Think Forward

I’m a big guy but I’ve never had high blood pressure.

It’s a good thing because I’m watching financial news.

The government is totally out of control. The only solution is to shoot anyone that says “the government must…”

Shoot them dead!

As Reagan said, “I’m from the government and I’m here to help you” are the scariest words you can hear.

UPDATE: I probably shouldn’t say ’shoot them dead.’ I’m expressing an emotion, not an intention. I don’t even own a gun (and I live in a neighborhood where I could use the protection.) Others seem to be preparing for some eventuality it appears.

Baldilocks correctly points out a true evil that is often overlooked.

What do we want? When do we want it? You hear this at political rallies.

What do I want? Humans in space (among other things.) Lot’s of them including a lot of very average people pursuing their own visions of happiness.

When do I want it? Without delay. I want to push us as far along the growth curve as quickly as possible. I want to avoid things that will slow us down from achieving the vision of what I want.

I shouldn’t have to say that what I want must sustain itself. I believe the way to get furthest forward on the growth curve is to establish an independent colony beyond Earth orbit. While not exclusive, this means focusing on one colony in one location without delay. So the issue of destination is unavoidable. Once the first colony is established it makes it easier to establish others in other places. I found this article which says “Why NASA should focus on the Moon, not Mars”. I’m going to take the opposing view.

The reason this article is titled ‘Critical path’ is because I believe we need to avoid things on the critical path that cause delay. It’s also a destination pun.

EARTH ORBITAL REFUELING, destination and mission independent.

The first question, regardless of destination, is heavy lift and/or orbit refueling. People say we must have one or the other. While heavy lift may be developed down the road in support of market conditions I believe orbital refueling first moves us down the road faster and farther.

The advantages of orbital refueling are many. The first being that it encourages private enterprise to get involved supplying fuel to the orbital depot. Fuel can be sold to any nation. The fuel will support any mission that uses fuel. It would add substantially to any heavy lift option down the road. This is a no brainer.

MOVING SUPPLIES, we already have the capability.

We’ve landed multiple rovers on other bodies. Supplies are much simpler. We don’t need any new launch capability. We don’t need any new landing capability. We don’t need any new transit capability. It’s all straight forward which is exactly what we want on the critical path.

Supplies go first and wait for people to catch up.

MOVING PEOPLE, several separate phases.

We need to get people to orbit and safely back. As the gap shows, we’ve had some difficulty with this, but it’s a requirement. Getting to orbit is the first phase of human space travel. Getting safely back is the last phase only of those returning to Earth. If we establish a permanent colony, it is likely that not everyone would choose to return.

Russia and China have this capability as does NASA until it stops flying the shuttle. I believe SpaceX will have this capability soon.

Transit is another phase. Currently no ship exists for this phase. I believe this should be a service provided by private enterprise. If transit is as simple as purchasing a ticket it greatly simplifies any mission plan. Bigelow has a Cislunar concept which I think points the way. I have my variation on that theme.

Landers are involved in the other two phases. The LEM or Lunar Module is the only lander used by humans so far. It was not reusable. We should look into the possibility of a fuel and go lander for various bodies. Many RLV SSTO concepts imagined in the sixties would probably fit the bill. If we can build a lander capable of handling the 0.38g of Mars it should work as well on the Moon. A Moon lander would not work on Mars.

A lander for anywhere has to get to Earth orbit as a first step. A Moon lander would be easier to do this with than a Mars lander which would be considerably larger. It may be possible to design a modular lander that could be assembled in orbit. It would be sent robotically to orbit the body it will serve.

Earth Return Vehicle (ERV) is a combination of ascent module and transit ship for going from a bodies surface to Earth orbit. An ascent (to orbit) vehicle by itself is much simpler and if you have a separate transit ship you don’t need an ERV. An ERV would require heavy lift to put it on a body.

INDEPENDENCE, the only sustainable option.
Now we come to the reason for making Mars the objective rather than the Moon. The Moon will never be independent from the Earth. It’s too close. The Moon doesn’t give us other bodies. It’s too easy. It’s harder to go to Mars than it is to go to the Moon. That’s exactly WHY a colony on Mars should be our first objective. Mars forces us to live off the land. It forces us to make more capable equipment.

How many suborbital companies will go orbital? Nobody knows. The safe bet is not many if any at all. How many people think SpaceX will go beyond orbit? SpaceX reached for a much harder goal. As a result, they will have many more capabilities sooner than those that went the suborbital option. SpaceX is way ahead on the growth curve.

Mars has an atmosphere that provides a source of fuel. We’ve already built the device for making fuel. The Martian atmosphere gives us other options that makes it easier to live off the land. Nowhere else is the daylight cycle closer to Earth’s. We can grow food in a simple structure. The mineral resources an independent colony would need are profoundly greater on Mars than the Moon.

Establish a Mars colony and a Moon base will happen quickly (pieces of it will exist because we go to Mars.) A Mars colony will become independent sooner where a Moon colony may not ever. Only a self sustained colony gives us space. Anything less is just more of the same. An independent colony is a game changer.

THE CRITICAL PATH, avoiding delays and show stoppers.

• Heavy lift. While nice we don’t need it and should not wait for it. No delays!
• Construction in space. Not now. Dock modules together without turning a wrench. No delays!
• Nuclear engines. Chemical engines will do the job for now. No delays!
• Moon resources. Someone once pointed out that if we had a fountain producing fuel for free it would not make sense to land on and take off from the Moon to get it.

Ok, sometimes it’s her story (see the books of Ruth, Esther or even the Song of Solomon.) These accounts add depth to history that archeology doesn’t provide.

Today Rand links to this article which discusses a PBS show that presents archaeological findings that will annoy believers as well as skeptics.

This includes evidence that King Solomon was a real historical figure. Why would anyone doubt that? Because they start with the assumption that the bible is a book of fables even though it is overwhelmingly supported by historical and archeological evidence.

Why would they do that and who are they anyway? They are those people that would like to discredit the bible because it includes that uncomfortable god thing.

So what are these things that are supposed to annoy believers? The first five books of the bible, the pentateuch, were written by Moses. He had a secretary and undoubtably Moses used both written and oral history for reference. Why would I be annoyed by that?

So what else? There’s no evidence for the actual existence of patriarchs such as the biblical Abraham.

I guess the archeologists didn’t find any fossilized tents eh? Did they note that there are tons of archeological evidence to support the times and places Abraham visited? Unless your name is carved on a stone somewhere how much archeological evidence does any person leave behind? Next!

Some ancient adherents of Yahweh also worshiped his “wife,” a fertility goddess named Asherah.

Uh huh. The bible talks about it. It’s called false worship. Again, not annoyed, simply amused that saying “Some ancient adherents” would be confused by this article with faithful adherents. Actually, this increases the credibility of the bible because the bible actually relates in many cases how it’s adherents fell into false worship and were condemned.

The Exodus appears to have involved just a small segment of the Jewish population rather than all Jews.

It also involved people that were not Jews at all. Why not mention that? Ok, the claim of a ’small segment’ is somewhat annoying. Off hand, I don’t have the facts. Expect an update.

The Land of Canaan was not taken over by conquest - rather, the Israelites actually might have been Canaanites who migrated into the highlands and created a new identity for themselves. “Joshua really didn’t fight the Battle of Jericho,” Dever said.

Now this really is annoying. There’s plenty of archeological evidence for the Canaanites including the type of people they were and the things they practiced. Note that Asherah comes into the picture here. I imagine they got confused because of the Gibeonites or some other issues. I trust the book of Joshua to be an accurate account (I do have issues with the Sun standing still but that doesn’t take anything away from the rest of the historical account.) The list the things the Canaanites did was horrific and was the reason they were to be completely devoted to destruction. No the Israelites were not Canaanites.

I don’t know who the ‘American Family Association‘ is, but I have my own non-religious reasons for not wanting tax payer money going to PBS or any other broadcaster.

Those who believe in the literal truth of every word in the Bible aren’t going to be happy Yes, this is the false charactacher that many people have of those that believe in the bible. Not everything in the bible is literal, which the bible itself points out (but perhaps too subtly for some to catch.) Jesus himself seemed to enjoy using hyperbole. He was teaching and hyperbole is useful for making lessons stick. Rafter in your own eye, anyone? Now that’s a stick that stuck!

Overall I enjoyed the article and think it was very well written.

Is there one thing the entire space advocacy community can get behind? I’m thinking Earth orbital refueling depot.

Some might think it’s a chicken and egg problem (you need ships to refuel) but I don’t.

If we offer to sell fuel in orbit to any nation, that would promote standards and get international involvement without the international entanglements that joint projects are always in danger of becoming.

It sidesteps the destination issue because fuel can be used to go to any destination.

It sidesteps the heavy lift issue because refueling doesn’t care.

It’s just so obvious, although I leave it to others as to the appropriate orbit.

UPDATE: I guess the ‘robots, not humans’ crowd might not get behind it. They can go suck eggs.

More thoughts on the subject. h/t Rand

A depot concept.

I’m not a joiner. Why would I join any organization that would have me as a member? The problem is what they advocate. Do they stick within the parameters of their mission statement? Do their goals and actions align with their mission and my desires? Will they change their mission to something else in the future?

Jack Schmitt recently resigned from the Planetary Society (see my last post) which has this as their mission statement…

To inspire the people of Earth to explore other worlds, understand our own, and seek life elsewhere.

So, can I get jiggy with it?

By their nature, mission statements tend to be broad and general which has consequences. I would have more support for something a bit more restrictive…

Promote colonization of space focusing on the best growth curve.

I say let the people of Earth all find their own individual inspirations and the same with their personal understanding. Explore is not definitive enough. As for seeking life, that’s important but will happen anyway if we focus on the more specific goal.

Colonization as a focus is important because that’s what a space faring civilization is. Having colonies gives you stepping stones and trade routes. It gets more people involved faster and at a more distributed level. People get born in colonies.

The growth curve is hugely important to me. To live to see us land on the Moon in 1969 and then abandon any human activity beyond orbit is a crushing blow to those that would like to see a vision shared by many. Focusing on the growth curve means more people will benefit sooner; Average, enthusiastic people that will have economic interconnections. The solar system and not just the Earth will be our home. Now that is a vision.

Promote colonization of space focusing on the best growth curve.

Anyone want to create a new blog or organization with this as it’s mission? I might join (it’s that mission creep issue that makes me use the might weasel word.)

UPDATE: Colonization is still a ‘far out’ concept so I can certainly understand why the Planetary Society didn’t put it in such terms in their mission statement. My opinion is that anything less challenging will not stimulate us enough and will risk losing commitment more than otherwise.

Ok, one more time because three is the magic number…

Promote colonization of space focusing on the best growth curve.

Yes, I expect this is what I will advocate regardless of any club I might join.

Only twelve men have walked on the moon. Only one, Harrison Hagan “Jack” Schmitt, was a scientist. Recently he resigned from the Planetary Society over a disagreement with their latest position (via Rand who has a number of posts related to this issue, here, here, here and here.)

The Planetary Society presents it view which includes…

• Focusing on Mars as the driving goal of human spaceflight.

Former Apollo astronaut Schmitt disagrees. I’d like to comment on his points.

Schmitt: Having been deeply involved in this issue for many years, and having led several objective studies related to it, it is clear to me, and many other knowledgeable people, that returning to the Moon is the fastest and most cost effective path to Mars for the following reasons:

Jack Schmitt is a hero and his words carry great weight. However, his stature should not cause us to make a great and costly mistake that will slow us (or even stop us) from reaching for the vision of a true spacefaring humanity.

So let’s go back to Schmitt’s main point…

returning to the Moon is the fastest and most cost effective path to Mars

Or not, depending on one key point. Are we going to add huge costs and lose a massive amount of time by creating equipment that can only be used on the Moon?

Or are we to gain real experience now that can be used anywhere in the solar system (because it doesn’t depend on three day care packages to keep it going… which means it can easily be shut down by shutting down the support.) A self sufficient program can not be shut down. We need to make some any progress toward that goal.

UPDATE: They want him baaackkk!!! h/t Rand

Jack continues to focus on the Moon. I say, if we colonize Mars science and exploration throughout the entire solar system, including the Moon, will benefit.

A commenter in the link above says… Environmentally, Mars is a walk in the park compared to living on the moon

I agree. This is another reason Mars should be first, even though a more difficult mission. To be sustainable (a supremely top priority IMHO) walks in the park are to be highly sought after.

The animals have all gotten out. Michelle seems to think the GOP can redeem itself. I’m thinking we’ve passed the tipping point (long ago, but especially with this election) and hope I’m wrong.

Obama and his congress are not in office yet, but that doesn’t stop them from holiday spending (of the drunken sailor variety… although that’s an insult to both drunks and sailors.)

Taxes are paid to provide services. On the federal level that should mean national security and little else. Taxes used for any other purpose is theft. Socialism and Marxism are just varieties of theft… it’s all theft, especially when it is so opposed by such a large quantity of taxpayers as the bailout bill was.

In issues involving the spending of taxpayer money, it should not always be majority rule. Even if a majority wants to spend tax money, any significant number of people that don’t want the money spent should be heeded with the exception of national defense (a minority should not be able to put the majority at risk.)

To fix this immoral inequity I think all spending of taxpayer money should be by supermajority and I’m thinking somewhere between 70% to 80% is about the right threshold.

No majority has the right to steal from a minority.

How did we get to the point that one man, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, gets to decide how to spend ten percent of our national budget?

RELATED ISSUE: Is it time for the fair tax?

Rand has an excellent article today that got me thinking about what we should require of our leaders. It has an important quote…

There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen. — Frédéric Bastiat

This might also be considered a fundamental, absolute requirement of a good leader. But isn’t requiring our leaders to be prophets a bit too much? Of course it is, but prophecy isn’t required to predict the results of certain actions. I think the problem is more of a cognitive nature.

Children go through stages of mental development that are pretty well understood by some psychologists. I believe there is an adult stage of development related to understanding dynamic systems.

It seems that even for some of those people that seem to understand the explanation of how a dynamic system works, they immediately fall back to a static view when left to themselves.

There are certain things that are economic truths. Predicting outcomes for actions related to these truths are relatively trivial because they are well understood. Yet, most of our leaders seem to reject these truths. Why?

It could be ignorance but the level of debate would seem to rule this out. It may be cognitive which suggests we should probably choose different people to fill these leadership roles. If not cognitive or ignorance it means they are motivated by something other than the general welfare. I consider this to be an evil. Does it have to be said that we shouldn’t be electing evil people as our leaders?

Rand touches upon several basic economic truths. Here’s my take…

Interfering with free markets to delay when homes are sold (which determines market value) pushes the market bottom further into the future; by increasing the duration of the financial crisis this damages the general welfare causing distress to even more people than the interference is meant to protect. Even those ‘protected’ may actually be harmed because it may prevent them from taking a more correct action which would prove more beneficial to their future.

Taxpayer bail out of a failing company to prevent job loss is interfering with the free market. Just because a company fails doesn’t mean there is no demand for their product. Failure allows another more efficient company to provide for this demand perhaps hiring more workers than the failed company lost. If there actually isn’t a demand, then giving taxpayer money to a failed company is just stupid and hurts the general welfare.

Interfering with wages and prices is interfering with the free market. Does it have to be pointed out that inference with the free market harms the general welfare?

FDR, by interfering with the free market, extended the depression by seven years, diminishing the wealth of our country going into world war 2. This may have made us more vulnerable and less capable during the war. How many lives were lost because of this interference?

Our leaders don’t have to be good economists, but they should understand that pandering harms the general welfare. We should be demanding leaders that promote the general welfare.