The legality of executive action, if the government loses.
Bottom line: The road to fixing this legislative atrocity goes through Congress. But of course, the Democrats will blame Republicans, none of whom voted for it, for this mess.
The legality of executive action, if the government loses.
Bottom line: The road to fixing this legislative atrocity goes through Congress. But of course, the Democrats will blame Republicans, none of whom voted for it, for this mess.
…through better manufacturing?
I hope so. But of course, high-capacity batteries are potentially bombs.
Judith Curry is attending an interesting conference in the UK, and has some formal comments:
Some people regard any engagement of a scientist with the policy process as advocacy – I disagree. The way I look at it is that advocacy involves forceful persuasion, which is consistent with the legal definition of advocacy.
In the code of ethics for lawyers, where forceful persuasion is part of their job description, they are ethically bound only not to state something that they know to be false. Lawyers are under no compunction to introduce evidence that hurts their case – that’s the other side’s job.
Unlike lawyers, scientists are supposed to search for truth, and scientific norms encourage disclosure of sources and magnitude of uncertainty. Now if you are a scientist advocating for a specific issue, uncertainty will get in the way of your forceful persuasion.
In principle, scientists can ethically and effectively advocate for an issue, provided that their statements are honest and they disclose uncertainties. In practice, too many scientists, and worse yet professional societies, are conducting their advocacy for emissions reductions in a manner that is not responsible in context of the norms of science.
Much of climate “science” abandoned science years ago, going back to Schneider.
That would be a cold day in Hell with this gang.
SLS behind schedule? Increase the budget. Commercial Crew behind schedule? Cut the budget.
And of course, Commercial Crew is not in fact behind schedule. If NASA is hedging its bets by buying Soyuz into 2018, that’s because, for good reason, it has no confidence that it will get the needed funding. So Congressional actions become self fulfilling.
Trying to get through it in order to critique it, but it’s long and turgid. Really needs editing.
[Update a while later]
Anyway, the editors at National Review waded through it.
NASA wants to set up a service station.
Seems like if this makes economic sense, it could be done commercially.
There’s only about seven hours to go, and we’re still two thousand dollars shy of the goal. That’s about the same amount of money that NASA spends on SLS in three seconds. Between now and when the window closes, they will have wasted about one and a half million bucks.
I’d say, at this point, given the current trickle, that either we’re not going to get there, or it will come in close to the end, as people are perhaps holding back to see if it will make it without them.
[Update a couple hours before it closes]
OK, doing pretty well. We just need a little over $600 now before 5:30 Pacific. SLS spends that much every second. Thanks for all the new donors, and the upgrades.
[Update about 3:40 PM PDT]
We did it! Over $12,400, and still an hour and a half to go, for those who still want to support the stretch goal of a video, and get the reward. Thanks to everyone who made it happen. Suck it, Shelby.
…is getting us nowhere.
Yes, it’s pointless and distracting. We need to be developing capabilities to go wherever we want. But there’s not enough graft in that.
I should note that while my Kickstarter is about clearing the roadblock to Mars, it’s really about clearing the roadblock to everywhere, which is the false perception that we cannot go beyond earth orbit unless NASA builds a giant rocket. It’s all part of ending the old Apollo cargo cult.
…in India.