First Meeting of Huntsville Space Professionals
One of the advantages of being on a no-overtime type of schedule is that if you work really late one day, you can get out early on, say, a Friday. That's what I did yesterday after kicking it until 10 p.m. Thursday. Since I had the time and might face employment drama after September 30, I decided to attend the first meeting of Huntsville Space Professionals (HSP), a group formed by some downsized NASA folks here in Rocket City, at Chan Auditorium at University of Alabama-Huntsville. The goal of the group is "Preserving and promoting Huntsville's talented human space capital." In short, they want to keep space jobs--or at least the people who filled them--here in Huntsville.
Also in attendance were Huntsville Mayor Tommy Battle and WAFF TV, Channel 48. (Note to the media: never mind your pushy questions--some people don't like your Very Bright Lights shining in their face--and I was in the back of the room.)
One of the speakers was Lori King-Taylor from Trinity Performance Solutions, which appears to be a staffing company of some sort. Another site she referenced was by the Huntsville Chamber of Commerce. Trinity is helping HSP with establishing a career center, which will assist people with a job search web site, resume writing, interview skills, 401(k) options, entrepreneurship, and counseling. King-Taylor encouraged the crowd: "Keep your head high. This is not your fault. You have done nothing wrong."
Tommy Battle indicated that his office is talking to some of the likely "winners" under the Obama administration's space policy, including firms like SpaceX, Bigelow Aerospace, and Virgin Galactic. There are a lot of smart, space-minded people in Huntsville who would prefer to stay here, thank you very much, and there is a lot of specialized equipment and infrastructure needed to build and test rockets here in Alabama, so the road to space will still go through Huntsville. We'll see if these other companies bite or not. And we still don't know what Marshall Space Flight Center will end up doing under the new policy/budget. In any case, Battle is covering all the bases and working with the Alabama Governor's office as well. He had to go to a meeting, so he wasn't able to take Q&A.
The HSP guys also contacted former NASA Administrator Mike Griffin, who is now an "eminent scholar" and professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at UAH. Griffin was out of the country, but responded to Q&A via email. His general comments were that (unsurprisingly) he was not happy with the new policy, but that he has "no influence over this matter." With regard to people worried about looking for jobs, he recommended that people "look in Huntsville first," pointing to opportunities on the Army side of Redstone Arsenal. For dedicated souls who still want to work for NASA, he recommended reviewing the Space Policy and "go where the money is." On the whole, Griffin hoped that Congress "just says no to the ridiculous space policy advocated by the Obama administration."
After reviewing Griffin's emailed-in responses, the HSP folks reviewed the status of the NASA budget. H.R. 5614, the "Protecting Human Space Flight Act," which was introduced by Congressman Robert Aderholt (R-AL) "To impose certain requirements on the expenditure of funds by National Aeronautics and Space Administration for the Constellation Program." More to the point, the point of the bill is to slow down or stop what's going on with Constellation. Otherwise, the NASA budget is entering the "markup" part of budget cycle, where Congress takes what it's been given and starts fiddling with the numbers. The House started its markups June 29, the Senate is due to start theirs July 14. The main difference in the Senate bill is the addition of one more Space Shuttle flight in June 2011. There is a lot of behind-the-scenes "number crunching" going on at the moment, so we'll see what happens. While NASA received a $19 billion budget from the House, they deferred a decision on how to appropriate (spend) that money. We're very likely looking at a Continuing Resolution (CR) come the start of the new fiscal year (October 1).
The HSP guys opened the mike to public comment. There were some questions from the audience on job assistance--the primary reason most folks were there, I'd gather. If the HSP guys were disappointed that more people weren't fired up or getting up to speak, they covered it pretty well. That's not how this town works. Engineers aren't that exciteable, in my observations, and excessive activism is sometimes a political risk.
One gentleman from Southern Capital Management said that he would be willing to share proceeds from a property that he is selling as a commercial property--if folks are willing to put in "sweat equity" to help improve it. Sounds like it'd be serious digging and sweating. He was looking for people with their own Bobcats. Still, the offer's there if you're willing to work...
Otherwise, several Human Resources reps from Technicore, MTS, and United Space Alliance went up to the front of the room to talk to people and collect resumes or other contact information. The HSP guys mentioned that Jacobs was hosting a job fair at the Huntsville Museum of Art 9 a.m. to Noon July 13, and that HSP would be having a meeting at the Monte Sano Lodge next week sometime. Then the meeting more or less broke up.
I am not certain how to rate the effectiveness of this meeting. As I walked in, they were passing out copies of the Obama administration's space policy to make people aware, and they "weren't asking people to take a stand either way." About 50 people showed up, and they managed to get the mayor and the media to show up, so that's a step in the right direction. The HSP guys were looking for feedback on what else they could be doing. I honestly couldn't say. The uncertainty around Huntsville will be around for awhile. "We're caught in a big political game that's going on over our heads," as more than one person said. What happens next is anyone's guess. In the meantime, unfortunately, this group will be necessary for awhile.
Showing posts with label Obama Administration. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Obama Administration. Show all posts
Saturday, July 10, 2010
Monday, July 05, 2010
Potpourri CXLIII
I know, I know, I really should be outside getting some exercise in the fresh air, but it's my day off, so I'm spending it in whatever lazy fashion suits me best: in my case, blogging, hitting golf balls, and having a couple of brewskis. You enjoy the holiday your way, I'll do it mine.
While I am no longer working for Constellation/Ares, my cube is still located where the Ares Projects are based. And yes, I still care about the fate of the project. It now appears that Congress is punting on passing the federal budget on time or putting any money behind their complaints about how the Administration is treating NASA. So the program--what's left of it--will be in zombie mode until someone attaches the electrodes and gives it new life or it's put down like the wounded pet that it is. Oy.
From Doc:
- A little caffeineated humor. Need a t-shirt that expresses your mental state? Try this.
- And why? Because a story on NPR indicated that caffeine might, in fact, be good for you.
- Observation #1: Human space exploration is not listed in the top-line summary of priorities.
- Observation #2: While there's an emphasis on "space nuclear power," that could any number of things: nuclear-powered batteries (what we use on Cassini/Galileo now); space-based nuclear reactors for powering ion drives or other flavors of propulsion that result in radioactive by-products in space; or it could mean starting up a NERVA or Orion type of vehicle, which would actually use nuclear explosions to accelerate spacecraft. We'll have to wait and see.
- General comment: In theory, international cooperation is a good thing, and gosh knows the previous administration (President and NASA) did not go out of their way to push for it in space. However, there are always challenges when you deal with international partners. For example, what if we stop getting along with a major partner (e.g. Russia) over some unrelated political/military fracas? If Russia provides critical components for the mission, would the mission be stopped by diplomatic problems? And then there's our nation's oh-so-fabulous export control laws, which in theory prevent people who don't like us from getting hold of our sensitive technology, but in reality can prevent international teams from working with us because we can't allow them to see how our technologies work, or vice versa. Hopefully the administration will at least fix ITAR before putting international partners on the "critical path" for any future missions (i.e., making their participation essential for success).
Need your business cards refurbished/redesigned? Check out this site.
A variety of things I found through random surfing:
- Shushing sonic booms: http://www.space.com/businesstechnology/supersonic-concept-plane-shush-sonic-booms-100630.html
- First photo of an extrasolar planet: http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/first-alien-planet-photographed-confirmed-100629.html
- An astronaut says there's no time for sex in space: http://www.space.com/news/no-sex-in-space-astronaut-says-100629.html
- Nebula photo: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/06/blue-nebula/
- New look and origin to Wonder Woman: http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2010/06/a-new-wonder-woman/
- Teaching military history in times of war: http://chronicle.com/article/Teaching-Military-History-in-a/66023/
- Review: The Icarus Syndrome http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2010/06/28/100628crbo_books_packer?currentPage=all
- Why not socialism? http://reviewcanada.ca/reviews/2010/06/01/the-thinking-man-s-marxist/
- A different view of appeasement: http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=23542
- Legislation and the gender gap: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/15/science/15tier.html
- Charlie Sheen vs. Emilio Estevez: What’s the difference? http://www.mentalfloss.com/difference/charlie-sheen-vs-emilio-estevez/
If you're a big fan of living on the Moon, you might enjoy the Moon Miners' Manifesto, the newsletter of the Moon Society. I don't want to live on the Moon, personally. I like Earth. But I wouldn't mind staying at a hotel on the Moon, say with a nice view of the Earth...
From D2: a graphic designer gets a little snarky with a friend who wanted him to do something they bloody well could have done themselves. I've tried things like this, but it usually damages friendships.
Got this through my space-geek sources:
More on the Times pay wall: http://au.biz.yahoo.com/100702/31/2e1qz.html Did you know there are only two Space Shuttle missions left? Mark your calendars: November 1 and February 26. We'll miss human spaceflight when it's gone...
Space Studies Institute Space Manufacturing 14: Critical Technologies for Space Settlement at NASA Ames Conference Center October 30-31, 2010!
Thirty five years ago, NASA Ames Research Center was the site of the first large technical study of space settlement. We have made significant progress since then, but with the prospect of low cost space transportation in the near future, now is the time to reinvigorate research and collaboration on the critical path technologies needed for space industrialization and settlement. The 14th Space Studies Institute conference on Space Manufacturing continues in the spirit of the Princeton Conferences initiated by Prof. Gerard K O’Neill in 1974.
The Space Manufacturing and Space Settlement Conferences have always given SSI attendees great value. This conference is the only one solely concerned with the science and engineering of humanity’s expansion into the solar system. Its most important function is to bring together the engineers, entrepreneurs and researchers who do the real work. New space companies and new institutions have formed from collaborations forged at earlier conferences. We hope that this and future annual SSI conferences will be as fruitful.
The specific purpose of Space Manufacturing 14 is to identify and recommend critical hardware research that can be conducted now by SSI, NASA and other organizations.
Registration opens July 7, 2010
*Registration is $250 for a full two day conference (Saturday October 30 & Sunday October 31), which includes a catered lunch for both days and a Friday night Wine Reception.
*Saturday, October 30th, Buffet dinner $35
*Our Official Hotel for this event is the lovely Sheraton Sunnyvale. Exclusive to SSI attendees, a special rate of $89 per night includes an exclusive Shuttle pickup and drop off between San Jose Airport and the Hotel (until 9pm on Friday, October 29, Saturday, Sunday and Monday), transportation to and from the NASA Ames conference center...plus free High Speed Internet in each SSI guest's room.
For history buffs, a time-lapse animation of Middle Eastern empires: http://www.mapsofwar.com/images/EMPIRE17.swf
This sounds interesting: someone is developing a crowdsourced documentary: http://www.onedayonearth.org/
An online introduction to Einstein’s thought: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=FE3074A4CB751B2B
Using “cognitive surplus” to change the world? http://www.openculture.com/2010/06/clay_shirky_how_cognitive_surplus_will_change_the_world.html
Like me, my buddy Martin luckily got moved off of Ares and onto other duties, including speech writing for executives at Marshall Space Flight Center. I suggested the following books/links to help him "think like an executive." Or something. Here to help...
Lend Me Your Ears: Great Speeches in History: http://www.amazon.com/Lend-Me-Your-Ears-Speeches/dp/0393059316/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278081799&sr=8-1
Bartlett’s Quotations: http://www.bartleby.com/
The Complete Works of Shakespeare: http://shakespeare.mit.edu/
Not sure civil servants are allowed to quote the Bible anymore, but what the heck: http://www.blueletterbible.org/
This site is useful for finding random “stuff” out on that-thar interwebs thingy: http://boingboing.net/
Also, if you want to absorb the zeitgeist of the early 21st century (and understand what sorts of books that managers/leaders read), consider the following:
Outliers (Basic theme: there are other things that account for success than money, luck, and hard work. Stupid.) http://www.amazon.com/Outliers-Story-Success-Malcolm-Gladwell/dp/0316017922/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082187&sr=8-1
The Wisdom of Crowds: http://www.amazon.com/Wisdom-Crowds-James-Surowiecki/dp/0385721706/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082257&sr=1-1
The Black Swan: The Impact of the Highly Improbable: http://www.amazon.com/Black-Swan-Improbable-Robustness-Fragility/dp/081297381X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082272&sr=1-1
Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything: http://www.amazon.com/Freakonomics-Economist-Explores-Hidden-Everything/dp/0060731338/ref=pd_sim_b_12
The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century: http://www.amazon.com/World-Flat-Updated-Expanded-Twenty-first/dp/B002N2XI02/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082396&sr=1-4
The Paradox of Choice: Why More is Less: http://www.amazon.com/Paradox-Choice-Why-More-Less/dp/0060005696/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082577&sr=1-1
Fish! A Remarkable Way to Boost Morale and Improve Results:
http://www.amazon.com/Remarkable-Boost-Morale-Improve-Results/dp/0786866020/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082506&sr=1-1
Servant Leadership: A Journey Into the Nature of Legitimate Power and Greatness
http://www.amazon.com/Servant-Leadership-Legitimate-Greatness-Anniversary/dp/0809105543/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1278082603&sr=1-1. (Okay, most leaders are NOT reading this one...but more of them should. A great recommendation I got from D2!)
Apps, apps, and more apps...I got a little spooked today trying the "Shazam" app on my iPhone for the first time. The gag is, you turn it on, put the iPhone up close to the radio, or even sing a few bars of a song, and it will identify the song's title and artist. That's just creepy. Oh, and speaking of apps, the U.S. Government is now getting in on the act, as reported by my buddy Dar.
More on Constellation: job losses are now estimated at around 5,000 people nationwide. Boo.
John Logdson is apparently a mentor of the folks who created the current space policy. Here are some of this thoughts here.
From my buddy Melissa, a short movie on teamwork.
From Anika, for Star Wars and Joss Whedon fans: a "Joss Whedon is my master now" t-shirt.
From Lin: News coverage of the oil spill is now being regulated.
And lastly, steampunk is making a bit of a comeback, in a variety of formats, including computer keyboards and apparel. For those unfamiliar with steampunk, I recommend reading The Difference Engine by Bruce Sterling and William Gibson. It's an alternate history science fiction story in which Charles Babbage got his mechanical computer ("difference engine") to work in the Victorian Era, thereby extending the Victorian aesthetics into the future.
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Potpourri CXXIX
Off we go, into the wild inky yonder...
Time Magazine has a surprisingly good piece on Obama's new space policy. I say surprisingly because mainstream (i.e. non-aerospace-focused) publications usually get things very wrong when it comes to space matters. That doesn't make the policy any better, but it's nice to know some people outside the space geek community are finally getting it.
A site created by my buddy Veronica: Astronauts for Hire.
From my ESL student: a site offering advice on revising a novel.
People like to complain about "all that money we're wasting on space when we could be spending it on more important things here on Earth." Okay, try this site by Fox News: it's a calculator that shows how much you, personally, have paid for the Constellation Program based on your gross income. Might make you stop complaining, or marvel that you get so much cool stuff for so little money.
It is a bad sign when the legions start getting explicitly involved in the workings of domestic politics.
NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate has a new web site to explain the new policy.
The Cassini spacecraft has detected lightning on the planet Saturn. Boy oh boy, I'm sure glad all those anti-nuclear protesters fought so hard against flying plutonium into space...gosh knows what sorts of stuff we might be ignorant about otherwise. It's not just religious conservatives who can be anti-science.
The threat from nuclear terrorism is increasing…
Oh, and if a nuclear attack did happen in your area, don't expect a fast response from Obama's federal government...not to be confused by Bush's government in response to Hurricane Katrina, of course.
Obama’s disregard for the press must be bad—they’re even reporting on it!
Speaking of nukes, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is reporting that Iran could have enough nuclear material for a bomb within a year
One sign your space policy is not being received well? When the First Man on the Frickin' Moon criticizes it...and he doesn't say boo about anything. It's also a bad sign when one of the potential beneficiaries is doubtful as is Burt Rutan, a known maverick and major critic of NASA. Nice job, guy.
The bill regarding trials for terrorists also includes NASA funding. Guess which one will get more attention.
A new method has been found for photographing Earth-like planets. Cool! Also, Earth-like planets might be more common than previously thought.
The Houston Chronicle has a poll on whether to demolish the Astrodome…another relic from the early Space Age at risk.
Obama is changing the U.S. nuclear weapons policy. Time will tell how bright this is.
Random: CNN had an online poll asking “Do you attend church regularly?” Results of this unscientific poll: 32% said yes, 68% said no.
Joss Whedon, creator of Firefly and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (among other things) has been tapped to direct the “Avengers” movie. Heck yeah!
More random: a culinary review of the KFC Double Down “sandwich.” And here's a review of the best hot dogs in the nation...allegedly.
Speaking of food reviews, I need to get cracking on combining my part of a review of a space cookbook with my foodie friend Michelle's parts I and II! My part is written, I just have to do editing. 'Twas an interesting experiment in leveraging my Facebook connections...in this case, a friend from WAY back in my Lincoln Elementary School days who has since become a serious at-home amateur chef. A publisher wanted me to review a space cookbook, but I knew jack about creative cooking; Michelle knows food, so--synergy! Thanks, Michelle!
Is depression contagious?
Had a brief discussion with someone about my Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality profile. For years I've tested out as an INTJ, but this person suggested that I might in fact be an INFJ. Here's an article that clarifies the difference between the two.
Here's one way to make music from random interplanetary phenomena. This actually sounded like some of the Buddhist chanting my pal D2 listens to, so I forwarded it to her. She seemed to like it; I guess it's an acquired taste.
I'll be in Chicago next month for ISDC, and plan to hang out with family and friends at some point. Am looking seriously at this place my sister recommended. What the heck, any pizza from Chicagoland is going to be better than what I get in the South...
How's this for a fun workplace?
Popular Mechanics has a very friendly interview with Lori Garver. I say friendly because not everyone in the space biz is so keen on said policy. That said, I found most of the arguments reasonable, and wish we'd heard more of them when the policy was rolled out.
This was a good way to end last week: I’ve been nominated for a NASA Spaceflight Awareness Team Award for my part in the Ares I-X outreach team.
From Facebook buddy Sarah: a poem that caught my eye.
From Hu: the dorkiest complaints about the accuracy of the Apollo 13 movie.
From Dar: an article on engaging the public on nanotechnology.
From Doc:
Off we go, into the wild inky yonder...
Time Magazine has a surprisingly good piece on Obama's new space policy. I say surprisingly because mainstream (i.e. non-aerospace-focused) publications usually get things very wrong when it comes to space matters. That doesn't make the policy any better, but it's nice to know some people outside the space geek community are finally getting it.
A site created by my buddy Veronica: Astronauts for Hire.
From my ESL student: a site offering advice on revising a novel.
People like to complain about "all that money we're wasting on space when we could be spending it on more important things here on Earth." Okay, try this site by Fox News: it's a calculator that shows how much you, personally, have paid for the Constellation Program based on your gross income. Might make you stop complaining, or marvel that you get so much cool stuff for so little money.
It is a bad sign when the legions start getting explicitly involved in the workings of domestic politics.
NASA's Exploration Systems Mission Directorate has a new web site to explain the new policy.
The Cassini spacecraft has detected lightning on the planet Saturn. Boy oh boy, I'm sure glad all those anti-nuclear protesters fought so hard against flying plutonium into space...gosh knows what sorts of stuff we might be ignorant about otherwise. It's not just religious conservatives who can be anti-science.
The threat from nuclear terrorism is increasing…
Oh, and if a nuclear attack did happen in your area, don't expect a fast response from Obama's federal government...not to be confused by Bush's government in response to Hurricane Katrina, of course.
Obama’s disregard for the press must be bad—they’re even reporting on it!
Speaking of nukes, the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) is reporting that Iran could have enough nuclear material for a bomb within a year
One sign your space policy is not being received well? When the First Man on the Frickin' Moon criticizes it...and he doesn't say boo about anything. It's also a bad sign when one of the potential beneficiaries is doubtful as is Burt Rutan, a known maverick and major critic of NASA. Nice job, guy.
The bill regarding trials for terrorists also includes NASA funding. Guess which one will get more attention.
A new method has been found for photographing Earth-like planets. Cool! Also, Earth-like planets might be more common than previously thought.
The Houston Chronicle has a poll on whether to demolish the Astrodome…another relic from the early Space Age at risk.
Obama is changing the U.S. nuclear weapons policy. Time will tell how bright this is.
Random: CNN had an online poll asking “Do you attend church regularly?” Results of this unscientific poll: 32% said yes, 68% said no.
Joss Whedon, creator of Firefly and Buffy the Vampire Slayer (among other things) has been tapped to direct the “Avengers” movie. Heck yeah!
More random: a culinary review of the KFC Double Down “sandwich.” And here's a review of the best hot dogs in the nation...allegedly.
Speaking of food reviews, I need to get cracking on combining my part of a review of a space cookbook with my foodie friend Michelle's parts I and II! My part is written, I just have to do editing. 'Twas an interesting experiment in leveraging my Facebook connections...in this case, a friend from WAY back in my Lincoln Elementary School days who has since become a serious at-home amateur chef. A publisher wanted me to review a space cookbook, but I knew jack about creative cooking; Michelle knows food, so--synergy! Thanks, Michelle!
Is depression contagious?
Had a brief discussion with someone about my Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality profile. For years I've tested out as an INTJ, but this person suggested that I might in fact be an INFJ. Here's an article that clarifies the difference between the two.
Here's one way to make music from random interplanetary phenomena. This actually sounded like some of the Buddhist chanting my pal D2 listens to, so I forwarded it to her. She seemed to like it; I guess it's an acquired taste.
I'll be in Chicago next month for ISDC, and plan to hang out with family and friends at some point. Am looking seriously at this place my sister recommended. What the heck, any pizza from Chicagoland is going to be better than what I get in the South...
How's this for a fun workplace?
Popular Mechanics has a very friendly interview with Lori Garver. I say friendly because not everyone in the space biz is so keen on said policy. That said, I found most of the arguments reasonable, and wish we'd heard more of them when the policy was rolled out.
This was a good way to end last week: I’ve been nominated for a NASA Spaceflight Awareness Team Award for my part in the Ares I-X outreach team.
From Facebook buddy Sarah: a poem that caught my eye.
From Hu: the dorkiest complaints about the accuracy of the Apollo 13 movie.
From Dar: an article on engaging the public on nanotechnology.
From Doc:
- A Sherlock Holmes story by noted SF/fantasy writer Neil Gaiman.
- "Your career captured in still photography." Hard to argue with.
This is more or less in line with the OSTP statement I posted a couple days ago. There WILL be Americans going up to the International Space Station after Shuttle. First via Russian rockets, then by commercial transport, once they get those nailed down. The rest of the NASA budget will be dedicated to space science (robots, telescopes), environmental monitoring, aeronautics, and exploration TECHNOLOGIES. This last item means they'll be developing components that would be needed for future human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit (LEO), like new rocket engines, in-orbit fuel depots, and high-efficiency life support systems. However, the program to build complete rockets and spacecraft to take human beings beyond LEO--the Constellation Program--would end.
Oh, one slight difference: there will be a down-scaled Orion spacecraft, which will be used as a crew return/rescue vehicle for the Station. The vehicle would be upgradable, eventually, to become what it was intended to be: an EXPLORATION vehicle. Space geeks get particular about that word because exploration is going where we've never gone before... See More. LEO is not new territory anymore.
There will probably also have to be some test flights of the various exploration and heavy-lift technologies...what they'll fly on is beyond me, but what do I know? I'm not a politician.
Friday, March 12, 2010
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:
From Science @ NASA: Some interesting things are happening on the Sun.
From Dar, who is visiting the South by Southwest (SXSW) Conference this weekend:
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:
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...
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!
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!).
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
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.
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!
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Potpourri CXIII
Today's little doses of the different:
The U.S. Science & Engineering Festival, the first national science festival, will be happening in Washington, DC, October 23-24, 2010.
From Dar, Data in the Cloud from Dallas to Mars. This article on the blog Shepherd's Pi talks about Microsoft's latest search engine system, which appears to be a sort of hyper-Google, designed both to compete with Google and to do things they can't do, like assign meanings or draw trends from very large sets of data.
From Yohon, a link to a new science/space publisher.
From ABC News, of all places, a report that jobs the Obama administration claims to have saved or created exist in congressional districts that don't even exist. I'm shocked, shocked...
From Doc:
From NASAWatch (really?): Help choose the best public service announcement in support of NASA.
If you're interested in the works of an honest-to-gosh Rocket Scientist, check out the web site of Les Johnson, a very smart fellow whom I've had the pleasure of chatting with, reading books by, and participating on a panel at a sci-fi convention with. Les is an excellent writer because he is also an excellent and patient teacher--he takes the time to explain very difficult things in words that illuminate without insulting the reader. These are all good skills to have.
From AIAA:
Today's little doses of the different:
The U.S. Science & Engineering Festival, the first national science festival, will be happening in Washington, DC, October 23-24, 2010.
From Dar, Data in the Cloud from Dallas to Mars. This article on the blog Shepherd's Pi talks about Microsoft's latest search engine system, which appears to be a sort of hyper-Google, designed both to compete with Google and to do things they can't do, like assign meanings or draw trends from very large sets of data.
From Yohon, a link to a new science/space publisher.
From ABC News, of all places, a report that jobs the Obama administration claims to have saved or created exist in congressional districts that don't even exist. I'm shocked, shocked...
From Doc:
- A link showing what Stormtroopers do on their days off. Fantastic!
- The T-shirt of the week from Cafepress.com
From NASAWatch (really?): Help choose the best public service announcement in support of NASA.
If you're interested in the works of an honest-to-gosh Rocket Scientist, check out the web site of Les Johnson, a very smart fellow whom I've had the pleasure of chatting with, reading books by, and participating on a panel at a sci-fi convention with. Les is an excellent writer because he is also an excellent and patient teacher--he takes the time to explain very difficult things in words that illuminate without insulting the reader. These are all good skills to have.
From AIAA:
- Richard Branson, founder and owner of the Virgin family of companies, wants Virgin Galactic to eventually fly tourists around the Moon. Great, if he can do it and I could afford it.
- A UCF professor was profiled in the Chronicle of Higher Education for his efforts to promote zero-gravity experiments on privately built suborbital rockets.
And that'll about do it for now.
Monday, June 22, 2009
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:
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:
- Science performed by robotic vehicles, including Earth observation, planetary science, and astronomy.
- Robotic "virtual" entertainment (e.g. tele-operated rovers moving around the Moon under the control of private citizens back on Earth).
- Human exploration of other worlds, including the Moon, asteroids, and Mars.
- 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.
- Basic science taking advantage of the near-vacuum and low gravity of the Moon or other bodies in the solar system.
- Manufacturing of new products taking advantage of the space environment.
- 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.
- Space commerce, including space hotels, tourism, off-world banks, and space salvage--none of which require a permanent human presence in space to maintain.
- 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?
Saturday, April 18, 2009
The OTA and Environmental Policy
This week's change in the Environmental Protection Agency's stance on carbon dioxide is an excellent example of why the Office of Technology Assessment needs to be reopened. In short, the Obama administration declared that "carbon dioxide and five other industrial emissions threaten the planet."
Leaving aside the threatening the planet thing, it is worth noting that this change was brought about, in part, because the U.S. Supreme Court--not a group of scientists or even scientifically trained lawmakers--declared that CO2 was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and, as such, subject to regulation under the EPA. The Bush Administration has ignored the ruling, for the most part, just as the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly to reject the Kyoto Treaty during the Clinton Administration, for the simple reason that the regulations required to comply with Kyoto would impose serious costs on our economy. The Wall Street Journal continues:
Regardless of the good intentions of the regulators and environmental-protection lobbyist groups, the end results will be less energy production, as witnessed by American Electrical Power decision above, and also less movement of goods and services. Trucks and planes are the primary means of getting goods and services to market, and if more truckers and airlines face bankruptcy due to lower sales or higher regulatory costs, our economy will grind to a screeching halt. People also will travel less because businesses pass on higher costs to the consumer. That means an even slower commercial aviation sector. And with a sicker economy, where will Obama get the tax revenues to pay for his massive budget?
Again from the WSJ:
Interestingly, the "cap and trade" carbon credit scheme was born at NASA, where scientists needed to find a fair way to get time on the limited number of instruments available on the Galileo spacecraft orbiting Jupiter. Since lots of people had experiments they wanted to run and there were only a limited number of instruments aboard the orbiter, the Galileo team came up with a way to trade time. Someone considered applying the same logic to how much pollution would be allowed in a given region, and thereby allowed businesses to pay for more "carbon credits" to make up for additional pollution, or make a profit by improving efficiency and selling their lower carbon needs to companies that need them. This system has also been used to control the production, distribution, and use of electrical power.
Sounds great, right? Well, maybe. However, there are a couple of problems with the cap-and-trade system, the first of which is that the "experts" setting up the system established an arbitrary level of "total pollution" allowed or energy available to the system. They make no allowance for the possibility that their standard for carbon emissions might be too stringent (in the CO2 example) or that the amount of energy available might increase through new technologies in the power grid example.
Ah, but we're not done yet...
Some proponents of the cap-and-trade system have called this a "free market" approach to pollution control. That would make sense if businesses generating carbon dioxide were permitted to set the price based on market forces. However, as noted above, Congress would be setting the price/value of carbon credits, which means another government intrusion into the marketplace. Of course this could be done on purpose, as it puts a great deal of power into the hands of Congress and makes them seem like the "good cop" to industry--better to deal with representatives or senators than the bureaucrats at EPA. Talk about a protection scheme! So your choices on the price of carbon credits are a bunch of unscientific lawyers in Congress or unelected bureaucrats at the EPA. This isn't a choice between good and bad, but bad and worse.
This has already become an issue. With GM, Chrysler, and Ford taking bailout money from the government, Uncle Sam has seen that it can pretty much dictate to these companies whatever they want, from capping CEO salaries to picking what cars they can build to firing the CEO. The American public might not want the Chevy Volt, but that's what the government wants to give them. And what are our poorer citizens supposed to do if they can't afford the Volt?
Another side effect of the Volt and the other brands' hybrid vehicles is that new technologies are expensive, just like new pharmaceuticals on the market. Companies make the price of these vehicles more expensive to recoup their investment until such time as 1) the vehicles are a proven money-maker and 2) they've improved enough to be mass-produced and thereby reduced in price. Government doesn't think that way, because points 1) and 2) are private-sector ways of thinking. Government says, "This is the car you will be allowed to buy, and if you don't like it, you can't have another."
How did CO2 become a pollutant, anyway?
A couple of questions come to mind here:
This is almost unbelievable arrogance on the part of the EPA. Instead of using an objective standard for harm, like "X parts per million of Y compound in the atmosphere has been determined to cause Z health consequences," they instead have opted to make CO2 a pollutant based on a theory that is still in debate. After all, just in the last 30 years, we have shifted from fears about global cooling (1970s) to global warming (1988-2007) to now global cooling again. Unable to decide which horse to bet on, environmental activists now use the ambiguous term "climate change" so as to hedge their bets and still get the regulations they want.
What might those impacts be? And why aren't those impacts weighed against the potential downsides? What standards of "positive" and "negative" impacts are being used, and who is deciding and enforcing what side of the climate-shift debate should be considered most important?
This is the sort of situation that calls for a new arbiter. By all means, we should leave data collection and science to the scientists. However, when it comes to deciding what is to be done about scientific findings--especially on a federal government level--such decisions should be made in the open by elected officials. There is never only one solution to a technical problem. This is what separates engineering from science. Science might determine that, in fact, the Earth is warming due to human-based industrial activities, and said warming will produce negative effects on human civilization. Engineers and political decision makers have the obligation to come up with and decide upon the best solutions. For instance:
This week's change in the Environmental Protection Agency's stance on carbon dioxide is an excellent example of why the Office of Technology Assessment needs to be reopened. In short, the Obama administration declared that "carbon dioxide and five other industrial emissions threaten the planet."
Leaving aside the threatening the planet thing, it is worth noting that this change was brought about, in part, because the U.S. Supreme Court--not a group of scientists or even scientifically trained lawmakers--declared that CO2 was a pollutant under the Clean Air Act and, as such, subject to regulation under the EPA. The Bush Administration has ignored the ruling, for the most part, just as the U.S. Senate voted overwhelmingly to reject the Kyoto Treaty during the Clinton Administration, for the simple reason that the regulations required to comply with Kyoto would impose serious costs on our economy. The Wall Street Journal continues:
Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, chairman of the Senate Republican Conference, sought a middle ground, proposing to focus carbon caps on coal-fired power plants and vehicle tailpipes -- and holding off any move until the nation emerges from recession.Senator Alexander's take might make sense as a fall-back position, but the simple fact is that additional environmental regulations will slow down an already-troubled economy. Want to stay in recession for a few more years? Carbon dioxide regulations will do that, as businesses will have to pay heavy fines, make alternate investments, or just plain go out of business because they can't meet the technological needs of complying with new CO2 regs.
American Electric Power, a utility giant with 5.2 million customers in states from Texas to Michigan to Virginia, is already considering what coal plants would have to be shuttered and how high rates would have to go to comply with either a regulatory or legislative mandates to curb carbon dioxide.
Regardless of the good intentions of the regulators and environmental-protection lobbyist groups, the end results will be less energy production, as witnessed by American Electrical Power decision above, and also less movement of goods and services. Trucks and planes are the primary means of getting goods and services to market, and if more truckers and airlines face bankruptcy due to lower sales or higher regulatory costs, our economy will grind to a screeching halt. People also will travel less because businesses pass on higher costs to the consumer. That means an even slower commercial aviation sector. And with a sicker economy, where will Obama get the tax revenues to pay for his massive budget?
Again from the WSJ:
A proposal by President Barack Obama would cap the emissions of greenhouse gases, then force polluters to purchase emission permits, which could be traded on the open market. The details of the cost of carbon credits have been left to Congress, although Mr. Obama has said he wants all emissions covered, with no allowance for free emissions, as some business groups and lawmakers want.
Interestingly, the "cap and trade" carbon credit scheme was born at NASA, where scientists needed to find a fair way to get time on the limited number of instruments available on the Galileo spacecraft orbiting Jupiter. Since lots of people had experiments they wanted to run and there were only a limited number of instruments aboard the orbiter, the Galileo team came up with a way to trade time. Someone considered applying the same logic to how much pollution would be allowed in a given region, and thereby allowed businesses to pay for more "carbon credits" to make up for additional pollution, or make a profit by improving efficiency and selling their lower carbon needs to companies that need them. This system has also been used to control the production, distribution, and use of electrical power.
Sounds great, right? Well, maybe. However, there are a couple of problems with the cap-and-trade system, the first of which is that the "experts" setting up the system established an arbitrary level of "total pollution" allowed or energy available to the system. They make no allowance for the possibility that their standard for carbon emissions might be too stringent (in the CO2 example) or that the amount of energy available might increase through new technologies in the power grid example.
Ah, but we're not done yet...
The details of the cost of carbon credits have been left to Congress
Some proponents of the cap-and-trade system have called this a "free market" approach to pollution control. That would make sense if businesses generating carbon dioxide were permitted to set the price based on market forces. However, as noted above, Congress would be setting the price/value of carbon credits, which means another government intrusion into the marketplace. Of course this could be done on purpose, as it puts a great deal of power into the hands of Congress and makes them seem like the "good cop" to industry--better to deal with representatives or senators than the bureaucrats at EPA. Talk about a protection scheme! So your choices on the price of carbon credits are a bunch of unscientific lawyers in Congress or unelected bureaucrats at the EPA. This isn't a choice between good and bad, but bad and worse.
The impact of the EPA finding could be dramatic. Using the Clean Air Act, the EPA could raise fuel-efficiency standards for automobiles, such as by authorizing nationwide adoption of California's rules for greenhouse-gas tailpipe emissions.
That could require auto makers to produce more hybrid and electric vehicles, such as the Chevrolet Volt plug-in hybrid under development by General Motors Corp. The Volt, however, is expected to carry a sticker of about $40,000, or roughly twice the price of a conventional Chevrolet Malibu sedan.
This has already become an issue. With GM, Chrysler, and Ford taking bailout money from the government, Uncle Sam has seen that it can pretty much dictate to these companies whatever they want, from capping CEO salaries to picking what cars they can build to firing the CEO. The American public might not want the Chevy Volt, but that's what the government wants to give them. And what are our poorer citizens supposed to do if they can't afford the Volt?
Another side effect of the Volt and the other brands' hybrid vehicles is that new technologies are expensive, just like new pharmaceuticals on the market. Companies make the price of these vehicles more expensive to recoup their investment until such time as 1) the vehicles are a proven money-maker and 2) they've improved enough to be mass-produced and thereby reduced in price. Government doesn't think that way, because points 1) and 2) are private-sector ways of thinking. Government says, "This is the car you will be allowed to buy, and if you don't like it, you can't have another."
How did CO2 become a pollutant, anyway?
Carbon-dioxide levels in the Earth's atmosphere have fluctuated wildly for millennia; at one point billions of years ago, it was the dominant gas in the atmosphere.
However, the EPA ruled that today's higher concentrations are the "unambiguous result of human emissions." Concentrations of carbon dioxide and other gases "are well above the natural range of atmospheric concentrations compared to the last 650,000 years," the agency said.
A couple of questions come to mind here:
- If CO2 levels have fluctuated wildly (and naturally) in the environment over the last 650,000 years, how are we to determine what constitutes a "normal" level of the gas?
- And what is so special about the last 650,000 years as opposed to the last million years? Or 65 million years, for that matter?
- Who is setting the levels for what's deemed appropriate, and what guidelines are they using?
In its decision, the EPA stressed that it considers CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases to be pollutants because of their role in propagating climate change, not because of any direct health effects.
This is almost unbelievable arrogance on the part of the EPA. Instead of using an objective standard for harm, like "X parts per million of Y compound in the atmosphere has been determined to cause Z health consequences," they instead have opted to make CO2 a pollutant based on a theory that is still in debate. After all, just in the last 30 years, we have shifted from fears about global cooling (1970s) to global warming (1988-2007) to now global cooling again. Unable to decide which horse to bet on, environmental activists now use the ambiguous term "climate change" so as to hedge their bets and still get the regulations they want.
The EPA did acknowledge some positive impacts from higher CO2 concentrations.
What might those impacts be? And why aren't those impacts weighed against the potential downsides? What standards of "positive" and "negative" impacts are being used, and who is deciding and enforcing what side of the climate-shift debate should be considered most important?
This is the sort of situation that calls for a new arbiter. By all means, we should leave data collection and science to the scientists. However, when it comes to deciding what is to be done about scientific findings--especially on a federal government level--such decisions should be made in the open by elected officials. There is never only one solution to a technical problem. This is what separates engineering from science. Science might determine that, in fact, the Earth is warming due to human-based industrial activities, and said warming will produce negative effects on human civilization. Engineers and political decision makers have the obligation to come up with and decide upon the best solutions. For instance:
- If too much carbon in the atmosphere is the problem, are there newer, more efficient ways to sequester the carbon without regulating and taxing the productive economies of the West?
- If temperature increases are the problem, might we not place a large Fresnel lens at the Earth-Sun Lagrange (L2) point to reduce the amount of solar radiation the planet is receiving?
- If flooding from melting glaciers is the problem, how much would it cost to build more homes on stilts or more cities behind walls?
- If the Earth absorbing too much sunlight is the problem, mightn't we increase the albedo (reflectivity) of our cities by requiring white-tile roofs instead of gray or black?
Again, the science might be what it is--and the data are still coming in--but the decision about what to do with the findings should be debated in an open forum, not decided arbitrarily based on the personal political biases of some very partisan bureaucrats or self-appointed "experts." The OTA can provide the necessary buffer between information and decision-making that makes our society stronger than those that suffer from command-and-control economies. We'd best start now, before the EPA starts acting "for our own good," even if the results of their regulations turn out to be very, very bad.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)