Transterrestrial Musings  

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay

Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)
The Ombudsgod
Cut On The Bias (Susanna Cornett)
Joanne Jacobs

Site designed by

Powered by
Movable Type
Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Make A Choice | Main | Circumstantial Theories »

"An Angry Technology"

That's what Roger Launius says that launch technology is.

Anthropomorphising technologies? Is solar power a "cheerful" technology"?

And as Clark Lindsey points out, his comparing what's happening with today's emerging suborbital industry with Pan Am's selling of reservations back in the sixties is equally bizarre.

Between him and Alex Roland, one wonders if there are any NASA or space historians (other than Dwayne Day) who aren't clueless.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 18, 2004 06:55 AM
TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference this post from Transterrestrial Musings.

He says he's seen this type of bubble in the past? When? Where? What's going on now is without historical precedent.

Posted by B.Brewer at December 18, 2004 07:02 AM

I prefer goofy technologies myself.

Preferably from Acme.

Posted by Dean Esmay at December 18, 2004 07:15 AM

Here's the full quote:

His doubt is based on a combination of finances and safety. “This is an angry technology, it is hard to control. At what level are you willing to expand resources to control it - and at what point do you say we’re not going to do it?”

Hmmm, I suspect by "angry technology" he means the potential for proliferation and escalation inherent in a technology that can have military application. The clue is the emphasis on "control". Why else would we need to "expand resources" or chose not to "do it" based on the cost of control?

It's interesting that he presents the "it's a bubble" argument followed by the "angry technology" argument. If I understand correctly, he's basically saying "It's not going to happen because it's infeasible and we have to control this infeasible technology because it can be used for scary military purposes." Sounds like he's throwing out several arguments in the hope that one or more of them sticks.

Posted by Karl Hallowell at December 18, 2004 10:30 AM

Those who can, do. Those who can't, criticize.

Posted by James at December 18, 2004 12:50 PM

> He says he's seen this type of bubble in the past? When? Where?


Roger Lanius is the Mike Myers of space history. "If it isn't NASA, it's crap!!!"

Posted by at December 18, 2004 01:11 PM

"Don't drive angry!"

- Phil Conners, to Puxatauney Phil. Groundhog Day.

Posted by Andrew at December 18, 2004 04:51 PM

No immediate relation to me, I hope!

Posted by John Lanius at December 21, 2004 11:39 PM

Post a comment

Email Address: