Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

What Happens In 2009?

Since these are desperate times, you could repeal the 22nd Amendment. It could be like Roosevelt in 1940.

Posted by at March 3, 2007 09:02 AM

Actually, I can't do that. And even if I could, what good would it do? Bush would still have to be reelected. What are the chances of that?

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 3, 2007 09:11 AM

What happens in 2009?

So many things...The first of all is that we get a new administration. Unless a miracle occurs (like recognized sucess in iraq) this one is done.

Bush is finally acting like a President should in difficult times...but it is probably to late. Most of the people have tuned out and formed an opinion of him, and it isnt very flattering.

If something "big" happens he might just get a chance to recover if he can figure out a way to handle it well...but there are a lot of "ifs" there.

In space policy I predict "return to the Moon" is doomed. By 2009 we will know if Bigelow, Musk, Bransom are anything more then .coms doing a excersize in turning a lot of money into failure.

If any suceed while NASA stumbles along with a bureacracy that couldnt find the ground with a book and leadership that is completly bungling...then "its Dead jim".

Hopefully someone is going to get elected President who will have as their first goal making the federal government work. Shooting ideologues left and right, and putting people who have both strong beliefs in doctrine and are simultaneously competent in as many federal positions as possible.

Then maybe we can start to wake up for a 2 or so trilion dollar binge of bad spending in 8 years.

YEAH to the far right of the GOP which gave us this group...

lol

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 3, 2007 09:29 AM

Bush would still have to be reelected.

You can always hope, Rand. Without hope, what do you have left? Bush may not be perfect, but as you say, you know that he's not Hitler. Whatever his faults, the Democrats are much, much, much worse. Aren't they a threat to the Republic, if they win?

I suspect that without the 22nd Amendment, Bush could well get the nomination in 2008. He still has an 80% approval rating among Republicans, according to some polls. After that, you could hold out hope that the New Media would finally convince America that we're fighting World War Four. As you say, we live in dark times.

Posted by at March 3, 2007 09:29 AM

You can always hope, Rand.

Why would I hope for another Bush term? I didn't even want the first and second ones (except in preference to the alternatives). Particularly as regards space (which is what this post is about, though I see that, like most anonymous trolls, you want to shift the subject to your own hobby horses).

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 3, 2007 09:35 AM

Griffin calles VSE "Apollo on steroids"

I seem to recall steroids shrink your testicles and make you
crazy.

This would explain Mike Puckett also.

Posted by anonymous at March 3, 2007 09:52 AM

And Cretinism along with the wanton violation of the societal norm and resultant legal prohibitions against marrying ones siblings by your parents wholly and throughly explains you Mr. Anonymous Jew-Hater.

As they say, your famly tree don't fork.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 3, 2007 10:01 AM

Posted by at March 3, 2007 09:29 AM

not even the far right of the GOP is that stupid.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 3, 2007 10:25 AM

Why would I hope for another Bush term? I didn't even want the first and second ones (except in preference to the alternatives).

That's always the catch: except in preference to the alternatives. It's like what they say about democracy, that's it's the world's worst system of government, except for all of the others.

Particularly as regards space

Sure, we can talk space. You have said that Bush is as good a space president we have had since Kennedy, and maybe the best ever. Now, one side of this is that maybe even the best space president ever is pretty bad, but still. Just think how awful Hillary Clinton's space policy could be. She could invite Iran and China to join the VSE, just like Bill Clinton sabotaged the space station with Russian participation. It isn't partisan to conclude that even though the Republicans are pretty bad, the Democrats aren't fit to lick their boots. That is, it isn't partisan if we go by your realistic assessments.

So space policy really goes in the same direction as the war on terror: you can always hope for a repeal of the 22nd amendment. The frying pan is a lot better than the fire.

Posted by at March 3, 2007 12:17 PM

Now, one side of this is that maybe even the best space president ever is pretty bad, but still.

It is. I'm really not interested in another four years of George Bush, whether in general, or as regards space. If I'm going to hope for anything, I'd prefer to hold out hope for a Gingrich or Richardson.

Posted by Rand Simberg at March 3, 2007 12:27 PM

"Shooting ideologues left and right, and putting people who have both strong beliefs in doctrine and are simultaneously competent in as many federal positions as possible."

You want to shoot ideologues but put people into office who have strong beliefs in doctrine? Isn't that something of a paradox? Or do you just want to always have fresh meat to shoot?

Posted by X at March 3, 2007 12:28 PM

Bob: "The first of all is that we get a new administration. Unless a miracle occurs (like recognized sucess in iraq) this one is done."

No it doesn't take a miracle Bob, it only takes constitutional term limits. Even success ( I would argue MORE success) in Iraq won't get Bush a third term.

More proof that you don't pay attention to what others are posting but rather just like to read yourself "in print", nor even know the basics of US government that any sixth grader should know.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at March 3, 2007 03:00 PM

No it doesn't take a miracle Bob, it only takes constitutional term limits. Even success ( I would argue MORE success) in Iraq won't get Bush a third term.

But you could change that by amending the Constitution, Cecil. Given that we're at war, do you think that it's a mistake to change horses in midstream? A third term for Bush could be like Roosevelt during World War II.

I understand that Rand is saying that he is running out of patience with Bush, but what about you? The guys that Rand mentioned, Richardson and Gingrich, don't see eye to eye with you about "MORE success" in Iraq. Richardson is a surrender monkey. Gingrich is not quite that, but he does say that Iraq is a failure, and that the White House has to admit it to reverse the failure. Would you prefer four more years?

(Okay, I admit it, I'm a surrender monkey too. I guess I hate my country. But I don't mind discussing the other side.)

Posted by at March 3, 2007 03:45 PM

Posted by Cecil Trotter at March 3, 2007 03:00 PM

thank you Cecil.

I am well aware of 1) The Constitution and 2) the fact that even an amendment ratified would not allow bush a third term.. .one it wont be ratified in time, two) like the amendment it would nullify it doubtless would exclude the person in now and well there are so many more things.

The point is Cecil unless Bush gets a success in Iraq his last years in office are going to be a failure in everything else... ie he is not going to get anything else accomplished... because his approval rating is so low that no one is listening.

Robert

Posted by Robert G. Oler at March 3, 2007 05:43 PM

Presidents will become a lot more receptive to space if thousands of very wealthy people experience the "Overview Effect," so we should wish Virgin Galactic and its (distant) competitors the best of luck. Just think about it: When you experience something incredibly profound, often the natural response is to desperately want to share it with people.

Some, and hopefully many, of the folks who take those Virgin flights are going be deeply altered by the experience, and I don't doubt that quite a few of them will dedicate their fortunes to "Spreading the Good News" and helping make the industry a success. Something beyond mere frontier spirit will have been planted in these people's souls, and it will be obvious to everyone around them as it was with Anousheh Ansari. Some will just find a thrill, of course, but a few will be utterly Converted, their mission in life defined. This is something all the (already rosy) market projections don't and can't account for, so I'm giddy about the prospects.

My deep wish is that, with a critical mass of people having experienced it, their attitude will begin to permeate the culture and force an attitude adjustment by the political leadership. Once it's proven safe and reliable, quite a few lawmakers themselves might take the ride, and I don't think there's any going back from that.

I've only been on Zero G, and even that changed me in some very subtle and unexpected ways. Every now and then, my body realizes again that gravity is a variable, and suddenly rooms that I'm standing in can look much, much bigger than before. I'll suddenly perceive things in terms of volume rather than just walking space. It might sound disorienting, but it's actually awesome; I'd like to always see things that way. For weeks afterward, I kept yearning for that freedom of motion. I'd look up at my ceiling above my bed and imagine gently pushing down on the bed to visit the (turned off) ceiling fan.

I think if that feeling were combined with something as beautiful and huge as the Earth against an infinite black space, some really basic threshold inside myself would have been crossed into something unknowable from normal experience. The people who come back from those trips aren't going to be like the rest of us; they will know something that words cannot easily express, and most of them won't have the kind of astronaut hardiness that makes the pros able to compartmentalize their reactions to it. I wouldn't be surprised to see people break down on the runway after stepping off the vehicle.

Then again, it may be that suborbital isn't high enough to give the right amount of perspective. I can't really tell from the SS1 videos just how curved the Earth is from there, so it may just look like being at a really high altitude with a black sky. That wouldn't be the same as what I'm talking about, so I don't know.

Anyway, I urge you all to ride Zero G. It's an oddly subversive experience--gives your body hints of unforeseen perspectives. If Virgin goes well, and SpaceX ever sells its Dragon for tourism, they might even create some kind of graduated program of experiences together; Zero-G, Virgin, then orbit. Just the thought of it is making my spinal cord tingle. Good lord, I think I'm addicted and I haven't even been out of the atmosphere.

Posted by Proximo the Happy Centaurian at March 3, 2007 09:58 PM

"A third term for Bush could be like Roosevelt during World War II."

No it would not be anything even remotely like Roosevelt's 3rd term. Because at the time there was no constitutional limit on presidents terms in office.

And no Iraq has not been an unqualified success, but it is closer to being a success than it is to being the complete failure that idiotic talking heads in the MSM portray it to be.

Saddam is gone: success.
Iraq has no WMD program: success.
Iraq has an elected government: success.
Ninety percent of the country at peace: success.

Iraq isn't perfect: failure? I guess you have me there. Iraq should learn how to govern itself peacefully in only a month or two even after 30 years of dictatorial rule. Shame on them for not being quick enough for the instant gratification generation.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at March 3, 2007 10:24 PM

Iraq has not been an unqualified success, but it is closer to being a success than it is to being the complete failure that idiotic talking heads in the MSM portray it to be.

Cecil, I am going to quote Newt Gingrich from his interview on the Meet the Press in December, 2006:

The war is a failure, in part, because the strategy ... has been wrong consistently. It's been a strategy that was far too American. Second, it's a failure because the instruments of (Iraqi) national power don't work.

Is Gingrich one of the "idiot talking heads in the MSM"?

Posted by at March 3, 2007 10:37 PM

Only when he's on TV.

And what the hell does he mean when he says that the strategy was "too American"? I remember that the Pentagon, which I assume is an American organisation, explicitly warned about sending too few troops before the war.

Posted by Adrasteia at March 3, 2007 10:46 PM

I hate to get back on topic, but…

The posted rant, like most rants I suspect, makes several assertions that are just plane wrong. I hate being wrong, it embarrasses me, so I either keep my mouth shut when I don’t know something for sure, or I clearly label my comment as an opinion or a guess. So what’s up with people that dogmatically assert things they know nothing about?

“no nuclear power supplies on the lunar surface, no mining systems”

This is flatly incorrect I’ve been paid by NASA for the last 4 months to work on exactly this.

And this

“in-situ resource utilization”

Granted maybe it isn’t being funded to the level that this moron wants, but if that’s the case then just say that.

Posted by brian d at March 4, 2007 12:13 AM

Is Gingrich one of the "idiot talking heads in the MSM"?

Yes. Next question.

Posted by McGehee at March 4, 2007 06:32 AM

This is flatly incorrect I’ve been paid by NASA for the last 4 months to work on exactly this.

I'm sure you will end up producing very pretty powerpoint slides, Brian. I am also confident it will have very little to do with anything that will actually occur on the moon.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 4, 2007 06:50 AM

puckett

The steroids remark really set you off?

odd?

Are you on steroids or do you just have shrunken testicles?

Posted by anonymous at March 4, 2007 07:03 AM

puckett

The steroids remark really set you off?

odd?

Are you on steroids or do you just have shrunken testicles?

Posted by anonymous at March 4, 2007 07:03 AM

They say repeating yourself is a sure sign of Cretinism.

At least I never had to send my Aunt a Mother's day card.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 4, 2007 08:56 AM

Just ignore the troll, Mike. It's not as if those comments are convincing anyone of anything beyond confirming the coward's worthlessness.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 4, 2007 09:25 AM

I know Paul...Its like Todd kicking the asses of Beavis and Butt Head though. Fun, easy and everybody else but Beavis and Butt Head can see them(him) for the losers they(he) are. Admittedly, he is no challenge. Besting him has become too easy. In a way, its like beating up on someone with the intellect of a small, retarded child. Its like Sherlock Holmes versues the retarded kid down the block who eats batteries and his own poop as opposed to a Moriarty.

You are right, from here on, let the Vile, Inferior, Inbred, Sub-human, Jew Hating Moron spew and I will ignore him.

Posted by Mike Puckett at March 4, 2007 09:33 AM

Brian D.

I agree with you. I did a study for Langley on this same issue. Solar electric will do fine to get ISRU going, especially at the lunar poles.

I would MUCH rather spend the money on developing ISRU technology than on nuclear power on the moon.

Posted by Dennis Ray Wingo at March 4, 2007 12:14 PM

Once again the blogosphere gets all giddy about its importance. You're so convinced that the Ares I is a disaster that you fail to notice that you haven't convinced anybody who matters. Outside of the blogosphere, can you cite anybody who actually agrees with this opinion? Has Congress held any hearings? Has any major magazine or newspaper run an article that agrees with this criticism? Have any analysts at think tanks like Rand or Aerospace or Teal Group or elsewhere agreed with this position?

No, it's a bunch of bloggers who nobody listens to telling each other how right they are.

Posted by Kevin Kahlmen at March 4, 2007 03:19 PM

Once again the blogosphere gets all giddy about its importance. You're so convinced that the Ares I is a disaster that you fail to notice that you haven't convinced anybody who matters.

Why do you say this wasn't noticed? From where I sit, it was assumed.

Outside of the blogosphere, can you cite anybody who actually agrees with this opinion?

You need to have your opinions validated by the media before you can allow yourself to hold them?

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 4, 2007 03:59 PM

I would MUCH rather spend the money on developing ISRU technology than on nuclear power on the moon.

Yup. Dennis is spot on again.

Posted by at March 4, 2007 08:17 PM

What is ISRU? Please enlighten the ignorant.
P.S. thanks for returning to space policy!

Posted by Sam at March 4, 2007 09:47 PM

Oler: >> By 2009 we will know if Bigelow, Musk, Bransom are anything more then .coms doing a excersize in turning a lot of money into failure.

An interesting metric to know, how much money that would be by end of 2009 ?
I doubt that it breaks a billion mark, which is not really a huge lot of money, when compared to government-run space efforts.

And with private investments, even if mr. Musk pulls the plug for instance for some reason, there is a chance that someone picks up the pieces, makes his adjustments and runs with it.

Posted by kert at March 5, 2007 02:11 AM

What is ISRU

In-situ resource utilization. For example, manufacturing propellants from lunar materials.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 5, 2007 06:36 AM

Paul Dietz
"I'm sure you will end up producing very pretty powerpoint slides"

Yes perhaps, although we might write a paper too. I guess you were expecting a full scale flight program, sorry, I’ll work harder.

Dennis Ray Wingo
“Solar electric will do fine to get ISRU going, especially at the lunar poles. I would MUCH rather spend the money on developing ISRU technology than on nuclear power on the moon.”

Dennis, I agree with you 100%. I am rather disgusted that this space nuclear power stuff is still around. Here’s how I think that that happened: NASA hired a bunch of space nuclear power advocates for the now cancelled JIMO program and they’re still there! They essentially ignore their new mission and somehow come up with money to study their pet research project.

“ISRU technology”
We’ve done some interesting things here including building a small scale regolith oxygen extraction system. I like building things better than talking about it on the internet, I’ll leave that to Paul. Well back to work.

Posted by brian d at March 5, 2007 01:00 PM

Yes perhaps, although we might write a paper too. I guess you were expecting a full scale flight program, sorry, I’ll work harder.

I didn't mean to imply that ultimate lack of success would be due to any fault of your own, Brian, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear.

Posted by Paul Dietz at March 5, 2007 02:56 PM

Post a comment