MarsBlog.net

MarsBlog.net

News and Commentary on Space

MarsBlog.net RSS Feed
 
 
 
 

Archive for August, 2006

Seth Borenstein’s Hatchet Job

Immediately after LM was awarded Orion this afternoon, I noticed quite a number of people on various blogs and discussion boards expressing disdain for the company. Seth Borenstein cranks the LM antipathy to 11.

The article appears under his byline on the Houston Chronicle site (three times, in fact, at the moment). CNN doesn’t carry the byline, but has a nice picture to illustrate it, extracted from decade-old archives, of Dan Goldin awarding the X-33 contract. What…they couldn’t be bothered to actually use something current? Indeed, as we shall see, X-33 is a recurrent theme in Borenstein’s hatchet job against LM.

In fairness, Borenstein may have also prepared an article on Boeing and Northrop Grumman to be published in the event they had won the contract, and it may have had the same relentlessly negative slant as well. However, the hit piece that did get published targets LM…so…let the fisking commence…

(more…)

Share

The Big Day

Well, it’s only taken about five years and three (possibly four) incarnations of the program to get this far, but the big day for CEV is finally here. Wish LM luck.

UPDATE: Hey, look at that: we actually won!

My condolences to the NG-Boeing team. I’ve worked the CEV proposal for most of the past 21 months, so I can imagine how disappointing it must be to be in the other position on this. I can’t speak for anyone else (or the corporation), but I think the general sense on our team all along has been that the NG-Boeing matchup made for a serious competitor on this proposal, one that we had to work hard to outdo. It will be interesting in the next week or so, after debriefs, to see just how the proposals compare.

Share

LM or NG-B?

Find out live on NASA TV, Thursday at 4pm EDT.

In case you were wondering, no, I haven’t heard any substantive rumors as to who the winner will be (and believe me, I’ve been looking for them). NASA has been remarkably tight-lipped about it. Come Thursday afternoon, I will either have a most excellent job for the foreseeable future…or be unemployed. And I’ll be as surprised as anyone.

Share

Resurrection and Luddism

Yes, I’m supposed to be on hiatus, but I’m stuck at home waiting for window installers. Might as well blog.

This Daily Mail article isn’t really news, since the idea of resurrecting a mammoth from frozen sperm has been making the rounds for several years. What’s interesting about the article is the attitude expressed in the comments section (cherry picked here for brevity):

It is a very intriguing and exciting idea. I personally do not have any problem with the thought of procreation through this method of retrieving shelved sperm. If dinosaurs, mammoths and dodos could be walking again on the face of the earth, I think it would be a landmark in achievement of science.

What I somewhat resent though, is the possibility of cloning or insemination in view of duplicating or procreating individuals like Hitler, Yvan the Terrible, Stalin, Lenin, Mussolini, Henry the VIII etc.

It is about time that to ram down taboos and move on to unrestricted scientific ventures as long as they can be ethical, moral and spiritually dignifying and edifying.

- Sham Naarai, Mauritius

Yet again, someone confusing biological cloning (making what amounts to an after-the-fact identical twin) with sci-fi “cloning” (making an identical copy of an individual). Since no one has any way of copying memories, character, aquired brain structure, and other experience-influenced attributes from one individual to another, this should hardly be a concern. And never mind that even if it were possible, we do not have the source material for any of those individuals…their dead brains being somewhat less than fresh.

I liked Jurassic Park, but this might not be such a good idea in practice.

- Ryk, London

Cool! Just protect their ivory from poachers.

- Paul, Southampton, Hampshire

What’s the point?

Global warming will kill them quicker than it’s the Polar Bear.

- Simon, Leicestershire

Having been interested in pre-historical animals all my life, I found it difficult to take-in that scientists would even consider bring back the Mammoth. They lived during the last Ice Age and environmenal changes brought about their extinction. But they did exist in America when humans arrived there, and the humans killed them all off. I think that it would be a mistake to bring them back. what would be the point? We know how good scientists are at their jobs, there is no need sot show off.

- Dean Campbell, Staffordshire

It scares me to think of what scientists may be doing, probably better not to know, we don’t have any power to do anything about it anyway.

- Beryl Mcdiarmid., Usson du Poitou. France.

The attitude is a mix between luddism (opposition to new technology), misanthropy (humans are bad and not to be trusted with such power), and fatalism (the world is doomed anyhow, what does it matter?). Not a good omen for the future.

Share

August Hiatus

Busy with a couple different kinds of work, so I’m taking a blog vacation until August 31.

Share

Orion

Not sure yet what to think of this: Project Orion to Follow Apollo to the Moon. (Doesn’t seem to be anything newer about it in the news, but this name choice was confirmed a couple days ago in a memo from Skip Hatfield.)

I suppose like any name they might have chosen, it will take a little time to grow on me. But unlike the other candidate names which have been tossed around in the past few months, this one has a peculiar space-related association that will be hard to shake. On the bright side, though, I’m sure this will lead to much entertaining moonbattery among the anti-space crowd when they notice this association and begin to suspect CEV is a front for nuclear pulse propulsion.

On a related note, Griffin last week at the Mars Society Conference in D.C. sadly laid to rest any (however remote) hopes that NASA will revive nuclear thermal propulsion any time soon.

Share

Ten Years Later…

…ALH84001 seems to have become the “cold fusion” of the life on Mars debate.

Ten years later, the results have not been verified. Skeptics have found non-biological explanations for every piece of evidence that was presented on Aug. 6, 1996. And though they still vigorously defend their claim, the NASA scientists who advanced it now stand alone in their belief.

“We certainly have not convinced the community, and that’s been a little bit disappointing,” said David McKay, a NASA biochemist and leader of the team that started the scientific episode.

On the other hand, the study of ALH84001 has by no means been a wasted effort — more like a false-alarm-as-fire-drill:

Debating the claim has helped researchers develop standards that will eventually prove useful for evaluating the presence of life in other Martian meteorites or a sample from the red planet. It has given the scientific community ideas about exactly where on the planet they would most like to scoop up a sample, should they ever get to retrieve one.

In other words, the false alarm of the initial discovery and announcement generated interest in an area where scientific standards were lacking, these standards were subsequently developed in the process of testing the original claims, and as a result we now have a better handle on how to look for and identify extraterrestrial microbial life in the future.

Meanwhile, others are thinking about how to break the news to the public the next time there is a possible discovery of biological material on Mars.

Share

Buy Our Book!

Buy Kindle version
Buy Nook version

A young girl sets out to prove herself by resolving a long-forgotten mystery. But when she gets close to the truth, what she thought was a harmless adventure becomes a threat to the future of the independent commercial settlements on Mars.

 

August 2006
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28293031  

Blogroll

Archives