MarsBlog.net

CHANNELING THE CIRCUS: John Carter McKnight describes what the space advocacy community might want to learn from P.T. Barnum: Greatest Show Off Earth.

STOP ME IF YOU’VE HEARD THIS ONE BEFORE: Yet more proof that NASA’s manned space program is more about PR than LEO:

In the meantime, female astronauts, Sally Ride included, had scorned the idea of a crew of all women as a publicity stunt, even though NASA officials insisted it would provide an opportunity to learn more about how women adapt to weightlessness.

An independent panel of medical experts concluded in 1999 that while more research was needed on women, it did not require an exclusively female crew.

Sadly, I can just imagine the deeply clueless discussions that must have taken place to arrive at the abortive mission suggestions for STS-107…picture a stereotypical Hollywood sitcom “pitch” meeting:

“Hmm, it’s not going to Station, what do we do with it, what do we do…Okay, okay…I got it!”

“What?”

“Something big, something impressive…”

“What is it? Tell me!”

“A special mission, something….somethiiiing…with a special focus…”

“Go on, go on…”

“Ahhhh, a satellite…wiiiith…a camera! Yes! That’s it! A camera satellite, used for…envirionmentalist wacko propaganda— er, uh, no, no…I mean…’awareness raising’…yes, that’s it: ‘awareness raising’!”

“Uh-huh, pretty pictures, go on…”

“And it can be used tooooo…get VP Gore’s name in the news— er, uh, no, no…I mean…’show us the fragile beauty of our planet’s delicate and unique ecosystem’…yeah, that’s it! Plug the watermelon angle — it’s hella big with the kids these days!”

“Hmm. Nah, the Republican Congress will never go for it.”

“Damn! Hmm…Wait, wait — I know!”

“Yes?”

“A, a special…crew! Yes, that’s it, a special crew! One which will capture the public’s imagination, pull at the heartstrings!”

“Go on…”

“Lesseee…Yes! A shuttle mission…crewed by…Make-A-Wish participants!”

“That’s a little distasteful, don’t you think?”

“Errr, okay, right…hmm…Oh! Yes! Here it is, picture this: a boy-band in space!”

“The Russians are already planning that.”

“Oh. Nuts. Hmm….Britney?”

“We’d never get her into a HUT.”

“Oh. Right. Hm. Boy-bands, Britney, girls…girls…hey, how about an all-girl flight?!”

“Go on…”

“…All girls, maybe…Charlie’s Angels– no, no…I got it: The Powerpuff Girls! They’re huge!”

“They’re cartoons!”

“What?! Oh. Hmph. Well…do we have any female astronauts?”

“Huh? Well, of course we do!”

“(sigh) All right, all right…I guess they’ll have to do…..Are any of them…witches…by chance…? ‘Cause, you know, they’re really big right now…”

“Space medicine”? Come on, does NASA really think we fell for that lame rationalization with John Glenn’s flight? If a crew happens to be female, fine, no problem, but don’t force the issue just for ratings.

ENVIRONMENTALIST, KNOW THYSELF: In a thoroughly predictable move, a Danish review board has determined that Bjorn Lomborg’s book “The Skeptical Environmentalist” is riddled with inaccuracies amounting to “scientific dishonesty”:

Jeff Harvey, a former editor of the prestigious scientific journal Nature and currently a Senior Scientist at the Netherlands Institute of Ecology, was one of the original complainants who took the case to the Danish committee.
He said: “It is unfortunate that I and many others felt it necessary to take Lomborg and his book to task for the veritable deluge of inaccuracies it contains, but Lomborg has veered well across the line that divides controversial, if not competent, science from unrepentant incompetence.”
He continued: “Lomborg has failed time and again to rectify the egregious distortions he makes, he has based his conclusions on cherry-picking the studies he likes, and he has seriously undermined the public’s understanding of important contemporary scientific issues.

Mmm-kay. So. Are we now going to see the “studies” by environmentalists, which often do precisely what this twit is accusing Lomberg of doing, being taken before scientific accuracy committees? Fat chance — the environmentalists have nothing to fear. Their own scientific dishonesty is politically fashionable, and despite the clear damage it has done to the public’s respect for and trust in science generally, it will continue to be received, quite literally, as gospel.

There may or may not be anthropogenic influences on regional or global climate, and there most certainly is non-anthropogenic climate change occurring all the time. But the source and extent of any ongoing changes seem less well understood now, due to the bias and outright fraud of “experts” who ostensibly know the topic better than Lomborg, than if no research had been done at all.

What has done more damage to the credibility and integrity of science, one statistician poking holes in fad theories, or hundreds of “scientists” promulgating theories that are at variance both with each other and with reality itself, and claiming that today’s data, while totally contradictory to yesterday’s, are the ‘latest incontrovertable proof’?

AUF IHREN R?CKSEITEN IN BERLIN : German student volunteers are resting their way to Mars.

BACK AGAIN: Back from vacation and posting again.

Check out this great year-end review of 2002 space happenings from Rand Simberg