Thoughts on the fiscal challenges, from the Director of the GAO.
If you plan a planetary science mission on assumption that you'll use SLS, you're making a very risky bet.
— Rand Simberg (@Simberg_Space) December 22, 2014
Thoughts on the fiscal challenges, from the Director of the GAO.
If you plan a planetary science mission on assumption that you'll use SLS, you're making a very risky bet.
— Rand Simberg (@Simberg_Space) December 22, 2014
…seems to be auditioning for the Pierce Brosnan character in Mars Attacks.
Should earth shut the hell up?
Paul Spudis deflates a lot of the hype about this week’s flight. The notion that this is a significant part of a Mars architecture is, and always has been, ludicrous.
[Update a while later]
Sorry, I’ve solved the problem of the missing link.
[Update a few minutes later]
More from Joel Achenbach:
You don’t need an advanced degree from MIT to grasp that this is a very stately, deliberate program, one free of the sin of haste and the vice of urgency.
Has there ever been a piece of human space hardware developed so slowly?
Or so expensively?
Serious question: Is it not a fact that Orion is the costliest capsule in human history?
Yes, it has lots of bells and whistles that the Apollo capsules lacked. This one has XM/Sirius radio built in, butt-warmers in the seats, four-way adjustable mirrors and Big-Gulp-sized cup-holders. It’s got a guest room, a fully stocked bar, a laundry room and 24-hour concierge service. It’s a really nice spaceship!
…Orion could, in theory, be used for such a mission, but it’s a single piece of what would be a complex array of technologies and hardware. Yes, a journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step, but only if you keep walking, and are seriously committed to the journey — no pretending or arm-waving allowed.
(I drive to the store and buy an onion. I drive home and cut it up and put it in a big pot on the stove and then go watch television. Someone asks me, “What are you doing?” and I answer, “I’m making gumbo.” And the someone says, “What about the garlic, the peppers, the celery, the fresh okra, the andouille sausage, the grilled chicken, the fish, the shrimp, those special blended peppers you always use, and the roux, not to mention the fresh French bread on the side?” I answer, “I can’t afford that right now.”)
Heh.
My twitter feed’s been exploding with tweets about the comet landing. Unfortunately, the harpoons apparently didn’t automatically deploy, so they don’t yet have a sure grab to the surface, which could make sampling operations difficult. The surface seems to be softer than expected. But they’re still working the problem.
This is good news for asteroid miners, though.
.@martinselvis2 @ESA_Rosetta Philae has returned volumes and many papers can already be written! This mission is GREAT for asteroid mining.
— Chris Lewicki (@interplanetary) November 12, 2014
[Update a few minutes later]
OK, hearing that they managed to anchor with the ice screws, so maybe harpoons are redundant now.
…and it’s acting weird.
With modern technology, and a soft grid, another Carrington event would be a societal disaster.
This one has some spoilers.
How much influence does it have?
A lot more than the warm mongers want to believe, I suspect. The refusal to accept that it may play a role reminds me of followers of Ptolemy, who believed the earth the center of the universe.
…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 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.