James Dean has an interview with the man himself.
This is the essay I wrote the previous summer as an input to the committee.
James Dean has an interview with the man himself.
This is the essay I wrote the previous summer as an input to the committee.
He’s posted a brief but complimentary review of the book (it’s buried deep in the post, after his lengthy discussion of his computer tech upgrades):
Safe Is Not An Option, by Rand Simberg is a reliability expert’s look at the space program. The book is discussed at length on its own web site. Those interested in the space program should read it: the book is quite critical of current space policies. It has endorsements from both astronauts and space policy analysts.
His general thesis is that NASA’s obsession, born of the days when “ours always blow up” and brought back with a vengeance by the Challenger disaster, is eliminating all human risk from spaceflight. That doesn’t work and the obsession is a huge obstacle to progress. There will always be risks, and we will always have heroes.
Simberg is an aerospace engineer with considerable experience and his analyses of various space incidents such as the Challenger Disaster are spot on, which is to say, I agree with them. Recommended.
Thanks!
Former Shuttle program manager Wayne Hale reviews a new opera.
…and the science of smug condescension:
Here we see, in action, the signature scientific style of the Neil deGrasse Tyson era. Present a scientific theory in crudely oversimplified form, omitting any uncertainties or counter-arguments. Pass off complex claims as if they are obvious “basic physics.” Then dismiss any skepticism as the resentment of the primitive, ignorant, unscienced masses against their enlightened betters.
Or, you know, file law suits against critics.
It’s not a very good way to get valid scientific results—nor, for that matter, to promote the scientific method. But it’s what we get when we substitute, in place of respect for the actual methodology of science, an attitude of superior posing and smug condescension.
I’d like to say that I was disappointed with the Cosmos reboot, but honestly, I wasn’t that big a fan of the original. But I’d love to buy Tyson for what I think he’s worth, and sell him for what he does.
[Afternoon update]
Some more thoughts:
It seems to me that Neal deGrasse Tyson is a scientist. Heck, I don’t actually know, because I don’t read technical astronomy papers, but I assume he’s published something somewhere, actually done some science in his life. But that doesn’t appear to be his current day job. His current job, near as I can tell, is carnival barker. He’s a salesman, or an advertiser. That’s not science. Inspiring others to want to learn more may be laudable, but it’s not science. Making crap up isn’t science, either, but I’ll let the serial stalkers at the Federalist worry about that.
But here’s a misconception that I’ve discussed before:
Thing is, I’m no scientist. So while I would like to call myself a Science-ist – that is, one who believes in the nature of science and the good results it can produce – I certainly can’t pretend I am a scientist, which is one who does science. Stuff like collecting data, analyzing it, proposing hypotheses, testing hypotheses. You know, stuff that scientists do. Not just looking at cool pictures of galaxies and pretending that makes me smart. (Um, NSFW language at that link)
No. Science isn’t a profession, it’s a way of thinking about the world, and learning about it. Everyone does it, to some degree or another, every day. Check a door knob to see if it’s unlocked? You just did an experiment.
People who believe in “science” as some kind of special realm that “scientists” live in, and that “science” reveals “truth” (as many global warm mongers do, even though they don’t understand the science or, often, even basic math) are members of a religion, that is in fact properly called scienceism. I believe in science as the best means to learn about the natural world, and as the basis for engineering and creating technology, but I don’t worship scientists, and I don’t delude myself that scientific results are “truth.”
Anyway, finally, note this comment:
you make an ass out of neal tyson when it’s pointed out that he has not, in fact, published A SINGLE PIECE of academic work since having talked some committee into accepting the dissertation it took him 11 years (and an expulsion!) to co-author.
no, seriously. if you don’t believe me, you can put his name into the search bar at arxiv.org, where practicing physicists post our preprints:
“Search gave no matches
No matches were found for your search: all:(neal AND tyson)
Please try again.”
In the next comment, he notes that there is in fact one post-doc paper, but it appears that he’s just participating because the actual authors wanted a bigger name on it.
So apparently, the SLF fanbois (and fangirls) going crazy over a giant welder on Twitter.
Malone: @NASA_SLS is going to be the most powerful rocket humans have ever built–which is pretty cool. #NASASocial #weldingwonder
— Rebecca Freeman (@freemre) September 11, 2014
As long as you only want to do it every year or two. MT @freemre rocket that could do anything you ever wanted and then some @davidhitt
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 11, 2014
Can't believe all the tweets in my TL marveling at the "six largest welding tools" building SLS core. These people are obsessed with size.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 11, 2014
You people obsessed with how "powerful" rockets are, are like Tim the ToolMan Taylor. #Binford5000SLS @davidhitt @freemre
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 11, 2014
Never believed that loon Helen Caldicott's phallic-compensation theory of rocketry until I ran into the SLS crowd. Even the women have it.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 11, 2014
Anyway, I was rereading this essay I wrote half a decade ago. It was depressing. Here’s how little of some of it I’d have to change to keep it relevant to today.
I had an interesting Twitter discussion this morning, that gave me an insight that had been floating around in the back of my mind, but that I’d never articulated, either to myself or others. It sort of crystallized when someone said that Bob Cabana, head of KSC, was an SLS supporter.
One of the tenets of the Apollo Cargo Cult is that we can’t go beyond earth orbit without a really big rocket. The conventional wisdom has been that the biggest constituency for SLS is Marshall, because that’s were it is being developed. But if you think about it, there are a lot of things Marshall could be applied to — it doesn’t have to be developing big rockets (something it hasn’t successfully done in almost four decades). For instance, it could be developing technology and demonstrators for orbital fuel storage and transfer. That would be at least as much in its wheelhouse as SLS.
KSC, on the other hand, has little justification for existence if NASA doesn’t have its own (big) rocket to launch. Without a big rocket, it doesn’t need the VAB, and the VAB and the crawler are really the only unique capability it has, in terms of physical infrastructure. If everything is going up on commercial rockers, even from Pads 39, KSC doesn’t have much to do, other than integrating NASA’s payloads onto them. That’s not a trivial task, but it’s not one that justifies the center’s budget or workforce. So, while Marshall could in theory be redirected to something useful, KSC can’t really. That’s why Nelson supports it so strongly.
It struck me in fact that the VAB is the high cathedral for the cargo cult. What would happen to the religion if it was taken out by a hurricane?
So the big news today is that they’ve named the supercluster we live in:
Scientists previously placed the Milky Way in the Virgo Supercluster, but under Tully and colleagues’ definition, this region becomes just an appendage of the much larger Laniakea, which is 160 million parsecs (520 million light years) across and contains the mass of 100 million billion Suns.
Which kicked off this Twitter exchange between me and Lee Billings.
Your cosmic address: Earth, Sol System, Orion Arm, Milky Way Galaxy, Local Group, and now, the Laniakea Supercluster. http://t.co/eKbFMzJC8r
— Lee Billings (@LeeBillings) September 3, 2014
@LeeBillings Does this mean we need more numbers for our zip codes? Also, "Local" Group doesn't seem very descriptive. Everyone has one.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 3, 2014
@Rand_Simberg Given that we'd have to travel a few megaparsecs to shift our perspective to another "Local Group," I think the name is okay!
— Lee Billings (@LeeBillings) September 3, 2014
@LeeBillings Not consistent. Why does every other level get a name? Why not "Local Star System," "Local Galaxy," "Local Supercluster," etc.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 3, 2014
@Rand_Simberg You'd need to ask Edwin Hubble, who coined the term. Or maybe other mid-20th-century astronomers who adopted it?
— Lee Billings (@LeeBillings) September 3, 2014
Accordingly, I propose that we rename the Local Group the Hubble Group, in honor of its namer, and making it consistent with the other names. I will henceforth call it that. If anyone asks, I’ll explain.
Doug Messier pays a visit to Mike Adams’s memorial.
My thoughts on what we haven’t done and where we haven’t been in forty-five years.
They resurrected it. It’s an interesting perspective from forty-five years later.