Category Archives: Media Criticism

The Lunar Tardigrade Mess

Loren Grush has probably the most comprehensive story to date on what happened, and its implications.

I’m concerned with statements like this:

While the Arch Mission Foundation didn’t violate any official international regulations for space contamination, the nonprofit may have put Israel and the US in a vulnerable position by not explicitly asking for permission first. And the tardigrades are part of a growing trend of companies that are sending things into space that don’t have any scientific value without prior approval.

…”What’s the point?” Linda Billings, a former consultant to NASA’s Planetary Protection Office and a current consultant to NASA’s astrobiology and planetary defense programs, tells The Verge. “To me, it’s just the height of arrogance to say this is what I want to do and I’m going to do it even though it serves no public purpose. There’s no benefit to humankind.” The Arch Mission Foundation claims they are making a backup of human history, but Billings notes that other organizations, like the Lifeboat Foundation, are already taking on this endeavor, too.

The US has been fairly relaxed about people sending things into space that do not serve a scientific purpose. Numerous art projects — such as Rocket Lab’s disco ball-like satellite, the Humanity Star, or Trevor Paglen’s Orbital Reflector, a giant inflatable balloon connected to a satellite — have gone up into orbit. Those have irked astronomers, who fear these reflective objects will mess up their sensitive images of the night sky. Most notably, SpaceX launched its CEO’s sports car into deep space during the inaugural launch of the Falcon Heavy, sending the vehicle on an orbit around the Sun that crosses paths with the orbit of Mars. [Emphasis added]

There is an implication here that there is no purpose to civil space activities other than science and “exploration” (“space exploration” is a phrase that I hate, because it implies that it is an end, rather than a means.) The late great Tom Rogers used to tartly reply, when asked why he wanted to go into space, “None of your goddamned business!” But the OST was written in an era in which space = science was the prevailing view. Fortunately, it has sufficient ambiguity that we can probably still develop space while remaining compliant. I may write an essay somewhere about this topic (I sort of did three years ago, but not in the context of the OST). I think that, in light of this incident, we need to broaden the conversation of why we do the space activities that are “the province of all mankind,” because we’re going to be getting a lot of pushback from people like Linda and the other “anti-colonialists” about space.

[Afternoon update]

I have some more thoughts over on Twitter.

The Red August

As tyranny seems to be descending on Hong Kong, remembering the bloody Cultural Revolution of 53 years ago.

And Bryan Preston has four questions.

[Update a while later]

The China challenge.

[Friday afternoon update]

“American flags in Hong Kong show that people still fight for our values. We should join them.”

I think he’s right, but there’s too much Trump bashing in here. Trump is not the problem.

[Bumped]

Trump And Gun Supporters

Is he following in the footsteps of George H. W. Bush?

This has always been the problem with Trump: He doesn’t have any firm ideological principles and is first and foremost a populist. This would be an opportunity for him to explain why these things won’t work, but it’s not clear that he even understands that, and instead he is going along with them.

Max Boot

I used to admire his writing, but he has become the poster child for Trump derangement:

Before yesterday, my primary criticism of the Washington Post’s Max Boot was political in nature. As I wrote in a recent book review, I found it regrettable that Boot’s opposition to the president had not prevented him from “succumbing reactively to Trump’s cult of personality, or from making Trump the origin of every graph onto which he plots himself.” As of yesterday, my primary criticism of the Washington Post’s Max Boot is that he is a narcissistic, dishonest, calculating, manipulative writer who is prone to engaging in precisely the sort of willfully dishonorable conduct that he claims to disdain in others.

Tell us how you really feel, Charlie.

When a former conservative is telling you to vote for Democrats (as George Will did as well in the last cycle), particularly the Democrats currently on display in the primary campaign, you know that he has gone completely around the bend.