Emily Bazelon isn’t aware of the depth of the irony of her piece at Slate, that describes her apathy to space (which she defines as “astronomy”):
The other night, my boys curled up on the couch with my husband and went to the moon. They were enthralled by a grainy video of Neil Armstrong’s 1969 shaky descent onto the pitted lunar sand. “Mom, the Eagle has landed!” they shouted in unison. “Come watch!” I was in the kitchen, reading Elizabeth Weil’s New York Times Magazine story on the perils of trying to improve a companionate marriage.
She and Liz Weil are soulmates. Liz spent many months hanging around Rotary Rocket in the late 1990s (I had dinner with her once in Tehachapi), doing research for a book
I sat down, put the magazine aside, and tried to care about the moon, the planets, the stars, the galaxy. I concentrated on the astronauts and Sputnik and the race with the Soviet Union from JFK to Nixon. But I was interrupted by a stingy voice in my head: Just think what we could do on this planet with all the time and energy we spend trying to reach other ones. I know, I know: It’s anti-science, anti-American, anti-imagination. But I am incorrigibly, constitutionally earthbound. I have never willingly studied a single page of astronomy. My knowledge of the planets begins and ends with My Very Elderly Mother Just Sat Upon Nine Pillows (except, no more P, as Simon has informed me). I relish stories about NASA boondoggles for confirming my suspicion that the agency is a budget sinkhole.
Well, the agency (at least the human spaceflight part of it) is largely a budget sinkhole. We certainly don’t get value commensurate with the costs. It doesn’t have to be, but because most people are, like Emily, not that interested in space, at least as done by NASA, politicians are free to do whatever they want with its budget, so much of it ends up being simple pork. That’s just Public Choice 101. If Emily and others actually cared, perhaps NASA might have to do more useful things with the money.
But her ignorance extends far beyond simple astronomy. For someone who seems to revel in the fact that NASA wastes its money, like much of the public, she is profoundly unaware of how much (or relatively, little) money it actually is:
Simon has been asking for a periscope. He also says that when he grows up, he’s going to be an astronomer and an astronaut. I mentioned biologist as an alternative a few times. But then I stopped. Now I tell him that I can’t wait for him to teach me all about the solar system. Maybe he’ll be a rebel astronomer, and someday reform NASA, or call for an end to manned space missions so that the money can be used to fix Social Security? A mother can dream.
If she thinks that ending human spaceflight would be more than spitting in a hurricane with regard to the Social Security budget, she is innumerate beyond belief. You could either double, or zero, the NASA budget, and either way it would barely be a rounding error in SS, or the rest of the federal budget in general. I wish that more people thought that space was important, and that it was about more than astronomy. I also wish that people would think and care more about how, not whether NASA was spending the money. But as long as they’re so ignorant as to think that NASA, wasteful or not, has anything to do with the deficit, or the failure to solve intractable social problems (we saw an excellent example of this during the presidential campaign, when candidate Obama’s first space policy was written by an education staffer who thought that we could use the NASA budget for more education funding), we’re unlikely to get better space policy, or policy in general.
Andrea, I see what you’re getting at about not appeasing the ostriches. Too often, people who are pro-space respond to objections to expenditures on space exploration with a lot of defensive talk about the concrete benefits of spin-offs (many of which are not dependent on the space program) or vague statements about “knowledge”. I’ve become more and more of the opinion, which I noted in a previous comment, that the benefits of exploration have been proven so many times in the history of humanity that we don’t need any other reasons. It’s benefit is self-evident. Trying to put up any other justification ends up sounding like what it is — defensiveness, and is therefore counter-productive.
Carl Pham, I think you give Emily Bazelon too much credit, as Glenn Reynolds did. IMO, she illustrated that she has in fact done everything she can to avoid or deflect her kids’ interest in astronomy and probably did more damage feigning interest than if she had just embraced her inner fascist dictator and told them they weren’t allowed to be interested in astronomy. Yes, she bought them a telescope and went to a planetarium, but she was still agonizing over whether she should give a sh*t or not. Kids see through that kind of stuff immediately.
Okay, I get it. The efforts of Scaled, Virgin, Armadillo, et al gives the US an insurmountable lead in the effort to settle space. And no amount of economic chaos, misgovernment, war, domestic upheaval, etc can possibly slow down the American juggernaut. Maybe you can expand this thesis into a New Atlantis article.
Nobody made that claim. And it’s pretty obvious that the US’s lead in space is far from insurmountable. The point Rand made was that China’s current approach will not lead to serious development in space just as it doesn’t for anyone else doing the same thing. What makes the US’s approach unusual is that we have a significant private capability to do things in space. I too consider that a necessary condition for any serious activity in space. If China (or for that matter Japan or Europe) encourages its own private space industry (which would not be that hard for them), then they’d be in a similar position to where the US is now.
Here’s hoping Emily Bazelon lives to be intensely disappointed in her children and grandchildren.
And it’s pretty obvious that the US’s lead in space is far from insurmountable.
Hell, I’m not sure we even have one right now, but if we do, it’s a result of the entrepreneurs. The point is that no one, at least no government, is on a path to space colonies right now. And the notion that there will be a Chinese prison camp on the moon before there’s a private resort is ludicrous.
The point Rand made was that China’s current approach will not lead to serious development in space just as it doesn’t for anyone else doing the same thing.
The point Rand made is that the Chinese can’t do anything unless someone shows them how first. I think such smug jingoism is dangerous.
It’s also ironic considering how often the Chinese are used as a bogeyman to try to motivate US efforts. Though I don’t think Rand is guilty of this.
If China (or for that matter Japan or Europe) encourages its own private space industry (which would not be that hard for them), then they’d be in a similar position to where the US is now.
I think (my opinion) that space colonies are far enough in the future that it’s absurd to make predictions about what nation gets a colony going first. Sort of like trying to predict in 1769 what nation will be the first to land a man on the moon. Now, as then, that nation might not even exist yet.
The point Rand made is that the Chinese can’t do anything unless someone shows them how first.
The point that I made is that I don’t currently see them doing otherwise. Do you?
I think such smug jingoism is dangerous.
There was nothing either smug, or “jingoistic” about my point.
I think (my opinion) that space colonies are far enough in the future that it’s absurd to make predictions about what nation gets a colony going first.
That can be true while also recognizing that your nutty assertion that the first space colony will be a Chinese prison camp is also absurd. Do you really want to stand by it?
Douglas, the comment was meant for her – the streams crossed, which is bad. My point: Any author who’s too dumb to know the difference between a telescope and a periscope, and any editor who didn’t catch it, should be flogged.
Any author who’s too dumb to know the difference between a telescope and a periscope, and any editor who didn’t catch it, should be flogged.
God help me, I’m going to defend Bazelon, sort of …
Why are people assuming that she was confused about this minor issue? Did you read her essay? She clearly recounts buying a telescope and trying to assemble it, so she not only knows what a telescope is, she already owns one (although it may not be functional).
Here’s a clue, people: periscopes are also sold as “science toys.” I had one when I was a kid, and I don’t think it’s beyond the realm of possibility that her son wants one.
But apart from that, pretty much everything else in her essay deserves our fiery, righteous criticism …
B.Brewer @ December 14th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
“…NASA (a not very successful government program)”
I understand the desire to create a new, and possibly better, paradigm. But, that does not mean we should put all our eggs in one basket or throw the baby out with the bathwater (Painful Mixed Cliched Metaphors ‘R’ Us ;-)).
Or, engage in reckless hyperbole. NASA is still the only human agency that ever got a man to the moon, or photographed the edges of the universe in multiple bands, or surveyed the outer planets. By any measure, NASA has had many brilliant successes. It does not advance the cause of space exploration to disparage them. Bad sportsmanship only lowers the standing of both players in the spectators’ eyes.
The point that I made is that I don’t currently see them doing otherwise. Do you?
Indeed. Their actions indicate that their space program is a tool for advancing regional political and economic dominance through global prestige, not for expanding the HSF envelope. They have more immediate problems to deal with, why bother with new technology when they can modify existing hardware and call it their own?
Thats certainly been their recent history. Do you have any (recent) examples to the contrary?
The point Rand made is that the Chinese can’t do anything unless someone shows them how first. I think such smug jingoism is dangerous.
Except he didn’t actually make that point. You’re the only one spouting that bit of smug jingoism.
“The other night, my boys curled up on the couch with my husband and went to the moon.”
That is at least three pro space people for the one indifferent. If all families where like this there would be no problem with public support.
Except he didn’t actually make that point. You’re the only one spouting that bit of smug jingoism.
Rand’s words, not mine.
No, but it’s not currently happening, and I suspect that if it does, it will be because someone else is successful in showing them the way, in which case, they’ll be behind.
That can be true while also recognizing that your nutty assertion that the first space colony will be a Chinese prison camp is also absurd. Do you really want to stand by it?
Rand, please. I didn’t “assert” anything. I said I wouldn’t be surprised if such was the case. That’s not an assertion or a prediction. I’m just not blind to possibilities just because I find them distasteful. And yes I will stand by it. Fifty years ago the notion that China would hold $1 trillion in US treasury bonds would have seemed ludicrous. Fifty years from now no doubt many things you think (and I think and everyone thinks) ludicrous will be fact. I’m amazed that you think the future is somehow constrained by your lack of imagination.
I’m just not blind to possibilities just because I find them distasteful.
While it is distasteful, that is not why I think it ludicrous. And your argument that because one thing might have been viewed as ludicrous that turned out not to be means that this one may not be has about as much logical force as “they laughed at Einstein.” The notion that a prison camp, by any country, not just China, would be the first application of a space habitat, with apologies to Bob Heinlein, is loony tunes. In fact, one could argue that we’ve already achieved a space habitat with ISS.
As far as I am aware, China does not even have a “new space” industry. And I doubt one will start developing until there is demonstrated money in it. Hence they would seem very unlikely to get there first.
Simberg:The notion that a prison camp, by any country, not just China, would be the first application of a space habitat, with apologies to Bob Heinlein, is loony tunes.
First, I said “colony” not “habitat”.
Davis:I would not be shocked if the first space colony is a Chinese slave labor camp.
Second, if you really think the notion is “loony tunes” why did you comment as follows on the above:
Simberg:I would. Unless, that is, they dramatically change their technical approach.
First, you seemed to think it a possibility with a dramatic change in technical approach. Now it’s just “loony tunes”. Well, which is it?
Simberg:In fact, one could argue that we’ve already achieved a space habitat with ISS.
One could do that, of course. But then it becomes that much harder to “press the idea that space exploration is about discovery and freedom” as Andrea Harris advocates.
But, hey, call ISS a habitat. Call it a colony. Call it a planet.
First, I said “colony” not “habitat”.
Either way.
First, you seemed to think it a possibility with a dramatic change in technical approach. Now it’s just “loony tunes”.
No, I think it an impossibility without it. There can be more than one reason that it’s ludicrous. I only put forth one in that particular statement. Having it is a necessary, but not sufficient condition.
Please postulate a plausible scenario in which there will be no off-planet settlements before a prison camp.
Please postulate a plausible scenario in which there will be no off-planet settlements before a prison camp.
Okay, off the top of my head.
There is a huge demand for something found in quantity on the moon, let’s say Dennis Wingo’s platinum group metals for fuel cells, or He 3 or whatever. The Chinese decide that slave labor is just the ideal way to extract it. The Chinese have a lot of money but most of the aerospace know how is elsewhere. They invest heavily in foreign (American, European, Russian, Indian, Japanese, etc) companies that promise cheap access to space and some pay off. They pay premium prices for this space access. Indeed the price offered is so good no private consortium can compete with the Chinese for space access; they are buying up all the supply. Other nations allow this because either they really need the business or China holds a lot of debt or China has really big armed forces or all of the above. The revenue stream from the PGMs (or whatever) pays off big time so more slave labor camps are constructed. Eventually, some years later, the supply of PGMs meets demand so space access capacity is available for other, private projects like resorts.
PGMs are the first big killer ap which only the Chinese can exploit profitably because a) they have a lot of cash to invest and b) they have few scruples about using slave labor.
Like I said off the top of my head. Please don’t label this an “assertion” or a “prediction”; it’s neither. Just a scenario which can no doubt stand some improvement. Everyone can judge the plausibility for themselves.
There doesn’t seem to be much effort by anybody to put any camp anywhere (off Earth.) Until something solid happens in that direction, anything is possible. I expect ‘company towns’ would be the first evil, mitigated by having multiple towns with competition and trade eventually leading to more liberty and freedom. Corporate families being a common theme in SF.
The point Rand made is that the Chinese can’t do anything unless someone shows them how first.
Jim, point out where Rand made that claim.
And I got to agree that the slave camp on the Moon idea sounds ludicrous. First, you have to put up a lot of infrastructure so that the slaves can work (including prison guards and such). That infrastructure costs money and resources. Then you have the problem that someone can break that equipment costing you hundreds of millions of dollars or worse. One disgruntled slave could wipe out your entire investment.
Jim, point out where Rand made that claim.
Again? Okay:
Rand:No, but it’s not currently happening, and I suspect that if it does, it will be because someone else is successful in showing them the way, in which case, they’ll be behind.
First, you have to put up a lot of infrastructure so that the slaves can work (including prison guards and such). That infrastructure costs money and resources.
I think that slave labor camps are cheaper to construct than resorts. Indeed, the low cost is their main attraction.
Then you have the problem that someone can break that equipment costing you hundreds of millions of dollars or worse. One disgruntled slave could wipe out your entire investment.
Well, of course one doesn’t use slave labor for things like running nuclear reactors and piloting spacecraft. One uses them for jobs that require a minimum of skill like swinging a pick, or a shovel, or picking crops, or such. There are well developed procedures for minimizing their opportunities for mischief. As for wiping out your entire investment…well, avoiding large investments is why slave labor is so attractive.
But perhaps you’re making the point that facilities in space are so fragile and so vulnerable that they are impossible to guard against individual malice and resentment. Well, then maybe facilities in space aren’t such a great idea…
Ok, so you mischaracterized Rand’s statement. As long as I know where you’re coming from.
I think that slave labor camps are cheaper to construct than resorts. Indeed, the low cost is their main attraction.
I don’t see how you can claim that. Sure you can cut some corners and save a little money. But you still need to put those people on the Moon. You’ll also probably lose a lot of the infrastructure through rebellion and incompetence. Nothing says “I disagree with your space policies” like destroying a billion dollars worth of lunar infrastructure. With a large rock. Nothing says “We should have sent people who cared” like some guy backing into the main habitat with their forklift.
I don’t see how you can claim that.
Karl, start by comparing with the habitable volume per person in a resort with the habitable volume per person in a slave labor camp.
Sure you can cut some corners and save a little money.
Karl, the difference in the standard of living between the plantation owners and the plantation slaves went far beyond “cutting some corners and saving a little money”.
But you still need to put those people on the Moon. You’ll also probably lose a lot of the infrastructure through rebellion and incompetence.
Again, one uses slave labor to avoid the use of costly infrastructure.
Nothing says “I disagree with your space policies” like destroying a billion dollars worth of lunar infrastructure. With a large rock.
Again, Karl, no slave laborer is going to be allowed near billion dollar infrastructure with large rocks.
Nothing says “We should have sent people who cared” like some guy backing into the main habitat with their forklift.
Karl, slave laborers do care. They care about how long their sentences will be. They care about how much food and water they’re allowed. They care about whether they’ll be allowed to fraternize with the the other sex. They care about how long and how often they’ll be assigned the hardest and most dangerous jobs. They care about possible repercussions to friends and family. They care about whether they’ll be forced to live and work with the most brutal inmates. There are well known and proven methods to keep slave laborers docile and productive. There are also well known and proven methods to keep slaves rebellious and unproductive but those can be avoided with competent management.
Now that isn’t to say that you’re not right. Maybe lunar infrastructure is too vulnerable and fragile and billions of dollars worth can be destroyed with a large rock. Maybe housing people on the moon, even in the most Spartan and brutal of conditions, is just too expensive. Maybe unskilled workers could never deliver enough value to cover the costs of living in space. Maybe you’re right and all that is true. But if it is true it has implications far beyond slave labor camps.