Why is this not a functional declaration of war?
Iran awarded Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez its highest state medal on Sunday for supporting Tehran in its nuclear standoff with the international community, while Chavez urged the world to rise up and defeat the U.S., state-run media in both countries reported...Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:41 PM"Let's save the human race, let's finish off the U.S. empire," Chavez said. "This (task) must be assumed with strength by the majority of the peoples of the world."
Someone was asking last week about pictures from the NewSpace Conference, other than the one of Misuzu and her space fashions. Jeff Foust has put some up on Flikr.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:43 AMLileks reviews it as only Lileks can:
The length. Any movie that seeks to immerse you in the wonderful world of insects yet makes you yearn for the exterminator to show up has gone on too long. And not just because you know that’s the boss battle.Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:17 AMThe CGI. Sometimes it’s good. Sometimes it’s okay. Sometimes the screen was obscured by the popcorn that flew out of people’s bags, so powerfully did the CGI suck.
Inspector Clouseau is alive and well (well, at least as well as he can ever be said to be) at the LA Times.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:51 AMThis time, Mark Steyn takes on the moronic "chicken hawk" argument:
Aside from anything else, I wonder if the gentleman (if that's the word) understands how freakish it would strike every previous generation of Americans (and, indeed, almost every other society in human history) to berate a blameless young lady for not grabbing a rifle and heading for the front. And, if the issue is "extraordinary disrespect" to the troops, it's utterly self-defeating to argue that only active-duty servicemen get proprietorial rights in a war.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:16 AMIn fact, the notion that "fighting" a war is the monopoly of those "in uniform" gets to the heart of why America and its allies are having such a difficult time in the present struggle. Nations go to war, not armies. Or, to be more precise, nations, not armies, win wars. America has a military that cannot be defeated on the battlefield, but so what? The first President Bush assembled the biggest coalition in history for Gulf War I, and the bigger and more notionally powerful it got, the better Saddam Hussein's chances of surviving it became. Because the bigger it got, the less likely it was to be driven by a coherent set of war aims.
I'm hearing cries of outrage from the world over "Israeli war crimes." Where are the accusations against the organization that launches rockets from civilian population centers, in the cynical hope that the world will respond to Israel's predictable actions in exactly the way it is?
I can no longer take seriously any of these so-called human rights organizations.
[Update a few minutes later]
I'm watching video on Fox News of rocket trails (presumably Hezbollah rocket trails) departing from a building that reportedly looks very much like the one that was hit in Qana.
[Update a few minutes after that]
Well, there's not complete silence:
THE UN's humanitarian chief Jan Egeland called for a three-day truce to evacuate civilians and transport food and water into cut-off areas......Mr Egeland blasted Hezbollah as "cowards" for operating among civilians.
"When I was in Lebanon, in the Hezbollah heartland, I said Hezbollah must stop this cowardly blending in among women and children," he said.
The accompanying picture is indeed damning, but this denunciation aside, the general asymmetry of the criticism, and the associated media coverage, remains sickening.
It bears repeating: Israelis kill civilians when they miss their targets. Hezbollah (and other terrorist organizations) kill civilians when they hit theirs.
[Update at mid-Sunday morning]
Josh Trevino has further thoughts on the asymmetry:
Let us call the childrens' deaths in Qana what they are: a horrific freak of war. They were not intended; they were not actively sought; and they were not the product of criminal negligence. In weeks of war and thousands of sorties against a foe that intentionally hides amongst civilians in the active hope of just this manner of carnage, the remarkable fact is that this hasn't happened before. Contrary to founding advocates of airpower -- and unlike its battlefield foes -- Israel does not seek the death of civilians for their own sake. Pace the rationalizations extended to Allied aircrews obliterating Western European villagers unfortunate enough to live near a rail junction, Israel does not even regard acceptance of this manner of death -- unintended, incidental, and not worth especial efforts to preclude -- as acceptable within the moral parameters of war. The uninformed and the insane will react with bitter derision upon being told this, on the heels of the news from Qana: but their emotional self-indulgence does not negate the fact at hand.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:28 AMNeed it be said -- and it is a sign of our fallen age that it does need to be said -- Israel's enemy in this war operates under no such constraint. (One assumes that in bygone days, the difference between a Western democracy and a band of murderous savages would not need repeated explanation.) Hezbollah and the average Islamist do not shrink from direct assaults on civilians as such and as an end in itself. Indeed, it has been their sole tactic in this entire war. If they have not produced scenes of masses of dead children, it is not for lack of trying -- it is, after all, the only thing they try for. That they have not managed it is indicative of the confluence of blind luck and Israeli battlefield superiority. But give it time: give it infinite time to launch its rockets and try its luck, as the braying proponents of ceasefire would have it, and eventually we'll see Jewish children, too, incinerated in their sleep. The difference, of course, is that the perpetrators then will celebrate.
So, up in Seattle, a Muslim goes Jew hunting in a target-rich environment, killing one and wounding several others, all of them women, one of them pregnant (he almost got a twofer, there). Once again, we're assured by the authorities that there's no reason to think that this is terrorism. In fact, the police are now reportedly guarding the local mosques against "retaliation," ignoring the fact that the vast amount of such incidents seem to occur not against mosques (in which much hateful propaganda is propagated), but against synagogues.
Stop and think about the absurdity of that for a moment. A man walks into a building full of Jews, says that he's angry about Israeli actions, and starts shooting at innocent civilians. But we should be relieved, I guess, because it's not terrorism.
This is just the latest example of the ongoing folly, begun in the wake of September 11, of calling the conflict in which we suddenly found ourselves (but had really been going on since at least 1979) a war against "terror." As has been oft stated before, while the people who are trying to kill us largely are terrorists, the terror is a tactic (and a very successful one, given the nature of our news media), not a cause. Anyone can engage in it, and to say that we are at war with terror is to misidentify the enemy, in a profound and counterproductive way.
The problem of this misnaming of the war manifests itself in many ways. It allows opponents of the liberation of Iraq to claim that it had nothing to do with the war, because somehow "terrorist" has been rendered synonymous with Al Qaeda and bin Laden, and as we all know (at least those of us fundamentally and perhaps willfully ignorant of the actual history), Al Qaeda would have nothing to do with Saddam, and vice versa. By focusing exclusively on the "terrorists" that are Al Qaeda, it obscures the much larger enemy. And it allows the "authorities" to absurdly claim that the Pakistani who just went on the shooting spree in Seattle isn't a "terrorist," because he didn't bring along his Al Qaeda membership card and decoder ring.
As was the case with the first three world wars, we are at war not with terror or any other particular tactic, but with an idea, or rather, a large set of ideas, most or all of which are inimical to our culture, and to the civilization that is an outgrowth of the Enlightenment. There is no win-win outcome to this war. There are, in the words of divorce courts, irreconcilable differences between the West and the Jihadis. There is, ultimately, not room enough on this planet for both ideologies, because theirs demands submission of all to it.
And despite their sectarian differences, it is an idea shared by Al Qaeda, by Hezbollah, by Hamas, by the Taliban, and by (unfortunately) vast swaths of people across the Middle East and Asia. It is not a new idea--this is just the most recent flareup of a war that has been going on for over a millennium. All that is new is that technologies have evolved, and our culture softened and grown unconfident in the value of our own ideas, in a way that gives them hope that finally, victory may be at hand.
Israelis, even the Israeli left, now finally understand that "land for peace" was a chimera, a hopeless endeavor, because their enemy doesn't want land, or peace. They are like the alien in Independence Day who, when asked what it wanted of us, hissed, "I want you to die."
Our culture is an offense to them, our material success is an offense (and rebuke) to them (because infidels have no right to be successful), our very existence, and particularly the existence of Jews in what they consider their own holy land, is an intolerable ongoing offense to them, made more offensive by the fact that this lowest form of life has made the desert bloom in a way that they never could.
It is all one war, and it's not a war against "terror." It is a world war largely of the Anglosphere (and some of its new allies, such as Poland and eastern Europe, and Israel--an honorary member) against fundamentalist Islamism. It is a war in which much of Europe has been cowed into sitting on the sidelines, by the enemy within. Russia and China are torn, partly for purely mercenary reasons, because our enemy is hungry for their arms and has abundant resources with which to purchase them, and partly due to their desire to see the Anglosphere and particularly its lead nation, the "hyperpower," brought low. But Chechnya and the Uigers in western China demonstrate that they will only be able to feed others to the alligator for so long, before they become the next meal.
We are at war with an idea, and it's an idea shared by the man up in Seattle. Part of that idea is that Israel shouldn't exist, and that it's intolerable when it does anything to defend itself and ensure its future existence. That part at least of the idea was clearly shared by the shooter in Seattle, by his own words. He may not (or he may) be a member of Al Qaeda, but we are not at war exclusively with Al Qaeda, which is just one front, one manifestation of the much larger enemy. We battle over a divide of ideologies, and there are many on the other side of that divide, some of whom, sadly, live among us. And they can unfortunately constitute a fifth column. He walked among us, in normal garb, but when he felt his time come, he picked up arms and made war against the nation that had welcomed him, and not against our military, but against helpless women.
The authorities don't want to call him a terrorist. Fine.
Let us, then, call him what he is. He is the enemy. He is a foreign operative on our soil, a spy, a combatant out of uniform, and there is no need for a civil trial. The laws of war allow him to be summarily shot. And if that were to happen, it would, finally, be a welcome recognition of the true nature of this war.
[Late Saturday morning update]
Hugh Hewitt has some related thoughts.
[Early afternoon update]
Steve Sailer says: "Anti-Semitic terrorism ... another job Americans just won't do!"
[Sunday morning update]
In honor of the occasion, Mark Steyn reprises an article from the LAX 4th of July shooting a couple years ago: "Fancy that, another free-lance Jihadi."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:16 AMClark Lindsey notes an interesting (and useful) shift in the conventional wisdom, in the wake of the Rocketplane Kistler/OSC joint venture.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:56 AMSince people like pennies, but the Mint is losing money on them, let the Mint publish a specification for pennies and let people make their own.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 06:56 AMSpaceX has moved to "version 1.1" which expresses Elon Musk's confidence that the next launch will not have the same problems as the first. (In software culture, which Musk earned one of his fortunes in, an initial version of 0.9 or no version augmentation from previous expresses scepticism. 1.1 or augmentation of the major or minor version expresses confidence.) To fix the specific failure from the last launch "...any exposed aluminum B-nuts are being replaced with either an orbital welded joint or a stainless steel B-nut that won't corrode." To fix many other sources of potential failure, the electronic monitoring, automatic launch procedures, remote monitoring, exterior redesign and better climate control for payload are all excellent improvements. Bravo!
The oversight by managers they implemented needs more details released before I would recognize it as a new improved way of doing business. (Finally, while I have seen another company launch with the engine compartment on fire, a technical coup may be a PR mistake.)
In other news, Musk's electric car company is making headlines.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 06:49 AMThey say that artists suffer for their art.
What deranged notions would possess American actors to take part in a film like this one? What's next? A film version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, starring Barbra Streisand?
Maybe there's a good reason that these particular "artists" should suffer for their art. Help them along, and fulfill their destiny, by refusing to pay money to see it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:55 PMA Dneper rocket carrying a lot of Cubesat university experiments failed to get them to orbit. I'm glad that wasn't Bigelow's Genesis 1 flight, though.
And it demonstrates once again that no one currently builds reliable launch systems. It also shows the continuing folly of using (in this case literally) converted munitions as transportation devices. Until we fix the problem of reliability and affordability (issues that NASA's plans don't even attempt to address), it's pointless to plan lunar or Mars missions.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:42 PMClaudia Rossett talks about disproportionate responses by the UN.
Where are all the so-called "human rights" organizations? When will someone formally accuse Hezbollah of war crimes? Hiding weapons and fighters among a civilian population is a war crime. Making war out of uniform, or wearing the uniform of the enemy, is a war crime, and both are illegal via the Geneva Conventions. But when Lebanese civilians are killed or injured as a result of these actions, the autonomic response in Turtle Bay and among the NGOs is to blame the Jews.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:35 PMJonah Goldberg has some useful thoughts. And note that I'm using the word "liberal" in the classical sense.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:43 AMIn light of the recent GAO report, Keith Cowing is being pretty hard on ESAS himself:
The CEV/CLV is already a debacle of epic proportions with the contractor teams saddled with requirements that change on a daily basis (as the GAO report infers [I think he means "implies"--rs]), a launch vehicle with severe technical deficiencies, and 8A small business set asides that guarantee that minimally competent companies with little experience in this realm are placed in the critical path of the program. The sense of doom is so bad that many of the top engineers at the primes refuse to work on the CEV, preferring to remain with the more stable military programs. Everyone is expecting a repeat of 1992/93 when the Space Exploration Initiative collapsed under the weight of unrealistic schedules, reduced budgets, and a new president from a different party who cared little for the return to the Moon effort.
I have to say that, from the inside of one of the contractor teams, I'm not seeing those kinds of things, at least to that degree, but I don't necessarily have that much visibility. For example, I don't know of any "top engineers" who have refused to work the program, but then, I don't know that many "top engineers." And we haven't had a formal requirements change since January (at least until this week, when a new Systems Requirements Document came out), though there have been many questions about potential trades that need to be performed, from which one can infer requirements changes coming down the pike in the future (probably upon award in late August or early September).
[Update at 10:30 AM PDT]
As Keith notes in comments, I misread that. It's a reader's comment, not his. I was mislead because I didn't read carefully, and there was only one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:21 AM"Fjordman" says that Europe is becoming more oppressive. Unless you're a Muslim.
And he makes the important point that the Second Amendment should have been the first one, because it buttresses all the others.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:44 AMCan't you just feel the love from the left?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:43 PMMy webmaster has augmented the image in my previous space fashion post. It does much more justice to Misuzu, to whom the camera is usually a friend (though a zoom in would have done much more so). He also sends along his idea of space fashion. (Warning, slightly work and family unsafe.)
What? Don't tell me that blog sweeps week is over! Let's make it blog sweeps month.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:07 PMThis post is for the purpose of discussing the ceremony, and how we can propogate the meme, that we discussed on The Space Show today, per a suggestion from the host.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 PMI'll be on The Space Show at 7 PM Pacific with my webmaster, Bill Simon, discussing last week's Apollo anniversary and the ceremony we came up with to celebrate it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:52 PMYou know, I'd be embarrassed to ask a question like this:
Daniel Schorr is used to producers popping into his Washington, D.C., office at National Public Radio to ask, on deadline: Which war came first, Korea or Vietnam?
Particularly given the resource of the Internet. But I guess some people wear their ignorance with pride.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:20 PMJoseph Farah (a Christian Arab, for what it's worth) says that we're in neither World Wars III or IV. This is just the latest flareup of the original world war, going back centuries:
If the radical Islamic jihadists in the Middle East – the mullahs of Iran, their puppets in Hezbollah, the suicidal maniacs of Hamas and their patrons in Syria – had the power to destroy every Jew in Israel, they would do it. Does anyone doubt that for a minute?Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:26 AMOn the other hand, the Jews of Israel do possess the power to destroy their enemies. Yet, there is no question in anyone's mind that they would never resort to such an option unless they were somehow faced with annihilation themselves.
Likewise, today, the West has the power to destroy every Islamic country in the world. It's not a consideration. Yet, everyone reading this column understands intuitively and intellectually that if the shoe were on the other foot, the West would be in big trouble.
From that famous Jihadi love poet, Iowahawk.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 PM
There wasn't much worth taking pictures of at the conference in Vegas this past weekend, but Misuzu Onuki is always worth taking a picture of, and when she's with her space fashions, it's worth posting. The one on the left is a wedding dress, with wires in it to make the fringes "float" up as they would in weightlessness.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:01 PMThe Space Foundation has put their new white paper on line. Released at the conference this weekend (and summarized by Leonard David), it calls for cancelling Block I of the CEV (the one that's designed to go to ISS), and using the funds to increase COTS funding, and restore aeronautics and space science that has been cut over the past couple years.
I should note that I haven't been blogging much this week because I'm busy reviewing and rewriting requirements and verification statements for CEV Block I...
[Wednesday update]
There are a lot of reader comments over at NASA Watch.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:20 PMHere's an upbeat article in the local paper about this past weekend's space conference in Las Vegas.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:02 AMIf the devil was smart, of course, he’d find a way for you to sell your soul in small increments, using some sort of debit card; once you went over 50 percent, it would be his. Half the country would hit 49 percent in three months.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:34 AM
Michael Huang says that humans are scientifically useless. Taylor Dinerman says that (despite the uselessness of humans) solar physics is important (for those concerned with such things, ignore the demonic nature of the link URL). And Jeff writes about Bob Bigelow's excellent rodeo adventure. (Other good stuff there as well, wander around the site.)
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:07 AMIt's a sad commentary on public debate that this has to be done over and over again, but Jeff Jacoby dismantles (once again) the imbecilic "Chicken Hawk" "argument:"
``Chicken hawk" isn't an argument. It is a slur -- a dishonest and incoherent slur. It is dishonest because those who invoke it don't really mean what they imply -- that only those with combat experience have the moral authority or the necessary understanding to advocate military force. After all, US foreign policy would be more hawkish, not less, if decisions about war and peace were left up to members of the armed forces. Soldiers tend to be politically conservative, hard-nosed about national security, and confident that American arms make the world safer and freer. On the question of Iraq -- stay-the-course or bring-the-troops-home? -- I would be willing to trust their judgment. Would Cindy Sheehan and Howard Dean?Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:09 AM
While I was driving back from Vegas, Alan Boyle was writing a more coherent article about my post on Extraterrestrial Copulatory Activities. But then, he's a pro.
But I have to say, I thought that blog sweeps week was over.
Oh, and in case you haven't inferred it (I suspect that most of my readers are smart enough to have done so) I'm back in LA.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:22 PMTumlinson thanking people who put the conference together, and expressing his honor at being part of a conference of "doers." Seeking feedback on future conferences. There is a dream in this room that we all hold--an incredible future for humanity, that we can all participate in, and paint that future in the stars. There's a dream outside, and they want it too, but they don't know that they don't know. They would rather have that future than one in which Israel and Hezbollah are bombing each other. Sees a future of space colonies, in which we can have a Hezbollah space colony. Horizon narrows if we stay on earth, and widens if we move into space.
Back to regular blogging now. Well, after I drive back to LA...
[Update, back in LA]
If I don't put quote marks around words, one shouldn't assume that they are literal quotes. When I type these things, I'm typing as fast as I can, and doing as much gist gathering as possible. Sometimes I'm mistaken (I often don't even know what I've typed until I go back and read it later--there seems to be a direct short between my ears and the keyboard, with little time for processing in the brain (not that my feeble brain would be able to do much with it anyway)).
In addition, it's quite churlish to jump on extemporaneous speeches. But then, one has to consider the source.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:28 PMOK, this is what you've obviously all been waiting for. The last session of the conference, after which I get back to the usual blather...
The panelists are Laura Woodmansee, a science writer who has apparently just written a book about the subject of extraterrestrial copulatory activity (ECA), Vanna Bonta (a writer and poet, according to her placard, not to mention voice actress--not sure why voice only, the camera is certainly not unfriendly to her) and Dr. James Logan, former Chief of Flight Medicine (and other similar titles) from NASA.
Bonta led off by presenting Woodmansee with a Fisher Space Pen in congratulations for her book. Pens and sex are toosl that bring new things into being. Also praising Bob Bigelow for converting missiles to launchers.
"What happens in space, does not stay in space." People are closely monitored. "[ECA] is not just a good idea, it's survival." We're going to settle space, and we need whole brains (science and poetry) to succeed. S3x does not take rocket science. Life is creation and structure, and even poetry is engineered. Burt Rutan is one of the greatest poets today. Continual symbiosis between engineering and poetry (seeking of beauty is a human purpose). ECA is ultimate in poetry and science. S3x is about recreation, companionship, progeny. [Really tough to convey this talk with a real-time blog post. Talking and showing slides] Another benefit of weightlessness (which is an aesthetic) is great hair, but don't accept substitutes (shows a spray-on weightless hairstyle.
Physiological issues: deyhydration, possible 3r3ctile dysfunction due to loss of blood in lower body. More sweating, and coupling will spew various fluids that will be hard to manage. However, love will find a way, for long missions, compatibility should be predetermined.
Ideal foreplay might be hydroroom, with fluid orbs to play with in enclosed space, with varying size, speeds and fragrances of water drops. Stabilization will require hand and footholds in cubicles. Space Adaptation Syndrome may be a problem. Bring mouthwash, and don't get too wild until afterwards. Really hard to keep mass of bodies together (based on her experiment with a kiss on a Zero-G aircraft ride). Suggests a "two suit" with nylon or velcro zippers to connect at the top, with diaphanous interior clothes that spread out in weightlessness, to just chill and float and stay together. Varoius fabrics should be available, with "sensible underwear' attachable to wall spaces.
Talking about "the higher purpose." Creating children in space. We've been having sex in space for thousands of years, just under one gravity. Our dreams and powers of creation distinguish them. ECA has its up sides, some of which we know, and some of which are unknown. In-vitro fertilization may work in weightlessness. This is the most important thing we can explore for the future of our species [Hey, I'm just typing what she says]. It's our birth right. May the continuum be unbroken.
Jim Logan up now. Notes that this audience is part of the hard core. His mother will be very pleased when she hears that he's on this panel.
"Aside from the thrill, what's the big deal?" Disclaimer: not representing the agency--came here on his own dime. NASA has been by, of, and for engineers. That has to change. What comes after ECA is very important. Thinks that fantasy may be superior to reality about weightless s3x will be. But thinks that simulating choreographed action in weightlessness will be very stimulating to view (if not choreographed, will just be a flail).
We come up with countermeasures for weightlessness, and the ultimate countermeasure is returning to gravity. Existing countermeasures are inadequate. Been spending about thirty million dollars a year on critical-path roadmap items, and not a single one has been retired--this is one. Weight of the fetus up to eighteen weeks is small on earth and in an essentially weightless environment, but after twenty-one weeks or so starts to experience gravitational loading. Can't use countermeasures on fetus, and bone development in a weightless environment will be major issue. Gross developmental milestones (sitting, standing walking) could be delayed. Could be impossible to ever make critical brain connections in weightlessness. In mice we mimic immune-system problems due to weightlessness with simple hind-limb suspension, so gravity is very, very important to development. There's been a lot of changes in the earth over three billion years, but one thing has been constant in evolution--gravity.
Considers it extremely naive to imagine a weightless civilization. We take or make, our own air, we take or make our own food. We will have to take our own gravity. We still have no idea what the gravity prescription is. After forty-five years, we don't know the dose, the frequency or the side effects. We have to lobby for more research to understand this. We have to decide whether space is a sortie or stay destination. It is possible that one-sixth gee won't be enough, which means the moon is out as a frontier destination, until we make some serious medical progress. Same argument applies to Mars--we may need more than one-third gee. Whatever gravity prescription is, it probably won't be one size fits all. All we know is that one gee works.
If not now, when? In the long term, the tall pole in the tent is life sciences, not rockets. The future of space will not be pioneering, it will be bioneering. Historically, if humans couldn't adapt to their environment, they didn't survive.
Laura Woodmansee talking about her book on the subject. Not a scientist, but has a deep interest in science and space. Subject makes everyone giggle. But humans take their sexuality everywhere they go. It's going to happen, there will be weddings and honeymoons in orbit, and we have to start taking it seriously. Book is about both the fund part and the serious part. Looking at the future as a mother, and the concerns about gestating and raising children in that environment.
First chapter is about the question everyone wants to know. Many rumors exist. There was controversy about Mark Lee and Jan Davis, a married couple went into space, and declined interviews. Another issue is pr0n in space. There was an attempt to do a film on Mir, but it didn't work out. She wishes that it had happened, because it might have generated interest in space. Quote from Gene Roddenberry--"I guarantee you it happened, for no reasons other than common sense."
Talking about "docking maneuvers," and need for restraints. Rooms will have to be designed. No convection, so cooling will be a problem. Will need fans, and privacy. "Initial awkardness will detract from the romance, so it will take practice to make perfect."
Third topic is about new life in space (subject of Jim Logan's talk). She is very concerned about the subject, from conception, through gestation, to delivery (which could be disastrous). Drugs work differently. Unanswered question: do oral contraceptives work in weightlessness? Are they testing to ensure suppression of ovulation? Is conception even possible? Animals indicate yes, but can't necessarily extrapolate. Biggest issues are gravity and radiation. Our descendants in space will adapt to space, and become aliens.
NASA and other agencies have an archaic view of this subject, viewing it as something separate from life, rather than a part of it. What kind of crews would be good for long journeys, what would he sexual and relationship issues be like? How will it affect off-planet cultures? Might there be laws against reproduction in areas in which resources are limited? PAO at NASA was very frustrating. They were in denial. Book was based on people willing to talk to her outside of NASA, with many disclaimers. Interested to see reaction to book when it comes out. Agency has a "deep cultural discomfort zone."
She thinks that this is the "killer app" for space tourism. Talking about "heavenly bedroom," with stars and privacy.
Question for Dr. Logan: will going into space restart the evolution process that we've slowed with our technological adaptations? A: Evolution never stopped, and it will continue in space.
Question: will NASA, or who, take on a settlement-based investigation of these issues (as opposed to NASA's Mars-mission-based approach). Dr. Logan says that NASA doesn't do frontiers. NASA does vehicles. Should look elsewhere.
Vanna telling anecdote about arriving at conference, and someone in hotel said, "are you going to that conference on s3x in space." She answered that she was presenting on that subject, and the reply was "...but you don't look like an engineer." Reiterates earlier point that our humanity has to be integrated with the technology, and that NASA cannot continue to ignore this issue.
Now she's raising the bioethical question about whether or not it would be ethical to conceive a child in such an unknown environment. In Logan's opinion, seventeen-percent decrease in muscle mass of the fetus is over the line.
Logan is pointing out that water is dangerous to human beings. We had to develop technology to isolate ourselves from it. Earth shouldn't be called earth. It should be called "Water." Space should be called "Radiation." We will have to learn to protect ourselves from it. He's also pointing out that if we can live in reduced gravity environments, he'd love it, particularly as he gets older, because there'd be much less damage from falls. Also notes that there are major problems with artificial gravity as well, which is actually a good thing, because it will force us to large structures.
Ben Muniz pointing out that getting to orbit is simple engineering, whereas this is a critical research issue that NASA continues to ignore. Logan agrees that this is a critical issue, and one that someone must address. Asking this group to actively make connections to the life sciences community, because both the New Space people and that world have things to teach each other. Life Science at NASA is a cultural problem. Engineers don't like gray areas, but in Life Science, the only on and off are life and death, and everything else in between is fuzzy. [I'll not that this is another instance of Snow's two cultures.] Logan says there's also a political dimension to this. He speculates that some people who want to colonize Mars might not actually want to know the answer, because they might not like it.
Rick Tumlinson pointing out that there used to be conferences that talked about these kinds of issues, at Princeton (which are starting up again next spring). But in the early eighties, everyone thought that the Shuttle had solved the transportation problem so we shifted our thoughts to destinations. But as we discovered that was a mistaken notion, all of our energy has gone back into the transportation problem, and we've ignored this fundamental one. Thinks we need to add more sessions on this subject in future conferences.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:47 AMEnvironment is very important to many people, and showing environmentalists about the potential benefits of space can build support for it. Jeff Krukin says that he asks people "where does space begin?" If you consider it only a hundred kilometers over our head, then it seems a lot closer than many perceive. Has two speakers on this subject.
Molly Macauley has done a lot of work on the economic aspects of environmental policy, and will be talking about the economics of space power. John Mankins formerly of NASA is now head of the Sunsat Energy Council.
Mankins: Talking about Sunsat, which was formed in 1978 by SPS inventor Peter Glaser. Only NGO set up to promote the provision of clean energy from space. Has long been an advocate of the types of New Space activities being highlighted at this conference. Notes that Peter Glaser doesn't travel much any more, but is still energetic in research and promoting the idea. Also notes that Bill Brown, of Raytheon, who was a pioneer in wireless power transmission, is no longer with us (and that Tesla's ideas came first, but they were omni-directional, whereas the Raytheon concept was pointable). Concept wasn't treated well in the seventies for a variety of reasons, some political, and says that it has been politically incorrect to talk about this technology for years as a result of the seventies studies. Despite this, demand for energy is growing, and continues to grow, with the dilemmas of other solutions. Showing limits of terrestrial solar power given intermittent and geographical availability of sunlight. Hydropower is perfect, but also limited. Space solar power has a very complex trade space (including not just designs, but market demand, cost to orbit, energy density for safety, etc.) The reference design solution that resulted from all these trades in the seventies was a series of very large (gigawatt class) satellites in GEO, with large antenna (order of a kilometer) that must be flat to a centimeter or two (fraction of a wavelength). This architecture has a vey high pre-power cost (hundreds of billions of dollars). There were other technical problems but the up-front cost was the biggest issue.
In the mid-1990s, NASA revisited the concept (the "Fresh Look Study") to see if tech advances through the eighties and nineties could result in new approaches. They came up with something called "intelligent modular systems). Uses skydivers as an example of such a system. Insects do it all the time. Self-assembling arrays of systems of systems could build very large structures that didn't require the high up-front infrastructure investment. In 1980, the NRC panned SPS, and recommended no further work. In 2000, they were much more positive. "Technical roadmap feasible, costs reasonable through the first round." But all work stopped within a year or two anyway.
Summary: we need energy, it's more feasible to talk about this now, and we should consider this again.
Molly Macauley of Resources for the Future. Came to space economics by accident back when Comsat was still a quasi-government agency, and proposed a dissertation on the economic value of geostationary orbit, which was accepted. Then she discovered Resources for the Future, which has thought about space as a resource in itself. She went there for a postdoc, and stayed. Saying that she's been doing work on the economic implications of third-party risk for the FAA regulation. We're still living with the effects of the Three-Mile-Island effect, and only now is the nuclear power industry recovering from false perceptions of safety on the part of the public.
She has been doing work on SPS economics at the urging of John Mankins, and has some data. Her work was funded by NSF, NASA, and by Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) [note: I was unaware that EPRI was interested, and find this encouraging].
SSP is large scale, and unlikely to be a US-only system. Looking to the southwest, Midwest, Germany, and India general markets, and looking at the relative advantage of SSP compared to other energy technologies. Acknowledging difficulties of managing all the uncertainties in such studies, and are doing probabilistic analyses, and expertise in the energy industry. Can start to use known economic data like prices per ton of carbon as carbon trading markets develop.
To stack the case for SSP in an initial run, they imposed carbon penalties on other technologies as part of their studies. People think that wind power is ugly and noisy, and it kills birds and bats, precluding wind development. They looked at a host of other energy concerns for other energy technologies. They also considered the political and security implications of relying on the Middle East for hydrocarbons. Notes that electrical energy can be decoupled from these concerns (though an in-space source of power controlled by an international consortium can also have energy security concerns and notes that SSP itself may have environmental issues). Also, we will still be vulnerable to terrorism against the grid.
Their numbers show that if SSP can come on line by the 2020-2030 timeframe for on the order of $0.11/kW-hr, it can be competitive in the markets examined. However, cleaner power may come to have higher value in the future, (as long as it's as reliable as current sources). Additional model runs are asking other what-if questions. She does think that SSP looks a lot better than it did in the past, but other technologies are advancing as well, so SSP has to look over its shoulders at the competition.
Howard Bloom says that everything in Gore's film is wrong, and all of the implications of it are wrong. He's been getting convinced by Paul Werbos that ethanol and methanol are viable fuels for automobiles. Howard had also been skeptical about SSP until Paul started to convince him. He's also been convinced to some degree by Feng Shu (risk analyst at NASA, in the audience). He's now come up with a simple plan--concentrate energies for the next ten to fifteen years on biofuels (many cars could be made biofuel capable, meaning that they can automatically run either biofuels or gasoline, with automatic detection, which has resulted in a forty-percent)
Our civilization doesn't seem to see a future for itself and thinks that it deserves to die for its sins (which is what most of his friends believe). Citing Declaration of Independence, The Astonishing Rise of the Roman Empire Which Stayed On Top For About Twelve Hundred Years (he thinks the book was misnamed), and the Wealth of Nations. He thinks that the misnaming of Gibbon's book resulted in a false paradigm that our nation must fall.
Need to tell people to look up, that the sun is shining, that we have an endless supply of energy in space. Also point out that there are lots of materials up there as well, so we don't have to schlep everything up.
But none of this is what he came to talk to us about. (Getting back to Gore's book).
He's a Democrat, and voted for Gore. But he disagrees with the notion that nature is nice, or that we should buy into the Garden of Eden myth. Mother Nature has thrown eighty ice ages at her creatures, many mass extinctions, lots of space dust. There's lots of strange galactic weather out there, and that will have a much larger effect on our environment than anything we could do. The notion that if we just cut back on carbons, Mother Nature will be good to us, and Bambi's mom will live, is ludicrous.
Cell and DNA partnership is responsible for the vast majority of life. Life has been trying to find itself as many nooks and crannies as possible before the next catastrophe comes. Every pollutant turns out to be an energy source. Cyanobacteria are converting energy, excreting stuff, and one bacteria fart doesn't make any difference, and trillions don't make a difference, and trillions of trillions don't make a difference, but when you make enough, it's a massive pollutant, which resulted in a huge die off. The cells that could process this oxygen thrived, and some of those that couldn't were absorbed into larger organisms where they could survive. So stopping out industrial pollution is pointless when it comes to weather change.
What does this have to do with SSP and the Moon?
Every location that is now a coastal area will be beneath the sea or atop a mountain. We can't count on the Midwest always being a grain belt. They'll eventually be swamps, or deserts.
His notion is floating cities. Gerard O'Neill proposed this for space, but it can be applied to earth as well. Putting New York on a floating vessel will be almost impossible. But not completely impossible. Citing condominium cruise ships, and oil rigs, designed to survive almost any kind of weather that can be thrown at them. The reason we wouldn't sign Kyoto was that it would cost a fortune, and did nothing to stop India or China. It would have been a huge mistake.
We want to find nooks and crannies where life can survive, and can't afford to throw money at the wrong things, like Kyoto.
SSP is something that can grab the imagination of the public, because the public wants to be free of the constraints that the current energy system put on them. It can be a beacon in the sky, and it's an excuse to get O'Neill's colonies into space. The moon has the materials to do this as well, and to get us to Mars. A vessel the size of this hotel (the Flamingo, in Vegas) could be sent to Mars for very little propellant, with solar sails and ion drives.
We don't want Big Brother providing us with our energy source, and India doesn't want the DoD to turn off its power. Proposes decentralizing and having munipalities put up satellites on their own. Wants massively parallel processing, where everyone puts up their own system, and just like the internet, it's robust and not subject to crash. John Mankings points out that decentralization is practical for localities, but not individual house. To get the kind of precision needed for households implies lasers and a high power density.
Howard proposes a conference on the four-step program he just laid out (space settlement, SSP, biofuels, and not sure what the last one is). [Sorry, this stuff is coming out like a firehose, so I'm not necessarily doing justice to it.]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:37 AMReda Anderson is talking about her turn-ons and turn-offs to be a space passenger. She wants an astronaut as a pilot, not an airline pilot. She doesn't want to wear a space suit. She doesn't want to be released from the seat--she's not that into weightlessness or floating around. In fact she doesn't want to wear anything that she perceives as increasing her risk. She'll be training with the Civil Aerospace Mediacal Institute in Oklahoma. She reduces her risk by finding out as much as she can, by attending conferences and visiting Rocketplane, for whom she's the number one customer. She doesn't want a round-trip ticket. She wants to go up in one place and come down in another (e.g., Oklahoma to Mojave). She's a repeat customer. Thanking us for our life-long interest in space so that she as an interloper can come along and enjoy the experience.
Ken Gosier is a member of the Suborbital Spaceflight Club, which is a high-end club (thousand dollars a year) that allows you to stay in touch with what's going on (recently had a dinner at Dennis Tito's house). Has suggestions about what to do to make people feel safe (in addition to actually being safe). Be open about testing and engineering process. Show failures as well as successes. Uses example of Masten blog as an example of openness while not scaring away investors (investor page describes only successes).
Randall Clague, government liaison and safety officer for XCOR.
It's not "welcome to the revolution." For safety, it's "welcome to the evolution." Pointing out that George Nield said things yesterday that made sense to libertarians, which is a revolution itself, that a government employee would do that. They don't know how to regulate safety, other than to bring it up to Shuttle standards (which kills people, and XCOR doesn't want to do that). Makes the familiar (at least to regular readers of this blog) point that reusable vehicles have to be safe, regardless of the payload, or they're not economically viable. We should appreciate just how revolutionary the Congress and FAA approach is, that they're willing to be hands off on passenger safety. XCOR plans incremental approach, with many flight tests prior to revenue service. They don't like EZ-Rocket because it has operability issues. Their next vehicle will apply lessons learned, and be more reliable and safe.
They won't be flying "passengers" (they won't be taking passage from point A to point B). They use the term participant. Passenger has too many liability implications. Informed consent is the key to safety for spaceflight participants. He's happy to hear a customer like Reda who is focused on safety, because he is as well. Talking about the D. D. Harriman story, when his board of directors got an injunction against him going to the moon. He violated it, went to the moon and died there. This was informed consent, but it presents an ethical problem: should XCOR fly someone who has a good chance of dying? His initial take was no, but Jeff Greason convinced him that informed consent is informed consent. The customer is always right. Different companies have different approaches to the experience. Reda doesn't want to unstrap, but Virgin will allow this (though they are rethinking whether or not to let them float). XCOR and Xerus will stay in a pressure suit in their seat. There are different providers for different markets. Allowing someone to get out of seats requires a steward, which is one less seat for passengers. They will require a suit because they want redundancy in life support. There will be a number of different providers, with more experiences and more choices for the customer. This is fantastic [simberg aside, it's also good because it will allow us to learn a lot more lessons a lot sooner]. Their saying is "boring is beautiful." They want to make it boring, at least for the pilot.
Reda says "If anything happens to me, don't stop. This industry must go on." This is a new venture, and if you can't accept risk, don't fly. She agrees that she doesn't like terms tourist or passenger--she likes being a participant. She is not a payload. She wants to come back equal or better than when she came up there, and to keep her in mind with all of the design activities. She notes that she's gone to see the Titanic, and the crushing pressures outside were far worse than the space environment.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:01 AMA panel discussion with half a dozen people, introduced by Rick Tumlinson. Rick pointing out that Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Bob Bigelow are a legacy of Apollo, but they were also inspired by Star Trek, and he thinks it takes both.
First speaker and moderator David Beaver (Chairman of MindSpace Media). Says that how the media reports stories is critical to how investors, politicians and public understand industry. Surprising that the media is paying so little attention to a movement that promises to get them into space. Part is due to ups and downs of NASA, but part is due to the changing nature of the media itself, in its transition to new media. Thinks that role of special-effects movies and television is going to be unexpectedly powerful. He's a virtual reality technologist. Creates 3D world on a live stage and immerses people in it interactively. Calls it the magic theatre project to tell unusual stories and new information. Says to check out World Space Center. "Paradigms don't just rigidify thnking, they rigidify perception itself." We in the space movement have different perceptions of space because we are immersed in it. We need to imprint enough information in the minds of the public so that they view space the way that we do. The brain fills in much of the information that we take in through our senses. Few people have been in space, and those who have have difficulty in describing it, and pictures don't do it. have to break down the cognitive barriers that prevent people from fully understanding the experience of space travelers--have to somehow give others an "Overview Effect" a la Frank White. Have to move beyond verbal, written and pictorial descriptions and use new media to convey it.
First speaker is Dan Curry, in charge of special effects for Star Trek shows and movies, and many other films and shows. Star Trek is space fantasy (warp drive unlikely) but distances had to be compressed for story telling. Tried to create a dream of space and future in which we've gotten our act together on our own planet in terms of disease and freedom from want. Showing beginning of Star Trek Voyager, with overture and cool images while credits roll. Talking about "Voyage To The Moon" as the "Star Wars" of its day. Also talking about Chesley Bonestell and his developments in movies and astronomy, and his realistic space paintings, which influenced many movies. Other critical films Forbidden Planet, Conquest of Space, From Earth To Moon, Earth Versus Flying Saucers, etc., until Roddenberry came up with "Wagon Train in space," which became Star Trek. As time went on, the more we learned about the reality of space, the easier it became to make the movies more realistic.
Next is David Livingston, of The Space Show, who has interviewed more than 500 movers and shakers of the space. Hard act to follow Star Trek. Star Trek is in The Space Show, because if it weren't for Star Trek, and Forbidden Planet, and Apollo, there wouldn't be a space show [applause]. Working on a book on popularizing space, and has come to unique point of view of why there's a disconnect between meetings like this and AIAA meetings, and the general public. The general public thinks it's ask not what you can do for space, but ask what space can do for me, and be specific. To say that space is about settlement doesn't connect a single dot, and velcro and medical tools or the Internet or financial transactions have to do with space doesn't matter, because they already have those things. It's not enough to talk to the general public in the way we talk among ourselves. They see space from their perspective, not ours. They can be made to space as a valuable part of their life, but it requires an investment. Have to bring it down to the lowest level so they can identify with it. Key is to listen to what they're telling us, and find out what they want from space. If their priority is curing cancer, then we have to figure out how to sell it on that basis (if there's a case to be made for it). Gives examples of how to hook people into talking about space as it could impact their lives and careers. Being on the radio has taught him how to listen (though his girlfriend doesn't agree). Coolness counts, but the public wants personal, not screensavers. It's easier to connect space to personal than to get people to give up personal. We have a space consciousness. To develop one with the rest of the public, we have to talk to them and listen, and learn from when we fail.
Misuzu Onuki, creator of the first space fashion show (also director of Asian business development for Rocketplane Kistler). Showing a video of the space fashion contest in 2005. Concept seems to have caught on with the general public, more than she expected. Science and technology can become more understandable to many through art. There's been no fashion in space to date: astronauts wear flights suits or shorts in orbit. Have to develop fashions once everyday people are going. For instance, some will want to get married in space. They will want to wear wedding clothes, not flight suits. Weightlessness causes clothes to appear differently (like hair). A wedding dress with frills that lie down flat in one gee can float out in weightlessness. Also describing space themes on cell phones (I think). She sees two types of people who want to go to space: passengers and those who want to do a business in space by finding sponsors and missions. (Note: she had technical problems with her presentation, and plowed through)
Howard Bloom: scientist/engineer and media agent, author of several books on the evolution of earth to present. He was turned on to space by Chesley Bonestell's illustrations, and when Star Trek came out in the sixties, it seemed so bad compared to that that he never watched it, but then when he happened to see the new shows in the directions, he was amazed because it had not only caught up with Bonestell, but moved beyond it (tribute to Dan Curry). Preaches imagination "Dream your ass off." Got to get kids to identify with Burt Rutan's machines, XCOR's machines, and others. Raw imagination, the unexpected that will take us places. Pictures are important. This is his second space conference, and he doesn't know what XCOR is, because he hasn't seen pictures. Used to think that Lucas failed, because he had this great first movie, but then the theme fell apart, but his son went out and rented all six and watched them in the order that Lucas intended, and it seemed to take on a new life. Surprise is key to "grab the public by the gonads." Need to get people interested in private space as well as NASA space. One example is "Stars, Stories and Scores." Have to focus on stars (relates story of how he created Shaka Kahn). Should make a fictional story featuring Burt Rutan. Dow Jones average comes out every day, and creates publicity by doing that every single day. We need to come up with metrics for the space industry that come out regularly (e.g., number of dollars invested into private space efforts, published weekly). Tells the story of a department store that decided to have a parade as a publicity event. Parades weren't new, but the idea was to hook the parade to a yearly holiday as an excuse to repeat it. Holiday was Thanksgiving. Macy's remains a household name today even though department store industry is dying. Get kids involved with concepts and ideas with contests. He also likes idea of space olympics.
Richard Godwin, president of Apogee Books. How do we make weather so interesting, and space so mundane? Reality of Shuttle launch not captures in any way by watching on television. Took his son, who he'd been trying to get interested in space, to a launch. "Dad, that was awesome." Have to engage the women. Explain to them that women make better astronauts than guys. (e.g., they have the same brain power for less body mass, and use less consumables). "If you really want to populate space, send the women and let the guys follow them." We preach to the choir too much. Test: If I can change my mother-in-law's mind about space, I can convince anyone (she thinks that the Shuttle changes the weather in Chicago). People are interested in survival and money, and we have to make those connections. Have to reinforce the connection between science fiction and science fact. Make people see that it's not just fantasy, but that it's important. Show them that there are things to do in space and advance our species is important, but difficult. Have one line that's outrageous to bring in the interest. Ultimately have to get the kids involved, and get the message to them in a way that piques their interest.
Wrapup by moderator: Just building the ships will not put butts in seats. We will really have to keep selling if we want to have emigration to space. Asks question: why doesn't this story have legs? Howard Bloom thinks that it's because in order to do good publicity, you have to be three times as good as the best journalist you know. Take it for granted that they will screw up a lot of things, but if you have a good publicist who's developing the story day after day you can develop habits in the press to come to you for the story. Question: is it premature to publicize this stuff? Howard thinks that if you love the audience and give it to them on a regular basis, you'll serve it well. You have to get to the psyche of the audience. Repeats, Stars, Scores, Stories.
Need a world space fair every couple years, to show the public how space is important in their daily life, because they don't have a clue, other than that it is difficult. David: outreach is fine, but you have to listen too, because lecturing doesn't work.
[Update]
See also Clark's briefer, but perhaps more useful notes.
That's pretty much the end of the day's sessions. Probably more in the morning, including S3x In Space! (how's that for a teaser...?)
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:52 PMIs Mike Griffin just asking for help in getting humans to Mars (and note that he's asking for help from foreign governments, not the American private sector) or is he laying the groundwork for abandoning ISS?
NASA chief Michael Griffin appealed on Wednesday to the leaders of the world's leading space agencies to join NASA in its bid to send astronauts to the Moon and Mars.Unless they do, he said, there will be little point in completing the International Space Station. The ISS will make a perfect staging post for such missions, he believes.
Well, I guess. For certain values of the word "perfect" (e.g., horrible)...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:05 PMHere's a story from the Dayton paper on this week's RASTE workshop that Jess Sponable talked about in this morning's session.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:00 PMAnother conference break, for Lileks, from yesterday:
...we had a Road Runner marathon. I was heartened to see that she didn’t laugh at the gags that weren’t funny. Many of them aren’t. She has sympathy for the Coyote; if he was a pup, he would be so cute. But she roots for the Road Runner. I keep telling her that the Road Runner gets by on speed alone; at least the Coyote is using his brain. On the other hand, the Coyote is often paralyzed by imminent doom, particular if it’s a result of something he set in motion. If he set a boulder rolling south, and a minute later it appears behind him from the north, there is always a moment of complete understanding in his face, braided with fear and horrible anticipation. He always knows who’s really to blame, but it never stops him from the next invention.Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:53 PM
There's an after-lunch session on arcane areas of space law. Because it's after lunch, and an abstruse discussion under the best of blood-sugar levels, I'm not going to even attempt to blog it. It's not that it's not interesting, but it's all over the map in topics, and it's just too hard to blog, I know that the difference between "inherently risky activity" and "inherently dangerous activity" is important but I just can't write down every jot and tittle of the discussion. At least right now. And it hardly seems worth reporting without doing it, other than saying that "three lawyers discussed space law." Maybe Clark will do better.
[Update a few minutes after the session ends]
He did.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:50 PMMike Beavin describing the resurrection of this office, which has languished throughout much of the Bush administration. Office is at the Department of Commerce, next to the White House. Beavin worked on the Hill in the House Aeronautics Subcommittee, sat next to Jim Muncy (still deaf in one ear from that). Then went to AIAA and Satellite Industry Association.
Office is the principal unit for coordination of space activities within the Department of Commerce. Originally "Office of Space Commerce," which he prefered--wants to nurture actual commerce in space. Originally supported National Space Council (which no longer exists--Clinton dismantled it). Office ended up in Technology Division in 1996, but funding was moved to NOAA in 2004, and didn't get presidential appointee director until this year (Ed Morris, from Orbital Sciences Corporation). Charter is policy development, market analysis, and outreach and education. (Lot of discussion about GPS and space-based positioning, which is one of the things that the office was given responsibility for in 2005.) Listing some recent accomplishments, few of which have any relationship to getting humans into space. Supporting development of new national space policy document.
Ed Morris only there since January, and he's only been there a month and a half, so still in the process of resurrecting the office. Has Aerospace Corporation on contract to help with outreach to stakeholders to see what they should be doing. Just testified to Congress on economic impacts of space--discussed GPS and remote sensing/NOAA. There may be hearings this fall on COTS, and if so, they hope to play an advocacy role for that. They recognize that they haven't done much for the entrepreneurs lately, but they had a workshop in 2001 on space commerce, and hope to do something similar to make a new roadmap of market oppotunities in space. Want to hear ideas hear. One issue they do want to deal with is ITAR. There needs to be a voice for the commercial side in the government ITAR debates, and they want to serve that role.
Question from Joe Carrol: If Centennial Challenges is successful, do you think that Commerce could get involved in their own prizes? Answer: they're interested in that, if there are departmental precedents.
Break for lunch.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:33 PMStu Witt, Mojave Airport Manager is coming up. Starting with a five-minute video promo of Mojave. "Mojave is a place where dreams are nurtured." Vignette with Jeff Greason at XCOR extolling the "Mojave is a perfect place"--Burt Rutan.
Witt: FAA is responsible for the uninvolved public--we are responsible for the involved public, the people who fly the vehicles and fly in the vehicles. Describing the joint-use operational restricted airspace over Mojave--the largest testing site in the continent. When established by Congress, it was established for both commercial and military use for flight test. Military has been very supportive of civilian flight tests.
They're open 24/7 with a crash fire/rescue division, and support the Air Force at Edwards and Navy at China Lake when it's after hours for them. They're expanding their runways and will have longest commercial runway in Kern County (other than the Edwards lakebed). Has gone from forty percent occupancy to a hundred-plus percent occupancy since the first SS1 engine firing in 2003. A "Silicon Valley"-like atmosphere for cutting-edge space companies. Lots of things going on you never hear about every day. Eight rocket test stands at the airport for thrust up to eighty-thousand pounds, with provisions up to 120,000. Doesn't worry about competition--wants to see spaceports all over the globe. Describing all the companies there: XCOR, AirLaunch, BAE, National Test Pilot School, etc. They also do a lot of filming of movies and commercials, and it's an intermodal freight transport hub. The new 12,500 foot runway can handle any airplane in the world (e.g., fully-loaded 747F from Mojave to Shanghai). Describing all the celebrities who come through (picture of Burt talking to Clint Eastwood about the back nine at Pebble Beach).
Lessons learned: prepare for growth--they had no idea they'd ever have the crowd control issues. There are plans for four thousand houses in Mojave now, which is more than the current population, Get plenty of runway--you can't have enough. If you don't have a lakebed nearby, build one--you'll need it. Only sees three viable spaceport sites in the near term: Utah, New Mexico and California. "Keep your AST sponsor informed." "Keep your local officials informed." On risk: risk and gain must be balanced.
Next talk from Australia's Mark Sonter, discussing a spaceport proposal at Manus Island. Glad to speak at a conference where the focus is getting hmans into space. Manus Island is the northernmost island of Papua New Guinea (staging area for MacArthur's invasion fleet of the Phillipines). It has an airstrip that's an emergency site for Australia-Japan traffic. There was a proposal in the early nineties for launching Protons or Zenits from it, so there's history (locals had exhibited enthusiasm for it, but viewed as "too adventurous" by internaional banking community). Good equatorial site (some interest in LEO comsats for equatorial coverage. Can double GEO payload compared to Khazahkstan. Maximizes performance to orbit, and would be a good launch site for an equatorial LEO infrastructure. Sees SSPS as the big market. If it can compete economically, will pay for colonization of space. Showing picture of Mankins' power tower. Discusses other possible equatorial sites. Not very many good ones, Kourou the only one that's active. Alcontera a possibility, but most other than Kourou are done by sea launches. Proposing a small basic launch facility, and then seeing if it can grow.
Chuck Lauer sitting in for Bill Curry, head of Oklahoma Spaceport (who has come down with pneumonia). Rocketplane was going for "O-Prize" (a tax incentive from the State of Oklahoma) rather than the X-Prize, and got it. Oklahoma spaceport started out as a potential X-33 port (when people were naive enough to believe the Lockmart scam). Oklahoma remembers the potential, even if it didn't pan out. There's a B-52 SAC base that was closed down in the 1970s, and they've been trying to figure out what to do with it since. Established Oklahoma Spaceport Authority, modeled on the Disney deal in Orlando. When X-33 died, Oklahoma was "all dressed up, with nobody to go to the dance with." Rocketplane provided a letter of intent on letterhead in 2000 which enabled the Space Authority to get up and running. They want jobs and economic development. Provided a modified tax credit targeted at entrepreneurs (transferable fifty-percent R&D tax credit spread over five years, which they sold to a bank to raise money). Now reshowing slides from previous day's talks on Rocketplane progress. Site got its license from FAA on June 16th. Seven miles off I-40, so potential for tourist traffic, and hoping for growth as the space plane starts to fly. Lots of room for other people--Armadillo is testing now.
A brief talk about "Spaceport New Jersey." "Sounds like a ridiculous idea, and may end up being that." New Jersey Spaceport could take advantage of proximity to large cities, NJ has a lot of infrastructure, with Atlantic City Coast Guard facilities and FAA facilities. Thinks that spaceports may evolve differently than airports. For tourism, takeoffs and landings may be different locations. Building a team at Rutgers with necessary backgrounds, and pursuing the idea.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:38 AMDescribing thirteen years ago, when there was a monsoon rainstorm and his hangar flooded around the DC-X. Cleaned it up, talked to Pete Conrad, who said facilities are a mess, but the vehicle's in great shape. Old space wouldn't have flown, but they did. Not high, not far, but it went up, translated, and came down on the pad. It was a transition point in his career. Had big plans for multi-billion-dollar single-stage experimental rockets, but politics and bureaucracy prevented it. And it still would have been old space.
Perhaps that was a good thing, because new things are happening now that only cost hundreds of millions, or just millions, and in some case hundreds of thousands.
Describing his work at the Air Force Research Lab in Dayton.
Starting with absurd predictions about the future ("Man will not fly for fifty years" -- Wilbur Wright, in 1901). Don't count on the opinions of the "experts." Citing Macchiavelli, about the difficulty of managing the creation of a new system. Discovered after AF retirement and attempt at entrepreneuring how difficult it was to raise money, and is happy to be back in government, where he has an opportunity to help nurture these new ideas.
Describing technologies, including new TPS that can be removed and installed five hundred times faster than Shuttle tiles, with order-of-magnitude improvement in strength and durability. Also discussing lox/methane and integration techniques, avionics, GN&C, health monitoring, aerothermal tools. Goal is delivering aircraft-like operations for space vehicles.
Describing FALCON program, and hybrid launch vehicle that goes to Mach seven or so, hopes to grow it into a platform for a hybrid reusable/expendable orbital launcher, that can evolve to fully reusable two stage. FALCON down to SpaceX and Airlaunch. First flight of SpaceX failed, expect another attempt in November. Airlaunch is lox/propane rocket dropped from back of C-17. Going to Critical Design Review this fall. Flight test planned next week with actual fully-fueled (but inert) rocket from C-17. ARES "hybrid launch vehicle" requires minimal new technology, But technology can carry on to next step, which is reusable upper stage. Will be lox/hydrocarbon, could be horizontal or vertical landing, will be tested from ground initially, with incremental flight test. Hope that technology can be spun off to New Space industry. Looking for "takeoff point" where industry "grows like mad."
Describing relationship between conventional aerospace, DoD, and the emerging private-sector industry. Discussing parallel between current space industry and dawn of aviation, with smart government investment spurring growth. Also wants to ensure that thriving industry is supportive of emerging defense needs for Operationally Responsive Spacelift. Sees emerging industry consensus on ways for government and industry can cooperate, leveraging relationships. Had a conference this week in Dayton where there were presentations of technologies being developed by the government to the industry. Hoped to link up commercial sector and defense vendors with technologists. Wants to know where to go with this in the future, to continue the development of relationships. Thinks that there's an overlap of interests, and wants to figure out how to continue to build on it.
Charles Miller giving a history of aviation, pointing out that we lost the lead in aviation early in the century, having to use European designs in WW I, due to patent fights between Wright and Curtiss, and poor coordination of the industry. NACA gradually helped fix this, and we need a new version of NACA for space.
Jim Muncy describing new types of "prizes" where the government paid for results, rather than effort. Sounds like a good thing, except that when you do that, Congressmen don't know which district the money will go to, Also, since we don't know when money will be awarded, and the money has to be set aside. Congress also doesn't understand why it can't spend money this year if the prize isn't going to be won, and is reluctant to set aside money unspent. Bureaucracy doesn't like it, either, because they lose control (Can't "help" the contractors, don't know how the job is going to be done, etc.). Not normal procurement and contracting, and doesn't work in Washington--only in the real world. But there's hope because there's some legislation working to give the Air Force some prize authority. NASA already does, but some in the Congress don't believe that they should actually get money to give out. He also notes that prizes are useful but not a panacea for all ills. Can't be too easy, or too hard. Good for incremental achievement. Were instrumental for huge breakthroughs in aviation when properly designed.
Comment from the audience that prizes are just a part of the solution, because there's a consensus that the general procurement process for the government is badly broken. Citing development cycles in private versus government, with dramatic differences in time to market. Jess response: agrees except no comment as to whether or not the current process is broken. Jim Muncy asking for formal written comments from small companies to Jess on the RASTE conference this week on this subject. We need to come up with a way for the entrepreneurial firms to do business with the government without becoming "little Boeings." Need to avoid buildup of infrastructure and bureaucracy in the company, and that needs to be written down and submitted to the Air Force.
Another audience comment: if having to build DeHavilland airplanes during the war was embarrasing, how embarassing is it that so many companies in this country have to use Russian launch vehicles? Jess comments that he agrees, but that fixing it (particularly ITAR) is above his pay grade.
Ed Wright suggests having future RASTE conferences in Mojave or at the X-Prize Cup so that industry participants can actually see things fly. Jess thinks it's a good idea, but they're currently funding limited.
Next talk in a few minutes--space ports.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:31 AMHe's the first talk of Saturday morning.
Three questions that always seem to come up: how soon, how safe and how much? People are asking if anything is happening, because there hasn't been a lot of visible activity lately. Cites Stephen Stills: "somethin' happenin' here, what it is ain't completely clear."
A great deal is happening--lull is only on the surface. Momentum hasn't stalled. We're following a typical time line with other transportation systems. Very little visible activity for a couple years after December 3rd, 1903. Dumont, Wrights, Bleriot, Curtiss were doing a lot, but it wasn't going on in the sky. Shopwork, experiments, bench testing, craftsmanship. Things that needed to be done, but not things that got one into the papers. It was a consolidation of understanding a new technology. We're in a similar period right now.
AST involved with a dozen entrepreneurs at various stages of developing new launch vehicles. Not glamorous work, but essential. Headlines are just prelude to longer-term important developments. Citing Golden Spike, and Lindbergh, after which transportation systems gradually grew and then exploded.
Industry is in the ready room, but not quite ready for the camera. But will be very soon, by the end of the decade. Answer: no launch delays due to paperwork, though there have been struggles to achieve that. We need to recognize that this is new activity, and, keep communications lines open. Learned lessons from SpaceShipOne and will continue to learn as we go.
For safety, we have a good record, but we will not be perfect and everyone needs to understand that. Citing the hundreds and thousands of people who die in other forms of transportation (aircraft, boating, autos). Safety will be at the top and middle and bottom of every checklist, but risk will always be present. Rules will require informed consent of passengers. Flights will be safe as possible, but perfection is not humanly probable. These flights will be spectacular--sensations, sounds, sights...and risk.
Initial market in good shape (fifteen millions sales for Virgin Galactic two years before flight). Question is if it is a large enough market to sustain. He sees promise.
Using example of three-body problem back in the sixties. A similar three-body problem has held us back in human spaceflight--technology, capital and market. A critical mass of private investment is becoming available, the technology seems adequate, and the market is willing (though only a small fraction is able to pay current prices).
Early train travel was expensive, but technological improvements brought it to the masses.
What is FAA doing?
First, what is FAA not doing. Regulating to ensure safety to the uninvolved public, but staying out of the way of critical technological developments.
What they are doing: finishing up rules on experimental permits, and in process of issuing to seven different developers, just granted OK Spaceport license, ahd working with X-Prize Cup. Also continuing to work with ELVs, and now have 178 consecutive launches with no damage or injury to general public.
Question about lunar landing challenge and if we're ready: still feeling way through the experimental permit process--recognizes that time is short, but will see what they have when the time comes.
Question about whether FAA is working develop standards for passenger safety: No, working on informed consent basis for now, though no compromise or change for safety to uninvolved. Need to get experience before we can establish standards for passenger safety, so we don't strangle industry, per Congressional maddate. Not like stepping on an airline.
Stu Witt (Mojave airport manager) asking: have we missed any RLV launches due to regulation?
Are any states of spaceports applying their own passenger safety standards? Not to his knowledge. Wouldn't be a good idea for individual states or communities to come up with their own standards, because it would complicate life.
Do you have enough budgets and people: Things are tight, but attitude is that the next year or so will tell whether or not we'll be able to continue at this level. Expect workload to skyrocket as industry develops. May have to request more resources in future to prevent delays, but this year will give a good indicator.
Will orbital have an extension of the same treatment that suborbital got, and what kind of timeframe does he see? Answer: current law requires separate licenses for launch and entry, but there is no regulatory regime for on-orbit activities (not necessarily a problem, because there is no danger to on-ground public from this). No opportunity yet to license a reusable orbital vehicle, but thinks that regulatory infrastructure is in place to handle it, a few years downstream.
Rocketplane's number one passenger asks if there are any government agencies asking passengers what they think is safe and what they'd like to see? Answer: FAA is interested in input, and potential passengers have same process in the NPRM comments process as everyone else.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:58 AMJournalism Prizes
Congratulations to Leonard David for winning the 2nd Annual Space Journalism Award of $1,000 for best article on human spacefaring for January-September 2005 for his article, Space Tourism: Keeping the Customer Satisfied. I sponsored this and it was judged by Clark Lindsey, Jeff Foust and last year's winner, Eli Kintisch. I also sponsored a prize for Best Breaking News Reporting of $1,000 judged by the Space Frontier Foundation Board that went to Alan Boyle.
Bigelow
Nothing that Bigelow said or did was particularly surprising except that Bigelow Aerospace is now being an open company and lifting the covers off of a very interesting and ambitious program. Another surprise was that Bigelow himself led the three tours of his facility. He's in good shape with grey hair and a moustache. He wore a shirt that was colorful with patterns reminiscent of seismometer tracks. Bigelow opening up was like a quake that was building up for a long time. The Bigelow items at the Space Frontier Foundation Teacher's in Space auction went for high prices. One of five signed Bigelow posters went for more than tours of SpaceX and Rocketplane, and generous affinity packages from XCOR, Masten and Armadillo Aerospace.
One auction item of note is the right to name one of the scorpions going up on a Genesis or the next larger scale model, the Galaxy (perhaps a renamed Guardian at 45% scale). During the tour, Bigelow pointed out his life sciences area under construction where he will keep a control group of various animals that will mirror another set going up into space on future missions.
The Genesis is "1/3" scale, but that encompasses less than 1/27 of the volume of the Nautilus because of some components that do not scale well. The Guardian/Galaxy if it's 45% would have almost 10% of the volume of the full size BA-330 Nautilus. The ISS is only 425 cubic meters at this point and will only be triple that volume when "completed" (if ever). Five Bigelow habs could be four times the volume of the current ISS. With the floor and ceiling usable, and two bulkheads making three decks, a single 330 presents as much living "area" as a 5000 square foot house. Stringing them together would make a pretty nice lab and hotel complex. Bigelow's anticipated market of the rest of the countries of the world sending astronauts is intriguing and reminiscent of The Rocket Company by David Hoerr. He's not talking about industry any more after finding out how badly burned they were with their dealings with NASA.
On a positive note, Bigelow says he'll be starting an Astronaut corps in four years. When I asked him what people should do to get ready, e.g., study hard in school, he said "I'll have to think on that."
Masten
At Michael Mealling's business plan presentation, he said that a key differentiator for Masten for their later generations will be the ability to go to 500km with their tourist version. Another differentiator is that the pilot will be on the ground.
First to Suborbit
I heard from George French III (aka little George) who is son of Chairman George French, on the Board of Directors at Rocketplane Kistler and heading up Sales and Customer Relations that Rocketplane will delay their first revenue flight for XP past 2007. This leaves Armadillo with the earliest announced date for beginning of test flights for their tourist vehicle. At least four different vendors have told me they will or could be first and there are at least two fast followers that I am aware of. Some are still seeking funding. It should be pretty exciting when it all hits which may be 2007, but depending on how successfully development and testing go for Armadillo, it may hit in 2008, or if it goes slowly for a wider crowd, 2009.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 09:00 AMI'm sitting in a session that consists of "speed dating" business plans. I haven't heard one worth blogging.
But now for something completely different. This is pretty funny--the wishing well:
The list of people to get Fox News Channel's best wishes in print lengthens all the time. Here are some others:Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:09 PM* Ted Turner. The CNN founder called Fox a "propaganda voice" of the Bush administration and compared its popularity to Adolf Hitler's rise in Germany before World War II. Briganti: "Ted is understandably bitter having lost his ratings, his network and now his mind. We wish him well."
Charles Miller of Constellation Services is talking about COTS and servicing ISS. He's discussing the difficulty of the certification process to be allowed to dock to ISS. Their solution was to use Russian hardware that had already been allowed to do it, using an "intermodal transportation" approach.
Their idea is to use Progress as a "tug" and cargo containers that look like a station in terms of the interface, for a "plug'n'play" system. He's apparently presenting their COTS approach. (I should note that today's Space.com says that Charles is unhappy at not being selected for COTS, and some (though not necessarily Charles ) think that NASA doesn't take either COTS, or the station resupply problem seriously.)
Go read the link for background, but his bottom line is that they're still offering ISS cargo delivery to NASA, even if they don't get any of the COTS development money.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:38 AMA quick non-conference post here: oil from plankton?
Pretty cool, if it works. It would be nice to put the mullahs out of business.
[VIa email from Billy Beck]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:04 AMI just missed Jim Benson's discussion of SpaceDev's Dreamchaser, because I was out in the hallway, but Neil Milburn of Armadillo Aerospace is about to speak.
Giving a brief history of the company. It's a volunteer organization (so far) funded by John Carmack, writer of the Doom and Quake video games. They're hobbyists, mixing computers and rockets. Think of themselves as "twenty-first century bicycle mechanics."
Describing their new vehicle, with LOX/ethanol propellants. They're have a "vertical drag racer" in January of '07, and expect to have a hundred-kilometer altitude, X-Prize class vehicle next spring. They've been talking to Lutz Kayser, who developed OTRAG back in the sixties and seventies, and are incorporating some of his modular, low-cost-component ideas into their vehicle. It's called Large Array of SimplE Rockets (LASER). Starting to think about orbital capability.
Chuck Lauer talking now about Rocketplane Kistler. Combining the two companies--one a horizontal takeoff and land, and the other a vertical takeoff and land, provides some good synergies. Showing CAD views of the XP suborbital vehicle. Based on a stretched Lear 25 for a four-seat vehicle, and working on a version with stretched fuselage and larger wings with eight seats. Verified computer design against the wind tunnel (did a lot of work at Marshall Spaceflight Center) and consider configuration validated, with stable entry (Burt Rutan wrong about feathered configuration only safe way to come back). Uisng Rocketdyne RS-88 engine.
Three and a half gees up, four to five minutes of weightlessness, four gees coming in. Oklahoma Spaceport got its license about a month ago. Established the first non-military overland track for rockets.
Looking into using XP as a platform for an expendable second stage. Would separate out of the atmosphere to avoid aero loads during separation. Using a Japanese hybrid rocket (LOX/Polyethylene). Developed as sounding rocket, and determined that they could get it to over four hundred kilometers altitude with a seventy-kilometer release, with nine minutes of weightlessness. Could also do scramjet/entry research with it.
Looking at other spaceports in Japan, Australia, Dubai, and US orbital spaceports (site still TBD), with long-term goal of point-to-point service. Hope to eventually integrate spaceplanes into conventional ATC system, with perhaps Anchorage as a world-wide hub.
Kistler is getting their contractors back on board, preparing for COTS, but also interested in Bigelow as a customer even without COTS. COTS only necessary to meet early NASA goals. They expect to be able to launch in 2007 or 2008 given funding because vehicle is three quarters built. Considering Florida and New Mexico as potential US launch sites. Could have fully-reusable system, at the same time that LEO comsats seem to be making a comeback.
Can fly standard space station hardware with a pressurized cargo module, for microgravity experiments of a couple weeks without ISS. Looking into ways of getting back to the moon with it, when combined with propellant depot. Need to have an entire earth-moon system serviceable by commercial vehicles quickly and cheaply. Thinks that with needed flight rate, could do heavy-lift job at fraction of the cost, and would like to see COTS model extended to lunar missions.
Dave Masten up now. Formed in Space Access '04, built a lot ot test stands and infrastructure. Had major milestone of igniter about the time of Space Access '05, had initial engine testing in November, and right after the recent ISDC had successful engine tests. Major milestones always seem to come right after major conferences. Will have their first flight test next week.
Starting off with suborbital, hundred kilograms to hundred kilometers. Want to build on operational capability, without being too concerned about performance initially. Next step will be a vehicle with a little more payload and a lot more altitude. Then scale up to something that can take people into space, vertical takeoff vertical landing. Want to be able to stack them to eventually get to orbit. Like vertical vertical because it lends itself eventually to a lunar lander. Interested in pursuing lunar lander challenge.
Engine R&D is complete, expect first hover flight next week (July 27th). Will compete for X-Prize Cup Lunar Lander Challenge, and expect to be able to go into space in early 2007.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:18 AMRick Tumlinson is introducing Bob Bigelow, admiring someone who "antes up." He's worked all his life to build what he's got, and now he's doing something bigger and grander and more important to create a great future for our kids. He's translating his business and real estate knowledge into the development of space which is (in the Foundation's words) just a place.
Definitely wants to go to space. His wife says that she would like to send him to the moon (bang, zoom...). No rimshot.
Thanking the Russians for how they accommodated them, and the extra effort they went to. Also thanking his company's staff. A small organization that makes up for it with incredible enthusiasm and skills. Still looking for more people in engineering, legal, accounting. Two plants, one in North Vegas, one in Houston. Also a Washington office, which is a crucial part of the activities. Technological challenges are huge, but not on the top of the list of what can hurt you. Politics is much tougher, which is what the Washington office struggles with every day.
Burt Rutan and Elon Musk are successful because they're not just good technically, but good businessmen. (Acknowledging Buzz Aldrin, who just walked into the room, calling him "my hero.") They know how to manage money, and people, and the technical aspects follow. Priority order is politics, management, and then the technical part.
Community is not very large and "we need to stick together, pull together, and make things happen." He sees himself as being part of the destination part. "We will fly your stuff." Taking emailed photos, converting to cards, and flying them in the habitats where they can float around and be viewed with a camera. Also taking golf-ball-sized objects. Inviting people to fly with them.
Evolving to the goal of a full-size module that can sustain up to six people for years at a time--LEO, deep space, and lunar and Martian surfaces. Each additional spacecraft will be increasingly complex, getting larger and testing new subsystems, while also learning how to manage communications with multiple spacecraft simultaneously. Will be flying every six months, so up to five spacecraft to track and communicate with over a two-and-a-half-year period. Building own tracking stations in Hawaii, Fairbanks, etc. Will fly a second flight later this year, also out of Russia (SS-18 Dneper--an altered ICBM). Likes the idea of swords to ploughshares.
ISS not "customer friendly," leaving rest of the world sitting on the sidelines. 350 astronauts in the world right now, but hopes to increase that by fifteen to twenty times over the next dozen years or so. Sees astronauts for other governments as a more interesting market than tourism per se.
Look at themselves as providing facilities to meet customer requirements, but not necessarily involved in what actually takes place on board (like a regional mall). Banks understand this kind of deal. A number of terrestrial and marine models for destinations that can serve as useful models. Wants to train thousands of "professional astronauts" to serve needs of big aerospace in a similar manner to which the military trains pilots and aviation professionals for that business.
First module will be 330 cubic meters (a little over half of current ISS size). Dneper can handle first two generations--Genesis and Galaxy, but generation after that will outgrow it. Estimate twenty launches in third year of operation (sixteen for people and four for cargo). Would like a crew vehicle that can handle eight people, but thinks that's driven by seat cost, and would be happy with less if it can be done for comparable seat cost. Looking to Atlas V or Falcon 9 (if Elon is of a mind to do that).
Thinks that space tourism will happen, but their focus is on the path of serving private services for exploration and cargo, following the nautical analogy. Doesn't want to depend on any one income stream, and trying to develop thorough understanding of what kinds of income streams can be derived from robotic applications. Thinks that tourism will be relatively small population for the first few years, due to high price. Professional astronaut community seems like the biggest single revenue opportunity, by pursuing countries that have previously had few opportunities. Space tourism pricing will have to be lower than "professional astronatus." Thinks that eight million per trip would have some market, but they'd make no profit at that price. They would put tourists to work, filming, helping with tasks. Want to coordinate with Space Adventures and others to put together packages.
Have "only been a spaceflight company for one week." "This is our first rodeo."
Can't believe that they're doing this, and how well it's going. Expecting Murphy to show up any minutes. Would not have been financially possible without Russian help. Don't know what future is, not taking anything for granted, looking over their shoulders, feeling "hot breath of challenge." Don't take this likely.
Expects competition, but have a lead, and hope to keep moving quickly to maintain it. Have to make quick decisions. Plenty of things to worry about, but are optimists, so they don't hesitate when decisions have to be made.
Just asked how much more time he had. "All you need, Bob." (Rick Tumlinson)
[Note: I see that Clark Lindsey has a description of yesterday's Bigelow facilities tour.]
They've taken about 500 photos of Genesis 1 up to this point in time.
They're showing a video now, mostly press clips. I'm shutting down temporarily, so I can go tour the Bigelow faclity.
[Update]
I may regret this, but the tour was going to last several hours, and I didn't want to miss that much of the conference.
Clark Lindsey has a summary of Bigelow's talk.
[Update]
Alan Boyle also has a Bigelow tour report.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 AMI made it up from LA in three and a half hours flat. It's a lot easier to do when you leave at 4 AM. I'm sitting in the conference room at the Flamingo, waiting for the keynote speech by Bob Bigelow. Let's see if he makes some news.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:49 AM...but hopefully not a dollar short.
I have some ruminations on yesterday's (actually, still today's in Mountain, Pacific and Central time) anniversaries.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:13 PMArnold Kling discusses the knotty problem of hostage-taking nations and movements that are at the root (at least tactically) of the war we're in.
As long as we let these creatures continue to flout the Geneva Conventions without even calling them on it, while demanding that we grant Geneva protection to them, there will be little hope of winning.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:57 PMNo problems with Damascus or Teheran, according to them:
Hezbollah and Hamas should be integrated into peaceful politics, and third countries should not be blamed for the current Middle East crisis, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has said."We need to find a way for Hamas and Hezbollah to achieve their largely legitimate political goals through participation in political life ... and not through force," Lavrov told the Echo Moscow radio station Wednesday, adding that less radical parts of Hezbollah and Hamas could return to peaceful politics.
So, the destruction of Israel and eventual worldwide domination of Islam is a "largely legitimate political goal"?
This is looking more and more like a world war every day.
[Via Andy McCarthy]
And what a weekend to be immersing myself in a space conference.
As one wag once said about the Balkans, the Middle East seems to be producing a little more history than it can locally consume.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:24 PMWhy is this not a bigger story? Particularly in light of all the calls among many for the UN to do something about the current situation in the Middle East?
The Tongsun Park case has gotten remarkably little press, but it is both an important and a cautionary tale. It illustrates how easily the U.N., behind its veils of secrecy and diplomatic immunity, can be exploited by the most unscrupulous tyrants on the planet. And Mr. Park's conviction is a warning to beware any "back channels" now running between the U.N. executive suite and such rogue states as North Korea and Iran.Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:53 PM
Any readers I have who are interested in working on the CEV program (despite any disparaging remarks I may have made about it) have an opportunity now, if you have the right experience and skill set. The company with which I'm consulting, ARES Corporation, is hiring, for both southern California and Houston.
If you go there as a result of this post, please let them know, so we know how effective it is, relative to other ad media.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:17 PMI won't be getting to the conference until tomorrow, but Clark Lindsey has several posts up already with what's been going on, here, here, here, and here.
And Jeff Foust has interviewed Bob Bigelow, who will be keynoting tomorrow morning.
One thought on Clark's report:
Tumlinson: The whole Exploration architecture is going to fail because it is financially and politically unsustainable.
He's right.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:29 PMThose are the number of years ago, respectively, that Viking 1 landed on Mars, and Apollo XI landed on the moon. I'll have more thoughts up later, either here or elsewhere. But if you haven't made plans for dinner tonight to commemorate it, there's still time.
[Update on holy night]
Alan Boyle, who I expect to see in Las Vegas tomorrow, has a lot of related thoughts and links.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:13 AMRear-wheel drive is once again in ascendance.
[Via Kaus]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:51 PMHoward Dratch has some thoughts on the value of failure for the commercial launch industry. This was resonant with me:
The photographer who shoots and sees that the story he/she wanted to tell was lost, the moment missed, the avenue of seeing not taken, and uses the failure to become Gary Winogrand, Lee Friedlander, or Robert Frank has used failure as a step toward the stars. The question is if there is creativity to see the possibilities of the failure and the guts to put it behind. The new space entrepreneurs may have it, probably have it. The government agencies are a question. Will NASA learn from its mistakes and tragedies as quickly and as well?
It's apparent to me that NASA has taken lessons from its failures (and from its successes as well, such as Apollo), but strategically, it's learned the wrong ones.
I've had an essay on this subject bubbling around in my brain for a while now that I'll have to unburden myself of soon.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:11 PMI just got in on an early morning flight.
I have to say that I really like Delta, at least that flight. Leaves Florida at 7 AM and gets me in to LA at 9 AM, non-stop (the American non-stop leaves at 9:15 and gets in at 11). Comfortable, not too packed (empty seat next to my window) with DirecTV on the seat back, which allowed me to follow the war on Fox and CNN.
Too bad I'm an elite flyer with American.
Probably not much blogging--I've got a lot of work to do over the next couple days, then I'm driving to Vegas tomorrow night or early Friday morning for the conference. Maybe some live blogging from there, though, wireless permitting.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:08 AMMark Steyn discusses the shocking truth--that George Bush didn't invent war:
Lawrence Keeley calculates that 87 per cent of primitive societies were at war more than once per year, and some 65 per cent of them were fighting continuously. "Had the same casualty rate been suffered by the population of the twentieth century," writes Wade, "its war deaths would have totaled two billion people." Two billion! In other words, we're the aberration: after 50,000 years of continuous human slaughter, you, me, Bush, Cheney, Blair, Harper, Rummy, Condi, we're the nancy-boy peacenik crowd. "The common impression that primitive peoples, by comparison, were peaceful and their occasional fighting of no serious consequence is incorrect. Warfare between pre-state societies was incessant, merciless, and conducted with the general purpose, often achieved, of annihilating the opponent."...One swallow doesn't make a summer, of course, but I wonder sometimes if we're not heading toward a long night of re-primitivization. In his shrewd book Civilization And Its Enemies, Lee Harris writes:
"Forgetfulness occurs when those who have been long inured to civilized order can no longer remember a time in which they had to wonder whether their crops would grow to maturity without being stolen or their children sold into slavery by a victorious foe. . . . That, before 9/11, was what had happened to us. The very concept of the enemy had been banished from our moral and political vocabulary."
For many, it still apparently is.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:42 AMBen Chertoff has an podcast interview with astronaut Thomas Jones on the implications of the most recent successful Shuttle mission.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:53 PMIf the Democrats were smart, they'd listen to Evan Baye (Birch's son):
In his speech, Bayh said the party has focused most of its attention on the needs of lower-income Americans, but it also must address issues that matter to people on the next rung up the economic ladder."Without an agenda that speaks directly to the middle class and all who aspire to it, we will no longer be the party of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy and Clinton. And we will not be a majority party," Bayh said, invoking the names of former Democratic presidents.
But they aren't, so they won't.
My webmaster, Bill Simon, is coach of a Chinese dragon-boat team, based in Long Beach, CA. He sends link to a video of a close race in Vancouver last month:
Here is the 500M race for the medals in the Comp C division of the 2006 Vancouver (ALCAN) Dragon Boat festival that was held on June 18, 2006. Now you can actually see how close this race was.
LARD (Los Angeles Racing Dragons, our local rivals) came in first (in the lane 4th from the top). We, the Los Angeles Killer Guppies, (in the 3rd lane from the top) came in about 3/4 boat behind them--and that put us in 9th place! We were separated by less than 2.5 second! Our time was 2:09.
I know how intense this was for us on the boat. But now I know what the crowd experienced. This is the closest Dragon Boat race I've ever seen. Awesome! Congrats to LARD! But just wait till next year...
This is my kind of multiculturalism.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:40 PMI once asked if Bill Clinton could have been elected in a world in which the blogosphere existed. I think the answer may have been "no." In fact, I suspect that it would have shredded the Sixty Minutes puff piece that Don Hewitt credited with saving his candidacy in a similar manner that it did the Dan Rather hit piece in 2004.
A similar question is whether or not it would be sufficient to overcome the MSM bias against Newt Gingrich.
He's said very little thus far that I'd disagree with. He seems to be more straight talking than even John McCain, and there's been a lot of implicit criticism from him of Bush on the war, which I think is badly needed, since most of that commodity has been provided by the brainless left, to date, and there is in fact much to criticize (in terms of the fact that he's been wobbly against the enemy, to the point of continuing to fear to name it).
If he runs, I don't think that the media will be able to get away with all the misleading hit pieces that they ran against him when he became Speaker in 1994. At the least, there will be an honest debate about his positions, instead of simple demonizing.
And of course, if elected, it's impossible to imagine a president more pro-space, and pro-free-enterprise-space, than Newt.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:05 PMIn light of Airbus' current woes (they haven't sold a single 380 this year), can I call 'em, or can I call 'em?
I have to admit, though, that I had no idea how much trouble the 350 was in. But the 380 was obviously a disaster from inception, at least to me. Kind of like Ariane V...
[Update a few minutes later]
I should add that I also never believed that Boeing's "Sonic Cruiser" was real.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:42 PMThis primer may offer some reasons that Israel isn't being more aggressive with respect to Syria. They need to come up with a way to neutralize these things.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:02 PMOnce in a while, the good guys win. I got pinged this morning (and the pings are still way, way down from what they were before I renamed scripts):
A new TrackBack ping has been sent to your weblog, on the entry 6459 (The Big Lie Continues).
IP Address: 209.123.8.127
URL: http://poebat.earth.prohosting.com
Title: airlines
Weblog: british
Excerpt:
british
It takes you to a page that just links to airlines.
I forwarded the notification email to the web host at prohosting.com with a hope that this was in violation of their terms of service. I just got the following email from them:
This account has been removed from our servers for violating our Acceptable Use Policy. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention.
I'm sure that the cretin will quickly find another host, but at least any time spent spamming us with that URL is now wasted.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:43 AM...at least for me. No, get your mind out of the toilet--that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the top ten irritating things that other drivers do. And hogging the left lane is much more irritating to me than someone on a cell phone. My attitude toward cell phone use is like my attitude toward drug use--if it impairs your driving, then don't do it, but I don't care about it intrinsically.
The Freepers have comments, and I agree with this one (slightly edited):
No.2 is the worst.Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:35 AMIn fact. No.2 causes every single one of the other annoyances.
All of them.
The slow "safe" drivers are the most unsafe drivers around.
They are indecisive, scared, do not follow the flow, have no clue about the passing lane, and do not use their blinkers.
They cause people rage, especially because they will not get ticketed, even though they are causing the biggest problems.
Someone speeding 10 mph over the speed limit with the flow and control of a car is not a safety hazard at all.
Slow idiots with no clue are.
Jokes were an essential part of the communist experience because the monopoly of state power meant that any act of non-conformity, down to a simple turn of phrase, could be construed as a form of dissent. By the same token, a joke about any facet of life became a joke about communism. There have been political and anti-authority jokes in every era, but nowhere else did political jokes cohere into an anonymous body of folk literature as they did under communism. With the creation of the Soviet bloc after the war, communism exposed itself to Czech and Jewish traditions of humour—mutating viruses to which the system never developed the right antibodies.
I wonder if there are anti-Mullah, anti-Islam jokes in Iran?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:00 AM...without which we would never have known just how many cats there are out there that look like Hitler.
[Via Geek Press]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:44 AMDiscovery has performed its deorbit burn (about half an hour ago). One way or another, it will be back on earth in another thirty-five minutes.
[Update at 9:15 AM EDT]
Picture perfect landing. Looks like the mission at the end of next month is definitely a go.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:03 AMSome thoughts on posting frequency. The old "post daily" rule may no longer apply.
[Via La Postrel]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:57 AMI agree that we're in a new world war (and the third in a row that is a fundamental clash of ideologies), but I wish that Newt would stop calling it World War III. It's World War IV. World War III was the Cold War. And unfortunately, this one may last almost as long.
[Update]
I should note this (a couple years old, and quite long) essay by Norman Podhoretz on this issue.
[Late morning update]
If we're in a long world war, then it makes no sense to talk about the "war" in Iraq. It was only a battle, as was Afghanistan, as Larry Schweikart points out:
The supposed value of history is that it allows one to apply a long-term lens perspective to current events. That, however, seems to be sadly missing in the case of the War on Terror, and, especially, Iraq. Let me say from the get-go that the Bush Administration erred badly in allowing the struggle in Iraq to be labeled a "war." It is a battle, part of the larger War on Terror. It is no more a "war" than Sicily or North Africa were "wars." But Bush fell into the Left's trap and allowed it to be called a "war," and as such it has been separated from the "War on Terror," and the "War in Afghanistan," itself a battle.As historians (objective ones, that is) look back 30 years from now, and write the history of this war, they will find the battle of Iraq essentially was over after November 2004. I do not say that because Bush won reelection--that was critical, but so was the formation of the Iraqi government at that time--but because those two events then allowed a military victory at Fallujah, which was the tipping point of this battle (or, if you prefer, "war"). At Fallujah, more than 2000 terrorists were killed and the real al-Qaeda back of the so-called "insurgency" broken. Since then, Zarqawi was scrambling, as did the Japanese after Okinawa, to re-stock his ranks of suicide bombers. They were both unsuccessful. Last month, Zarqawi was killed, replicating the shooting down of Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto's plane in 1943. Even then, the war in the Pacific was not over--and the bloodiest battles had not been fought--but again, the outcome was further cemented.
And he's optimistic that we're going to ultimately win. I hope he's right.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:12 AMAlan Boyle has scored a long and interesting interview with Bob Bigelow (yeah, I know it's old news--I've been busy for the last few days), in which, among many other things, he discusses the prospects for American commercial launch providers for his needs:
Looking ahead, Bigelow plans two launches per year, moving up from the third-scale Genesis to a roughly half-scale prototype, and finally launching the full-scale, 330-cubic-meter Nautilus spacecraft by 2012. The time line targets 2015 for an honest-to-goodness space station, capable of hosting tourists or researchers, performers or athletes.Bigelow hopes that the SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket will be ready to go in time for the Nautilus launches. If SpaceX founder Elon Musk is successful, "we are probably a multiple-flight customer for him," Bigelow said.
But read the whole thing.
And I hope that I'll get some of Mr. Bigelow's thoughts myself, next week, in Vegas.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:00 PMIt's hatch was unlocked.
Yeah, this is kind of geeky, but it was one of the very first subs, after all...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:55 PM
Don't mess with Knesset...
...we have had the Yom Kippur War, the Attrition War, the Lebanon War, two intifadas and endless terror. Israel has not only survived, but has become stronger. It is a vibrant and prospering democracy, with robust economic growth over the last five years, the highest number of books published per capita in the world, and second place in the world in the publication of articles in scientific journals. The Arabs, in the meantime, with all their aggression, have only brought on their peoples misery and poverty. President Anwar Sadat of Egypt and King Hussein of Jordan tower above this self-destructiveness as leaders who really served the best interests of their people by making peace with Israel.
Of course, that's just a necessary, not a sufficient condition, as we've seen by the dismal state of affairs in both countries, but particularly Egypt.
[Credit for slogan and flag to "Dutchgirl" (who's really a Dane--no shock there)--scroll down to the sixth post]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:26 PMJust how badly will Hollywood screw up Atlas Shrugged?
As I recall, The Fountainhead wasn't bad, but those were different times.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:39 AMSince renaming my scripts, I have gotten zero, count 'em, zero spams on either comments or trackback. It won't last forever, but it's a nice breather. And I hope that they're wasting a lot of time on the honeypots.
[Update on Saturday morning]
OK, got one ping spam overnight. But it's still a huge improvement.
[Late afternoon update]
Still one and counting. I should have done this a long time ago. Even if I have to do it weekly, it would be a vast improvement over the time I spend dealing with these cretins now.
[Sunday morning update]
Oh, well. I knew it was too good to last. I got nine pr0n spams overnight. All from one domain, though. It's still a lot better than it was. Hopefully, I can at least keep it down to a dull roar.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:25 PMI'll be getting back in late tonight. Home for four days, then back here, and off to Vegas for the conference.
See you later.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:49 PMYou still have time to register at next week's Space Frontier Conference in Vegas, where it was just announced that aspiring orbital hotelier Bob Bigelow will be making the keynote address. The lower price applies until Monday night. I'll be there, but you should come anyway.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:13 PMBoy, Norway seems to be getting a lot of hits lately.
You know, if one of these things were to hit Damascus, or Teheran, or Mecca right now, no one would believe that the Israelis didn't do it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:56 AMRich Lowry is a man after my own heart.
[Update at 11:30 Pacific]
Here's a more recent post from me on the subject.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:55 AMI know comments are fubar. I'm working on it and should have it fixed in a few minutes. Don't take the message personally, unless you really are a scum-of-the-earth spammer. You know, if the shoe fits, yada yada yada...
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, seems to be fixed now. Let the calumny and trolling recommence! (errr...just kidding)
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:55 AMSame as the old metaphysic. John Derbyshire has a lengthy critique of George Gilder's latest tilt at the evolutionary windmill:
Scientists discover things. That’s what they do. In fast-growing fields like genomics, they discover new things almost daily — look into any issue of Science or Nature. What has the Discovery Institute discovered this past 16 years? To stretch my simile further: Creationists are walking into that room full of pilots and aeronautical engineers right at the peak of the Golden Age of flight, never having flown or designed any planes themselves. Are they really surprised that they get a brusque reception?Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:58 AM...Creationists respond to this by telling us that they can’t get a hearing in the defensive, closed-minded, “invested” world of professional science. Creationist ideas are too revolutionary, they say. The impenetrably reactionary nature of established science is a staple of Creationist talk. They seem not to have noticed that twentieth-century science is a veritable catalog of revolutionary ideas that got accepted, from quantum theory to plate tectonics, from relativity to dark matter, from cosmic expansion to the pathogen theory of ulcers. Creationism has been around far, far longer than the “not yet accepted” phase of any of those theories. Why is the proportion of scientists willing to accept it still stuck below (well below, as best I can estimate) one percent? The only answer you can get from a Creationist involves a conspiracy theory that makes the Protocols of the Elders of Zion look positively rational.
Three or four paragraphs into George’s piece, seeing where we were headed, and having accumulated considerable experience with this kind of stuff, I did a “find” on the phrase “scientific establishment.” Sure enough, there it was: those obscurantist, defensive old stuffed shirts of “consensus science” — the Panel of Peers, George calls them — keeping original thought at bay.
In George’s example the original thinker was Max Planck, whose first publication on his revolutionary quantum theory of radiation was in 1900. Poor Max Planck was so thoroughly shunned and ostracized by that glowering, starched-collar Panel of Peers for daring to present ideas that violated their settled convictions, that five years later they made him president of the German Physical Society, and in 1918 gave him the Nobel Prize for Physics! Those mean, blinkered scientific establishmentarians!
Creationism has been around in one form or another for well over a century, which is to say, more than 20 times longer than the interval between Max Planck’s first broadcasting of his quantum theory and his election as president of the Deutsche Physikalische Gesellschaft. The fact that Creationism still has no scientific acceptance whatsoever — no presidencies of learned societies, no Nobel Prizes, not a bean, not a dust mote — does not show that the science establishment is hostile to new ideas, it only shows that scientists cannot see that Creationism has anything to offer them.
What gets the attention of scientists is science. Scientists do not shun Creationism because it is revolutionary; they shun it because Creationists don’t do any science. They started out by promising to. The original plan for the CSC (then CRSC) back in 1992 had phase I listed as: “Scientific Research, Writing & Publicity.” The CSC has certainly been energetic in writing and publicity, but if they have done any scientific research, I missed it.
Jed Babbin writes about the financial and ethical meltdown of the New York Times.
One wonders how long the stockholders (including the other Sulzbergers) will continue to put up with Pinch's blinkered incompetence? It's going to take a lot of work to restore the brand, at this point.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:37 AMIt looks like truthout.org wasn't just ahead of the news cycle. They were in a news cycle in an alternate universe.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:33 AMThey're better designed for it.
Boy, am I going to catch heat for this.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:56 AMMichael Ledeen says that the mask is coming off.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:35 AMYou know, while Greg Gutfeld is pretty funny, the funniest thing about his pieces at the Huffpo are the outraged commenters. It's like poking a stick into a nest of angry hornets. Errr...except they aren't as smart.
And I have to admit that I do share their questions about why Arianna continues to allow him to post--he's so out of place over there.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:34 AMI woke up yesterday morning to over three hundred trackback spams. These are a real pain in the ass, because when they come in a flood like that from a single spammer (in this case it was pr0n), it's hard to search through them to find the random ones from others, which needs to be done to clean them all out.
Joe Katzman has been having similar problems, on a much larger scale. I've been thinking about shutting down trackback as well, but before I do, I think I'll try this idea, via Annoying Old Guy in Joe's comments section.
It looks interesting, and if everyone did it, it would make life much more difficult for these supreme scum of the earth. As I type these words I just got two series of half a dozen or so from mortgage lenders. Who knows how many they would have hit me with if I hadn't been at the computer and could cut them off at the pass? I just wish I could cut them off at the nuts.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:00 AMThe Bigelow test article has reportedly inflated and deployed its solar panels.
[Update before bed]
Here's the story.
And Clark Lindsey has a brief roundup of the state of the alt-space industry.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:49 PMLeonard David says that the Bigelow mission is in orbit. I haven't been paying enough attention to this to have any profound thoughts [When did that ever stop you before? -- ed Quiet, you], but it's clearly good news, and big news.
[Update in the afternoon]
I'm in the middle of meetings, but Clark Lindsey is continuing to follow this and provide links here and here.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:15 AMSome commentator on Fox just noted that in Germany, and the UK, a higher percentage of people have a favorable opinion of China than of the US.
I suspect that this is primarily a result of ignorance, as promulgated by their media (about both us and China). The alternative, which is that they no longer share our western values, is even more frightening.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:46 AMOur naive young blue-state blue blood Joel Stein makes an ass of himself in print again. Lileks comments (scroll down, if you want to get right to it).
I, too, look forward to the cross examination by Hugh Hewitt. But I suspect that even Joel isn't that naive, after the last time.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:10 AMWell, if this is true, it should speed AOL in their high-g swirl down the bowl:
The Time Warner-owned Internet company is in negotiations with representatives for veteran CBS anchor Dan Rather to play a role in original programming for its online video offerings, sources said.Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:13 PM
Not that this suprises me (well, actually it does a little--even I didn't think that it would be this high), but if this is true, it's hard to imagine that there will be much enthusiasm for lunar missions. There certainly won't be from me, considering the alternate uses for the money:
...individual lunar missions using a CEV, CLV. CaLV, LSAM, LSAS, etc. are now estimated to cost $5 Billion each. By comparison, Space Shuttle missions cost $0.5 billion.
As always, that Shuttle figure has to be heavily caveated. Shuttle missions at current budgets would only be half a billion if we were launching eight to ten flights a year. The last Shuttle flight cost about five billion.
Like real estate, there are three rules of per-flight costs: flight rate, flight rate, flight rate.
And ESAS doesn't allow a high flight rate...
[Wednesday morning update]
As is almost always the case, I am frustrated by the ambiguous terminology in discussing costs. What does "individual lunar mission" mean? I took it to mean average cost based on annual operating expenses. That would imply ten billion a year for two flights a year. Is that right? If it were four flights a year, then this interpretation would imply a twenty billion annual budget. Some could interpret it to mean marginal cost, but that would be even more insane.
If the number is correct, I suspect that it was derived by taking the total life cycle costs of the program, including development, and dividing by the total number of planned missions. If that's the case, it looks like a reasonable number. A lot more than I'm willing to pay for it as a taxpayer, but it makes sense, given typical NASA program costs.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:09 PM...offered by Technology Review against Aubrey de Grey's theses doesn't seem to be going so well. At least for the skeptics:
The judges’ unanimous opinion is summed up by Dr. Myhrvold, who observed: “Some scientists react very negatively toward those who seek to claim the mantle of scientific authority for ideas that have not yet been proved. Estep et al. seem to have this philosophy. They raise many reasons to doubt SENS. Their submission does the best job in that regard. But at the same time, they are too quick to engage in name-calling, labeling ideas as 'pseudo-scientific' or 'unscientific' that they cannot really demonstrate are so. We need to remember that all hypotheses go through a stage where one or a small number of investigators believe something and others raise doubts.”Robotics pioneer Dr. Brooks stated: “I have no confidence that they (SENS detractors) understand engineering, and some of their criticisms are poor criticisms of a legitimate engineering process.”
I just noticed that the link to the original Technology Review announcement is broken at the MPrize site. Here it is.
So I installed a new Fedora Core 5 on my laptop, and was trying to build the drivers for the wireless. Step one was to do an upgrade of the OS.
In the midst of doing this, I was attempting to listen to a podcast from Firefox. I don't know whether this happened as a result of the upgrade, or of the podcast, but at some point, Firefox crashed, taking down all running instances of it. And it wouldn't reload. When I click on the icon, I get a little tab in the taskbar saying "Starting web browser" which hangs on for a few seconds, then disappears.
I completed the upgrade, and rebooted. But Firefox still won't load. I removed it with yum, and then reinstalled it. Firefox still won't load.
Does anyone know what's going on, and how to fix?
[Update on Wednesday morning]
OK, I removed Firefox, removed the folder containing its settings and reinstalled. All is well now. Except I had to resurrect my settings from scratch.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 PMBrit Hume and Drudge are both reporting that Bob Novak is going to reveal that his source for Valerie Plame's identity was her husband. Doesn't seem like that great a source to me, but I guess at the time it wasn't apparent what a liar he was.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:58 PMWhen I was a kid, I wondered why you couldn't have some kind of CO2 cartridge built in to the bottom of a can that when released and expanded would suck the heat out of the bottle. But I never bothered to run the numbers on it.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 03:55 PM...must be spinning in its little tiny coffin, at the recent economic growth and deficit reduction numbers:
Did you know that just over the past 11 quarters, dating back to the June 2003 Bush tax cuts, America has increased the size of its entire economy by 20 percent? In less than three years, the U.S. economic pie has expanded by $2.2 trillion, an output add-on that is roughly the same size as the total Chinese economy, and much larger than the total economic size of nations like India, Mexico, Ireland, and Belgium....here’s another suppressed fact: Since the 2003 tax cuts, tax-revenue collections from the expanding economy have been surging at double-digit rates while the deficit is constantly being revised downward.
There may be one tomorrow, with a successful launch. We need to be developing cost-effective hardware for orbital facilities, and this could go a long way toward that end.
As Jim Oberg points out in Alan's article (and a concern I've long had), Bigelow has always been too passive with respect to helping get launch costs down (though the recent Bigelow Prize will be helpful). It's too bad that SpaceX couldn't do the launch for him. Maybe next time.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:19 AMUntil Moon Day.
Start planning your commemoration dinner now. Invite family and friends, and contemplate the date.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:24 AMAccording to this story, the Chinese are going to launch a space station. They don't have a date, though:
China will launch Shenzhou VII with three astronauts in September 2008, after the Beijing Olympic Games...After the launch of Shenzhou VII, a space station with 20 tons will be built...
Why wait until after the Olympics? What does this have to do with anything? Unless, of course, the purpose of the program is primarily for national prestige, as opposed to actually accomplishing something that's important.
And "after the launch of Shenzhou VII" could be anywhere from October, 2008 (unlikely) until...the end of time. But we'd better hurry--we're in a race!
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:14 AMAOL is pushing the nation to broadband by decreasing the gap between broadband AOL and regular AOL by $15/month. This seems like the biggest and last key tipping point toward US broadband. Dialup AOL will stay the same price. They expect to make up the subscriber fee losses in increased advertising revenue. This will be a tricky transition, but if successful, we could be watching Warner content over the web. TV sales and ad sales could indeed make this a good idea.
In the mean time, AOL is about to give millions of people $180/year. According to WSJ:
Of AOL's 18.6 million domestic subscribers, about six million get their Internet access from a high-speed provider ... AOL would let subscribers with a high-speed connection keep their AOL account free.
Between the Bill Gates foreign policy and the AOL fiscal policy, private America is stealing a march on the Federal Government.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 05:52 AMInstapinch has more on our daring experimenter, speaking truth to physics!
[Before bed update]
Here, courtesy of Football Fans For Truth, are the top ten Scholars for 911 Truth.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:04 PMI got into LA late morning, but I've been busy all day. Maybe I'll check in later, if the wireless works in the room.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:41 PMI've been running cables and speaker wire for the move of the television from the living room to the new family room created by opening up the kitchen walls. And packing. I'm back to CA in the morning, for the week. Wall patching will have to happen next weekend.
Oh, and I've added a couple new sites to the space blogroll, Michael Belfiore and Jeff Foust's Personal Spaceflight blog.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:53 PM...are being cruelly mocked. By the cruelest mocker of all, Mark Steyn.
...other celebrities rushed to show their support for the anti-war movement: ''I'll not have what she's not having." Winona Ryder is telling waiters, ''Hold the haunch of venison.'' Keira Knightley is saying, ''Hey, I'll just go with the short stack this morning. And the low-fat simulated-maple syrup substitute.'' Ice T has given up iced tea. Disgusted by the callousness of the Bush war machine, William Powell and Myrna Loy have decided to go without the olive in their fourth martini. Willie Nelson is said to be gaunt and sounding croaky. Michael Moore, hovering dangerously at 300 pounds, has told friends, ''You can never be too rich but you can be too thin.''
[Update in the afternoon]
People magazine, of course, reports this as though it were a real hunger strike. Would it hurt them to point out that no one, in fact, is going to be truly hungry, at any point of this laugh fest?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:00 AM...why we should take the IAEA seriously?
Mohammad El-Baradei's capitulation to Iran has made huge waves at the IAEA in Vienna. The other inspectors are up in arms. "This totally bankrupts our work" says a Viennese inspector. "Mohammad El-Baradei folds vis-a-vis the Mullahs and leaves us standing in the rain. Why don't we just let Iran be in charge of inspecting their own nuclear program?"Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:52 AM
The "Rainbow People" have apparently shat in their own nest. I'm shocked, shocked!
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:00 PMGays working at the Boston Globe must now get married, or lose their partner's benefits.
It will be interesting to see what kind of logical pretzels they warp themselves into to explain why this is unfair, when unmarried heterosexual couples don't get benefits. I also wonder what Andrew Sullivan thinks? Not enough to actually link to him, though.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:56 PMSome amusing comments. I don't mind clowns all that much, myself. But mimes--that's a different story. I'm not a violent person, generally, but they make me want to take a bat to them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:35 AMMojave seems to be recovering from the construction of the Highway 58 bypass:
In four years, Mojave Airport has gone from an under-utilized airport and civilian flight test facility to a spaceport with a worldwide reputation as a "Silicon Valley" for the emerging commercial space industry.Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:51 AMNew companies are arriving and established tenants are seeing their contracts and payrolls grow.
Companies such as Scaled Composites - which won international acclaim for SpaceShipOne, the first privately funded, manned space program - and XCOR Aerospace are among the cutting-edge aerospace firms outgrowing their existing facilities as they add employees and projects.
I recently got a call from Chase left on my answering machine telling me to call an 800 number and have my credit card available to authenticate myself. The trouble is, they didn't authenticate themselves. Anyone could have made that call to me and if I did what the call said, I would be giving my credit card number (and probably the date, secret code and every else they asked me) to a bad actor. I authenticated them by dialing the number on the back of my card, but I worry that there will be a smart confidence man who will figure this out before the rest of the world figures out how to stop leaving openings.
I also received two calls about my "Virgin lottery territory" piece that Buzz Aldrin liked. Two other people called because they received checks from a "Virgin Lottery" that didn't cash, they searched for that on the web and my article and phone number came up. Never mind that my article dealt with the 17th century lottery that helped fund Virginia colonization, they thought I might know something about modern fraud.
Posted by Sam Dinkin at 08:31 AMLileks is kind of tough on the politically correct naifs who castrated the most recent Superman film:
"We were always hesitant to include the term `American way' because the meaning of that today is somewhat uncertain," said co-writer Michael Dougherty. "I think when people say `American way,' they're actually talking about what the `American way' meant back in the '40s and '50s, which was something more noble and idealistic."Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:46 PMAh. Of course. Well, in the '40s, the American Way included incinerating German cities, nuking Japan, installing occupying armies with remnants to this day, and imposing our form of government -- all the while referring to the enemy with hurtful ethnic slurs. All this plus forced relocation. If these actions are deemed noble and idealistic now, it'll be a handy sentiment the next time the U.S. gears up for total war.
But the inconstant left doesn't believe any of this is permissible in the service of a noble goal. The right, after all, can't lead the war on terror because they don't "walk the walk" on human rights: witness those POWs slaving away in the cane fields of Gitmo. Unless we lead by example, no one will choose the American Way. Never mind that the internment of the Japanese didn't keep the Germans -- or the Japanese, for that matter -- from following our example after World War II. (Note to the dense: The above is not an endorsement of internment. Just a reminder of which party has more practice.)
There is more than one way to extend the total work and leisure enjoyed during one's life. In addition to living longer, one can sleep less if it doesn't degrade the rest of the hours. Not too much research on the latter. Here's a gem in this week's Economist; the good news:
With the help of Chiara Cirelli, who also works at the University of Wisconsin, Dr Tononi has created a mutant fruit fly that sleeps only two or three hours a night. (A normal fly sleeps between eight and 14 hours.)
...though the mutant fly is capable of learning things, it forgets them within minutes. Healthy flies retain learned information for hours or even days.
Would you trade your memory like in Johnny Mnemonic, Memento or Paycheck for an extra six hours every day? It's like living an extra 25 years.
Iran's hard-line president warned Friday that continued Israeli strikes against Palestinians could lead to an Islamic "explosion..."
Yes, I know I pulled context, but I think he may be right--just not in the way he means, or hopes.
In addition to dropping Andrew Sullivan, I've added Space Cynic to the roll. I don't always agree with the posts there, but they're usually provocative, and occasionally present good devil's advocate positions to help hone arguments, one way or the other.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:56 AMAndrew Sullivan has been near the very top of my blogroll since I started this blog, but I haven't read him in months (except to follow someone else's link to something in particular) because he seems to have come unhinged against the administration and his critics over "torture" (but I really think it's about the gay marriage thing). Things like this are also why. I've finally removed him.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:36 AMThe argument seems to go that the "religious right" is attempting to impose its morality on the rest of us. If that's the case, you'd think that "conservatives" would support blue laws against alcohol sales on Sunday, right?
Go read this thread at Free Republic, in which the vast majority of the posts are opposed to them. And the overwhelming reason is that, even for the professed Christians, small government is more important to them than government attempting to enforce morality.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:29 PMIowahawk has found a copy of Ted Stevens' latest Internet tutorial.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:35 PMOver at the Sunlight Foundation:
For once my answers were in the majority. An overwhelming majority...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:31 AMThe Danes are going after "honor" killings like the FBI after the mafia:
As in the Surucu case the general practice so far has been to sentence only the actual murderers. Last Tuesday in Denmark, however, a jury of the Østre Landsret ruled that not only the man who pulled the trigger was guilty, but every family member who collaborated in “punishing” Ghazala Khan, an 18-year old Danish-born woman of Pakistani origin, who was shot by her brother, 30-year old Akhtar Abbas, on 23 September 2005, two days after her marriage.
This has been tolerated for far too long. If more countries take this tack, we'll see fewer murders of young women, and perhaps more of these people going back to their countries of origin, where they can practice their barbaric traditions in...errr...peace. Part of assimilation has to mean stamping out this nonsense. The failure to do so to date is another failure of the multi-culti myths.
[Update at 1:44 PM EDT]
I just noticed that nowhere in the article does it mention the religion of those involved. Guess they didn't think it was relevant.
[Update on Friday morning]
Some have pointed out in comments that religion is in fact irrelevant in this case, since this is a cultural practice, not a religious one (e.g., Hindus do it as well). It's a reasonable point.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:23 AMPolitically incorrect Joe Biden:
Sen. Biden touts how Indians are the fastest growing immigrant group in Delaware and says, "You CANNOT go into a 7-11 or a Dunkin Donuts without an Indian accent."
Freepers comment, with hilarious results.
Oops. Sorry, Keith. Guess that was another venomous attack on Democrats
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:52 AMThat's the way you'll take away my fast forward on my DVR. This guy seems to be in denial over the loss of his business model:
"I'm not so sure that the whole issue really is one of commercial avoidance," Shaw said. "It really is a matter of convenience--so you don't miss your favorite show. And quite frankly, we're just training a new generation of viewers to skip commercials because they can. I'm not sure that the driving reason to get a DVR in the first place is just to skip commercials. I don't fundamentally believe that. People can understand in order to have convenience and on-demand (options), that you can't skip commercials."
No, of course not. No one wants a DVR to be able to skip commercials.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:19 AMThe DC Examiner wants to know. So do I.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:43 AMI have no sympathy for the people of New Jersey (well, at least the ones who voted for the current gang of collectivists running the place, from Corzine down to the legislature). This is an excellent example of the people getting the government they deserve.
The good news: this will result in even more flight from New Jersey to Florida, keeping my house price up. The bad news--many will miss the cause and effect, and they'll bring their idiotic voting habits with them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:23 AMThe Internet has made it a lot easier to publicly shame people. And not just the MSM.
For example, here's an amusing web site about a well-known electronics retailer.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:49 AMHere's a gorgeous picture of Tuesday's launch taken from the wildlife preserve. High technology set against a foreground of nature.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AMEven for Democratic Underground, this is pretty amazing.
Hint: among many other things, the fire was contained within the structure, with much higher temperatures.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:09 AMKeith Cowing has a roundup.
I don't necessarily agree with all (or even any) of them, but it's useful to see what the space-interested community has to say.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:17 AMApparently that word only applies to political cartoons that criticize the press. More specifically, the New York Times...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:50 PMThe power of bird droppings.
Obviously, these NASA engineers have never owned a car that they had to keep outside of the garage or carport.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:11 PM...but still, I have to say, I like raw fish. Even if most folks I know think that it's just bait. Just call me a sucker.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:24 PMThe folks on site have found no damage to the orbiter.
There has been so much undue hysteria building up to this launch, that it's amazing that they've ever flown it at all.
The issue isn't safety, or risk of loss of vehicle of mission. The simple fact is that it costs too damn much.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:04 PM...hey, I guess it can happen anywhere:
State fire officials say a Woodside-area man was seriously burned last night in an explosion after he poured gunpowder into a charcoal grill and ignited it.
And imagine my surprise to read this:
Investigators believe alcohol played a part in the incident.
Guess they left out the part about "Hold muh beer...."
And yes, these are getting more and more difficult to categorize. I need more categories, but I suspect that the need will be bottomless, given the nature of the world...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:48 PMAnd I'll bet that the Norwegian whaling industry does as well. A whale was shot down while being watched by tourist whale watchers:
Jan Kristiansen, who represents the whalers, defended the shootings. He claimed the whalers were simply taking advantage of the nice weather, when the hunting is best."Many of the whaling boats had been tied up at the dock for several days, waiting for better weather," he said. "When it finally came, we have to make the most of it."
Kristiansen claimed that he and the other whalers "don't have anything against the whale safari boats... but it's important to get across that it's the extreme opponents of whaling that travel out to see whales.
"We can't prevent them from being against the hunt, and they can't prevent us from hunting."
He's obviously never met American environmentalists.
And, yes, I did have trouble finding a category for this one.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 04:58 PM...care what this moron thinks?
Cindy Sheehan, who is leading a hunger strike against the war in Iraq, tells Norah O’Donnell she would rather live under Hugo Chavez than George W. Bush.
About what one would expect from an idiot who thinks that going without food for a day is a hunger strike.
And I should add, that my title is obviously indicative of my opinion of MSBNC producers and (for the most part) talent. Though I have to admit that Norah O'Donnell is easy on the male eyes. Particularly in contrast to Mother Sheehan.
And warning, if you don't have the latest in Microsoft Insecurityware (i.e., Explorer 7.0, and the latest Media Player) you won't be able to view the video. Good thing that Microsoft and NBC teamed up to make a cable channel...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 02:05 PMThis should be cause for celebration, right?
Wrong. Why?
First of all, I hate the sun. I mean, it's nice that it's up there to provide energy and all, but I really don't like it. It's bright, I have to put on sunglasses, I have to slather myself with goop to protect myself from the rays, it makes it hotter here than it would be without it (which is hot enough, given the latitude). One of the things that I love about coastal California is that it is so reliably cloudy and foggy (and cool) almost every day, at least part of the day if not all day.
Second, the last couple weeks have been predicting rain every day. I look at the radar, and see thunderstorms all around, but they never make it here (the Gulf coast looks like it's been getting drenched, though). It's tantalizing. I see green blotches heading towards us, or standing right next to us, but not moving at all, and either they don't move, or they move and dissipate before they actually get here.
Today, we were supposed to get Yet Another Tropical Wave that was supposed to bring us wind, and rain, and miserable (by the local standard--what do they know?--they like sun. And flat. And hot. And humid) weather, and yet, the sun has been shining all day.
I've filled the pool, I've watered the lawn, in vain, to attempt to cause some non-trivial precipitation, but no go.
One of the few things that I like about this God-forsaken (if an agnostic can use that phrase) land is that it gets thunderstorms. But not here. Not now.
[Rant Off]
Posted by Rand Simberg at 01:19 PM"There has been much speculation as to whether or not we destroyed some, if not all, of the North Korean missiles launched yesterday, in explicit violation of requests from all of the five parties in negotiation with it to not do so. In the interests of the security of the US and the region, we can neither confirm or deny such speculation."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:12 PMIt's a little late for me to mention, but Thomas James has some space-related memories of the nation's 200th birthday. He, too, was part of a generation cheated by the porkmeisters.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:54 AMMy grilled animals didn't taste quite as good when I read this:
Other supporters, including Penn, Sarandon, novelist Alice Walker and actor Danny Glover will join a 'rolling" fast, a relay in which 2,700 activists pledge to refuse food for at least 24 hours, and then hand over to a comrade.
But they still tasted pretty good.
Aren't these people pathetic? They call us chickenhawks, but they can't even be bothered to go hungry for more than one day to defend their so-called principles. Are they really so daft as to imagine that anyone will care about this "sacrifice"?
Don't answer that question.
[Update at 3 PM]
You know, I hadn't done the math before, but this makes it even funnier. With 2700 people at one "strike" (read: too busy to eat for a few hours) per person per day, this could go on for almost a decade. Yes, I'm sure it will be front-page news every day...
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:45 AMIn case anyone was wondering over the light posting. I'm paying for my holiday weekend by frantically reviewing/rewriting CEV spacecraft system requirements and verification statements to hit a deadline.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:04 AMGiven the multiple fireworks displays (and no, I'm not talking about last night's standard entertainment) yesterday, it should be interesting. Scheduled in about half an hour, and 12:15 PM EDT.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 09:09 AMWe're going to head up north and see what we can see. Primary location criterion will be clear skies to the north-northeast, up the coast, as far north as we can get before launch time.
[Update about 4 PM]
Just got back. We watched it from Hutchinson Island, on the beach. There was one cloud that obscured part of the ascent, but we saw most of it until SRB burnout. Maybe a pic later, but I've got to go get ribs on the grill.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 10:07 AMA discussion on the slow death of the New York Times as a credible media institution, and why revealing the SWIFT program was so potentially disastrous (be sure to read the comments for relevant analogies from earlier wars).
[Update just after noon]
Cassandra writes about the Unitary Editor.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:57 AMFlorida Today has a feature to give you launch status updates by cell phone, for those of you headed for the beaches or barbecues.
I'd bet that they're going to launch today--no technical issues (no ice formed where the foam came off) and the forecast is about as good as it gets. Unfortunately, we can't drive all the way up and back from Boca, and also have the people over for the planned barbecue and fireworks tonight (at least not easily, with high probability of success). We might head up north of Jupiter or Hobe Sound, though, where the coast turns to the northwest to give a view of the Cape from the south on a barrier island. That would only take an hour each way, and be relatively uncrowded. We wouldn't hear or feel the launch, but we'd see it. Still making plans.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:33 AMLooks like there may be a launch today:
It's very cloudy out around the launch pad this morning, and there are showers out to sea drifting this way, but it's more than 8 hours before launch. Weather forecasters say those clouds and other unacceptable weather forces should move out of the spaceport area before the 2:38 p.m. liftoff. The weather forecast is only 20 percent "no go" and it very rarely ever gets better than that for any launch here on the Space Coast.Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:08 AM
That's what I'll be doing tomorrow. A nice slab of back ribs and some fresh wild Alaskan sockeye salmon.
And watching Mother Sheehan stupidly go hungry makes it taste all the better. Particularly given that she's just written a poem (such as it is) expressing her love of her country (such as it is) on its 230th birthday.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:21 PM...in a cheater's world. And here's a related essay by Arnold Kling on scientific statements and empiricism versus group trust cues.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 12:48 PMI'm informed by a reliable source within NASA that COTS is not being cut (at least, not now). PAO will supposedly be straightening the story out with Flight International. While I'm obviously glad to hear it, the fact remains that I was unshocked at the original story. Things like this have happened too many times before, and NASA still has the sad precedent of Alternate Access to live down.
[Update at 3:40 PM EDT]
Clark Lindsey makes a good point about the danger of these kinds of rumors:
According to the FI story, it was one or more of the companies among the finalists in the program that told them about the problem. If the companies are confused about the NASA funding, that's obviously not a good thing since it would hamper their money raising among private investors. Most of the money for their projects will have to come from private sources.
[One more late-night Monday update]
I'm informed (again, reliably) that COTS is in fact sacrosanct, as a result of strong support from the White House. Which makes it a shame that it doesn't get support for more funding. Five hundred million sounds like a lot in absolute terms, and it's better than a kick in the teeth. But over several years, it's a pittance, both against what it would really need to ensure a diversity in space transportation providers, and against what NASA will be spending otherwise, almost certainly much less productively.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 11:51 AMAs I said before, it's really amazing that we've ever flown this vehicle:
Current plans are for a 2:38 p.m. launch on Tuesday. However, the mission management team is meeting at 10 a.m. this morning to discuss "a range of possible options" related to the foam crack, NASA spokesman Bruce Buckingham said. The options include repairing the crack before launch or flying as-is.It's unclear if the repair can be done at the launch pad (though that seems very unlikely) or how long the work might take. If the work can't be done at the pad, this is a rollback situation and it's unlikely NASA could fly in this July window. The next window opens Aug. 28.
And there would go another few hundred million dollars.
It's enough to make one cry when one contemplates what that kind of money would do for a new space transport industry.
[Update in mid afternoon]
John Kelly has the latest. They're still going to attempt a launch tomorrow, but will have to do an inspection to ensure that ice isn't forming in the spot where the foam isn't. If it is, that will scrub the launch (and presumably necessitate a rollback, unless they can find some way to repair it on the pad).
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:31 AMLileks comments:
Let us set aside the traffic noise, for a moment. You could never open the drapes. Ever. The giant plate-glass windows look right into the kitchen. Anyone walking past can look right in, so you can’t sit at your kitchen table and have a cup of morning coffee in your underwear. I cannot think of a situation in which you’d open your drapes, frankly.What if you preferred to walk around the house naked as the day you were born? And likewise smeared with blood and lubricants? If you didn’t close your drapes – for that matter if you just didn’t buy any – could people complain? Even if you get around the matter of literal nakedness, there’s the matter of psychic nudity; living so close to the sidewalk with only glass between you and the thronging masses would feel like living in a department store window. No, it would be worse: store windows are set up a foot, so you have to look up and marvel; these units place you at the same elevation of the street, denying you any sort of mental distance between your space and public space. I cannot imagine who would want to live there.
This is why in all the time I lived in the South Bay of LA, I never wanted to live on The Strand. I would walk along and be looking right into people's kitchens, living rooms, home gyms. Perhaps some people are exhibitionists, but if I lived there, it would be to enjoy a view, not provide one, and I'd do most of my living on the upper floors.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:20 AMAren't you glad you have smart people like this (note: for those morons thinking that I'm a Republican, this is a Republican) making decisions about your Internet?
I just the other day got, an internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday and I just got it yesterday. Why?Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:15 PMBecause it got tangled up with all these things going on the internet commercially.
So you want to talk about the consumer? Let's talk about you and me. We use this internet to communicate and we aren't using it for commercial purposes.
I got an email on my NRO piece this morning from a David Barnhart:
I would like to offer another point of view. Every astronaut death has been avoidable. Yes, people are going to die when pushing the edge of the envelope. Shit happens. But Grissom, Young, and Chaffee died because the system (NASA) built an unreliable dangerous vehicle. You only have to listen to Grissom's words days earlier complaining about the communications gear to realize that. Challenger astronauts died because the system did not listen to the real concerns of the scientists and engineers. The foam issue was always an accident waiting to happen. Columbia astronauts died because the system ignored the problem too long.Soldiers die from EIDs but not because the command structure failed them. The soldiers' commanders are doing everything they can to eliminate unnecessary risk. That is not the case at NASA.
While it can certainly be argued that NASA management was negligent in the cases of Challenger and Columbia (and the astronauts didn't understand how risky their missions were), that can't be said in the current situation, in which everyone, including crew, are aware of the risks now, given the openness of the discussion about it. I'll bet they're eager to go, regardless.
It's very easy to talk about eliminating "unnecessary" risks. It's a lot harder to get agreement on which risks are "necessary" and which are not. The command structure in Iraq is in fact not "eliminating all unnecessary risks" to the troops. Many (e.g., war opponents) would, in fact, argue that their being in Iraq at all is an "unnecessary risk," because this was a "war of choice." Every time they are sent out on patrol without adequate armor, they are taking an "unnecessary risk." Never mind that they might be less effective in the armor, or that it costs money that might be better spent on other items. No, they're being forced to take "unnecessary risks," because soldiers' lives are of infinite value, just like those of astronauts.
Right?
Every single day that we don't fly the Shuttle represents another expenditure of over ten million dollars devoted to that program, with zero results. As I said in the column, "safe" is a relative word, not an absolute one. Flying Shuttles will never be "safe." Neither will flying the new planned CLV/CEV. For that matter, neither is driving down the freeway in your car, and I don't care what kind of car it is. There is no risk-free state except the grave. People are irrational about this, but we must make tradeoffs every day between safety, money and schedule. Rational people who recognize this develop optimum, cost effective, and relatively reliable and safe systems. Those in denial, who think that complete safety somehow can be achieved, if we only spend enough money, and delay launches long enough, give us Space Shuttle programs.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 08:47 AM...shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
COTS doesn't seem to be a very high NASA priority.
Sources close to the companies have told Flight International that the NASA budget proposal for fiscal year 2007 has a major reduction for COTS, which could make the project’s targets unobtainable.
I'm shocked, shocked!
A commenter over at Clark Lindsey's place nails it, I think:
It seems that the decision-makers in charge of recent NASA budget choices view its priorities in something roughly like the following order: continuing the Space Shuttle, completing the ISS, NASA-designed and operated CEV and CLV, NASA-designed and operated human moon transportation systems to go with CEV/CLV, using the ISS, very large lunar robotic missions, non-lunar (and small lunar) robotic space exploration probes and technologies, Earth observation satellites, aeronautics, Centennial Challenges, and COTS. My guess is that the actual interests and needs of the nation as a whole (the general public, the commercial space industry, other government agencies like DOD and NOAA, academia, science organizations, etc) are roughly the reverse of these priorities.
I'm sure that Mark Whittington will chime in with his foolish mantra any minute, about us being "unwilling to take 'yes' for an answer."
[Sunday evening update]
I see that Mark is indulging himself in his favorite solo sport again--setting up and kicking down strawmen. Which is why no one I know takes him very seriously.
[Update at 10 PM EDT]
Clark Lindsey has more details on the proposed budget cuts.
[Monday afternoon update]
I'm hearing now that the Flight International got it wrong, and that no cuts are being contemplated, or at least not requested.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:47 AMSome cretin has set up a spam system to send emails to a vast number of people with the return address as *@transterrestrial.com.
While I was up at the cape, I got over two hundred emails to the effect that: so and so is out of the office, such and such a spamfilter blocked this email, etc.
All with return addresses of random names from my domain. I can't imagine that they're originating from my machine, since I don't even use that domain myself for outgoing email.
Question. Other than blocking all incoming email to *@transterrestrial.com other than simberg@transterrestrial.com, what do I do about this, if anything? There's certainly nothing I can do to prevent a third party from sending out email with a return address with my domain, though if there was, torching their genitals would be too good for them.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:00 AMWhy can't this happen in Washington?
New Jersey Government Shut DownPosted by Rand Simberg at 07:51 PM
Isn't it amazing?
The Times is a good target. People who believe in the "left-wing media" believe that the New York Times is the leftiest of them all. The people who believe in the "mainstream media" believe that the Times is the mainest of them all. Hardly anyone has a good word to say about it, except that it's the best newspaper in the country. But really, how important is that?Also, the name of the New York Times contains the word "New York." Many members of the president's base consider "New York" to be a nifty code word for "Jewish." It is very nice for the president to be able to campaign against the Jews without (a) actually saying the word "Jew" and (b) without irritating the Israelis. A number of prominent Zionist groups think the New York Times is insufficiently anti-Palestinian, so they think the New York Times isn't Jewish enough.
Particularly considering that the latest left epithet of "neocon" seems to often really mean "Zionist Jew."
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:44 PMI was a DC kind of guy. I read Marvel, but couldn't really get into it. I liked Spiderman and Fantastic Four, but that was about it.
And I quit reading comics about the time I hit puberty.
Again, for whatever it's worth.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:40 PMWe're going to go, and trust to luck (it's about a two and a half hour drive, not counting inevitable launch traffic once we get close). No blogging until return--I don't have wireless (though maybe I should get Verizon). See you tonight, hopefully with Discovery safely in orbit.
[Update at 8 PM EDT]
Well, another wasted day. The frustrating thing is that the weather wasn't a problem for the launch--it was a problem for the extremely unlikely "attempted suicide in order to avoid certain death" maneuver of a Return To Launch Site (RTLS) abort. Unfortunately, at the last minute, as I was listening to the MMT poll, I also heard that there was a boat in the box, with no estimated time of removal.
As is often the case, the launch commitment criteria created an overconstrained system. Sometimes it amazes me that we've ever launched this thing.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 07:21 AMThere's a problem with a vernier thruster heater. I'm not familiar enough with the commit criteria to know if that could result in a launch scrub. It's certainly not something that can be easily worked on the pad, but there may be sufficient redundancy that they could go anyway. The problem is that for many missions in the past, verniers aren't necessarily required, but I suspect they don't want to try to dock to ISS if they're missing one.
We haven't left for the Cape yet. We may drive up anyway, just for the drive, and hope for the best, since it will likely be windy and rainy here the rest of the weekend.
By the way, the gang of Florida Today reporters over at The Flame Trench is probably the best place to keep tabs on the launch, at least as far as blogs go.
[Update a few minutes later]
Can't be fixed on the pad, as I suspected. They're figuring out now if they can live without it, if necessary. There are so many thrusters on the vehicle (though a lot more primaries than verniers), that I'd guess they can come up with a workaround control scheme.
The problem is either with the thermostat or heater. The heater was supposed to read hot, but it read ambient.
I wonder how they know that it's not just a failed temperature sensor?
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:48 AMThe latest issue is up. Lots of interesting links.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:28 AMThe researchers are working on a new device that uses carbon nanotubes to store and release electrical energy in a system that could carry as much power as today's lead or lithium batteries.But unlike the rechargeable batteries used on today's cellphones and laptop computers, these devices could be recharged hundreds of thousands of times before wearing out.
There are the skeptics, of course:
Andrew Burke, research engineer at the Institute of Transportation Studies at the University of California at Davis, said that the new capacitors would have to be many times more powerful than any previously created. "I have a lot of respect for those guys, but I have not seen any data," Burke said. "Until I see the data, I'm inclined to be skeptical."Even if Schindall's capacitors work, he doubts they'll transform the electronics industry overnight. Companies have too much invested in today's battery systems, and it would take years before carbon nanotube capacitors could be mass-produced.
A classic innovator's dilemma.
I've never been a big battery fan. Chemical energy storage always seemed very crude to me.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 06:11 AMIt looks like the weather prospects have improved for the launch today--now only a forty percent chance of getting weathered out, as opposed to earlier estimates of sixty percent. We may drive up and try to see it from Cocoa Beach or Titusville. If they don't go today, it may be several days before they get better weather, because there's a tropical wave coming into Florida tonight from the Caribbean. But a successful launch today would be like an early Fourth of July.
Note also that today is the hundred fifty third anniversary of the start of the Battle of Gettysburg.
Posted by Rand Simberg at 05:50 AM