Category Archives: Economics

Economics, Political Commentary, Space

ISS Crew Research Time

22 Comments

It’s even worse than we’ve been told previously:

Suffredini pointed out that ISS operations require 15-17 flights per year and “then sprinkle in EVAs, it’s hard to find time to do research.” EVA refers to extravehicular activity, or spacewalks. NASA has a goal of performing 35 hours of research per week, but the current average is 26.13 hours. He is trying to find ways to “buy back crew time” and looking forward to the era of commercial crew when the typical ISS crew complement will be seven instead of six.

This means that rather than doubling productivity, adding a crew member would increase it by a factor of two and a half. And adding two would increase it by a factor of four (assuming forty-hour weeks — not sure why NASA only has a target of thirty five, or why it’s not even higher, given that they don’t have a hell of a lot else to do up there).

As a way of plugging my upcoming book:

To get back to the bizarre (at least that’s how it would appear to a Martian) behavior with respect to ISS, what is it worth? Of what value is it to have people aboard? We have spent about a hundred billion dollars on it over almost three decades. We are continuing to spend two or three billion a year on it, depending on how one keeps the books. For that, if the purpose is research, we are getting about one person-year of such (simply maintaining the facility takes a sufficient amount of available crew time that on average, only one person is doing actual research at any given time). That would imply that we think that a person-year of orbital research is worth two or three gigabucks.

What is the constraint on crew size? For now, not volume, and not the life support system – I don’t know how many ultimately it could handle, but we know that there is not currently a larger crew because of NASA’s lifeboat requirement, and there has to be a Soyuz (which can return three) for each three people on the station. If what they were doing was really important, they’d do what they do at Scott-Amundsen, and live without. After all, as suggested earlier, just adding two researchers would immediately triple the productivity of the facility. That’s not to say that they couldn’t be continuing to improve the safety, and develop a larger life boat eventually (the Dragon is probably very close to being able to serve as one now, since it doesn’t need a launch abort system for that role), but their unwillingness to risk crew now is indicative of how unimportant whatever science being done on the station really is.

Actually, I should update the book to reflect the new numbers.

Even with the concerns about Dragon issues, I’d bet that there are plenty of people who’d be happy to trust it as a lifeboat right now, though they really should get the new docking adapter up there ASAP. That is really on the critical path to expanding capability. Of course, if they were really serious, they’d do without a lifeboat or ambulance, as Scott-Amundsen does in the winter, and just add crew. I guess Antarctic research is more important than orbital research.

Business, Economics, Health, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

The Cost Of ObamaCare

12 Comments

It will be $1.79/hour/employee:

These changes are spelled out in the 2,572-page law, but many more changes will be imposed by regulations yet to be written. The Obama administration is adding federal workers at a rapid pace to churn out and enforce new rules. The government’s own projections say the cost of health-care administration — bureaucrats telling doctors and patients what to do — will soar from $29 billion when President Obama was first elected to $71 billion by 2020, some $40 billion dollars a year more in bureaucracy.

What a shame: That’s enough money to buy private health plans for fully half of all Americans who are now uninsured because they can’t afford it.

Don’t be silly. That wouldn’t grow Leviathan, and give the government control over our lives.

That crashing sound you hear is people being dropped from coverage, and having their hours reduced, in some cases to zero.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary, Social Commentary

The Makers And The Takers

19 Comments

…and the forgotten men and women:

Now, before you say something in your comments you’ll regret — or should regret — this is not to endorse the freedom-killing and economy-destroying solutions of the left, which only create a nation of rulers and dependents. Barack Obama has been a disaster for the poor and the working class and, I believe, will continue to be so. But to pat a worker on the head with your cigar hand and say, basically, “Don’t worry, little man, an unfettered market lifts everyone,” is not going to win you his confidence or his vote. Reagan never did that. (Read the excellent WaPo piece by AEI’s Henry Olsen at the link.) Reagan always stood up and spoke up for the little guy. He identified with him and explained why his policies would help him. Many of today’s Republicans have lost that knack and given the game away in the process. That’s why the polls showed people shared Romney’s values but thought Obama cared about “people like me.”

It’s largely conservative policies that help the working guy and girl, but you have to let them know that and make sure they understand that government cares about them and will not abandon them if they fall off the bottom rung of the ladder. When one candidate is saying, “Tax the rich,” and the other is calling half the people moochers, both are wrong… but only one will win an election.

Yes, the September/October surprise worked. And Romney was no Reagan. But the good news is that a more ept candidate can make the case to the working class for free markets. But the Republicans have to start caring more about it themselves, and stop coddling big business.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Related thoughts from Paul Hsieh:

…in retrospect, the vote totals showed that Romney’s support may have been deeper than McCain’s in 2008, but not significantly broader.

So in that respect, those GOP rallies indicated something akin to the small-but-intense fan base for Apple computers in the mid-1990s. Of course, one of Steve Jobs’ key accomplishments in the 2000s was to turn that into an LARGE-and-intense fan base for Apple products.

I won’t rehash the “bigthink” arguments about the best next direction for the GOP. I just want to propose that *if* they can improve their message and inspire genuine enthusiasm for a positive pro-freedom agenda, then rallying (and growing) the base won’t be a problem. Although I have a mixed opinion of Ronald Reagan policies, he was an acknowledged master at communicating an inspiring, upbeat message to the voters. If the GOP finds a good message and a good messenger, then the turnout problem will take care of itself.

Yup.