I stopped watching forty minutes into the two hour special and Tivoed the rest.  Maybe if I can numb myself, I can watch the rest of it at a later time.  World events might be catastrophic, and yes they all seem to be pointing to something happening in the 2012 timeframe, but as a skeptic still nearly four years out, I doubt that existence will cease on December 21, 2012.  Time will tell, but for many of the events to happen, the next four years will need to be among the most turbulent in all of human history.  

If that’s the case, we’re in for a rocky few years!   

I won’t say this too frequently, even given my pro-NewSpace (commercial spaceflight) mindset, but the current NASA administrator is a looney, and I’m specifically referring to his views on how we should be sending people back to the Moon.  NASA Admin Michael Griffin, as commented on back in December, is ardently opposed to the incoming Obama Administration’s space policies.  He’s become beligerent when approached by Obama staffers and transition team members when they’ve inquired about the costs involved in cancelling (his pet project) the Ares I booster.

It’s gotten to the point that when it was suggested a few days ago in a widely covered story that Obama might open up a connection between the Pentagon and NASA to hasten development of their new spaceships, a move that hasn’t been made since the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, Griffin still insisted that Ares I is the way to go.  It’s completely mind boggling.  NASA has just essentially been given a military priority which will hasten development of its new ships by at least a few years and would ensure independent American access to space beyond the retirement of the space shuttles next year, and yet Griffin still has a “go-it-alone” attitude.

The proposal goes something like this:  the Pentagon has a space budget of $22 billion compared to NASA’s total budget of $17 billion (and people still argue space isn’t militarized!).  Along with that, the Pentagon has been developing its own heavy lift launch vehicles, perhaps more extensively than NASA. The Atlas V (left photo) and Delta IV (right photo) launch vehicles are some of the most powerful heavy-lift boosters the United States operates, comparable in power to what NASA is expecting to get out of the Ares I booster.  Comparing this to the dawn of the space age, President Eisenhower wanted America’s first steps into space to be a civilian matter, and so let what was then NACA (NASA’s precursor) go forward with their own rocket technology development.  The military had the rockets necessary to launch a satellite into space as early as the mid 1950’s, but they were never given the authorization to do so, the logic being that the Soviet Union was not advanced enough and were still at best a decade behind us.  Once Sputnik proved that thinking wrong, NASA was given a military priority and launched its first satellite just 4 months later.

Today, the threat is China.  Their space program, like those of the US and USSR from the 1950’s through the 1970’s, is fueled with military dollars and is a national defense and pride issue, not just a national scientific endeavor.  That’s why from one mission to the next they have been able to make leaps and bounds in terms of their space capabilities.  At the current rate that NASA is going, it is estimated that Chinese taikonauts could be walking on the Moon before we do. Not that this is anything to worry about, I doubt that China will be able to conquer the Moon in the few years it would take us to catch up, but that’s beside the point.

There are rockets existing that with little modification could easily launch manned crews into orbit.  The Atlas V and Delta IV rockets have been brought up by the Obama transition team, and these are more than viable solutions.  Michael Griffin however insists that the non-existent Ares I booster will be safer and more reliable, compared to the Atlas and Delta rockets which have a proven safety record and could be fast tracked for human launch capabilities by 2013 instead of 2015 with the Ares I rocket.  That’s not to mention the potential for using the Falcon 9 heavy lift rocket currently being assembled at Cape Canaveral for its first launch early this year.  The point is, Mr. Griffin is caught up in his own legacy for the space program, which he perceives as being the Ares I and V boosters and the Orion spacecraft.  

Has he forgotten the advances made since he started overseeing the agency?  Two Mars rovers that after five years are still chugging away and churning out scientific data, far exceeding their initial three month missions.  Another Mars mission successfully found water ice on Mars before succumbing to the extreme cold brought on by a Martian winter, still exceeding its three month mission.  The Cassini-Huygens mission became the first to orbit Saturn and send a probe to the surface of its  moon Titan while at the same time uncovering a potentially new environment for life in our solar system on the icy moon Enceladus.  In terms of human spaceflight, he oversaw the return to flight of the space shuttles and the International Space Station has resumed construction and is set to be completed with only minor changes from its original design.  His legacy is already quite successful and if he wants to stay on board at NASA during the Obama administration and add to an already “stellar” career there, he needs to start playing pragmatically and realistically to what’s going to be the most feasible and effective solution for getting Americans to the Moon and beyond.  

Otherwise, he needs to get out of town, and will, when his term expires on January 20. 

Thank you!

Sir Knightly

While definitely not coming from what could be considered by even a long-shot the most reliable of news sources, China’s Xinhua news agency, their assessment of the global balance of power, on a fundamental level, hit the nail on the head.  A result of the continuing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the stock market fluctuations this fall, not to mention unilateral international policies the last eight years, have all indicated that the United States’ power is perhaps on the wane.  While too early for this year’s history to say how much the balance of power has shifted, it should be noted that this isn’t unprecedented or surprising.

Fareed Zakaria in his most recent book, The Post American World, details several reasons for the American decline in power and influence.  First of all, the economic situation has changed since the end of World War II.  The United States rode out in front of the wave of the flurry of economic growth that was spurred in the immediate post-war period, also gaining tremendous popularity in Europe as a result of the post-war rebuilding period, The Marshall Plan.  During this period of riding off a wartime economy while maintaining supremacy in the fight against Communism on an economic level among free-world nations, the United States made its most significant rise to global prominence.  Only in recent decades have economic booms in countries like China, Japan, and India occurred that have started to tip the tables of economic power out of favor for the United States.

That’s the view at least from America’s perspective.  For other countries, it represents a rise onto the global stage.  Where during the better part of the Twentieth Century the opportunity and gold in the world lay on the shores of the U.S., countries like India and China are now able to provide their own opportunity.  So rather than it being a decline in U.S. power that we’re witnessing, it’s a rise in the power, influence, and prominence of the rest; hence “the rise of the rest” as Zakaria puts it.  

“The rise of the rest” is not a bad thing in and of itself, in reality what this means is that all of the countries that are now rapidly industrializing have taken note from the U.S. playbook and are following largely by example what we’ve done to get to where we are today.  While some in America might feel emasculated by having so many countries challenging, perhaps legitimately, our economic stature, this really is a good step for the world to be taken.  Industrialization increases the standard of living for people in third world countries and is effectively the bridge that takes them to becoming a first world nation.  The higher the standard of living, the less poverty there is, and the more stable our increasingly global civilization becomes (taking note that some of the greatest atrocities being committed currently are in countries like Sudan, Zimbabwe and Pakistan (harboring terrorists), all of which have high populations living at or below the poverty level.)

The only downside is that this is all happening at a time when the image of America has been tainted abroad.  This is in large part to a very unpopular war in Iraq spurred on by a very unpopular President who’s diplomatic strategy consists of “bring em on!”  Granted that only adds to the appearance that the United State’s is losing power, but just remember this: the whole reason we’re trying to build that missile defense shield in Europe is to defend THEM, not US, from inbound missiles from Iran.  Europe might be organizing into a continental government, but they are still a ways a way from being able to defend themselves without the protection offered by ‘Team America, World Police.’  

Things to keep in mind when our largest Communist rival makes claims about the status of our superpower-dom.    

—————————————————-

Image posted on Flickr by mockstar on Aug. 31, 2006. url: http://flickr.com/photos/58289749@N00/230325961

The second claim made is that global warming is a “politically engineered artifact.”  Considering the ball is just now rolling here in Washington to make any significant changes in policy to battle global warming is evidence enough.  Why would governments want to “waste” money on reforming the nations’ energy system if the primary motivation was a farce?  Even if global warming is a manufactured lie by all of the world’s governments, the second reason for energy reform is for energy security and independence - why would it be such a travesty for governments to spend money to defend themselves from outside threats.  Do the writers of this article want nations to be vulnerable to attacks on their energy supplies and be held hostage by ever more greedy oil barons?

The third and final claim made in this article (and perhaps the most frightening) is that because of the current financial crisis, political leaders will not want to indulge in “quixotic schemes for combating climate change” because doing so is a luxury for more prosperous and stable times.  Going on to say that spending trillions of dollars on reducing carbon emissions by 80 percent is becoming less appealing, the article has completely deviated from saying why global warming is a farce to why no one is going to act on it; no evidence here having any connection to climate change in any form, simply an assumption of how politicians should react given the earlier two claims.  It goes on to claim that wind turbines and biofuels are completely “useless.”  

On the contrary, I believe this is the best time to be investing in alternative forms of energy.  With increasing security risks in the Middle East regarding our oil supply and the auto industry on the brink of possible collapse in the United States, combined with an increase in unemployment, why not encourage startups working on alternative fuels to hire any laid off from the auto industry, retrain if at all necessary, and provide them jobs in a new, more stable and sustainable field for the future?  Why not invest in alternative forms of energy here at home, again providing numerous job opportunities, while at the same time securing ourselves from outside threats to our ever more valuable energy supply? 

————————————————————- 

I’m an outdoorsy type of person.  It’s not even funny, some might even judge it to be unhealthy.  Hey, at least I get to breath some fresher air than some naysayers may have access too; recirculating around their room countless times under the hum of the air conditioner.

I need my space.  I’m probably the only person who was born and raised in an urban setting that finds a scene like this to be completely sexy.

Call me crazy.  Call me a Kansan.  (Or call me both!)

Despite appreciating the flat and brown that city slickers look right through, sigh, and say “there’s nothing out here,” I probably couldn’t live outside of Dodge City (which is about that flat) for very long.  It’s the fact that it is en-route to perhaps one of the least recognized states in the union, New Mexico, that I’ve grown to love the space that Earth can provide so much.  

Often confused with the country that bears a similar name, its usually just shrugged off as having nothing more than high deserts, nuclear bombs, and aliens.  There’s much more; hence its nickname, “The Land of Enchantment.”  As the pictures at the end of this post will show, there is quite a contrast between the landscapes New Mexico can provide.

The easiest way that I can explain my obsession with New Mexico and other states in the desert Southwest is how a cocaine addict might have first gotten hooked on the good stuff.  New Mexico is only a gateway drug to the beauty farther West, and a rather spectacular beauty at that.  

I make it out there one or two times a year to visit some relatives living outside of Santa Fe, but for as long as I can remember, there has always been an anticipation in going, and it’s perhaps that anticipation that has compelled me to blog about it.  I love New Mexico and the wild, untamed landscape it still provides - in everywhere corner of the state.  It’s got space, fresh air, and some of the most under-appreciated but spectacular scenery in the entire country.  I guess that’s why you could call me a starving granola.

———————————————————————- 

Pictures:  

“Dry, flat, brown and beautiful” - http://www.travelpod.com/users/technotrekker/overland05.1142502480.01-flat.jpg

Santa Fe Mount Baldy - yours truly, please give a shout out if you use it on your page

Jemez Canyon - http://pictopia.com/perl/get_image?provider_id=318&size=550×550_mb&ptp_photo_id=292860  

Here’s an excerpt from a report compiled by the Orlando Sentinel’s space blog: 

NASA has become a transition problem for Obama

posted by Robert Block 

CAPE CANAVERAL – NASA administrator Mike Griffin is not cooperating with President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team, is obstructing its efforts to get information and has told its leader that she is “not qualified” to judge his rocket program, the Orlando Sentinel has learned.

In a heated 40-minute conversation last week with Lori Garver, a former NASA associate administrator who heads the space transition team, a red-faced Griffin demanded to speak directly to Obama, according to witnesses.

In addition, Griffin is scripting NASA employees and civilian contractors on what they can tell the transition team and has warned aerospace executives not to criticize the agency’s moon program, sources said.

Griffin’s resistance is part of a no-holds-barred effort to preserve the Constellation program, the delayed and over-budget moon rocket that is his signature project.

Chris Shank, NASA’s Chief of Strategic Communications, denied that Griffin is trying to keep information from the team, or that he is seeking a meeting with Obama.

He also insisted that Griffin never argued with Garver.

“We are working extremely well with the transition team,” he said.

However, Shank acknowledged Griffin was concerned that the six-member team – all with space policy backgrounds – lack the engineering expertise to properly assess some of the information they have been given….READ MORE 

When the United States government was first established, it was noted that the opinions and motives of the general public are not static, but rather are turbulent and oscillate with the zeitgeist of the era.  In a poll released today, 61% of Americans are against the bailout of the Big Three.  The opinions of the automakers and supporters of the bailout are that if it isn’t passed, the Big Three will surely go bankrupt and bring America with them.  The CEO of Chrysler even claims it could spark a depression.  

The decision now rests in the hands of our elected officials.  Do they follow the opinions of their constituents, or do they make a decision they feel is in the best interests of the country?  Only time will tell if their decision proves to be the wisest for the future (or fate?) of the country.  This isn’t just a pivotal exercise of democracy in the modern day, but rather it is an exercise which has played out and been repeated over the last 230 years.  I pray that the wisdom to make the right decision is with the Congressmen and women who will cast their votes in the days ahead on this issue.     

President-elect Barack Obama has submitted a questionnaire to NASA inquiring about the progress of the Ares 1 and Ares V rockets and the implications of cutting back and essentially canceling the Ares 1 rocket all-together.  This issue will no doubt divide space advocates, but I for one am quite excited about this turn of events.

Barack Obama’s initial space policy early on in his campaign involved cutting funding to NASA’s Moon, Mars, and Beyond initiative, or Project Constellation, and then funneling those funds into the education system to boost science and math scores; a fair trade-off, and a great opportunity for the private sector.  As the days of excessive government spending end, so shall the days of over-budgeted NASA endeavors.  The bureaucracy and the simple dependence on taxpayers’ dollars to fund NASA programs is enough to make any space enthusiast’s blood boil.  I know I’m sick of it.

America needs to maintain its supremacy in space exploration.  As recently as this week, India became the third country to pledge landing its own astronauts on the Moon by 2020, along with the United States and China.  In order to maintain supremacy, we must meet this goal of returning to the Moon.  Unfortunately, in this day and age, the workings of the federal government and management structure at NASA will limit the capabilities of Project Constellation.  

NASA is wanting to return to the Moon this century using the methods of the last.  There’s nothing wrong that way of doing things, but during the 1960’s when the Apollo program was being developed, NASA might as well have been a branch of the military with the amount of funds and priority it was being given.  Most of its workforce was in their 20’s and the management structure consisted of men aged in their 30’s.  Today, few in management are younger than 40.  The reason I point this out is that those in management who are older, unfortunately, lack the ‘youthful energy and imagination required for work in deep space.’(1)  Short of restructuring NASA’s management structure, there isn’t much that can be done now and still ensure a return to the Moon by 2020.  At the current rate, NASA will land humans on the Moon by 2025 or later.  

There is a viable solution, and it’s oftentimes overlooked or at least under-appreciated.  The private spaceflight industry has been maturing since President Bush made his declaration that NASA needed to send humans to the Moon by 2020 back in January of 2004.  XCOR Aerospace of Mojave, California announced today that they would be selling tickets to paying costumers who wish to travel to suborbital space for $95,000.  Virgin Galactic will be selling tickets for rides on SpaceShipTwo for $200,000, and those prices are likely to decrease with XCOR’s announcement.  SpaceX is currently developing the Falcon 9 launch vehicle which will loft into orbit the Dragon spacecraft.  In an arrangement with NASA’s Commercial Orbital Transportation Services, or COTS program, SpaceX is already receiving up to $278 million to develop Dragon into a vehicle capable of delivering supplies and eventually crew to the International Space Station.

Here’s my solution, one which is shared by several aerospace engineering students at my university: scrap Project Constellation.  Funnel available resources from NASA’s budget into companies like SpaceX that actually have the management structure and ingenuity to get a spacecraft developed on time.  If NASA misses a deadline, who cares?  They’ll keep getting money until the job is finished or cancelled.  If SpaceX misses a deadline, they go out of business.  Government agencies can’t go out of business unless their services are no longer needed; private companies can go out of business.  One other company had been participating in NASA’s COTS program, Rocketplane Kistler (RpK).  RpK has since been excluded from the program for failing to raise required funds to supplement NASA’s contributions.  It amounts to simple business.  

SpaceX proved their technology is a viable alternative with the successful launch of its Falcon 1 rocket this summer.  Granted it was the fourth try after three other attempts failed, SpaceX has proven they have what it takes to be successful.  Furthermore, their Falcon 9 rocket is being readied for a test flight in early 2009 from Cape Canaveral.  NASA’s Ares 1 was initially slated to be tested next year as well, but that has since been pushed back to allow one final use of the launch pad in May 2009 for one final space shuttle mission to service the Hubble Space Telescope.      

The point is, whether it is through SpaceX or some other private venture, the technology already exists that NASA is needlessly pursuing on their own budget.  This is the time for the commercial spaceflight industry to boom.  The American entrepreneurial spirit represents NASA’s best opportunity to get to the Moon on time and to even potentially arrive a few years early.  It’s viable enough I’m willing to wager my future career on it.

—————————————————————————–

References 

(1) Schmitt, Harrison H. Return to the Moon. New York, NY: Copernicus Books, 2006. Page 3