Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I would but I'm not sure he's worth any serious use of brain cells.

Posted by Jon Jackson at July 22, 2004 09:34 PM

Mr. Gagnon's idea salad forcefully disproves the Cartesian fantasy that speech must be animated by intelligence. Indeed, "his" column so obviously fails to pass the Turing test that I am moved to speculate that "Mr. Gargon" is actually a Perl script.

Posted by Stephen Maturin at July 22, 2004 10:12 PM

He lost any chance at being taken seriously when he described the x-prize as taking 2 people into orbit.

Posted by John at July 22, 2004 10:20 PM

I think the phrase "a legend in his own mind" about sums this guy up.

Posted by Dick Eagleson at July 23, 2004 04:52 AM

Yeah, what they, supra, said, then consider the source's affiliation, whose goals are: Space should be regulated by a peace-loving, sophisticated, Socialist cultural elite. Just like in STTNG.

Posted by RDOlivaw at July 23, 2004 06:23 AM

Unfortunately at least some of his ideas have traction with enough people to make a difference. We should be ready with intelligent responses. I'd suggest reading the piece in detail and trying to come up with responses that would convince people who might otherwise find his points reasonable. Just blowing them off is an invitation to a fight the pro-space side might well lose.

Posted by Andrew Case at July 23, 2004 06:27 AM

My viceral response to Mr. Gagnon is he can let us leave in peace or we can stay in no-so-peace, take your pick.

But on a more practical note.

We need to be pro-active in this area. Never let your opponent define the terms of the debate.

We need to foster ties with mainstream environmental orginizations such as the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservency.

Start an outreach orginization themed on developing space resources in order to preserve terrestrial ones.

Some pseudo-hippe bumper sticker ideas:

"Mine the Moon, not Earth"

"An Asteroid a day keeps Global Warming Away"

And crap like that, you get the idea.

The best thing we can do is infiltrate the environmental community now and start the debate on our terms. We might even be able to turn most of them into useful allies.

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 23, 2004 07:59 AM

I agree with Mike. Co-opt the potential opposition.

Posted by Jardinero1 at July 23, 2004 08:50 AM

I agree with Mike too, but that doesn't mean I'd bother reasoning with Mr. Gagnon. Some people are just too far gone; it's his intended audience I'd try reasoning with.

And I have to disagree with Stephen: a Perl script could do a lot better than that. Cobol, maybe?

Posted by Nathan Koren at July 23, 2004 09:35 AM

No, I wasn't suggesting wasting breath on ole brucie!

To paraphrase:

Cast not your perls before the swine

Posted by Mike Puckett at July 23, 2004 09:45 AM

Well someone could probably stand to explain to this guy that space junk does eventually fall back to Earth and burns up in the atmosphere *cough* most of the time.

Plus I was only aware of one incident where the space shuttle window was nearly penetrated. Same with ISS just the one incident where the station had to be moved and even then it was just a precaution.

Funny how he can list off all those resources to gather and the only venture he can name off is the one dreamed up by the evil evil Halliburton Exploiteers of all things sacred.

I think it is such a leap of logic to try to make it seem like Private industry just wants to take advantage of all the hard earned R&D money forked over by Joe Taxpayer. "Taxpayers won't see any return on our 'collective investment'", Wha??? As opposed to Joe Taxpayer getting to spend all that money to live vicariously through an elite astronaut or robot. I think the one big point this guy misses is that when I give my money to a private enterprise I usually directly get something in return. When I give Coca-Cola a dollar, guess what, I get to drink a, oh so refreshing, Coke. I'm not sure but I think I may be getting something out of that trade. If I give Scaled Composites $500,000 then I get to ride into space, so my return is an experience of a life time. When I give my Gov't my tax money I have no idea what that specific amount of money will be spent on and whether it will really ever benefit me directly.

And yes I'm quite certain that everything Queen Isabella did when the New World was discovered is exactly the way we should proceed with protecting our investments in space. j/k

I think this is a good example of how the average persons perspective of space is that it is difficult, complicated, and dangerous. So for some reason it requires difficult, complicated, and dangerous statements of logic.

Posted by Hefty at July 23, 2004 10:59 AM

Pro space groups were trying to connect with Sierra Club and other environmental groups back before '80. The usual response was that space was a dangerous fantasy and that we needed to focus on Earth. My impression is that most "mainstream" environmental groups are effectively (if not officially) anti-technology organizations.

This looks like the type of article one would expect from something called "People's Weekly ..."

Specific responses on this article:

Existing space junk has been mostly created by government space programs. It can be managed, but will be an issue no matter who goes into space. Private organizations that want to keep doing business in space have a great incentive to keep it under control.

The 1979 "Moon Treaty" would have blocked private ownership and development in space. Economic systems without private ownership have repeatedly been shown to be extreme failures. Without private ownership, there is little incentive to develop these resources, and the world would be much poorer for it.

To the extent that they use government R&D, a thriving space industry would pay back the taxpayer costs many times over.

Many things happened after Columbus returned to Spain. In the unlikely event nobody had come to the New World, can anyone seriously believe the world would be better? On whole, the world is far, far wealthier than it was then.

There are markets in space TO BE DEVELOPED. Comsats represent the only existing, and limited, space market. There are no markets that CAN be privatized.

Yes, it is true that taxpayers would be paying more after these markets were developed, simply because the markets would introduce new wealth that would be taxed.

Posted by VR at July 23, 2004 04:48 PM

Hey, I thought I was the only one who paid any attention to the lunacy of Bruce Gagnon.

Now that I'm back online, I think a good old-fashioned fisking is in order...

Posted by T.L. James at July 23, 2004 06:25 PM

MarsBlog -- we fisk Gagnon so you don't have to:
http://www.lamarssociety.org/archives/001375.html

Posted by T.L. James at July 24, 2004 02:41 AM

Hefty wrote:
"Plus I was only aware of one incident where the space shuttle window was nearly penetrated."

"Nearly penetrated" is the wrong term. The shuttle is _constantly_ hit by debris. The problem is that it is impossible to detect the impacts. How can you tell if a chip in a thermal tile is from orbital debris or was caused by foam shedding during launch? You cannot.

The shuttle windows are the best place to detect debris hits because they are flat and smooth and their geometry is known (that is, ground controllers know exactly what angle the windows are compared to the velocity vector). The windows get hit a lot, and usually the damage can simply be rubbed out. There is an established protocol for this. If the window gets penetrated too far, it is replaced. Or if it has been repaired X number of times already it gets replaced.

Posted by at July 24, 2004 06:55 AM

This is a relatively coherent essay from Gagnon. It essentially argues from a socialist ("private enterprise=bad") world-view. But compared to some of the things he has written about the militarization of space, it is at least not crazy.

Comments below in brackets:

Space privatization: Road to conflict?
Author: Bruce Gagnon
People's Weekly World Newspaper, 07/22/04 15:38

Recent news brings us the story of “space pioneers” launching privately funded craft into the heavens. A special prize is offered to the first private aerospace corporation who can successfully take a pilot and a “space tourist” into orbit.

[He misunderstands the X-Prize here. It is not about taking a pilot and one person into orbit.]

Is this “privatization” of space a good thing? Is there any reason to be concerned about the trend?

Three major issues come immediately to mind: Space as an environment, space law, and profit in space.

[Gagnon demonstrates ignorance of all three.]

We’ve all probably heard about the growing problem of space junk where over 100,000 bits of debris are now tracked on the radar screens at NORAD in Colorado as they orbit the earth at 18,000 m.p.h. Several space shuttles have been nicked by bits of debris in the past resulting in cracked windshields. The International Space Station (ISS) recently was moved to a higher orbit because space junk was coming dangerously close.

[I believe that it is debateable whether this problem is "growing." The countries that launch things into space are gaining a better understanding of it, and have engaged in active debris mitigation. Some of the earlier sources of debris have been fixed. For instance, it is much rarer for discarded upper stages to simply blow up in orbit. And tracking has gotten better.]

As we see a flurry of launches by private space corporations the chances of accidents, and thus more debris, becomes a serious reality to consider. Very soon we will reach the point of no return, where space pollution will be so great that an orbiting minefield will have been created that hinders all access to space.

[It would be nice to see a source for this, but there is none because it is a bad argument. First, private space access is still regulated by governments. Does Mr. Gagnon honestly believe that governments will allow this to happen? Does he really think that the US government would let its spy satellites be grounded so that a bunch of rich tourists can go joyriding? Second, he ignores the fact that right now ALL of the space tourist activity, other than the occasional jaunt on a Soyuz, is suborbital. By definition, suborbital flight does not produce orbital debris.]

When the United Nations concluded the 1979 Moon Treaty the U.S. refused, and still does, to sign it. One key reason is that the treaty outlaws military bases on it, but it also outlaws any nation, corporation, or individual from making land “claims” on the planetary body. The 1967 UN Outer Space Treaty takes a similar position in regard to all of the planetary bodies, arguing that the heavens are the province of all humankind.

[The United States did not object to the Moon Treaty because of any military base provision.]

As the privateers move into space, in addition to building space hotels and the like, they also want to claim ownership of the planets because they hope to mine the sky. Gold has been discovered on asteroids, helium-3 on the moon, and magnesium, cobalt and uranium on Mars. It was recently reported that the Halliburton Company is now working with NASA to develop new drilling capabilities to mine Mars.

[Halliburton is involved, so this must be evil.]

One organization that seeks to rewrite space law is called United Societies in Space (USIS). They state, “USIS provides legal and policy support for those who intend to go to space. USIS encourages private property rights and investment. Space is the Free Market Frontier.”

The taxpayers, especially in the U.S. where NASA has been funded with taxpayer dollars since its inception, have paid billions of dollars in space technology research and development (R&D). As the aerospace industry moves toward forcing privatization of space what they are really saying is that the technological base is now at the point where the government can get out of the way and let private industry begin to make profits and control space.

[Obviously Mr. Gagnon objects to this. But why does he believe that private industry will "control space"? Does private industry currently "control the oceans"? Does it currently "control the air"?]

Thus, after the taxpayers have paid all the R&D, private industry now intends to gorge itself on profits. Taxpayers won’t see any return on our “collective investment.”

[The very idea that taxpayers will not see any return on their investment is ludicrous. They have _already_ seen substantial return on their investment--weather satellites that save lives, GPS satellites that guide vehicles, earth science satellites that enhance our understanding of the environment, reconnaissance satellites that monitor our enemies, etc. Second, why does he believe that simply because an activity becomes "private" that taxpayers no longer see any return on investment? The US government expended considerable money developing jet engine technology. Taxpayer funded. Now taxpayers reap benefits whenever they fly Southwest to Austin, Texas. Furthermore, aren't people who work in "private industry" also taxpayers? His assumption seems to be that private industry is some group of evil capitalists, as opposed to, say, every person who works at IBM, or McDonalds, or Whole Foods, from the CEO all the way down to the guy who mops the floors.]

So let’s just imagine for a moment that this private sector vision for space comes true. Profitable mining on the moon and Mars – who would keep competitors from sneaking in and creating conflict over the new 21st century gold rush? Who will be the space police?

In the congressional study published in 1989 called “Military Space Forces: The Next 50 Years,” we get some inkling of the answer. The forward to the book was signed by the former Sen. John Glenn (D-Ohio) and Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), among others. The book stresses the importance of military bases on the moon and suggests that with bases there the U.S. could control the pathway, or the “gravity well,” between Earth and the moon. It notes, “Armed forces might lie in wait at that location to hijack rival shipments on return.”

[One of Mr. Gagnon's weakest points has always been his relative ignorance of both the current debate and the available literature. Note that he has to reach back 15 years for an obscure report in order to make his case. How much has been written since then about bases on the moon? Answer: nothing.]

Plans are now underway to make space the next “conflict zone” where corporations intend to control resources and maximize profit. The so-called private “space pioneers” are the first step in this new direction. Ultimately the taxpayers will be asked to pay the enormous cost incurred by creating a military space infrastructure that would control the “shipping lanes” on and off the planet Earth.

[I think he has been reading too many Japanese manga comics.]

After Columbus returned to Spain with the news that he had discovered the “new world,” Queen Isabella began the 100-year process to create the Spanish Armada to protect the new “interests and investments” around the world. This helped create the global war system.

[This is really ridiculous. Essentially he is arguing that complete stagnation is good because it will not require military advances. Certainly a lot of bad things happened as a result of Columbus' voyage. But a lot of bad things happened when the first humanoid headed north from Africa to colonize Europe. And blaming Columbus for "the global war system" is bizarre.]

Privatization does not mean that the taxpayer won’t be paying any more. Privatization really means that profits will be privatized. Privatization also means that existing international space legal structures will be destroyed in order to bend the law toward private profit. Serious moral and ethical questions must be raised before another new “frontier” of conflict is created.

["Profits" will be privatized? As opposed to what? Can "profits" not be private? This is where we see Mr. Gagnon's true colors. He is simply opposed to private industry of any sort. Unfortunately, in his rush to condemn a new form of private industry in space he neglects the small issue that private industry _already_ operates in space and already reaps profits there. What does he think a comsat is? And does he think that it is a bad thing?]

[But ultimately, Gagnon is not worth worrying about. In fact, space advocates--and NASA--should consider themselves lucky that this is the quality level of their opposition. There is an old debating trick whereby you pick the one factually incorrect or absurd thing that your opponent says and use it to totally discredit him, even if everything else he says is correct. In Gagnon's case, so much of what he says is wrong and/or based upon a complete misreading of the existing situation that it would be easy to tear him apart.]

[Imagine for a second that Gagnon had just delivered this speech in public. How would you reply? The first thing to do would be to point out that he misunderstands the X-Prize competition and correct him on that. Then tell him that because this industry is currently aimed at flying vehicles on suborbital flights, it will not generate any orbital debris. That would immediately demonstrate that he is ignorant of the basic issues. Then you could ask him to cite a single orbital debris study that claims that we are creating an orbital minefield that will hinder all access to space. When he cannot do that, ask him to cite a single orbital debris expert who claims that this will happen. When he cannot do that, you simply cite a few studies or people yourself. After that, you ask him if he realizes that private industry already operates in space. And then you ask him why, if private industry is interested in getting access to space, it would allow a situation that would prevent this from happening? You could also ask him to supply a more recent citation for a report on building military bases on the moon. In short, with a few questions you could totally discredit him and make it clear that he doesn't know anything about this subject.]

Posted by at July 24, 2004 07:39 AM

Hmnn, with just some minor changes:

"The taxpayers, especially in the U.S. where DARPA has been funded with taxpayer dollars since its inception, have paid millions of dollars in internet technology research and development (R&D). As the comunications industry moves toward forcing privatization of the internet what they are really saying is that the technological base is now at the point where the government can get out of the way and let private industry begin to make profits and control the internet.

Thus, after the taxpayers have paid all the R&D, private industry now intends to gorge itself on profits. Taxpayers won’t see any return on our “collective investment.”

So let’s just imagine for a moment that this private sector vision for the internet comes true. Profitable publishing on the web – who would keep competitors from sneaking in and creating conflict over the new 21st century gold rush? Who will be the internet police?

Posted by jayrtfm at July 24, 2004 11:22 PM

For another example of the same mentality, I recommend reading the "Letters" section in the September issue of Astronomy magazine, which just appeared in the stores. Specifically, a letter about Trailblazer mission.

Posted by Ilya at July 25, 2004 06:36 PM

I guess we have a new rule of thumb:

If it's space junk, the orbit is stable.

If not, not.

Posted by Slartibartfast at July 26, 2004 11:45 AM

Post a comment