Potpourri CXXVI

I'm in the process of remodeling and adding a lot more content to Rhetoric & Rockets (a.k.a. Bartacus), so if you see more than the usual number of book or product reviews, that is on purpose. I'm trying to see how much money, if any, I can make through my Amazon Affiliate activities. Here's the general premise: if I write a good enough review and you are tempted to buy a book/video/product based on said review, click on the product "badge" on the page, and buy it through Amazon. The writer/creator/producer gets the joy of a customer, and I get a tiny piece of the action as a reviewer.

Another week's worth of stuff to plow through, so my apologies if there isn't a lot of commentary attached. In response to a comment from one reader, I do not read EVERYTHING included in these links, but it would probably terrify you to know how much I do read. Shall we begin?

From Hu: The People's Republic of China is studying a Saturn V-class launch vehicle. There is only one practical purpose for such a rocket, and that is to send human beings to the Moon. What do they know that the Obama administration does not, hmmmm?

From Greg A.: In the spirit of the late Senator William Proxmire and his "Golden Fleece" award, here are the most 10 most absurd scientific papers published in recent memory.

From Tracy: A good article on how space was promoted back when our country believed that exploring space was a Good Thing.

From D2:

• A Big Think video explaining the possible psychological bases of political ideologies. This one gets a "maybe" in my truthiness scale, but it's an intriguing notion.
• Another article that will probably be of interest to Dr. OZMG re: the profit motive and keeping animals in captivity

From Science @ NASA: Some interesting things are happening on the Sun.

From Dar, who is visiting the South by Southwest (SXSW) Conference this weekend:

• An article on the future of video games.
• Science has become a serious political issue in the UK (about time it was taken seriously somewhere!).

From Hank Campbell: The Open Source Science Project, a page that encourages private citizens to participate in, and comment upon, research in progress.

How did they get that bug in the museum anyway? A 100-year-old mystery solved. I expect to see a CSI episode about this soon, but it wouldn't be the same without Grissom on the show.


President Obama has called for a space summit in Florida April 15. He'd better have really good briefings/message control, because there are a lot of angry people at Kennedy Space Center. Anyhow, there are several articles about this summit, which NASAWatch has conveniently put all in one place:

• http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/03/florida-space-s.html
• http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/03/space-policy-an.html
• http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/03/daniel-in-the-l.html

Jeff Foust also has a discussion about the summit on his Space Politics blog.

Is the Orion crew exploration vehicle being transferred to the commercial sector? This article says yes.

Some interesting stuff from OpenNASA…
http://www.opennasa.com/2010/03/09/heavenly-answers-for-earthly-problems/
http://www.opennasa.com/2010/03/11/open-participation-not-just-open-information/

Also from Jeff Foust's Space Politics/The Space Review blogs...

• Some progress might be made on making export control rules more rational (i.e. not so tight that American aerospace companies cannot compete overseas).
• An excellent analysis of how the unveiling of the Obama administration's NASA budget was rolled out and why they face challenges getting their way in fiscal year 2011.
• What hope does the U.S. or NASA have for getting international partners for future space missions? Taylor Dinerman says the odds aren't great unless some serious structural changes are made. This is easily fixed, by the way. The Department of Defense is able to obtain "five-year" funds to build things like aircraft carriers without having to debate the whole thing every year.

Florida members of Congress are trying to keep the Shuttle flying longer.

Machines capable of reading thoughts? Maybe.


Here's an article on the fact that Twitter knows where you are tweeting from. But really, anyone familiar with the technology already knew this…

Like most large, bureaucratic organizations, the Department of Defense has a love-hate relationship with social media web sites.

This is kind of cool: a Flash feature showing the process/progress of assembling the International Space Station (ISS). Just a gentle reminder, all: there are only four more Space Shuttle missions planned, and once they're done and, if the President gets his way, the Constellation Program, NASA will NOT have a rocket that can fly up to ISS until 2016 at the earliest, leaving us dependent on the Russians to get our astronauts there. If you want to know why, I suggest calling your elected officials and demanding an answer. I already KNOW the answer, but I'm not going to share that. It's more fun for you to call and ask. Trust me.

From Martin: A Russian-language travelogue through a "boomer" (nuclear missile submarine) base. I'd be interested to know if this sub is considered "active," or if it's been retired. If it's been retired, has all the hot stuff--the ship's nuclear reactor and its missiles--been removed? Russian speakers are welcome to enlighten me.

The Echoes of Apollo group is interested in building or enhancing the Deep Space Network, which is a worldwide set of dish antennas used to collect data from satellites and vehicles farther in space. Gosh knows the U.S. system could use an upgrade or two.

From Regina: The European Space Agency (ESA) has upgraded its "Eduspace" web page for space education.

From Father Dan: A very cool map of weather conditions at every airport in the U.S.

From Lin: A new bicycle from New Zealand, the "Yike Bike."

And that will do for now. Your readership and patronage are appreciated!

The War in Georgia and the Space Program

While the news media is transfixed by the invasion of the oil-producing former Soviet republic of Georgia by its former masters, not too many of them have given much thought to the effect of Russia's actions on the space program.

This has been a big issue for me since Space Adventures started sending tourists to the International Space Station. I questioned my fellow space advocates' embrace of this activity, especially since Russia was not all that reliable. But at the time I was grousing, it was 2000-2001, and my Cold Warrior opinions were not welcome. Well, here's a "See, I Told You So" 7 years later. Now we have Russia invading one of its former client states/satellites.

This invasion makes sense if one has read a bit of European/Russian history as well as The Clash of Civilizations by Samuel Huntington. In short, we're now facing a world situation where large regional powers are trying to reassert and maintain their power over smaller states in their neighborhood. Russia had a "cordon sanitaire" or set of buffer states between itself and the West between 1919 and 1991. Making former satellites like Ukraine, Poland, or Georgia members of NATO was a direct threat to Russina security, as they saw it. That might not be logical, but it is prudent. Russia wants its buffer back.

So why does this affect the space program? Because Russia has been a major partner in building and staffing the International Space Station and, once the Space Shuttle retires in two years, they will be our only transportation provider to ISS. Will Russia refuse the U.S. access to ISS once Shuttle retires? Will they jack up the price of Soyuz flights to ISS the way they held Europe hostage for higher oil prices? Will ISS become the site of the first "space war?" Those are the types of questions and possibilities Bush and the next president must consider if Russia is going to continue to be an aggressor.

On the U.S. side, we have some other questions to consider. For instance:

• Do we keep the Space Shuttle flying longer?
• Do we increase funding to the Commercial Orbital Transportation Services (COTS) program?
• Do we increase funding for the Constellation Program to speed up development of Ares and Orion?
• Do we do all of the above?
• Do we scrap everything and build a different rocket?

Funding all of the above would probably cost $2-3 billion per year at best. More likely, we'd be looking at $4-5 billion in new funding on top of the current $17 billion NASA budget, assuming the current budget gets past the threat of a continuing resolution in Congress. This, of course, overlooks the operational consequences of extending the Shuttle, which Mike Griffin has addressed again and again:

• As long as we continue to fly Shuttle, the vehicle processing and launch infrastructure at Kennedy Space Center must remain as is. The longer we keep Shuttle in place, the longer it will take for our launch systems (the Vehicle Assembly Building, the launch pads, etc.) to be ready to launch Ares I and Ares V. That might not delay the development time for Ares I, but it will delay our ability to fly it.
• We can increase funding for COTS--and I'm for that anyway--but there will be some resistance, given that the only serious competitor in the field (SpaceX) has failed three times to get something into orbit.
• We can increase funding for Ares and Orion. However, Griffin, Jeff Hanley, and others have pointed out that even if you threw a couple billion dollars at Constellation, money isn't the issue. Roger Bilstein's Stages to Saturn provides an excellent narrative that explains why building new rocket systems is a long, arduous, linear process. That means, even if you threw ten or a hundred billion dollars at a new engine system (say, J-2X), it would still take seven years to build it. You have to build things, test them, have them blow up, try something new, and then retest.
• We could stay on plan: retire the Shuttle, build Ares, accept the five-year gap, suck it up, and pay the Russians whatever they want to charge to get access to the ISS.
• We could shift gears, change direction, try some other rocket design--start from scratch with DIRECT or make EELV human-rated and put an Orion capsule on top of it--and hope that either of these choices shrinks the anticipated five-year gap in America's ability to launch human beings into space. Keep in mind that the last time America had a gap in human spaceflight capabilities were the years 1975 to 1981. Those weren't particularly great years (think: Carter), but civilization did not collapse.
• We could quit. Let the Russians, Chinese, Japanese, Europeans, and Indians inherit the spaceways.

The best question someone could ask the two major candidates would be: "America's space program is a waste of time and resources. Why should be bother spending money on space at all? Why don't we just close it down?" Okay, it's not the best question someone could ask, but it would bring the space issue into focus. Do we really want it shut down completely? Does greatness (okay, pride and power--the things McCain talked about in his space statement--but also future technologies and resources) no longer matter to America? Are we going to give up being the single richest, most powerful nation in history just because it's too much work or too expensive? Ye flippin' gods.

Regardless of what happens in Georgia, the media needs to give more thought to the space aspects of a new Cold War with Russia, because it is nearly here, and our space program looked a lot different the last time we had a Cold War. The last time we had one, we went to the Moon.

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.