Category Archives: Space

Space

Reconsideration

OK, I’ve had a long day, I’m coming down with a cold, and I’m tired, but I’ve got one more post before I go to bed, and the day is over. Just in case I do end up posting a little more, because it’s such an important post, I’m going to keep it at the top until the end of the day.

I’ve been really depressed for the last week as a result of the failure of the SpaceX launch attempt. It was a major blow and disappointment not just to SpaceX, but to the whole notion of private space. I’ve gone through a lot of soul searching, and am starting to question everything I thought I believed about the best way to open up the new frontier.

I’ve come to realize that we do in fact have launch systems that work, most of the time, even if they’re expensive. We have a space station, if we could just muster up the gumption to finish it, and start to turn it to the useful ends for which it was intended. Shuttle is risky, but any new frontier is risky. We need to work hard and spend whatever it takes to continue to minimize the risk of losing our priceless astronauts, even if we don’t fly it for another three years. We have a president with a vision, a Congress willing to support it to a degree, and a new NASA administrator (a genuine rocket scientist–something we’ve never before had as a NASA administrator, and isn’t it about time?) with great ideas about how to get us back to the moon quickly (or as quickly as the stingy folks on the Hill are willing to fund).

Maybe it’s just because I’m getting old, or don’t feel well, but I know now that relying on guys in garages, operating on shoestrings, is never going to get us into space. The skeptics are right–Rutan’s done nothing except replicate what NASA did over forty years ago.

Furthermore, I realize now that it’s not important that I get into space myself–what’s important is that the opportunity is there for my children. Or my grandchildren. Or my great-grand children. It may take a long time, because we know that space is hard.

What’s important is that we have to keep striving, keep supporting these vital efforts, never let our interest flag or wane, in getting our people back to the moon, and on to Mars, no matter how long it takes, no matter how much it costs. Yes, it costs a lot, but we are a great country, and a rich one. There are so many other things that the government wastes money on, it’s very frustrating that we can’t get the support we need to ensure that this NASA human spaceflight program, critical not just to our nation’s future, but to that of humanity, can’t move faster. I now realize that Mark Whittington is right, and that there’s a very real chance that the Chinese will beat us to the moon, and lay claim to the strategic high ground. But we must accept that, and work to change that potential outcome, whatever it takes.

Ad Astra.

Space

Limiting The Market

How can I resist a story that combines b00b jobs and space tourism:

Bosses fear the implants may expand and burst due to cabin pressure, according to The Sun…

…Spokesman Will Whitehorn said: “We’ve discovered there may well be issues with breast augmentation.

“We’re not sure whether they could stand the trip – they could well explode.”

June is busting out all over…!

Captain, I dinna think she can take any more…

Also, the picture accompanying the article reminds me of this optical illusion (caution, not work safe).

What does this mean for Hooters Spacelines?

[Some gags courtesy of this thread, where I found the article]

Seriously, this seems a little overwrought. Unless they have gas in them, there should be no problem if they maintain a decent cabin pressure, and if they don’t, burst mammary enhancers may be the least of the problem (and it would make for more entertainment to have more pendulous objects in weightlessness). And for as much money as these folks are spending, I’m sure they could afford an ultrasound to make sure that they’re all fluid, and remove any bubbles from the bubbies with a needle if necessary, preflight.

I’d be more concerned about gee loads during acceleration and entry. Maybe a new crash program in bra technology is required.

Space

Debate

Ken Murphy critiques recent pieces by both Bob Zubrin and Gregg Easterbrook. I may take a shot at the Easterbrook thing myself a little later, if I get time.

I still await the opportunity for an on-line debate on space with Gregg, but he doesn’t seem interested in doing that with anyone who knows what they’re talking about.

[Update at 1 PM EST]

Clark Lindsey has further thoughts:

Seems like he could call a scientist like Paul Spudis or Larry Taylor and listen to their reasons for advocating a return to the Moon. But I guess contrary facts would mess up the flow of his essay.

Space

Much Ado About Not Much

This is silly. There’s nothing either new, or illegal, about NASA administrators endorsing political candidates (though some, thinking NASA some kind of “special” agency, above the fray, may find it distasteful). The Hatch Act was meant to prevent civil servants from being pressured to engage in political activity by political appointees, not to prevent political appointees from committing acts of politics.

[Update a few minutes later]

The problem here is not that the administrator is doing anything wrong in such an endorsement, but that, as Keith Cowing points out, he can’t keep his story straight as to whether he is or isn’t, or whether he can or can’t.

And this email to Dr. Griffin from a “tax payer” is also silly:

When you say that “every effort should be made to re-elect him to office” that sounds to me like a civil servant making an endorsement of a political candidate and a violation of the Hatch Act. I am a huge fan and supporter of the space program. It is hard for me to imagine why it is helpful to tie a corrupt politician to NASA, which needs more federal support, not less, especially when you just had to cut your science budget to shreds.

I am a tax payer and pay your salary and you do not speak for me when you publicly encourage people to re-elect someone who has become less effective since he has been indicted on felony charges. If another NASA employee had made this same speech, would he or she have been fired?

a) As already noted, this is not a violation of the Hatch Act.

b) Whether or not Tom Delay is a “corrupt politician” is a matter of opinion, not fact (and in fact will remain so even if he were to be convicted, though the case for it would obviously be stronger).

c) Whether or not such an endorsement increases, decreases, or has no effect whatsoever on public support for NASA is purely speculative (my opinion is the latter).

d) The notion that just because someone is a taxpayer, all public officials are “speaking for them” is ludicrous and illogical. Even ignoring the fact that he puts forth no reason why anyone would conclude that a taxpayer’s views are somehow being represented by public officials’ statements, consider the inherent contradiction, since many public officials say many things, often at odds with each other. How could anyone think that they all speak for our confused emailer without their head exploding?

e) Finally, yes, some other NASA employees could potentially get in trouble for making such a speech, because they would be covered by the Hatch Act. Not all NASA employees are equal, despite the egalitarian ideals of some NASA idealists.