The brutal truth about Californians.
When I first moved out there thirty years ago, it was unusual to run into a native Californian — most people you met were immigrants from other states (or countries). I suspect that’s less true today, but modern native Californians are a different breed from those of an earlier era, and they’re running their own state into the ground. They don’t appreciate the natural bounty of the place, and seem to have an entitlement mentality.
Let me preface this post with the point that I despise the general notion of tipping service people. This is partly because I dislike the notion of service people, period. That is, I don’t like people “serving” me (which may partly explain my antipathy to nanny government). Whether it’s the Jew, or Scotch in my ancestry, unless I can’t, I’d rather do it myself, if I have to pay for it. I hate to pay people to do something that I can perfectly well do myself (when loading luggage into a courtesy van, or checking into a hotel, I feel like a driver being extorted by a squeejee guy, being expected to provide a gratuity for a service that I hadn’t requested).
Now, having said that, I understand the economic model behind restaurants. The waitpeople are underpaid as a base salary, and expected to supplement their meager income via tips performed for better service. I get that.
What I also get is that it is a subtle implied form of extortion. If you’re a regular, if you’re a lousy tipper, don’t be shocked if over time your food becomes adulterated with the bodily fluids of the staff, and takes forever to get to you, and is cold when it arrives, and may not even be what you ordered. On the other hand, if you tip great, you’ll be treated like royalty from the planet Krypton.
But let’s talk about a different form of service. I’ve been on the road a lot lately, and not just for a night or two in a given place, but for days and weeks at a time. I’ve never (OK, not never, but rarely) done this, but my understanding from reading travel mags and such, is that it is also de rigeur to tip the people who clean your hotel room. On one of our many trips to Golden, CO over the past three months, we stayed at a Marriot Residence Inn, at which on Valentine’s Day, the maid left a chocolate with a note wishing us a good one. It seemed an obvious plea for a tip.
But here’s the thing. There is a difference, and a crucial one, between serving you food, and changing your sheets.
In one case, there is an ongoing personal interaction, and in the other case, there is…not.
When you go out to eat, the waitperson is your personal interface to the establishment. The establishment recognizes this when it encourages said waitperson to be chipper and cheery and say, “Hi, I’m Lance (or Kristi!), and I’ll be your waiter/(waitress) this evening.” There is a personal relationship, perhaps more so than you want, but it’s there regardless. And you know and they know, that if your order is taken, or dinner delivered, too late, it will be reflected in the additional compensation on the bill.
But cleaning a room is different. It generally happens when you’re not present, and you don’t even know the gender of the person doing it (though there’s generally a good guess), let alone their name or what they look like, or how chipper and perky they are. There is no personal relationship.
But isn’t there the same extortionate potential?
I suppose. They could fill your little shampoo bottles with hydrofluoric acid (though the containers would be unlikely to survive until you get back to the room and can pour it onto your noggin). They can short-sheet the bed (which I find that lot of them do as a matter of policy…).
But basically, there’s not a lot of variation in the possibilities of what they can do for your room, other than giving you little gifts (like chocolates) in the hope that they will be more than sufficiently compensated via your gratuity.
It seems to me that there is a basic service (like cable), that shouldn’t require bribes to get. In my ideal world, you should expect to get such service without having to a) pay more than is on the menu or room rate and b) try to figure out just how much more you should pay. Tipping waitpeople should occur only if the service is really great, not just adequate (and they should hope for some adverse event that they can overcome to really earn their additional pay). And this really makes it hard for hotel servicefolk, because there is so little opportunity for the personal interaction that can really provide opportunities to earn tips. I’d really rather live in a society in which basic service was included in the bill, the prices on the menu (or hotel rack rate) reflected the full cost of hiring people to provide the services being paid for, and any additional compensation was a result only of extraordinary (break that word down, folks) service.
But apparently I’m in a minority. Or else, this is one of those perverse situations in which everyone hates the system, but doesn’t see any good or safe way to transition to one better.
…that don’t ask the right questions. It’s pretty clear that the agenda of these pollsters is to try to persuade us that we actually support the monstrosity that the Dems seem to remain determined to foist on us.
Charles Miller, Senior Advisor on Commercialization at NASA HQ, is leading a panel talking about applications for not only the suborbitals but also things like weightless aircraft. Purpose of panel is to discuss program and identify issues. Makes the point that the fifteen-million bucks in the budget is going to be leveraged to the hilt, and they also want to use it to maximize “disruption.” Turning it over now to Doug Comstock (his boss) to talk about parabolic flight.
Doing things because NASA needs the services. Larger budget for technology within the agency means that NASA will need more technology testbed flights in the environments, so greater need for programs like this. FAST was set up to do this for parabolic flights, and CRuSR (suborbital flights) grew out of it. Idea was for NASA to provide ride for free, but source of technology would pay for experiment. Flew nineteen last year, third from industry, third from government (mostly NASA), third from academia. Call will go out next week for technologies to fly this year. Looking for portfolio of demo capabilities to get technologies out of the lab and into missions. Will also include things like drop towers and thermal-vacuum chambers.
Next up Marine Colonel Paul Damphousse, from National Space Security Organization (NSSO). Currently detailed away from NSSO, but speaking for that office and not current job. Has three customers/partners — DoD, DCI, and NASA. Do architecting and studies, including things over the horizon. Some of this interest grew out of SUSTAIN back in 2002, in which it was conceptually proposed to put Marines on the ground anywhere quickly. Doesn’t expect it to come any time soon. They recognize it as a future need, that needs enabling technologies to provide spiraling path to that capability. Saw a lot of interesting potential in the private sector, and held series of workshops and technology fora to see how people would meet missions. Immediate application of vehicles being discussed here are to have one in a forward area, lob it up and take pictures. Other apps, high-speed logistics supploy, delivery of unmanned reconaissance, etc. Goal is to leverage capabilities coming on line, and figure out how to catalyze useful things. Sees a whole host of synergies with what’s happening today.
Michelle Brekke (sp?) from JSC. She is here to ask what industry needs to be innovative and successful. Already partnering with several companies along these lines, but unrelated to CRuSR. “Making space for business.” Leverage example: loaned an ISS payload rack that wanted to build its own interfaces and be compatible. Another: providing S-Band frequency that they don’t need right now for their comm needs. Could provide real-time telemetry for these new vehicles. Her experience is payload integration for Shuttle/ISS. Interested not just in low-cost access to space, but low-cost utilization. Five discussion points: 1) Suborbital is potential quality assurance and risk mitigation for orbital 2) Low-cost utilization needs KISS for integration process, better is the enemy of the good 3) Provide a payload integration service, don’t make experimenters learn all of that — payload integrator becomes advocate for the user 4) Industry should establish common form and interfaces — need USB-like standards for standard services 5) Readily-available integration hardware –keeps users from having to build or procure it themselves.
Head of CRuSR (didn’t catch name) talking now. Team consists of Bruce Pittman, Richard Mains (from Ames), Yvonne Cagle and a couple other names I didn’t catch. Need to be responsive to STEM/education. Concerned with safety, which is in no way associated with COTS, ISS or orbital human safety standards. CRuSR safety will be overseen by Dryden, and it will be a while before they will be flying NASA-sponsored humans. In the past NASA owned all responsibility/liability for safety. In the new environment, they are going to buy space for payloads. If they’re sharing a ride with ESA, Malaysia, a university payload, they’ll have to be assured that not just the vehicle, but the accompanying payloads are safe for their own. Need for organizations that can support not just safety, but FAA regulations and licensing (which NASA has no role in), including payloads. Need to be able to provide customer not only with environment, but the process of getting a ride. Repeating need for standardized interfaces. Most launch providers would prefer that payloads not be integrated in any way other than structurally (less services the better). Wants to stimulate discussion about all these issues. Putting up a long chart of them.
The discussion kicks off with a long discussion of payload integration issues. I point out something that I realized tonight, and had never thought about before. The FAA is responsible for third-party safety, but not second-party. In other words, the launch licensing process not only doesn’t address passenger safety currently, but it also doesn’t address payload safety. As long as the payload doesn’t blow up the vehicle, and squash an endangered species or foreign national on the ground, they don’t care whether it works or not. So payload integrators are going to have to worry about interactions with other payloads, because no one else will.
[Update a while later]
I got caught in a side discussion outside, and now my battery is dying, so probably no more blogging until I get back to my room (twenty miles away in snow) or in the morning.
…of ignorance. The amazing (and frightening) thing is how alien the concept of moral hazard is to people running this country.
…is worse than the disease. You wonder why more of the media doesn’t point out this logical disconnect. And then you think back to the 2008 campaign, and you remember.
…but the health-care power grab is almost certainly unconstitutional.
I’ve been talking to a lot of people at the conference, and not capturing much of it, but Clark Lindsey has been monitoring the blogs and twitter feeds.
Gary Lai is speaking for Blue Origin, describing the New Shepherd program. “Famous for being quiet.” Keeps their marketing and PR budget small. Also have a culture in the company to focus on results, rather than plans. When flight milestones are hit, they’ll discuss results in detail. This conference is the first in which any Blue employee has presented details to the public. Chose this conference because it is a market that (unlike tourism) must be built up. Also see opportunities for customers during flight test, when they won’t even have crew aboard. Company’s focus is on human spaceflight and launch. Everything they develop is planned to be fully reusable. Obsessive about human factors and safety systems, with emphasis on frequent launch operations.
Two locations: Kent, WA, and Culberson County, Texas (about two hours drive from El Paso). Only dedicated launch facility (no other users) in the US. On large rangeland, one of the least populated counties in the US. Been flying for about three years.
Vehicle designed for three or more astronauts to suborbital altitudes. Two separate vehicles — propulsion module and crew capsule, separate before entry. Both fully reusable and optimized for fast turnaround with small crew. Crew escape capability with abort propulsion system in crew module. Early prototype of propulsion module named Goddard, and final design may not look like that.
Showing chart of payload accommodation (comm, power, mass, windows, data interfaces, mechanical interfaces, microgee levels, etc.) Can offer both pressurized tended payloads, and mouts for external environment. They’ve selected three experiments to fly, and provided payload user guides to the experiment teams.
Alan Stern: Last summer they said we couldn’t get fifty people together for a meeting like this — it was for tourists, not teachers and researchers. But look around the room to see all of the latter. Thanking Lori Garver, George Nield of the FAA, conference organizers (USRA, Southwest Research Institute, Commercial Spaceflight Federation). Thanking corporate sponsors, and speakers and staff.
On the verge of a revolution in spaceflight. Will open up access and reduce cost; comparing it to PC revolution. Wants to have a marriage of research and education, and the suborbital industry. Welcome to 21st-Century spaceflight.
Mark Sirangelo coming up now.
Space industry one of the ultimate team-organizing activities. Industry going through amazing changes. Thanking the people at NASA HQ taking on major challenges of making needed change at NASA. Talking about CSF. Conclusion of remarks.
Lori up now.
Glad to be back in Colorado (she went to Colorado College in Colorado Springs). Privileged to talk about the very exciting time at NASA, one of the few agencies that got a budget increase in the request. Also very risky, and change is hard (not everyone at NASA as excited as people in this room). We’re the figure skaters — doing wonderful, beautiful things on very thin ice.
Six billion dollars will fund climate change, space research, and green aviation. Extending space station to 2020 (Obama spoke to astronauts on ISS yesterday). Said “We want to let you know that the amazing work is a testament to the extensive ingenuity, skill and courage and demonstrates why his commitment to NASA is unwavering. Need to think about new ways of the role of government and industry in opening up space. Want to allow more companies, markets, jobs to be developed, and NASA should be a big part of the future of opening up space. Quoting Bolden, who dreams of the day that any American can go into space and see the wonders that he did. The new NASA wants to make space something that Americans can do more than just marvel from afar. Thanking some of the folks in the room who tutored her back in the eighties (e.g., Gary Hudson) on these issues. Need resources and will that all of us can muster, and competition of the marketplace. This conference is about suborbital, Commercial Reusable Suborbital Research Program (CRuSR) gets several million dollars in 2010, with more in the future. Fifteen million dollars requested for 2011 (misspeaks and says billion instead of million, but corrects to laughter). Anticipates that over time, will allow many students and researchers to fly. Extension of parabolic aircraft program that has been very successful at Purdue. Reading emails from students. “Life changing experience, and easily most valuable course taken at\ Purdue.” “One of the highlights of my experience, even after work in industry.” Noting her own interest in commerical spaceflight, including her training for a ride on a Soyuz. Wanted to provide inspiration for her own kids. President challenged NASA to bring back inspiration, and encourage kids to enter STEM fields. Want to continue to keep America a beacon to the rest of the world. NASA will continue to do that, where a child overseas thinks that she wants to be a part of that. Think about emerging companies — opportunity to make that leap, not just for this generation but the next. Notes that many founders have already made their millions in the past, and now see space as the next big thing to do. Recognizes that this is risky, but NASA learns to manage risk. Anything in life, and particularly the great thing, involve risk. NASA is going to treat these spacecraft the same way they have high-speed research in the past, which is why they’re assigning oversight to Dryden. On the cusp of an exciting time. Going to open space to the American people. Risks are there, but they’re worth taking. Glad to be here, and sees it as the starting ground (though a lot of us have been in the basement for a long time). Can’t wait to take next steps together. Ad astra.
Pete Worden up now.
Good opportunity to get into trouble with your boss speaking just ahead of you. Talking about NASA Ames (his center) the second original NACA facility. Talking about the history. Thinks that NASA is, and should be, returning to its NACA roots. Showing slides of the airships developed at Ames in the early twentieth century. Airships were a new exciting wave of transportation in the twenties and thirties. Macon was based there (airborne aircraft carrier). Brief history of aviation from first flight to first transcontinental flight (1911), first airliner. Talking about how it was driven by entrepreneurs, but government played a key role with airmail subsidy, which led to a robust airline industry in the 1930s. Led to a rise of people taking risks with their wealth. Another key element was the barnstormers, in which people took risks. Talking about safety while showing a picture of a wing walker. First rule of wing walking: never let go of what you have your hand on until you have the other hand on something else. From twenties to forties, NACA assisted industry by doing basic research and providing facilities, and developing new technologies that enabled industry be more profitable and grow. In the fifties it led to early space capabilities, which led to NASA. Sees current NASA as reliving those golden days to support a new entrepreneurial industry, this time in space transportation. Showing a chart, from airmail, to COTS, to CRuSR. Talking about near space (too high for aircraft, too low for satellites, previously known as “ignorosphere”). Upper-atmospheric research, four minutes of microgravity (compared to half a minute in aircraft). Key elements in place: science, players in the private sector, will lead to robust orbital capabilities. Showing the companies involved in the industry, and members of the Commercial Spaceflight Federation. Issues: safety, funding, users, legal and bureaucratic. Will have to go through congress, and we need to describe to them the benefits of the new approach.
George Nield up now.
Talking about last week’s FAA commercial space transportation conference. Recent events: Masten’s win of the LLC, rollout of SpaceShipTwo, Congressional renewal of indemnification. Very exciting times for commercial human spaceflight. However, a little troubled by another brand of reaction that is less enthusiastic and very intense. Has been seeing too much disappointment, disdain, and even ridicule of commercial space transportation. Critics small in number, but vehement. Treating commercial launch like a kid who just got his license, and proposes to drive grandparents across the country. Pointing out that commercial flight has a couple decades of success. Not a rookie in the business. Commercial Space Launch Act approved in 1984, and amendments approved in 2004. Yes, crew is relatively new, but much of it will be based on success of cargo experience. Change makes people uneasy, and it’s legitimate to raise question, but not to raise fears of an industry that has served America well, and will continue to do so in the future. Safety is biggest question, of course. Much as he wishes it were, safety is not an absolute. Safety is a mindset, a professional tension where everyone involved is always on alert and determined to get it right. Even then, it cannot ever immunize anyone against harm. Rockets are dangerous, the FAA knows it, industry knows it, and the people involved are doing everything possible to make spaceflight as safe as it can be. Giving history of X-planes between 1946 and 1965. A couple thousand flights, twenty-seven accidents, and four fatalities. Century series (F-101, F-102, F104, F-105, etc.) flown extensively. F-100 had a hundred, F-104 had several hundred. German Luftwaffe killed over a hundred pilots in Starfighters. These suborbital vehicles will not be pushing the envelope like those aircraft did, but they’ll be more like them than commercial transports. Space Launch Amendments act anticipated this, with the goal of continual improvement. Pointing out the statistics for one year (thousands of auto accidents, hundreds of general aviation). No form of transportation is perfectly safe. Not trying to fend off criticism by pointing out in advance that there will be bad days, but rather that they are doing everything they can to minimize them. Space transportation has been risky, and will continue to be. Congress knew that, and directed FAA to develop regs for commercial human spaceflight, and they’ve done so. Risk is with us, and means to overcome it will continue. Questions should be asked, and issues, raised, but should be done constructively, with best tools we have. Believes that American’s space program is recreating its past greatness, and wants to get on with it.
Next speaker Alan Stern (prime instigator of this conference).
The fifteen million that Lori talked about is only a proposal. We will have to be the foot soldiers to get Congress to pass it. Risk is not new to scientists and educators (bottom of oceans, tops of mountains). Talking about educators and scientists killed in space. People in this room familiar with risk (notes Dan Durda flew F-18s for research purposes). We accept risks knowing that they’re real, but small, for great gain, and the risk is worth the reward. Talking about Research and Education missions (REM). Hopes that people here will be even more turned on at the end of the meeting than at the beginning. Five different companies building suborbital vehicles, a unique time in history. Tourist prices $200,000, but that’s inexpensive for government and industry research programs. 190 nations on earth — virtually all can afford space research/education at these prices. Research programs buy dozens to hundreds of flight, and come back for more. Estimated REM market over five years is thousands of seats. This is big market for now, and will help drive prices down to expand tourist market. Lori’s seventy-five million over five years will buy a lot of tickets. Possibilities of new vehicles “blows his mind” as a researcher. Ten times the zero-gee time of aircraft, and a hundred times cleaner. Direct access to the “ignorosphere” every day, watching seasons and weather change. Repeat flights on one-day turnarounds, unlike a grad student who will spend entire career on one experiment, if lucky. Worldwide launch basing, ability to launch at specific times, rapid access to samples, test subjects, etc. No longer just a few astronauts, but hundreds or thousands of researchers and tourists, provide much larger data base for space adaptation. Experiments will have fast turnaround, with less paperwork and cheaper payloads, and allow people to fly with their experiments (making it more like other types of science). Robots don’t do this kind of space science best. No other field is automating their labs — NASA has done it only of necessity. Listing sciences: atmospheric, life, earth, oceanography, space physics, astronomy and solar physics, instrument test and demo, microgee, public outreach. After WW II, we captured a lot of V2s that were launched out of New Mexico, and few initially knew what to do with them. Whole fields were born from that experience. People in this room are early adopters, like Van Allen was in the fifties. We are at the very dawn of an opportunity to fly things on a routine low-cost basis. Ask yourself what next-generation suborbital can do for you. Go out and evangelize with your research community.
[Update a while later]
I think that the conference is being streamed here.