Potpourri CXIII

Today's little doses of the different:

The U.S. Science & Engineering Festival, the first national science festival, will be happening in Washington, DC, October 23-24, 2010.

From Dar, Data in the Cloud from Dallas to Mars. This article on the blog Shepherd's Pi talks about Microsoft's latest search engine system, which appears to be a sort of hyper-Google, designed both to compete with Google and to do things they can't do, like assign meanings or draw trends from very large sets of data.

From Yohon, a link to a new science/space publisher.

From ABC News, of all places, a report that jobs the Obama administration claims to have saved or created exist in congressional districts that don't even exist. I'm shocked, shocked...

From Doc:

• A link showing what Stormtroopers do on their days off. Fantastic!
• The T-shirt of the week from Cafepress.com

Want to be a Martian? NASA has a web site for that.

From NASAWatch (really?): Help choose the best public service announcement in support of NASA.

If you're interested in the works of an honest-to-gosh Rocket Scientist, check out the web site of Les Johnson, a very smart fellow whom I've had the pleasure of chatting with, reading books by, and participating on a panel at a sci-fi convention with. Les is an excellent writer because he is also an excellent and patient teacher--he takes the time to explain very difficult things in words that illuminate without insulting the reader. These are all good skills to have.

From AIAA:

• Richard Branson, founder and owner of the Virgin family of companies, wants Virgin Galactic to eventually fly tourists around the Moon. Great, if he can do it and I could afford it.
• A UCF professor was profiled in the Chronicle of Higher Education for his efforts to promote zero-gravity experiments on privately built suborbital rockets.

And that'll about do it for now.

Potpourri CXII

First, I need to get this out of my inbox because it hit there about 12 times. For those of you not in the know--or not Time Magazine subscribers--the Ares rockets were named Time's Invention of the Year. Apparently there's a voting process, though, so go to the site here and work with their system and cast your vote. Nice to have a little moral support, even if the aerospace press is trying to write off Ares as dead on arrival.

*

From Lin, several articles on the "progress" of nationalized healthcare and other activities by the Obama administration. I must confess I've stayed tuned out from the news and even talk radio for awhile now. It improves the mood, and I've got more fun things to do with my free time like exchange text messages with Dr. OZMG. Anyhow, if you are interested in such things, here you go:

• An editorial by Thomas Sowell (part 4--no doubt parts 1-3 are available online as well).
• An Investor's Business Daily article on the state of the financial industry.
• A Michelle Malkin editorial on the tactics used by ACORN.
• A Forbes.com editorial on the state of capitalism.

*

This might actually be a bigger story than Ares I-X, but what the heck, my work priorities come first: the Lunar Crater Observation and Sensing Satellite (LCROSS) impactor has produced data indicating the presence of water ice on the Moon. This is HUGE. As I indicated in a previous posting on the day of the impact, if we find water ice on the Moon, we can build long-term bases and permanent settlements there. Human civilization can expand this one world with its limited resources and at-risk biosphere. Bravo to the LCROSS team for this historic find!

*

On a completely personal note, I spent some time with a "planned giving" counselor from my Lutheran church synod setting up an outline for a will. No, I'm not planning to die anytime soon, but then neither did a young couple I worked with at Disney 15 years ago, and their affairs were left entirely in the hands of their respective families as the two died without a will. The end result was that the couple were buried in separate states. Do the deceased care? Probably not, but human beings tend to be sentimental about such things; and the only end result was probably a lot of bad blood between the survivors. Now being a single guy I don't have inlaws to argue with, nor do I have a particularly complicated or dire financial state. But there are things I would like to do for my family and friends in the event I shed this earthly coil. It's really a simple process, so if you haven't done it and you're no longer living in your parents' home, you should probably have a will. Here was a general overview of the items we discussed:

• Assets - what kind I have and what they're worth.
• Debts - what kind I have and how much I owe.
• Beneficiaries - whom I want to get what out of my estate; in my case, members of my family would get the bulk of my estate, with specific items going to other individuals, as I see fit.
• Distribution - which assets it makes most sense to give to whom; for example, it's better to distribute the items with the largest monetary value and lowest tax rates to those highest on your priority list and to work your way down from there.
• Planned Giving - how much of my estate I wish to donate to charitable causes (in my case my local church and the Wisconsin Synod in general).
• Terminal Care Instructions - What sorts of statements I want in my will regarding "terminal care" in the event I'm incapacitated.

No, this isn't particularly fun to think about, but it is useful for assessing the state of your life and your priorities. Next up: talking to a financial planner about increasing my assets so there's more for me on this side of death and more for my inheritors afterward. Jeez, this turning-40 thing is so...adult.

Stuff from the AIAA

From today's AIAA news feed:

• Whups...Tailcone Falls Off Boeing 777 During Flight.
• NASA Administrator Signs Letter Of Intent To Join Mars Program With ESA.
• LaserMotive Wins Second Place At Space Elevator Games.
• Japan Seen As "Serious" About Space Based Solar Power
• Bolden Sees Flexible Path As "Attractive" Option
• Vatican Conference Seen As Example That Astrobiology Is Mature Field

Is Space Advocacy a Matter of Altruism or Self-Interest?

The short answer is yes...to both.

I had the pleasure of reading a paper by my friend Dr. OZMG concerning the role of altruism in particular professions--in the case of her paper, people going to school to become counselors--but the paper caused me to think about how altruism applies to the arguments used to sell space exploration, development, and settlement.

So what, precisely, is altruism? OZMG's paper defines it nicely as "concern for the welfare of others and/or actions toward that end." One might improve that definition by stating this concern for others implies that the actions done for others are done so without regard to a thought for personal gain, as opposed to self-interested motives, where individuals do things that help others merely to enhance their own social standing or opinion of themselves.

Space advocates have a mixed relationship with altruism, which is partly due to the way space was first "sold" to the public. While the Soviet Union and then the United States launched satellites in 1957 and 1958 as part of the International Geophysical Year, a worldwide scientific endeavor to help the worldwide scientific community learn more about the Earth (arguably an altruistic enterprise), there was no doubt that the two Sputniks and Explorer I represented objects of international competition. Sputnik in fact scared policy makers and media types in the U.S. because there was an assumption--correct, as it turned out--that a rocket capable of launching a 180-pound sphere into orbit could also launch an atomic bomb of even larger size to a target anywhere on Earth.

Nevertheless, the superpowers did their best to put benevolent faces on their respective space programs, even though both used primarily members of the military for their astronaut corps. The first communication satellites were launched and quickly transformed the shape of worldwide perceptions and news broadcasts to the point where "live via satellite" is now taken for granted.

Arthur C. Clarke, science fiction writer and inventor of the geosynchrononous communications satellite, declared in the mid 1980s that his invention had, in fact, made the world a safer and more peaceful place, as it has informed developed nations of imminent and past humanitarian crises while also preventing dictatorships from committing atrocities for extended periods simply because the news of their depradations can no longer be hidden. At best, the record of communication satellites as contributors to world peace has been mixed. True, they have alerted the world to hurricanes, tsunamis, and earthquakes, and allowed humanitarian aid to be sent more rapidly than might have been the case otherwise. And on the credit side of politics, satellites have brought the world the images of dissidents squaring off against tanks in Tianenmen Square along with the massacres of Muslims in Bosnia. However, similar images broadcast from Rwanda and Zimbabwe, while just as compelling, have not moved the international community to take action.

More positive altruistic benefits can be seen from weather, environmental monitoring, and search-and-rescue satellites. Weather satellites have been tracking and warning people on Earth of oncoming hurricanes and other storms for over 40 years. Environmental monitoring and land use satellites like LandSat have allowed farmers to detect healthy and unhealthy crops, environmental damage, erosion, and crop yields. And search-and-rescue satellites launched by all of the spacefaring nations have been used to detect and send compassionate aid to ships in distress on the high seas.

Military observation satellites, too, have a mixed record and at least on the surface cannot be said to be altruistic in their purposes. However, satellite imagery has been a critical tool in verifying compliance with nuclear weapons treaties. The most famous military satellites have been the Global Positioning System, or GPS. Originally designed--and still used--to help military units on the ground, in the air, or at sea pinpoint their position and those of their enemies, GPS satellites now have secondary civilian benefits through onboard automobile maps, travel location devices, and even games like "geocaching," where hikers find "treasures" simply by their GPS coordinates. And while GPS-guided bombs cannot be seen as altruistic, they have enabled U.S. military units to more precisely hit targets, reducing civilian "collateral damage."

So, again, satellites as technologies can be applied both to altruistic and non-altruistic purposes--with some satellites performing both functions at the same time.

What about other arguments used to "sell space?" On the altruistic side of things we might credit space exploration with contributing the following direct or indirect benefits:

• New scientific knowledge, from the Sun to the planets of this solar system to the stars and distant galaxies brought to us by the Hubble Space Telescope. The knowledge and images these tools have brought humanity give us all a better understanding of the nature of the universe and our place within it.
• New technologies, from lightweight plastic lenses to CAT scans and MRIs to charged coupling devices, originally used to examine images on Hubble and now used to detect breast cancer. The "spinoffs," while often resulting in profits for the companies leveraging them, are perhaps one of the best examples of exploration serving humanit on Earth, albeit not directly or immediately.
• New resources. While we have yet to tap fully the enormous power of the Sun via space solar power or to tap the potential of helium-3, a more benign element for producing nuclear fusion, the exploration of space has allowed us to expand our horizons and consider less harmful sources of energy to power our world. Power sources are not the only resources available in space. Low-Earth orbit (LEO) offers a unique microgravity environment and high-purity vacuum for developing new materials. The surface of the Moon offers an atmosphere-free location for performing dangerous research that would create harm on Earth, while its Far Side could be used for placing telescopes away from the radio noise of our bustling planet.
• New places to live. We are still not at the point where we can ensure long-term survival of humans on other worlds, but we will be eventually. The ability to spread human life beyond this world could be one of the greatest gifts of the Space Age, especially if our world is struck by another "dinosaur-killer" asteroid.
• All of these activities have led some--not all, but some--of our young people to become inspired to get better educations in the sciences and engineering and then to produce other products and services that benefit humanity. While a second- or third-order effect of space exploration, inspiration for education cannot be overlooked. It even causes English majors to go back and get advanced degrees so they can work for NASA, so stranger things have happened.

Of course we cannot overlook the less altruistic reasons human beings have expressed for going into space. These include:

• New Markets. These include orbital hotels, space-based entertainment, remote-controlled robots on the Moon, and eventually cruises around and to the surface of the Moon. No one can pretend that such things are for anything other than personal enjoyment. That's not a bad thing, but not an altruistic motivation.
• New Resources and Markets. Right now if we found mountains of gold on the Moon, it would still be more cost-effective to dig for more here on Earth because there's no launch system capable of low-cost access to our nearest celestial neighbor--at least, not yet. And even if resources such as gold or more importantly water are found on other worlds, they will be of most value to people living and building businesses in space rather than people back home. That's fine, as space offers the opportunity for a whole new economy to be formed. But as every economist going back to Adam Smith can explain, economics is not a study in altruism.
• New Freedoms. This is an argument Robert Zubrin makes in The Case for Mars. If Mars or other worlds are opened up to immigration and prisoners of conscience are allowed to establish new, free societies there that lead to better lives for their citizens, that must certainly count as a form of altruism. However, it must be admitted that any new freedoms desired in space are most likely the result of individuals or groups not getting what they want for themselves on Earth. Still, the United States and its citizens have been the largest donors to humanitarian causes in history, and those donations were made possible by a very self-interested capitalism.

So where does that leave us? As with most human activities, space exploration offers the chance for us to indulge our personal desires but also to seek the good of others. It remains for future space advocates and the audiences they reach to determine which motives will ultimately bring us closer to the stars.

A Step Closer to Socialized Medicine

So late last night the House Democrats managed to pass their version of nationalized health care in a 220-215 vote--a squeaker, but still a win. I cannot emphasize enough what a bad idea this is. This particular bill, in any case. There are ways to ensure that every American and legal immigrant has access to health care. Vouchers--payouts, coupons, checks, call 'em what you will--would be easy and much cheaper. And the legislation would be very short, as it would only require proof of no insurance, a dedicated source of funding, and a sunset clause for individuals who manage to get a job or their own insurance. You do NOT need additional taxes on new medical devices. You do NOT need penalties, fines, or jail time for people who do not WANT insurance. You do not need business-killing regulations covering illegal immigrants, when hospitals nationwide have already closed their doors because they were already compassionately covering people without insurance. You do not need this government "guaranteeing" supposedly low-cost insurance. They can't do it. This is the same government that...

• Continually increases the cost of college educations.
• Spent the Social Security trust fund/"lock box" in the world's biggest Ponzi scheme.
• Despite $5 trillion spent on the "war on poverty," has somehow managed not to eliminate poverty.
• Cannot keep a space exploration program funded.
• Creates $400 hammers and $600 toilet seats for the Department of Defense.

The point is that NOTHING the government has done has been made cheaper, and in fact is very often made more expensive just by its presence in the economy. In the name of doing something for one segment of the public, our government will take away the freedom of others. Note again that if this bill passes, you will be arrested and thrown into prison if you do not have health insurance.

There are, in fact, people who deliberately choose not to have health insurance but have enough money to pay doctors directly as they go. Others are young and stupid and think they don't need it. Others would rather spend money on cable TV or nights at the bar. So if someone does not have health insurance by choice, it's none of the government's business.

It's time to rethink a government policy--led by our president and championed by his allies in Congress--that says government has the right to force you to do something for your own good. Now I know someone will say, "Yeah, but government forces you not to commit murder, steal, etc." Not the same at all. We are talking about optional activities. Items that fall under the umbrella of freedom and things not in the Constitution. Freedom used to connote the freedom to use it badly. Consider the idjits who win Lotto and go broke buying multiple cars and houses. They might be stupid, but they've got the money and they're free to use it as they see fit if it doesn't harm anyone.

If government can dictate that everyone gets health coverage, they can tell you that you must live your life in a prescribed "healthy" manner to reduce their costs. "What's the difference between that and businesses?" someone might ask. It's really simple, and this is why I trust businesses infinitely more than governments: a private insurance firm will give you a discount for healthy living (for example, my insurance company reimburses my health club membership up to $150 a year). If government is telling you to live healthier to be elligible for insurance and you don't, they throw you in prison. Can I make this any clearer? You do not want the government to have this much power over you, even in the name of "doing something for you."

And again, this WILL cost more. So Washington will raise taxes to pay for this. Except that raising taxes takes more money out of the economy that otherwise would be used for private investment and spending. You might recall that there's a recession on--10.2% unemployment and rising. If companies have to pay for part of this healthcare mandate by the employee, it makes sense for them to have a few employees as possible. Therefore, they will NOT hire more people and unemployment will stay high or increase. This is not going to help the broader economy, it will hurt very badly.

Call your senators and write them. Stop this. Please. I intend to. Repeatedly.

Potpourri CXI

Not too much today, but here are a couple of sites for your reference...

From Kraft and Triscuits, my favorite cracker for the last 30 years or so, a site called "Why Snackrifice?" The point of said site is to show how Kraft cheese/cracker combinations won't break the bank. I've got a cousin working advertising at Kraft, but I don't know if she's managing this site. Might have to ask. Anyhow, since I'm still employed, my grocery habits have not changed, and Triscuits are a regular part of the dietary rotation. My gratuitous shill: enjoy some today!

From Karla, my former thesis advisor, a reminder that Thursday is World Usability Day. What the heck is that? you might ask. Here's what they say:

World Usability Day was founded to ensure that the services and products important to life are easier to access and simpler to use

Karla also sent a link for the World Usability Day site at the school she's teaching at now, Michigan Tech. Useable products--from cell phones to rockets to user instructions--are good things. It takes more thought up front to make things easier for the user downstream. Sort of like an "effortless" prose style that is graceful and easy to read usually requires many, many drafts. So think before you dump junk on the product shelves--or on your readers!

Potpourri CX

Friday night, and I've got an inbox to clear out. Consider yourself warned.

What has the space program done for you lately? Check out the NASA Spinoff site.

Extra credit info from Hu: The X-37B is scheduled to fly in April 2010.

Want an opportunity to help the space program? The letter posted here is being passed around Capitol Hill to get members of Congress and President Obama to support a markup of $3 billion to NASA's human spaceflight budget. This is necessary if we are going to get the Constellation Program on the right track. Truth be told, NASA needs an extra $3B per year for the next 20-30 years or more to develop a truly useful exploration program that pushes the boundaries of technology and sends humans to really cool places. But heck, you've got to start somewhere.

This press release from my NASA PAO feed deserves to be quoted in full:

From: NASA News [mailto:hqnews@mediaservices.nasa.gov]
Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 5:52 PM
To: NASA News
Subject: NASA and X Prize Announce Winners of Lunar Lander Challenge

Nov. 02, 2009

Sonja Alexander
Headquarters, Washington
202-358-1761
sonja.r.alexander@nasa.gov
RELEASE: 09-258

NASA AND X PRIZE ANNOUNCE WINNERS OF LUNAR LANDER CHALLENGE

WASHINGTON -- NASA will award $1.65 million in prize money Thursday to a pair of innovative aerospace companies that successfully simulated landing a spacecraft on the moon and lifting off again.

NASA's Centennial Challenges program will give a $1 million first prize to Masten Space Systems of Mojave, Calif., and a $500,000 second prize to Armadillo Aerospace of Rockwall, Tex., for their Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge flights. The competition was managed by the X PRIZE Foundation.

The Northrop Grumman Corporation is a commercial sponsor that provided operating funds for the contest to the X PRIZE Foundation. An awards ceremony for the winning teams will be held at noon on Nov. 5 in room 2325 of the Rayburn House Office Building in Washington. Journalists should contact Sonja Alexander at 202-358-1761 for more information about the ceremony.

The Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge involves building and flying a rocket-powered vehicle that simulates the flight of a vehicle on the moon. The lander must take off vertically then travel horizontally, flying a mission profile designed to demonstrate both power and control before landing accurately at another spot. The same vehicle then must take off again, travel horizontally back to its original takeoff point and land successfully, all within a two-hour-and-15-minute time period.

The challenge requires exacting control and navigation, as well as precise control of engine thrust, all done automatically. The rocket's engine must be started twice in a short time with no ground servicing other than refueling. This represents the technical challenges involved in operating a reusable vehicle that could land on the moon.

The prize purse is divided into first and second prizes for Level 1 and Level 2. Level 1 requires a flight duration of at least 90 seconds on each flight and Level 2 requires a duration of at least 180 seconds. One of the landings for a Level 2 attempt must be made on a simulated lunar terrain with rocks and craters.

Masten Space Systems met the Level 2 requirements by achieving accurate landings and captured the first place prize during flights of their "Xoie" (pronounced "Zoey") vehicle Oct. 30 at the Mojave Air and Space Port. Masten also claimed a $150,000 prize as part of the Level 1 competition.

Armadillo Aerospace was the first team to qualify for the Level 2 prize with successful flights of its Scorpius rocket Sept. 12 in Caddo Mills, Tex. Armadillo placed second in the Level 2 competition, earning a $500,000 prize.

The average landing accuracy determined which teams would receive first and second place prizes. The Masten team achieved an average accuracy of 7.5 inches while Armadillo Aerospace's average accuracy was 34 inches.

The events of the past two months have brought the four-year Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge to a conclusion. All $2 million in prize money has been awarded.

"The Northrop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge has had its intended impact, with impressive performances by multiple teams representing a new generation of aerospace entrepreneurs" said Andrew Petro, NASA's Centennial Challenge program manager at NASA Headquarters in Washington. "These companies have demonstrated reusable vehicles with rapid turnaround and a surprising degree of precision in flight, and they have done all this at a much lower cost than many thought possible."

Four teams had been in pursuit of the 2009 Lunar Lander Challenge prizes during the competition that opened in July. The BonNova team dropped out of the competition last week. Unreasonable Rocket, a father-and-son team from Solana Beach, Calif., conducted flight attempts during the final days of the competition but did not complete any qualifying flights.

In the Level 1 competition, Armadillo Aerospace previously claimed the first place prize of $350,000 in 2008. Masten Space Systems qualified for the remaining second place prize on Oct. 7, 2009, with an average landing accuracy of 6.3 inches. Because there were no other qualifying Level 1 flights this year, the Masten team will receive the second place prize of $150,000.

NASA's Centennial Challenges program's goals are to drive progress in aerospace technology that is of value to NASA's missions; encourage participation of independent teams, individual inventors, student groups and private companies of all sizes in aerospace research and development; and find innovative solutions to technical challenges through competition and cooperation.

The Northop Grumman Lunar Lander Challenge is one of six Centennial Challenges managed by NASA's Innovative Partnership Program. The competition was managed for NASA at no cost to the taxpayer by the X PRIZE Foundation under a Space Act Agreement. NASA provided all of the prize funds.

For more information on Centennial Challenges, visit: http://www.nasa.gov/offices/ipp/innovation_incubator/cc_home.html

Congratulations to Masten Space Systems!

Did you know Mercury had seasons? That's just one thing the Mercury MESSENGER probe has been discovering during its flyby missions.

Speaking of planets, it's getting crowded in the sky--32 new extrasolar planets (that is, planets outside our solar system) have been discovered.

A Look At NASA’s Social Media Program
http://searchengineland.com/a-look-at-nasas-social-media-program-28932

From Doc: This is just wild...someone has taken the time to do a visual diagram of the primary characters in several epic movies or movie series (Lord of the Rings, Star Wars, etc.) and their proximity to each other over the course of the story. The character lines for Twelve Angry Men are just a hoot.

There's an educator's conference on Apollo at the Air & Space Museum in Washington, DC, November 10.

After all the fun we had with triboelectrification on Ares I-X, this t-shirt was pretty funny.

And that, as they say, is that. Have a splendid weekend. Please pray for the families of those shot and killed at Fort Hood.