Category Archives: Political Commentary

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Space

The Heroes Of Space

15 Comments

Frank Sietzen says that we should remember them as well on Memorial Day.

I agree — in their own way, particularly in the sixties, they were on the front lines of the Cold War. Even if you don’t believe that Apollo and subsequent events (such as ASTP) really helped to bring down the Soviet Union, the people supporting it believed that it was vital at the time, and on Memorial Day, we commemorate all who have served or fallen, regardless of the strategic significance of their efforts in retrospect.

Unfortunately, we’re a little nationally schizophrenic on the subject. We consider what they do vital and important, yet we consider them too important to allow them to take risk, and when they die, the symbolism of their loss overwhelms common sense. This is one of the reasons that human spaceflight is so expensive — we consider astronaut loss unacceptable and will spend billions to prevent even a single incident, even though it’s inevitable if we are to open the final frontier, and economically insane.

Occasional commenter Paul Dietz once noted that if we were serious about opening up space, we’d force America to grow up, and set aside a huge cemetery, like Arlington, to symbolize the numbers of lost pioneers that we expected in the endeavor. I agree.

But in a sense, we have. Down at the KSC Visitor Center, there is a memorial wall that contains the names of those who have died so far, including the crews of Apollo 1, and the Challenger and Columbia disasters. It’s worth noting that there are a lot more than seventeen squares on it. There’s room for many more, should we have the boldness to continue.

[Update late morning]

This post brings to mind what I wrote the day after the Columbia loss:

The crewmembers of that flight were each unique, and utterly irreplaceable to those who knew and loved them, and are devastated by their sudden absence from their lives, and to paraphrase what the president said after September 11, seven worlds were destroyed yesterday.

But, while this may sound callous, the space program will go on just fine without them. They knew their job was hazardous, they did it anyway, and by all accounts, they died doing what they wanted, and loved, to do. There are many more astronauts in the astronaut corps who, if a Shuttle was sitting on the pad tomorrow, fueled and ready to go, would eagerly strap themselves in and go, even with the inquiry still going on, because they know that it’s flown over a hundred times without burning up on entry, and they still like the odds. And if yesterday’s events made them suddenly timorous, there is a line of a hundred people eagerly waiting to replace each one that would quit, each more than competent and adequate to the task. America, and the idea of America, is an unending cornucopia of astronaut material.

When it comes to space, hardware matters, and currently useful space hardware is a very scarce commodity. People are optional. A Shuttle can get into orbit with no crew aboard. It could return that way as well, with some minor design modifications (actuators for nose-wheel steering and brakes, and gear deployment). But no one gets to space without transportation. Many of us would walk there if we could, but we can’t.

Yesterday, we lost a quarter of our Shuttle fleet. The next time we fly, we’ll be putting at risk a third of the remainder. If we lose that one, every flight thereafter will be risking half of America’s capability to put people into orbit.

So, when I grieve the loss of Columbia, it’s not because it was just a symbol. What I truly grieve is the loss of the capability that it not just represented, but possessed. That vehicle will never again deliver a payload or a human to space. It cost billions of dollars to build, and would cost many billions and several years to replace. That was the true loss yesterday, not the crew. I think that people realize this on some level, but feel uncomfortable in articulating it.

As I said, we have to grow up on this issue if we want to open a frontier.

[Update a couple minutes later]

In rereading that post, and following the link to my initial post on hearing of the disaster, I found this sadly prescient (actually, much of the post was, including my initial second guess as to what had happened):

Someone in the comments section asks if the vehicle will be replaced. No, that’s not really possible — much of the tooling to build it is gone. It would cost many billions, and take years, and it’s not really needed at the current paltry flight rate. Assuming that they have confidence to fly again after they determine the cause, they’ll continue to operate with the three-vehicle fleet, until we come up with a more rational way of getting people into space, whatever that turns out to be. Unfortunately, because it’s a government program, I fear that the replacement(s) won’t necessarily be more rational…

My fear, at least to date, has been borne out. I hope that the new Augustine Commission and the new NASA management can rectify it, but it’s only a hope, not an expectation.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Clueless At The Telegraph

54 Comments

Apparently there’s some confusion about what “the Right” in America is over the pond. Not to mention who are “top Republicans”:

In his audacious attack on a sitting president last week, Mr Cheney declared that America was less safe from terrorism after Mr Obama’s decision to abandon violent interrogation methods and close Guantanamo.

But once the cheering had died down on talk radio and cable television, discordant voices emerged from the Right to challenge Mr Cheney’s defence of the Bush-era legacy.

“Yeah, I disagree with Dick Cheney,” said Tom Ridge, who was appointed by the Bush-Cheney administration to set up and run the Department of Homeland Security in the wake of the 2001 terrorist attacks on America.

The other “top Republican” “from the Right” quoted is John McCain, who formed part of the political tag team with George Bush who seemed to do their best to squeeze the last drops of “the Right” out of the party. We just had the stark contrast of speeches on national security between a perpetual campaigner and vague spinner, and a statesman speaks his mind as always, and these squishes are whining about it. Pathetic.

[Update a few minutes later]

Oh, and Tom Ridge is an idiot:

Mr Ridge spoke out after back-to-back “dueling” speeches on national security by Mr Obama and Mr Cheney on Thursday. He took issue with much of what Mr Obama had to say, but particularly disliked Mr Cheney’s response.

“It’s just the whole notion of a Republican vice president giving a speech after the incumbent Democratic president,” Mr Ridge told CNN. “It’s gotta go beyond the politics of either party.”

The Cheney speech was planned weeks in advance. What was he supposed to do, cancel at the last minute so that he wouldn’t make The One look bad when he scheduled his to come first?

Media Criticism, Political Commentary, War Commentary

Classic Leftist Projection

7 Comments

…from Keith Olbermann:

Neurotic. Paranoid. False to fact and false to reason. Forever self-rationalizing. His inner rage at his own impotence and failure dripping from every word and as irrational, as separated from the real world, as dishonest, as insane, as any terrorist.

The amazing thing about Ben Affleck’s spoof of him on Saturday Night Live was that it was so close to reality. He must write this drivel himself. I can’t imagine any self-respecting network writer coming up such over-the-top lunacy.

Political Commentary

The Protest

19 Comments

…of a patriot:

At a party the following evening, a partner at a private equity fund told the table about his banker friends. “They’re just outraged,” he said.

First, the administration had forced the bankers to accept government money to strengthen their balance sheets. Then it had excoriated them for failing to lend amounts that would have weakened their balance sheets. Now? The bankers just want the government off their backs–but the administration is refusing to let them repay the capital they had never wanted in the first place.

Why haven’t the bankers spoken out?

“These days,” the private equity partner replied, “the government owns the banks. Nobody’s going to speak out against his owners, right? That’s just basic business practice. At least that’s what the bankers are all saying to themselves.”

The last exchange took place a couple of days later at a business school. Lately, a professor explained, students and faculty had begun quietly approaching him. “Everything’s on the hush-hush,” said the professor, a senior member of the faculty. “But they’re looking for support. We’ve been thinking of starting a group like AA, only for people who believe in capitalism.”

Actually, I wish they’d say believe in free markets. “Capitalism” is a Marxist term, that is more ambiguous. Anyway, this is what freedom of expression looks like in Hope and Change America. There’s another word for it, though. It starts with “f.” And it’s not “freedom.”

Political Commentary, Space

To Boldenly Go

26 Comments

…where NASA has never gone before. It’s apparently official that the president has nominated the agency’s first black administrator. But Lori Garver won’t be its first woman deputy administrator — that was Shana Dale.

Of course, they still have to be confirmed by the Senate. And while there were rumors that the administrated wanted “hoopla” associated with the announcement, the first day of a holiday weekend seems like a strange time if that was the goal. I’d have done it at the ISDC in Orlando later this week, with a lot of space-interested attendees present. I wonder if either of them will address the gathering? Lori used to be the executive director of NSS, which puts it on.

What does it mean? Heck if I know. I suspect, though, for good or ill, that neither of them took the job to shut down the NASA human spaceflight program.

And meanwhile, the Hubble-repair crew is stuck in orbit for another day, with continuing much-needed (though not nearly as much needed as it was a week ago) rain and thunderstorms on the Florida east coast. I don’t think they can put off landing past tomorrow, so it’s hoping for good weather at the Cape tomorrow morning, or going to sunny California.

[Update a few minutes later]

“Rocketman” isn’t happy, with what is arguably a slightly racist post (and accompanying comment from an anonymous commenter). I don’t think that either the ATK connection or the fact that he was briefly a “lobbyist” for them are or should be issues (with regard to the latter, the activity wasn’t within the ostensible administration guideline of the past two years). The amount of advocacy seemed to be pretty minimal, and there may even be bad blood there now.

I’m much, much more concerned about the prior (if not current) close relationship with George Abbey. I hope that he won’t be looking there for any advice.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Bobby Block over at the Orlando Sentinel has a story up now. This part concerns me a little:

There has been concern by some in the administration that Bolden would be biased towards human spaceflight and NASA’s current troubled Constellation program to return astronauts to the moon as a first step towards going to Mars later this century.

The Constellation program is wrestling with financial and technical woes and the president has called for a review of the current plans. The White House wanted to make sure Bolden had an open mind before nominating him.

An “open mind” with regard to what? More innovative and affordable means of carrying out the goal? I’m all for it. Or about the goal itself, and turning humanity’s back on space beyond low earth orbit? I hope not.

[Update early afternoon]

For me, the biggest strike against Bolden is that Bill Nelson was such a heavy supporter, and got his way. I should also add that the last time we had an astronaut as administrator (Dick Truly), it was kind of a disaster. He actively lobbied against the Space Exploration Initiative on the Hill in the early nineties, defying his own president. He was fired for his troubles, and replaced by Dan Goldin. But one shouldn’t indulge in the fallacy of hasty generalization and draw any grand conclusions about astronaut administrators in general from a single example.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jeff Foust is rounding up Congressional reaction, from Florida space coast congresswoman Suzanne Kosmas, Florida Senator Bill Nelson, and the chairs of the Science & Technology and Space committees in the House, Democrats all (and the latter, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, is a former astronaut herself married to an astronaut).

[Update a couple minutes later]

More reaction from Marc Boucher over at NASA Watch:

Ok, it’s now finally official, but what does this mean? NASA’s has some tough budget years ahead of them with Constellation over budget and negative or zero growth budgets coming. President Obama is a science guy and perhaps not so much a human space flight exploration advocate. The reality is that no matter how many speeches he gives where he touts the inspiration of NASA, it takes hard cold cash to make things happen, especially human space flight.

NASA’s fiscal year 2010 budget request of $18.686 billion includes $456M increase for science and $630M increase for Exploration. Some of that increase is because of the one time Recovery Act stimulus money. If you look at projected budgets for fiscal years 2011, 2012, 2013 you see either negative or zero growth. Already sources say Bolden expressed concern at his meeting with President Obama because he was told that further cuts to human spaceflight in future budgets might be needed.

I have no doubt Bolden is a leader, the question is, with the projected budgets he’ll have, can he get Constellation back on track and on schedule? And what effect will the Human Space Flight Review Panel have going forward?

It’s great to see a nominee like Bolden put forward but really how much can he accomplish? Will Bolden be bold in his leadership?

Good questions, all.

Political Commentary

President Above-It-All

22 Comments

Some thoughts on the president’s latest campaign speech:

A less self-consciously grandiose figure might feel the need to reflect on the fact that his simplistic prior positions had not fully taken account of the difficulties inherent in fighting the War on Terror. Not Obama. On the commissions, he explicitly denied changing his view, instead trumpeting cosmetic changes he’s proposed as major reforms that will bring them in line “with the rule of law.”

For all his championing of nuance, Obama comes back to one source for every dilemma: Bush, as though without his predecessor every question about how a nation of laws protects itself from a lawless enemy would be easy. Under Bush, according to Obama, we set our “principles aside as luxuries we could no longer afford.” Even now, there are those — are you listening, Mr. Former V.P.? — “who think that America’s safety and success require us to walk away from the sacred principles enshrined in this building.” What a shoddy smear.

It’s of a pattern. I wonder when this man is going to stop campaigning, and start to seriously govern?

Business, Economics, Political Commentary

The Contest For The Stupidest Congressman

44 Comments

Is the winner Alan Grayson? Would that it were true — it would be nice to think that he establishes a floor, but I think that he’s unfortunately typical, particularly among Democrats.

[Afternoon update]

Considering all of the trollery in comments, in which people desperately want to change the subject from economic ignorance to BUSH! and TORTURE! of INNOCENT TERRORISTS!, I wonder if any of them even bothered to follow the link, or just decided to pathetically play pin the tail on the Republican?