Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

Another Daily Kos space dairy worth reading

Do I agree with all of it? Nope. But it is interesting reading,

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 10:34 AM

A space dairy? Is that where they make the green cheese that the moon is made of? ;-)

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 10, 2007 10:38 AM

Liberals will probably start pushing for government expenditures on space exploration when and if private enterprise gets into space in a big way. About a year ago I saw an interview with someone who was viewing with great alarm the prospect of private space exploration. In particular, he was very worried about private businesses taking over asteroids and setting up space stations beyond the reach of Daddy State. I thought this was very funny. Already the State-fockers are worried that there could be some place in the solar system the iron fist of Der Staat can't reach!

Posted by Bilwick at July 10, 2007 10:38 AM

Rand, did you read the link before commenting?

;-)

Posted by Bill White at July 10, 2007 10:43 AM

There was no reason to, since I wasn't commenting on the link or its contents. I was commenting on your amusing typo.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 10, 2007 10:46 AM

I think the emoticon was Bill's [sarcasm] tag.

Posted by Leland at July 10, 2007 11:31 AM

Something I just thought of - a commenter on the page Bill linked was asking what would drive an alien. While this may be unknowable at a certain level, we can definitely rule out certain things. For example:

food. It is highly unlikely that they would be able to eat us, or much else on our planet. In the event that they are able to, it is unlikely that we would be a dietary staple without knowing about it at this point...

resources. No matter what, it is easier to choose one of the vitually infinite large uninhabited bodies in the universe to mine resources from.

labor. Almost certainly any society technologically advanced enough to visit Earth will have pretty darn cool robots for labor. And they don't constantly complain.

So really, I think the primary reasons (if it is possible to predict such things) are going to be emotional. Either they would enjoy inflicting pain on people, or they enjoy helping people, or they just like to watch.

In the end, people that enjoy inflicting pain on others do not do as well as those that don't. This is because it is very difficult for them to cooperate in groups, which limits their ability to advance to a certain extent. And then some really powerful group that likes to help people gets annoyed at them, and they cease to be a problem.

People that enjoy helping people may learn eventually that helping people leads to dependancy, which means that you weren't actually helping them at all... so you can't interact with the helpees in any way that they can detect.

For those aliens interested only in the human race's entertainment value, obviously that value is lost once humans interact with aliens - the cultures would merge in some fashion, and the human distinctiveness is lost. So they would have strict rules of non-interference. (Yes, they claim they are "performing scientific studies." Sure, sure.)

So, obviously, aliens are walking among us and we simply don't know about it.

QED ;-}

Posted by David Summers at July 10, 2007 11:33 AM

On the 'resources' comment.

Earth & our solar system are (decidedly, 2 sigma+) outside of the norm in one area. We're substantially more enriched in the higher elements relative to the norm for our 'generation' of star. Earth itself is higher than, say, Venus, which is speculated to be because of the Earth-Moon impact. (Everything re-melted, and the bits that flew back off are the lighter bits.)

Which would mean that if any alien did decide to loot, they'd be taking our nukes. ;)

Posted by Al at July 10, 2007 11:50 AM

Well, the Spanish came to the New World for "God, Gold, and Glory." Gold (or material wealth) is probably not a factor as was discussed above. However, it is possible that they might have a motivation to convert us to whatever version of transcendent truth they might hold to, or there might be some internal psychological motivation ('glory") causing them to seek other races.

Posted by Jim Bennett at July 10, 2007 04:48 PM

As a liberal, I support the small, entrepreneurial, competitive NewSpace ventures, and I oppose the monopolistic practices of the aerospace giants, and their collusion with the government. In my experience (and please, tell me if you consider this an egregious strawman) libertarians tend to concentrate on government wrongdoing while ignoring or denying anticompetitive actions by corporations - which I consider to be one of the thick roots of NASA's problem.

As a moderate, I'm very pleased that George Bush set a deadline to cancel the terrible shuttle program (even though I don't like the man), although not pleased that the VSE uses all the same contractors, technology, and workforce.

As an engineer, I oppose NASA-style human spaceflight on scientific and economic grounds, regardless of whether Bill Clinton or George Bush was in office.

Posted by Ashley at July 10, 2007 05:43 PM

"However, it is possible that they might have a motivation to convert us to whatever version of transcendent truth they might hold to, or there might be some internal psychological motivation ('glory") causing them to seek other races."

I have it on good authority the Rigelians are Quantum Presbyterians.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 10, 2007 05:48 PM

False dichotomy.

Posted by Adrasteia at July 10, 2007 09:51 PM

Wow, I made it onto Simberg's blog - I must be really in the game now. :D

Regardless - actually, for most of the diary, I am only trying to raise awareness concerning space, and what’s happening right now with regards to space, and the private space industry. In fact, if you pay attention to most of the major space websites, the Space Revolution Weekly News won't really provide anything new. I do tend to discuss things more in the Space Revolution Diaries, but I haven't really had much of a discussion about pro-space and being a Democrat/liberal. That happened more in the comments section of this spacepolitics.com’s story discussion.

As anyone who reads my diaries/comments, I am decidedly pro-space (although, yes, I do hate ESAS, although there are damn good technical reasons to hate it). For this week's SRWN, there is only really a few comments about whether liberals like space or not. I'd hardly call it extensive.

As for a pointless argument - it’s the same issue I had over at spacepolitics.com. We live in a 2 party system - I'd rather it be a true multi-party, but I doubt that will change any time soon. So we are left with largely people identifying themselves as either liberals/Democrats or conservatives/Republicans (except for a very select few, most people really do fail into either of those categories, or else they just don't care, or aren't being intellectually honest).

With that understood, and out of the way, here's the thing - the question needs to be asked of some people (and yes, in particular, I am looking at Mark Whittington, although he isn't the only one) - are they more interested in supporting space, or in supporting Republicans/conservatives (or Democrats/liberals)? If they are truly interested in supporting space, then they should look for all allies, regardless of political leanings.

That’s why, even though Rand and I disagree on many things (I'd even be willing to bet on most things, we disagree), I have linked to him more than once, (especially when it comes to Orion) and constantly link to and point to his peice in the New Atlantis. BTW, while I am here and have your attention Rand, I do want to offer my thanks for that article.

But what I've seen happen far too often from some people, is this declaration of "Liberals/Democrats/(any movement that has a leftward stance) must hate space - by default, and just because. Without any proof, or even worse, by lying. And this pisses me off (as anyone who read my bit on the space politics website probably guessed). Its a bit like the claims of "Al Gore says he invented the Internet", or "George Bush ordered 9/11". Neither claim has really any basis in reality, and yet they get repeated far too often.

When people of a conservative stance want to debate policy (any policy), I really have no problem. And if we agree on issues, so much the better - I much prefer working together. But that’s not what this is about - it’s about lying, and about destroying people. And part of me wishes we didn't have to have this type of argument/truth squading - because it does detract from time that could be spent on actual policies.

But unfortunately, that the way politics has become. And that’s why I consistently point out why its a lie to claim that liberals/Democrats/(any left based movement) hates space, and I get mad. Because if the lies aren't shown to be lies, people will make ridiculous claims like "If John Kerry had won, he would have eliminated all manned spaceflight from Nasa" (yes, I have seen this), and other people will believe it.

Posted by Ferris Valyn at July 11, 2007 12:09 AM

"In the end, people that enjoy inflicting pain on others do not do as well as those that don't.
Posted by David Summers at July 10, 2007 11:33 AM"

Unless these hypothetical aliens are incapable of feeling pain and therefore torture us to explore what it is, how it happens, and why we experience it.

I think the liberals like space as far as when it is pissing contest to see which brand of socialist bureaucracy works best. When it comes to private space then it turns into an icky capitalist indulgence of the rich and the liberals are out.

Posted by Josh Reiter at July 11, 2007 12:20 AM

the question needs to be asked of some people (and yes, in particular, I am looking at Mark Whittington, although he isn't the only one) - are they more interested in supporting space, or in supporting Republicans/conservatives (or Democrats/liberals)?

Neither, because equating "Republican" with "conservative" is no more valid than equating "Democrat" with "anti-space."

Mark may worship George W. Bush, but he also idolizes John F. Kennedy (whose policies were very similar to Bush's). Bush's record on domestic issues shows him to be more of a big-spending liberal than any President since Kennedy. That includes Johnson, Carter, and Clinton.

If you're going to insist on calling big-spending Kennedy-style liberals "conservatives," then we need term for people who are not Kennedy liberals.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 11, 2007 03:00 AM

It's also simplistic to discuss a person's position in terms of "whether or not X is opposed to space expenditures."

What expenditures? Weather satellites? GPS? Anti-satellite weapons? Global ballistic transports? Pluto probes?

The range of possible space expenditures (and space policies) is enormous. Very few people are opposed to (or in favor of) every possible space expenditure. Almost everyone would favor some expenditures and oppose others.

Kennedy, for example, loved the idea of space as a "New Frontier" for government bureaucracy but was distrustful of the military and private enterprise. He reigned in military space programs and nationalized the communications satellite industry.

Bush's space program is virtually a carbon copy of Kennedy's. He is not as antithetical to private space as Kennedy was, but he's not actively supportive, either.

Newt Gingrich likes private space and supports a strong military program but says he would abolish or dramatically reform NASA.

Gov. Richardson likes and actively supports commercial space. His views on private and military space are unknown.

Al Gore seems to have little interest in human spaceflight of any kind, but he likes environmental satellites like Triana.

Do people who say "we shouldn't waste money on space" really want to get rid of weather communication satellites? I doubt it. More likely, they're just expressing their position in a sloppy manner.

Even if they did mean it, so what? We clearly are not going to get rid of weather and communication satellites. There's no question that humans will continue to expend money on space. The real questions are more subtle. Who should expend money on space, how much should they spend, in what manner, and for what purposes? Bush, Kennedy, Gingrich, Richardson, and Gore show that there are a variety of answers to that in both parties.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 11, 2007 03:28 AM

So, obviously, aliens are walking among us and we simply don't know about it.

I have it on good authority that they can disguise themselves as semi trucks and boom boxes.

But more seriously, I can think of one reason for ETs to have an interest in observing (though not interacting) with us right now. We are currently at a unique moment in history. We have the technological capability to set up independent settlements beyond our planet of origin, but have not yet done so. This is probably the determining factor between technical species which eventually become extinct, and those which never do. I could see ETs having a fascination with us for that reason, even if we are common in all other respects.

Posted by Mike Combs at July 11, 2007 07:29 AM

Josh - I think that Governor Richardson's embrace of private space proves his embrace of private spaceflight. Moreover, I cite Al Gore (who has good definitive liberal credentials).

here is a link to it. The relevent section is at near the end, after the update. Specifically,

Gore's statement that space right now is in the exact same position that the Internet was in the 1970s ... and that space needs to be commercialized in order to achieve its full potential ... just like the Internet only achieved its full potential by being commercialized. This is a critically important statement by Gore on the commercial space industry that needs to get out ... particularly to the Dems who are likely to take over the House and possibly the Senate."

.
I think thats a good bit for now.

Posted by Ferris Valyn at July 11, 2007 10:02 AM

Ed,
While I mostly agree with your second post, that its not as straight forward as some people claim (my only real complaint was the Gore comment from the X Prize Cup wasn't included), your first post is wildly off the mark IMHO.

First, as I said, I have problems with the 2 party dichotomy that we use. However, that is what is in common use, and if you were to ask people which political party belongs with which political ideology, everyone will almost certainly say liberal=Democrats, and conservative=Republican. Indeed, if you were to ask the majority of congressmen/congresswomen what their political stance is (conservative vs liberal), and match it up with which party they are a member of (Democrat vs Republican), I'd be surprised if you didn't see a matchup of all people describing themselves as liberals in the Democratic party, and all members describing themselves as conservatives being in the Republican party. And if we carry this to the top, well, Bush has identified himself as a conservative, multiple times.

Second, (and I think we've had this discussion before), with regards to being a liberal vs conservative - how much money an administration is willing to spend is not the sole determining factor in terms of being a liberal or a conservative. In fact, I would argue it isn't even a major factor. Just because Bush is willing to spend a lot of money, doesn't mean he is a liberal. There is the question of what does the money get spent on. Also, there are countless issues that really don't have a lot to do with spending policies that determine whether someone is a liberal or a conservative - things like gay rights, civil rights (both concerning race, and concerning larger issues like illegal wire-taps), Environmental policy and global warming, abortion rights, stem cell research, union rights - countless others that don't depend on just spending a lot of money. I would say that how the money gets spent is a major factor, but just spending money in of itself isn't.

Finally, I would love to hear what Kennedy's brother would have to say with your claim that Bush is the most liberal president since Jack Kennedy.

Posted by Ferris Valyn at July 11, 2007 10:31 AM

I'd be surprised if you didn't see a matchup of all people describing themselves as liberals in the Democratic party, and all members describing themselves as conservatives being in the Republican party.

And a lot of members, both Republican and Democrat, who claim to be neither liberal or conservative, but "moderate" (whatever that means).

Just because Bush is willing to spend a lot of money, doesn't mean he is a liberal. There is the question of what does the money get spent on.

You mean like prescription drugs for Medicare, and the Department of Education?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 11, 2007 10:50 AM

"Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight dropping down with costly bales;"

Alfred Lord Tennyson, 1842

I venture to suggest that this sums up what most of the readers of this blog want. That poet, as poets often do, predicted a possible future - a hundred and sixty-five years ago.

Instead of that, we have a smelly tin can in low earth orbit. That's what leaving things to politicians does.

Humanity, and especially America, has wasted a period of time varying in estimate from thirty-five (Gerard O'neill's writings) to forty-five (Orion project) years. We need the resources of space. We need a frontier for young men to risk getting themselves killed on. We need another basket for our priceless eggs.

Why, oh why, don't we just GET ON WITH IT?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at July 11, 2007 11:02 AM

"I am looking at Mark Whittington, although he isn't the only one) - are they more interested in supporting space, or in supporting Republicans/conservatives (or Democrats/liberals)? If they are truly interested in supporting space, then they should look for all allies, regardless of political leanings."

Ferris asks a fair question. I have developed some warm feelings for Barbara Mikulski because she has grown in her understanding of things space since 1990 when she helped to kill Bush 41's Space Exploration Initiative; she now supports Bush 43's Vision for Space Exploration. Rand has chided me (I think in jest) for actually agreeing with a liberal on something. I can only answer that if Senator Mikulski were to muse on the benefits of cleanliness, I would not stop taking showers out of spite.

Incidently I have taken Rep Mike Pence, a conservative Republican with whom I agree on most things, to task for offering budgets that would cancel the Vision for Space Exploration.

" Because if the lies aren't shown to be lies, people will make ridiculous claims like "If John Kerry had won, he would have eliminated all manned spaceflight from Nasa" (yes, I have seen this), and other people will believe it."

On the other hand I suggest that liberals don't get overly self delusional about their folks when they are anti space. Kerry's record in the Senate was pretty clear. He wanted to cancel the space station, which I realize was not necessarily anti space from a certain point of view, but he did not offer an alternative vision. When I turned on the space station in the early 90s, I advocated spending the savings on X rockets (such as DC X.) Changing realities have altered my view since (a) ISS is now unstoppable and (b) there are a myriad of private firms working on various rocket vehicles, some helped along with NASA cash and technical advice. That's one reason I've moved to supporting a return to real space exploration, but with an eye toward using that to foster commercial development. Hence my advocacy of a lunar COTS program once a base is established on the Moon.

Posted by Mark R. Whittington at July 11, 2007 01:17 PM

everyone will almost certainly say liberal=Democrats, and conservative=Republican.

No, everyone doesn't say that. I didn't say it. Rand didn't say it. Even Daily Kos doesn't say that. Didn't Daily Kos attack Joe Lieberman as an alleged conservative? Even though Lieberman is a Democrat?

Then there are all the people who call themselves moderates, as Rand points out. (In my experience, most people think of themselves as moderates, no matter what their actual positions are.)

Bill Clinton once described himself as a conservative. He even compared himself to Ronald Reagan.

Would you be surprised to discover Bill Clinton is not a Republican? Or even a conservative?

And if we carry this to the top, well, Bush has identified himself as a conservative, multiple times.

Why do you assume George W. Bush always tells the truth? If Bush told you he was a dining-room table, would you believe he was a dining-room table?

Indeed, there is. What do you think most of the money gets spent on?

Under JFK, non-defense spending was less than half the Federal budget. Under George W. Bush, it's 83%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fbs_us_fy2007.png

there are countless issues that really don't have a lot to do with spending policies that determine whether someone is a liberal or a conservative - things like gay rights, civil rights (both concerning race, and concerning larger issues like illegal wire-taps), Environmental policy and global warming, abortion rights, stem cell research, union rights

Those issues "don't have a lot to do with spending policies"??? The debate over stem cell research has been entirely a debate over research funding. Global warming could result in trillions of dollars of spending, both by the Federal government and through unfunded mandates on private enterprise.

Bush has funded stem cell research (although perhaps not as much as you'd like). He has courted the unions by enacting steel tariffs and environmentalists on global warming. He spends more money on racial programs than Kennedy did. He has not outlawed abortion or gays. So, if that list is how you define "liberal," he should get a pretty good score. As should Lieberman.

I don't know why you think "illegal wire-taps" is a liberal/conservative issue. LBJ did it, and you think he's a liberal. Democratic activists and Rep. Jim McDermott did it to Newt Gingrich, but GWB also did it, and you think he's a conservative.

I would love to hear what Kennedy's brother would have to say with your claim that Bush is the most liberal president since Jack Kennedy.

I couldn't care less what Kennedy's brother says. I don't accept the word of politicians as gospel.

The fact is that just 19% of the FY07 budget was devoted to national defense and the administration of Justice. Bush has presided over a huge increase in social and domestic spending, which liberals have supported for decades even if you suddenly want to deny that.

Even taking space policy as an example, Bush's policy is amazingly similar to Kennedy's. Over a hundred of billion for "Apollo on Steroids" and only tens of millions (if that) for military spaceplane. Kennedy allowed the military to spend more money than that on Dyna-Soar. On ballistic missile defense, his policy is similar to Clinton's. He deployed the ground-based ballistic missile defense that was started under Clinton but did not go ahead with the development of a more effective space-based system.

Posted by Edward Wright at July 11, 2007 01:29 PM

Kerry's record in the Senate was pretty clear. He wanted to cancel the space station, which I realize was not necessarily anti space from a certain point of view, but he did not offer an alternative vision.

That isn't correct, Mark, and you know it. I have corrected you on this point numerous times, yet you continue to knowingly make false statements.

Kerry did offer an alternative vision during his Presidential campaign. Namely, the expanded use of prizes. He may not have mentioned it often, but even once would be more often than George W. Bush talked about commercial space.

Changing realities have altered my view since (a) ISS is now unstoppable and (b) there are a myriad of private firms working on various rocket vehicles, some helped along with NASA cash and technical advice.

That should be "one helped along with NASA cash" now that Kistler is apparently out of the running.

Of course, you fail to mention your support for building two new national space transportation systems to compete with private firms.

That's one reason I've moved to supporting a return to real space exploration, but with an eye toward using that to foster commercial development. Hence my advocacy of a lunar COTS program once a base is established on the Moon.

"COTS" = an insigificant slice of the NASA budget that benefits one or two selected companies.

So, you're offering another insignificant slice of the NASA budget for private enterprise at some point in the distant future? Provided NASA gets the huge budget increases you are asking for in the interim, to develop your socialist systems?

What is "conservative" about that vision?

Posted by Edward Wright at July 11, 2007 02:07 PM

Post a comment