To coin a word, that’s the donkeys’ problem if they nominate Kerry, as looks exceedingly likely. Bush remains likeable, while Kerry seems loathable (particularly to much of the press, which will dampen their normal enthusiasm for Democrats). And it’s not at all clear what the new JFK can do about his loathability index.

Dwayne Day pummels Alex Roland (and others) and their pathetic arguments against the new space policy.

It has been common for various critics of the plan to establish unrealistic strawman arguments that they then demolish in order to try and discredit the plan rather than to debate its merits or shortcomings.

Yes. Opponents of missile defense engaged in similar sophistry throughout the eighties and nineties.

Check this out.

But remember, it’s a religion of peace…

[Update a few minutes later]

And speaking of the religion of peace, here’s an interesting interview with Irshad Manji, on that very subject.

I was going to comment on this idiocy from Patrick Stewart, but a) it wasn’t anything new–he’s been spouting the same nonsense for years, and b) Lileks already did so more than adequately (as usual).

It’s tough to top Lileks when it comes to screeds, and I’m not saying that T. L. James does it, but he’s definitely (as Marlon Brando would say) a “contendah“:

The obvious flaw in such an argument (or its best feature, if you’re the one making it) is that the perfection used as a standard here is impossible. To overcome the usually-cited social, economic, and other problems would require either orders of magnitude more money than is available — let alone what could be applied by diverting what pittance the government spends on space each year — or a complete overhaul of human nature to remove the innate flaws, behaviors, tendencies, instincts, or whatever it may be at their root.

Another only slightly less transparent flaw/feature is that no matter how many of the typically-cited problems an all-out spare-no-expense global effort might succeed in resolving, the people making the argument today would be undeterred from finding other victims who need saving or problems that need fixing before we can even think about going into space.

In that vein, I’d point out that Jonah Goldberg made a similar dumb commentary a couple weeks ago on CNN. Rather than saying that we had to wait until all social problems were solved on earth, and every puppy had a home and no child went hungry to bed, he said that we couldn’t afford to send people to Mars until we’d finished the “war on terror” (the one that he himself has said was misnamed, not being a fan of a war on a tactic). It seems that everyone, even Star Trek fans, thinks that every want on earth has a higher priority than moving us into the cosmos.

But as Thomas, and countless others, including myself, have pointed out, the amount of money spent on space is so trivial, so miniscule in the context of mankind’s other problems, and the ability to solve the space problem with money so much more amenable, compared to them, that the notion that we must wait for them to be solved before tackling that one is ludicrous. While I don’t think that money spent on NASA, per se, is well spent, the notion that we could somehow transfer the NASA budget to some other more worthy cause and somehow thereby solve it is, simply, equally ludicrous.

There are various classes of problems, and saying that we must wait to conquer space until we’ve solved all the ills, social and miltary, on earth is equivalent to saying that we shouldn’t have settled the Americas until we had indisputable peace and prosperity in Europe. Does anyone think that, under those conditions, there would be any significant population here?

Over at The Space Review, Michael Huang proposes a new term for what many of us in the space movement believe–anthropoexpansionism.

While I appreciate the thought, it seems a little too confining (depending on how you define humanity). To me, the important goal is moving life out into the universe. We are currently the means by which that is occurring, but we may at some point (and if/when the singularity occurs, that point may not be that far off) pass on the torch to a new generation of life forms–if so, would the philosophy still apply?

We need a prefix that’s more…expansive, as it were. How about vivoexpansionism? It saves a couple syllables. Or if you’re sufficiently sesquipedalian to be into syllables for their own sake, and want to be more clear, consider vivoextraterrestrialism.

One more lunchtime post.

First of all, go check out The Space Review. Jeff has some more good pieces up, and he’s written one on Saving Private Hubble. He’s got some alternatives to it (as does Jay Manifold). Clark Lindsey agrees that it isn’t worth a half a billion dollars to save it (see February 3rd entry).

But it’s worth pointing out a fallacy here, that’s a consequence of the weirdness of space budgets and costs. We won’t save half a billion dollars by not saving Hubble. That’s the average cost of a Shuttle flight, not the marginal cost, and most of that money will get spent regardless. If we’re going to fly Shuttles at all, we’re going to spend a few billion dollars a year, regardless of flight rate or where they fly to.

The real factor in deciding whether or not to fly the mission is a) whether or not we’re willing to risk the vehicle (I’m already on record as thinking that a reasonable bet, particularly considering the fact that we’re going to shut the program down in a few years anyway, and wouldn’t necessarily miss it that much) and b) the opportunity cost of flying to Hubble, versus flying somewhere else (in this case, ISS is the only alternative). If all conceivable ISS missions are each more valuable to the nation than continued Hubble operations, then Hubble should die. In my opinion, however, a Hubble servicing missions has more value than the delay of any single ISS mission. And risk to crew shouldn’t be a consideration at all. If it’s a valuable mission, it’s their job to risk their lives to carry it out.

Of course, the value of coming up with an innovative way to save Hubble without using a Shuttle launch would be highest of all.

Alex Roland, a former NASA historian, doesn’t think much of the president’s plans. Thomas James doesn’t think much of Alex’ thoughts, such as they are. Advantage, Thomas.

By the way, sorry for the light posting, but I’m working on things having to do with…the president’s space hoax…

Alex Roland, a former NASA historian, doesn’t think much of the president’s plans. Thomas James doesn’t think much of Alex’ thoughts, such as they are. Advantage, Thomas.

By the way, sorry for the light posting, but I’m working on things having to do with…the president’s space hoax…

Alex Roland, a former NASA historian, doesn’t think much of the president’s plans. Thomas James doesn’t think much of Alex’ thoughts, such as they are. Advantage, Thomas.

By the way, sorry for the light posting, but I’m working on things having to do with…the president’s space hoax…

People died.