Politics: A new beginning

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
What I really wanna know is if Dean supported Clark in Bosnia.

Isn't that like asking whether W. supported Clark in Bosnia? It's hard to believe he was thinking about it at the time.

edited to change "is" to "in," oops

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Fuck you. Cave paintings were derivitive. You dodged my George Romney reference yesterday. i'm not even going to google this.

If you would need to Google "Tom Lehrer," all the Ishiguro in the world cannot make you culturally literate.

Or are you just saying this to prove you're not Bilmore?

[Atticus Grinch]

Speaking of Tom Lehrer, whose vitriolic opposition to the manned space program seemed insane at the time but is starting to make sense to me, what do y'all think about the latest political initiative, "From the Earth to the Moon, and Thence to Mars, and then the White House in 2004"?

This is the part that gets me:

Mr. Bush also spoke of the potential savings if the space program can mine lunar resources and cited the smaller gravitational pull of the moon, which will mean that spacecraft assembled on the moon will be cheaper to launch into space than those built on Earth.

Canadian newspaper link. Okay, I get that it takes $10,000 per kilo to get stuff out of Earth's orbit. And I get that the moon has one-sixth the gravitational pull of the Earth. But how do we get to "We'll save money by launching from a moon base"? Will not every single kilo that goes into a vehicle launched from the moon necessarily have come from raw materials launched first from Earth, and then again from the moon? Unless NASA has a really cool way of making computers and rocket fuel out of moon rocks.

BTW, Moseley Braun dropped out and endorsed Dean. This is getting recockulous.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
. . . what do y'all think about the latest political initiative, "From the Earth to the Moon, and Thence to Mars, and then the White House in 2004"?

W's been reading too many Kennedyesque inspirational books. Now he wants a noble legacy too.

But how do we get to "We'll save money by launching from a moon base"? Will not every single kilo that goes into a vehicle launched from the moon necessarily have come from raw materials launched first from Earth, and then again from the moon? Unless NASA has a really cool way of making computers and rocket fuel out of moon rocks.

No, it really works. Something about the velocity needed to get out into real space being so much higher than what's needed to get to the moon. This used to be a staple of old scifi.

(And, it's Hank's turn to be me again for a bit.)

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Take creationism vs. Evolution; both require miracles

If you believe in a god creating everything 'cuz it wants to, creation's not really a miracle, is it? More like a completed (ho hum) task.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, it really works. Something about the velocity needed to get out into real space being so much higher than what's needed to get to the moon. This used to be a staple of old scifi.

Well, that's probably good enough for clubby.

Seriously, while there may be some incremental energy savings in a math formula too complicated for my brain to grasp, it cannot be a serious proposition that you'd save money --- which was Bush's point in selling this thing --- by building an entire fucking moon base as a waystation for deep space missions. The number of Earth-to-moon missions required to maintain that remote station would wipe out any marginal benefit pretty quickly.

Unless Southwest makes it a hub, I don't see a whole lot of savings for a stopover compared to non-stop.

Edited to add: This line of posts makes it sound like this minor detail is my only objection to the idea of spending billions on manned missions to Mars. It isn't.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ltl/fb Plus, unless you say you actually accept my presentation of the science stuff, there might be a joshing, elbow-in-the-ribs tone to your comment, but you actually are calling it junk science. So it's not a joke.

I think that kind of joking is what doesn't work well on boards -- in real life, all of us get away with saying this shit because we can say it in that wink-wink, ha-ha way that implies we aren't serious. It doesn't work well in writing.

It is junk science, at least from the standpoint of adherence to accepted criteria for the scientific method, and for adequate support of hypothoses.

If someone announced some medical principle based on the level of evidence that is routinely used to support the warming hypo, it would be denounced roundly, by virtually all serious scientists.

I just don't see this as a partisan issue, beyond the secondary level of how it can be used in a partisan fashion. This is a strictly science-based dispute, and so the "us v. them" label falls on lines of those what have grounding in the physical sciences v. those what don't.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Seriously, while there may be some incremental energy savings in a math formula too complicated for my brain to grasp, it cannot be a serious proposition that you'd save money --- which was Bush's point in selling this thing --- by building an entire fucking moon base as a waystation for deep space missions. The number of Earth-to-moon missions required to maintain that remote station would wipe out any marginal benefit pretty quickly.

While my (fuzzy) memory of this concept lacks most details, I do remember that the energy savings were quite huge. Plus, the structural strength (and, thus, weight) of a vehicle leaving the moon for Mars could be much less than what would be needed to make the trip from earth (given the much stronger gravitational pull that the structure would have to be sturdy enough to break out of without failing.) And, given the slide W seems to be taking towards "we'll build outposts everywhere", many flights from the moon could be contemplated. But, this is all just too futuristic for serious conversation when we can't seem to master take-offs or re-entries.

Edited to add: This line of posts makes it sound like this minor detail is my only objection to the idea of spending billions on manned missions to Mars. It isn't.

I'm torn. I periodically fall prey to that "we need some noble expansion of humanity and knowledge" feeling that does lead to space exploration. "The time is wrong" as a response feels wrong - when would the time ever be right? And, Bush does seem the type to believe in the can-do, America can solve anything mythos as a way of bolstering American confidence and patriotism. But, still, the whole announcement out of the blue is just weird, especially coupled with the immigration initiative.

I suppose it's just that, while the time is never really "right", it's just so obviously really wrong right now. (At least for the announcement.)

(Edited to add: When you take twice as many vicodin as prescribed, you post a lot. Wheee.)

(And: "Clubby"?)

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by bilmore
If someone announced some medical principle based on the level of evidence that is routinely used to support the warming hypo, it would be denounced roundly, by virtually all serious scientists.

But the only lab large enough to have the proper conditions to recreate the phenomenon is, well, the Earth. To that extent, what you're saying amounts to a conclusion that the level of certainty required to make policy can't be attained until the effects are observed in the atmosphere. And you would require, I take it, that they be actual temperature trends, at which point we would already be boned.

I do litigation, so I'm all about witness incentives. I'm inclined to believe the witnesses who have the least incentive to lie or exaggerate. What's the incentive of the U.S. scientific community to say things that will impact their lifestyles just as much as yours? In other words, what is your explanation for why so many otherwise credible people in the scientific world are alarmist on this issue?

My own view of this --- if you care --- is that the reason we have successfully averted resource catastrophes in the past is that we always seem to invent technologies that pull us from the precipice. My problem with this administration's policy is that they are actively disincentivizing the development of those technologies and slowing their adoption.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
But the only lab large enough to have the proper conditions to recreate the phenomenon is, well, the Earth. To that extent, what you're saying amounts to a conclusion that the level of certainty required to make policy can't be attained until the effects are observed in the atmosphere. And you would require, I take it, that they be actual temperature trends, at which point we would already be boned.

Just what I need right now - an excuse to post more.

I think we're well short of supportable evidence to reach your proffered point of "isn't this enough?" Really, what little evidence has been offered has been based on completely faulty test methodology, and mistaken basic premises (What, the oceans acts as buffers? past climate trends have been cyclical? you shouldn't measure temp trends with data collected next to steadily growing heat sinks? etc.), and the conclusions drawn, even if one assumed the test results were accurate, have been unsupported by those results. I'm not going to argue that there is no global warming taking place. I'm simply saying that we have no competent evidence to support such an assertion. (And, your idea that we can make any predictions prior to any discernable change brings us into, not science, but voodoo, no matter how advantageous it would be to "know" earlier. If you want to make the point that we should simply assume it's happening because now is the only time we can head off a disaster, fine, I could maybe buy that, but I can't extrapolate that into "it's safer to act as if it's true, therefore it's true.")

I do litigation, so I'm all about witness incentives. I'm inclined to believe the witnesses who have the least incentive to lie or exaggerate. What's the incentive of the U.S. scientific community to say things that will impact their lifestyles just as much as yours? In other words, what is your explanation for why so many otherwise credible people in the scientific world are alarmist on this issue?

And yet you denigrate me when I tell Ty that Josh is a bit partisan, and should be read in light of that?

Seriously, that's one of the weak points of the GW case. First of all, it ain't monolithic. "Most" scientists aren't talking about it at all. Either they are motivated somehow to join in the debate on one side or the other, or they're simply staying away. Right now, it's about 25 scientists worldwide who are really participating. The scientists making the point are those who would be rewarded by heightened concerns about their own chosen fields. I understand that the same kind of argument works contra the no-GW scientists, but I have read both viewpoints, and am left unconvinced, or even seriously swayed, by the idea of GW.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Atticus Grinch
Speaking of Tom Lehrer, whose vitriolic opposition to the manned space program seemed insane at the time but is starting to make sense to me, what do y'all think about the latest political initiative, "From the Earth to the Moon, and Thence to Mars, and then the White House in 2004"?

This is the part that gets me:



Canadian newspaper link. Okay, I get that it takes $10,000 per kilo to get stuff out of Earth's orbit. And I get that the moon has one-sixth the gravitational pull of the Earth. But how do we get to "We'll save money by launching from a moon base"? Will not every single kilo that goes into a vehicle launched from the moon necessarily have come from raw materials launched first from Earth, and then again from the moon? Unless NASA has a really cool way of making computers and rocket fuel out of moon rocks.

I think that the plan would require the development and construction of a power plant on the Moon which can make rocket fuel from the hydrogen and oxygen in the lunar ice.

On the whole, I like the idea of the space program having a grand purpose and goal (in addition to the comparatively unspectacular, but important, space science projects that NASA handles). It is also past time to begin phasing out the space shuttles.

The timing is indeed pure electioneering. The contrast in headlines in WaPo was striking. On the left side above the fold [paraphrase], "Gephardt attacks Dean in Iowa" -- on the right side -- "President announces plans for Manned Mard Mission"

Sigh.

S_A_M

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think that the plan would require the development and construction of a power plant on the Moon which can make rocket fuel from the hydrogen and oxygen in the lunar ice.

Still, wouldn't every piece of every ship have to be hauled to the moon at a cost of $10,000 per kg?

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Still, wouldn't every piece of every ship have to be hauled to the moon at a cost of $10,000 per kg?

Unless they wer manufactured on the moon, yes. (But see BIlmore's point re the vastly lesser weight necessary.) We have now exhausted my limited command of the details.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Do you have any basis for your suspicions, beyond a hope that folks think its kind of tough and cool?

S_A_M

P.S. to Hank -- To quote one of the last truly great Republicans: "Stop lying about my record!" You sack of crap!

Let's just say that I know the mentality.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
I still don't understand how you make the connection. So, after making my juniors go through the motions a couple times, I come in and bail them out . . . .blah blah blah

You are beyond help. Fare thee well.