Tales of the Heliosphere

With all the attention focused on national manned space programs and private space entrepreneurs, India's space program often gets overlooked. Well, the world's largest democracy is preparing to send an unmanned spaceship to the moon. (Here.)

After posting this, I finally received this week's edition of The Space Review in my email inbox. Dwayne Day reports on a recent conference on India's space program. Krishnaswami Kasturirangan, former head of India's space program, was a speaker.

"Now that India has not only developed significant space capabilities but also experienced substantial economic growth, the Indian space program has entered into what Kasturirangan describes as its 'expansion phase.' India can afford the luxuries of space science and possibly even human spaceflight. The country’s first lunar spacecraft, Chandrayaan-1, is scheduled for launch later this month. The government has also created the Antrix Corporation to market Indian space capabilities around the world. The country’s next goals are development of a heavy launch vehicle, lunar exploratory missions, a two-stage-to-orbit reusable launch vehicle, human spaceflight, and further international cooperation. (Here.)

Later, Kasturirangan spoke about India's manned space plans.

"Kasturirangan explained that right now India’s government has not officially approved a human spaceflight program. Although he did not say so, other sources have indicated that India will pursue a two-person capsule. ISRO is currently studying technology options and questions and he rattled off a long list, including life support, reentry, tracking and human-rating a launch vehicle, clearly indicating that he was personally familiar with the studies. Only after the Indian space agency has answered these questions and defined the kind of vehicle they want to build, its costs, and the timeframe for the first human space launch, will ISRO officials take those plans to the Indian Parliament for formal approval. Simply put, India’s human space program has not yet been fully defined or approved."

Meanwhile, in other news from the subcontinent, a new solar powered ricksha developed by the Indian government is hitting the streets of New Delhi.

"It's been touted as a solution to urban India's traffic woes, chronic pollution and fossil fuel dependence, as well as an escape from backbreaking human toil.

"A state-of-the-art, solar powered version of the humble cycle-rickshaw promises to deliver on all this and more.

"The 'soleckshaw,' unveiled this month in New Delhi, is a motorised cycle rickshaw that can be pedalled normally or run on a 36-volt solar battery.

"Developed by the state-run Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), prototypes are receiving a baptism of fire by being road-tested in Old Delhi's Chandni Chowk area." (Here.)

-tdr

Republished once to add content.

Labels: Energy, Environment, Leviathan, Nationalism, Space Exploration

Nothing in the universe comes without a cost. The solutions to today's perceived problems will create problems of their own. Take, for example, America's so-called addiction to foreign oil. Environmentalists don't want to open up America's oil fields off-shore or in the Arctic wasteland because oil is a dirty technology. Green technologies are favored instead. But even green technologies have damaging consequences.

Food prices will increase if we shift from oil to biofuels, according to a study by The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development and the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization. In the United States alone,

"Quantities of maize [what we Americans call "corn"] grown for fuel have already doubled since 2003. Where is it all being planted? In 2006, maize for fuel accounted for one-fifth of maize production in the United States. By the end of 2016, the period under review for the report, it will have increased to 32 percent of maize production. ... The report confirms that grain prices are expected to remain higher than they have been in the past decade." (Here.)

You might think making food more expensive in order to fuel automobiles would be a good reason to get our fuels from things we wouldn't otherwise eat. But that would mean you aren't thinking like your typical environmentalist. The goals of environmentalists are much grander than protecting the environment. Their goals are to change the way we live our lives at every level. So, instead of keeping fuel and food production separate, we can change our diets and eat mostly

"...lentils, chickpeas, kidney beans, and other dried legumes ... Variety of flavor is added with vegetable like potatoes, spinach, tomatoes, onions and garlic. Serve them with rice ... and you have a cheap, nutritious and filling meal."

Sorry, my ancestors didn't crawl their way to the top of the food chain so I could live on vegetables and beans.

Biofuels are likely to affect more than just food prices and diet. They could also harm the environment they are supposed to save. Leading environmental groups in the United Kingdom warn

"that without proper management, cultivation of crops for fuel, electricity and heat could cause further declines of farmland wildlife, damage the character of landscapes, harm historic and archaeological sites and damage soil and water quality." (Here.)

There's that phrase, "without proper management." And who gets to do the proper managing? In the words of one of the environmental leaders in the UK,

"'We're particularly concerned about potential environmental damage from intensively grown biofuel crops used for transport fuels. This report is a timely reminder that government has a key role to play to ensure that the growth of bioenergy in the UK is sustainable, working in partnership with conservation organisations, farmers and land managers.'"

O, what a surprise, the government. Is it any wonder governments all over the world are rushing to embrace apocalyptic environmentalism? It's a compelling rationale for more and more state power.

-tdr

Technorati: environment, environmentalism, global warming, biofuels.

Labels: Environment, Leviathan

When your mission is saving the planet from ecological catastrophe no sacrifice is too large, no behavior is too small, and nothing is ever enough. Is it any wonder that Big Green is finding willing allies in governments all over the world? The planet's salvation demands that experts and public officials tell us how to live every single aspect of our lives.

For instance, there's this story from the United Kingdom:

"Recycling rates have risen, and the UK is on schedule to meet EU targets, but the key to dealing with our escalating waste problem lies in changing our buying habits and our attitudes to consumption, according to the authors of a new Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) publication." (Here.)

Recycling isn't enough, you see, there's too much consuming going on out there. How do these experts propose to get us to change our bad habits of buying too much stuff? By using commercial marketing techniques to convince us that doing without is good for us.

"[Professor] Ken Peattie explains that social marketing can be successful because it focuses on the target audience's point of view, taking account of any emotional or physical barriers that may prevent people from changing their behaviour. 'Guilt messages are ineffective. A focus on the benefits of a greener lifestyle has been shown to be a better way to encourage people to reduce their consumption,' the report says."

If that fails, they can always force us to comply.

From San Francisco comes this story about Mayor Gavin Newsom's latest executive order. No water bottles for city departments. That's right. No water bottles.

"In a decision announced Thursday, Newsom said the ban will go into effect July 1 and extend to all city and county water coolers by Dec. 1. The decision will save taxpayer money and fight global warming, the mayor's spokesman said." (Here, third story down.)

Some cities just can't be satirized. You think bottled water is expensive now? Wait until you have to buy your water bottles on the black market. When bottled water is outlawed, only outlaws will sell water bottles.

-tdr

Technorati: environment, global warming, San Francisco.

Labels: Environment, Leviathan, Politics

Factcheck.org is more active again now that the presidential campaigns are in full swing. The website does reality checks of statements and positions taken by America's political leaders.

The site recently looked at the feasibility of ethanol replacing gasoline. Turns out it's not as easy as the Presidential wannabes and their allies in Big Corn and Big Green would have us believe.

"Still, even if the oil companies immediately began giving 1 percent of their profits toward the installation of E85 pumps, other obstacles — like limitations on how much corn the nation can produce or the fact that many flex fuel vehicle owners aren't even aware that their cars can run on E85 — are significant.

We do not dispute that ethanol along with other renewable fuels such as methanol and biodiesel have the potential to play a significant role in moving the U.S. away from foreign oil consumption and lessening greenhouse gas emissions. But ethanol has a long way to go before the campaign promises made by Clinton, Edwards and Obama can be fulfilled." (Here.)

-tdr

Technorati: elections, politics, energy, environment.

Labels: Energy, Environment, Leviathan, Politics, Technology

James Oberg writes an interesting column in The Space Review this week busting 12 myths of the weaponization of space. Here's one of the myths he takes on.

"Western news dispatches from Moscow, reporting on Russian official complaints about the policy, stated that it asserted the right “to deny adversaries access to space for hostile purposes,” and that it claimed the right (some say “tacitly”) for the US to deploy weapons in space. Vitaly Davidov, deputy head of the Russian Space Agency, complained: “They [the US] want to dictate to others who is allowed to go there.”

But the actual policy document makes no such claim and displays no such intent to “deny” access. The Russian anxiety, echoed on the editorial pages and in news stories around the world, is apparently based on some over-wrought page 1 stories in US newspapers, written by people too careless to actually read the original US document and subsequent official US government clarifications, or too eager to misinterpret it in the most alarmingly stark terms."

But here's a quote from the new policy.

"• The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests;" (See pp. 1-2 of OSTP pdf here [emphasis added].)

Later, the policy document directs the Secretary of Defense to

"...Develop capabilities, plans, and options to ensure freedom of action in space, and, if directed, deny such freedom of action to adversaries;" (See p. 5 of OSTP pdf at link above.)

While the new space policy makes no claim the US will deny access to space to other countries as a general rule, if your country is an American enemy threatening America's freedom of action in space, well, that's a whole 'nother story. If other countries perceive a threat in a policy statement that says the US will act against its enemies to protect its space capabilities, then America had better keep a watchful eye on those countries.

The United States should have a policy aimed at keeping access to space open and deterring those who would deny that access to America or other nations. America helped usher in today's globalized and interconnected world by promoting a policy of freedom of the seas, and having a Navy capable of implementing that policy. As humanity moves out from Earth and brings space into the world's economic sphere, America should promote and protect freedom of access to space. If it takes using military force, so be it.

-tdr

Technorati: NASA, space, space weapons.

Labels: Leviathan, NASA

Many critics complain about the secrecy of the Bush Administration. But a new study of federal agencies from the National Security Archive, a Washington-based nongovernmental research institute, cites NASA for its transparency."NASA is a prime example of effective use of the Web, [Director Thomas] Blanton said. The agency posts comprehensive guidance on FOIA [Freedom of Information Act] for visitors, links all their component FOIA Web sites, and also has posted many documents on the Columbia space shuttle disaster, a tragedy that had drawn may inquiries for information." (Here.)

-tdr

Technorati: NASA

Labels: Leviathan, NASA

The latest issue that has spacers worried about the future of humans in space is the apathy, if not opposition, of the young to NASA's human space plans. (Here.) Taylor Dinerman, writing at The Space Review, suggests a plan and a theme. (Here.)

The plan involves enrolling students in NASA space academies and increasing educational outreach programs in schools. The theme is one that surfaces regularly at space conferences: space saves the world. Here's how Dinerman puts it:

"If NASA wants to communicate a simple message about why its mission is essential, why not try something along these lines: in 2050 there will be nine billion humans on this planet, most of whom will aspire to a lifestyle approximating that of a prosperous American today. There is no way that the Earth can provide the resources to support them. Only by going off-Earth for energy and materials can we hope to help the vast majority of humanity obtain a decent standard of living and also protect our environment."

Dinerman's theme has the benefit of appealing to values the young tend to embrace and providing an idealistic basis for America's space program. There's nothing like a cause greater than self to motivate people to act. But Dinerman's theme appeals to a fairly new global idealism. A more parochial and time-tested idealism exists that NASA should exploit: patriotism.

Every generation young Americans join the country's armed forces motivated by self-interest, a thirst for adventure, a desire to serve others, and love of country. Right now NASA is America's "Space Administration." Even its name is bureaucratic and boring.

NASA ought to be a service. Change the space program's name to something like the United States Space Exploration Service, give its employees military-style ranks, create uniforms, start Space Service ROTC programs at schools, the whole nine yards. Make the space service's mission exclusively about exploring space. And for a theme? Sell a career in America's space service as an adventure and patriotic service to the country; the old-fashioned virtues that have been around since the dawn of recorded human history.

-tdr

Technorati: NASA, space.

Labels: Leviathan, NASA

Space.com is polling readers for the top space story of 2006. The top 10 so far can be seen here. They are about what you'd expect with the hardy and totally lovable little Mars Rovers coming in first, followed by the decision to save Hubble, and NASA's return to flight.

In my view the top space story of 2006 is Bigelow Aerospace's successful launch and continued operation of its inflatable prototype for a private space station. This story signals the promise of private human space operations in orbit. (Here.)

Second would be NASA's awarding of the COTS contracts, which demonstrates the government's move towards reliance on private space companies for operations in lower Earth orbit. (Here.) Tied for second would be the Democratic Party's takeover of the House and Senate, which has immediately imperiled NASA's plans for human space operations. (Here.)

Third is publication of the United States new space policy document which makes official the view that space is a place within America's security and economic spheres of influence. This is a baby step in the direction of undermining the current unrealistic legal regime that governs human activities in space. (Here and here.)

The most ridiculous space story of 2006 is number 8 on the Space.com list. That story is the decision by astronomers to adopt the neighborhood bully definition of planets and fix the Solar System's planetary population at 8. The story gets my vote for most ridiculous story because it reveals how out of touch scientists are from the general public. (Here.)

What's your opinion?

-tdr

Republished once to fix links.

Technorati: NASA, space, astronomy.

Labels: Leviathan, NASA, News, Scienceism, Space Captains Of Industry

The Bad Astronomer (here) makes a good point about how foolish it was to drive a golf ball from the International Space Station. There's a lot of space debris in orbit already without adding a hurtling golf ball into the mix. Even if it is for only a couple of days.

The possibility of stupid commercial activity in space prompts him to say this in the same post:

"Anyway, I fear this will not be the last of the dumb things done to make money in space. I’m not sure how much to worry about space banners, for example, which will be big lit-up banners in orbit hawking commercial products; this has been proposed realistically and could do serious damage to ground-based astronomy. The list goes on and on. I’m not a big fan of regulating what goes on in space, but if garbage like this golf shot keeps up, I may change my mind."

Actually, giant billboards in space would ruin the night sky for all of us, not just ground-based astronomers. The aesthetics of the night sky would be ruined and people all over the world would be a captive audience whose only option to avoid the advertising would be to look at the ground not the sky. Who wants that?

To some degree we are all exposed to advertising we'd rather avoid. We voluntarily expose ourselves to most of that advertising by reading newspapers and magazines and using TV, radio, and the internet. Billboards differ from media advertising because we are exposed to billboards just by walking or driving around in public.

Space billboards would be so much more intrusive than ordinary billboards. Here on Earth a billboard may be visible for a block or two or maybe for several miles on the highway. Space billboards, on the other hand, would be visible over vast reaches of Earth to millions of people at the same time. That difference in degree is a significant intrusion on people's ordinary lives and justifies legislation against space billboards, even for merely aesthetic reasons.

There may be environmental reasons to ban space billboards as well. Depending on their brightness, the proliferation of space billboards could light up the night in ways that ruin the environment for nocturnal animals. It's true that cities pollute the sky with their light at night but there are weighty considerations of safety and necessity to justify the amount of light created by cities despite the environmental impact. Because orbital billboards would fly over cities and the dark countryside their impact on the environment would be widespread. Moreover, the potential benefits from space advertising likely would not justify the negative impacts on the environment and the night sky.

Space advertisers may have free speech rights on their side, but even free speech can be regulated by reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. The negative so far outweighs the positive that it seems entirely reasonable to ban obtrusive space billboards visible on Earth.

For a more in depth analysis of legal issues surrounding regulation of space billboards read this Note (here) in The Federal Communications Law Journal and this online article (here) by Jimm Erickson at the website of law professor David D. Friedman. According to the Erickson article Congress has already acted to prevent obtrusive space advertising from ruining the night sky. A US launch license can be denied to any spaceflight sending "obtrusive advertising" into space.

-tdr

Technorati: Astronomy, Science, Environment, NASA, Space.

Labels: Aesthetics, Lawyers In Space, Leviathan, Scienceism

President Bush has signed a new space policy for the United States. Unclassified portions of the policy are available in a PDF document at the Office of Science and Technology Policy website. (Here.) Spacedaily.com publishes a story that leads with the news that the new space policy "rejects the development of arms control agreements that could restrict or limit U.S. access to or use of space. It also calls for the development of space capabilities that support U.S. defense and intelligence initiatives." (Here.) Well, let's hope so.

Here are the relevant passages from the new policy:

"• The United States considers space capabilities -- including the ground and space segments and supporting links -- vital to its national interests. Consistent with this policy, the United States will: preserve its rights, capabilities, and freedom of action in space; dissuade or deter others from either impeding those rights or developing capabilities intended to do so; take those actions necessary to protect its space capabilities; respond to interference; and deny, if necessary, adversaries the use of space capabilities hostile to U.S. national interests;

• The United States will oppose the development of new legal regimes or other restrictions that seek to prohibit or limit U.S. access to or use of space. Proposed arms control agreements or restrictions must not impair the rights of the United States to conduct research, development, testing, and operations or other activities in space for U.S. national interests;" (See pp. 2-3 of OSTP pdf.)

The current international legal regime for space pretends that space is a place where national conflicts will not occur. Space is supposed to be a place for international cooperation and peaceful coexistence and exploration. This is all nonsense, of course. Space may be above the sky but it's not heaven and when people go there we don't become angels.

The new US space policy pays lip service to the current legal regime but it is clear that the Bush Administration views space as a place just like any other where the United States will assert and protect its national interests and where the nation will seek to retain its dominance. This is refreshing, actually. The United States depends on space for national defense and it had better be able to protect its assets up there.

-tdr

Technorati: Bush, War, Space, NASA.

Labels: Leviathan

Writing in the Houston Chronicle, Mark Whittington, who blogs at curmudgeon.blogspot.com, cautions the US against collaborating with China in space.

"But until China gives up its drive to superpower status and begins to adhere to human rights norms, it should not become a partner in space exploration to the United States.

"Does that policy mean a space race between China and the United States? Probably. But that is not something that should be feared, but rather welcomed. Competition breeds progress and innovation.

"The last space race took America to the moon from a dead stop in eight years. The next one could determine which system will spread civilization beyond the Earth: democracy and capitalism or tyranny." (Here.)

Our sentiments exactly. (Here.)

-tdr

Technorati: Space, NASA, China.

Labels: China, Leviathan

This New York Times Opinion (here) touches on what appears to be an insurgency being waged within NASA by scientists protesting the space agency's new direction. Judging by the article, there's at least one person in Washington who knows how to fight an insurgency: Mike Griffin..

-tdr

Technorati: NASA.

Labels: Leviathan

NASA Adminstrator Mike Griffin announced Monday that "NASA is not the galactic overlord and shouldn't be." This appeared to come as news to some in the audience at Utah State University.

Griffin's comment was in response to a plea by a former university professor championing student involvement in space who said:

"'There's no present access for students in space ... Can't you figure out a way to get us some opportunity to fly on U.S. launch vehicles?'" [Gil] Moore asked. "'We're not asking you to pay for the satellites. Just get us some rockets, get us some access to space.'"

Griffin's response is priceless, if a bit harsh in its bluntness.

"Griffin responded that he has a lot of problems ahead of that one. 'NASA cannot be responsible for everything that needs being done in the space community,' he said. 'NASA is not the galactic overlord of space and shouldn't be.' If educators want to negotiate with firms to get students' experiments into space, he added, 'I wish you well. But it is not my job to be the broker for those launches.'" (Here.)

It doesn't get much clearer than that. There's something tremendously refreshing about Griffin's candor and directness.

Reading the rest of the linked article, it's clear that Griffin doesn't see NASA's job as serving the special interests of the various elements that make up America's space community. Griffin sees his job as implementing the mandate he was given by the President. Those who want something else done in space are going to have to do an end run.

Remain a vassal and lobby Congress much like the Planetary Society has done with their SOS (Same Old Stuff) campaign to reinstate funding for their pet science missions. Or better yet, drop the role of vassal to the government's space program, take up Griffin's challenge, and find your own way to space.

-tdr

Technorati: NASA,

Labels: Leviathan

Another teapot tempest erupted a few weeks ago over NASA's removal of the following phrase from its mission statement: "to understand and protect our home planet." Apparently, NASA's new mission statement says, "to pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery and aeronautics research." (Here, NYT article requires registration.) The change has gotten criticism. (Here and here.)

Yet the reality is that Earth sciences will get around 50 percent of science funding for the next five years. (See pp. 32-34 of budget here.) And there's this statement by OSTP Director John Marburger.

"The first stage of exploiting cislunar space is already well advanced, partly because applications have been found that can be achieved with small payloads and yet whose value to society exceeds the cost of launch. It is likely that these near-Earth applications will always dominate the use of space because Earth is where the people are, as well as the environment that sustains them. We must never forget that within our Solar System the object most important for humankind is Earth, and Earth-oriented space applications merit priority in a balanced portfolio of public investment." (Here, para. 5.)

So even though the mission statement has changed, Earth research is likely to remain in NASA's plans. Too bad, actually.

Here's a NASA Ames webpage that apparently hasn't gotten the message about the new mission statement. It has an entirely different mission statement and it's a long one.

"To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe. To advance human exploration, use, and development of space. To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies."

What kind of mission statement is that? It's more like six mission statements rolled into one. It's unfocused, it's long, and it has too much information to comprehend easily.

Now compare that mission statement to the new supposedly objectionable statement."To pioneer the future in space exploration, scientific discovery, and aeronautics research." (Here.) It's one short sentence that is easily comprehended. Despite it's brevity, it provides an overall description of what NASA is about. And it's a very broad statement. Notice that it doesn't limit scientific discovery to space. The breadth of the statement also leaves room to change the details of implementation as needs change over time.

It's hard to quantify the importance of a mission statement. Go to the NASA website (here) and try to find it. Good luck. Go to the NASA budget documents page (here) and you'll find it only in the strategic plan document. (Page 5 of 48.) Thus, the statement may not be as important as the complainers have made it out. What is clearly important is President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration and you'll find lots of discussion of that in NASA's documents.

Regardless, the critics are wrong. Part of NASA's problem has been that it tried to do too many things. NASA's primary mission should be exploration and discovery of space. NASA should be focused on looking up not down, out not in, and forward not backward. Pick your metaphor.

-tdr

Technorati: NASA, Space, Science.

Labels: Leviathan

Florida Today has done spacers a public service by creating a chart that lists all the rocket launches ever from The Cape. (Here.) There's been a whole lot of rocketry goin' on back there.

-tdr

Technorati: Space, NASA.

Labels: Leviathan

The US and India will be cooperating on India's first mission to the moon. (Here.) Curmudgeon's Corner quickly noted his approval (here) and we share that view. Politics does not stop at the atmosphere's edge and it's in America's security interest to move closer to India.

What is striking about the announcement of the US-India cooperation is the statement by NASA boss Michael Griffin:

"It is my hope and belief that as we extend the reach of human civilization throughout the solar system, the United States and India will be partners on many more technically challenging and scientifically rewarding projects."

That bit about extending human civilization into space could be boilerplate spacer rhetoric, but it doesn't seem so. The guy seems to be a true believer.

-tdr

Technorati: Space, NASA, India.

Labels: Leviathan

Dennis Wingo has an insightful comment on America's government space program. (Here.) This site argued a similar point about a month ago. (Here.) Our government's space program is not about space for its own sake. It's about serving the national interest.

-tdr

Technorati: NASA, Space, Space Travel.

Labels: Leviathan

A government space program, like war, is the continuation of policy by other means. For the US space program the policy is to project the reach and influence of America's government into the Solar System. A government space program is an analog to the military on Earth. And just like the military, it's of the government, by the government, and for the government.

How does the US government project its reach and influence into the Solar System when the Outer Space Treaty bars any assertion of national sovereignty over other worlds?

It does so by sustaining a permanent American presence in space. Its preferred permanent presence is a government presence because it has more control over it than it would over private citizens.

It projects its reach and influence into the Solar System by developing spacecraft owned by the government for government astronauts to fly on. The government's space program, much like the Navy and Air Force is not about giving rides to private citizens. Nor is it about hitching a ride on private transportation. A government space program is about makings sure the government has its own ships to fly its own people into space or the people it chooses to take.

It projects its reach and influence into the Solar System by sending spacecraft out to explore. Every US crewed or robotic spacecraft that goes to another world expands America's influence both on Earth and in space. Here on Earth successful exploration missions help to make the US the go-to country for science and exploration in space. Successful missions to other worlds create little American outposts on other worlds. Having our own ships elsewhere in the solar system is similar to showing the flag here on Earth. It tells other countries that we are free to operate in space and we can.

To be influential in space the US government's space program doesn't need to be very innovative. Its competitors in space are other governments. For now, as long as the US program is about as good as the programs of other countries, which it is, it will be doing its job. There is no compelling reason in the current political climate requiring the US government's space program to be signifantly better than the programs of other countries. When such a reason arises, that's when the government program will look to innovate.

Finally, what a government space program is not for is flying lots of private citizens into space, settling space, or making lots of money. Those are the functions of the private sector. The government's functions are to regulate those activities and have a presence in space when private space ventures advance enough to start sending lots of people offworld.

Those who want to make money in space and go to space themselves will have to build their own ships and find their own financing. Some have gotten that message by now. That's why suborbital entrepreneurs are creating a market for what they want to do, raising the money however they can, and building their own ships. (Here & here.) The suborbital entrepreneurs are showing the way to a future where ordinary people live, work, and travel in space.

-tdr

Technorati: NASA, Space.

Labels: Leviathan

The writer over at the "space4peace" blog claims the mission of the Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter is to look for minerals on Mars in order to

"... set[] up the infrastructure to make it possible in the future to have the industry go in and reap major profit from mining operations. The Halliburton Corporation is today creating a drilling mechanism to do Mars mining. Once NASA has successfully created the ability the [sic] mine the skies the entire operation will be privatized."

(Here.)

Apparently that's a bad thing.

The bogeyman of Halliburton is often trotted out by the left as it tries to scare the American people. But what would be so bad about turning over parts of human space exploration to Halliburton? Here's how its subsidiary, KBR, turned a desert wasteland in Kuwait into a thriving US military base at the drop of a hat.

"A good example is Camp Arifjan, a U.S. Army base about 90 minutes southwest of Kuwait City. Six months ago, this was nothing but a small collection of buildings that was supposed to be a training base. On Oct. 11 -- the day Congress gave President Bush authority to wage war on Iraq -- someone in the Pentagon picked up a phone and told KBR it had nine weeks to turn Arifjan into a full-blown Army base for 7,000 people. The job went to Robert (Butch) Gatlin, a wizened 59-year-old Tennessean who served 32 years in the Army Corps of Engineers before coming to perform the same work, at much greater pay, for KBR.

''When we got here, there was no power or water,'' Gatlin said as we stepped from the air-conditioned trailer that is KBR's Arifjan headquarters into the blinding desert sun. Within about 72 hours of the Pentagon's call, Gatlin had a handful of KBR specialists -- electricians, carpenters, plumbers -- on planes headed here. Most of the rest were hired locally. ''I had a thousand people working here in 24 hours,'' he said. ''The Army can't do that.''

KBR essentially took an entire Army base out of containers and made it rise in the middle of the Kuwaiti desert two days ahead of schedule: air-conditioned tents complete with 110-volt outlets for the soldiers' boom boxes, male and female shower blocks, kitchens, a laundry, Pepsi machines, a Nautilus-equipped health club with an aerobics room (''Latin Dance Thurs & Sat!''), a rec center with video games and a stack of Monopoly sets, a Baskin-Robbins and a Subway sandwich shop."

(Dan Baum, GlobalPolicy.org.)

Expertise like that could be useful to the space settlers of the future seeking to exploit the resources of the solar system. And what would the space4peaceniks think of this theory (here) that oil shale is beneath the surface of Mars creating the Red Planet's atmospheric methane? Oooo, scary.

-tdr

Technorati: Space, Halliburton, NASA.

Hat tip to Curmudgeons Corner for finding the space4peace post.

Labels: Leviathan

The ever more influential conservative Republican Study Committee introduced a proposed budget bill in the House recently. (Here.) As it did before, the RSC took aim at human exploration of space.

The RSC's proposed budget eliminates the Moon-Mars initiative. This is the RSC's summary of their proposal:

Cancel NASA’s Moon/Mars Exploration Initiative and Retire the Space Shuttle After Completion of the International Space Station. In 2004, the President announced a new initiative to explore the Moon and Mars with the goal of returning humans to the Moon by 2020. NASA currently intends to use the savings from phasing out the space shuttle in 2012 to fund this program. However, the proposed transition will take six more years, costing taxpayers money on administrative and program expenses associated with simultaneously operating both programs. This proposal would cancel the new mission and would retire the space shuttle after completion of the International Space Station. A similar proposal was included in the original budget resolution (H.Con.Res. 67) passed by the House of Representatives in 1995.

(PDF here, scroll to p. 15.)

The proposal seeks to save money on human space flight by not funding two different missions at the same time. Moreover, the proposal does not postpone the new mission, it cancels it.

This is just nonsense. Rather than scrapping the space shuttle now and focusing the money on developing America's next generation of space vehicles sooner rather than later, the RSC proposes the opposite. Stick with the old system that barely flies and is headed to scrap heap and get rid of the new systems.

We are especially pained by this because we tend to share the politics of the RSC. Yet fiscal conservatism can be shortsighted and foolish at times. It certainly is here. Human space exploration survived the RSC's assault last year. Since then Tom DeLay lost his leadership post, the President's influence waned even more than it had during his disastrous 2005, and there is a growing revolt by Congressional Republicans against the President's fiscal policies. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out.

If we're lucky the Vision will keep its funding and servicing the ISS will fall to the private sector. Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison suggested just that in remarks the other day as one of the options available to the US for finishing the ISS.

"The current plan is to terminate space shuttle flights in 2010. Our legislation initially prohibited a gap between the end of shuttle flights and the start of CEV operations."

"In the end, we compromised with a statement of policy that the US should maintain an uninterrupted capability for human space flight, and required NASA to inform the Congress, at least a year before the last scheduled shuttle flight, if a gap [between shuttle retirement and CEV flight] appeared likely and what steps they would take to fill it."

"In my view, the options they might have at that point, if necessary, could include extending shuttle flights beyond 2010, utilizing crew launch capabilities that might be developed by the private sector, or establishing agreements for the use of international partner crew launch capabilities."

"The NASA Authorization Act endorses and encourages the private sector involvement in space station crew and cargo support, and I am pleased to see NASA moving forward in its efforts to help spur that development."

(Here, emphasis added.)

Extending shuttle flights beyond 2010 would be risky and a huge waste of time and money. And for what? Not for exploring other worlds but merely to finish building a space station.

We rely on the Russians for ISS flights now. Continuing to rely on foreign governments is not much of an option given the current political climate that prevents even an ally from taking over management of certain port terminals in the United States. Nativism is metastasizing in the USA if even the diversity pimps in the Democratic Party are jumping on the America first bandwagon.

The better option is to leave the exploration missions alone and to get serious about developing private sector alternatives for lower Earth orbit. If talk alone could launch spacecraft there'd be fleets of ships in space now launched by the boasts of private space advocates. The time is now for the private space sector to match its rhetoric with deeds. This country needs their help.

-tdr

Technorati: space, NASA, politics, Republicans.

Labels: Leviathan