A (sort of) debate between Paul Spudis and John Grunsfeld. I think that Grunsfeld is far too pessimistic about the moon, but I also think that this debate is irrelevant. Our future in space will be determined by billionaires, not Congress or NASA.
Category Archives: Technology and Society
The Future
Stephen Pinker says don’t be so glum.
My Lawsuit
Yes, there has been a ruling, over two years after argument in the appeals court. I’ll have a comment after discussing with counsel.
[Update a few minutes later]
For what it’s worth, here’s Mark Steyn’s take.
[Update a while later]
Here are the official statements from CEI and counsel:
Statement from CEI General Counsel Sam Kazman:
Today’s ruling simply means this case will proceed and the Superior Court will now consider the merits of both sides’ arguments. The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a staunch defender of free speech and open, public debate, and we are confident we’ll prevail on the merits as this case goes back to Court. As a public figure with his own history of harshly attacking those who disagree with him, Michael Mann must now show that CEI’s commentary met some very stringent standards of malice. It did not, and we will continue to fight against those who seek to punish and harass groups and individuals who speak out on controversial issues.
Statement from Andrew Grossman, CEI’s attorney and partner at BakerHostetler:
Today’s decision throws out half of Michael Mann’s claims against the Competitive Enterprise Institute and sends the others back to the Superior Court for further consideration. We are confident that Dr. Mann’s remaining claims will ultimately fail, because they attempt to shut down speech and debate that is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. Today’s decision only draws out Dr. Mann’s years-long effort to wage “lawfare” against his opponents instead of engaging in public debate.
So, on we go.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here‘s the story from Buzzfeed, FWIW.
[Noon update]
Thoughts from Jonathan Adler.
[Friday update]
National Review‘s formal response to the ruling.
Watching Climate Science Bubbles
…from the outside. Thoughts from Scott Adams, with an interesting idea:
…what if the worst-case scenario is really, really likely, as in the case of climate change disaster? In that case, shouldn’t you manage to the worst case? Well, yes, but only if you are sure the risk is as high as you think. And I don’t see any way a non-scientist could be exposed to both sides of the argument and assign a risk to it.
Given the wildly different assessments of climate change risks within the non-scientist community, perhaps we need some sort of insurance/betting market. That would allow the climate science alarmists to buy “insurance” from the climate science skeptics. That way if the climate goes bad at least the alarmists will have extra cash to build their underground homes. And that cash will come out of the pockets of the science-deniers. Sweet!
But if the deniers are right, and they want to be rewarded by the alarmists for their rightness, the insurance/betting market would make that possible.
It would also be fascinating to see where the public put the betting odds for climate science. Would people expose themselves to both sides of the debate before betting?
The smart ones would.
Warming Up Your Car
Note that the advice only applies to modern cars with fuel injection. Older carbureted ones still need a warm up.
A Useful Experiment
I’ve been watching this Kickstarter project. I was talking to Jon Morse a couple weeks ago, and he didn’t expect it to succeed. He was right; it only raised a third of the million dollars it sought. But it’s a useful market test for private space exploration. Maybe if they shoot for half that. I do think we’re entering a new era of what I call “normal science,” before the Manhattan Project, the Cold War, and Apollo screwed everything up, and things like the big telescopes (the first high-tech astronomy programs) were funded philanthropically.
Satellite Servicing
NASA and DARPA are starting to get serious about it. I’ll probably try to join the consortium, for some business plans I have.
Thiel Versus Sessions
They’re battling over the future of NASA.
Thiel is pushing for a 21st-century space policy. Sessions represents the past, Apolloism, space socialism, and pork. He should stick to being AG.
[Update a few minutes later]
@Rand_Simberg Yes. THE "A" in #MAGA does not stand for Alabama.
— Michael Hendrickson (@theendofself) December 21, 2016
[Update a few more minutes later]
Not sure what “commercial space trade association” Tim Fernholz thinks that Alan Stern leads.
[Update a few more minutes later]
Tim pointed out to me that he’s chairman of the board of CSF, which I hadn’t known, or had forgotten. But I pointed out to him that Eric Stallmer is really the person who “leads” it, which he agreed was fair.
More on this topic from Eric Berger.
[Update a while later]
Not exactly space related, but sort of, in the sense that indefinite lifespan will help with opening the universe, an interesting description of what else Thiel is up to.
Rings, Geysers, and Plumes
Some thoughts on Enceladus, from Carolyn Porco.
Lava Tubes On The Moon
…could be up to five kilometers wide.
Mycroft Holmes, call your office.
[Update a few minutes later]
Speaking of the moon, Paul Spudis has some ideas about how to make space great again. I actually agree with most of it, except for this:
The Orion spacecraft and its SLS launch vehicle are currently in final stages of development, with initial test flights planned for 2018. We can use these existing systems to return to the Moon; indeed, as the remnants of the cancelled Constellation program, they are already optimized for cislunar missions. The only missing piece is a lander to put people on to the lunar surface. NASA’s Altair lander program was cancelled in 2011, but fortunately, a lander may be ready very soon. The United Launch Alliance has outlined a plan for a human-rated lander based around the venerable Centaur stage, using modified RL-10 engines. This vehicle is almost perfectly configured to return people to the Moon, as it is intended to be reusable and utilizes the LOX-hydrogen propellant that we will produce on the lunar surface.
The surest way to ensure that this doesn’t happen is to plan it around SLS/Orion, which will fly so rarely that we will make very little progress. He’s postulating the existence of a ULA lander, while ignoring the firmer plans for Vulcan ACES, which would be the natural way to carry out these mission (Orion might be usable in that scenario, but not SLS, and Dragon would probably be more cost effective). And as usual over there, the comments, particularly from “Bilgamesh,” are idiotic. And even more particularly the fantasy about flying SLS a dozen times a year.