…thirty years on. A little history from Marcia Smith.
I disagree that the NRC “Pathways” report was “excellent,” though.
…thirty years on. A little history from Marcia Smith.
I disagree that the NRC “Pathways” report was “excellent,” though.
Francis seems to suffer from a lack of imagination:
Space analysts said planning and executing a manned mission to Mars would take years and cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
French wants NASA to head in that direction, and he sees next month’s Orion launch as the inaugural milestone in a long journey.
Still, he’s circumspect.
“Unless we build the rockets and test the spacecraft needed to get into deep space, sending humans to Mars will remain a dream for centuries to come,” French said. “Whether Orion will be the vehicle, and whether it will survive the brutal budgetary cycles of Washington politics for the many years ahead that it will need to be funded, is impossible to say. It’s hard to imagine any other method succeeding.
Space historians often suffer from this malady.
It launched 45 years ago today. It was hit by lightning twice, but ground controller John Aaron quickly told the astronauts how to get the systems back on line. Amy Shira Teitel is doing real-time tweeting of the mission.
[Update a while later]
What it was like to be an Apollo flight controller.
I’m pretty sure this is a first.
I should note, I really don’t “worship” Branson. I have a lot of problems with him. My piece was more of a reaction to Kluger’s bashing than a defense of him per se.
There’s a good article over at Quartz about the company and Elon. It had a few errors, though.
@qz You don't need to reach escape velocity to get into earth orbit. You only need about 71% of it.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) October 21, 2014
@qz Also, the Merlin isn't the first US liquid rocket engine since the 70s. The RS-68 was developed in the 90s. But good article overall.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) October 21, 2014
@qz Oops, another error. First stage doesn't get it into orbit, it just gives it a head start. Second stage generally needed for orbit.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) October 21, 2014
@qz Oops, Senator *Bill* Nelson, not Ben. Ben was in Nebraska, and didn't give a hoot about space. Still reading…
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) October 21, 2014
And the response?
@Rand_Simberg @qz thanks for noting these for us, we've corrected http://t.co/9fuM6UrbHg
— Tim Fernholz (@TimFernholz) October 21, 2014
That’s exactly how it should work.
James Dean has an interview with the man himself.
This is the essay I wrote the previous summer as an input to the committee.
He’s posted a brief but complimentary review of the book (it’s buried deep in the post, after his lengthy discussion of his computer tech upgrades):
Safe Is Not An Option, by Rand Simberg is a reliability expert’s look at the space program. The book is discussed at length on its own web site. Those interested in the space program should read it: the book is quite critical of current space policies. It has endorsements from both astronauts and space policy analysts.
His general thesis is that NASA’s obsession, born of the days when “ours always blow up” and brought back with a vengeance by the Challenger disaster, is eliminating all human risk from spaceflight. That doesn’t work and the obsession is a huge obstacle to progress. There will always be risks, and we will always have heroes.
Simberg is an aerospace engineer with considerable experience and his analyses of various space incidents such as the Challenger Disaster are spot on, which is to say, I agree with them. Recommended.
Thanks!
Former Shuttle program manager Wayne Hale reviews a new opera.
…and the science of smug condescension:
Here we see, in action, the signature scientific style of the Neil deGrasse Tyson era. Present a scientific theory in crudely oversimplified form, omitting any uncertainties or counter-arguments. Pass off complex claims as if they are obvious “basic physics.” Then dismiss any skepticism as the resentment of the primitive, ignorant, unscienced masses against their enlightened betters.
Or, you know, file law suits against critics.
It’s not a very good way to get valid scientific results—nor, for that matter, to promote the scientific method. But it’s what we get when we substitute, in place of respect for the actual methodology of science, an attitude of superior posing and smug condescension.
I’d like to say that I was disappointed with the Cosmos reboot, but honestly, I wasn’t that big a fan of the original. But I’d love to buy Tyson for what I think he’s worth, and sell him for what he does.
[Afternoon update]
Some more thoughts:
It seems to me that Neal deGrasse Tyson is a scientist. Heck, I don’t actually know, because I don’t read technical astronomy papers, but I assume he’s published something somewhere, actually done some science in his life. But that doesn’t appear to be his current day job. His current job, near as I can tell, is carnival barker. He’s a salesman, or an advertiser. That’s not science. Inspiring others to want to learn more may be laudable, but it’s not science. Making crap up isn’t science, either, but I’ll let the serial stalkers at the Federalist worry about that.
But here’s a misconception that I’ve discussed before:
Thing is, I’m no scientist. So while I would like to call myself a Science-ist – that is, one who believes in the nature of science and the good results it can produce – I certainly can’t pretend I am a scientist, which is one who does science. Stuff like collecting data, analyzing it, proposing hypotheses, testing hypotheses. You know, stuff that scientists do. Not just looking at cool pictures of galaxies and pretending that makes me smart. (Um, NSFW language at that link)
No. Science isn’t a profession, it’s a way of thinking about the world, and learning about it. Everyone does it, to some degree or another, every day. Check a door knob to see if it’s unlocked? You just did an experiment.
People who believe in “science” as some kind of special realm that “scientists” live in, and that “science” reveals “truth” (as many global warm mongers do, even though they don’t understand the science or, often, even basic math) are members of a religion, that is in fact properly called scienceism. I believe in science as the best means to learn about the natural world, and as the basis for engineering and creating technology, but I don’t worship scientists, and I don’t delude myself that scientific results are “truth.”
Anyway, finally, note this comment:
you make an ass out of neal tyson when it’s pointed out that he has not, in fact, published A SINGLE PIECE of academic work since having talked some committee into accepting the dissertation it took him 11 years (and an expulsion!) to co-author.
no, seriously. if you don’t believe me, you can put his name into the search bar at arxiv.org, where practicing physicists post our preprints:
“Search gave no matches
No matches were found for your search: all:(neal AND tyson)
Please try again.”
In the next comment, he notes that there is in fact one post-doc paper, but it appears that he’s just participating because the actual authors wanted a bigger name on it.
So apparently, the SLF fanbois (and fangirls) going crazy over a giant welder on Twitter.
Malone: @NASA_SLS is going to be the most powerful rocket humans have ever built–which is pretty cool. #NASASocial #weldingwonder
— Rebecca Freeman (@freemre) September 11, 2014
As long as you only want to do it every year or two. MT @freemre rocket that could do anything you ever wanted and then some @davidhitt
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 11, 2014
Can't believe all the tweets in my TL marveling at the "six largest welding tools" building SLS core. These people are obsessed with size.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 11, 2014
You people obsessed with how "powerful" rockets are, are like Tim the ToolMan Taylor. #Binford5000SLS @davidhitt @freemre
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 11, 2014
Never believed that loon Helen Caldicott's phallic-compensation theory of rocketry until I ran into the SLS crowd. Even the women have it.
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 11, 2014
Anyway, I was rereading this essay I wrote half a decade ago. It was depressing. Here’s how little of some of it I’d have to change to keep it relevant to today.