I wish I could figure out which small, public companies are going to benefit from this.
More Spinning Spinoff
I wish that someone would explain just what is meant by “microgravity technology” in this encouraging article about progress in stem cell production. It could be inferred by an uncareful reader that this research occurred in space (the only place that we can get sustained microgravity), but that doesn’t really seem to be the case. Rather, it is apparently a spinoff of bioreactors that were originally developed for use in orbit (presumably aboard the ISS), but perhaps never used there. The reactions seem to be occuring down here, in a full gravity.
This is often the case with all of the predictions of space manufacturing. By the time someone gets around to doing it on orbit, someone comes up with a cheaper and more practical way to do it down here (unsurprising, considering how expensive and time consuming it is to even do an experiment with NASA in space, let alone set up an actual production facility).
Nonethess, this is presumably a spinoff of NASA spending that arguably (though by no means certainly) wouldn’t have occurred in its absence, and that’s all to the good. But while this is a great benefit, it’s not at all obvious that it was worth the cost, or that it couldn’t have been achieved in some other (perhaps less costly, with more benefits) way. As I noted a couple years ago (just before the loss of Columbia, in fact):
Certainly there is some spinoff technology benefit from the [space] program–it’s impossible to engage in any high-tech endeavor without occasionally coming up with serendipitous results. And of course, there’s occasionally some cross fertilization with military space activities (though from a taxpayer standpoint, disappointly little). But neither of these facts is reason, in itself, to either support or oppose it.
Proponents [of the ISS] need to come up with real goals, and real reasons, that can resonate with the American people–something difficult to do with the program as currently planned, in which we spend billions for a Motel 6 in space that can support only half a dozen people, even if current plans come to fruition.
Opponents need to get their facts in order, and come up with good reasons to end it (and perhaps replace it with something more useful for getting humanity off the planet). The manned space program has, so far, been very lucky in its enemies.
I add with some amusement that, when I was googling for that old Fox piece I found this “critique” of it, in a breathless paen to space spinoffs, over at the “Ethical Atheist” web site. Note the logical shredding of my arguments:
Many of you are familiar with the highly-biased commentary of Fox News. In researching for this article we found the following commentary on NASA’s space program. At first, we were surprised and outraged. But, considering the source, it no longer surprises us. Fox is known for its highly-conservative, pro-religious, liberal-slamming, uneducated opinions…
[repeat poster’s list of “benefits”]
…We hope the “Benefits” listed above ‘resonate with the American people’ more than the small-minded opinions presented by the Fox News Channel!
Which is to say, of course, note the absence of logic or argument. It’s pure ad hominem against Fox News (which of course neither wrote or even solicited the topic–it was purely mine). And I’m “highly-conservative” and “pro-religious”? And “uneducated”? Who knew?
Continuing To Spiral In
The LA Times has seen a plunge in home delivery:
an analysis of newspaper circulation by Prudential Equity Group LLC found that the Times lost more than 100,000 paid home-delivery subscribers between March 2004 and March 2005. The drop in home delivery was 18.1 percent
A Simple Muddle
I haven’t read the whole thing (it’s twenty-thousand words) but Lee Harris has what looks to be an interesting essay over at TCS on evolution, ID, religion and beliefs in general with which, at least glancing through it, I suspect I’d largely agree.
[Update a few minutes later]
If you don’t mind registering, or are registered, with The New Republic, and are (unlike me) a conservative, Russ Douthat writes about the danger of Intelligent Design to conservatives.
[Update at 11:30 AM EDT]
A commenter seems puzzled as to why I don’t want to be labeled a “conservative.” Well, simply put, it’s because I don’t think of myself as a conservative, though there are (as he points out) some “conservative” positions with which I agree. There are also many with which I strongly disagree. I don’t just object to the “conservative” label–I object to single-word labels in general, because none of them very accurately describe me, and they constitute laziness on the part of the labeler and are often a substitute for a willingness to actually debate (e.g., see this more recent post). It’s easier to call someone a “conservative” or (for that matter) a “conspiracy theorist” than it is to actually engage in a serious discussion of the issues (in which one might risk actually losing the argument).
Spear Phishing
Here’s an interesting new phishing scam:
Rather than posing as a bank or other online business, spear phishers send e-mails to employees at a company or government agency that appear to come from a powerful person within the organization, several security experts said…
…Unlike basic phishing attacks, which are sent out indiscriminately, spear phishers target only one organization at a time. Once they trick employees into giving up passwords, they can install Trojan horse programs or other malicious software to ferret out corporate or government secrets.
And this was interesting as well, which raises the issue of what constitutes an order from a commanding officer:
At the U.S. Military Academy in West Point, N.Y., several internal tests found that cadets were all too willing to give sensitive information to an attacker posing as a high-ranking officer, said Aaron Ferguson, a visiting faculty member there.
“It’s the ‘colonel effect.’ Anyone with the rank of colonel or higher, you execute the order first and ask questions later,” he said.
But if on the Internet, no one knows you’re a dog, how can you tell that someone is a colonel, let alone your colonel? There’s a long tradition of written orders having to be obeyed, but have emails acquired that attribute by default? If so, it may need to be rethought, given the nature of the technology.
An Interesting Idea
Jonah Goldberg proposes a return of a Vatican army:
I’m not saying they should use an army for crusades for new lands or for conversion or anything like that. But why shouldn’t the Catholic Church have peacekeepers of its own? The use of force isn’t forbidden by Catholic law, I know that much. And the Swiss Guards still have weapons even on Vatican property. Why couldn’t the Pope dispatch armed soldiers to restore order, open food supplies, secure humaintarian efforts etc?
It couldn’t be worse than one under the command of the UN.
[Update at 2:21 PM EDT]
How would one amend the Treaty of Westphalia? Other than Great Britain, are the sovereign entities that signed it even in existence any more? Who (other than perhaps Italy) would object, and have legitimate grounds to, if the Vatican decided to build up, and utilize, the Swiss Guard? Of course, given the paucity of real estate they have, their biggest problem would be finding a place to house the Pope’s divisions. Though I hear there are some military bases being freed up in Germany…
Quandary
Doing some baby-sitting blogging, Jon Goff asks how NASA is going to reconcile two apparently conflicting memes. I’m glad he has time to write this stuff, because I don’t right now.
Not In My Name
Apparently, many families with members serving in Iraq aren’t as impressed with Mother Sheehan as the MSM seems to be. And seems to want us to be.
[9 AM EDT Update]
Here’s a specific grieving father who says that Cindy Sheehan doesn’t speak for him. Does he (in defiance of the meaning of the word “absolute”) have less “absolute moral authority” than she does, Maureen? Or is it only grieving parents who are opposed to the war, and think that Bush did it for oil and imperialism, and is waging a nuclear war in Iraq, and should be impeached, who have that quality?
And he makes an excellent point. If, as she says, the moral authority of parents whose offspring (and no, they’re not children, despite your and others’ attempt to infantilize them for political purposes) are killed in Iraq is truly absolute, how does she reconcile these apparently conflicting views?
[Update at 11:40 AM EDT]
Mark Steyn has further related thoughts at The Spectator (registration required).
Wring It Out
There was a bit of discussion about dry launch in the space blogosphere in the last day or two. It seems to have started with Jon Goff’s piece at Selenian Boondocks, which Clark Lindsey picked up and expanded on (see the “Fueling a Space Town” post), and was followed up with a post on agile space development by Dan Scrimpsher.
This is an important topic, and I wish that there was some sign that the new management at NASA is paying attention to it.
I would also add, as a response to the commenter who asks in Jon’s comments section, why deliver propellant that has to be transferred as a fluid on orbit, rather than easier-to-handle propellant tanks? It’s because delivering tanks doesn’t offer the possibility of refueling them on orbit, so they’d only be single use. And in-space refueling is a critical technology in becoming a truly space-faring civilization, and the sooner we get on with developing and becoming comfortable with it, the sooner we’ll reach that desirable (at least to me) destination.
[Update at 9 AM EDT]
I was imprecise above. As Paul Dietz points out in comments, delivering tanks doesn’t preclude the possibility of refueling them later, but that wasn’t what the the commenter was suggesting. What I should have said is that it doesn’t advance us toward that (in my opinion) worthy goal, and it was clear from the commenter’s question that he didn’t have in mind tanks designed to be refueled (and it is a significant design issue).
[One more update]
I should have written “…preclude us from refueling from them later,” to respond to Paul’s most recent comment about mischaracterizing what he said.
Huh?
Apparently, Senator Feingold is going to call for a fixed date to remove troops from Iraq. This idea has been amply discussed in the blogosphere (short version of the criticism–it allows the “insurgents” to run out the clock, after which they can have their way with the Iraqis). But I need this explained to me: