Like Mushrooms After A Rain

Power blackouts bring out ideas for solving the energy problem. MSNBC has an article today reviving an idea that’s been around for over three decades now–beaming power from space.

Unfortunately, they only talk to my old friend Dave Criswell, so the discussion is focused on the Moon, and there’s little/no mention of solar power satellites. Maybe I’ll talk about SPS in my Fox column this week.

What Will Cause The Next One?

The Orlando Sentinel has a list of other issues that, like the falling foam, NASA has been ignoring, any one of which might destroy another Shuttle Orbiter.

“Some people still involved in the program confided to me that they have been awakened in the night with nightmarish pictures of the vehicle cartwheeling off the pad,” said Bill Heink, who retired in 2000 as site director of The Boeing Co. shuttle operations at Kennedy Space Center. “The potential is there.”

For Want Of A Nail…

The Gray Lady has the most comprehensive explanation that I’ve seen yet about what caused the blackout. It’s (thankfully) pretty much politics free.

Summary: it was caused by failure of not only power lines, but of the devices that warn of failure of power lines.

This is utterly unsurprising, because with a mature technology (which, after more than a century, electrical generation and distribution assuredly is), you’ll almost never get a major failure from an isolated event. It requires a(n unlikely) combination of failures, which is why it happens relatively rarely (the last time anything remotely like this happened was over a quarter of a century ago–the fact that this one was the biggest in history can be accounted for simply by the fact that we’ve grown a lot in many ways since then, and the system is more interconnected).

Examples of this can be seen in any random perusal of aviation or diving magazines, in which accidents are described in detail, and they are invariably a result of a combination of things going wrong, rather than a single one.

Consider the Titanic. Just one thing going right (e.g., seeing the iceberg in time; not using a little-understood new steel that became embrittled by the temperatures of the North Atlantic in springtime; the captain understanding that he had to have forward power to have adequate steering control, which was not possible because he decided to reverse engines at the same time he was trying to steer away; other ships being close enough, or the California receiving and understanding the radio messages; having enough lifeboats; going at a safe speed rather than trying to beat a record, etc.) and they would have been fine. But everything went wrong, and hundreds of people died.

Or the Donner Party. If there hadn’t been an early winter, or they hadn’t decided to take the “short cut,” or…many other bad decisions had been avoided, they would have been safe in California before winter hit, as their traveling companions were.

Or Challenger. If the weather hadn’t been quite so cold, if they’d understood the o-ring issue earlier, if they’d not been delayed by the previous delay caused by the desire to fly the Congressman, if only…

Or Columbia. If they’d been going to space station, if they’d not changed the insulation on the tanks for environmental reasons, if…if…if…

As I said, rarely does a single thing going wrong cause disaster. It’s almost always a combination of things going wrong, and this article just presents one more example of that.

Identifying The Culprits

M. David Stirling has an editorial today that points that, while Davis is indeed a dud, California’s problems cannot be laid exclusively at his feet. The state has been run into the ditch by the dominant liberal Democrats in Sacramento.

While it’s not news to anyone who’s been paying attention, what’s surprising about this piece is the newspaper in which it appeared–the San Francisco Chronicle.

Jobs Versus Wealth

Jane Galt has a righteous rant on economic illiteracy, and specifically the bizarre notion that disasters (like this week’s blackout) are good for the economy, because they create jobs for people who have to clean up the mess. As I said in her comments section, this is due to an inability to distinguish between wealth creation, and job creation.

The two are, in fact, entirely independent of each other.

Jane’s example (which I often use myself) of hiring people to move holes from one location to another provides jobs, but it creates no wealth at all.

On the other hand, if I write a story, and put it out on the net for people to read, and people enjoy reading it, then I’ve created wealth in the sense that I’ve improved their lives, but no jobs were created.

Sadly, it’s a fallacy to which space enthusiasts (and particularly NASA enthusiasts) are prone as well. Often, when touting some program, they talks about how many “jobs” will be created in Houston or Huntsville, or in the district of some California contractor. And when someone says that “money is wasted by sending it into space,” they assume that the critic is stupid, or confused, and respond, “Not a single dime is sent into space. We don’t fill up the rockets with bushels of money and send it off to Mars. Every dollar is spent right here, on good old Mother Earth.” And even more amazingly, they say it as though it’s a useful rejoinder.

But of course, they’re attacking a strawman, because no serious critic of the space program literally believes that we are shipping currency to the heavens.

As Jane said, it’s all about opportunity costs. Any government expenditure is going to create jobs. The issue is whether it will create anything of value, other than paychecks for favored people.

Smart Move

Arnold has disavowed Warren Buffet’s nonsense about California property taxes being too low. If anything, I think that Mr. Buffet’s little anecdote demonstrates not that California taxes are too low, but that Nebraska’s are way too high.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!