In an editorial Monday, the Decatur (Ala.) Daily opposes provisions of the Senate NASA authorization bill and accompanying report that define what a heavy-lift launch vehicle should look like. The editorial is a followup to an article Sunday that described how “the overly prescriptive legislation”, which mandates a shuttle-derived design, would rule out a role for local company United Launch Alliance. “[W]e think catastrophe looms when politicians try to dictate how to make a mission succeed,” the editorial notes. The Senate “should be setting space policy, not trumping NASA’s excellence at figuring out how best to accomplish its mission.”
(On a side note, at last week’s Space Transportation Association roundtable on Capitol Hill, former NASA administrator Mike Griffin was asked what he thought about having the Senate be so specific in its design for an HLV. His response, as I noted in The Space Review this week, “It is regrettable, absolutely, that Congress has to be the design bureau of last resort, but sometimes it’s necessary.”)
Is SpaceX lobbying against a US-India commercial launch agreement? In an essay in the Financial Times, an analyst with in Indian think tank claims that SpaceX would “lobby hard against any measure that takes American payloads abroad”, such as provisions in an agreement between the two countries that would allow India to launch US-manufactured satellites. “It should not come as a shock if after signing the CLSA and accounting for all the ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’, it turns out that all that is available for international launches are the non-profit, university-type small payloads leaving the lucrative ones to American companies.”
Finally, NASA plays a supporting role in Dinesh D’Souza’s controversial cover story in the latest issue of Forbes where he examines President Obama through the curious prism of decolonization. D’Souza seizes upon NASA administrator Charles Bolden’s comments about NASA outreach to the Muslim world (never mind that the administration later said Bolden misspoke) as evidence for his argument than anticolonialism is at the heart of the president’s personal philosophy. “No explanation other than anticolonialism makes sense of Obama’s curious mandate to convert a space agency into a Muslim and international outreach,” D’Souza writes. Unless, of course, the president isn’t converting NASA into an outreach agency.
Certainly the folks at ULA in Decatur should be worried about the future, and not being shut out of a role in heavy lift launch. However, this does seem like over reaction – considering that heavy lift is a ways in the future and near term it looks like NASA will rely a lot more on Atlas and Delta.
If heavy lift launch survives the next couple of Federal budget cycles – Decatur could still capture some of that work. But they are just trying to get a place at the table, in case there is a table.
On the other two notes – American payloads have been flying from other countries for years! And the article in Forbes does not warrant serious comment.
Perhaps D’Souza should read the National Aeronautics and Space Act. One permitted activity by NASA is “Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results thereof.”
There’s no exemption in the Act for nations practicing the Muslim faith.
As for the Decatur Daily, funny how all these editorials are about what region should get the pork, not about what is the best space program for this nation’s future.
The D’Souza article is about the worst flagrant use of logical fallacy I have read in anything other than a chain email. I’m not saying editorials have to be completely logically sound, they rarely are. But that article took a few minor gaffes, a half-dozen cherry-picked facts and some truly absurd assumptions about Obama’s relationship with his father and hashed an argument out of it. What’s really appalling is that he uses his status as a former resident in a post-colonial nation as credentials, then makes it painfully and embarassingly clear he doesn’t have the faintest idea what anti-colonialism is about. That article blongs on a conspiracy theory website between 9/11 truthers and 2012 catastrophists.
You may even agree with his basic premise, but if you feel that he has made even a modestly sound argument, you’re nuts. And it depresses me to think that a large number of people will take his article at face value because somewhere along the line we forgot how to think critically. Why am I a programmer? Apparently I can make a ton of money writing political analytic fiction.
“As for the Decatur Daily, funny how all these editorials are about what region should get the pork, not about what is the best space program for this nation’s future.”
More to the point, there’s no evidence even a penny of NASA money has gone to predominantly Muslim nations. And as far as I am aware, none of our engineers or officials have gone to predominantly Muslim nations to offer advice or support. As you mention, there’s no reason they couldn’t, but they haven’t anyway. What is clear is that Bolden has loose jaws. He got in front of a Muslim crowd and told them what he thought they’d want to hear. It wasn’t true even through the most politically slanted glasses. But he said it.
aremisasling wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 9:51 am
I was going to comment on the article, but your thoughts were quite well put.
nicely said Robert G. Oler
The D’Souza article does provide a new way of looking at the President that seems consistent with his behavior and philosophy. It tracks with Dick Morris’s observation that Obama is less a President of the United States than Governor of America on behalf of the World Community.
Bolden’s statement about the mission to the Muslims was meant quite seriously. To believe otherwise is to believe that the NASA administrator is a doofus. In any event, administration denials only occurred after the concept was commented upon and ridiculed throughout the media, old and new. That suggests that all the administration realized was that the policy being the foremost goal of NASA (Bolden’s words) was a nonstarter.
Obama as a third world anti colonialist also explains his antipathy to space exploration. Do not believe for a moment that the asteroid mission is ever meant to actually happen. Just listen to the contempt and disdain with which the President discussed the lunar missions. Landing on the Moon was a supreme example of American exceptionalism, a concept the President is on record as not believing in and wishing to discourage. So, no Americans will land on the Moon ever again if Obama has any say in the matter. Nor will they venture beyond LEO anywhere else.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
“Obama as a third world anti colonialist also explains his antipathy to space exploration.”
Yes, his budget request to focus on key technologies and improving the capabilities of the aerospace industry, in addition to adding $6B to NASA’s budget, was really just a smoke screen to shut NASA down. What a weird point of view you have.
“Do not believe for a moment that the asteroid mission is ever meant to actually happen.”
Obama would not be in office when an asteroid mission was planned anyways, so this is really a stupid statement. Instead of proposing “me-too” missions like Constellation, Obama was focused on building capabilities that would be used for any mission (i.e. the Flexible Plan) a future President would decide to do.
We can debate the merits of that philosophy, but there are many within the aerospace industry that liked the “Flexible Plan”, so you’re argument is with them too.
“Obama would not be in office when an asteroid mission was planned anyways, so this is really a stupid statement.”
That is exactly the point. It is set so far in the future that it is meaningless as a goal. It was also a singular flaw with Constellation, but since metal was actually being bent and tested, we know that the return to the Moon was serious. The technology program and the “commercial†initiative are pork. The former is not focused on anything like, say, an actual mission. The latter rewards friends of the administration and, incidentally, creates a government controlled launch industry.
“The D’Souza article does provide a new way of looking at the President that seems consistent with his behavior and philosophy.”
Not really. It just repackages the ‘Obama is a Euro-socialist that hates America’ line as anti-colonialism. It’s distinctly in the same line of descent as ‘he bowed to the (name foreign leader)’ or ‘he thinks America has made mistakes so he must think it’s all our fault’ logic.
“Bolden’s statement about the mission to the Muslims was meant quite seriously. To believe otherwise is to believe that the NASA administrator is a doofus.”
Regardless of the chatter in the media, who aren’t elected and have zero hard power in the matter of running government, there has only been one comment by one official, a year and a half into the administration. Aside from that there has been exactly no outreach of any kind to a Muslim nation on the space front. So, yes, at least in reference to that comment, I think Bolden is a doofus. I have respect for Bolden in many ways, but as a well-prepared and eloquent speaker, he’s as error prone as our Vice President.
“Do not believe for a moment that the asteroid mission is ever meant to actually happen.”
Yes. Just as I believed we were actually meant to go to the moon under the VSE. As to whether or not we were actually going to get there is another matter.
“Landing on the Moon was a supreme example of American exceptionalism, a concept the President is on record as not believing in and wishing to discourage.”
The following critique of the D’Souza article does a pretty good job of demonstrating that Obama really, truly, does believe in American exceptionalism.
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/09/09/obama-anticolonial-hegemonist/
But I’m not an exceptionalist. I don’t believe we’ve accomplished what we have because some intangeable quality of the US has driven us to achieve it. I think exceptionalism is a fundamentally dangerous belief to hold. It essentially asserts that we’ll always win because “we’re special.” We have come out on top, thus far, not because of an innate quality, but because we played our cards right and because we have been smart and hard working. That is an exceptional quality, to be sure, but one we will quickly lose if we think something about America gives us that quality. That quality isn’t inherited, as exceptionalism suggests, it’s earned. And it’s re-earned every single day. And frankly, if the nation fails at our goals, it won’t be because we stopped believing we were special, it will be because we stopped working and thinking and relied on faith in a political buzzword, exceptionalism, to carry us.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
“It was also a singular flaw with Constellation, but since metal was actually being bent and tested, we know that the return to the Moon was serious.”
No, what we knew is that money was being spent – prodigiously. We we also knew for a fact was that Congress had consistently underfunded the program, so that was proof that Congress was not enthusiastic about going back to the Moon.
Because of Congresses under-funding, the program was seriously over budget and behind schedule. At what point do you say “ENOUGH”? Are you completely ignorant of the financial drain Constellation was causing on NASA, all in the name for sending a few astronauts to repeat a mission we did 60 years prior?
You are obviously not a fiscal conservative…
“The former is not focused on anything like, say, an actual mission.”
The tech program, nearly program by program including the evironmental pieces, were components of the VSE and its subsequent budget proposals. Constellation swallowed those programs then proceeded to swallow its own tail (cancelled Altair, indefinitely delayed Ares V, 2 week sorties instead of a base, etc). Now it has fallen so far from its initial goals that its supporters have gotten amnesia about the fact that the new plan is practically a carbon bopy of the old one, with a minor destination adjustment.
“The latter rewards friends of the administration and, incidentally, creates a government controlled launch industry.”
Aside from one visit to SpaceX’s plant, I’ve yet to see any evidence that the beneficiaries of the CCDev and COTS programs are somehow best buddies with Obama. Boeing and ULA, in fact, are quite far from traditional democratic allies.
As for the government-controlled industry, I don’t see where you’re getting that. The government is funding a fraction of the development costs for these companies and leaving the end product and it’s uses entirely under private ownership. If the market proves to be material, every one of them has the right to tell NASA where to stick their ISS contracts. If the market doesn’t emerge, then we are in no different position than we are now, except the private companies will now be true sellers instead of subcontractors.
It is set so far in the future that it is meaningless as a goal.
Yes, unlike that moon landing that was scheduled sixteen years after the announcement of the VSE.
Mark, do you ever read the stupid things that you write?
For those who never saw it, click here to see for yourself the complete interview General Bolden gave on Al Jazeera. It’s quite different from the spin by some.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
“The latter rewards friends of the administration and, incidentally, creates a government controlled launch industry.”
Hmm – what would you call Ares I and Ares V?
I call Ares I/V a government run transportation system. How is that so much better than what you call “government controlled launch industry” (government dominated, yes, but not controlled).
What “friends of the administration” are you talking about? ULA? Boeing? Or is that code for that company Bush/Griffin gave the COTS/CRS contract to? You know, the only company with a capsule-capable launcher ready for it’s second test flight, and a capsule ready for it’s first test. The one that is being supervised by NASA, and will likely be certified by NASA next year for ISS operations. Was that the one?
“Obama as a third world anti colonialist”
So you think President Obama and America should be pro colonization? What country and native population should America colonize first? Where should America start to expand it’s borders and at the expense of who?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-imperialism
“Anti-imperialism, strictly speaking, is a term that may be applied to a movement opposed to any form of colonialism or imperialism. Generally, anti-imperialism includes opposition to wars of conquest, particularly of non-contiguous territory or people with a different language or culture. In short terms, it is also people against the spreading of a country beyond its borders. Examples of anti-imperialists include Republican senators of the Roman Republic, and members of the Anti-Imperialist League that opposed the absorption of the Philippines after the Spanish-American War of 1898.”
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 1:02 pm
“That is exactly the point. It is set so far in the future that it is meaningless as a goal. It was also a singular flaw with Constellation, but since metal was actually being bent and tested, we know that the return to the Moon was serious”
you use to be a serious thinker…now we have the rhetorical line of “well the program I support meets the same test of the things I oppose but heck I knew my program was serious”.
The only thing Constellation was doing was spending money. There was no serious evidence of progress or actually meeting a single date, because well there were not any serious dates.
What this shows is that you are no better then D’Souza whose entire article, which you seem to embrace is simply his opinion being stated with some events circled around it masquerading as facts.
You overstate the Bolden quote on Muslims…but even if YOU WERE NOT I dont understand the line of attack you use.
Bush the last, the guy who you supported as he was driving the US and its economy over the brink made it clear that the only way “HE” thought to eventually win the “war on terror” was to bring the Muslim world into “modernity”.
After 4000 American lives, trillions of dollars, 250,000 Iraqis dead alone by collateral damage in the “shock and awe”…do you oppose reaching out to the Muslim world and trying to get them to focus on things in the modern world?
You have become such a anti Obama shrill that you have long ago started picking up any stick and trying to rhetorically beat the administration with it, even when it is attempting to do things and finish them that the last administration started.
You use to rail about Bush hatred blinding people…and now you have become what you use to speak against.
Irrational
Robert G. Oler
aremisasling wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 9:51 am [D’Souza article: …worst flagrant use of logical fallacy – chain email – cherry-picked facts – truly absurd assumptions – appalling – painfully and embarrassingly clear….doesn’t have the faintest idea – conspiracy theory – if you agree you’re nuts..]
My, my, my. I could almost feel your spittle flying forth from my monitor.
I imagine everyone will read D’Souza’s essay now, if they haven’t already. It certainly has taken on a life of its own on the Internet.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
Landing on the Moon was a supreme example of American exceptionalism, a concept the President is on record as not believing in and wishing to discourage..
The article you seem to have as your rally point dejure is so annoying in many aspects (apparently Hawaii isnt American enough it is off the “Mainland”…wonder what he thinks of Palin living up in Alaska…?) but the main feature is that it simply misquotes out of context “de Tocqueville”
“t is certainly not the American dream as conceived by the founders. They believed the nation was a “new order for the ages.” A half-century later Alexis de Tocqueville wrote of America as creating “a distinct species of mankind.”
The American dream as envisioned by the founders was not a series of world setting number 1 stunts…they didnt even envision us as a major power. What they hoped, what they wrote in the DOI is that each of us would live in a nation where we could maximize our life liberty and pursuit of happiness in a unique fashion.
It wasnt some chest thumping on the Moon, or beating up on small countries because we could…it was so as individuals we could pursue our lives.
American exceptional ism is just another phrase for Manifest destiny. It is a goofy phrase that justifies the invasions of countries that were never a threat to us, the killing of 1/4 of a million people because they were in the way (but they wanted to be free!) and in your mind I guess goofy space ventures.
But thanks to your guy Bush when he left now POINT 1 percent thats .1 percent of Americans control 11 percent of the income in The Republic…that is an all time high in our modern country. That business needs regulation and moderating (after all if a rising tide would lift all boats well we should all be very high) is not being anti business.
You want a big government program to go back tot he Moon after spending 200-300 billion over a bunch of decades…fine. Dont call that American exceptionalism.
It is only if words dont mean things
Robert G. Oler
Anne Spudis wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 1:56 pm
.
I imagine everyone will read D’Souza’s essay now, if they haven’t already. It certainly has taken on a life of its own on the Internet….
everyone should read it…so they will know what the right wing of the country thinks is common sense.
Apparantly being off the “american mainland” is not being in America
goofy
Robert G. Oler
But why wasn’t this a problem in 04, when Bush first proposed it?
Ferris Valyn wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 3:00 pm
because in Whittington ville Bush good, Obama bad
Robert G. Oler
“My, my, my. I could almost feel your spittle flying forth from my monitor. ”
Yes, because this is the latest in a string of either unresearched or dishonest articles on this and a multitude of other subjects. And I’m not reserving my criticism for the right-wing, though that is the current case in point.
I’m annoyed that our education system has become so oriented toward consumption and away from critical thinking and academic rigor that we, as a population, will believe literally anything we read.
I’m annoyed that we’ve so bought into the notion that the ‘marketplace of ideas’ means every idea needs equal weight that our media is dominated now by minority opinions and completely disavowing any actual tests for reasonableness.
I’m annoyed because journalism now is about opinion and headlines and not about delivery of facts. And I’m REALLY annoyed that we’ve become content, even pleased, with that fact and refuse to challenge it. Indeed we seem to welcome it with open arms.
I’m annoyed because the only thing this nation seems to be truly exceptional at of late is gullibility. And I’m endlessly frustrated that there seems to be nothing I can do about it.
Everyone talks about ‘the founders said this’ and ‘the founders said that’ when the one and only thing every one of the founders agreed upon was honest public discourse. And this is not it.
Bolden’s remarks on outreach to the Muslim world were taken out of context and twisted beyond all recognition for political purposes. He was talking about the outreach aspects of his job. He mentioned STEM education (a high priority of this administration), greater cooperation with the rest of the world (a high priority government wide, particularly in space), and outreach to Muslim nations (part of a broader Administration-wide initiative).
These outreach efforts serve the country’s broader interests in the world. The debate here should be on how we do these things, not whether we do them at all. I don’t think there’s anything we’re doing with Muslim countries in space that we don’t already do with almost any nation. NASA is an amazing brand name for the U.S. government for peaceful scientific cooperation.
NASA’s broad outreach to the world is designed to support the Administration’s programmatic priorities in space, which focus heavily on enabling commercial space and developing the technology base to enable us to get out of LEO.
It’s actually quite a simple plan: commercialize access to LEO over the next five to 10 years. Build up NASA’s technology base. Then NASA can go anywhere it wants with a maturing commercial space sector as a partner. That will be great.
This approach is much better than carrying on with a Constellation program whose costs, schedule and scope were increasingly at odds with reality.
D. Messier wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
when all the program has is exploration and no serious benefits otherwise (or just “spin offs”) the only thing that remotely justifies it is “world outreach”.
Now Whittington/Spudis etc have tried to come up with applying the goofy notions of American exceptionalism (or their views of it) to make it some sort of nation chest thumping activity…and Paul Spudis at least talks about some notion of using the Moons resources (although how that happens he never quite gets to)..
but with no concrete results what one is left with is the notion that there is some “soft power” aspect to the whole thing…which is ISS.
The politics of “anti Obama” aside (more or less) what is really stunning to me is that the folks like Whittington cannot explain at all WHY going back to the Moon is a good idea. It is just a bunch of ephemeral theories trying to be passed off as facts.
There are few things that the US exports well in notions of our political theory. Our democracy is more or less an internal evolution that works well really only here…but the one thing if you travel a bit of the world you find that the vast majority of the “other” folks like…is that in the US as individuals we can be individuals. Human nature being what it is (and more or less universal) the notion of doing what makes one happy is a world wide notion and the fact that Charlies comments are being so flailed by the those anti Obama folks…is having an impact in the effort to convince those in the Muslim world that we really think that notion applies to them.
but of course, most of the anti Obama folks dont even think it applies to most Americans
Robert G. Oler
aremisasling wrote:
Everyone talks about ‘the founders said this’ and ‘the founders said that’ when the one and only thing every one of the founders agreed upon was honest public discourse. And this is not it.
They didn’t even agree on that.
Click here to read about the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798. The Adams administration used it to jail its critics and seize/destroy newspapers.
Those who think partisanship is bad now should look at the early history of this country. Some members of Congress actually shot or stabbed each other. For example:
On February 24, 1838, Congressman William Jordan Graves, a Whig from the state of Kentucky, fatally shot Maine Congressman Jonathan Cilley in a duel. Cilley was challenged to the duel by Graves because he claimed that a Virginian was responsible for a newspaper article that charged another Congressman with immorality.
While many demanded that action be taken against Graves, the only punishment he received was by being censured …
And then there was the famous Aaron Burr – Alexander Hamilton duel in 1804.
If truth be told, this nation survived despite itself.
Sorry about the bad linkage. But you get the idea.
aremisasling wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
and
D. Messier wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 3:28 pm
Both were well worth reading. Thank you for taking the time to post those comments..
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 2:05 pm [Apparantly being off the “american mainland†is not being in America
goofy
Robert G. Oler]
You certainly are.
aremisasling wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Instead of heated rhetoric, it would be much more helpful if you broke down D’Souza’s opinion piece and critiqued it. When you start off hurling insults against everyone who isn’t of your political persuasion or may not hold your personal views, it hardly wins over hearts and minds.
Everyone talks about ‘the founders said this’ and ‘the founders said that’ when the one and only thing every one of the founders agreed upon was honest public discourse.
I’m pretty sure that they agreed on both the Declaration and the Constitution.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 3:50 pm [Now Whittington/Spudis etc have tried to come up with applying the goofy notions of American exceptionalism (or their views of it) to make it some sort of nation chest thumping activity…and Paul Spudis at least talks about some notion of using the Moons resources (although how that happens he never quite gets to)..]
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=1376
http://www.spudislunarresources.com/Papers/12SpudisNDU.pdf
Might be able to argue John Dickerson didn’t agree with the Declaration
Might be able to argue John Dickerson didn’t agree with the Declaration
Then, almost by definition, he wasn’t a Founder.
Rand – I’d have a hard time considering someone who signed the Constitution as NOT being a founder (Yes, Dickinson was a signer of the Constitution, and attended the Continental Congress that wrote up Declaration of Independence, but he refused to sign it – and yes, I spelled his name wrong).
Rand Simberg wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 4:27 pm
“I’m pretty sure that they agreed on both the Declaration and the Constitution.”
ah history.
Everyone who signed either the Declaration or The Constitution or both agreed “in principle” with the document or they would not have voted on it and then signed it……but there was far from agreement on what the words meant.
The “keen minds of the south” for instance were quite certain that “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” did not extend to the good folks who happened to be black, they thought of them as not only an inferior life form but also well “property”.
And then we come to “The Constitution” where even with only the first 10 amendments, there were arguments on what the document meant that give mockery to the term “original intent” which is so in vogue today. Mr. Jefferson when he got his shot at the Oval was a “four corners of the page person” until he needed some powers not explicitly put in the document and then he found the words which gave them to him.
When someone babbles “the founders thought this” my response is “which founders”.
Robert G. Oler
Ferris Valyn wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 5:26 pm
Dickinson is one of the more interesting characters in The Revolution and the nations founding. His journey is a hard one and he earned that signature.
Few of the folks who profess to “know” the founders know a darn thing about them. Of course one of the VP candidates in the last cycle thought G. (drum roll) Washington had signed the Declaration.
Robert G. Oler
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
“Landing on the Moon was a supreme example of American exceptionalism…” <- This kind of ideological babble had nothing to do with moon landings. Essentially, to paraphrase a line from an ol'film, "…our Germans were better than their Germans." The U.S. spent a lot more money on Apollo than the Soviets did on their lunar program. And there were elements of luck and timing in the mix as well. If you want to drag 'ideology' into it, facism and socialist/communist governments led the way in rocket development, successfull surpassing 'American exceptionalism' exceptionally well for half a century as Americans scrambled to play catch-up.
Obama’s kind is recent phenomenon of globalization. America now harbors a growing cadre of American educated, disloyal transnational elite who, out of spite, use the wealth and free speech of this society as a weapon to reduce it to third world status. No where is that more evident than in Obama’s anti-space policy.
Of course one of the VP candidates in the last cycle thought G. (drum roll) Washington had signed the Declaration.
And the other one thought that Iraq should be divided into three new countries. And the presidential candidate thought that there are fifty-seven states.
amightywind wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 6:10 pm <– Obama has less interest in 'space policy' than his predecessor. He shows up and reads what mediocre managers who flourished in the vaccum of weak space 'leadership' forged for him to mouth off his teleprompter. It's not a genuine element of interest nor a strong elements of his personal life experience. Given the bigger problems facing the nation– like the current Depression– space is a luxury item far down the list and may very well fall victim to further budget cuts as the Age of Austerity approaches.
Rand Simberg wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
I wrote:
Of course one of the VP candidates in the last cycle thought G. (drum roll) Washington had signed the Declaration.
You replied:
And the other one thought that Iraq should be divided into three new countries. And the presidential candidate thought that there are fifty-seven states.
“three new countries”. I disagreed with that as my view is that Iraq either hangs together or hangs separately…but there were serious people who were suggesting what Joe Biden did …and gluing Iraq together has proved far more difficult then the thunderheads in the last administration thought. Biden was advocating the Yugoslavia solution which has worked quite well.
“fifty seven states”…and Bush 41 thought we were attacked at Pearl Harbor on Sept 7 and spent the entire Speech to the VA saying that…but of course both were gaffs. Politicians do those things when they give speech after speech…when I was running (and elected) to the school board I spent an entire answer to a question talking about a 2.8 billion dollar program when it was 2.1 million…my opponent tried to make a lot of that but it didnt do much for him.
Only idiots cant tell the difference between a gaff and lack of knowledge.
The one who thought Washington had signed the DOI also didnt know the Bush doctrine even though she had been given a two page 12 pt type paper on it…and had practiced an answer.
Knowledge is power.
Robert g. Oler
amightywind wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 6:10 pm
” America now harbors a growing cadre of American educated, disloyal transnational elite who, out of spite, use the wealth and free speech of this society as a weapon to reduce it to third world status”
Oh Dick Armey and his thunderheads are not disloyal. Greedy and ready to shaft the middle class yes…but disloyal.
I wouldnt even say that about Cheney
Robert G. Oler
‘Finally, NASA plays a supporting role in Dinesh D’Souza’s controversial cover story in the latest issue of Forbes where he examines President Obama through the curious prism of decolonization.” <- This silly article appears in the second to last place on Earth (just ahead of the National Review) to cite coherent elements or proposals on space policy. If there was ever a strong argument for the idiocies bred into those living off of inherited wealth, it's Steve Forbes.
Mark R. Whittington wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 12:18 pm “Do not believe for a moment that the asteroid mission is ever meant to actually happen.” No, it won’t happen because it’s a silly use of limited resources for a manned spaceflight project. It’s ready-made for robotic missions.
Anne Spudis wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 4:25 pm
aremisasling wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 3:19 pm
Instead of heated rhetoric, it would be much more helpful if you broke down D’Souza’s opinion piece and critiqued it. When you start off hurling insults against everyone who isn’t of your political persuasion or may not hold your personal views, it hardly wins over hearts and minds.
—–
Yeah. It sort of breaks down on its own though. Imagine a full-sized porcelain version of Brett Favre standing in the back field ready to pass suddenly getting hit by a pair of 300-pound linemen. A giant cloud of dust and debris. Which is basically what will happen to Brett if he keeps playing. Actually, you don’t even need that much force for D’Souza’s piece to collapse into a heap.
Mark, Rand, so why not howl when Presidents make promises beyond their term?
Perhaps it’s that if you demand short term goals you’ll then be forced to bemoan them as being not lofty enough?
Just a note… Spacex’s Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon cargo capsule are now fully integrated and were erected today at the cape to perform pre launch testing. They seem to be ahead of schedule for their October 23rd Cargo test launch.
And so a new word enters our political lexicon of fear and misdirection.
Anti-colonialist.
I guess “socialist” was only resonating with the 18 percent.
Gingrich steals “anti-colonialist” from D’Souza, sans attribution, and right behind him come space policy opinion holders, citing D’Souza’s article as demonstrating why Obama was wrong to want to drop big, underfunded programs for new capabilities, technologies and robotic exploration.
Wow. Even as a non-techie, I’m hoping the next thread is about something more empirical, like solids vs. liquids, or Mars missions with lots of throwaway pieces vs. a re-usable “spacecraft.”
Fear and misdirection is no way to run a space agency, let alone an entire nation.
Another step on the road to commercial cargo (and crew) while Congress and NASA stew. Sorry about that!
mr. mark wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Do you have a link for this development?
Thanks!
“No where is that more evident than in Obama’s anti-space policy.”
It was not anti-space, it was anti-NASA. NASA /= US Space program
I’m slightly dissapointed that all the commentry has been about D’Souza’s article and the other two points have been glossed over.
ULA is starting to make noises along the lines of “Commercial not HLV”. Not surprising since the House specifically seems intent in locking them out of future HLV development.
And SpaceX. The FT article implies that SpaceX would lobby against the Commercial Launch Services Agreement. I would think the only lobbying SpaceX would be doing would be to demand that the cheapest bid win and government not put their fingers on the scales by subsidising launch costs.
In a recent article an officiial from a US satellite maker loooking for a ride to GEO said he had compared prices between the Chinese, Indians and SpaceX. SpaceX, he said, was the least expensive of the three.
http://www.spacenews.com/launch/100617-spacex-undercut-competition-clinch-492m-iridium-deal.html
Interesting.
mr. mark wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 8:29 pm <- Another press release.
Another step on the road to commercial cargo (and crew) while Congress and NASA stew. Sorry about that!
If Congress refuses to write checks it doesn’t matter what architecture “wins” everyone will lose.
Bill White wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 10:50 pm <- Yep. Inevitably, it's going to take an outside event to force the U.S. into it's usual reactive position (yet again) on space activities. Most likely the outside catalyst will be Chinese. But expect another decade of drift and minimal progress, which may be the norm to expect as opposed to the accelorated, heady Apollo days.
Better yet I have a picture! http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22041.0;attach=244506;image
Here’s one more pic! http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=22041.0;attach=244503;image
Frediiiie wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
“In a recent article an officiial from a US satellite maker loooking for a ride to GEO said he had compared prices between the Chinese, Indians and SpaceX. SpaceX, he said, was the least expensive of the three.”
That is good news. I would expect the Chinese could afford to get into a price war if they wanted to, but it’s not clear how much they want the commercial market. For Russia, I wouldn’t expect that they could drop their prices too much, since they really need the money for their industry (no deep pocket government support).
mr. mark wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
Thank you. You took the photos? It really brings home how freakin’ big the lightning towers are…
I am not sure how much credibility to give the FT article when it insists that the Falcon-1 and PSLV are in the same class. The Falcon-1e has a payload to LEO of 1010 kg while the PSLV has a payload of 3250 kg, so the PSLV is really a much larger vehicle. It looks like the author may be incorrectly comparing the Falcon LEO performance to the PSLV SSO performance.
The article also appears in a different light when you consider this full quote:
“Not surprisingly, rumour has it that SpaceX will lobby hard against any measure that takes American payloads abroad.”
The assertion that SpaceX is lobby against the CSLA is only a rumor. The author is not claiming direct knowledge of the negotiations or SpaceX’s activities. That’s not much to go on.
Frediiiie wrote @ September 14th, 2010 at 10:24 pm
I agree that any movement by ULA should be considered significant. As the US’s largest and most important launch provider, they should be the 800 lb gorilla in this discussion and yet they have been strangely quite up to this point.
Rhyolite wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 12:21 am
I agree that any movement by ULA should be considered significant. As the US’s largest and most important launch provider, they should be the 800 lb gorilla in this discussion and yet they have been strangely quite up to this point…..
before committing they wanted to see where the winds were blowing, and that included the parent companies.
Its over for SDV…everyone should just sit back and enjoy the ride. Delta IV super heavy is on its way, commercial access to space is coming and the future could not be brighter.
Robert G. Oler
Rhyolite wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 12:14 am
“I am not sure how much credibility to give the FT article when it insists that the Falcon-1 and PSLV are in the same class. The Falcon-1e has a payload to LEO of 1010 kg while the PSLV has a payload of 3250 kg, so the PSLV is really a much larger vehicle.”
You’re right, the PSLV is bigger. But so far it’s payloads have been multiple small satellite deliveries, instead of single payloads, so the Falcon 1 could take some of that business if the price is right.
“”Instead of heated rhetoric, it would be much more helpful if you broke down D’Souza’s opinion piece and critiqued it. When you start off hurling insults against everyone who isn’t of your political persuasion or may not hold your personal views, it hardly wins over hearts and minds.”
I didn’t figure Space Politics was the place to do that. I even had reservations about posting what I did as it was largely off topic. And lo and behold a few posts after yours people did complain about the topic shifting to the article. For the record, I have posted on the forbes.com comment section for the article with more analysis though under a pseudonym.
And while I have opined about conservatives in the past, what have I said in this particular thread that suggests I think Democrats are any less guilty of it? MSNBC is as bad as FOX in my opinion. And really, while not as bent in one direction or another, the other players in the market are no better. In this case, the article is a conservative point of view. And yes, I disagree with it. But really, my complaint is not the stance he takes, but the complete lack of any substance in what he writes. I read the article before I found out about the fury over it because I thought I’d get thoughtful analysis on Obama’s decision-making, as the title suggests. Perhaps that’s why I was so utterly disappointed by it. If you want to write an article that uses sound logic to defend his thesis on Obama the anti-colonialist, I’m all ears.
From a space perspective I do think its relevant in that it’s one more piece of sensationalized press NASA and the aerospace industry don’t need. And therein lies the issue. Tabloid journalism doesn’t just hurt the politicians, it hurts the parties used as examples by oversimplifying the situation. NASA is already a non-issue at best and a joke at worst in the eyes of the American public. Now it’s one more tool in the ‘Obama’s a Muslim’ toolbox as well, at least in the wider public’s eye.
Terence Clark wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 1:15 am
there is no comparison between MSNBC and Fox when it comes to blatant partisan ship. Fox is fair and balanced…they have Tea Party and Republican viewpoints…thats it.
Robert G. Oler
Coastal Ron wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 1:12 am
There may be some overlap but I don’t think it is that large.
Taking a look through the PSLV manifests, it seems fairly common for them to launch one 500 kg to 1300 kg primary payload and a few much smaller secondary payloads in the 1 kg to 200 kg range (but usually on the smaller end).
However, most of these launches are to SSO where Falcon-1e only has a 430 kg payload so Falcon would only have been able to lift 20% or so of the primary payloads – the ones that are usually footing most of the bill.
The secondary payloads are often university satellites and are a number of routes that these can get launched at less than full price so this isn’t usually an area of commercial competition.
Falcon-1 versus PSLV certainly isn’t in the category of the head to head competition that you see between Atlas V, Proton, Ariane 5 ECA (dual manifest), and now Falcon 9 for 4000 kg to 5000 kg payloads to GTO.
Terence Clark wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 1:15 am [I didn’t figure Space Politics was the place to do that. I even had reservations about posting what I did as it was largely off topic. And lo and behold a few posts after yours people did complain about the topic shifting to the article. For the record, I have posted on the forbes.com comment section for the article with more analysis though under a pseudonym.
And while I have opined about conservatives in the past, what have I said in this particular thread that suggests I think Democrats are any less guilty of it? MSNBC is as bad as FOX in my opinion. And really, while not as bent in one direction or another, the other players in the market are no better. In this case, the article is a conservative point of view. And yes, I disagree with it. But really, my complaint is not the stance he takes, but the complete lack of any substance in what he writes. I read the article before I found out about the fury over it because I thought I’d get thoughtful analysis on Obama’s decision-making, as the title suggests. Perhaps that’s why I was so utterly disappointed by it. If you want to write an article that uses sound logic to defend his thesis on Obama the anti-colonialist, I’m all ears.
From a space perspective I do think its relevant in that it’s one more piece of sensationalized press NASA and the aerospace industry don’t need. And therein lies the issue. Tabloid journalism doesn’t just hurt the politicians, it hurts the parties used as examples by oversimplifying the situation. NASA is already a non-issue at best and a joke at worst in the eyes of the American public. Now it’s one more tool in the ‘Obama’s a Muslim’ toolbox as well, at least in the wider public’s eye.]
——-
It’s possible that Dinesh D’Souza’s book The Roots of Obama’s Rage can fill in the substance you find lacking in his opinion piece on the topic.
To me a site called “Space Politics” was designed to air opinion on things relating to space and politics. Sadly, many posters want to make this a conservative opinion free zone. The blog title isn’t “Liberal Space Politics” but jabs using “stupid,” “right-wing” and “anti-Obama” labels, along with Bush bashing, often are directed toward posters, who in their comments make the sin of differing with the current administration’s space policy.
Perhaps, you read the Washington Post, a publication that from a liberal’s world view doesn’t dabble in “tabloid journalism.” You may have already posted comments to these writings by Gerard Alexander under your pseudonym. These two Washington Post Outlook opinion pieces by Gerard Alexander attempt to analyze, Why are liberals so condescending? (over 3100 comments) and an earlier one titled: Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do so many liberals assume it does?” (almost 1600 comments)
It’s difficult to have a conversation with those who firmly believe their thoughts are superior to conservative thought and predictably malign to avoid debating the facts. That is the underlying current that takes so many threads “off topic.”
Corrected link: Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do so many liberals assume it does? (almost 1600 comments)
mr. mark wrote:
They seem to be ahead of schedule for their October 23rd Cargo test launch.
SpaceX better not light that candle early. I’m holding Mr. Musk to that 10/23 date as my 54th birthday present.
@Anne– Disousa’s piece is little more than exhaust gases escaping from the aft end of his service module.
“It’s difficult to have a conversation with those who firmly believe their thoughts are superior to conservative thought.”
With respect to the space agency, they are. Review the history of our civilian space agency since 1961 and the opposition it has faced from those who perocolate ‘conservative thought’ (aka own market and to the right) over the years. For instance, within hours of President Kennedy’s speech on May 25, 1961, “Congressional criticism came from a few Republicans who objected to what they called, ‘reckless spending.’ Rep. Leslie C. Arends, an Illinois conservative, was among the bluntest of his colleagues. He criticized Kennedy’s ‘huge spending schemes’ adding that it was “indeed an extraordinary experience hearing President Kennedy say nothing extraordinary.”- source, Burrow’s ‘This New Ocean.’ Review volumes of the Congressional Record. It’s all there. General opposition from conservatives in both parties toward civilian space agency is a matter of public record.
DCSCA wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 8:24 am [……General opposition from conservatives in both parties toward civilian space agency is a matter of public record.]
In 1969 Ralph Abernathy led a march against government space exploration on the eve of Apollo 11. I’m sure there’s been considerable opposition from liberals toward a civilian space agency and that it is matter of public record.
Just in passing I’ll add, Bush’s VSE was designed to make NASA relevant to national economic and security needs (it certainly needs direction) and it supported commercial space development.
Anne Spudis wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 5:51 am
It’s possible that Dinesh D’Souza’s book The Roots of Obama’s Rage can fill in the substance you find lacking in his opinion piece on the topic….
one can tell a book by its cover, particularly a political one, and thank you I’ll pass.
People in general sometimes get so obsessed with their failures that they take on the actions of those who beat them; but that happens frequently in politics from groups on the fringe of political thought.
There is very little difference from the “anti” crowd in both the Bush and Obama administration. Taking quotes out of context, obsessing on geniune gaffs, (I dont know how many times friends of mine on the left linked the vid from the Houston speech (which was satirical and I thought funny) of Bush calling the “rich” his base)…and the personalization of politics (“He (whoever that is) is not my President”).
Goofy.
D’Souza’ is a regular spear chucker for the right wing (as there are those on the left who do the same thing)…what I find scary however from the right is that the notions that the spear chuckers toss has started to creep into serious politics.
The reason of course is that extreme groups are easily motivated by slogans and need few facts. Roll out “death panels” or some similar phrase on the left and the “beloved” just lap it up and pony up the cash…after all they are saving the country. Just ask them. This has creeped into space politics.
The charge or claim that “we will have to show our passports to the Chinese if we dont have a lunar program” has now become phrase de jure in arguing for a program that cannot stand on its own merits.
I dont know if folks like the “birthers” are racist or not. But they act that way. There is no proof or even suspicion that is more then just speculation that Mr. Obama is not a citizen by the 14th amendment. None. In fact there is evidence to the contrary. The Gov of Hawaii (who is a Republican) says she has seen the “hospital” birth certificate, there is concurrent evidence of his birth (ie newspaper announcements), and the Secretary of the Senate, who certifies both the eligibility of Senators and that of the President says he is.
To perpetuate this claim, in the absence of clear and decisive evidence is nutty and worst there is the appearance at least of racisim.
Robert G. Oler
D’Souza’ is a regular spear chucker for the right wing…
To perpetuate this claim, in the absence of clear and decisive evidence is nutty and worst there is the appearance at least of racisim.
The only racism I see in this tread is your use of this horrible term to describe a conservative man of color.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 10:25 am
There you go again Robert G. Oler. You set the table and then proceed to poison the entrees. Case in point: you say my position regarding space exploration comes from a fear that Americans will have to show passports to the Chinese if we don’t have a lunar program. You do that to distract from multiple and oft-mentioned reasons lunar return was the basis of the VSE.
It is true that the Chinese have been “checking things out” in Cislunar space. I’m sure you’re aware of situational awareness and it’s importance to our national security, but then from your dismissal of anything related to national security (as well as our commitment to our allies and the designs some have on their countries) perhaps you find that a yawn-inducing topic of discussion. But our need to protect our assets in space is a concern that stems from a sound understanding of how important they our to our national security as well as to global stability. Ridicule to shut down any discussion of this and/or to use it as a club to deflect from discussing other reasons for lunar settlement, is very telling to me.
Now about this “birther” business. It’s nonsense and you know it. But you like to pull it out of your little bag of tricks to flush away any reasoned discussion. Just as the “9-11 Truthers” nonsense is used to distract from terrorism.
Anne Spudis wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 10:52 am
“There you go again Robert G. Oler. You set the table and then proceed to poison the entrees. Case in point: you say my position regarding space exploration comes from a fear that Americans will have to show passports to the Chinese if we don’t have a lunar program”
I dont believe I attributed that position to you.
Robert G. Oler
“Corrected link: Conservatism does not equal racism. So why do so many liberals assume it does? (almost 1600 comments)”
I find it amusing that your accusation of me being a knee-jerk anti-conservative is fundamentally knee-jerk anti-liberal in that I never once in my critique made any of the claims you accuse me of. I’m as annoyed by the constant race flag thrown up by liberal talkers as many conservatives are. And condescention has no place in reasoned political discussion on any side. Liberal ‘news sources’ in my mind engage in as much sensationalism and logical fallacy as conservatives. But D’Souza’s not a liberal, so my comments aren’t about liberalism.
I called it tabloid journalism because it’s devoid of logical integrity. If he has written a whole book on the subject, surely he could have used more substantial examples and had a more coherent argument without resourting to cheapshots like the Bolden comment or lumping Hawaii in with Indonesia as ‘foreign’. Neither of those are examples of reasoned political discussion If that’s condescention, it was well earned on his part.
amightywind wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 10:41 am
ok instead of spear chucker how about “bomb thrower”…”Key carrier” (that was the term used for the Iranian children who went across the mine fields carrying “keys” so they could get into 7th Heaven after they swept a mine…
I could go on…translation: Person who is counted on to throw charges irregardless of their reality
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 10:56 am [I dont believe I attributed that position to you.]
Well, forgive me for being confused about that because you regularly bring it up when posting to me or when you use “Spudis” as a target of opportunity.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 10:58 am
I could go on…translation: Person who is counted on to throw charges irregardless of their reality
Many of us react with puzzlement at Obama’s bizarre decision making. Interesting to see someone try to make sense of it. I see no reason to consider this well reasoned essay to be the work of a ‘spearchucker’.
Rhyolite wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 2:18 am
“However, most of these launches are to SSO where Falcon-1e only has a 430 kg payload so Falcon would only have been able to lift 20% or so of the primary payloads – the ones that are usually footing most of the bill.”
Good point.
“Falcon-1 versus PSLV certainly isn’t in the category of the head to head competition that you see between Atlas V, Proton, Ariane 5 ECA (dual manifest), and now Falcon 9 for 4000 kg to 5000 kg payloads to GTO.”
Yes, sometimes it’s hard to do apples-to-apples because the capabilities of the launchers are not the same. I have resorted to viewing 10,000 kg and 21,000 kg payloads as “standard” size, and using that to price out trends and alternatives. The 10,000 kg size also includes potential commercial crew capsules, so it’s also a way to estimate future $/seat costs.
With vertical launchers, I don’t know if we’ll ever get to something like standard shipping containers (used in the shipping industry), but if we ever get HOTOL figured out, maybe it could happen. However we have a longs ways to go to get there.
amightywind wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:25 am
“Many of us react with puzzlement at Obama’s bizarre decision making. Interesting to see someone try to make sense of it. I see no reason to consider this well reasoned essay to be the work of a ‘spearchucker’.”
off course not because anyone who thinks that there is anything well reasoned about the article isnt really looking for reasons…because there are none in it, other then a few facts and then a lot of speculation.
Analyzing Obama’s (or Bush’s or anyone elses) Presidency requires more then “He is just trying to please his father” (or in bush’s case I think that the charge from the nutty left was “he was trying to outdo his father”…
Those are potential (I guess) personal demons or angels but they are almost insignificant to the essence of the job.
But they do appeal to easily swayed minds that want little more then rhetoric and indeed rhetoric which confirms preexisting notions.
Robert G. Oler
aremisasling wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 10:57 am
Your initial post is where this discussion began. You took offense that I would take you to task for your views. We’ll, I found them “knee-jerk,” and not backed up by anything but heated rhetoric.
You designate and group people, then freely give your assessment of how that sits with you. Next you judge their coherence and claim they take cheap shots. Finally you wave off the need for facts and absolve yourself from scrutiny, by saying he earned your disdain.
Luckily people are able to judge things for themselves, and not have to rely on your “truth” filter.
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:34 am [But they do appeal to easily swayed minds that want little more then rhetoric and indeed rhetoric which confirms preexisting notions.]
For your reading pleasure:
‘A Nation of Dodos’ Liberals turn against the American public.
[Excerpt] Another explanation was needed, and now the media appear to have found one: Americans are nuts!
Time’s Joe Klein was perhaps the first out of the gate. We are “a nation of dodos,†he complained. We are “flagrantly ill-informed.†Klein was particularly incensed that we don’t understand that the stimulus worked. Of course, with unemployment inching up to 9.6 percent last month, and with President Obama now calling for a fourth stimulus package (if you count the two enacted under President Bush), it’s increasingly clear that the stimulus did not work.
Nevertheless, the chorus is now growing — and growing increasingly hysterical. On MSNBC’s Hardball, Chris Mathews worries about “crazy voters.†Pulitzer Prize–winning columnist Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post goes farther: Voters aren’t just crazy, they are “spoiled brats†who are throwing “a temper tantrum.†And Cynthia Tucker of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution chalks it all up to the fact that we are racists — extraordinarily far-sighted racists, apparently, who are looking ahead to the day 40–50 years from now when “the browning of America†will make minorities a majority of the U.S. population — and voting out of “fear.†[End Excerpt]
Tell us more about your ‘second amendment solutions’, Anne, are they anything like your previous ‘final solutions’? How did that work out for you?
Illuminatia Dementia wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:58 am
I can not understand your post, therefore I have no idea what you’re trying to say about me. You must be Lee Elfritz (sp?)
The post speaks for itself and already says everything anyone needs to know about you, but as predicted, you’re too dumb to understand it. Woooosh!
Now please tell us your theory of the cumulative radiative forcing of planetary atmospheres again, planetary scientists the world over need your advice.
Illuminator Deserati wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Thank you for being the embodiment of “the smear” and so succinctly making my point.
Thank you for being the embodiment of “the smearâ€
Well, if it works for you, Fox News, Dick Armey and his tea bagger Army of Dicks, then I suppose it can work for US. I’m just returning the favor.
Again Anne, please illuminate you and your husband’s thoughts on planetary atmospheres and their effects on their respective planetary bodies. I know that life bearing terrestrial planets with oceans and atmospheres is a little out of your area of expertise, being the lifeless rocky barren person that yu are, but give it a try anyways. Planetary scientists in declining biospheres across the universe are eagerly awaiting your keen insights into the functioning of carbon based civilizations.
Anne Spudis wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:46 am
LOL
I watch Hardball pretty solid and you are mischaracterizing most (if not all) the views of the folks on the show.
Particularly Cynthia Tucker’s views. I have not seen every apperance she has done on HB but I’ve seen most of them and you are just flat out misstating her views.
There is an “angst” among certain elements of the voting public that the world is changing and they dont like that. I hang out on a lot of political blogs and the chief sentiment of the folks who make up majorities of the tea party group (which is I guess what you are referring to) is “the melting pot is fine as long as everyone ends up looking like me”…
There are some realistic angles to the tea party, but its leadership is a group of corporate shills…and the vast majority of the folks in it are those for whom the notion of America as a dynamic changing society one in which every individual finds their own self worth through their own notionso f life liberty and the pursuit of happiness…what is American exceptionalism…is a dangerous thing.
You must go along with that since you either dont understand what Alexis de Tocqueville was trying to say or are deliberatly misstating that.
The tea party folks do it regularly…
I dont think most of the people who do this are racist…but they are not very bright and are easily swayed by leadership which offers simple slogans and solutions to complex problems…and when called on that remedy gets all upset and runs to really stupid defenses.
And this is space politics so I am done on this.
Robert G. Oler
Robert G. Oler wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 12:51 pm [I watch Hardball pretty solid and you are mischaracterizing most (if not all) the views of the folks on the show.]
I characterized nothing Robert.
Robert:[Particularly Cynthia Tucker’s views. I have not seen every apperance she has done on HB but I’ve seen most of them and you are just flat out misstating her views. ]
I stated nothing Robert.
Robert:[There are some realistic angles to the tea party, but its leadership is a group of corporate shills…and the vast majority of the folks in it are those for whom the notion of America as a dynamic changing society one in which every individual finds their own self worth through their own notionso f life liberty and the pursuit of happiness…what is American exceptionalism…is a dangerous thing.]
I referred to nothing Robert. I did post a link for your reading pleasure. I gather it wasn’t a pleasure.
I must disagree with your assertion that self worth found in life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is dangerous. Interesting take you have on that Robert but it explains just about everything.
Robert: [You must go along with that since you either dont understand what Alexis de Tocqueville was trying to say or are deliberatly misstating that. The tea party folks do it regularly… ]
Goodness, I had to check who you were posting to since I have never discussed Tocqueville with you or anyone here. But it’s fascinating that you bring him into the conversation. You might like to read Pascal Bruckner’s Le sanglot de l’homme blanc (The Tears of the White Man: Compassion as Contempt).
Robert:[I dont think most of the people who do this are racist…but they are not very bright and are easily swayed by leadership which offers simple slogans and solutions to complex problems…and when called on that remedy gets all upset and runs to really stupid defenses.]
You’ve lost me. Are you talking about the article or “cleverly” commenting on me?
Robert: [And this is space politics so I am done on this. Robert G. Oler]
Of course you are, that is until you bring it up again when you disagree with someone on their space views and you want them to exit the discussion.
Coastal Ron wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:27 am
According to Reaction Engines seven to eight years after program start. ie Full Funding ~ £10 billion.
Alan is promising an announcement concerning “significant events” (!)
Zigmund Freudish wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 2:13 pm
Nice try.
What don’t you understand about a duly noted excerpt, as in [Excerpt] ………………..[End Excerpt]?
What don’t you understand about a duly noted excerpt
I understand that your referred to a link, which you then characterized by repeating the contents of said link as a statement in the body of your post.
Adults are perfectly capable of following links, especially if they are relevant, which yours isn’t. Like I said, tea baggers are such delightful liars, and unfortunately, do to the decline of primary education in America, tea baggers are unable to critically think for themselves, and thus drink any old koolaide that is handed to them without even questioning the contents. You are not an adult, Anne, you’re a koolaide drinking tea bagger, who for some reason seems to think everyone else who reads this board are too.
So what we have here is one Anne Spudis, science denier and rabid authoritarian, unable to critically think for herself, barfing up koolaide.
Hellish Highwater wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 2:28 pm [I understand that your referred to a link, which you then characterized by repeating the contents of said link as a statement in the body of your post. Adults are perfectly capable of following links, especially if they are relevant, which yours isn’t. Like I said, tea baggers are such delightful liars, and unfortunately, do to the decline of primary education in America, tea baggers are unable to critically think for themselves, and thus drink any old koolaide that is handed to them without even questioning the contents. You are not an adult, Anne, you’re a koolaide drinking tea bagger, who for some reason seems to think everyone else who reads this board are too.]
Well, you’ll need to check with Coastal Ron on that HH. He’s instructed me time and time again (even admonished me at one point for not picking up on his directive) to post a quote and link to the article.
Is there a place at Space Politics where I can get the rules?
[So what we have here is one Anne Spudis, science denier and rabid authoritarian, unable to critically think for herself, barfing up koolaide.]
Damn, where did I put that barf bag?
Anne Spudis wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 2:44 pm
“Well, you’ll need to check with Coastal Ron on that HH. He’s instructed me time and time again (even admonished me at one point for not picking up on his directive) to post a quote and link to the article.”
I confess, I did. I’m not getting in the middle of this furball of a conversation, but your posts have been structured in a more concise and non-verbose fashion than when I made my suggestion. From that standpoint, I would not have mentioned anything about the current amount of content you were posting.
“Is there a place at Space Politics where I can get the rules?”
With apologies to the movie “The Treasure of the Sierra Madre”:
“Rules? We ain’t got no rules. We don’t need no rules! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ rules!”
This thread is a great justification for never coming back to this website. Sheesh.
Regardless (or should I say ‘Irregardless, Robert? Sheesh!) of whether folks stay or not, I would beg that all posters PLEASE look over what you type before you hit ‘Submit’. For things like, oh, spelling, grammar, vocabulary, and coherent sentences. Is this really so much to ask?
I too am terribly saddened by how we as a nation and as a society have opted to eliminate critical thinking as a worthy pursuit, teaching our children what to think instead of how to think. The mish-mosh disaster we call the media today is the predictable result.
But what drives me up the wall even more frequently is people who scrawl their blather and/or reasonable insights all over the world wide web yet never take the time to ensure that what they write is correctly written.
Smart up, you lazy s.o.b.s. You’ll do the discussion a world of good and, perhaps, tighten up your words, gain some respect, and waste less of our time.
As for those who already do take the time to write properly, THANK YOU.
This thread is a great justification for never coming back to this website.
Don’t let the door hit you on the way out!
But what drives me up the wall even more frequently is people who scrawl their blather and/or reasonable insights all over the world wide web yet never take the time to ensure that what they write is correctly written.
Smart up, you lazy s.o.b.s. You’ll do the discussion a world of good and, perhaps, tighten up your words, gain some respect, and waste less of our time.
A grammar N a z i. Awesome.
As for those who already do take the time to write properly, THANK YOU.
What was your space policy point again?
@Anne- “Just in passing I’ll add, Bush’s VSE was designed to make NASA relevant to national economic and security needs (it certainly needs direction) and it supported commercial space development.” <- Lip service, Anne. Both Bush's did little to wring funding from Congress for both their 'back to the moon' space pronouncements – Pappy Bush's asnnouncd on 7/20/89 and Dubya's in the post Columbia days. "No busks.. no Buck Rogers." As to Abernathy- you'd best review his protestations, racial, economic etc.,- indeed all of them– in that era in the context of the times. Dr. Paine addressed Abernathy's concerns. Perhaps you weren't alive to experience that period first hand. Poverty has always been with us and if such problems were deemed necessary to solve before pressing on with exploration, the colonies would never have pressed westward beyond the Eastern seaboard, as Mike Collins so rightly noted. But the space agency has no future embracing the incidious ideology of conservatism.
Coastal Ron wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:27 am
“With vertical launchers, I don’t know if we’ll ever get to something like standard shipping containers (used in the shipping industry), but if we ever get HOTOL figured out, maybe it could happen. However we have a longs ways to go to get there.”
There is actually a fair amount of standardization in the medium lift launch vehicles that cater to GTO launches. While it is no where near the degree of that exists in containerizes shipping, intelligent policy could nudge things further in that direction.
Satellite manufactures want to be able to swap payloads between launchers for cost, schedule and competitive reasons so there has been a degree of standardization on interfaces, environments and payload processing. Payload masses vary but the upper end of the market is around 6000 kg to GTO, though this is creeping upwards steadily over time so launch capabilities have been creeping upwards as well.
NASA could do a lot to push standardization by adopting a medium lift exploration architecture rather than developing an HLV. For example, they could define a standard 25,000 kg LEO payload envelope build BEO missions that are assembled out of standard elements that fit within that envelope. Given the number of elements required for a BEO mission, launch providers will have ample incentive to adopt the standard and fund any upgrades out of their own funds.
The advantage of standardization would be that payload could be swapped between launch vehicles in the event of a launch failure and commoditizing launch services would drive down prices. It would also make international cooperation easier because standard payloads allocated among partner nations.
I don’t think we have to wait until the distant future to take advantage of standardization in the launch market.
That should be: because standard payloads could be allocated among partner nations.
Rhyolite wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:14 pm
“There is actually a fair amount of standardization in the medium lift launch vehicles that cater to GTO launches. While it is no where near the degree of that exists in containerizes shipping, intelligent policy could nudge things further in that direction.”
I kind of rethought what I wrote after I pushed “submit”, and certainly one could make an argument that I was thinking horizontal containers solve something that vertical doesn’t, but other than stacking loads, it probably doesn’t matter too much, especially with bulk payloads like LH2/LOX.
I don’t know if NASA is the right group to push standardization, but it will certainly require a realization by some government entity and the launcher industry that a set of standards would help push costs down and availability up. It would have to be pretty incremental too, since new launcher introduction is almost a generational event nowadays (human generations). The first things they could start with are the payload adapters and fairings, which like you point out, would help to switch to other launchers on short notice.
It’s all part of turning space into a business, not an event.
Coastal Ron wrote @ September 16th, 2010 at 1:30 am
“It would have to be pretty incremental too, since new launcher introduction is almost a generational event nowadays (human generations).”
I wouldn’t be so pessimistic. Consider that the following launchers have all been developed in the US since 1990 (less than a generation):
Pegasus
Taurus
Minotaur (in several flavors)
Athena I and II (which Lockheed is now offering again)
Delta III
Delta IV Medium and Heavy
Atlas III
Atlas V
Falcon 1
Falcon 9
With the exception of Delta III and Altas III, all of these are still in service and Taurus II is coming soon. That’s a pretty good clip for commercial launch vehicle development (and not one vehicle developed by NASA). The industry is progressing, though not as fast as we would like and largely out of view of the HSF community.
DCSCA wrote @ September 15th, 2010 at 11:11 pm [<- Lip service, Anne. Both Bush's did little to wring funding from Congress for both their 'back to the moon' space pronouncements – Pappy Bush's asnnouncd on 7/20/89 and Dubya's in the post Columbia days. "No busks.. no Buck Rogers." As to Abernathy- you'd best review his protestations, racial, economic etc.,- indeed all of them– in that era in the context of the times. Dr. Paine addressed Abernathy's concerns. Perhaps you weren't alive to experience that period first hand. Poverty has always been with us and if such problems were deemed necessary to solve before pressing on with exploration, the colonies would never have pressed westward beyond the Eastern seaboard, as Mike Collins so rightly noted. But the space agency has no future embracing the incidious ideology of conservatism.]
The Vision specifically called for an affordable transportation system. Unfortunately for all of us, Mike Griffin had champagne tastes on a beer budget. His architecture is his achievement, so stop trying to tie it to others.
You state that you believe conservatism is insidious.
I certainly do not hold that view. Check this out for some insight:
Pascal Bruckner’s Le sanglot de l’homme blanc (The Tears of the White Man: Compassion as Contempt).
I was very much alive during the Sixties (a young adult). I am well aware of the history because it is mine. I know about Ralph Abernathy and about poverty. I understand how entrenched politics and stifling ideology in inner cities and in poor rural areas (here in the U.S. and globally) hold people back.
I also know about vision, inspiration and freedom and how they can transform one’s spirit and raise their outlook about what they can accomplish. It sets them free to excel and they eagerly pass that spark — the promise of each individual — on to their children.
Standardization already exists. 4 and 5 meter diameter fairings, 37, 45 & 66 inch clampbands, standard payload buses, etc. A Boeing 601 spacecraft can fly on Proton, Atlas, Delta, Sealaunch, Ariane, etc.
Rhyolite wrote @ September 16th, 2010 at 2:11 am
“I wouldn’t be so pessimistic. Consider that the following launchers have all been developed in the US since 1990 (less than a generation):”
I was thinking of it from a standpoint of vehicle longevity, that once introduced, that they tend to stick around for a long time. Good point on new products being introduced, and there is still more in the pipeline.
What’s really missing is the lack of LEO commerce, which will be needed to truly drive the standardization.
Byeman wrote @ September 16th, 2010 at 7:45 am
“Standardization already exists. 4 and 5 meter diameter fairings, 37, 45 & 66 inch clampbands, standard payload buses, etc. A Boeing 601 spacecraft can fly on Proton, Atlas, Delta, Sealaunch, Ariane, etc.”
To a degree, yes, but though the outside diameters may be standard, the internal payload dimensions seem to vary. This is not holding back the industry right now, as we don’t have a transportation need for bulk cargo to LEO.
It will actually be a sign of a maturing marketplace if we find that launchers and customers want more standards adopted – but I think that’s going to take a number of years, until commercial activity in LEO gets established.
My $0.02
@Anne- “You state that you believe conservatism is insidious.
I certainly do not hold that view.” And you’re entitled to it. But it is, as history has shown otherwise in general over decades and specifically to the advancement of spaceflight. You’d be hard-pressed to name five positive things that ideology has cotributed to the hman condition in any land over the past century or so. It is chiefly obstuctional and resistent to change. With respect to space, that resistence is well documented.