Space

It’s The Assumptions, Stupid

1 Comment

Clark Lindsey has some thoughts on NASA’s latest attempt to justify Ares, including the usual red herring about “man rating” (a phrase that I would purge from the vocabulary, had I the power).

…the initial conditions are the real problem. Griffin insisted on absolutely minimizing in-space assembly and avoiding unproven technologies such as propellant depots, even when such technology is close at hand and would tremendously expand space access capabilities for less money. These requirements lead to big and heavy throwaway payloads for the lunar exploration architecture.

I don’t know who the maligners of small vehicles are that she refers to in the article but I remember that there was a lot of bias within NASA towards a Shuttle replacement, i.e., a vehicle with similar crew and cargo capability. I’ve always thought the Shuttle was far too big for a first generation attempt at an RLV. Starting small, learning what works and doesn’t work, and growing vehicles over time seems like the sensible development path.

Of course, today I don’t think NASA should develop vehicles at all. Instead it should do R&D on leading edge technology the way NACA did for aviation and DARPA does today for general aerospace technology. Let Lockheed-Martin, SpaceX, etc. battle to offer the cheapest space access services.

And he is correct, Shuttle was never man rated. Which is one of the reasons why it’s disingenuous to claim that the Ares first stage is man rated because it was a Shuttle component (particularly since, with the additional segment, it’s become a new motor completely).

I’m a little confused, though, by his citing me, when the link goes to Jon Goff. I think that I have in fact pointed to Mike Griffin’s flip flop on the issue, but it’s not in any of Clark’s links in the piece.

[Update early afternoon]

This was the last time I commented on the man-rating canard, a couple months ago.

Administrative, Space

Job Bleg

46 Comments

I’ve been running my trap lines with my contacts, but I might as well see if any of my readers know of anything. The blog doesn’t pay the bills, and I’m kind of at the end of my financial tether, so if anyone is aware of any jobs out there in the industry, I’d appreciate a tip. I can relocate, but my preference would be either the Denver area or southern California, due to existing housing.

[Update a while later]

For those interested, a brief version of my resume can be found at my personal web site. I’m looking for work in space systems engineering and management, preferably manned space. I could also do temp work, though that’s kind of hard for the big companies under the FAR, unless I come in through a job shop, which skims a lot in overhead for no value added.

[Friday afternoon update]

For those suggesting that I try to make a living writing columns, I’m already doing that as much as I can. There’s no way that it will pay my bills, even if I did it full time. It just doesn’t pay that well. I have to be earning on the order of several tens of dollars an hour to keep ahead of them. The only place I can do that is in the space industry.

I do appreciate all the kind thoughts, though.

[Friday evening update]

Several have commented that I should put a tip jar up. I’ve had one up for years. Unfortunately, it’s not Paypal but Amazon, but I think that you can use any form of payment with it. Is it not appearing in the upper left corner?

Not that I’m asking for handouts, but the thought is appreciated.

Political Commentary, Science And Society

Good Point

33 Comments

I’ve often made this argument, but never as concisely:

The Right believes in biology, but not in evolution; the Left believes in evolution, but not in biology.

It’s a little oversimplified (as is any statement about the “Right” or the “Left”), but a good generalization. Of course, when it comes to sexual orientation, the Right doesn’t believe in biology, either. But I think that the Left is much more prone to a belief in the Blank Slate myth.

Business, Economics, Political Commentary

Economic Idiocy

7 Comments

The Dems are finally starting to come to their senses about energy production, but not quite:

One idea floated by Reid would require that whatever oil is drilled in newly opened areas would need to be sold in the United States.

This is pure, unadulterated economic ignorance. Senator Reid, go to the board and write one hundred times, “OIL IS FUNGIBLE.” WTF difference does it make where the oil is sold? The important thing is to get it on the market. If we are pulling new oil off the north slope, it might make sense to ship it to Japan, improving our balance of trade with them, and relieving them of the cost of shipping it all the way from the Persian Gulf. It might in fact make sense to simply ship new oil from the Gulf of Mexico to Gulf refineries, but that should be a market decision, not an arbitrary and idiotic political one. “Energy independence” is an economic myth.

And then, we have this:

Democrats also want any compromise plan to include investments in clean and renewable energies, a crackdown on oil speculators and proof that the oil and gas companies are fully utilizing land that is already leased for exploration.

What does a “crackdown on oil speculators” mean? It’s called a futures market, and a lot of people play. It serves a function of reducing risk for many in the industry. “Speculation” is simply a dirty word for “investment.” This new scheme where people can buy gasoline ahead of time at a fixed price? That’s speculation, folks.

And this:

“If they were showing in good faith that they were drilling on some of the 68 million acres they have now, it might change some of our attitudes,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.).

So, in order to get access to leases with high potential, they have to waste their money drilling on leases with low potential? Brilliant.

The only way to change the attitudes of people like this is Economics 101. And I doubt if even that would help.

Political Commentary

What Do They Want?

5 Comments

A rainbow hole? An African-American hole?

This is as ignorant and stupid as the complaints about the use of the word “niggardly.”

Actually, now that I think about it, it’s also as dumb as complaints about my proper use of the word “fascist.” A subject on which Jonah Goldberg has some further thoughts today:

People say fascism means brutality, therefore liberalism isn’t remotely fascist. It works as a debater’s trick, and it’s certainly a source of real opposition to some of my arguments, but it doesn’t work as an actual argument in the true sense of the word.

One can use the same “argument” about Communism. “Communism is about brutality. Liberals aren’t brutal. Therefore liberalism has nothing to do with Communism.” The only difference here is that for reasons discussed at length in this space and in my book, the man in the street doesn’t equate Communism with brutality to the same extent he equates fascism with brutality, even though Communism is just as brutal as Fascism. I think that’s a problem that needs to be combated rather than surrendered to.

I simply don’t think the woeful state of popular ignorance should be considered a powerful argument against the accuracy of historical truth.

Nope. As he says, if that makes the job harder, so be it.

Political Commentary, Space

The Next NASA Administrator?

10 Comments

Ferris Valyn has some candidates. Most of them seem implausible to me. The only ones that I can imagine are at all realistic are Patti Grace Smith, Lori Garver and Pete Worden (the latter would certainly shake things up, which is one reason that he almost certainly won’t get the job). Certainly Hansen has nothing in his resume that would qualify him–he’s a scientist.

Of course, much depends on who the next president is. One likely name not on the list, assuming that McCain wins: Craig Steidle.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!