Our immortality, or our extinction?
I think that’s a matter of how you define “us.”
Our immortality, or our extinction?
I think that’s a matter of how you define “us.”
The FAA is taking the first step toward granting them (in a sense). It doesn’t say how big an exclusion zone would be provided. But this is unprecedented. I assume this topic will come up at the conference tomorrow or Thursday.
How robust is it?
Not very. Certainly nowhere near enough to base policy on it.
I was very impressed by Bakker’s intellectual integrity and courage in tackling this topic in the 11th hour of completing his Ph.D. thesis. I am further impressed by his thesis advisors and committee members for allowing/supporting this. Bakker notes many critical comments from his committee members. I checked the list of committee members, one name jumped out at me – Arthur Petersen – who is a philosopher of science that has written about climate models. I suspect that the criticisms were more focused on strengthening the arguments, rather than ‘alarm’ over an essay that criticizes climate models. Kudos to the KNMI.
I seriously doubt that such a thesis would be possible in an atmospheric/oceanic/climate science department in the U.S. – whether the student would dare to tackle this, whether a faculty member would agree to supervise this, and whether a committee would ‘pass’ the thesis.
Epistemic closure.
[Update a few minutes later]
The alarming thing about climate alarmism:
In short, climate change is not worse than we thought. Some indicators are worse, but some are better. That doesn’t mean global warming is not a reality or not a problem. It definitely is. But the narrative that the world’s climate is changing from bad to worse is unhelpful alarmism, which prevents us from focusing on smart solutions.
A well-meaning environmentalist might argue that, because climate change is a reality, why not ramp up the rhetoric and focus on the bad news to make sure the public understands its importance. But isn’t that what has been done for the past 20 years? The public has been bombarded with dramatic headlines and apocalyptic photos of climate change and its consequences. Yet despite endless successions of climate summits, carbon emissions continue to rise, especially in rapidly developing countries like India, China and many African nations.
Because all of the hysteria, name calling and outright lies have appropriately destroyed their credibility.
Can it survive without a radical restructuring?
Nope. SpaceX is disrupting space programs all over the world.
I missed linking this article at The Space Review by John Strickland.
The real problem with space policy is not that we can’t decide where to go, but that we can’t decide why.
This guy doesn’t think so.
…why the time seems right.
This year’s version is out.
I haven’t read yet, but I’m sure I will. It will be useful fodder for a new edition of the book. Note that while it criticizes Commercial Crew for a lack of transparency, SLS/Orion come in for more substantive criticism from a safety standpoint.
Manufactured by directed self assembly.
Just realized that it’s almost thirty years since Eric’s book was published.
Yesterday was the 48th anniversary of the loss of three astronauts on the launch pad, in preparation for the Apollo missions. A child of the space age, I remember it particularly well, because it occurred the day before my twelth birthday. A little over nineteen years later, on my actual birthday, Challenger was lost. I recollected it on the sixteenth anniversary of the event.
Today is the twenty-ninth anniversary of that tragedy, and while I commemorate it, I also celebrate the completion of my sixtieth trip around the sun, over eight thousand miles from home. I’m in Israel to attend a conference named after Ilan Ramon, an Israeli hero who died a dozen years ago on February 1st, when Columbia disintegrated in the skies over east Texas. That anniversary coming up with Sunday, by which time I’ll be home, if all goes according to plan, to celebrate with friends and family, but also grieve for the losses. Yet as I point out in my book, such losses are inevitable, and necessary, perhaps even at a faster rate than once per generation, if we wish to accomplish much greater things than we have in space over the past six decades since my birth.