Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
Group Info Group Founded 3 Years ago Statistics 427 Members
31,574 Pageviews506 Watchers

Gallery Folders

Space, Aviation and Scientific Literature
Black Aircraft
Military Aviation 2-Submit here
Air and Space Models

Random from Favourites

Recent Journal Entries

Former NASA Flight Director Says A Return To The Moon Is Necessary Before Heading To Mars

By Charles Poladian | Thu, 2014-12-11 12:33

NASA's plan to send humans to Mars in the 2030s is off to a great start. The Orion spacecraft test flight Friday went according to plan and the capsule survived reentry. While NASA awaits the capsule's return to the Kennedy Space Center, the space agency faces years of planning to make Mars a reality.

The Orion test flight was the first step in NASA's ambitious "Next Giant Leap" which ends with the first humans on Mars in the 2030s. Orion is crucial to getting astronauts to Mars and the spacecraft will also be used in an asteroid redirect mission in the 2020s. As part of that mission, NASA will use Orion to capture a near-Earth asteroid and place it in a safe orbit near the moon. A second flight will send astronauts to the captured asteroid to collect samples and return to Earth.

But what about plans for a return to the moon? ""First, you go to the moon before you go to Mars," George W.S. Abbey, a former director of NASA's Johnson Space Center said in an interview with the International Business Times.

Abbey, is currently the Baker Botts Senior Fellow in Space Policy at Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy. Abbey was named director of flight operations in 1976 and helped develop strategies for future moon and Mars missions. Speaking to International Business Times, Abbey said international cooperation is a key to future missions and a return to the moon is necessary before NASA can get to Mars.

"You're not going to go to Mars before going back to the moon. You need to establish a goal to go to the moon and do that first and have a program laid out for an effective way to do it, but they're not doing that right now and I think that's really key to exploration," Abbey said.

The Apollo program, Abbey said, was "based on the schedule dictated by President Kennedy that he wanted to go to the moon and safely return astronauts to the Earth before the end of the decade. So, we had a definite goal we were aiming for and everything we did was to make sure that we could meet that goal.

"Unfortunately, we had a tragedy on the launchpad that set us back," Abbey said, referring to the Apollo 1 cabin fire in 1967 that killed three astronauts. "That was very difficult, but probably we came out of that with a much better program. ... I think the Apollo fire probably helped ensure us really being able to get to the moon by the end of the decade and do it safely.

"We went through a major redesign of the Apollo spacecraft," Abbey said. "We redesigned a lot of components and a lot of systems and came up with nonflammable materials that we used inside the command module, tested and verified those, and flew safely in Apollo 7 in October 1968."

Abbey said NASA had already committed to Apollo 8 before Apollo 7 was even completed. Apollo 8, which launched in December 1968, was the first manned mission to leave Earth's orbit and circle the moon. The spacecraft launched on a Saturn V rocket. “That was the first flight of humans on the Saturn V," Abbey said. "The flight before that we had two engines fail on the second stage, and the third-stage engine wouldn’t restart, which was critical to being able to inject us on a course for the moon. The spacecraft LM adapter, which was on that vehicle and surrounded the lunar module, came apart.”

Apollo 8 launched on Dec. 21 and orbited the moon on Christmas Eve. The spacecraft provided mankind's first view of Earth in its entirety, the "big blue marble," as it would later be dubbed. "That was a very moving occasion when we did that, when the astronauts were reading the Bible,” Abbey said.

Apollo 9, another test of the lunar module, was launched two months after Apollo 8, on March 3, 1969. Then, in May, the Apollo 10 mission went to the moon to scout a landing site for Apollo 11, Abbey explained. "Two astronauts descended in the lunar module to a low altitude over the site and docked with the command module," Abbey said. "Two months later, in July, we landed on the moon.”

With the goal completed, the Apollo program finally had some breathing room. Five months after Apollo 11's historic mission, Apollo 12 focused on honing flight capabilities as it headed to the moon. Abbey was a member of the operations team during the next flight, Apollo 13, which was intended to land on the moon. But as the spacecraft neared the moon, an oxygen tank exploded, forcing the three astronauts to act fast to create a carbon dioxide removal system that would allow them to return safely to Earth on April 17, 1970.

"On Apollo 15, 16 and 17, we took a lunar rover to the moon and really maximized the scientific return on the last three missions," Abbey said. "It was a time of great challenge and there was a lot of activity going on all the time. When we flew Apollo 17 in December 1972 , the crew was already training for the first flight of [the space station] Skylab, which took place in May 1973."

After the Apollo missions, NASA began the first phase of international cooperation and worked with the Soviets on several docking missions while developing the space shuttle."It was an exciting time and there was always a vision for the future as to where we were going and what we were going to do," Abbey said.

As for parallels between Apollo and Orion, Abbey has some concerns about NASA's next-generation spacecraft. "Orion is a program that doesn't really have a destination. It's a vehicle that is being built, but NASA doesn't have a destination for it. They say they are going to Mars, but you're not going to Mars until you solve some really major issues. Radiation is certainly an issue that needs to be resolved before you send crew safely to Mars, and I think you need to come up with some new propulsion systems to go to Mars," Abbey said. "Orion is quite different from Apollo and quite a different program. The next flight for Orion won't be for another five years."

A future phase of NASA's Orion program is a proposed asteroid mission in the 2020s. But Abbey believes NASA should focus on international cooperation, working with India and China as well as Russia, and a return to the moon. "I don't think it's got a lot of support in Congress and I don't think it's really supported in NASA," he said. "They say they're going to do an asteroid mission, but I'm not sure if they know how to do it and I'm not sure if it will ever happen." NASA, he said, should "take advantage of the fact we've been able to assemble structures in Earth's orbit ... where you can then fly missions to the moon."

International cooperation would reduce costs for future missions and would utilize the capabilities of other countries, Abbey said. Companies such as Boeing and SpaceX could serve as contributors and partners instead of the missions just being funded by the government. Companies could help provide resources and form partnerships with NASA much like the other countries involved in the program, he said.

Abbey said NASA should continue its "very successful robotic exploration program" on Mars and work with other countries, including India, in these efforts. "The United States needs to take a leadership role," he said. "When we stopped flying the shuttle we kind of gave up our role as leader and somehow we need to regain that."…

Our Last Footprints on the Moon: Remembering Apollo 17

By Carl M. Cannon - December 11, 2014

Forty-two years ago today, former U.S. Navy pilot Eugene Cernan and enterprising geologist Harrison “Jack” Schmitt climbed out of their Apollo 17 command module, America, and into their lunar module, Challenger, which they piloted to a spectacular valley on the edge of the Sea of Serenity.

They explored an area in what is known as the Valley of Taurus-Littrow, and would later head back to their orbiting spaceship, the last human beings to walk on the moon.

“As I step off at the surface of Taurus-Littrow, I'd like to dedicate the first steps of Apollo 17 to all those who made it possible,” Cernan radioed back to Houston.

Then, as he actually stepped onto the moon’s surface, Gene Cernan’s spontaneous emotions took over.  “Oh, my golly,” gushed Apollo 17’s commander. “Unbelievable!”

It certainly seems so now, more than four decades later. But the story of final lunar mission is worth revisiting, and remembering.

Ronald E. Evans Jr., the command module pilot on Apollo 17, learned he’d been accepted into NASA’s astronaut program while flying combat missions in Vietnam. In a sense, this was a harbinger. By December 7, 1972, when the Saturn V rocket took off after midnight from the Kennedy Space Center -- the program’s only nighttime launch -- Americans’ attention was on issues other than space travel, including the long, grinding Vietnam War.

In an attempt to maintain civilian interest, not to mention congressional support, NASA finally had given in to National Academy of Science lobbying for inclusion of a geologist on an Apollo flight. This led to the selection of New Mexico-born Jack Schmitt, who had been working with the U.S. Geological Survey in Arizona when the call went out for volunteer scientist-astronauts.

“I thought about 10 seconds and raised my hand,” he later recalled.

Schmitt’s eventual selection as the third man on the Apollo 17 crew meant that Joseph H. Engle, originally recommended by crew assignment director Deke Slayton, was bumped. Cernan and Evans were less than thrilled at the grounding of their fellow test pilot, but Schmitt’s competence soon won them over.

In the end, Cernan and Schmitt spent 75 hours on the moon’s surface, covering some 30 kilometers in their various moon vehicles, and bringing back 243 pounds of moon rocks. The three Apollo 17 astronauts splashed down in the Pacific Ocean on December 19, 1972, and were picked up by the USS Ticonderoga.

In Houston, the men were met at their homes by enthusiastic neighbors, but the rest of America wasn’t riveted in the same way anymore. “You may leave here for four days in space,” sang Barry McGuire, “but when you return it’s the same old place.”

Actually, the crew of Apollo 17 traveled the heavens for 12 days, not four, and knew even before liftoff that they would likely be the last for many years to come. Afterwards, they went on with their lives:

Ron Evans retired from NASA and took a job in Arizona. He was only 56 when he died of a heart attack.

Jack Schmitt’s luck held out, for a while, anyway. He ran for the Senate from New Mexico, winning his maiden campaign in 1976. Six years later, however, his was one of the Republican seats lost because of the now-forgotten “Reagan recession” of 1982.

Gene Cernan, now 80, is still involved in NASA-related educational efforts, and is a proponent of a robust U.S. presence in space. Joe Engle may not have made it to the moon, but he flew aboard the space shuttle and is still flying high performance aircraft -- even though he’s two years older than Cernan.

But let’s give the last word to the commanding officer of Apollo 17. In his autobiography, Gene Cernan expounded on his feelings when he first landed on the moon.

“I lowered my left foot and the thin crust gave way,” he wrote. “Soft contact. There, it was done. A Cernan footprint was on the moon. I had fulfilled my dream. No one could ever take this moment away. I felt comfortable, as if I belonged there. I was standing on God's front porch.”

Read more:…

Forget Pluto, comets or Mars — let’s go back to the moon

By Dominic Basulto December 12 at 7:38 AM

This has been an exciting past month for space exploration. We’ve seen a historic landing on the surface of a comet and the launch of Orion, NASA’s next-generation spacecraft. And, starting in January, we’ll begin to see gorgeous, never-before-seen imagery of Pluto, thanks to the New Horizons spacecraft. There’s certainly reason for optimism. According to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden Jr., the Orion launch unofficially marked “Day One of the Mars era.”  So here’s what might seem like a backward-looking proposition: Sending a manned mission to the moon — not to Mars — should be the primary national space priority for the United States.

The biggest reason, quite simply, has nothing to do with the level of today’s science or technology and everything to do with national pride and global influence. If America doesn’t go back to the moon and eventually establish a permanent lunar base there, someone else will. And whichever country is most active in moon exploration will have the biggest say in the moon’s future development.

The most likely candidate to do so is China, which soft-landed the Jade Rabbit rover on the moon at the end of 2013. Moreover, Chinese scientists have floated various draft proposals for a manned mission to the moon as early as 2025. To make that a reality, China is working on developing new rockets for manned moon missions. And there are plenty of other contenders – including Japan, India and Russia, as well as a host of private companies — who are actively looking for ways to get to the moon. Just look at the number of private teams — 18 – still remaining in the Google Lunar X Prize competition.

Fine, okay, you say that NASA has seen that, done that, been there, and has no need to send a man or woman to the moon to prove the United States is still No. 1 in space and a global technology leader. That’s essentially the Buzz Aldrin argument for thinking big and moving on to Mars. After 45 years, there’s no need to relive past glories, as the legendary Apollo astronaut has repeatedly pointed out. The United States, he says, shouldn’t be spending billions to launch a new Apollo-style program. But even fellow astronauts, including man-on-the-moon Neil Armstrong, have advocated for more focus and direction to NASA’s human spaceflight program, and that usually means less emphasis on going to Mars.

And there are reasons for going back to the moon that go beyond just national pride. Based on the learning and experience we have on sending manned missions to the moon, we can prepare for manned space exploration elsewhere. We’re just not ready for manned exploration to Mars quite yet.

This is the argument recently made by celebrity astronaut Chris Hadfield, who, it could be argued, has 45,000 different reasons why he should be considered a space authority. Speaking at a Guardian Live event at the Royal Geographical Society in London Dec. 7, Hadfield took issue with the recent focus on manned missions to Mars. His words were stark: “If we started going to Mars any time soon everybody would die.” And then to clarify, he said: “We don’t know what we are doing yet. We have to have a bunch of inventions between now and Mars.”

In short, once we establish a manned lunar program, and perhaps even a permanent lunar research base on the moon, we can use that to build experience and knowledge for going further, maybe even to Mars. As Christopher McKay, a planetary scientist with NASA, has pointed out, there are six good reasons NASA should build a research base on the moon. We need to practice living on the moon before we can realistically think about forming colonies on Mars, he says. We also need to learn how to assess the health impacts of living in space.

And there’s another reason — a purely commercial reason — for going back to the moon. A manned lunar program could open the door to new industries such as space tourism and establish the moon as a refueling or way station for longer trips elsewhere, such as to asteroids. Plus, there is now growing speculation that resource extraction on the moon that wasn’t feasible a generation ago may now be possible, opening the door to the creation of new mining industries. For example, the Chinese are reportedly looking into the possible mining of resources like helium-3, which could theoretically be used to fuel nuclear reactors.

Sending a manned exploration mission to Mars by the mid-2030s is a wonderful idea. It’s the type of big idea that resonates with the public, with NASA and with the government. Back in 2010, it was the type of big idea that was part and parcel of the Obama Administration’s message of hope. But is going to Mars within the next decade “hope” or “reality”? Even NASA admits that it will be at least seven years before there are any crewed missions in the new Orion spacecraft, which puts us at 2021 before anything really big happens in the “Mars era.”

It has now been 45 years since a man last walked on the moon, and that’s far too long. It would be embarrassing if China or another of the “Asian space race” nations ends up doing something America should have done a long time ago. When we look up at the moon at night, we should think first and foremost about the legacy of America’s brave moon innovators, not about lost chances.…

Apollo 17 and the Case for Returning to the Moon

Jeffrey Kluger @jeffreykluger  Dec. 11, 2014

It's been two generations since the moon was eclipsed in NASA's priorities

Richard Nixon was a lunar buzzkill—but at least he was honest about it. During the early years of the space program, Nixon held no political office, which put him on the sidelines for all of the one-man Mercury flights and two-man Gemini flights, as well as the first two flights of the Apollo program. But he assumed the presidency in January of 1969 and was thus the one who got to spike the football in July of that year, phoning the moon from the Oval Office to congratulate the Apollo 11 crew on their historic lunar landing.

During the final lunar landing mission—Apollo 17, which left Earth on Dec. 7, 1972 and reached the moon on Dec. 11—Nixon was candid about what the future held for America’s exploratory ambitions, and it was not good. “This may be the last time in this century that men will walk on the moon,” he said in a formal pronouncement.

As it turned out, things have been even bleaker than that. It’s been 42 years since Apollo 17 commander Gene Cernan climbed up the ladder of his lunar module, leaving the final human footprint in a patch of lunar soil. TIME’s coverage of the mission provides not only an account of the events, but a sense—unintended at the time—of just how long ago they unfolded. There are the quotation marks that the editors thought should accompany the mention of a black hole, since really, how many people had actually heard of such a thing back then? There was, predictably, the gender bias in the language—with rhapsodic references to man’s urge to explore, man standing on the threshold of the universe. It may be silly to scold long-ago writers for such usage now—but that’s not to say that, two generations on, it doesn’t sound awfully odd.

Over the course of those generations, we’ve made at least one feint at going back to the moon. In 2004, then-President George W. Bush announced a new NASA initiative to return Americans to the lunar surface by 2020. But President Obama scrapped the plan and replaced it with, well, no one is quite certain. There’s a lot of talk about capturing a small asteroid and placing it in lunar orbit so that astronauts can visit it—a mission that is either intriguing, implausible or flat-out risible, depending on whom you talk to. And Mars is on the agenda too—sort of, kind of, sometime in the 2030s.

But the moon, for the moment, is off America’s radar—and we’re the poorer for it. There were nine manned lunar missions over the course of three and a half glorious years, and half a dozen of them landed. That makes six small sites on an alien world that bear human tracks and scratchings—and none at all on the the far side of that world, a side no human but the 24 men who have orbited the moon have seen with their own eyes.

We tell ourselves that we’ve explored the moon, and we have—after a fashion. But only in the sense that Columbus and Balboa explored the Americas when they trod a bit of continental soil. We went much further then; we could—and we should—go much further now. In the meantime, TIME’s coverage of the final time we reached for—and seized—the moon provides a reminder of how good such unashamed ambition feels.…


Success !!!!


Fresh from the conclusion of the first-ever flight test of NASA’s Orion spacecraft, some of the managers behind the flawless mission gave an early indication of what it took for Orion to be successful and what the spacecraft’s two-orbit, 4.5-hour means for its goals to explore deep space and make a human journey to Mars.

“We as a species are meant to press humanity further into the solar system and this is a first step,” said Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA’s associate administrator for the Human Exploration and Operations Directorate. “What a tremendous team effort.”

Orion launched this morning at 7:05 a.m. EST to begin what would prove to be a perfect flight. Riding atop a United Launch Alliance Delta IV Heavy, the largest rocket in the American inventory, Orion flew to an altitude of 3,604 miles on its second orbit and plunged into Earth’s atmosphere at 20,000 mph before slowing down, releasing its parachutes and landing gently in the Pacific Ocean within sight of NASA and U.S. Navy recovery teams.

“It is hard to have a better day than today,” said Mark Geyer, Orion program manager. “The upper stage put us right where we wanted to be and some of those pictures where you could see the frame of the window, you don’t feel like you’re watching like a satellite, you feel like an astronaut yourself.”

Orion did not carry any people into space during this flight, but is designed to take astronauts on deep space missions in the future. It became the first spacecraft designed for humans to leave low-Earth orbit since the Apollo 17 mission, the last moon landing by NASA.

“We’re already working on the next capsule,” said Mike Hawes, Lockheed Martin’s Orion program manager, the company that built Orion and operated the flight for NASA. “We’ll learn a tremendous amount from what we did today.”

Orion did not carry any people into space, but is designed to take humans on deep space missions in the future. It became the first human-rated spacecraft to leave low-Earth orbit since the Apollo 17 mission, the last moon landing by NASA.

“We’re already working on the next capsule,” said Mike Hawes, Lockheed Martin’s Orion program manager, the company that built Orion and operated the flight for NASA. “We’ll learn a tremendous amount from what we did today.
More Journal Entries

Group Info

We Are A space inspired Group we focus on Scientific expansion, Discovery and of course Space related items of interest. The Space Race is especially loved, we focus on our history as man in space.

The History of Man in Flight is also very Appreciated Aviation and Space are the focuses of interest.

Like :thumbsup: us on :facebook: Facebook !…

Criteria & Rules:


:star:How to Submit:star:



:bulletgreen: Only good quality works (Please think about resolution, scan quality,
ready for printing, etc. No home-made travel photos. Poor quality self-portrait
not accepted.) Especially in the Featured Folder !

:bulletgreen: NO Pornographic Content (we’re trying to keep the gallery clean and open for all members of varying tastes and ages)

:bulletgreen: NO Extreme Violence and/or Horror

:bulletgreen: NO stolen works
of other artists without their explicit and direct permission, stolen art will be removed and you will get a warning, if the problem continues you will be kicked by one of the admins.

:bulletgreen: Public domain works are excepted. As they are historical in nature and do
not require permission of the owner to use or redistribute.
Founded 3 Years ago
Aug 28, 2011


Group Focus
Common Interest

427 Members
506 Watchers
31,574 Pageviews
Daily Pageviews

History as Man In Space…


TV Roscosmos:…


NASA ISS HD Earth View:…

Current Space Weather Conditions:…

Live Star Charts:

Current Weather Conditions at the Kennedy Space Center:…

Current Weather Conditions at Vandenburg AFB:…

Current Weather Conditions at Edwards AFB:…

Listen to an Airport near you !:

Watch live Air Traffic in your area !:

Like America's Fists on :facebook: Facebook…

The Fallacy of the Moon Landing Hoax !…
_______________________… NASA Anthem… Enterprise Music Video… History of the Federation
_______________________… First Orbit documentary… Freedom 7 documentary… Friendship 7 documentary… Apollo 8 documentary… Part 2
_______________________… First Moon Landing documentary… Skylab documentary… Apollo Soyuz documentary… Space Shuttle documentary… Mission to MIR… ISS Documentary… Part 2… Part 3… Part 4… Part 5… Part 6… The Space Shuttle End of an Era
_______________________… The Future of NASA…… SpaceX Launch Vehicle system……


You're not here because you're not logged in
  • :icondisco747:
    Disco747 - Co-Founders
    Visited here 1 hour, 53 minutes ago
    Submitted a deviation 2 weeks, 4 days ago
  • :iconmrdoberman:
    Visited here 12 hours, 19 minutes ago
    Isn't a member
  • :icontrebornehoc:
    TreborNehoc - Members
    Visited here 19 hours, 40 minutes ago
    Submitted a deviation yesterday
  • :iconjedi510:
    Visited here 20 hours, 6 minutes ago
    Isn't a member
  • :iconminac58:
    Visited here 1 day, 4 hours ago
    Isn't a member




Add a Comment:
Zared-Tregonwell Featured By Owner 3 days ago  Hobbyist Artist
Thank you for adding my work to you group, I appreciate it :) 
GeneralTate Featured By Owner 2 days ago  Hobbyist General Artist
You are most welcome :) 
Coffeebean2 Featured By Owner 4 days ago  Hobbyist Photographer
Well, thanks for featuring my art! Means a lot!
GeneralTate Featured By Owner 2 days ago  Hobbyist General Artist
You are welcome :) please submit more ! 
Coffeebean2 Featured By Owner 1 day ago  Hobbyist Photographer
I'll be sure to!
scucca74 Featured By Owner 4 days ago  New member Hobbyist Photographer
Thanks for adding my works to your gallery
GeneralTate Featured By Owner 2 days ago  Hobbyist General Artist
You are welcome, keep the good work coming ! :) 
William-Black Featured By Owner Edited Nov 14, 2014  Professional Digital Artist

GeneralTate makes comment below, my thoughts on the issue:


I don’t have to admit I blocked paradigm-shifting. I’ve never denied that.

I do not need to apologize, and have no intention of doing so.


When paradigm-shifting offered a link to a youtube video I looked through his gallery instead.


What I found was a rampant and overt hatred for the intellectual thought of others expressed in a cynical manner that I do not particularly care for.


paradigm-shifting is free to express such thought — I am free not to indulge it.


I blocked paradigm-shifting because we hold mutually antagonistic world views.  

There is no wrong in blocking someone when it is obvious that interaction would lead to conflict.


Free-will or self-determination refers to a characteristic of a person that leads them to make choices and decisions based on their own preferences and interests, to determine their own course of action without compulsion. Recognition of free-will is intrinsic to the concept of a free society.


You cannot force or compel anyone to interact with you, nor should you try. In a free society all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.


paradigm-shifting is free to not like the fact I blocked him. He’s free to express that as much as he wants, he can post a million comments about it, and he can write a mountain of journals bitching about it if he wants to. I don’t particularly care.


The one thing I take exception to is his seizing my artwork and using it without permission. Because it is my property. I own it. I do not have to allow anyone to use it without permission.


paradigm-shifting didn’t have to “prove” I blocked him, I made it quite clear that I had, and paradigm-shifting did not just screen-cap the conversation showing I blocked him—though I do not care that he did—paradigm-shifting took a screen cap of my profile page and composed an artwork comprised of the screen-capped conversation and my artworks. This infringed seven of my artworks.


When someone copies your artwork and uses it without permission the law defines this as copyright infringement.


deviantArt has an excellent policy page which outlines copyright law, available here: Copyright Policy.


For the definitive law see: Copyright Law of the United States.


When someone copies your artwork and uses it without permission you, as the artist, creator, and owner of the work have the option of filing a DMCA Take Down Notice. Which is exactly what I did. This puts the infringer on notice that his use of your artwork was unauthorized and, in this case, it notifies deviantART that they have a predator in the membership. deviantART will take the infringing work down to avoid liability.


GeneralTate and paradigm-shifting have claimed that their use of my artwork was “criticism” under Copyright Right Act Fair Use Provision Title 17 Chapter 1 Article 107—however the fair use act is not a blank check to infringe the creative works of others, the deviantART  Copyright Policy warns that fair use should only be negotiated with the advisement of an attorney.


There is a reason this warning is there, if you are sued for infringement you will have no choice but to appear in court with legal defense, fees are $350 to $500 per hour, billed monthly, with a retainer, minimum up front $1,000, and be prepared to spend only $10,000 total if it is a quick open-and-shut case. These are the low end fees. Fines and damages if you lose can run into the $100,000 range and at the court’s discretion you can be required to pay the initiating parties legal expenses.


Even if you are not sued it does not mean the artist has ceded his ownership rights – the artist is free to file a DMCA every time their work is infringed with no consequence to his or her self so long as they misrepresent nothing. An artist owns his artwork at the point of creation. As an artist, your rights in regard to your own work are exclusive and you are free to exercise them at your discretion.


An infringer who uses artwork created by others without permission has no recognized ownership rights, and thus no protection.


That is the legal side.


On the public relationship side one has to wonder  what GeneralTate and paradigm-shifting are thinking:


This is an artist site; the largest site for artists on the planet.


Their group depends on artists submitting their art to the group.


Here on their group’s main page GeneralTate and paradigm-shifting have been publicly trumpeting, for weeks on end, that they feel they can and will infringe artists work for trivial and frivolous reasons.


How do you imagine this thread reads to artists who might be considering submitting their art to the group?


One has to wonder if Generaltate and paradigm-shifting have taken leave of their senses.


As for paradigm-shifting: most people understand that when you are blocked it means that individual wants nothing to do with you.


All of paradigm-shifting's issues and actions center around his difficulty with the free-will and self-determination of others, when someone chooses not to interact with him his choice of action is to take a piece of that individuals artwork "hostage" in order to force or compel that individual to interact with him.


In a free society there is no permissible application of force or compulsion. paradigm-shifting, in taking my artworks "hostage" in order to force my attention, is legally, ethically, and morally in the wrong, there really is no question in regards to this fact.

William-Black Featured By Owner Edited Nov 14, 2014  Professional Digital Artist

Why does god need a starship—well that’s really misdirection.


In the course of discussion GeneralTate was free to disagree with me, I had no problem with this, he was free to not follow the links and citation I provided, he was free to not respond, he was free to ignore me if he wanted. I really don’t care. He stated his opinions and I stated mine. See his comments and my responses here and here.


GeneralTate was blocked after he defended paradigm-shifting’s infringements and allowed the infringing works to be posted in the group, despite his own rule against this. GeneralTate blocked me October 5, 2014—the day paradigm-shifting infringed my art.


There was no “cause” at the start of this, there was only a discussion.

GeneralTate and paradigm-shifting decided to make this into an altercation.

Previous to that moment on October 5th I had only made honest comment on three NASA-Headquarters group journals, and had a large number of my artworks in the group galleries. I pulled all of my artwork out of the group the moment GeneralTate defended and cheered paradigm-shifting’s act of infringement and allowed his infringing works to be posted in the group.


paradigm-shifting has only been in NASA-Headquarters group as a co-founder since the beginning of October, he infringed my art the first time on October 5th.


My only issue with GeneralTate is he admittedly participated in and cheered the infringement of my artwork.


Anyone who commented on and is approving of paradigm-shifting’s acts of infringement will find themselves blocked.


Artists who approve of infringement are not individuals I would want faving or commenting on my work.


For those who want to know both sides of this altercation see the following journals:


Infringing Art Posted by NASA-Headquarters Group.


Repeat Performance: It's About The Numbers.


2nd Infringement NASA-Headquarters Group.


As for my own pages I have rules about comments and argument you can read them in my journals:


Orion's Arm Future History FAQ, Entry One.


Orion's Arm Future History FAQ, Entry Two.

paradigm-shifting Featured By Owner Edited Nov 12, 2014  Professional General Artist
He DMCA'd that one, but thats okay. Submitted a counter claim, this will be easy as pie. 
William-Black Featured By Owner Edited Nov 12, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
2nd Infringement NASA-Headquarters Group

11-07-2014: A journal written by paradigm-shifting which infringed my artwork was posted in the NASA-Headquarters group gallery.

The journal promoted a video by paradigm-shifting, who has contrived to use the fact of his initial theft and unauthorized use of my artwork as a point of controversy to hype his youtube videos. The video has been promoted in the group in comments by GeneralTate and paradigm-shifting no less than five times since October. The posting of the journal in the group was announced Nov 7, 2014 2:41:36 pm in comments on NASA-Headquarters Group main page here and in a second announcement  Nov 7, 2014 6:00:08 pm here.

11-12-2014: In response to my DMCA Take Down Notice the infringing journal was removed by deviantART administration at 8:10 am. According to deviantART administration paradigm-shifting was issued a written warning and advised of deviantART copyright policy.

This is the second time paradigm-shifting has infringed artwork to which I hold exclusive copyright and the second time he has been cited by deviantART administration for doing so.

GeneralTate and paradigm-shifting have announced themselves as predators on deviantART, their rational is they can and will infringe your art at-will.

A heads-up to my fellow professional artists who might still have art posted in the group.

For background on paradigm-shifting’s history of predatory activity and his methodology of using a contrived controversy to hype his video’s see my journal Repeat Performance: It's About The Numbers.

For background on these incidents see my journal Infringing Art Posted by NASA-Headquarters Group.
William-Black Featured By Owner Nov 7, 2014  Professional Digital Artist

Just for the record, paradigm-shifting hid my comment’s – see his comment where he says he is doing just that here. I cannot un-hide comments paradigm-shifting hid as a group admin.


That should probably make you wonder what other claims made by GeneralTate and paradigm-shifting are less than true.

GeneralTate Featured By Owner Nov 7, 2014  Hobbyist General Artist
William-Black Featured By Owner Edited Nov 7, 2014  Professional Digital Artist
There is no debate.

There are only the facts boys.

Fact: GeneralTate couldn’t tolerate someone with a different point of view, he had no reason beyond his own insecurity to start this conflict, see his comments and my responses here and here.

Perhaps if GeneralTate was a bigger man he might have simply ignored my comments — he was certainly free to do so. Apparently GeneralTate is incapable of such maturity, so he invited in paradigm-shifting long-time bottom feeder and professional troll, who proceeded to infringe my art, and got busted for it.

In fact paradigm-shifting is (apparently) so dim he put up a second version of the infringing piece with my art blacked-out and got himself busted a second time.

These are facts gentlemen.

You have lost every round.

Now: there was a very, very, narrow window where NASA-Headquarters group might have redeemed itself somewhat by doing the right thing, by publicly admitting your wrong-doing and issuing a public apology — this wouldn't garner my respect, but it might have aided somewhat in addressing how the community of professional artist's view the group.

That window has now long-since passed.

The only thing this display accomplishes is confirming that the group admin's are untrustworthy, deceitful, rationalizing scum who have no problem violating the work of anyone, at any time, for any reason.

By the way, I am most pleased to be the foil to help you reveal your loathsome character to any and all who might read this thread.

I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I expect you will keep on lying and rationalizing and carrying on just like you have.

See, this is not a debate my foolish friends, its a trial, and you are not the court or the jury, you are the convicted, and every time you respond you testify against yourselves.
Add a Comment: