Potpourri CVII


My fellow (and much higher-profile) space blogger friend Jeff Foust has a great lineup of editorials today on The Space Review. Topics include:

• The potential impact of "ClimateGate" on NASA's scientific reputation.
• A good defense of the Ares I-X flight test and a plea for civility in the pro-space community.
• A discussion on safety and the Ares I crew launch vehicle based on Jeff's observations of the House subcommittee re: space safety last week.
• An editorial discussing other uses of the soon-to-be-happening suborbital spaceflight industry besides space tourism.

There's a Washington Post article on the environmental impact of rockets.

Speaking of the Washington Post, they wrote an article recently on a competition the Department of Defense created to see how social networking could be used to gather information. This is pretty wild.

This appears to be a clearing house page that provides links to a variety of astronomy-related blogs.

A Popular Mechanics reporter recently visited Marshall Space Flight Center and got access to a lot of the work the Ares Projects has been doing.

The White House is pushing for more math and science. Good. Where's the money coming from? Though I suppose one could ask the same thing about NASA, NSF, and the rest of the stimulus. Hate it when my conservative spending habits get in the way of my scientific/space habits.

The Swirl

First, I invite you to read Jeff Foust's latest piece on the Augustine Human Space Flight panel. Go ahead, I'll wait...

Now I'll throw my own shrimp on the barbie--gingerly, of course. I've got a stake in this business in the form of a day job. There's been enough attention paid to this matter that one can't help admire the tempest in a teapot. The contenders for leading America's next generation of space exploration include:

• The Constellation Program as currently built: the Ares I crew launch vehicle for sending human beings in the Orion crew exploration vehicle into orbit, and the Ares V cargo launch vehicle, which can place the Altair lunar lander into orbit, along with an Earth departure stage (EDS). Missions to the International Space Station would require only Ares I and Orion. In a lunar exploration scenario, Ares V would launch Altair and the EDS into orbit. Next, Ares I launches Orion into orbit; Orion docks with Altair, and then the EDS fires its engine to send Orion and Altair toward the Moon.
• United Launch Alliance, a joint venture between Boeing and Lockheed-Martin, has suggested replacing Ares I with the "heavy" version of the Delta IV evolved expendable launch vehicle, which is already in existence, but doesn't have all the extra bells and whistles to make it "human rated."
• A group of NASA and non-NASA people have proposed a Space Shuttle-based archiecture called DIRECT, which would maximize existing equipment by putting four Space Shuttle Main Engines on the bottom of an external tank, and then putting the Orion on top. A new upper stage would give the Orion enough oomph to get it into orbit for lunar missions. For lunar missions, two DIRECT vehicles would be used, with one launching Altair, one launching Orion and the Earth departure stage (I believe).
• Others have suggested using wholly commercial launchers and spacecraft to support the International Space Station via the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program. The most likely candidate, if proven successful, would be SpaceX's Falcon 9 launcher and six-person Dragon spacecraft.

And no doubt there are others. An impressive array of choices--more than America had ten years ago, at any rate--but how does one decide? I myself am a proud, self-proclaimed "English major" (M.A. University of Central Florida '02, lest you think my low-key pose is real). I'm not an engineer, I'm a policy guy.

It seems to me that the bigger picture is being lost in the swirl over the choice of rockets. Everyone's so concerned about the "horse race" between the various vehicles that they're overlooking where the horses might or should be going, which is really the most important part of this discussion. I love our space science programs--the rovers, the orbiters, the telescopes--but I would dearly love to see human beings (yes, Americans) plant Old Glory into an asteroid or Mars or the Moon again. We did it when I was born, f'r gosh sakes, certainly we can improve on that performance after 40 years!

But the bigger questions aren't just about flags and footprints. We had that, won a race, and then closed down the production lines for the Moon rockets because we thought the job was done. As a space advocate, beg to differ. We've learned more about the Moon in the past 40 years. We know that the place is rich in energy, actual (solar) and potential (helium-3, which can be used for fusion). It might have water ice, which would make long-term bases and settlements possible up there. That's what the LCROSS mission will hopefully find out in October.

But what are we going to do when we're up there? That's where the conversation has always fallen flat (one can see the results in the International Space Station). Here's a step-by-step progression of what's possible with current technology--whichever rockets we choose to build:

1. Science performed by robotic vehicles, including Earth observation, planetary science, and astronomy.
2. Robotic "virtual" entertainment (e.g. tele-operated rovers moving around the Moon under the control of private citizens back on Earth).
3. Human exploration of other worlds, including the Moon, asteroids, and Mars.
4. Space resource development, including investigating space solar power, helium-3, platinum-group metals, and anything we haven't seen yet for use in solving problems here on Earth.
5. Basic science taking advantage of the near-vacuum and low gravity of the Moon or other bodies in the solar system.
6. Manufacturing of new products taking advantage of the space environment.
7. Handling or storage of materials too dangerous or precious to leave on Earth, such as nuclear waste, biotechnology, nanotechnology, cultural artifacts, or genetic "libraries" of all life on Earth.
8. Space commerce, including space hotels, tourism, off-world banks, and space salvage--none of which require a permanent human presence in space to maintain.
9. Space settlement, meaning permanent human habitations in orbit or on the Moon, Mars, or asteroids for scientific, commercial, or cultural reasons.

If I were President, I'd want to learn from the panel where the country should go and what we should do in space. From there, the hardware selections become more or less academic. If I had my choice, I'd keep shooting for the Moon, Mars, and beyond--let NASA keep doing what it's doing. I don't have a problem with a "mixed fleet" to low Earth orbit and the Space Station until the commercial sector gets established. Redundant capability to LEO might not be efficient, but it gives the country several options. But we need to keep NASA focused on the frontiers of science and engineering. Otherwise, what's the darned point?

Potpourri XLII

Let's see...what's lurking out there? Tell ya what, before I dive into the usual space, politics, and technobabble, some good news in the world of my e-niece, Morgan. On Saturday, Darlene the Science Cheerleader hosted a benefit for Morgan, presumably to help her family with her medical bills. The benefit raised $23,000! Gooooo, Dar! Staying tuned for further medical developments.

Tip o' the fedora to Tracy for this: Astronaut (not the singer) Tom Jones wrote an op-ed in the New York Post.

For those of you wondering what NASA has done for you lately, here's an excerpt from a press release on NASA's efforts to support environmental research:

NASA ANNOUNCES GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE EDUCATION GRANT AWARDS

WASHINGTON -- NASA has awarded $6.4 million in grants to institutions of higher education and not-for-profit education organizations nationwide to enhance learning through the use of NASA's Earth science resources.

Some good editorials in Jeff Foust's The Space Review:

• To boldly go: the urgent need for a revitalized investment in space technology---NASA long invested in development of advanced technologies, but in recent years that effort withered as the agency concentrated on plans to return to the Moon. John Mankins explains why it's necessary for NASA and the nation to reinvigorate its technology development efforts. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1377/1
• The god that failed---In the mid-1970s articles and books promised a grand future in the form of space colonies, a future that has not been realized. Dwayne Day looks back at one such description of such a future, and why it hasn't happened. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1376/1
• Exchanging uncertainties---It appears increasingly likely that the White House will nominate someone for NASA administrator in the immediate future, solving one problem long identified by NASA's supporters. However, Jeff Foust notes that whoever is selected won't be able to make all the uncertainties surrounding the space agency go away. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1375/1
• NASA and the book of laws---Norm Augustine, picked by the White House to lead a new panel on the future of NASA's human spaceflight programs, is best known for promulgating a series of "laws" about management practices. Taylor Dinerman examines what those laws, and other experience by Augustine, could mean for the future of NASA. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1374/1

Congressman Blair Holt's proposed bill to put additional restrictions on the Second Amendment. Or, as the bill's language puts it,

To provide for the implementation of a system of licensing for purchasers of certain firearms and for a record of sale system for those firearms, and for other purposes.

Sounds reasonable, but as the accompanying email noted,

Basically this would make it illegal to own a firearm. Any rifle with a clip or ANY pistol unless:

• It is registered
• You are fingerprinted
• You supply a current Driver's License
• You supply your Social Security #
• You will submit to a physical & mental evaluation at any time of their choosing
• Each update change of ownership through private or public sale must be reported and costs $25
• Failure to do so you automatically lose the right to own a firearm and are subject up to a year in jail.

Most of this is unnecessary and intrusive control of law-abiding citizens, since there are already laws on the books "preventing" criminals from purchasing weapons.

Another thought-provoking video from TED on "the sixth sense." Wow!

Boy, am I glad I read science fiction! It might be the only literature on Earth that helps the reader cope with "Future Shock." The techie in me says, "Way cool!" The neo-Luddite in me is thinking, "Uh oh, what next?"

Some additional thoughts from Scott on buying gold for that ugly rainy day at the end of civilization:

In your bullet point saying “Gold (http://www.swissamerica.com/ or http://www.golddealer.com/ were recommended to me at one point).” You might want to say “Currency, or something to use as currency. I mean the real thing, not paper or other fiat money. Everyone thinks of gold, which I recommend; but you’ll also want silver for those smaller purchases. When you buy a loaf of bread the seller may not be able to give you change from your 950-dollar (at today’s price) gold piece. Buy coins from a country people have heard of, don’t buy collector-grade, uncirculated, mint, or other coins priced at a premium, and don’t buy ingots as neither you nor your seller will know if they’ve been debased or not.”

New from Hu:

• The U.S. Army is looking at more Stryker brigades. The son of one of my managers back in NoVA was captain of a Stryker brigade. And from what I heard, his team was quite effective. Of course it helps to have the right people in command and on the ground...
• Some thoughts on the safety of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal. This might be important reading, given that they're reported to be increasing their nuke stockpile.

Some interesting stats on the state of our education system/test scores.

Space Potpourri

Some interesting things being said in the space industry, mostly because there haven't been a lot of interesting things being done.

Jeff Foust has a good editorial about the challenges facing the Constellation Program. There's also an interesting essay on the aimlessness in the Obama administration's space policy (which I agree with) and the need for yet another "independent" assessment of the DIRECT architecture (which I do not agree with). In fact, if you haven't subscribed to The Space Review yet, you should do so. It is probably the best outlet I've seen for editorials dealing specifically with space advocacy.

Astronaut Mike Massimino is Twittering to give folks a behind-the-scenes look at NASA's astronaut biz. I'll be interested to see how much "truth" they allow him to write. The agency as a whole is very protective of its "brand" (image). They're rather like Disney in that way.

USA Today has a very cool Flash feature depicting the assembly of the International Space Station.

The Space Frontier Foundation in this editorial is offering the following policy suggestions to the Obama administration:

• Kill the overbudget, behind schedule Ares rocket project;
• Launch NASA’s new Orion capsule on human-rated expendable launch vehicles;
• Provide more money to NASA’s COTS programs to support the development of private human space systems;
• Fund the cheapest medium-lift vehicle launcher possible to facilitate Moon missons.

This isn't space-specific, but a coworker referred me to a site providing multiple links to women and technology called WomenTechWorld.

Someone is offering suggestions for theme music for the Constellation Program.

Former astronaut Lisa Nowak's defense team is trying to make the case that she was autistic. Oh, come on, really?? You don't get to be one of America's best and brightest by being autistic. They wouldn't let her on the Space Shuttle if she had that. I happened to see Ms. Nowak at MSFC during a crew visit the November before her little "incident." She was focused, composed, and engaged, none of which--as far as I'm aware--are habits of typical autistics.

The U.S. space industry is not yet seeing a slowdown, despite the iffy economy. Huzzah! Some good news for a change!

The Orlando Sentinel has fired another broadside at the Constellation Program.

*

And on the lighter side of things--and not related to space whatsoever--hat tip to my dad for finding this "tutorial" on how to speak car mechanic gibberish. Engineers should watch this so they have some idea of what it's like for an English major during some meetings about rocket science.

Space Cadet Politics

Nader Elhenawy has a rather long, but worthwhile piece on The Space Review. Go on and read it, or my selective commentary won't make much sense.

*

I could not help being struck by the predominance of a libertarian-conservative outlook among those who follow these matters online. (I specify it as libertarian-conservative because our use of the word “libertarian” tends to overlook the long history of left-libertarianism.)
Why this should be the case is far from obvious.

The author would not be surprised by the prevalence of conservatism/libertarianism in space if he read a little more Robert A. Heinlein, who was a science fiction writer focusing on rockets. He also was a 1930s liberal and later '50s and '60s conservative/libertarian, but a capitalist all the way down the line.

Re: postmoderism as a conservative perspective

I found this twist on things interesting, but ultimately irrelevant. Classical liberalism, with its emphases on individual liberty and progress, is now part of today's conservative-liberatarians. Meanwhile postmodernism is very much a part of progressivism/liberalism, with its emphases on relativism, postcolonialism, feminism, and other -isms that question Western rationality, technology, and universal philosophies (e.g. Christianity, capitalism).

The "final frontier" of Democrat John F. Kennedy (and his disciple Gene Roddenberry) is now questioned as "imperialist" by postcolonial theorists in that same party. Progressives support green power and genetic activities because they are small, earthbound, and so not likely to intimidate or overpower the individual. Rocketry cannot help but be big--a sin in itself, for reasons that elude me--because of the sheer number of experts and money required to make it a going concern.

In short, space is merely an extension of our present and past ideological battles applied to a broad canvas--the ultimate blank slate. Examples can be found in the pages of science fiction. The "Future History" short stories of Robert Heinlein collected in The Past Through Tomorrow might be seen as the genesis of the conservative-libertarian viewpoint. If you want to see an example of government-centric "New Deal" or "Great Society" liberalism in space, check out Kim Stanley Robinson's Mars Trilogy, starting with Red Mars. Another "grand vision" for space is the (Carl) Saganite ethos of making the universe safe for robots, while humans stay home. Still another is that of Gerard K. O'Neill, which is more or less the vision of the National Space Society. O'Neill believed in large orbital settlements/cities in space, manufactured by and sustaining a high-tech industrial civilization. It's very difficult to find a postmodern vision for near-term space exploration because most of the component ideologies that make it up are more concerned about denouncing and undoing Western capitalism/conservatism here on Earth.

One thing that I should point out is that science and technology are essentially apolitical. You can be a communist, a capitalist, a Mormon, or a Zoroastrian--if you follow the laws of nature and build things correctly, you can get people and cargo into space. As the Soviet Union proved. As did Communist China, India, and now Iran. A human future in space is, perhaps, inevitable. The form of society that the future takes is up for grabs. So we'll see how it all sorts out. The private sector might, indeed, win the battle to control the economy in low Earth orbit...at least until the government decides to regulate them out of existence.