read self-help, motivation or leadership blogs, magazines, etc that both things are the same, perhaps in order to enhance the self esteem of some of those who are interested in the concept of leadership.

Very often, such individuals have some sort of managerial position within a corporation, and is natural that they want to increase their performance and gain promotions, but many times also, managerial positions are just rather lame desk jobs. Such people need not only a leadership boost but a self-esteem one and perhaps, publishers sense that and try to say something nice. So, here you have some good and bad news:

If you are a manager with a desk job it is rather unlikely that you are a leader. That's the bad one.

But the good news is that you can change and you can become a true leader, provided that you are ready to think out of the box because leaders, by definition, think differently than the average Joe.

You should begin by understanding and accepting the difference between the concept of manager and that of a leader; both are important in their own ways but while a leader might be a manager, a manager might not be a leader. Leadership is something that goes a little bit further than management. In brief, you could say that a manager "manages", takes care of what exists, lives mostly in routine, while a leader "leads" into new horizons, creates and seldom ventures into routine chores. Both of them, however, are important: You cannot manage an organization without good managers, and you cannot ensure the survival of the organization and its success without leaders capable of taking it forward.

Probably you are a good manager, but in order to be more than that you should start thinking creatively, looking for new solutions to old problems, and being always ready to go an extra mile for whatever you do.

Source: Pablo Edronkin, Andinia.com

Additional, suggested searches:

Bibliography.

Related Products.

More about this topic at Andinia.com.

Debates about this in our forum.

Related games and entertainment.