Roger Launius previously reviewed it at Quest, but he has a slightly different take at his blog, which he also posted at Amazon. I’m not unhappy with a four-star review, but I’m always interested in an explanation of why it’s not five, for future reference.
13 thoughts on “My Latest Book Review”
Comments are closed.
Perhaps this is why only four stars:
“He asserts that “settlement and development” is the reason for human spaceflight and only bold actions will achieve that end. I don’t see a way out of this maze at present, because most Americans do not agree that “settlement and development” is an appropriate immediate reason to pursue human spaceflight as a greater good in which loss of life will definitely occur.”
There will be no agreement on risk tolerance unless the central “Why?” question is answered.
You (and Jeff Greason at his ISDC keynote speech a few years ago) answer “why” with “settlement”. If Launius is right that most Americans do not agree with settlement of space as the reason for the space program, then there will never be a tolerance of the risks involved.
No frontier in history has ever been opened without risk and loss of human life and the space frontier is no different.
Let me follow up on Ed’s point with the quote from Rand’s book above.
Statements like this will resonate well with space advocates. Space advocates see space as a frontier and analogies with the New World and/or the American west are persuasive and compelling to them. Rand’s book largely consists of arguments that start from “space is a frontier” as a premise.
However, the vast majority of people do not accept that space is a frontier. They do not view arguments and analogies based on this premise as persuasive and compelling.
Space advocates (and I have to include Rand here) typically do not attempt to make the case that space is a frontier. They simply assume that it is and anyone who disagrees just “doesn’t get it”.
I think this is why Launius rates your book at four stars. He recognizes that it is well written and well argued but it is based on premises that relatively few are prepared to accept. In other words, you’re preaching to the choir.
Well, I actually say as much in the preface of the book. I don’t pretend that everyone accepts that, and I make it clear that making that case is a different book. To complain about that is to complain that I wrote a different book than some might have wanted me to. I just think it should be evaluated on its own terms.
Sure, that’s fair enough. But if you insist on ignoring the three ton elephant in the room because that’s not the book you wanted to write you run the risk of your book being perceived as one long winded tautology – “We should risk lives in space because space is worth risking lives for!”
I thought your book was valuable primarily because of it’s insight into what space advocates believe and why but I doubt it will influence any policy makers who aren’t already in the space advocacy camp.
I guess I’m saying (for whatever my opinion might be worth) maybe you should have written that “different book” first. Do you have any plans for a book of that sort?
I’ve sort of had that book in work for years, but frankly, I’m not sure it can be written in such a way as to convince any large number of people. That’s one of the reasons that Apollo to Mars is such a pipe dream. I primarily wrote this book in order to try to fence off insane NASA standards from the commercial sector from a policy standpoint. I can’t say the book was responsible, but it seems to be working so far.
And I don’t think it’s really tautological. I’m pointing out the logical inconsistencies in the thinking that human spaceflight is worth spending billions on, but not worth risking a few lives for. If as a result some say, “Gee that’s true, maybe we should quit wasting taxpayer dollars on it,” I’m fine with that. I’m just trying to introduce some level of sanity into the process.
No amount of risk is acceptable without the other half of the equation: reward.
The public, except for a small minority, isn’t going to care unless they have skin in the game. Market speculation is all about future value.
The log jam is that nobody owns anything in space (who do you pay to buy something from when nobody owns it?) Historically the solution to this chicken and egg problem is people simply take possession and others accept their claim. If the claim has a low value, there’s little incentive to dispute it. If the claim has high value, it will probably be disputed but after that trading will tend to be more robust.
Government would love to assume ownership and collect the pay, but the idiots that came up with the OST (make no mistake, their idiocy may be the greatest in the entirety of human history) decided to abandon any free market pretense. Why greatest? Because the wealth of all the mass floating around in space will eventually make the wealth on earth nothing in comparison. It’s Seward’s folly all over again.
So we need that wealth to be claimed and traded. Today it would trade at a very low value allowing everyone on earth to buy in. That money should be kept in trust to pay transportation costs for colonists who will in turn raise property values over time just by living in proximity to property owned by others.
We are being held back by a different kind of safety. Keeping money from being risked when many people would be happy to do so if only their purchase gave them guaranteed title. This doesn’t require anything more than the stroke of a pen (and a few years of lawyers squabbling, but that would settle down soon enough.)
In a free society we don’t need a societal level consensus of “why”, just a near enough consensus among those involved in a particular expidition, and enough respect from everyone else to let them take the risk.
If you can manage to avoid the clutches of the control freaks you don’t even need their respect.
There’s an 800 pound gorilla in the room. How do you convince Richard Shelby (and future politicians like him) to stay the hell out of the way?
You have to bribe him, like the others do.
Milton Friedman pointed out “I do not believe that the solution to our problem is simply to elect the right people. The important thing is to establish a political climate of opinion which will make it politically profitable for the wrong people to do the right thing.”
Bribing him doesn’t change the underlying problem. You’re being tongue in cheek, but the way NASA is structured right now makes it politically profitable for Shelby to push SLS. For a politician, the bottom line is not what helps the space program or even what helps America, it is “what gets me re-elected?”
NASA is long overdue for a structural overhaul. The way it is now is a bureaucrat’s dream. Changing the various NASA centers to all be Federally-Funded Research and Development Centers (like JPL is today) would be a great start. Implementing Jim Bennett’s Space Guard idea would also be helpful, by getting NASA out of operational systems and forcing them to focus on R&D. That would also spread the influence around more in Congress, as space would not be dominated by NASA’s few congressional districts.
Convince them there is greater opportunity for more money flowing into their state, and their pockets, by giving up some control and allowing space related industries to grow and flourish.