Not just because of the damage they cause to our property, but because they generate ten times as much CO2 as all of human fossil-fuel combustion?
If that’s true, the policy implications would seem sort of profound.
Category Archives: Technology and Society
The Space Policy Mess On The Hill
Michael Listner (at his new space-law blog) has a good description of the difficulty of reconciling the House and Senate bills.
However, even if the learning period expires next week, George Nield knows that both houses want to extend it, and he’s not going to waste any resources trying to suddenly start rule making.
Coffee
…is turning out to be an unlikely elixir.
It’s the only reason I choke down the swill every morning.
And please, no recommendations about how I’m just not making it properly. I’ve had lots of coffee from people who assure me that it is how coffee should taste. It always tastes like coffee to me (i.e., terrible).
Alone On Mars
Would Mark Watney have been able to stay sane?
I think it’s realistic to think he’d have been fine, as long as he had some level of hope, and tasks with which to occupy himself.
Growing Tomatoes
This is the sort of thing we’re going to have to figure out. But at least we’re building an unaffordable monster rocket.
Eating Food On Other Planets
I'll bet Mars bars would taste much better on their planet of origin. #Fresher https://t.co/scXue2Cjuw
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 22, 2015
The Glomar Explorer
…is going to finally be scrapped.
Seems like a shame. It’s an interesting bit of history. Might make a nice toy for a(nother) billionaire.
Of course, it appears that Paul Allen is building the equivalent for space.
The Latest Review Of “The Martian”
From space historian, and mission controller Jim Oberg. Interesting discussion in comments.
[Tuesday-afternoon update]
Another review, from Alex Knapp.
[Bumped]
How We Get To Mars
Rick Tumlinson channels me in this Space News op-ed:
If settlement is the goal, Apollo redux is dead. Giant expendable government rockets hurling government employees and return vehicles at Mars won’t cut it in the long run. The main reason to do so is government public relations, as the heroes return and share their stories. If settlement is the goal, we send other kinds of PR heroes — settlers — who land and live out their days on camera, building the first community as more and more follow. Again, it’s different models. One model works for government, the other for private ventures. And since the one-way model is so much cheaper, and the people who will have working one-way systems first are private sector, they may well beat the government to Mars.
He proposes a much more viable approach, but for now, it’s politically unrealistic. Congress doesn’t want to send people to Mars. It wants to build big rockets.
"If settlement is the goal, Apollo redux is dead." And if settlement is not the goal govt HSF is a waste of money. http://t.co/GM5ksrGSvC
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 21, 2015
[Afternoon update]
Keith Cowing isn’t impressed.
“You Have Signed The Death Warrant For Science”
Thoughts from Judith Curry on the latest insanity in climate “science”:
What you have done with your letter is the worst kind of irresponsible advocacy, which is to attempt to silence scientists that disagree with you by invoking RICO. It is bad enough that politicians such as Whitehouse and Grijalvi are playing this sort of political game with science and scientists, but I regard it as highly unethical for scientists to support defeating scientists with whom you disagree by such methods. Since I was one of the scientists called out in Grijalvi’s witch hunts, I can only infer that I am one of the scientists you are seeking to silence.
Other kinds of people who don't ask the govt to prosecute their critics, but it's definitely unscientific behavior. https://t.co/6ZecjeypiK
— Rand Simberg (@Rand_Simberg) September 17, 2015
[Late-afternoon update]
Mark Steyn: Twenty more disgraces to the profession.
[Bumped]
[Saturday-afternoon update]
Tim Ball’s thoughts on the Climate Monster over at WUWT:
Their RICO charge is so ridiculous it hardly warrants a response, but it does require scientific perspective. It is important to note that none of the authors of the academic peer reviewed papers and books, they claim provide the evidence for their charge, signed the letter. It is likely that most, if not all of them or their institutes, receive funding from a government beyond their academic or government salaries.
The RICO charge is a particularly nasty form of ad hominem attack. By applying it in the global warming case, it tries to make criminals out of people doing their job properly. The real criminal part of their enterprise is that skeptics are doing what scientists are supposed to do, that is disproving the AGW hypothesis. They accuse these properly named scientific skeptics of performing the scientific method, either through ignorance of the method or to silence them. The twenty, like the IPCC and its supporters, directly or indirectly thwart the scientific method by accepting the hypothesis as proven. They then deflect or ignore overwhelming evidence that the hypothesis is wrong including failed predictions (projections). They consistently refuse to consider the null hypothesis.
The attack is not surprising because the IPCC created a monster and were driven to keep it alive. Once you create the monster it becomes uncontrollable and even if it becomes a threat to society, the creator will resist its destruction; worse, you have to keep feeding the monster and will take extreme measures if necessary. This inevitability is the moral message of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein.
You know who needed a RICO investigation? Bill and Hillary Clinton in the nineties. Not people trying to do science, and trying to prevent awful policy based on shoddy science.
[Bumped again]