You know, the essay I wrote at The New Atlantis last summer has been up for many months now, and I have never seen anyone critique it, with the exception of an idiotic attempt by Mark Whittington. I’ve received nothing but praise for the most part (which is why I wish more people would read it). The editor has also told me that he received no letters to the editor objecting to it. Is anyone aware of a serious, informed critical review? If there are none, I suspect that one of the reasons why is that I circulated drafts of it among a lot of smart people in the process of writing it.
The reason I ask is because I’m in the process of working up a book proposal, and I want to hone it, if there are any serious and useful issues with it, because a lot of the book will be based on it. And of course, people will be reviewing drafts of the book as well.
[Saturday morning update]
I’m not looking for suggestions for improvement (I have no plans to rewrite it or republish anywhere else). I’m looking for things that people think I actually got wrong.
I’ll do my part. I will try to find something to be critical of, but honestly you really have a very clear perspective.
I agree with Ken. I think it is a scholarly piece of work that is devoid of hyperbole and fairly describes the state of affairs today as well as the history that got us to this point.
Yeah, I could give it a go. I really don’t have a problem critiquing something I agree with.
The deorbit of skylab might fit somewhere in the theme of your narrative.
…in the absence of a consensus about why we should go to space, the how has been an afterthought.
You don’t seem to follow up on this statement in any of the rest of the article. It really left me wanting more.
Forgive me, I overlooked that section.
Damn! Rethinking the vision is the heart of the article. I feel so foolish. It really is a stellar article. Ok. I’m going to shut up now.
It didn’t have enough car chases, explosions or bikini models.
“It didn’t have enough car chases, explosions or bikini models.”
Yes, but that is true of every article on the Internet.
“this wastefulness [of the expendable External Tank] dramatically increased costs” – I’d like to see that quantified and justified. I vaguely recall that, although the ET cost might be a huge chunk of the marginal cost of adding a new flight to the schedule, it gets dwarfed by the program costs per flight.
And, although forcing a new tank to be built for every flight is pretty excessive, it had a little payoff. The SLWT is an example of one “advantage” of expendable rockets – when you’re planning from the start to throw parts away, it becomes a lot easier to use improved parts as soon as they’re feasible.
Ah, hell, it’s late – I’d like to critique the whole thing, but I don’t recall reading anything objectionable the first time around, and the above nitpick is probably the most vicious criticism I’d come up with this time.
Damn you, Rand. I just spent two days writing a lengthy blog post, I’m 90% done, and now I read this. You wrote much of what I wrote, better. Fine. I’ll just write about the stuff after Augustine, and expand more on the future technologies needed.
The aim was to provide subsidies to Russian engineers and scientists to keep them from helping Iran and North Korea develop nuclear and missile technology (some wags called it “midnight basketball for the Russians”). It didn’t work: the Russians continued to supply rogue regimes with weaponry and technology. And now, there were new reasons for slowdowns in the space station’s schedule, as NASA had to wait for its international partners to deliver their hardware—sometimes delayed because money sent to the Russian space program ended up being spent on yachts, Mercedes, and dachas.
This passage might warrant rigorous fact checking and documentation of sources.
I am reading Jeffrey Manber’s latest book and he seems to tell a different story.
You know, the essay I wrote at The New Atlantis last summer has been up for many months now, and I have never seen anyone critique it, with the exception of an idiotic attempt by Mark Whittington.
Perhaps no one critiqued it because they didn’t feel like being called an idiot?
Seriously, Rand, what is the point of abusing Whittington? Can’t you say something a little more civil like “…and I have never seen anyone critique it, with the exception of Mark Whittington whose arguments I thought were weak” or “whose arguments I have addressed often” or “with whom I’ve had long standing differences of opinion”?
Seriously, Rand, what is the point of abusing Whittington? Can’t you say something a little more civil like “…and I have never seen anyone critique it, with the exception of Mark Whittington whose arguments I thought were weak” or “whose arguments I have addressed often” or “with whom I’ve had long standing differences of opinion”?
He moronically abuses me on an almost daily basis. If you’re unaware of that, it’s because I no longer bother to link him.
Are you really attempting to defend it? Everyone who read his inane attempt to criticize the piece pointed out how inane it was. I am always open to intelligent critiques. I really want to see one.
Do you have one, Jim? If so, why have you said nothing up to now? I know it can’t really be because of the Whittington thing, but on the unlikely premise that it is, I promise, I won’t call it idiotic, because I know (despite this particular comment) that you’re no idiot.
I agree with your opinions a little too much to provide a solid critique of your position. I send the link to this post to an email list I’m on, saying “serious replies only.”
In writing style, you do the same thing I do in using a lot of parenthesis (to throw in facts) 😉 which some editors of mine haven’t liked.
Good luck with the book effort!
In relation to Bill White’s critique. I agree with Rand’s words for the first part of the paragraph cited. It’s how I heard the story. I even recall President Clinton suggesting part of that himself. The second part of the paragraph I have no knowledge to support. In that case, I think Bill is right. You might need citation.
It’s morning, and didn’t get a good look of the paper, but one thing someone should talk about, maybe you can do this Ed, is the effect “reinventing government” had to the aerospace and defense industry. We threw out all those MilSpecs and Standards to improve the design and build processes. Since then, nobody seems to build anything near their proposed budget.
Why not send the article to every member of congress? Contct the congress members staffers, and let them know about the article. Most members of congress might not read it, but those that do, might try to enact your proposal.
I couldn’t critique your article either. I do think that we should have larger prizes, and I think that the U.S., and othr countries should purchase launch flights to the Moon.
I am not saying Rand is wrong, but I am saying that the more I read about MirCorp and the transition of Reagan’s Freedom station into Clinton’s ISS the more doubtful I am that any one clear theme or narrative can explain what happened.
Russians spending US taxpayer dollars on yachts may have happened yet does not seem to explain the complexity of the situation.
= = =
Turning to today, a central question I have is whether it shall be feasible to create a “space program for the rest of us” by going through NASA or will it be necessary to go around NASA?
FY2011 would appear to be an attempt to give NASA a NewSpace blood transfusion however if the blood types are insufficiently compatible the recipient might not survive. One suggestion for a book proposal could be to discuss what steps will be needed to allow NASA to survive a commercial transfusion.
Bill, work on your reading comprehension. I never said Rand was wrong either. I said I think you were right. So if you are right, and you weren’t saying Rand’s wrong, then how was I?
I also said I did not know about the yacht and other stuff. That means what it says, “I don’t know.” I can’t say someone is right or wrong in that case. But citation will back up their claim.
Leland, I did not intend to suggest you said Rand was wrong. I should have written with more clarity.
I intended to clarify that I do not know whether our tax dollars were used to buy yachts and dachas (maybe it happened and maybe not) but such allegations need citation.
I am in total agreement with this:
I also said I did not know about the yacht and other stuff. That means what it says, “I don’t know.” I can’t say someone is right or wrong in that case. But citation will back up their claim.
Rand, your article would not grab someone who started with “why space”. Your answer to “why space” is buried in the middle of your essay. Do you want to grab them? And once you have their attention, do you want to persuade them on “why space?” I realize (or at least , I believe) that answering”why space?” is not the primary focus of your article, but do you want to address the issue? If so, you certainly don’t have to rewrite your article, but I would suggest that you move the material in the “Rethinking The Vision” section of the article up to the beginning and expand on it a bit. I would also recommend that you think harder about who your intended audience is.
Lets look at what you said in the “rethinking the vision” section of your essay:
First you say ” The United States should become a spacefaring nation, and the leader of a spacefaring civilization.”
Do you want to justify that? Do you think you do indeed justify it in what you wrote next?
Next you say “That means that access to space should be almost as routine (if not quite as affordable) as access to the oceans, and with similar laws and regulations. It means thousands, or millions, of people in space—and not just handpicked government employees, but private citizens spending their own money for their own purposes.”
Ok, if people are spending their own money for their own purposes, then no justification is necessary. But are these people, the ones who spend their own money, the intended audience for your article?
Next you say ” It means that we should have the capability to detect an asteroid or comet heading for Earth and to deflect it in a timely manner.”
Since this is an international defense issue, the audience for this goal is much wider than space entrepeneurs who are going to spend their own money. But I believe that much of the rest of the article isn’t focused on the goal of asteroid defense. If it was, the infrastructure you propose would be quite different. Of course, the infrastructure you do propose might be helpful in defending against asteroids, but I’m asking you to focus on your intended audience, particularly the ones who are asking “why space?”
Next you say:
==
Similarly it means we should be able to mine asteroids or comets for their resources, for use in space or on Earth, potentially opening up new wealth for the planet. It means that we should explore the solar system the way we did the West: not by sending off small teams of government explorers—Lewis and Clark were the extreme exception, not the rule—but by having lots of people wandering around and peering over the next rill in search of adventure or profit.
We should have massively parallel exploration—and not just exploration, but development, as it has worked on every previous frontier. We need to expand the economic sphere into the solar system, as John Marburger, George W. Bush’s science adviser, used to say in his speeches. We need to think in terms of wealth creation, not just job creation. That would be “affordable and sustainable,” almost by definition.
==
That’s great! I agree. But what about the reader who says “Isn’t just a bunch of rocks?” What about the more sophisticated reader who says “Is there an economic case to be made here? I’ve heard people say that space mining and space solar power don’t make sense once you crunch the numbers and compare them to their earth-based counterparts.” Do you want to address this sort of reader?
I’m getting pulled in a number of directions right now, so please consider this comment a rough draft. The short version: consider who the audience is, and what they need to be persuaded of, and in what order.
Bob-1 says:
I realize (or at least , I believe) that answering”why space?” is not the primary focus of your article, but do you want to address the issue?
Actually, “why space” does need to be the primary focus (at least IMHO) and I believe this paragraph is one of the best in the entire piece:
And so for most of the last forty years, in the absence of a consensus about why we should go to space, the how has been an afterthought. Policy decisions have just been carried along on the tide of current events and politics and personalities, with no overarching strategic purpose and with no definitive goal other than the preservation of jobs. If you don’t much care where you’re going, “it doesn’t matter which way you go,” as the Cheshire Cat said to Alice.
Or more succinctly, “Form follows function”
= = =
With FY2011, once we kick away the support given to NASA by certain parochial Congressional interests we need to immediately provide a compelling “why space” that Congress will embrace, otherwise those tax dollars that previously went to human spaceflight (albeit wastefully) will go instead to high speed trains and climate studies.
“Moronically Abuses”?
I dunno he seems pretty savvy about it else I doubt it would annoy you so much. “Sadistically”, perhaps, “Vindictively” possibly. Certainly “Consistently”…
But every day? No, it’s more like every 3-5 days.
Anyway Rand if we told you once we’ve told you 37.5 quadrillion times stop using so much hyperbole!
Wow. Just reread the article. Every time I thought of something you missed, you addressed it (I would have drifted off on tangents, but you kept it focused.)
It really is a great piece.
One of my tangents… Not just fuel depots, but general transportation (my transterrestial, never go to a surface itself, spaceship.) But that would not have fit in your article and focusing with laser precision on fuel depots and hitting that nail hard is much better.
Yet you still pointed out that diverse economic activity is really what will open space. Bravo. Well done. …and all that stuff.
When do we get started???
He moronically abuses me on an almost daily basis. If you’re unaware of that, it’s because I no longer bother to link him.
I am aware of how Whittington conducts himself. I just think that there is value to you if, in the minds of others, Whittington is the one who engages in personal abuse while Simberg takes the high road and refuses to sink to that level.
Do you have one, Jim?
Yes, of course.
If so, why have you said nothing up to now?
Mostly because my issues with the piece deal with matters that we’ve gone through many times previously. If I didn’t make an impression then why think I’m going to this time?
But briefly the problems I have with the piece center around the premises, mostly unstated, on which it is based. Space advocates will accept them but most others won’t. So in effect you preach to the choir. Bob-1 touches on some of these above.
Having said that let me add that the article itself is very well written. You’re a far better writer than I could ever hope to be. The piece may be a sermon but it’s a very effective sermon.
Moronically abuses Rand on a daily basis? One does not know even how to begin to respond to that. Believe me, if Rand thinks he is being abused, he doesn’t know what abuse is. The fact is that I find a lot of his opinions to be wrong. If pointing that out constitutes “abuse”, then I sincerely feel sorry for the man.
Mark, you repeatedly mischaracterize what I write, and are clearly unable to recognize or distinguish human emotions. You accuse me of being “full of rage,” or “giving the back of my hand,” or “leaping the length of my (non-existent) chain.” Just yesterday, you said that I “loved” something when in fact I merely said I could live with it. On Thursday you claimed that I was “genuinely shocked” about something that didn’t surprise me in the slightest, and there was no evidence in anything I wrote that I was shocked. I could go on and on, but it would be words wasted on you.
I dunno he seems pretty savvy about it else I doubt it would annoy you so much.
It doesn’t annoy me that much (are you suffering from the same problem as Mark?). After many years of it, I’m quite used to it. Pointing out that it occurs when asked about it is not an expression of annoyance, just a clinical description of the facts.
Bill,
[[[Turning to today, a central question I have is whether it shall be feasible to create a “space program for the rest of us” by going through NASA or will it be necessary to go around NASA?]]]
The answer is to go round NASA, which is why Rand suggestion of an “Office of Space Development” is a good part of the article.
One thing the new policy, if accepted by Congress, will make very clear is that NASA has neither the organizational culture or institutional expertise to commercialize space. Scientists are great at making discoveries and engineers are great at developing technology, but a deep understanding (and culture) of economics and marketing is required for commercialization which is simply missing at NASA. And Commercial Crew is not going to create it by some miracle.
What comes out of Commercial Crew will likely look little different then what NASA would have had now with OSP except ownership and liability for the spacecraft. But the control of NASA over their use will make ownership a moot point while the cost risks of liability if flown commercially (expect NASA to get a wavier from FAA AST for its Commercial Crew on the grounds it needs to have total control of safety…) will make it impossible for them to be the breakthrough needed to serve non-NASA markets for human space flight.
I am not sure that I have ever seen a really good succinct sound bite answer to the question “why space”. It would be nice to have one on tap, so to speak, which one could quote on demand.
Due to the complexity of the question it may need to be explained by analogy, for example:
1) If humanity is to have a future, it must quickly lose its parochial small town mind set by living beyond Earth.
2) Humanity without life experience in space will become as stunted as a child without the internet.
3) Once there was a new world, now it has become the old one, humanity must now emigrate to space if it is to live again.
Why space is not a pipe dream, is probably the other question that needs to be similarly answered.
Pete, I wrote this four years ago:
http://robot_guy.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-go-to-space.html
I think this is on the lines of what you’re talking about. Indeed, the lengthy blog post I mentioned above was a follow-up to my “Why go to space” blog post.
The finite/infinite angle is interesting:
The Earth is a very finite place, space is infinite, if humanity wishes to avoid such finiteness, then it needs to take full advantage of this limited time offer and very quickly emigrate significant populations off Earth.
I like the argument of how many billions of Earth equivalents this solar system could support.
A point that is I think often over looked is that the results of R&D are proportional to the resources invested, but the capacity to invest in R&D and the benefits received are proportional to the total population.
So ten times the population will do ten times the R&D and receive ten times the benefits on a per capita basis (ignoring snow ball effects, etc.). The greater the total population, the greater the technological progress and the higher the average standard of living.
A billion Earths in this solar system alone creating a billion Einsteins per generation – the vast majority of humanities current problems would get solved.
Why space? Simple. Imagine two earths. On one they just stay in the cradle. The other expands into the solar system followed eventually by expanding to other stars of the galaxy.
Which has a future?
Will we study these backward societies or be them?
I laughed, I cried, I lost 15 pounds…
This was obviously an unconsidered position dreamt up by an overzealous education staffer who probably knew little or nothing about space but saw NASA as a juicy source of potential funding for his own pet programs.
I think you have written that before. Do you have anything at all to substantiate this allegation? FWIW I think it’s “obvious” that Obama was tutored by ’60’s radicals who feel the entire manned space program is a waste of money when there are still poor people in America. I heard this countless times from the left, growing up (in Hawaii, BTW, like O) that it became a staple of the left.
BBB
Imagine a person, capable of greatness, who lives their short life in the middle of no where, never traveling, never seeing or comprehending the greater world, never accomplishing anything or leaving any children behind – a life wasted and ended there.
That is the current state of life on this planet. This is why some of us at least must emigrate to space at the first available opportunity.
Then there is the moral argument: This solar system alone can support trillions of people, to sentence these trillions of people to death, before they have even had a chance to live, to preemptively deny them the right to self determination – is beyond genocide.
Actually in thinking about it the very question “Why Space” is perhaps the most embedded legacy of Apollo. Space was not an issue or national priority before Sputnik made it one in the context of the Cold War. And President Kennedy clearly stated his reasons for Apollo in that context with his answer to “Why Space”, Basically it was for national security as symbolic of the battle between a free people and those that lived under dictatorships.
But with the Cold long gone so has that justification. So basically is there any unified need for space for the U.S. today?
In terms of its military value, yes there is a need for space, but that is the providence of DOD, not NASA. NASA Cold War mission was its symbolic illustration of national technological power. But in a post war world is there any need for such a projection? Indeed does that even matter in against an enemy that views progress as evil?
So perhaps the question shouldn’t be Why Space, but Why NASA? Why does the U.S. still need a national space agency if the U.S. has no strategic reason to use space as being symbolic of its technological power?
In short, what value does NASA and its budget add to the national GDP? And is it worth the cost? Or is it time for it to be phased out.
Good analogy Pete.
Thomas, let me be devil’s advocate, which in the case of NASA means Pro. If they can do things that encourage private investment in space… in other words, making real rather than symbolic progress, would that not benefit the country that pays their salaries? I think we’re past the point where they can do much to enhance our orbital presence. Bigelow and perhaps others will be putting private hotels in orbit, increasing flight rates to that particular destination.
But they can create other destinations by establishing bases which private enterprise can help fill the need for transportation. Some providing ships to go to orbits and perhaps others creating landers (SSTO RLV’s?) for local base logistics.
NASA could trailblaze the unprofitable leaving a trail of profitable niches… or they could just make billions of dollars available for x-prizes and be done with it. 😉
Ken,
But is applying NASA’s budget to commercial space worth it if space itself has no value to the nation in the post Cold War world?
Dr. Matula
I think there’s a lot to agree with on your historical narrative, and you get only one major argument /approach wrong, but like Jim, I’m skeptical about your willingness to accept any criticism as legitimate if it acts on your starting assumptions.
And as this particular line of reasoning is present in most of your space-related writing, I have to think it’s part of a belief system rather than a conclusion arrived at based on specific facts.
That is your reasoning as to the cause of high launch costs (present and future), and your implying that somehow the present high costs can be side-stepped by the right (reusable) approach. This line of reasoning is accompanied by a refusal to treat honestly arguments that launch costs are tightly joined to the difficulty associated with the physics of the problem. As an example of that, consider the strawman you set out for beating on launch costs:
From the shuttle and its failures we learned that reusable launch systems should be avoided; that it is futile to try to reduce the cost of access to space at all; that crew should be separated from cargo.
Dishonest strawman, but typical. Shuttle DOES show that reusability is extremely expensive to develop. Of course it is not broadly applicable as a lesson going forward–but what single example of anything is?
Who stated that it is futile to try to reduce the cost of space access? Nevertheless, at present world wealth levels, and hence, at total potential funding levels for development it IS futile to try to reduce the cost of space access using a fully reusable RLV. That’s just my opinion of course, but I have as much evidence for it as you do for the unstated but implied opposite case.
http://www.transterrestrial.com/?p=20891
Sums up the Whittington babble in case anyone is interested.
And Mark, if you’re reading this, we all welcome you writing a REAL critique.. you know, actually making an argument and backing it up in a way that might convince us of anything other than you just being an idiot.
Who stated that it is futile to try to reduce the cost of space access?
Did you pay no attention to the stupid comment of Art Stephenson, who said that X-33 proved that reusables didn’t work? Is not the very concept of Ares/Constellation an admission by NASA that the cost of access cannot be reduced? No one ever claimed that it would reduce cost (because they know that would be an insane argument to even attempt). The emphasis was entirely on safety (which it also won’t do much for).
I think you have written that before. Do you have anything at all to substantiate this allegation? FWIW I think it’s “obvious” that Obama was tutored by ’60’s radicals who feel the entire manned space program is a waste of money when there are still poor people in America. I heard this countless times from the left, growing up (in Hawaii, BTW, like O) that it became a staple of the left.
If that idiotic initial space position had come from Obama, he wouldn’t have been so quick to change it, once the “progressives” pointed him in a different direction. I think that my explanation fits Occam’s Razor. Obama didn’t give a damn about space when that policy went up on his web site, but he realized that some did, so he fixed it. I still don’t think that he cares about space (and as I said at National Review, I think that’s a blessing), but he at least now realizes that it’s a politically sensitive issue.
re-linking at and asking for critique at NSF forums may get you something.
Tom @9:45 has a point. “…reusable launch systems should be avoided…” is a strawman, unless you can point to someone actually saying something like that. Perhaps if you more specific i.e. “reusable launch systems operational costs are too high”, well, that isn’t a strawman, but it can be shown that the reason the costs are so high for NASA aren’t due to the Physics but a number of other reasons that won’t necessarily apply to other entities like private businesses.
RE: The aim was to provide subsidies to Russian engineers and scientists to keep them from helping Iran and North Korea develop nuclear and missile technology (some wags called it “midnight basketball for the Russians”).
Do you mean the “purported aim”? At least re: shuttle-Mir.
According to Jim Oberg, “midnight basketball for the Russians” is a myth. The only White House aim of shuttle-Mir was to send the Russians money for the sake of sending them money. The non-proliferation excuse was after-the-fact reasoning which came from NASA (middle. IIRC) management in answer to the question, “What the Hell are we doing and why are we getting no direction or support from the White House for this program they tell us is top priority? There must be a secret reason — it must be that they’re trying to keep poor, underpaid Russian rocket scientists from selling their skills to rogue states”. The White House heard about this and decided it sounded like a logical and acceptable reason to sell to journalists. Beyond being backwards, another major flaw in the “midnight basketball” fairy tale was that hundreds of thousands of Russian space workers were already unemployed before the White House came up with their scheme. IOW, the horses had already fled and the barn burned to the ground but everyone had a vested in creating a logical explanation for a program which was evidently pretty pointless.
…if space itself has no value to the nation
That is the heart of the question. The problem is we are too early in the era to point a finger at something that would definitively answer that question. My belief is it will one day seem silly we even asked. Of course space has value to this nation including space around other stars.
We’ve had it easy so far with all this air and water and sunlight waiting for us beyond the next hill. We are destined for more (although some argue that only earth has been given to mortal man.) Actually we’d be trading that for no hostiles over the next hill (as far as we know.) What an opportunity to expand humanity?!
If you think we can’t find economic opportunity, check out the things we do right here in America. A 22 inch wide screen monitor for $120??? Amazing. Reprocessing old tires to make cement? Wow. Putting caps and labels in huge quantities on bottles of stuff that sells for under a dollar. I can’t get enough of watching it happen. Fascinating.
Space. It ain’t hard. We just need to get started for real.
The United States should become a spacefaring nation, and the leader of a spacefaring civilization.
Great axiom, but why? This really needs to be explained succinctly and irrefutably, or at least stated explicitly as the foundation of everything. Everything follows from this.
Getting to orbit is not that different, energetically, from flying across the Pacific, and there’s no reason that we shouldn’t be able to lower the marginal cost of getting to orbit to within an order of magnitude of the marginal cost of air transport, given sufficient demand.
I would suggest that it takes around an order of magnitude more energy (fuel) to get to orbit than fly across the Pacific. Inferring the tenfold higher marginal cost that you suggest.
What, in the end, do we save by sending fuel ahead of time? There are three responses to this.
A response you do not seem to cover explicitly here is that small propellant launchers enable higher flight rates and thereby the reusability and lower marginal costs that you speak of as necessary in the previous paragraphs – it might be nice to tie this back in here.
This really needs to be explained succinctly and irrefutably, or at least stated explicitly as the foundation of everything. Everything follows from this.
That wasn’t the purpose of the essay. The point of the essay was not to sell people on whether or not space should be important. It was to point out that if you believe that, it isn’t reflected in current policy. Selling people on why space should be important is a different essay (and part of the book).
The point of the essay was not to sell people on whether or not space should be important. It was to point out that if you believe that, it isn’t reflected in current policy.
Maybe this could have been explicitly stated in a more formal manner.
For example; “If we take as our founding assumption that humanity should become a spacefaring species, then it follows that…”
What you said was:
To get past the misperceived lessons of the past four decades and to develop a “safe, innovative, affordable, and sustainable” plan for manned spaceflight, we must begin by stating plainly why we should go into space, for the why gives shape to the how.
This statement is perhaps a little vague, it starts by saying that we want a new plan that is actually safe, innovative and sustainable, and then seeks a reason for why that particular plan is wanted, a reason that is later used to justify a sustainable plan… This might be erroneously interpreted as a somewhat circular argument.