Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I don't understand that, why not be a space enthusiast? I mean, who's against space? only the crankiest kind of person. weak foreign policy + weak space policy? man, that sounds terrible.

Posted by jason at July 26, 2004 03:32 PM

One simple word: money. Space exploration is hideously expensive (especially in NASA's less-than-capable hands). Any serious space program will at least double NASA's current budget from $15 billion to $30 billion, but will make most of that money available to private industry in the form of grants.

Smaller government? More money in the private sector? The Dems are in favor of neither.

Posted by Monty at July 26, 2004 03:47 PM

Liberals hate the space program because the space program uses nuclear power.

Thank Republicans for the enlightening science and beautiful pictures of Saturn the Cassini space probe has sent us; the liberals tried to kill Cassini.

In this partisan election year it would only be fair to give equal time, so here's a shot at the Conservatives:

MS sufferers have Republicans to thank for their curable disease continuing to go uncured. Based on a belief that a stem cell is a sacred individual human life or some such they've shut down stem cell research.

Ignorance on the Left, Ignorance on the Right ... the barbarians swarm at every gate.

Posted by Spacerace Ace at July 26, 2004 04:00 PM

That picture is worse than the Dukakis tank picture.

Posted by Conservatrix at July 26, 2004 04:05 PM

Ignorant?! You want to talk about ignorance? NOBODY has shut down stem cell research. President Bush has limited federal funding, and *that's it*.

You're free to privately fund your own stem cell research if you don't agree to the limitations on the federal dollars.

Posted by Mason at July 26, 2004 04:12 PM

Mason is correct.

Stem cell research is occuring at a blistering pace, and it seems that the embryo's may not indeed be the best universal growth cell available anyway.

But oh so what.

I actually think the GOP just spends too much damn money, but it's not like anyone reasonable votes for Kerry to save money.

Posted by Dustin at July 26, 2004 04:25 PM

Republicans - ostensible conservatives that they are - should watch for Keynesian policies just as much as the Socialist Dems. For just one example, I cite the reference in this thread to the magical $30 billion made available to private industry in the form of grants by government.

Hello?

This isn't capitalism, it's a Marxist tool that depends on all the wrong ingredients: Special endearment and dependence to and on centralized power, government redistribution of wealth, innefficiency and waste, irresponsible and therefore uncontrolled economic oppression of the populace, and a general failure before the thing, literally, ever gets off the ground.

Pubbies need to go back and review the basic rules of fiscal conservativism before they, like the Democrat lemmings, revert us all back to the corruption of a Roman amphitheatre style of democracy, where it's all okay provided your pet program wins. We're not one nor do we wish to become one, and this ends-justify-the-means thinking is neither principled nor Constitutional.

Sadly this is also the prevalent centrist Republican AND Democrat view and is likely to remain so.

Posted by 6Gun at July 26, 2004 04:27 PM

Space is gay.

Posted by mcuzi at July 26, 2004 04:39 PM

Well, at least the Kerry pic isn't insulting, the way Dukakis is pretending to be a soldier. Kerry just looks silly. Personally I'm ok with that; it makes him seem more human and likeable if he is willing to look silly like that.

Posted by Anne Haight at July 26, 2004 04:47 PM

Mason,
If Kerry shut down NASA and told the private sector to go crazy on its own, don't you think you would call them anti-space? You can't have it one way and not the other.

Posted by Mo at July 26, 2004 04:56 PM

I like to remember that in 1848 Daniel Webster declared that he wouldn't vote one dollar toward the developement of The West because it would never be of any use to anybody. (Paraphrased and expletives deleted.) And we all know what happened in late 48-49.

Posted by Christy at July 26, 2004 05:10 PM

Given Bush's silence on space since that speech, I'm inclined to believe it was simply an effory to curry votes in Florida and the few other states with NASA facilities.

Posted by billg at July 26, 2004 05:12 PM

Given Bush's silence on space since that speech, I'm inclined to believe it was simply an effory to curry votes in Florida and the few other states with NASA facilities.

That makes no sense at all. You don't win votes in Florida by coming out with a policy that phases out the Shuttle.

The president had to come out with a new policy in response to the loss of Columbia, but it certainly wasn't done to curry votes. Kerry simply hasn't given it any thought, nor have his advisors.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 26, 2004 05:18 PM

Anne Haight _ Kerry did his insulting soldier photo back in 1971... while he was insulting soldiers in front of Congress...

Posted by richard mcenroe at July 26, 2004 05:36 PM

With all due respect to Rand Simberg and Glenn Reynold, both of whom I knew for years when I was active in the National Space Society, and missed by about 300 votes being on the NSS Board of Directors, Bush has not enunciated a viable space policy.

I worked in the space program from the early 1970s through the early 1990s. I was Mission Planning Engineer on the Voyager flyby of Uranus, worked on Galileo, Magellan, Space Shuttle, Space Station, Moon Base projects, Mars Base projects, and am academically published on Interstellar Propulsion.

Bush gives lip service to too little, too late.

Why a minimum of 14 years to get humans back on the Moon? It took only 9 years with the technology of a previous generation.

Why wait decades for humans on Mars, when Zubrin convinced even the NASA Administrator that Mars Direct, or something like it, was a viable approach?

Where is a genuinely Republican business-oriented vision of vastly profitable solar power installations on the Moon, or helium-3 mining, or asteroid excploitation, or asteroid collision avoidance, or comet exploitation?

I wrote speeches and white papers on the above for Jerry Brown's presidential campaign. Why should Bush be afraid to give the same such speeches? Rand Simberg and Glenn Reynold could write such speeches. Ray Bradbury (whom I saw the day before yesterday in San Diego) belives that Reagan was a great president, hates Michael Moore, and yet he could write an even better speech than I.

Space is too important to be left to the White House.

Let us work together in a nonpartisan way on this, and not trumpet the merits of two defective candidates, with two extremist VP candidates.

Or should we get Americans back into space on the coat-tails of a Microsoft co-founder, the Chinese, the Indians, the Europeans, and the Japanese?

I am a patriotic American. But also:

I am a Citizen of the Glaxy!

sincerely,

Professor Jonathan Vos Post
ex-Professor, Astronomy, Cypress College
Professor, Woodbury University,
Faculty Pool, Cal State Los Angeles
Faculty Pool, Pasadena City College
co-webmaster
magicdragon.com
over 15,000,000 hits/year
click on "Space"

Posted by Jonathan Vos Post at July 26, 2004 05:42 PM

Ummmm... exploitation, believes, galaxy.

note to self: write blog comments in word processor, then spellcheck, then cut & paste...

sorry.

Are we not all Citizens of the Galaxy?

Posted by Jonathan Vos Post at July 26, 2004 05:46 PM

Mr. Vos Post:

Yes we are! (Also one of my favorite Heinlein juveniles).

Based on what is happening in the private space industry, I would not ditch NASA immdeiately, but slowly move its funding to private industry.

I agree space is too important for the White House.

richard mcenroe:

Good point.

Posted by Lord Whorfin at July 26, 2004 06:03 PM

I am a citizen of the Glaxy too! Why do we support (big G) Government? Because it does stuff nobody else can or will do. A kick-ass national defense would be nice - not afraid of Euro - weenies, lefties and ready to clean house on Darfur and other miserable sinks of instability and discord. But Space! Space - the ultimate solution to the survival of Mankind. That's why I pay my taxes. Power on! Citizen Vos Post!

Posted by cottus at July 26, 2004 06:15 PM

I'm not very happy with the Bush "vision" - but at least he has one, and he is likely to be far more space/business friendly than Kerry.

"Where is a genuinely Republican business-oriented vision of vastly profitable solar power installations on the Moon, or helium-3 mining, or asteroid excploitation, or asteroid collision avoidance, or comet exploitation?"

Except for asteroid research and possible low-key exploitation for orbital development, these are the sort of things I'd like to see AVOIDED in a vision, especially helium-3 mining. At best, they are long term developments that most of us aren't likely to see, and some may never be practical. At that, they are the sort of things you would do AFTER there is a significant space infrastructure.

Posted by VR at July 26, 2004 06:20 PM

Build the space elevator first, then explore the galaxy.

Darth Elevator
ex-2nd in command of Evil Empire
Redeemed Jedi
Father of two wonderful kids

Posted by 13times at July 26, 2004 07:20 PM

I'd make two (or one, depending on how you count it) exceptions to all the above comments... The Federal Gov't *does* have two proper roles in space. 1) Defense-related, much as the military maintains it's own air freight fleet; and 2) impact interdiction -- which would fall under the whole "provide for the common defense" idea anyway and so is just a subset of 1).

- Eric.

Posted by Eric Strobel at July 26, 2004 07:23 PM

Fuck you McUzi, go craw back up some troll's ass!

Posted by Heavy Metal at July 26, 2004 07:56 PM

Richard McEnroe - true dat. I'm aware of Kerry's activities and testimony back then, even though I was too young at the time to know about or understand it.

I just meant that the space pic, in and of itself, was harmlessly silly. Doesn't mean that I like Kerry. :)

Posted by Anne Haight at July 26, 2004 08:38 PM

Space Race Ace,

Both partys are weak on medical marijuana which can ease the symptoms of MS and may in some cases reverse some of its effects.

Kerry: Against spacers and indifferent to space.

Posted by M. Simon at July 26, 2004 09:28 PM

The impression I'm getting from the Kerry push is that they want federal money spent well, and have a scepticism of projects that just divert tax money to the large, established vested interests in the government-funded sectors: well, more than the Bush Whitehouse, anyway.

I can really see that fitting in well with a more X-Prize, seed-capital friendly NASA, rather than these big idea, hand-waving on the details, "a man on mars by 2004+n".

But, really, who knows? Neither party are going to fight the election on the space issue. We can only intimate what will happen after the election, sadly.

Posted by recuse at July 26, 2004 09:57 PM

Monty, Mo... see downstream for some VERY well-articulated reasons to privatize space exploration and colonization.

This year saw the first private spaceman, and yowza! he was 62 when he made the trip in the Composites lovely-lined vehicle!

Privatize space! Go for it!

Posted by Eye Opener at July 26, 2004 11:28 PM

Well, the Kerry picture was good enough for some Caption Fun...

Posted by Dan at July 27, 2004 12:54 AM

Let's see go to KSC, bring John Glen, I know let's have a town hall meeting about health care!

Posted by bruce at July 27, 2004 04:02 AM

Professor vos Post, yer right, but give W a bit of a break. It's a lot easier to be a whole-hog enthusiast when you're a tenured teacher in front of a passel of young folks dependent on your good will for a passing grade, and who must raise their hand to speak at all, than when (say) you're the President facing a room full of rabid cynical middle-age journalists obsessed by the thought that magnifying your slightest misstep could make their careers, and you live or die by the vote each November of a nation of couch potatoes, most of whom can't solve a linear algebra equation without divine inspiration, but whom to a man think they could do a better job as President with their eyes closed.

Have you read Asimov's "Blind Alley"? Good insight into politics, the art of the possible, and how patient and compromising low-key advocacy can be much more effective than a firebrand devotion to absolute principle. Just a thought.

Posted by Mr. Yttrium at July 27, 2004 08:47 AM

I admit the reality is Rutan is too far away from orbital and beyond LOE to be the private space program most libertarians or conservatives would hope for. But that being said, what exactly is wrong with continuing space funding on the coat tails of a Microsoft Co-Founder?

Hopefully the issue is not the childish; "He works for Microsoft and they suck, Mac is better."

The only problem I see is the time it takes. Also, it is rather silly to continue funding a massive government bureaucracy after the private sector becomes equally successful.

NASA still has a major role, and it is not support of the defense industry. The private sector is not prepared to go beyond Earth, nor do they have an economically viable reason to do so. He3 and solar power are nice ideas, but no corporation could survive the drain in capital to turn a profit on that. The Government possibly can, and to that end, I support making those arguments. But stick to those rational arguments and then your ideas will be taken more seriously.

NASA inspired the world when its efforts where to go beyond it. That's the space program that needs to be in the platforms. Anything less is not going to get much support.

Posted by Leland at July 27, 2004 08:49 AM

> I wrote speeches and white papers on the above for Jerry Brown's presidential campaign. Why should Bush be afraid to give the same such speeches?

Because Bush is not a raving loon.[1]

>I am a Citizen of the Glaxy!

yup

>co-webmaster
>magicdragon.com
>over 15,000,000 hits/year

What were your SAT scores?

[1] Yes, Brown has gotten better - he probably would be a better governor now, in no small part due to his experience as Oakland's mayor. Yes, some of the "Moonbeam" stuff was undeserved. Neither fact refutes my point.

Posted by Andy Freeman at July 27, 2004 09:18 AM

I'm impressed by the quality of responses to my misspelled posting on my platform as Citizen of The Galaxy.

13times was right in promoting the Space Elevator, which I've discussed at length, many years ago, with my co-author Sir Arthur C. Clarke, and the late Robert Forward.

Eric Strobel makes a good point on the role of government, which balances the libertarian view.

Anne Haight was right that the Kerry photo was "harmless." But, then, our planet is "mostly harmless."

M. Simon seemed more realistic than either extreme of cynical or techno-optimistic.

Mr. Yttrium makes a politically valid point. However, I don't have tenure at the moment, and I do encourage my students to call out when I've made a mistake at the blackboard. My wife comments that she's been to Ytterby, from which Yttrium, and other elements, are named.

I did not mean to give Leland the impression that I'm against Rutan and Microsoft. I've spoken at times with Mr. Rutan, and he impressed me. His spaceship delights me. I have no problem with Paul Allen himself, and applaud his funding of the science fiction museum "The Science Fiction Experience." But I have just cancelled my Charter Cable service for TV (owned by Mr.Allen) in favor of a communications satellite system (as envisioned by Arthur C. Clarke for TV direct to 3rd world villages), keeping Charter for cable modem.

And I'm so happy to hear Saint Isaac Asimov mentioned. Good story. Great man. I brought him on as my "guest of guest" when I did 5.5 minutes live on the NBC-TV Today Show, on the relationship between Science Fiction on space travel with real space travel, and we did other projects together.

Half of all the astronauts I've worked with credit their career plans to Asimov, Bradbury, Clarke, and Heinlein by name. Science Fiction helped create the space program. It still gives us useful options, for We The People to decide, as it is troo important for the White House (or the UN or the like).

Great thoughts! Rand Simberg, a very smart and creative guy, has attracted you other VS&C people!

Posted by Jonathan Vos Post at July 27, 2004 09:19 AM

Jonathan: (I'll reply to your original post, and skip the side-tracks.)

"Why a minimum of 14 years to get humans back on the Moon? It took only 9 years with the technology of a previous generation."

Just a few days ago was the 35th anniversary of the manned Moon landing. The percentage of the population who was born afterwards is increasing - I'd bet it's in the double digits.

It's a long story. Part of that story is that over those 35 years, we lost the talent that took us to the Moon. The state of education in this country is dismal. We still have science trophy winners in high school and college, but now we are far behind where we left off 35 years ago.

And not just science talent - we're behind in the "right stuff" that took us there and back.

You must have noticed that our shuttle fleet is aging and failing. (Last I heard, the on-board computers were Apple II-level machines.)

Another thing coming along real fast now is the SpaceShipOne movement. It may well be that private enterprise is capable of taking over, if not the whole thing, at least a significant part of the job. (Compare the specs of SS1 with those of the X-15, the plane that set records in the 50s.)

I'd still like to have a logical argument for sending people to Mars anytime soon. ("Because we can" (or should) isn't good enough.)

Solar power installations on the Moon: How do you get it back down here? A terawatt energy beam? Unfortunately the Moon isn't geostationary. Relay statons? How would you control the beam as it swept from one relay to the other?

Same with H3. Separating the -2 from the -3 has to be a hard job. Over on space.com they report that it would take 140,000 tons of ore to get 1 ton of H3. Then you have to compress it, meaning cryocooling. How do you move that from there to here? Further, the fusion reactor systems still have a way to go.

Solar power - now there's something that makes sense.

"I wrote speeches and white papers on the above for Jerry Brown's presidential campaign. Why should Bush be afraid to give the same such speeches."

Now you've really lost me. The answer, of course, is because Bush doesn't want to be seen as a fool. Mayor Brown is finally in his element; he has risen to his level of incompetence.

"Ray Bradbury ... belives that Reagan was a great president, hates Michael Moore, and yet he could write an even better speech than I."

Bradbury is absolutely right on both counts. Moore is a mean-spirited liar. And saying that Bradbury could write better than you (or than me, for that matter) is like saying that Lance Armstrong can ride better than we.

Posted by Mike at July 27, 2004 10:31 AM

Leland: I agree with the value of the mayoral experience that Jerry Brown is experiencing. I've visited him in Oakland. As to "What were your SAT scores?" -- you're the first person in several decades to ask. I tell my students that no job interviewer will care. I took the SAT in 1967, before it was "dumbed down" to hide the declining scores from a bankrupt public school system (due to various causes including Liberal Social Engineering). I got 743 of 800 on the Math, 732 on the English (I think I was graded down for being humorous in the esaay), a perfect 800 on the Math Level II AP, and a perfect 800 on the Physics AP.

Mike raises many fascinating matters. Let me try to respond.

"It's a long story. Part of that story is that over those 35 years, we lost the talent that took us to the Moon. The state of education in this country is dismal. We still have science trophy winners in high school and college, but now we are far behind where we left off 35 years ago."

"And not just science talent - we're behind in the 'right stuff' that took us there and back."

I agree completely.

"You must have noticed that our shuttle fleet is aging and failing. (Last I heard, the on-board computers were Apple II-level machines.)"

Actually, I made $120,000/year plus great benefits as a top Space Shuttle engineer. The GPCs (General Purpose Computers) were obsolete wire-wrap memory machines made by an extinct company. They were modified from the 4Pi computers that flew on the E3 AWACS, which in turn were knockoffs of the IBM 360, model roughly 91. I worked on half a dozen projects involving upgrading the Shuttle (including "Glass Cockpit" that retorfit onto the Shuttle cockpit technology adapted from the Boeing 757 and 767, on which I'd worked). I worked on half a dozen projects involving Space Shuttle safety. Every single one was rife with not just negligence, but fraud. Believe me -- I've had to give testimony to the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.

I lost that peachy job because of a demented PR fool that Rand Simberg knew personally, who kept plagiarizing me, taking credit for a video that I wrote, produced, directed, narratated, supervised special effects, and obtained funding. The fool cleverly and preemptively accused me of plagiarism. The investigator never interviewed any of the eyewitnesses whose names I supplied. Rockwell worried that I'd be whistleblower to the FBI and the NASA Inspector General, according to their 440+ page dossier compiled when the fool accused me of carrying a gun on the federal facility (a felony). It took me 15 years and a quarter of a million dollars in legal fees, after they fired me and kept him on for two years, before they realized their mistake and fired him, too. Now he boasts everywhere of being Buzz Aldrin's best friend. As if.

"Another thing coming along real fast now is the SpaceShipOne movement. It may well be that private enterprise is capable of taking over, if not the whole thing, at least a significant part of the job. (Compare the specs of SS1 with those of the X-15, the plane that set records in the 50s.)"

Actually, there was an upgrade of the X-15 planned, which had the rocketplane carry a rocket to high altitude and speed, then fire it into orbit. It had parameters very similar to the Pegasus commercial vehicle which, I believe, also has Rutan wings. I think that SpaceShip One is wonderful, and the X-prize in general.

"I'd still like to have a logical argument for sending people to Mars anytime soon. ('Because we can' (or should) isn't good enough.)"

Define "soon." Mars has as much land area as Earth (since Mars has no oceans, now). If we colonize3, we double our real estate. I estimate a quadrillion dollars of real estate development and terraforming before showing a genuine profit. But a cubic mile of metallic asteroid is woreth a quadrillion dollars at current market prices.

"Solar power installations on the Moon: How do you get it back down here? A terawatt energy beam? Unfortunately the Moon isn't geostationary. Relay statons? How would you control the beam as it swept from one relay to the other?"

Some good Rockwell engineers and scientists whom I assisted showed how yopu could nearly self-reproduce installations on the Moon that electrolyze molten regolith with iron electrodes, making exportable oxygen, iron for more electrodes, and slag bricks for building more factories. They showed how to make amorphous silicon solar collectors in situ. Power would be beamed back in very diffuse beams to big rectennas on earth, low-density enough beams that you could walk through them without more than mild discomfort. Aiming is not a problem.

"Same with H3. Separating the -2 from the -3 has to be a hard job. Over on space.com they report that it would take 140,000 tons of ore to get 1 ton of H3. Then you have to compress it, meaning cryocooling. How do you move that from there to here? Further, the fusion reactor systems still have a way to go."

"Ore" is misleading. Just microwave-heat the upper centimeter of regolith with a moving collector. Over 80% of the He3 is driven off. I is not too hard to separate from He-4. True, you do need to cryocool it to get it into a form easily exported to Earth. One shuttle payload bay full (not the way to do it, just a way to indicate scale) would supply the USA with a century's need for energy, assuming fusion reactors (big assumption).

"Solar power - now there's something that makes sense." 2% of lunar surface as solar energy installation supplies the world with electricity, at a profit, with no pollution.

wrote speeches and white papers on the above for Jerry Brown's presidential campaign. Why should Bush be afraid to give the same such speeches.

"Now you've really lost me. The answer, of course, is because Bush doesn't want to be seen as a fool. Mayor Brown is finally in his element; he has risen to his level of incompetence."

Having "The Vision Thing" is not foolish. Else George's dad would have been reelected.

Ray Bradbury ... belives that Reagan was a great president, hates Michael Moore, and yet he could write an even better speech than I.

"Bradbury is absolutely right on both counts. Moore is a mean-spirited liar. And saying that Bradbury could write better than you (or than me, for that matter) is like saying that Lance Armstrong can ride better than we."

I'm not disagreeing. My professional scientist/author wife and I, and my 15-year-old son who's a junior in college, heard my old friend Ray Bradbury give a stunning inspirational speech about the future of space. he insists on the Moon, then Mars, and eventually (200 years he said) on to Alpha Centauri. I'm no Lance Armstrong or Neil Armstrong or Ray Bradbury. I wish that Bradbury WAS writing speeches for either presidential candidate. But why should he take the demotion?

I can give better destinations than Alpha Centauri, and I've said so in conference at the United Nations and other venues.

But that's the grand vision. People will die in orbit and reentry. They will die on the Moon. They will die on Mars. They will die in the asteroid belt, on the moons of Jupiter, in the rings of Saturn, and beyond. Without that risk, they'd be tourists. With that risk, they will be pioneers.

And Citizens of the Galaxy!

Posted by Jonathan Vos Post at July 27, 2004 02:52 PM

Post a comment