A defense of libertarianism by Governor Sanford. Nice to hear it coming from a Republican (one of the reasons I’m not a Republican is that Republicans tend to treat libertarians like the proverbial red-headed step child).
As Goldwater said, extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.
There’s an old saying attributed to Voltaire that “the perfect is the enemy of the good.” There are multiple interpretations of this aphorism, but one of them is that one must often accept the achievable, even if flawed, in preference to the perfect but unachievable solution.
Many defenders of Constellation use this argument, saying that if it’s not the best architecture, it’s good enough, and the only one politically feasible at this time, and that any other solution will only cause further delay. Implicit in this argument, of course, are the assumptions that further delay is unacceptable and that it is indeed good enough. Clark Lindsey points out an amusing analogy that Roger Pielke came up with in response to a similar argument by Paul Krugman that current plans for cap and trade are good enough — “Get on the bus.”
I don’t think that Ares is quite as bad as the idea of jumping the Grand Canyon with a Greyhound, but I do think it a vast waste of money, if our goal is space accomplishment rather than keeping parking lots full in Huntsville. From this space enthusiast’s perspective, it is not only imperfect, but it’s not even good enough. Even in the unlikely event that it is successful by NASA’s own cost and schedule criteria, it will be a disaster from the standpoint of making us space faring, flying far too little for far too much money per flight. The goals of the Aldridge Commission were good ones, and as currently planned, it contributes little to nothing to achieving them. As I wrote Sunday, if we need some additional delay to get it right, then we should do that, if it’s at all possible. And if it’s not possible, then we should just give up on having a useful and affordable space program, because this plan is so far from one that I certainly don’t want any more of my tax dollars spent on it.
[Update a few minutes later]
The goals of the Augustine review have been posted on the federal register:
The Committee should aim to identify and characterize a range of options that spans the reasonable possibilities for continuation of U.S. human space flight activities beyond retirement of the Space Shuttle. The identification and characterization of these options should address the following objectives: (a) Expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS); (b) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low Earth orbit (LEO); (c) stimulating commercial space flight capability; and (d) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities.
I can think of many architectures that would do a good job of those four goals, but Constellation isn’t one of them. It really only supports goal (b), and even that not very well. As Clark says, it will be both sad and amusing to watch NASA’s attempts to explain how it does.
I think, sadly, that Mickey is right:
I had a revealing argument with a politically sophisticated friend–call him “Max”– when the “game changer” charge first surfaced. Max’s argument: Suppose it were a scandal sufficiently big to sink Obama. Any red-blooded Times reporter would be proud to publish it and tack Obama’s scalp to the wall. To have taken down a presidential nominee–that would be a professional achievement, maybe a Pulitzer. They’d be high-fiving in the newsroom.
I think my friend is right about the culture of the newsroom–about 45 years ago. As for today, I think he’s living in a dreamworld. Even if the Times had published such a story, Times reporters would certainly not have high-fived the colleague who’d cost Obama the election. Not after two terms of Bush. And I have no faith the paper would even have published it (before allowing the reporter to slink out of the building). In part, that’s because I have no faith that I’d publish it. The old adversarial ethic–I play my role and let the system take care of the moral consequences–rightly went mostly out the window with the ascension of the Sixties cohort.
Yes, the cohort that thinks it won the Vietnam war (not the one to keep South Vietnam to go communist, but rather the one at home against the Amerikkkan fascist pigs who thought that not going communist was a good idea). And now they work to make sure that America never again wins a war, and that people who favor free minds and free markets never win elections.
…and creeping, creepy ecofascism:
Isn’t it interesting how Dad looks like the sort of delayed-adolescent types most likely to be already concerned about these things, and spending his day working on developing websites for sustainability, hosted on servers powered by methane captured from pig excreta? For that matter, who would like this ad? Wives who regard their husbands as overgrown boys in need of the Moral Guidance of those who will inherit the earth, perhaps…
…One more thing: if the kid didn’t learn these steps to righteousness at home, where did he get them?
The state knows best.
Yes, I understand that there is a desire to salvage the employment of people working on the existing space transportation industry, and particularly the Shuttle components, and that is what is driving the DIRECT design (and Stephen Metschan has weighed in with the conventional false wisdom in comments over there, about the problem with launch costs being one of Isp). The argument is that by using existing parts, we save on development costs. Which is true, probably. If development costs are all that matters.
But, you know, the reason we want to shut down Shuttle isn’t just because it’s “unsafe” (as though safety is a binary condition), but because it kills people at such a high operational cost. And the reason for the high cost? The very thing that they want to preserve, which is the standing army that supports Shuttle.
Now, in the unlikely event I were called to testify before Congress, the first thing that I’d ask them to do would be to ask themselves what goal they are trying to accomplish. Are they trying to accomplish things in space, are they trying to make us seriously space faring, or are they in the business of preserving/creating jobs (note, not wealth)? If the latter, then by all means, come up with Shuttle derivatives. If the former, we need a clean slate.
Sorry, but what some see as a feature, I see as a bug. If people like that feature, then let’s go ahead and keep space access expensive forever. But don’t give us this Bravo Sierra about how it saves money.
How to blame George Bush for Europe’s recession:
Do you notice anything funny about these numbers? Here is what I notice: the recession in the US is milder than that of Europe. Every country on this list had more economic shrinkage from 2008 to 2009 (Q1 to Q1) than did the US.
How could this be? Did they all have George Bush for President? Did they all succumb to free market ideology in the last eight years? Did they all repeal part of Glass-Steagall? Did they all spend wildly on an unnecessary war in Iraq? Did they all bankrupt themselves with out-of-control defense spending?
It’s a mystery.
You’ll be as shocked as I was to learn that NASA’s evaluation of DIRECT may not have been completely impartial:
“NASA’s October 2007 analysis of DIRECT, on the surface, appears to be a carefully executed analysis of the DIRECT architecture and its central launch vehicle, Jupiter,” notes the rebuttal document.
“However, a closer examination of the document reveals significant flaws in the evaluation of DIRECT that sets up a scenario where DIRECT would inevitably look inferior when compared to Ares.
“The errors are so numerous that the only conclusion possible is that this document was not a true analysis, but rather an attempt to discredit the DIRECT architecture.”
I’ve never been a proponent of that architecture, and haven’t even looked at it in any detail or given it much thought, other than that it’s almost certainly better than NASA’s current plans. But that’s a pretty low bar. I think that if we’re going to be investing billions in new launch systems, we should get some that actually, you know, reduce launch costs, and particularly marginal costs. But I know, that’s just crazy talk.
There seems to be no public support for cap and trade, or a carbon tax. Glad to see that many are coming to their senses. Of course, we didn’t really have a choice last year at the voting booth on this issue, because McCain is such an economic ignoramus.
Iain Murray says that there’s never been a better time to reform Air Traffic Control. Though, actually, doing it in the past would have been better. As he notes, though, the politics probably still won’t allow it.
Taylor Dinerman reviews them in the context of the current NASA:
Law number XXIV would seem a particularly good one: “The only thing more costly that stretching the schedule of an established project is accelerating it, which is itself the most costly action known to man.” The urge of many politicians to spend more on NASA’s Constellation program so as to shrink the “Gap” is well known. The impact of such a decision on the rest of NASA, or on the future space exploration program, is obviously something that Mr. Augustine is going to have to look at very closely.
Another insight: “…we are attempting to develop major new systems with ten year technology, eight year programs, a five year plan, three year people, and one year dollars.” Constellation is trying to escape this dilemma by using existing technology: this may work, but it is dangerous since it assumes that the systems involved are already well understood, something that was so heavily critiqued in the 2003 Columbia Accident Investigation Board report.
As he notes, they still hold up a quarter of a century later. They explain well why a government space program is always doomed to disappoint its boosters.