Clark Lindsey also has an interesting analysis of how well Dwayne Day’s prognostications for Mircorp and commercial manned spaceflight from a few years ago have turned out (see February 8th entry).
Nostradamus He Ain’t
Clark Lindsey also has an interesting analysis of how well Dwayne Day’s prognostications for Mircorp and commercial manned spaceflight from a few years ago have turned out (see February 8th entry).
Nostradamus He Ain’t
Clark Lindsey also has an interesting analysis of how well Dwayne Day’s prognostications for Mircorp and commercial manned spaceflight from a few years ago have turned out (see February 8th entry).
The Great Debate
In a “Battle of the Bobs,” Adam Keiper and the Ethics and Public Policy Center hosted a debate between Bob Park and Bob Zubrin. I didn’t think that we’d hear much in the way of new perspectives or new arguments from either of them, and I was largely right, as one can see from the transcript. Clark Lindsey thinks that Dr. Zubrin had the upper hand (see February 7th entry), and I agree. Dr. Park remains firmly in the “science uber alles” camp, which is an unuseful position to take when trying to determine what the nation’s space policy should be. Dr. Zubrin made several good points:
Here’s one that I’ve made before:
I wonder what Dr. Park would have said if he had lived about 50,000 years ago in Kenya, along with the rest of the human race, which lived in Kenya at that time, and received a proposal from someone who thought maybe humans should colonize Europe or Asia. “Those places are impossible to live there. It?s much too cold.” The — you know, if they had robotic probes, “our robotic probes show you could not survive a single winter night in Europe.”
Well, people were able to colonize Europe by technology: clothing, houses, fire. That?s why people can live where I live right now, Colorado, which no one could survive a single winter night in without such technology.
It is on the basis of our technological ingenuity that humans have left our native, our natural habitat, the Kenyan Rift Valley, and transformed ourselves into a global species with whatever, 150 nations, 100 languages, hundreds of literary traditions, traditions of heroic deeds to inspire the future, technological contributions, ideas on human social organization.
On Park’s irrational robophilia:
You mentioned Lewis and Clark. Okay, here we are, 200 years after Lewis and Clark. There is not a robot on this planet that you can send to the grocery store and pick up a bag of unbruised apples, let alone perform the Lewis and Clark expedition. So, if they can?t do a trip to the grocery store, how?s it going to explore a planet?
Now, I?m not putting down the robots. I think that it is excellent to do robotic missions. But, I completely contest the notion as fantastical that a robot explorer on the surface of a planet can duplicate what a human explorer can do.
And along the same lines, I loved this zinger at the end:
ADAM KEIPER: The man who believes in sending robots to space, you can get his book via machines at Amazon.com for $15. Fifteen dollars, Voodoo Science, Amazon.com. So, that?s great.
DR. ZUBRIN: Or just send a robot down to the bookstore to get it for you.
Loathability
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.
Setting The Straw On Fire
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.
And You Think The Catholic Church Has A Pedophile Problem?
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.
Hubble Mission Safe?
I received an email from an astronomer pointing out an article in today’s Gray Lady that says a Hubble mission might be as safe, or safer, than an ISS mission. I’ve omitted the emailer’s name in case there’s any political sensitivity.
While I don’t subscribe to Josh Marshall’s hoax theory about NASA’s new focus, I do believe that the NASA hierarchy has been less than truthful concerning changes to its mission goals. When Sen. Barbara Mikulski called Sean O’Keefe concerning the cancellation of shuttle missions to Hubble, he told her that the decision was a combination of money and safety concerns. Once he heard from her that money might not be a problem, his message changed to that of safety alone. Indeed, Jon Grunsfeld’s first comments about the mission cancellation also mentioned money, but safety has now become the overriding arguement, as it is harder to dispute from the outside.
As an astronomer, I’m concerned about the future of basic astronomical research under the new NASA. NASA has quietly put off for at least a year, perhaps more, funding for its MIDEX and SPEX smaller space astronomical instrument missions and cut back funding for approved programs, and O’Keefe’s press conference about the budget was not friendly to basic science (unless you are studying the science of weightlessness on the human body) or space astronomy. Now, this is NASA’s perogative — as my husband says, none of the “A”s in NASA stand for “astronomy” — but I can’t help but think that the broader public might not be concerned about the decline of the one science everyone seems to find compelling and approachable. And it was Bush’s father who made a similar announcement about big goals for the US space program, which then petered out into nothing. It doesn’t take political animus to fear that current path could lead to little progress.
Anyway, I emailed you because I haven’t seen much sign that, outside of those of us who are directly affected, people have appreciated how much the new NASA focus is pulling money away from space science instrumentation and research. I’d like to see some discussion on this issue.
Well, I’m on record as believing that we ought to go ahead with the flight, and safety shouldn’t even be an issue, but that’s not politically correct these days. But I do believe that’s the primary driver for the decision, and don’t think that O’Keefe is being in any way disingenuous–at least I have no reason right now to think so. Risk assessments are always judgement calls, and while one engineer’s analysis may be perfectly valid, it’s always possible to find others who disagree, and NASA is erring on the side of caution right now, in response to the Gehman Commission and a reaction (and probably overreaction) to what happened a year ago.
However, I think that it’s a little too early to tell whether or not the new initiative will be good, or bad, for space science and astronomy in general. People are inferring from the fact that the Hubble decision was announced after the president’s speech that it was somehow a result of it. It wasn’t. They were both a result of the same root cause–last year’s loss of Columbia.
Actually, history indicates that we have the most vibrant space science program when we have a vibrant manned program as well (though it’s not clear whether that will be the case for deep-space astronomy). For example, as far as I know, Webb remains on track.
But what fans of space telescopes should really be doing is cheering on people working to reduce costs (i.e., not NASA), because that’s going to make it affordable for universities to put up their own suites of multi-mirror space telescopes. And if we really do set up a lunar base, farside will make a great place for a radiotelescope, blocked from the noisy earth.
Vintage Rumsfeld
Can be found here.
…In North Africa, Libya?s leader decided in December to disclose and eliminate his country?s chemical, biological and nuclear weapon programs, as well as his ballistic missiles. In the weeks since, Libya has turned over equipment and documents relating to nuclear and missile programs — including long-range ballistic missile guidance sets and centrifuge parts for uranium enrichment — and has begun the destruction of its unfilled chemical munitions. With these important steps, Libya has acted and announced to the world that they want to disarm and to prove they are doing so.
Compare Libya?s recent behavior to the behavior of the Iraqi regime. Saddam Hussein could have opened up his country to the world — just as Kazakhstan, Ukraine, and South Africa had done — and as Libya is doing today.
Instead, he chose the path of deception and defiance. He gave up tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues under the U.N. sanctions, when he could have had those sanctions lifted simply by demonstrating that he had disarmed. He passed up the ?final opportunity? that was given to him in the UN Resolution 1441 to prove that his programs were ended and his weapons were destroyed.
Even after the statues of Saddam Hussein were falling in Baghdad, the Iraqi regime continued to hide and destroy evidence systematically going through ministries destroying what they could get their hands on.
We may never know why Saddam Hussein chose the destruction of his regime over peaceful disarmament. But we know this: it was his choice. And if he had chosen differently — if the Iraqi regime had taken the steps Libya is now taking — there would have been no war…
…The advance of freedom does not come without cost or sacrifice. Last November, I was in South Korea during their debate on whether or not they should send South Korean forces to Iraq. A woman journalist came up to me and put a microphone in front of my face — she was clearly too young to have experienced the Korean war — and she said to me in a challenging voice: ?Why should young South Koreans go halfway around the world to Iraq to get killed or wounded??
Now that’s a fair question. And I said it was a fair question. I also told her that I had just come from the Korean War memorial in Seoul and there’s a wall that has every state of the 50 states in the United States with [the names of] all the people who were killed in the Korean War. I was there to put a wreath on the memorial and before I walked down there I looked up at the wall and started studying the names and there, of course, was a very dear friend from high school who was on a football team with me, and he was killed the last day of the war — the very last day.
And I said to this woman, you know, that would have been a fair question for an American journalist to ask 50 years ago — why in the world should an American go halfway around the world to South Korea and get wounded or killed?
We were in a building that looked out on the city of Seoul and I said, I’ll tell you why. Look out the window. And out that window you could see lights and cars and energy and a vibrant economy and a robust democracy. And of course I said to her if you look above the demilitarized zone from satellite pictures of the Korean Peninsula, above the DMZ is darkness, nothing but darkness and a little portion (Inaudible.) of light where Pyongyang is. The same people had the same population, the same resources. And look at the difference. There are concentration camps. They’re starving. They’ve lowered the height for the people who go in the Army down to 4 feet 10 inches because people aren’t tall enough. They take people in the military below a hundred pounds. They’re 17, 18, 19 years old and frequently they look like they’re 13, 14, and 15 years old.
Korea was won at a terrible cost of life — thousands and thousands and thousands of people from the countries in this room. And was it worth it? You bet.
The world is a safer place today because the Coalition liberated 50 million people — 25 million in Afghanistan and 25 million in Iraq.
RTWT
Dean’s Strategy
I think I’ve figured it out. He’s going to lose every primary, but make it up in volume.