Pages

Wednesday, July 30, 2008

Enough With the Despair, Already!

For the last week or so, I've started hearing rumblings--ugly thoughts--from people at my day job and off the clock. It seems, as the political silly season draws closer, folks are having less and less positive to say about the viability of NASA, the Constellation Program, Ares, et cetera. And if it isn't people I know, it's people I read, piling on story upon editorial upon blog on how NASA is screwed up, is doing things wrong, is doomed to failure, and the next President will use those excuses to kill the program. Enough already!

The news is now bad enough that my friends and family, who don't normally pay attention to, or give a fig about, NASA or space are now emailing or calling me to ask, "Are you okay?" Meaning: "Is your job safe?" Here's the standard answer I've been giving, not just because I'm trying to prevent friends and family from worrying, but because I believe it to be true:
  1. Ares is not going to be completely canceled because the U.S. needs to access the International Space Station.
  2. We need to replace the Space Shuttle; we retire airliners when they get to be the Shuttle's age (when was the last time you saw a 727 flying?), and airliners are flying in a much more benign flight regime than Shuttle.
  3. We are not going to leave low Earth orbit (LEO) to the Russkis, the Chi-Coms, the Euros, etc. The onset of "the gap" in U.S. human spaceflight will probably do more to get the government to pay attention and spend money on NASA than the anticipation of the gap. Americans don't like to lose. The next "space race" might not be as dramatic as the first one, but it will happen, one way or another.
  4. My best guess right now, as I've stated before, is that Constellation's budget will be cut, but not totally. Again, we need access to ISS. We might not get to the Moon, but we do need to see that we get to LEO. And if the next president actually DOES decide not to go to the Moon, maybe enough people will notice enough to get mad about it.
  5. If Constellation's budget is curtailed, space is not going away. There are commercial operators out there. There is space science. There is military space. Bottom line: Space isn't going anywhere, and neither am I.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Barack Obama on Space Issues

First, I must say that I tried with great thoroughness to find a direct statement on BarackObama.com about space exploration. Unlike John McCain's site, the Obama campaign does not list space among its issues. However, the following policy paper...

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/pdf/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf

...includes one of the most distressing policy statements space fans have seen from a presidential candidate in years:

Barack Obama’s early education and K-12 plan package costs about $18 billion per year. He will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government. The early education plan will be paid for by delaying the NASA Constellation Program for five years, using purchase cards and the negotiating power of the government to reduce costs of standardized procurement, auctioning surplus federal property, and reducing the erroneous payments identified by the Government Accountability Office, and closing the CEO pay deductibility loophole. The rest of the plan will be funded using a small portion of the savings associated with fighting the war in Iraq.

This sort of policy is straight from the space advocates' least favorite talking point: "Why are we spending all this money on space when there are so many more important problems to be solved here on Earth?" Aside from the obvious--we need space technologies to make life better on Earth--there is simply a problem with this sort of policy thinking. Space exploration get kids interested in what they're hearing in school, and usually a hell of a lot more than one might find through some other egghead government program. (Pg. 15)

There are some Obama fan blogs on the site. While I assume that only supportive postings would be allowed, I must discount those posts because they are not official campaign statements. However, the education policy item was not the last Obama statement on space seen in the blogosphere:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=26647

Despite being unable to find this on the campaign web site, I must accept the content from Keith Cowing:

Barack Obama's Plan For American Leadership in Space

Over the decades, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) has embodied the adventurous spirit that lifted this nation to greatness and inspired people around the world. Barack Obama believes that the United States needs a strong space program to help maintain its superiority not only in space, but also here on earth in the realms of education, technology, and national security. Over the years, NASA technology has been applied to improve everything from computers and medical technology to baby formula and automobiles. Work done at NASA, whether here on earth or in outer space, impacts the daily lives of all Americans.

Develop the Next-Generation of Space Vehicles: The retirement of the Space Shuttle in 2010 will leave the United States without manned spaceflight capability until the introduction of the Orion Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) carried by the Ares I Launch Vehicle. As president, Obama will support the development of this vital new platform to ensure that the United States' reliance on foreign space capabilities is limited to the minimum possible time period. The CEV will be the backbone of future missions, and is being designed with technology that is already proven and available.

Complete the International Space Station: The International Space Station is an example of what we can accomplish through international cooperation. Barack Obama is committed to the completion of the International Space Station.

Continue Unmanned Missions: Robotic missions provide a level of endurance and cost-effectiveness that is unsurpassed. The Voyager probes, launched in the 1970s, are still sending back data beyond our solar system. Closer to home, the Spirit and Opportunity rovers have been exploring the surface of Mars for more than 1,300 days, 14 times longer than their intended mission length. Along with Earth-orbiting platforms like the Hubble Space Telescope and the Chandra X-Ray Observatory, unmanned missions have yielded some of the greatest scientific discoveries of the last century. Barack Obama is committed to a bold array of robotic missions that will expand our knowledge of the solar system and lay the foundations for further manned exploration. \

Monitor the Forces and Effects of Climate Change: Barack Obama has proposed bold initiatives to put America on the path to stop global climate change. His administration will set standards based on rigorous scientific inquiry that, in turn, cannot take place without a capable space program. The task of researching and understanding the forces that affect our home planet will require a constellation of climate monitoring space platforms. As president, Obama will ensure that NASA has the funding necessary to play its part in the fight against global climate change.

Support Scientific Research: In the past, government funding for scientific research has yielded innovations that have improved the landscape of American life, technologies like the Internet, digital photography, bar codes, Global Positioning System technology, laser surgery, and chemotherapy. Today, we face a new set of challenges, yet the United States is losing its scientific dominance. Over the last three decades, federal funding for the physical, mathematical and engineering sciences has declined at a time when other countries are substantially increasing their own research budgets. Barack Obama believes federally funded scientific research should play an important role in advancing science and technology in the classroom and in the lab. He will work to diversify the makeup of the scientific community and provide federal research programs a much- needed infusion of funds.

Maintain Surveillance to Strengthen National Security: Orbiting surveillance satellites provide a vital way to ensure compliance with non-proliferation treaties and monitor emerging threats. For example, nuclear facility construction in North Korea and Iran can be closely monitored from above without the challenges faced by weapons
inspectors on the ground. Satellites can be further used in the effort to secure loose nuclear weapons and materials around the world, an effort which Barack Obama has promoted aggressively in the U.S. Senate.

Keep Weapons out of Space: China's successful test of an anti-satellite missile in January 2007 signaled a potential new arms race in space. Barack Obama does not support the stationing of any weapons in space. He believes the international community must address the issue of space weaponization head-on and enter into a serious dialogue with Russia, China and other nations to stop this slow slide into a new
battlefield.

Strengthen Math and Science Education: Fifty years after Sputnik, science and math education in American schools is facing a crisis. As the Gathering Storm report concluded, "danger exists that Americans may not know enough about science, technology or mathematics to contribute significantly to, or fully benefit from, the knowledge-based economy that is already taking shape around us." Barack Obama will make math and science education a national priority, and provide our schools with the tools to educate 21st-Century learners.

Recruit High-Quality Math and Science Teachers: Barack Obama's will establish a Teaching Service Scholarship program to recruit an army of new teachers. These scholarships will prioritize recruiting math, science and technology degree graduates. Obama will create Teacher Residency Programs to train teachers using mentorship, graduate study and hands-on training to develop 30,000 teachers a year, providing additional teachers in math and science. In addition, Obama will devote $100 million a year to Professional Development Schools to help new teachers, or veteran teacher needing to hone their skills, learn from professionals in the field. Professional Development Schools will partner universities with school sites that exhibit state-of-the-art practices and train new teachers in the classrooms of expert teachers while they are completing coursework.

Enhanced Science Instruction: Barack Obama will work with governors to create flexible and workable systems for the states to achieve the goal of ensuring all children have access to strong a science curriculum at all grade levels. Obama will also support state efforts to make science education a priority at the pre-K level.

Improve and Prioritize Science Assessments: Science assessments need to do more than test facts and concepts. They need to use a range of measures to test inquiry and higher-order thinking skills including inference, logic, data analysis and interpretation, forming questions, and communication. Barack Obama will work with governors and educators to ensure that state assessments measure these skills.

This is actually a lot more to work with than the McCain statement, though I note that even when it appears on the Obama campaign site, the original reference is not from the campaign, but NASAWatch's news site, SpaceRef! I am forced to wonder why this position paper has not been posted by the campaign. Okay, enough political snarkiness. I'll now consider the statement itself.

The first paragraph is much like a lot of the McCain statement: motherhood and eyewash, "Space is good," blah blah blah.

Obama's first priority: Develop the Next-Generation of Space Vehicles. The statement includes Orion and Ares I, not Ares V, the heavy-lift cargo launch vehicle that would enable lunar exploration. As I noted in my analysis of McCain's piece, what campaigns choose to include matters. Of course what they don't include matters, too.

Next: Complete the International Space Station. This is a continuation of Bush's Vision for Space Exploration as well. Good.

Next: "Continue Unmanned Missions... Barack Obama is committed to a bold array of robotic missions that will expand our knowledge of the solar system and lay the foundations for further manned exploration." Most of the statement addresses existing robotic missions; the campaign carefully pays homage to science missions of the past and missions currently in action, but no statement is made mentioning future, planned, or new programs.

Next: Monitor the Forces and Effects of Climate Change. This was a major theme of Obama's staffer at ISDC. This, like the statements made by McCain's aide, bodes well for NASA's Earth Science.

Next: Support Scientific Research. This seems to be focused mostly on spinoff research. NASA is doing this now. No problem. The statement also notes that "Over the last three decades, federal funding for the physical, mathematical and engineering sciences has declined at a time when other countries are substantially increasing their own research budgets." However, as I noted by my posting on Wednesday, the NSF is looking to get at 14% increase in its budget for 2009. Obama's statement here might become OBE (government talk for "overcome by events").

Next: Maintain Surveillance to Strengthen National Security. This is in line, more or less, with McCain's belief in using space assets to support national defense. Fine and dandy. However, I must take issue with these points: "Orbiting surveillance satellites provide a vital way to ensure compliance with non-proliferation treaties and monitor emerging threats." Satellites cannot easily detect underground nuclear facilities, such as Iraq and Iran have built.

Next: Keep Weapons out of Space. This is mostly a statement of intent for us, not something Obama can hope to enforce on other countries, as the Chinese ASAT test proves. He can stop further development of U.S. capabilities if he wants, but it's nice to know that we at least have the capability now. A great deal of fuss was made about the U.S. National Space Policy when it came out, with some folks saying that Bush was advocating war in space. Hardly. What the policy does say is:

    • The United States considers space systems to have the rights of passage through and operations in space without interference. Consistent with this principle, the United States will view purposeful interference with its space systems as an infringement on its rights;
    • The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing
      capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests;

In plain Chicago English: "We'll leave you alone as long as you leave us alone. Somebody messes with us, we're gonna mess with them."

Next: Strengthen Math and Science Education. The remainder of the space statement is dedicated to this point, so I'll have to dissect it a little more deeply. "Barack Obama will make math and science education a national priority, and provide our schools with the tools to educate 21st-Century learners." This is roughly the statement Obama used as his defense when challenged on his cutting-Constellation-to-fund-education proposal. Obama believes in getting kids the math and science education first. No argument with that--they need it. However, space advocates like me would also say, "If you cut the space program, you eliminate one of the things that gets kids interested in math and science in the first place."

"Recruit High-Quality Math and Science Teachers." The statement then goes on to propose a scholarship program for teachers (cost unknown) and a $100 million fund for professional development for teachers. That would pay for about one third to one quarter of the price of the Mars Rovers, which to date have logged over 1,600 days' worth of mission time (1,510 days or more longer than their intended mission length). These missions have provided thousands of images and untold numbers of "teaching moments" for sufficiently interested educators.

"Obama will also support state efforts to make science education a priority at the pre-K level." Again, this sounds like a proposal to spend more money. The U.S. now spends the third-most per primary and secondary school student in the industrialized world, behind only Luxembourg and Switzerland, but ranks 17th in math and science scores. More money is not necessarily the answer.

"Improve and Prioritize Science Assessments: Science assessments need to do more than test facts and concepts. They need to use a range of measures to test inquiry and higher-order thinking skills including inference, logic, data analysis and interpretation, forming questions, and communication." This is a complaint I've heard from a couple of science teachers. Kids are being drilled on how to pass tests, not necessarily think creatively, practically, or logically. Eliminating reliance on testing would also require dismantling a lot of the education bureaucracy, including the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act. Far be it for me to complain about that, but I wish Obama luck in de-emphasizing the Scantron test while taking on the educational bureaucracy and teachers' unions.

Bottom line: Despite the earlier space-for-education comment, there is not a lot here that is new. Indeed, when it comes to space policy, a lot of Obama's statement here is a status quo follow-on to the Bush presidency's policies and doesn't differ much from McCain's. However, a few differences did strike me:

  • Obama would continue executing one half to two-thirds of the Vision for Space Exploration: finish ISS, retire the Shuttle, build Ares I/Orion. The question of Ares V development and human exploration is left wide open.
  • A strong emphasis on Earth Science, in connection with climate change analysis.
  • No mention of what will happen with NASA's overall budget, and a definite sign that an Obama administration would do some sort of intensive review of NASA's programs and priorities before proceeding any further.
  • Some lip service is paid to national defense, but not without a little posturing about weapons in space.
  • Like McCain, there is little to no reference here to commercial space or space tourism. One might wonder why, though perhaps for different reasons than one might wonder about McCain's exclusion of these topics.

If you are deducing from my comments that I am not a fan of Obama, you are deducing correctly. I have a lot of issues with him, the first one being that I don't think he has the experience necessary to be Commander in Chief of the DC Chamber of Commerce, much less the United States of America. I have tried to be fair with his policy statements and have noted where I agree or have no objection to them. However, that Constellation-for-education trade statement is still out there, and will make advocates like me leery of him until he actually shows his cards.

Bottom Line on the Two Major Parties' Candidates' Space Polices: Coming from a very parochial view of the space business (i.e., a supporter of the Ares Projects and Constellation), I would say that the only difference between McCain and Obama is going to be the size of the cut they'd get--anywhere from $0 to infinity and beyond.

Thursday, July 24, 2008

John McCain on Space Issues

Darlene the Science Cheerleader pointed me to the this link about space on the John McCain campaign site and wanted my thoughts on what it might mean. Campaign statements are often deliberately murky until the candidate is in office. First of all, since space is not a high-priority item in anyone's campaign, the McCain statement is short enough to be quoted here in full:

America's Space Program

"Let us now embark upon this great journey into the stars to find whatever may await us." -John McCain

John McCain is a strong supporter of NASA and the space program. He is proud to have sponsored legislation authorizing funding consistent with the President's vision for the space program, which includes a return of astronauts to the Moon in preparation for a manned mission to Mars. He believes support for a continued US presence in space is of major importance to America's future innovation and security. He has also been a staunch advocate for ensuring that NASA funding is accompanied by proper management and oversight to ensure that the taxpayers receive the maximum return on their investment. John McCain believes curiosity and a drive to explore have always been quintessential American traits. This has been most evident in the space program, for which he will continue his strong support.

Fortunately, because the statement is so brief, the McCain camp's emphases are easy to spot:

  • Keeping the U.S. Space Exploration Policy (a.k.a. the Vision for Space Exploration or VSE) funded. The fact that he called out the VSE by name is a hopeful sign for those of us who support the Constellation Program, which is responsible for executing it.
  • "A continued American presence in space is of major importance to America's future innovation and security." This could refer to scientific exploration, technology development, and/or satellites dedicated to national defense. Most likely his emphasis is on the last two, with "innovation" being another way of saying technological development, which, in turn, supports U.S. leadership abroad and national defense. This is a typically McCainish issue, as he is very much a "national defense guy" in the Senate. A cautionary note is in order here, though: an "American presence in space" need not require human beings.
  • "ensuring that NASA funding is accompanied by proper management and oversight to ensure that the taxpayers receive the maximum return on their investment." This, too, is a standard McCain issue. He is a big advocate of government accountability and (where necessary) closer congressional oversight of government agencies. The "maximum return on investment" line is interesting, as I'll explain below.

The rest of the words are motherhood and apple pie eyewash. They are nearly content-free except to say, "Space is good." Bottom line, if you were to go only by this campaign statement, you might be led to believe that the bullets above represented the whole of McCain's attitudes toward space.

However...

The content above needs to be balanced against other statements Senator McCain or his staff have made. Two particular instances come to mind:

  • The statements his staffer made at the 2008 ISDC, which I summarize here, and Jeff Foust analyzes here, here, and here. Floyd Deschamps, McCain's representative at a debate on space policy, made it quite clear that Senator McCain was concerned about global warming/climate change, and that this might equate to more funding of NASA's Earth Science programs.
  • McCain is committed to balancing the federal budget by 2013. Given the increasing size of the "non-discretionary" federal budget--Social Security, Medicare, interest on the debt--that means cuts to everything else are on the table, and NASA's budget is very discretionary. It is also an easy and highly visible target, despite its miniscule portion of the budget. Again: NASA gets seven-tenths of 1 percent of the federal budget.

And quite frankly, for space policy geeks like me, there are way too many unanswered questions in the McCain space policy statement. I wouldn't exactly call the paragraph above a policy, more like a statement of intent. For instance:

  • What will be done about the human spaceflight "gap" after the Shuttle is retired? How will he propose that the U.S. access the International Space Station? Will he continue to support COTS? Obtaining access to ISS via international partners? Or will he extend our contract with the Russians?

    (Policy Wonk Note: Extending the Soyuz flights seems unlikely, as McCain co-authored the 1992 Iran-Iraq Arms Non-Proliferation Act. Why should this matter? In short, the agreement to buy Soyuz flights to ISS only runs through 2011. After that, we might stop doing business with Russia because they continue to provide Iran with technical assistance in building nuclear reactors and (conceivably) nuclear weapons.)
  • It seems clear that McCain will continue to support the Constellation Program, but at what pace of development? Will he shift gears if SpaceX gets its act together and flies cargo to the ISS before Orion gets there? Will he commit to start serious development work on the Ares V cargo launch vehicle in 2011? What provisions for private sector participation and development is he prepared to make when we start building an outpost on the Moon? Constellation has a potentially long run ahead of it. Much like the Truman Doctrine, stating the policy is not enough, it will require long-term follow-up by many more presidents to come.
  • What will be done with ISS itself? Right now, the station is due to be completed by 2010. America has no way to access ISS from the time Shuttle retires until 2015, at the earliest, when Ares I/Orion come online. Funding for ISS is scheduled to end in 2016-2017, meaning the U.S. would get only about two years' worth of direct, productive use out of the station. This issue must be addressed.
  • Will McCain do anything to support personal spaceflight/space tourism and the "NewSpace" community's efforts to break the NASA/Lockheed/Boeing dominance of the field, or will he just keep his hands off and let nature take its course?
  • What will be done about planetary and space sciences--the new telescopes, orbiters, and landers NASA has planned--James Webb Space Telescope, Mars Sample Return, Kepler, etc.?
  • What about funding for aeronautics? This is an especially big issue in Congress, as nearly all 50 states have aerospace contractors, subcontractors, and third-tier suppliers. Boeing also has some serious lobbyists. Consider the recent dustup over the award of some Air Force tankers to Northrop Grumman and EADS--these guys have clout and money to spread around. A lot of the U.S. trade deficit is offset by Boeing's commercial and military aircraft, and those aircraft remain among the world's finest thanks to investments in aviation technologies at NASA field centers (especially Glenn, Dryden, and Langley). That part of the NASA budget cannot be ignored.
  • Finally, what will be done with the NASA budget overall? Will it only keep pace with inflation? Will it be cut? Will it be increased? The last two questions are especially interesting, because they will teach us a lot about how McCain will lead--like a President, or like a Senator. Presidential thinking requires one to make priorities and to target increases (or cuts) that match those priorities. Senatorial thinking tends to spread the wealth (or pain) equally or proportionally to keep everyone equally happy (or not).

That's why McCain's statement about making sure "the taxpayers receive the maximum return on their investment" is so interesting. Maximizing one's return on investment implies a targeted approach to spending. In that case, there will be a definite shift in the shape of the budgetary "pie slices" within NASA. For good or ill, some programs' fortunes will improve while others would be cut.

To make a long explanation longer, I still have a lot of unanswered questions about McCain's space policy statement, and much that I must try to interpret based on other statements McCain has made elsewhere. Given the low priority of space in general, I'd say that folks in the industry will still be playing "wait and see" well into McCain's (or Obama's) first year in office.

I'll take on Obama's space policy approach tomorrow.

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

The Office of Technology Assessment Reconsidered

Several weeks ago, I responded to Darlene the Science Cheerleader's call to reinstate the Office of Technology Assessment (OTA). Today I got a comment from Nate Hafer at the Federation of American Scientists, which maintains the OTA's report archive, asking to again highlight the site. I have not problem with that. Mr. Hafer also called my attention to the video by Congressman Rush Holt (D-NJ) in favor of reinstating this office.

I had no objection to any of Congressman Holt's comments; they seemed perfectly reasonable. But if concerned citizens like me are going to call for OTA's reinstatement, I think it is time for Mr. Hafer, Darlene, et al., to lay their cards on the table. Before OTA is reborn I would want to know the following:

  • How, exactly, would a revived OTA would function?
  • How big would it be?
  • Who would participate?
  • More importantly (from my semi-mistrustful point of view) who DECIDES who gets to participate?
  • What would the new OTA charter look like?
  • What steps would be taken to prevent the real or perceived irrelevance of the agency?
  • What provisions will be made to ensure that OTA remains a "lean and mean," think tank type of organization?
  • In short, what will OTA supporters do to assure budget hawks that the agency deserves to be reborn when there is already a call to decrease the deficit, balance the budget, and eliminate a great deal of waste elsewhere in the federal government?

I spend my days fighting for one of the most neglected agencies in the government, NASA. I could see some wiseacre saying, "Well, we can take OTA's funding out of NASA's research and development budget," or somesuch thing. Not impossible, at any rate.

*

On a similar and more positive note, I saw recently that the National Science Foundation has put in a budget of $6.85 billion for 2009, a 14 percent increase--and might get it. Jeez, a 14 percent increase in NASA's budget (nearly $3 billion!), spread appropriately among the five directorates, would be enough to make up for damages from Katrina, plug some funding holes in Constellation, AND provide healthy increases for science and aeronautics! Of course, I don't get to decide how NASA's budget is divvied up, more's the pity. Still, the NSF budget increase is a sign that the government GETS IT when it comes to the need for increased science funding. Progress, of a sort, which Bush most likely won't get credit for in certain circles, but so it goes.

Sunday, July 20, 2008

Apollo 11 + 39, Ares I-X, etc.

The odds are probably better than 50-50 that if you're reading this blog, you were too young to remember Apollo 11, or weren't even born yet. I myself was two weeks away (or thereabouts) from becoming a live-born citizen of the United States. Still, the event is worth commemorating. We live in the world after Apollo 11, so it's difficult to understand the mindset of the time.

In 1969, the space age was 12 years old. Human beings had only been in space for 8 years, and there was a very real threat that the Soviet Union might beat the United States to the Moon. We had never been there before. When President John F. Kennedy called upon the nation to the goal of "landing a man on the Moon, and returning him safely to Earth," the U.S. had had 20 minutes of human spaceflight experience. The folks at NASA, then only three years old as an operating entity, were charged with the largest peacetime engineering project since the building of the Panama Canal, and they'd been given nine years in which to do it.

More suspense was to be had besides the challenge of the race itself. The Mercury capsules flew on top of the Redstone rocket, named for the arsenal and the red clay to be found in northern Alabama. Redstone was not powerful enough to launch human beings into orbit. The next, bigger rocket in the Mercury program, Atlas, had the power, theoretically to get men into orbit, but they had a frightening tendency to explode.

The fuel for Atlas, like Redstone, was RP-1, a refined version of kerosene, and liquid oxygen (LOX), the element we breath, brought down to a couple hundred degrees below zero. In addition to being ultra-cold, LOX is super-flammable, causing things to burn much more rapidly than the would in air alone. If the Saturn V were to explode, it would have the explosive equivalent of just over half a kiloton of TNT, the equivalent of a small nuclear warhead.

The rockets flying with the stuff needed to be pressurized and made of materials enough to withstand the nature of fuels; the forces of acceleration, vibration, and noise as the vehicle ascended into the sky; and the odd tendencies of materials to behave differently in space. The journey itself was risky, but the engineers making the rockets and their early-model computers found the solutions to make it all happen, leaving the next challenge: getting a human being to actually set foot on another world.

The Moon has been with us for all of human history, for as long as Earth itself has been in existence--around 4.6 billion years. In our brief time here, we'd looked at it, studied it, written songs about it, and made some strange guesses about who might be living on it. Earlier NASA probes and the Apollo 8 mission had all but confirmed that life didn't exist there. Baked by the sun without benefit of an atmosphere, pelted for eons by asteroids large and small, the Moon had daytime temperatures of 250 degrees during its 14-day "day," and -250 degree temperatures at night. The distance to the Moon, nearly 240,000 miles, is so far that it takes one-and-one-quarter seconds for radio transmissions to reach Earth.

We had to take our own air with us, along with machines to filter our air and wastes and water, as well as food for the journey. Actually touching the Moon in its natural state was impossible. We had to build custom-made suits of armor with 17 different layers in them to address everything from boiling heat to freezing cold to astronaut comfort to holding in air to survive in the hard vacuum.

And we did it. Two fighter jocks piloted past their original landing place and manually selected and landed their spacecraft after their computer overloaded. They had less than 30 seconds' worth of fuel remaining when they shut down the engine. A flat, Midwestern voice drawled back to the anxious people in Mission Control, "Tranquility Base here. The Eagle has landed." Waves of relief and triumph swept through the control room and throughout the world. A couple hours later, that same Midwesterner, a laconic test pilot from Ohio named Neil Armstrong, became part of history forever by becoming the first man to set a footprint on the Moon. In a transmission that was either garbled by static or flubbed by nervousness, Armstrong said, "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." That was July 20, 1969. Armstrong and Aldrin stayed on the Moon for less than three hours and then began the long journey home.

Until a human being sets foot on Mars in the next century, no single moment will demonstrate human accomplishment so elegantly and greatly. We live in a world now that takes the Moon landings--and there were five more of them over the next three years--for granted. What's worse is, because we stopped exploring other worlds (reaching for greatness), there is now a substantial group that doesn't believe we did it in the first place. We have spurned greatness for tackling simpler issues much closer to home. And while some of those things perhaps needed to be done, who can say how many bigger problems we might have been willing to tackle if we had kept the same faith that made us believe we could put a man on the Moon in nine years and then do it. With luck, spirit, and determination, human beings will return to the Moon. With a little more money and a lot more dedication, those human beings will again be Americans. We need the spirit of Apollo to guide our efforts as we reclaim the role of a frontier nation.

*

Today, of course, the world is different. We live in a time of unprecedented technological progress, innovation, and comfort, thanks in part to the trails blazed by Apollo. And yet we no longer go into space. We don't perceive a deadly rival to stir our competitive spirts. We don't see the rush or sometimes even the need for a human space program. The Constellation Program has been in existence for 4 years, and that existence is precarious because the taxpaying citizens still don't want to spend money on greatness, but are quite comfortable spending on comforts here on Earth. The space program is just a line item to be given a pittance in the next federal budget. Space must be marketed of all things, using practical benefits alone because greatness, competition, and national security are not seen as part of its existence anymore. Yet other nations want to do what we have done. They want the strength, prestige, advancement, and progress that we enjoyed from Apollo because they know it was real. They know that, given enough incentive, unity, and commitment, Americans really can do any project they set their minds to...if only we wanted to.

It took the deaths of seven Space Shuttle astronauts to get us out of our near-Earth lethargy and reach once more for greatness. The reasoning being: if we're going to lose astronauts in space, shouldn't they be dying for more than just a trip to Earth orbit? So now we're building Moon rockets again, at a slow clip given the limited budget and low priority of space exploration today, but we are at least returning to the path of greatness. That gives me hope. I just hope it will be enough.

*

And speaking of marketing space, NASA is beginning to take steps to reach that generation of kids who never knew Apollo except as museum pieces. The first test flight of Ares I, the crew launch vehicle that will get astronauts aboard the Orion spacecraft into orbit, is happening in spring 2009. NASA.gov has been around for awhile--and has had some success reaching the public, as the Mars Rover web sites have gotten millions of hits. However, I myself have not always been able to find what I'm looking for on NASA.gov. Others prefer to get their information in different ways, like through social networking web sites. Well, the Ares I-X flight test now has a presence on MySpace as well as Facebook.

The hope is, if Generation Y won't come to NASA, NASA can where they are and learn to speak their language. The I-X team got one of their Gen Y interns to put together the sites, and after some internal negotiating with the NASA Public Affairs Office (PAO), they're now a reality. Targeted marketing (though NASA doesn't like to use that word) just might begin to bear fruit. Social networking, blogging, and other internet-based outputs are no longer side shows, but soon to become the primary output channels for public information. The days of three TV networks and three major newspapers are over; the internet thrives on content, and if the PAO isn't providing that information clearly or copiously enough, people will go to sites like NASAWatch and NASASpaceflight.com to get their information, and those sites aren't so positive about NASA activities. Better to allow more individuals to share information with the public -- as long as it's not sensitive but unclassified (SBU), proprietary, or subject to the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) -- than to have people leak things out just to be spiteful.

In any case, the Ares I-X sites are a hopeful sign. If more people are aware of the flight test, they might pay more attention, care a little more, get a little more excited, support the Constellation Program a little more, and (wild thought) vote in such a way that the program continues and accelerates. Sometimes it's the little things that get things moving. Here's hoping the Ares I-X (and other NASA programs') social networking sites are just the little things we need.

Monday, July 14, 2008

Should Disney Get a Retired Space Shuttle?

Recently, NASAWatch posted a question on what should be done with the three remaining space shuttles still flying (Discovery, Atlantis, Endeavour) after they retire. Since I spent a lot of my pre-space career at Disney, I thought I'd ask my Disney friends what they thought of the notion that Walt Disney World "get" one of the shuttles. Their responses were interesting:

    • "a) I thought Disney was already doing this with Mission: Space.
      b) It's difficult to get people interested in Space by displaying and teaching about obsolete space craft.
      c) Perhaps a display combining the limitations of the shuttle with the possibilities availed to us through a new program?"
    • "Makes sense to me! Disney certainly WOULD do a fantastic job displaying etc., certainly would fit in well at EPCOT, and with already having millions of people going to Disney every year anyway ... sounds like a project that's PERFECT for you :)"
    • "I think it is a good idea. With so many children visiting the park, perhaps it will be an excellent tool to develop interest. As long as they don't paint anything on the Orbiter, it sounds like a good exhibit."
    • "We could build a whole new theme park around it. We could obviously get more people interested in space, I think."
    • "Absolutely. That has EPCOT written all over it. You could put it next to Mission Space."

No argument from most of these folks, anyway. This bears some consideration. They all sense an underlying truth: Disney generates fun and excitement; the space program, as it is currently configured, does not. Why?

*

When I came into the space business, it was after 12 years at Disney and 3 years in the defense business development (proposal writing) worlds. I'd also had some experience as a space advocate. My approach to space, then, has been as a marketer. Disney, for all of its internal quirks--notice I don't work there anymore--is a marketing organization second to none. And when I attended my first International Space Development Conference, I noted the serious need for marketing professionalism within the space advocacy community.

Now there are some government regulations that prohibit NASA from marketing, unless it's hiring/recruiting. And, being a government agency, some of its denizens are rather disdainful of the need for marketing at all. "We do education and outreach," I've been told. The "m" word, it seems, is verboten. But really now: what is NASA TV if it isn't marketing? Well, actually, it probably is education, because as a marketing tool, it's not doing well. I think more people watch The Bedouin Channel.

What is marketing, then? Here's a description of marketing that I used in my thesis to contrast it with technical communications:

In general, marketing communications is aimed at decision-makers and influencers, while technical communications addresses people who use the product. In other words, marketers try to get a customer to purchase a product, while technical communicators explain how a product works once it has already been purchased.

A later presentation I did, based on this thesis, also proposed the notion that technical advocacy (e.g. space advocacy) is really a combination of technical communications, marketing, and politics. You need the audience to understand the material, get enthused about it, and get them motivated to advocate and vote in certain ways that are advantageous to your position. Marketing a trip to Disney World is a lot different from marketing a government program (assuming you were allowed to do so), but the concept and need is the same. And, I must add, there is more to advocate for than just NASA. I want the private sector "out there" too, and that requires a different strategy from selling a government program.

Still, both the space cause and a theme park must still get and hold the attention of their respective audience(s). Despite the uniqueness of the space enterprise, exploration and settlement do not "sell themselves," any more than the American West did. Horace Greeley's "Go West, young man, and grow with the country!" might have been one of the best marketing lines ever used to sell the frontier.

I got off my original track here; I apologize. I meant to answer "Why does Disney generate excitement while NASA doesn't?" and got off on a tangent about what technical marketing is. My apologies. The answer to the original question is simple: Disney does exciting things and portrays them in such a way that other people look forward to experiencing them. NASA does some exciting, nay, intriguing things, and some of those are accompanied by smoke, fire, and earth-rattling, which is always cool. But turn on NASA TV, subject yourself to a few hours of watching astronauts do zero-gravity tai-chi around the International Space Station, and you need No-Doze and a caffeineated beverage to restart your system.

Both Disney and NASA are very protective of their public image, and yet Disney manages to have a fun public image. Again: why? Part of it, I think, is that NASA has lost its sense of humor. They are so used to doing Important, Impressive Things, that they forget about the gosh-wow factor. They frown upon frivolous activities, like space tourism or putting a hotel into orbit.

They've also grown a little too cautious about advertising the dangerous aspects of space. In Apollo, three astronauts died before one Saturn rocket had put a man into space--and NASA kept going. Since Challenger and Columbia, there has been an abundance of caution and -- perhaps reasonably -- an emphasis on safety first. But damn it, that danger gets people's attention! It's suspenseful for me every time the Shuttle goes up now, maybe because of long-ignored physical danger and maybe because we're only now awakening to the fact that there won't be too many more of them.

The world frickin' stood still when Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the Moon. A billion people listened or watched at a time when we had only about two billion people alive on the planet. That's a shared moment of wonder few have ever managed to repeat. I mean, because...damn, that was impressive. The first time a human being had set foot on another world. I can still get a shiver up my spine when I hear, "That's one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind." I was two weeks from being born, and it still impresses me.

That's the trick, then: NASA needs to start doing great things again: firsts that are new and difficult in their own right. And the good news is, they are aiming to do great things again: building rockets to go to the Moon, building a permanent outpost there, and hoping to go beyond. That's half the Disney equation: do something exciting. All of that will require more money and sustained commitment, but that's our job as involved taxpayers, not just the government's. And then there's the other half: get other people interested in participating. There's still some work to be done there.

Looks like I have my work cut out for me.

European Tour Paperwork

Just got my first parcel of paper from RickSteeves.com. Looks like I'm in for quite a trip. They've got a two-sided waiver, one for medical issues, another for accidents, force majeure, acts of God (or the devil), terrorism, and bad hair days. The expectations are:, carrying your own luggage up to 15 minutes from the bus to the hotel, then haulting it up an average of three flights of stairs to get to one's room (no big whup), long museum tours (2-3 hours--no problem), and up to 5-10 miles per day of walking (yow!). It's not exactly "adventure travel"--no skydiving, skateboarding, or extreme sports--but it's not for slackers, either.

The other interesting part was that, while my deposit could be paid by American Hexpress, the rest of the tour must be paid for by check or money order. On the plus side, I have until July 7 to pay it off--that's more time for my money to work for me. Also, because they have my deposit, I've locked in my tour price. Huzzah! That only leaves the tumbling dollar to worry about. I plan on saving as much for incidentals as possible. Rick Steeves' tours offer travel insurance, but I guess I should check with Amex to see if I'm already covered or they already offer it. No sense double-paying for stuff, even if it is necessary.

The part that annoys me a bit is that I was hoping for a slightly more detailed itinerary. I know that my hotel in Amsterdam (Haarlem?) isn't available until 3 p.m. Fine. That means an overnight flight from the States, more or less. The trick is, when do I schedule my flight home? They recommend taking in Versailles on the last day--and I'm likely to take up that suggestion, it was on my "top five"--but then I still have to figure out my itinerary home. Some friends offered to put me up in their place in the English countryside for a couple days on the tail end of the trip, and I got another offer to check up on a particular pub or two in the UK from a friend of a friend, but that'd mean more time/money, and I'm pretty close to the limit as it is. Guess I have a little time to make up my mind. The air fares for September 2009 aren't available until a year out anyway (345 days, according to the friend with the English cottage).

And I still need to pick up a couple of foreign-language DVDs, CDs, or other resources so I can learn how to pronounce things correctly. 14 months SEEMS like a long time until you realize what-all is involved in the process. It'll keep me out of trouble, anyway.

I got out of work early for a MD appointment, so I'm trying to decide what to do with the rest of it: buy CDs and walking shoes until the temperature drops below 90, or head for the gym and start beating the hell out of the gym shoes I have now. Decisions, decisions.

Sunday, July 13, 2008

Starfleet Academy -- A Proposal

Several educational paths, systems, and organizations already exist to provide the knowledge, skills, and credentials needed to work in the aerospace industry, become an astronaut, or become a space scientist. However, I've got another hot idea in the back of my brain: we need a university (or more) that will train the next generation the skills needed to explore, work, and live in outer space permanently. In short, I think it is time to create the 21st century's equivalent of Starfleet Academy.

Bill Cosby used to say that "Intellectuals go [to class] to study things that people do naturally." That could be true. However, when it comes to doing things in space, nothing about the activity will be "natural." The environments--atmospheres, gravities, soil chemistry, what have you--will all pose unique constraints on human activity, and our technologies will have to cope with them. Many activities will have to be completely redone. Others, managed by teleoperated robots, will be easily handled from an office here on Earth.

We will also face challenges in space because it will be an international undertaking. This means a more rigorous education in foreign languages and diplomacy than most Americans are used to receiving these days. What I'm proposing is a program that would encompass some or all of the following programs:

The schools above mostly cover physical science disciplines, except for the law schools and the Foreign Service Institute. I would include the following "required" courses in the curriculum:

  • Comparative government
  • Economics (Chicago or Austrian school, not Marxist, thank you very much)
  • Technical communication/writing
  • Comparative religion

Why these? Because the students coming out of this school should be--in my mind--well versed in the Western traditions of equality under the law, trial by jury, representative government, freedom of speech, balance of powers, separation of church and state, and other notions that have allowed the world to advance over the past 500 years. They should also understand basic economics, under the assumption that we're going to have a capitalist, not socialist economy up there. They should be able to write and speak about technnical subjects clearly, both to other technical professionals and to laymen not so well versed. And yes, they should have some understanding (notice I do not say "appreciation" or "sensitivity") of the other cultural traditions of the world, since they are likely to be interacting with them in one fashion or another.

As you can see, this would be a wide-ranging university/academy, which would obviously demand multiple tracks, as well as (possibly) multiple locations and facilities, but the whole would be dedicated to building and sustaining human society beyond this planet. Ideally, this institution should be privately funded and publicly accredited. Financial aid and scholarships would be available at competitive rates. Given the specialized nature of this university, perhaps arrangements should be made for any graduates to automatically get first choice of any off-Earth jobs through one of the sponsoring organizations or companies.

Other ideas welcome.

What Should We Do In Space?

Here's a hypothetical question for your Sunday evening: let's say you were a space fan--not just a fan of science fiction, but the sort of person who finds exploration and human settlement of the solar system an intriguing and worthwhile notion.

  • What steps do you believe are necessary to make a spacefaring civilization a reality?
  • What would you want the United States to do to make that happen?
  • What should we build first, where should we go, and what should we do when we get there?

Okay, maybe my hypothetical question is too much for you. There's no way in heck ANYTHING about space interests you, let alone sending people out there to live on the Moon, Mars, an asteroid, the moons of Jupiter, or beyond. However, let's say you knew that your nation was committed to going into space, and all you could do is affect what they did when they got there.

  • What sort(s) of activities would make space exploration and settlement worthwhile to you as a taxpayer ("If I've gotta pay for it, I might as well get X out of it!")?
  • What should the country to do to make sure space exploration was "done right?"
  • If the country was going into space and you knew your one vote wasn't going to stop it, what would make you more accepting of, or interested in, the activity?

I know what my answers are to these questions. I'd appreciate hearing from others.

Thanks.

/b

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Movie Review: Gotham Knight

As I noted in an earlier posting, my purchase of Gotham Knight was delayed because Barnes & Noble had sold out of it. However, when I returned today, the movie was back in stock. Shazaam! Whups, wrong hero. Anyway, as might be guessed, Gotham Knight is a Batman tale. More to the point, this direct-to-DVD animated movie is a series of six Batman tales, all loosely connected by characters, if not theme or style.


I must confess to being a Bat-fan from way back, probably back when the old Adam West TV show was in its first or second syndication run. Bats was cool and more easily understandable because he was human (unlike, say, Superman). He has to rely on his brains, toys, and merely human abilities to help him win the day. I thoroughly enjoyed the Tim Burton Batman movie made in 1989, as well as The Dark Knight Returns, the Frank Miller graphic novel that brought a new maturity--and violence--to the Batman. I was somewhat less thrilled with the later Burton films, which were uneven. The film with Val Kilmer was almost decent, though the movies had started heading into homoerotic even then (nipples on the Bat armor, f'r gosh sakes?!?).

The Christian Bale incarnation of Batman was again a refreshing turn in the franchise. Bruce Wayne, the millionaire playboy with serious anger issues, comes across as slightly unhinged and very dangerous. His supporting cast, bolstered by big-name actors like Gary Oldman, Michael Caine, and Morgan Freeman, showed that Hollywood was willing to treat the live-action versions of these comic-book movies seriously.

And along the way, Warner Brothers was releasing a rather stylized animated series of Batman, as well as Superman, Justice League, and other DC Comics properties. I've watched the TV series on occasion, and it's been pretty good, though more in line with the spirit of the old '60s ethos of a "clean" Batman, simple moral fables, and no killing. So what happens when the edgier Batman depicted in Batman Begins meets the Warner Bros. animated series? What you get is a set of seriously violent cartoons. Gotham Knight is not for kids. It is for people 13 and up who are a little more used to the blood-and-guts of the graphic novel world.

For the uninitiated, a "graphic novel" is a comic book that attempts to deal with more adult themes, serious crimes, serious violence, and yes, death. It is, in short, a kids' genre attempting to go legit, and it generally succeeds. The recent spate of super-hero movies is the most elaborate extreme of the graphic novel ethos: they are an attempt to treat these costumed heroes on their own terms, as if they were people, not glossy images on the cover of a comic book.

This is interesting, as the voice actors used in Gotham Knight, according to my comics-geek buddy, are the same ones used in the tamer cartoon series. While I haven't heard of Kevin Conroy, who apparently did the Batman voice for most of the animated series, Gary Dourdan, who voices one of Gotham City's detectives, is known to me as one of the impressive actors making up the original CSI. It's as if the comic book TV show has similarly reached for adulthood. Again, this is not quite for kids. We've got violence, shootings, blood, etc. I might have to re-watch it; I don't recall a lot of "language" in the stories, but the graphic nature of the stories made up for the lack of profanity.

So, what about the story? In truth, this is a series of vaguely related vignettes--days-in-the-life of Gotham City's winged vigilante--in the days after Batman Begins. I can't say for certain that there is any resolution to any of the individual episodes, or the story arc in general. But then the comic books are much like that now, too: Gothic soap operas for geeks. Much like the Animatrix cartoon, which provided some narrative side notes to The Matrix movie series, Gotham Knight seems to be more about setting up the transition between Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, coming out next week, than telling a complete story. One villain is bagged, others are let go, and one is left to wonder how much of this will play out in the new movie.

The visual experience of the six stories is something else again. The six vignettes vary greatly in animation style. The first episode looks like something out of Miyazaki's Spirited Away. Others look like the animated series. Another looks like something out of Legends of the Dark Knight. Another looks like it was all or nearly all CGI-based. The consistent voices of the voice actors give the audience cues on who is who, given the widely varying appearances of some of the characters. This DVD is interesting, if only to show the many different ways the guy in the big black bat suit can be portrayed graphically. In one, he's anything from a slithering shape-shifter to a man-sized bat; in another, he looks like an animé pretty-boy; in another, he's a lantern-jawed adult. My guess is that there are as many conceptions of Batman as there are artists willing to draw him.

Can I recommend this DVD? To Bat-fans, sure. And to people who are likely to see the new movie. Otherwise, if you're not a comic-book reader now, you might be put off by this series of episodes, especially if your primary exposure to Batman was Adam West or even Michael Keaton. The Dark Knight has finally become the character he always was: mysterious, dark, and slightly off the wall. Enjoy, but don't bring the kids.

The Stuff People Say

One of the reasons I'm able to get along with a rather diverse range of people is that I consider myself intellectually conservative, personally moderate. Meaning, rather, that I'm willing to let people talk and have their views without getting in their face and screaming at them about mine. Sometimes I'll argue, but usually I don't think it's worth it.

Last weekend, as I was resting on a bench in my neighborhood, a somewhat older gentleman in his 50s paused at the same bench, and we got to talking. We got on the topic of energy, politics, what have you, probably due to gas prices, which have everyone spun up so badly these days. I can pretty much assure you that I did not start off the topic of politics--that's not the sort of thing one usually starts talking about with strangers, right? Anyhow, the guy started going off on a long rant about energy policy, how Carter was right about the 55 mph speed limit, how we all needed to use solar power, etc. In short, it was obvious which side of the fence he was on. I didn't really feel like an argument at that point in the day, so I just let him hold forth.

Then the conversation turned to politics, I think because the gentleman was trying to point out examples of politicians who were "progressive" and who supported the types of energy policies he wanted. He mentioned one here in Alabama who got into some sort of personal scandal on account of his drinking, philandering, what have you. He said that the congressman (senator?) in question was "too colorful" for this part of the country, so he got kicked out of office. He then started listing some other colorful politicians in the South--Huey Long, George Wallace, etc.--to which I threw in the name David Duke. Now one would think that a guy like Duke would immediately start off a completely different conversation about the evils of Duke, the GOP, the Ku Klux Klan, etc. One would be mistaken, however. The man said, "I'm not a member of the Klan, but..." And dear reader, the but would have gotten me fired or at least a firm talking-to had I said it on the job or in a large group of people, which I wouldn't because I don't believe it. The guy more or less said that he agreed with Duke on some things and admired his arguments and intelligence. "You know he's got a Ph.D., right?" (Yeah, sure. I just looked this up: Duke has a doctorate from a university in the Ukraine, of all places, and his doctoral thesis was titled, "Zionism as a Form of Ethnic Supremacism.” Maybe he should've gone to a university in the Palestinian Territories somewhere--he'd have gotten along great.)

I wanted to respond, "So the hell what, brother!? He belonged to the damned Klan! Doesn't that bug you the tiniest wee bit?" David Duke is often the kind of guy that liberals point to as a typical example of the racism, sexism, and homophobia that reportedly grips the Republican Party. And here I was, talking to an out-and-out liberal, hearing about how David Duke wasn't so wrong after all. Unbelieveable.

Friday, July 11, 2008

Science Education Online

I sent the following science links to my buddy Darlene, the Science Cheerleader, and she suggested that I make a posting that included them. Far be it for me to argue with a nice lady who sends me free stuff. I have added a few references for reasons explained below.

http://www.teachspace.us/
http://www.knowledgeadventure.com/school/
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2004/missmass.html
http://www.whizkidsfoundation.org/
http://wtp.mit.edu/eecs/
http://www.eskimo.com/~billb/home.html
http://homeschooling.gomilpitas.com/directory/Sciences.htm
http://homeschooling.about.com/od/science/Science_Resources.htm

The point of these links was to provide some alternative sites for interested folks to find science education information online. The internet is awash in such resources. Such resources might become increasingly necessary (here's where I get on my personal soapbox) if more people home school their kids. And why would they home school? Because of the state of mathematics and science education our taxpayer-funded schools.

The future, whether we like it or not, will become ever more dependent upon automated, computerized electronic technologies, biological technologies, and robotic and nanotechnologies. All of these will require students who are literate in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) subjects. We are doing children no favors by de-stressing grades and emphasizing self-esteem and "creative math." Consider the following quotations from "A Nation at Risk," a report on the state of the U.S. educational system in 1983 (waaaay back in the Reagan era, when I was still in the throes of junior high), and contemplate the fact that the situation has not greatly improved:

Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world.

What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occur--others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments.

If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge.

  • International comparisons of student achievement, completed a decade ago, reveal that on 19 academic tests American students were never first or second and, in comparison with other industrialized nations, were last seven times.
  • Some 23 million American adults are functionally illiterate by the simplest tests of everyday reading, writing, and comprehension.
  • About 13 percent of all 17-year-olds in the United States can be considered functionally illiterate. Functional illiteracy among minority youth may run as high as 40 percent.
  • Average achievement of high school students on most standardized tests is now lower than 26 years ago when Sputnik was launched.
  • Over half the population of gifted students do not match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school.
  • The College Board's Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) demonstrate a virtually unbroken decline from 1963 to 1980. Average verbal scores fell over 50 points and average mathematics scores dropped nearly 40 points.

*

Thursday, July 10, 2008

Movie Review: Immortal Beloved

The last time I saw Immortal Beloved was when it came out in the theaters in 1995--jeez, 13 years ago! Time does fly, doesn't it? I don't recall the film being quite as good as the other "big composer" film in my lifetime, Amadeus, which covered the rivalry between Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart and Antonio Salieri. So what possessed me to pick it up now? Confession: it was an impulse buy, driven by a new Barnes & Noble in the neighborhood (two miles closer to me, anyway), a fresh 20% off coupon, limited funds, and the absence of my intended purchase in the store (Gotham Night, which was nowhere near as culturally uplifting, but what the hell).

So what can one say about a film one hasn't seen in 13 years? Well, first, I found it much more involving upon a second viewing. This film, like Amadeus, does have a "frame story" with a lot of flashbacks showing different parts of Beethoven's life. In truth, it owes a great deal of its filmmaking structure to Citizen Kane, with its shifting viewpoints of a single character. In fact, its structure is almost a spot-on match, when one considers that the story begins with Beethoven's death, followed by a single man--his secretary, not a reporter--trying to find out something crucial about the composer's past. Instead of "Rosebud," we have a letter addressed to Beethoven's "Immortal Beloved," a mysterious woman to whom he has left everything.

The remainder of the story follows the secretary as he pursues several women who might be "the one." Along the way, we learn something of Beethoven's behavior, his politics (he was a [French] Republican at the time of the Napoleanic Wars before Napolean had himself declared Emperor), his personal relationships, his deafness, and how all of these are reflected in his music. For me, that was the true genius of this movie, in addition to Gary Oldman's truly stunning portrayal of the irrascible Beethoven. Now this is--like Amadeus--just a story. It has some grounding in reality, though I confess I know too little about LvB to know for certain how much is reality and costume drama and how much is BS and 20th century psychoanalysis (but then I repeat myself). Be that as it may, there are some truly inspired moments in this movie, most especially the depiction of the Ode to Joy, which comes as close as one can to attempting to depict a state of mind through both music and visuals.

So give this movie a watch if you haven't seen it in awhile, then throw in Amadeus another night. They might just be stories, but they're also great stories about what can go into making music.

Monday, July 07, 2008

Movie Reviews: Star Wars, Episodes I-III

I'm reminded of a line from "Down Periscope" when it comes to the Star Wars prequels: "It's running like a Swiss...car."

Once upon a time, George Lucas was in touch with how to move people or at least tell a decent story. "Star Wars," despite the half-@$$ed acting and physics-defying space battles, moves you, goes like gangbusters, and has a cast with a certain chemistry, emotive energy, and charm. He then made the wise move of allowing a couple of other directors direct the next two films. "The Empire Strikes Back" is without a doubt the best dramatic film of the lot.

But then Lucas went on to other projects. Howard the Duck. Tucker. Willow. You know: the classics. They moved along like cars on octagonal wheels.

Then, sometime in the late '90s, he got the idea to revive his most successful commercial franchise. He (co-)wrote(!) three bad scripts, and then hired a wooden actress (Natalie Portman), a whiner (Hayden Christensen), and one good sport (Ewan McGregor), whom he took upon himself to direct. Typical example from Episode I: young Anakin Skywalker--ten years old--asks, "Does every star have a system of planets?" when most kids or normal humans would ask, "Does every star have planets?" Does the idea of a trade dispute sound like a particularly interesting or believable means for overturning a galactic republic? And, as one reviewer I read noted, Lucas's handle on politics is somewhat shaky. Where else but in the Star Wars universe would queens be elected and senators be appointed? Lucas was safer when he followed the story arc he stole from Asimov's Foundation trilogy or Gibbons' Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. When he tries to resurrect his vision of the Nixon administration by superimposing it on a stolid, Rennaissance (or Roman)-like culture in space, he fails utterly.

I tried to give Phantom Menace the benefit of the doubt, even with Jar-Jar Binks around as some sort of dyslexic, fishheaded comic foil with a taste for reggae. I respected Liam Neeson, who like Alec Guinness before him added a little class and gravitas to what was, in essence, a kid's adventure story. But (spoiler alert) we knew he was doomed going into it.

And you know, I could tell Episode I was in trouble when I bought the soundtrack a couple weeks before the film came out. It had the familiar opening theme music, and one kick-@$$ piece of music ("Duel of the Fates"), but that was it. The rest of the soundtrack dozed along. A warning from John Williams, maybe? "I felt a great disturbance in the force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced." Now, see: that's a line I could dig, and it came from the first film.

Episode II was bad enough to make me think Episode I was charming. Attack of the Clones reached an especially uncomfortable level of awfulness when we delve (so to speak) into the courtship of Anakin Skywalker and Padme Amidala. Would a haughty, highfalutin' princess really fall for this yutz? One might see where Luke's whininess in A New Hope comes from, but that mercifully disappears by the middle of Empire Strikes Back. The action sequences, particularly the ones on the Imperial Capital world, Coruscant, are dazzling and fast-paced. But the characters don't come across as natural. Ewan McGregor is about the only highlight, though Samuel L. Jackson adds a nice dose of bad-@$$ to the Jedi Knights at the height of their powers, and Yoda made a welcome return...at least until the little guy started hopping around with a lightsaber. I mean, come on! Shouldn't he be on Dagobah somewhere, boiling bad cabbage?

Lucas could have redeemed himself by having his buddy Steven Spielberg direct Episode III, a film so bad that I had to look it up to recall the title: Revenge of the Sith. Revenge is supposed to close the Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader story arc, pack the biggest emotional wallop, and set the stage for the original film, "Episode IV." Alas, no. Instead, the audience is treated to more confusion, more baffling battle scenes, and more turgid prose spilling out of the mouths of actors who desperately need to jump to light speed and get the hell off the screen. Thus we have a train wreck (speeder wreck?) every time Natalie Portman opens her mouth: "Anakin, you're breaking my heart!" Barf.

And let's look at "the force" as it is depicted in the prequels. Did it not make more sense and have more coolness when it was just "an energy field created by all living things that surrounds us, penetrates us, and binds the galaxy together"? Or when Yoda said, "Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter," you could almost buy it. Heck, it was almost spiritual! Then, in Episode I, we suddenly learn of "midichlorians," which were "symbiotes...organisms living together for mutual advantage...without them, we would have no knowlege of the force." So now the force wasn't something cosmic holding the galaxy together, but more of a natural function (secretion?) of living cells. How disappointing. And, again, how clunky in its exposition!

When the first trilogy came out, my mother refused to watch them, convinced they were more about special effects than story. And yes, I freely admit that the acting in the first and third films (what Gen Xers would call Star Wars and Return of the Jedi) was probably on par with a high school or college play. Empire, while dark and leaving a lot of questions hanging out there, stands out for its pacing, acting (mostly--Mark Hamill's "Nooo! Nooooo!!" on the precipice is nearly Shatneresque in its hamminess), and love story. Jedi ends the series nicely, albeit a bit cutely (Ewoks, f'r gosh sakes???) and gives us an interesting view into the soul of Darth Vader. But we left the theater with a feeling of uplift, of catharsis, of a story drawn well to a satisfying conclusion.

It is not until one goes back and watches Episodes I through III, the "back story" of the original trilogy, that one truly understands what is meant by films that are dominated by special effects to the detriment of story. What are we to make of the philosophy articulated in Episode I ("Feel, don't think")? Or the twisted politics of Episode II? Or the tortured civil war of Episode III, where "there are heroes on both sides"? What is one to make of Anakin Skywalker, a slave "conceived by the force," who goes off to become a Jedi Knight? He constantly fights his passions, disrespects his elders, misses his mother, is easily susceptible to flattery from higher-ups, and has a wicked, murderous temper? What the hell would possess a planetary senator to fall in love with, marry, and have the children of this character? A writer or a director with a sense of accurately portraying human motivations could have answered these sorts of questions in a satisfactory way, even through the lens of a space-fantasy-action-adventure movie. Alas, Mr. Lucas is not such a writer or director, and did not answer these questions well.

The loyal fan in me has all three of these DVDs on my shelf, but the story teller in me allows them to collect dust or, if I feel compelled to watch one of the prequels, skips past large sections of the story for sheer sanity and taste's sake. I don't hold out a great deal of hope for the new animated Clone Wars movie coming into theaters next month, but then again, maybe Lucas finally got someone else to write and direct. Somehow, I've got a bad feeling about this.