MarsBlog - Part 110

More on Phoenix

Here’s a good article on what the Phoenix lander project is all about: “Phoenix” to Land at Mars’ North Pole

Your Flight Has Been Cancelled

NASA rejects Langley’s Mars plane, citing risk worries

“They did point out the reason we weren’t selected was due to circumstances beyond our control, in part, NASA’s growing concern with reducing risk.”

Okay, someone ‘splain to me what safety in the manned space program has to do with the demonstration of new unmanned exploration technology?

Oh, wait! I know! “CYA”! Don’t invite another disaster by doing something ambitious when you’re still dealing with the mess you’ve got.

More Bruce in the News

He was out of sight for several months, but now he’s everywhere:
Rocking the boat, an interview with Bruce Gagnon.

I intended to give this article a thorough fisking, but I don’t think that even I am up to the task — there’s just too much misrepresentation, self-serving propagandizing, moral equivalence drawing, paranoia, and general asshattery for one blogger to tackle.

And that’s just in the intro paragraphs.

Eeesh.

Ouch

Costly astronauts wield too much clout

One More Barn Door Closed

NASA is considering landing the orbiters at Edwards instead of KSC, in order to avoid another reentry breakup dumping debris over populated areas.

And Yet More Luddism

China and Russia, in hit at U.S., urge space arms ban

Yeah, I’m sure they’re doing it out of global altruism, too.

“We are ready to take on such a commitment immediately as long as the leading space powers join in a moratorium,” he said.

Hey, it’s like a Kyoto for space! “Yup, you betcha, just as soon as them American cowboys sign up to it first, we’ll be all over this treaty.”

Ah, but this part is a real gem:

Proponents of a pact, which include many European and nearly all developing countries, say it is vital to ensure that the 1967 treaty banning weapons of mass destruction in outer space is not undermined.

With the U.S. withdrawal last year from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with the old Soviet Union, they argue there is no reliable legal pact barring countries from using space for military purposes.

So…we have a treaty barring weapons in space, but we can’t be sure that that treaty is worth the paper it’s written on, so we need…another treaty?

Right. Okay.

And note the clever (or stupid, take your pick) misrepresentation of what is being discussed here. The last sentence implies that the 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans military activity in space, generically, when it does no such thing:

Article IV

States Parties to the Treaty undertake not to place in orbit around the Earth any objects carrying nuclear weapons or any other kinds of weapons of mass destruction, install such weapons on celestial bodies, or station such weapons in outer space in any other manner.

The Moon and other celestial bodies shall be used by all States Parties to the Treaty exclusively for peaceful purposes. The establishment of military bases, installations and fortifications, the testing of any type of weapons and the conduct of military maneuvers on celestial bodies shall be forbidden. The use of military personnel for scientific research or for any other peaceful purposes shall not be prohibited. The use of any equipment or facility necessary for peaceful exploration of the Moon and other celestial bodies shall also not be prohibited

Now, if the Russians and Chinese wish to deorbit their military surveillance, navigation, and communications satellites, and ban such things in the future, as part of this new treaty they desire, well, that would suggest that they are serious about banning “military activity” in space. Otherwise, it’s just another whining attempt to undermine our NMD program.

More Luddite Malarkey

Ah, yes, the old “Space Exploration Takes Food From The Mouths of Children” meme bobs up again: House Votes More for Nuclear Space Flight than Earth Cleanup.

Markey told House colleagues that the amendment struck the necessary balance: “our exploration of the stars and our preservation of the Earth.”

Bull. It was simply an attempt to starve the project by a couple of Representatives (Markey D-MA and Bass R-NH) who don’t have the guts to try and kill it outright — why else specifically target Prometheus for this raid? And even though their amendment was (thankfully) voted down, the spin is in: ‘Superfund is being starved of cash to pay for Prometheus!’

The $279 billion the House has voted for Prometheus is in line with the Bush administration’s request, and represents a 133 percent increase over the program’s 2003 appropriations. This figure includes $186 million for the Nuclear Systems Initiative and $93 million for a first flight mission–known as the Jupiter Icy Moon Orbiter (JIMO).

The increase is taken completely out of its context in the program’s schedule. Could it be that that 133% increase is required this year for planned activities, or that the FY2003 funding was so much less because the program only started in January and consisted of preliminary studies?

Taking $115 million out of the initiative and allocating it to the Superfund program, Markey said, would give Prometheus a 31 percent increase and afford Superfund a nine percent increase over 2003 levels.

Well now, this is an interesting inversion of the usual budgetary propaganda theme…it used to be that increases were called “cuts”, now we have a cut being described as an “increase”.

Indeed it is an increase, in absolute dollars, but it may be a completely meaningless increase for being so small. Again, this totally ignores what amount of money is right at this time for what the program is intended to accomplish. This is what I am getting at when I accuse them of attempting to kill Prometheus. Starving it now will mean either a bigger budget item next time around to fund an acceleration of development (making it an even easier target for raiding), or a perpetual stringing along at starvation levels resulting in its eventual cancellation for lack of progress.

“It is an issue of priorities,” Bass added. “The moons of Jupiter are going nowhere, but the people who live around these Superfund sites are people that are affected and potentially affected by this issue every single day.”

Ooh, another hoary old argument. “We’ve got to solve all our problems here on Earth before we can explore space!”. Funny that no matter how many trillions of dollars we spend on those problems, they only seem to get worse. At least money spent on NASA has some positive results, in exactly those areas the Prometheus project is initially intended to serve: robotic probes to the outer planets.

What, No Body Cavity Search?

Our old luddite friend Bruce Gagnon says he was detained in the Louisville airport for discussing “bombs and contamination” on a cellphone.

Yawn. May indeed be true, but it’s funny how this same story is told the same way by so many leftie activists…”The Man detained me and questioned me about my activities, but I reminded him of my Constitutional rights (the ones I approve of, mind you) and stared him down with steely-eyed grassroots resolve!”

Here’s a micro-fisking of the rest of the content:
1. “Exponential” escalation? You do know what that means, right? Where are all those fissionables going to be coming from?
2. Yes — perhaps they have learned something in the past fifty years. We’re also better at communicating today, and better informed, and less blindly trusting of the government than we were in the 1950’s and early 1960’s (and more likely to sue at the drop of a hat)…it’s hard to imagine that kind of hanky-panky happening now. And even if that isn’t enough, don’t you have faith in the abilities of organizations like yours to expose the truth and keep the labs in line? If you have so little faith in the efficacy of your efforts, why bother?
3. “All”? Really? “Each” one? So, what nefarious militaristic purpose do the MERs serve? And does this mean that Biff and Sandy just prototype killbots sent to the Red Planet for field endurance testing?

Mars Books

I finally managed to read the last few pages of The Smithsonian Book of Mars, which I started reading back in April (I’ve been busy). It’s a great book, covering the major planetary geology and climatology topics and reviewing the robotic exploration of the planet up to today.

Coincidentally, I received on the same day an advance copy of William Hartmann’s A Traveller’s Guide to Mars. I’ve only had a chance to flip through it, but already it looks like what I have been searching for for quite some time. Hartmann approaches the surface geology and geography of Mars as one might a foreign country, presenting the sights and attraction of the various regions of the planet. What seems unique about this book is the ground-level perspective he uses — the look and feel of the book (I can’t yet speak for the content) make you feel like you are right down near the surface features he is describing, rather than floating high above. Interestingly, the book includes a number of paintings by the author from this “on the ground” perspective…one would think a coffee-table book of such art, if scientifically accurate and photorealistic, would be a big seller.

I look forward to reading it.

Water, Water Everywhere (Sorta)

New Map of Water Ice on Mars

Interesting, but how does the map scale translate to something meaningful? The article didn’t seem to be much help in this regard.

MarsBlog.net

Categories

Archives

A sample text widget