perfidy

The Ministry of Minor Perfidy is pleased to announce what you have no doubt jealously noted, that the Ministry's appearance has soared to new levels of aesthetic, typographical and metaphysical beauty. The whip-scourged faces of thousands of Ministry Kobolds glow with pride as they contemplate the majesty of what they have wrought, cut from the stinking HTML mines deep below the Earth.

We would direct your attention to several features of the Ministry's elegant facade:

• The refined typefaces, purchased in the most exclusive typeries in Paris, Vienna and the Subcontinent.
• The enslickened link formatting, with clean underlining, clearly distinguishable colors and a reserved but not cold distance from the other text.
• The judicious use of Small Caps to enhance your blogging pleasure.
• And finally, a distinctive format for blockquotes that sets them apart from other, lesser material.

Before the swollen heads of the various minions who have brought you this wondrous transformation are unable to to fit into their cages, we will leave you to behold the majesty that is the Ministry of Minor Perfidy.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Katzman really does, or doesn't really think about it.

Why is it that any attempt to understand the mindset of these people is automatically labelled pro-terrorist sympathizing? I don't know anything about this particular case, so I am generalizing somewhat.

The first order of business in defeating an enemy is understanding him, and understanding his motivations.

If a man is without hope, full of anger, fueled by religious fire, I can see where suicide bombing is something that would be a consideration. Right now I don't think it's something I could possibly ever do, personally, but I think I understand the objective factors that would lead to it.

Here's what really bothers me about such knee-jerk "you're a terrorist too" responses. We all sit here living with our shiny veneer of civilization, working hard at our information technology jobs, driving our SUVs, and cluck-clucking at the foibles of those crazy foreigners from the televised comfort of our suburban living rooms. If you're someone surrounded by that kind of comfort and you pass judgement on someone else because terrorism is "inconceivable", you're forgetting one thing:

You don't know what you'd do if you were in the same situation. We all want to believe that we wouldn't do it. It's inhuman, it's inconceivable, it's abhorrent. Not a chance.

So what could push you over the edge? What within your life could happen that would make you a little crazy, make you lose the civilized veneer? What if that happened; a son or daughter lost, and your anger became uncontrollable?

From my office, it could never go that far. I just don't think I have it in me. But I'm not going to pass judgement on those who try to understand, when doing so means pretending that I know my true self, when faced with the same situation.

Two tidbits of good-- nay, great-- news from Mars today:

1) Scientists seem to have confirmed the presence of water ice at the Martian south pole. Water, as you know, is one half of a scotch and water and therefore the midpoint towards confirming the existence of advanced Martian civilization.

2) Game on! This morning the pointy-heads at NASA got the first non-gibberish signals from the Spirit rover in two days. This is fantastic news, and we all of course hope that constant communication can be re-established. Although details are not forthcoming, reports suggest that the signal consisted of a query: "Where the f**c is Opportunity with the damn scotch?"

Via The Spoons Experience, we learn that a high school in Omaha has punished several students for making an unofficial nomination for the school's annual "Distinguished African American Student Award." According to the Omaha World Herald;

The students' actions on Martin Luther King Jr. Day upset several students and have led administrators to discipline four students.

The posters, placed on about 150 doors and lockers, included a picture of the junior student smiling and giving a thumbs up. The posters encouraged votes for him.

The posters were removed by administrators because they were "inappropriate and insensitive," Westside spokeswoman Peggy Rupprecht said Tuesday.

The student in question was a white South African whose family had moved to the states six years ago. Trevor Richards, the student who was featured on the posters, was suspended for hanging them along with two others. The fourth student was punished for circulating a petition in support of the first three.

Volokh has weighed in on the first amendment aspects of the case, and I would never presume to tread on his feet on legal matters. What amazes me is that some high school kids could come up with such a brilliant, nuanced and effing hilarious strike against the blinkered, arbitrary and offensive hyphenated-American worldview that contaminates our schools and society.

When I was a kid in high school, back before walkmans, cell phones, computers with hard drives and - frankly - anything cool at all; we had a situation that was structurally similar to this one. The art department sponsored a contest open to the entire student body to design a new piece of artwork for the grassy area outside the senior commons. Submissions were to be small models, and the winning entry would be created in full by the hardworking craftsman of the shop classes.

The winning entry was submitted by a girl named Erin, and it was as banal an example of derivative modern art as you'd ever run across. It was a spiky metal thingy, vaguely star-shaped but decidedly lopsided and ugly. The shop classes dutifully made the final version out of scrap steel, and the custodial staff installed it on a concrete pedestal so that everyone could admire it on their way to lunch. This piece of faux art elicited a fair amount of criticism, both for its complete lack of aesthetic value and also because of the general regard the student body had for its creator. (Erin was given a brand new Porsche for her sixteenth birthday. Persistent rumor insists that she demanded daddy give her a new one with an automatic transmission because she couldn't be bothered to learn to drive stick. Whether this story is true or not is irrelevant, as it does accurately reflect her character.)

One dark and moonless night, a group of students stealthily crept up to the monstrosity, and bolted a toilet bowl to it. They also used locktight on the bolts. The poor, benighted custodian spent most of the next morning attempting to remove the toilet. The school administrators were furious at this lese majeste, and bent every effort to determining the identity of the renegades.

The next night, either the same group or possibly a different crew altogether attached a second toilet bowl and managed to move the sculpture to the roof of the high school. The administration redoubled its efforts to find the miscreants, but with no success.

But the funny thing is that the principle didn't really lose it until copies of an unsigned manuscript managed to be inserted into the newest edition of the school paper. This essay defended the actions of the vandals as a valid form of art criticism. I wish I still had a copy of the little manifesto, as it was rather well written. The principle was reduced to threats dire punishment and offered rewards to anyone who would narc on the guilty students. But, no one was ever caught or punished for the incidents, and eventually the artwork found repose in an unmarked grave somewhere on the north side of town. The whole episode was marked by a higher than average comic sensibility - for high school students. Instead of crude graffiti, outright destruction or other stereotypical high school hijinks - they actually made a comment on the hated artwork. A rude one, but clever.

But no one in my high school, ever thought about larger issues as these kids in Omaha did. Or pierced them so ably. My hat's off to them. 

In today's edition of Salon.com (brought to you by Jann Wenner: now with 30% more man-boob!), Joel Keller laments the death of that music-geek's model airplane, the mix tape.

I miss the way I used to make mixes. I'd sit in front of my tape deck, with a stack of CDs or records on one side of me, and a beverage (adult or otherwise) on the other, and spend a couple of hours or more finding just the right combination of songs to put on the tape. The levels would all match; loud songs got softened and soft songs got a boost. I would attempt to take the mix right to the end of the tape; I'd spend over an hour finding that perfect minute-and-a-half song or snippet that would fit musically with the rest of the mix.

All the while, I would be swigging the beverage, and listening to each song as if it was the first time I'd heard it, usually with head down and some appendage keeping time. After a side was done, I'd rewind, punch out the tab, put on a custom-made label, and go to bed knowing that I've made something that I or my friends were going to enjoy for years to come. . . . [obligatory paen to Nick Hornby/High Fidelity]

Compare the way I used to do my tape mixes with the way I do things now: I sit in front of my PC and either rip an entire CD to disk or download files from any of the legal services like iTunes or Musicmatch (in pre-litigation days, I will admit I downloaded the occasional song via Kazaa). I drag the song titles from my song list to the playlist window; I check to see if there are any abrupt endings or bad transitions, but I rarely listen to the songs all the way through. Once I'm satisfied, I pop in a CD-R, hit "record" and go to sleep. No muss, no fuss. And not nearly as much fun.

Many people who don't have the same passion for the mix as I do simply copy entire collections of MP3s to CD or onto their iPod, not caring what order the songs are in. "I can now rip or download the songs I want to MP3. Then I dump them onto one of my MP3 players. The way the process has improved for me is that I can just hit shuffle and not know what the order [of songs] is always going to be," says Jason Meurer, an engineer from New Jersey. He is one of the people who answered my e-mail queries regarding people's mixing methods. From the limited sample I received, I noticed that while a fair number of people still perform meticulous mixes, just as many play randomly from their massive MP3 collections. No one has made a mix tape in years.

As a practicing music geek with a physical cd collection that is bowing the floor of the room it's housed in, I can assure you Joel Keller is full of shit.
Let's start at the beginning: It's all well and good to invoke the hallowed name of Hornby when talking about the mix, but we need to be clear. Nick Hornby, in "High Fidelity," described a small and obsessive subculture with the same love and attention that David Halberstam gave to amateur rowing in "The Amateurs" or Jon Krakauer gave to hard-core mountain climbers in ""Into Thin Air." He never meant to universalize the experience or to claim that everyone must and should care that, for example, Stevie Ray Vaughn's "Crossfire" can't sit next to Funkadelic's "Maggot Brain" in a mix because the keys the songs are in clash harmonically. It's all voluntary.

That's not to say the old days weren't great. I too have fond memories of sitting in a sea of recordings in front of a tape deck, working and reworking the running order and tweaking levels. However, doey eyed nostalgia for those days comes off the same as pining for the days before good software when you had to laboriously program your own very data-sorting functions on the Apple II ("In my day, a bubble sort took hours! And we liked it!). But we don't have to do it that way anymore unless we choose to.

Why conflate cds with just dumping music wherever it lands? Has Joel Keller never heard of Toast? Roxio Easy CD Platinum? Please! Life is better now that I can change and preview running orders on the fly. What took hours now takes... fewer hours.

Moreover, the CD is a much better avenue for a mix than the tape ever was. Despite the demise of the "side" as a concept (a damned shame), the 4 1/2'' square on the front of the cd case is a blank canvas, begging for original cover art. 80-minute cd's are easier to program than a 90-minute tape, and are not as prone to breakage under normal conditions as long tapes used to be. Hiss is reduced. Tape players are relatively rare nowadays. Finally, and I can't stress this enough, the ability to audio software to crossfade has revolutionized the art of the personal compilation.

Joel is correct that, strictly speaking, few mix tapes are made anymore, but that mere technicality is the only point he gets right. (Doesn't Salon have editors?)

The culture is still alive and well, and unkillable. If Joel Keller can't be bothered to crossfade, set levels, do a demo test-run to check the running order, edit for length, or even make sure that he hasn't put the Cure next to Joy Division (unless it's part of a whole series of mopey UK postpunk!), it's his fault. My wife hates it when I retreat into the office with an armful of cd's and an idea: it means I'll be in there for days, ordering and reordering my mix, dropping songs in and out, cutting one down to just the chorus, doing ad-hoc remixes, and trying my best to fill up 80 minutes with a mix that not only flows from one song to another but also has episodes (sides!), a thesis, and an overarching theme.

Q.E.D.

Now. When Joel says,

Many people who don't have the same passion for the mix as I do simply copy entire collections of MP3s to CD or onto their iPod, not caring what order the songs. . . . "On the subways you see people with iPods. They have, what, a thousand songs on them. Ten thousand, even. They stare random-glared into oblivion. [R]obots with shitty music taste and too much money to spend on music-listening hardware and shoes, in that order," is how Sal Tuzzeo Jr., a music writer, describes the phenomenon. Fewer people who are connected to the music they listen to translates into a less critical and picky audience for the crapola that the record companies and radio stations promote. The quality of music overall goes downhill.

Where did I first read this argument? Oh right... Allan Bloom. I bet these tools haven't even read that chapter in "The Closing of the American Mind" where Bloom pukes out endless fatuous theories about the cultural deadness and "masturbatory fantasies" of Demon Rock and Roll, ultimately concluding,

As long as [kids these days] have the Walkman on, they cannot hear what the great tradition has to say. And, after its prolonged use, when they take it off, they find they are deaf."

Whatever. Any merit that Keller's lament might have is pretty much invalidated by mistakenly assuming that ooh, just everyone! gets off on music. Untrue: most people use music as a way to decorate the moment without much depth of thought. And that's fine. Pop music is meant to be enjoyed: the obsessions may be safely left to the geeks like Keller, who seems not to realize his geek nature. Sorry to break it to ya, this way, Poindexter.

I'm sorry. This article didn't really need a fisking, but it just makes me so...AAAAAUUUURGH! Go read something else, and sorry for wasting your time. I'm going to go listen to a Japanese import of a Flaming Lips concert from 1994 I bought off the internet.

[wik] Full disclosure: my wife still remembers to remind me of the unfortunate "Funkadelic" incident every time I start a mix. See, I spent three days with editing software trying to finesse a transition between Funkadelic's "(Not Just) Knee Deep" and De La Soul's "Me Myself & I," which used Funkadelic as the bedrock sample. Three days of me playing five seconds of music over and over again, tweaking the crossfade by milliseconds at a time. With no headphones. In a small apartment. I got in trouble.

Oh yeah, the mix tape isn't dead. It's just gone pro.

[alsø wik] Cross-posted in slightly different form at blogcritics.

Not to tread on the toes of our eminent musicologist Johno, but I think in his recent opus on the enduring value of the remix, he failed to note a significant argument for his position:

Lileks' YAAAAAARRRRHHHH!!! Remix

I bust a nut listening to this. If I needed proof beyond the fact that we blatantly ripped off the name of our blog from a bleat column that the man is a genius, this would be it. Heh. This also reinforces Johno's position on the imminent demise of the Dean insurgency. Indeed.

Many thanks to Greg over at BTD for bringing this to my attention. And shame on NPR for not giving the cite.

[wik] Here are some Chewbacca roars so you can compare and contrast.

[alsø wik] I especially like the harmonica bit.

[alsø alsø wik] I am especially glad that our very own Johno came up with this "wik" thingy, because I would have been too mortified to steal it from another blog.

[wi nøt trei a høliday in Sweden this yër?] Apparently, Former Senator Alan Simpson said of Dean, "He looked like a prairie dog on speed."

[see the løveli lakes...] And people were worried about McCain being unhinged...

Sometime ago, my comrade in arms bought a tshirt for my son John Christian. Now, at long last, you can see the boy and his shirt in all their glory.

Note the gangsta style hand positions, and the look of glee as he prepares for battle. And only eight and a half months old - just think what he'll be like when he's two.

Little John will have much to thank Uncle Minister Johno for by the time he grows up. These pictures probably won't be any of them. More great pictures below the fold, including one that I will be sure to show to his every future girlfriend.

Sir John the-I'm-to-drunk-to-realize-what-I've-got-myself-into:

I've got a cunning plan. A plan so cunning, you could brush your teeth with it:

Dick Morris has a typically interesting take on the Iowa Caucus.

Buckethead says check it out. I actually met Dick Morris, and he's a smart guy.

The first four parts of this series are here, here and here and here.

In the first post, I discussed how we could quickly and relatively cheaply develop the means to launch people and large cargos into orbit. That is the necessary precursor to any significant endeavor in space. While the methods I outlined would reduce costs to orbit, they would not make them exactly cheap. But they would give us a ladder while others could work on building an escalator. The second post discusses, in broad outline, one idea for developing the life support technology that the Mars mission would require. The third post talks about propulsion options and precursor missions to Near Earth Asteroids. The fourth part discusses how to reach the moon, and what to do once we get there.

What Does it All Mean?

What I have proposed over the last four posts is a comprehensive outline for the beginnings of a human exploration of space. If we choose to go to Mars, we need to be certain that in the process we create the means to repeat the feat at any time we choose. That was the great mistake of the Apollo program – we achieved our goal, but to do it again would require another great expenditure of treasure and effort. The four programs I outlined would prepare us not only for a mission to the Red Planet, but for a hundred other missions that we can imagine easily; and many more that we cannot now envision. Once we are in space, new doors will open, and we will perceive opportunities that are hidden from our planet bound eyes.
The four programs are interlocking, and each will develop important capabilities that will be essential for a Mars mission. One of the greatest advantages of a scheme such as the one I have outlined is that setbacks in one area (save the first) will not hinder the progress in the others. The end result will be that lessons learned in all of these can be incorporated into the final Mars mission design, and that mission will be more robust, and safer, than anything we could plan or execute from the ground.

We can leverage our existing launch technology to get more people and material into space far cheaper than we can now. The designs that I propose are not complicated, and there is little reason that they could not be brought into being within the next couple years. Any aerospace company could design the OSP, so long as NASA stayed out of the development process. We should create a not overly detailed specification – crew capacity, safety margins, and rockets it must be capable of being launched on. Then, several companies will submit bids and prototypes. Then, we select one. The military has always been able to get this kind of thing done in several years, and once upon a time, NASA did it in months. Given a high enough priority, we could have these things flying by the end of 2005. The Shuttle-C is even easier, given that nearly every single bit of design work has already been done. We could have a heavy lift launch vehicle by the end of this year if we really wanted to.

Once we have these two vehicles in place, then the ball starts rolling. We develop our life systems technology in earth orbit while sending the first pieces of the lunar outpost to the moon. Astronauts begin exploring the moon and developing the skills we will use on Mars while prototype nuclear rockets are tested in space. Later, an NEA mission spacecraft is assembled at the ISS, possibly fueled with lunar ice, and incorporating life support systems developed in the orbital laboratory. While that mission is underway Mars rovers and landers and all the equipment the explorers will use is undergoing brutal testing on the airless moon; and new experiments in propulsion, life systems and all other useful things are underway. When the NEA mission returns, we gather all that knowledge together, and plan the Mars mission.

What form will the Mars mission take? I don’t know. But there are several things we can predict. If for more than a decade we have been expanding our ability to live and work in space; we will be able to build a bigger spacecraft than most have imagined to this point. An experienced crew at the ISS will enable us to assemble in orbit a more capable spaceship than could be launched in one piece from the ground. This allows us to make the ship safer, through redundant systems; and the mission more fruitful, because we can take more equipment to Mars with us. Whether we use a variation of Zubrin’s Mars direct plan, or opt for a nuclear rocket, doesn’t really matter. Either way, we can take advantage of direct experience in exploring space both on the NEA mission and on the moon.

So what's the timeline? I would suggest the following:

• Shuttle-C by the end of 2005
• Orbital Space Plane first flight in by mid 2006
• Mass production of disposable rockets and shuttle components should lower costs
• Launch life support research lab by end 2006
• Test wingless OSP (interorbit shuttle) by end 2006
• Test land an automated lunar lander 2007
• Begin construction of lunar base 2008
• Slowly increase fleet of OSPs, interorbit shuttles and lunar landers through 2010, add on to ISS or launch lunar orbit station
• Test propulsion and ship assembly methods through 2010
• Hopefully, by 2010 we have better earth to orbit vehicles, and launch costs decline
• Launch NEA mission in 2011
• Test Mars exploration equipment on lunar surface 2010 and forward
• NEA mission returns 2012
• Begin construction of Mars spaceship 2014
• Launch mission 2016
• 2017, we land on fucking Mars.

A key component to keeping this schedule without breaking the Treasury would be lowering the per pound cost to orbit. But I think, truly, that we can invent the vehicles that will do that. If we can invent a spaceship that costs no more than twice what a Boeing 747 costs, and that costs little more to operate and turn around between flights, sending a pound to orbit will cost perhaps three times what it costs to air-freight that pound to Australia. On that cost level, we can move into space in a big way.

Well so what?

This plan assumes that the government would be the prime motivating force behind the Mars mission and all the precursor programs I have outlined. This is merely one sensible way we could go about it – at least in terms of getting to Mars. Getting to Mars is an inspirational idea, and we would learn and see incredible things if we did it. Enough to justify the expense? Perhaps. However, this plan has many advantages in relation to the civilian space industry.

In the 1830s, it would have made little sense to build an intercontinental railroad in the United States. There was no need, because the United States itself did not span the continent, and there was little worth going to on the left coast at that time. Decades later, of course, there was gold, and growing settlements, and a hundred other reasons that people wanted to go to California. The Federal government – for its own reasons – assisted private industry in creating the means for people to travel west to California, but in the process created the means to travel to everywhere in between – for their own reason.

In the early part of the twentieth century, the federal government assisted the nascent aviation industry. First, by offering contracts for air mail delivery which helped early airlines and airplane manufacturers both. Second, by conducting basic research into aerodynamics which was shared with the aviation industry. This allowed aviation companies to convince financiers to invest in their projects with some confidence, because government scientists said it was possible.

These two models should guide us in our thinking about how to approach space development in the 21st century. NASA’s adversarial stance toward private space industry needs to end now. If anyone doubts this – remember the fuss that NASA raised over the flight into orbit of Dennis Tito. Tito was rich, to be sure, but used to work for NASA and was not exactly the least qualified space tourist you could have found. Government can have a role – but it should be to assist private industry rather than hinder it. Like the railroads, the government can sponsor the creation of the means for anyone to get into space. Offering contracts for vehicles and services, we will unleash the creativity of the marketplace to produce solutions. And the government funding will get the nascent space industry “over the hump” to the point where they are as viable in the marketplace as Lockheed or Boeing.

I proposed the two vehicles from the first post simply because they would be the easiest and quickest way to get us into space. But frankly, they are stopgaps. They would get men and material into space until private industry can supply us with a more cost effective alternative. The companies competing for the X-Prize may – even without government help – soon provide us with a better way to orbit. But there is little doubt that if the government offered a guaranteed contract for purchase to the first space capable, fully reusable vehicle, this would happen a lot sooner.

In a future where the government pursues deep space exploration but leaves the grunt work of travel to orbit to private industry, there are many possiblilities. We could see the production of true aerospace planes that can take off and land from airports and deliver small cargoes to orbit or to destinations on earth. Cone shaped SSTOs like the Delta Clipper might take off regularly from spaceports on the Florida coast, and gigantic cargo lifters might launch from floating platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. If the government defines only the goal, any number of technologies might be produced to meet it. Specialization will increase efficiency as well.

And once these thousand flowers have bloomed, there is no reason that they cannot be used for purposes other than government funded deep space exploration. If access to space becomes if not cheap, at least affordable – then people will find ways to use it. Hotels in space, research labs sponsored by universities and corporations, and privately owned shipyards for Mars missions all become possible. And we should not forget that throughout the history of the space age, most commercial space activity has focused on Earth. Communications satellites, GPS, weather satellites, and the like all serve the needs of people on Earth. What other services could be provided if we could lift bigger and more capable satellites into orbit? And any vehicle that can reach orbit can just as easily reach the other side of the Earth in 45 minutes. I am confident that FedEx or United Airlines could think of ways to profitably use that capability. Space technology is not confined to utility only in space – everything that we develop will allow us to do things here on Earth as well.

And once we begin to move into space, there are other possibilities as well. Instead of chemical or nuclear rockets, entrepreneurs could explore the use of solar sails and ion drives. These do not have the brute power of the rockets we know, but accelerate continuously – and slowly. Over time, they can exceed the greatest speeds possible by conventional rockets. And solar sails have the added and great advantage of requiring no fuel whatsoever – just the skill to spin an aluminized Mylar film a couple square kilometers in area.

And when we think of space habitats, we think of aluminum canisters hauled to orbit at great expense. But there is no gravity in space, and no need for immensely strong structures. Some clever fellow could invent an inflatable habitat, taking next to no space in a launch vehicle, but expanding to tens of yards in diameter. Modern materials like Kevlar would provide protection from micro-meteors even better than aluminum does. String several of these together, and you have an instant space habitat; instant real estate in fact that could be rented or sold for profit. If we make it possible to get there, people will create places to go and reasons to stay – that is in our nature. In time, people will travel to the moon, the asteroids, and Mars on commercial spaceliners, and build lives there. Travel in space, in zero gravity is much easier than getting into orbit. In terms of energy expended, once you’re in orbit, you’re halfway to anywhere in the solar system. Once we build a road over that barrier, ordinary people (like me!) could travel into space, and pursue whatever dreams they have.

If we build the transcontinental railroad, all the things that come after it will happen naturally, and in ways we could never plan in advance. All the connecting spur lines, whistle-stop towns, mining communities, industry and agriculture, settlement and so on will develop on their own. People will become rich and poor, but the world will be a more interesting place. (Hopefully, we won’t run into hostile Indians, though.)

The first three parts of this series are here, here and here.

In the first post, I discussed how we could quickly and relatively cheaply develop the means to launch people and large cargos into orbit. That is the necessary precursor to any significant endeavor in space. While the methods I outlined would reduce costs to orbit, they would not make them exactly cheap. But they would give us a ladder while others could work on building an escalator. The second post discusses, in broad outline, one idea for developing the life support technology that the Mars mission would require. The third post talks about propulsion options and precursor missions to Near Earth Asteroids.

Getting to the Moon

President Bush mentioned a return to the moon as a primary goal. This is one of the few things he got right. A permanent presence on the moon will allow us to conduct research and development that will directly aid a future Mars expedition. The utility of a lunar research outpost falls into two general categories:

• Developing technology and skills for the exploration of a hostile environment.
• Research into the production of materials and fuel that could be used in a Mars mission.

Before we discuss how a lunar base will be useful to us, let’s discuss how we might get there. In the first post, I mentioned the development of a variant of the Orbital Space Plane that could be used as an Earth/Moon shuttle. Unlike a standard OSP, this model would be wingless – saving mass by eliminating wings that will never be needed. It will be a small pressurized cabin, with life support for several crew for perhaps a week. By adding a service module along the lines of that used by the old Apollo capsules, we can extend the life support duration by a couple weeks, and also add a rocket motor that will give our shuttle the ability to leave Earth orbit and travel to Lunar orbit.
Back with Apollo, we had to launch everything needed for the mission all in go. Since there is no need for the massive thrust necessary to leave the earth’s surface, a much smaller rocket will allow us to move crew and cargo back and forth between Earth and Lunar orbit. Since we now have an orbiting space station, we no longer have to worry about getting everything we need into orbit all at once. Empty Shuttle-C fuel tanks can be used as refueling depots to top off the tanks of the inter-orbit shuttles. Cargo and crew will reach orbit on OSPs and conventional disposable rockets. All of these will be assembled together at the ISS, and depart for Lunar orbit.

Once we reach Lunar orbit, we have the problem of getting to the surface. To establish a Lunar base we need to get habitat modules, crew and supplies down to the moon. In keeping with the idea that specialized vehicles are better than general purpose ones (as long as you have the lift capacity that frees you from the necessity of doing everything in one launch) we can develop one or two more vehicles. But to save on design effort, we should make them modular, so that we can get the most use out of our design dollar. We’ve already adapted the OSP for a crew and small cargo shuttle. The immense cargo payload of the Shuttle-C will allow us to lift something bigger into orbit – something more on the lines of a truck rather than a taxi. This vehicle would have a rocket and fuel tanks at the back, an open framework for cargo in the middle, and a crew module at the front. The rocket would be powerful enough to land the vehicle on the lunar surface, and be equipped with landing gear and a crane.

The cargo shuttle could carry a standardized habitat module and land it wherever we intend on setting up a base. Once on the moon, the crane would lower the hab to the ground where it could be linked to other modules, forming a small outpost. Once free of the habitat module, the now empty shuttle would begin service as a shuttle between the lunar surface and lunar orbit. Subsequent moon bound cargos could even be automated – launched from Earth on a Shuttle-C, and boosted toward the moon by a smaller rocket. Once in Lunar orbit, the cargo shuttle could dock, load up the cargo and return to the lunar base. Crew transfers would also be done in lunar orbit. (In time, it might be worth the expense to deploy a small lunar orbiting space station – something much smaller than the ISS – basically a habitat module, a docking port and a solar array. This would simplify the process of cargo and crew transshipment, and give a refuge for emergencies in Lunar Orbit.)

For the first few years, there might be only one or two cargo shuttles, both likely in use on and around the moon. (The cargo shuttles would also be the best means for long range transportation on the moon.) Three or four of the OSP-derived interorbit crew shuttles would meet the needs of transporting crew between different locations in Earth orbit; and to lunar orbit. But as time goes by, we could slowly add more of each of these vehicles, steadily increasing our space transportation infrastructure as our presence in space expands. At no point is there a need for large, single expenditures. There is no reason why a simple OSP – either the space variant or the regular earth landing style – should cost more than a single jet fighter; and the cargo shuttle should not be that much more.

As we build this infrastructure, we can create a lunar base and keep it staffed and supplied. The lunar base at the start would be one or two habitat modules approximately the size and shape of the ones making up the ISS, and similar in construction. Once on the moon, a lunar bulldozer would cover them with soil to protect the inhabitants from solar radiation. As needs require, more habitat modules can be launched and integrated into the base. From this small but safe outpost, the astronauts could begin the research that will allow us to successfully explore Mars.

What to do on the Moon

What research will they be doing? As I mentioned above, there are two main avenues: exploration technology and skills, and materials and fuel. First, exploration. Research has already been started on the construction of Mars rovers – and prototype vehicles will be tested in desolate areas like Canada, the Antarctic and Detroit. But there can be no better place to test than the moon, which has the dual advantages of being in some respects a harsher environment than Mars and yet is close enough to allow for the rescue of our astronauts in case of accident. As we develop rovers, models for Mars habitats, new space suits, Mars rated exploration gear and so on, we will ship them to the moon. There, astronauts will use these vehicles to explore the vicinity of the lunar base and gain practical skills in exploring a hostile environment. These skills will be necessary when we get to Mars.

As far as materials go, many have proposed that we could mine for minerals on the moon, and use those materials in the construction of our Mars bound spaceship. The advantage of using lunar materials for deep space activities is that they only have to be launched out of a gravity well one-sixth as deep as Earth’s, with the cost in fuel proportionally lower. Aluminum, silicon and oxygen are the major components of the lunar regolith, or soil. Using relatively simple techniques, the loose soil of the moon could be baked to remove the oxygen, and smelted for aluminum and other elements. It is conceivable that lunar aluminum could be used for structural components for a Mars mission, but on the whole I think this is unlikely in the timeframe we’re talking about here - though in future decades, there is little doubt that lunar building materials will play an important role in our expansion through the solar system.

The first usable export from the moon will likely be oxygen, and it is possible that some lunar oxygen might find it’s way into a Mars mission. The major problem is that even with the smaller gravity well, the transportation infrastructure would not be up to bulk shipment of oxygen for use as fuel or for life support. The small number of landers will be used to deliver crew and materials to the lunar surface, and deadheading the landers back to orbit will save precious fuel. If lunar oxygen was being produced, the quantities in the early stages would be small. These would be small prototype facilities, designed to learn how to best use the moon’s resources, and not geared toward mass production.

There is one exception to this general forecast – if large quantities of ice were discovered at the lunar poles, hidden from the sun at the bottoms of craters that have not seen daylight in billions of years. This would present a wonderful opportunity. With a small amount of electricity – easily available on the moon for two weeks at a time – water ice could be directly converted into rocket fuel. (Of course, the water can also be used for life support – but in much smaller quantities.) Lunar landers could refuel at the moon, saving the cost of shipping fuel from Earth, and load their cargo bays with fuel for use elsewhere. One of the worst logistical bottlenecks in space development is getting sufficient supplies of fuel into orbit, because for every pound of fuel you end up with in orbit, you have to burn ten times as much to get it into orbit. Then, to get a store of fuel to the moon, you have to burn more fuel to leave earth orbit, and more again to get down to the lunar surface. Finding a convenient source of fuel on the moon would greatly ameliorate that bottleneck, and reduce the cost of any endeavor we undertake in Earth orbit or beyond.

There are of course other reasons to go to the moon. If we established a presence on Mars, we could use that foothold to pursue several scientific endeavors. Selenology, or lunar geology would keep many planetologists busy, and teach us much about the origins of the solar system. The lunar farside would be an ideal place to look into the heavens. A farside observatory would be shielded from Earth by the entire bulk of the moon, have no interference from atmosphere, have a low gravity to make large mirrors easier to construct and install, a stable base free of the problems of orientation that had to be solved on Hubble, and (given a regular human presence) easier to keep in good working order. Space several of these around the edge of the farside, and you could use interferometry to get resolution far in excess of anything we’ve done so far. These scientific projects and others would be made possible by a human presence on the moon.

Apparently, there is a special unit of the Russian armed forces that specializes in extreme cold weather beer retrieval.

BBC reports that soldiers recently spent a week conducting beer retrieval operations in and around a frozen river near Omsk.

What's next, Mandrake? Beer? American beer? How's THAT tie in with your post-war commie conspiracies?

After reading the text of the State of the Union Address, I am appalled. There's a few good lines in there, but it's mostly a mess of pandering, blather, and outright crazy-talk designed to appeal to... who, exactly? Fiscally liberal social conservatives?

Apparently, I am the exact opposite of the President's ideal constituency. Increases in federal spending? Making the tax cuts permanent? A shout-out to the PATRIOT Act? No newideas for the war on terrorism? Federal drug testing in public schools? Federal steroid testing (what?)? Unquestioning support for the notion that gay people are less worthy than others? More crap about Medicare and No Child Left Behind? Closing with a "God is on our side/ 'just and true'" line?

What's a fiscal moderate-to-conservative and flaming social liberal to do? I hereby announce my purchase of a ticket for the Anybody-But-Bush bandwagon. I'll vote for a summer squash before I'll vote for that pandering, malignant sack of pus.

Nat at "Bad Thoughts" takes a break from his well-argued international affairs coverage to provide this bon mot on the President's moonshot proposal:

Bush works on space program, gets dizzy from model glue

W00t! In other news, the new issue of the Economist features a story on Bush's space plan that discusses much of what Buckethead and the rest of us have been talking about this past week (part 1, part B, part III, etc.). We should feel good: their analysis mirrors ours, and as you know the Economist employs smart-type people.

The only head-scratcher in an otherwise balanced and thoughtful article is this: "One expensive lesson of the Shuttle programme is that trips into space are too infrequent to justify building a re-usable spacecraft." Huh? All the shuttle program has shown us is that government trips into space are infrequent and expensive, and much of that depends on the nature of the Shuttle itself.

Later in the piece, the Economist staffers note the X-Prize and tout the potential profitability of private manned space flight, and the greater dividends yielded by confining NASA to the unmanned sciency stuff. Yet they don't put two and two together to see the grandiose vision that the members of this weblog unanimously espouse. Does that mean they're wrong and we're right? Damn skippy, it do!

It's not often that you end up calling a widow nasty names. Mel Carnahan was the governor, whose son, Randy Carnahan, was at the pilot in command of a small plan a few years ago that went down. When the accident happened, Carnahan was in the middle of thoroughly trouncing John Ashcroft in an election.

There's a little background on Aero-News Network, if you care to read more. You can also read the complete NTSB brief.

The bottom line is this: Parker-Hannifin makes vacuum pumps. Jean Carnahan sued them, claiming they were responsible for the accident. Her theory was that the vacuum pumps stopped. About a year ago the NTSB (the National Traffic Safety Board) finished its exhaustive review of the accident. Their conclusion? The pilot failed to control to airplane properly, even though he had functioning, backup equipment. Very specifically, they found that the vacuum pumps were operating normally at the time of impact. In other words, the vacuum pumps did not fail. The NTSB can make this determination because they are able to gauge the angular momentum that the pumps have (due to spinning action) at the time of impact. They are very experienced in making these kinds of judgements, and they're not wrong about it.

The funny thing about NTSB reports is that, while they're by far the most authoritative and scientific study of transporition accidents, they're not admissible in court. The jury doesn't get the hear the official scientific opinion of on what happened. They're allowed to hear the ramblings of a trial attorney, who's paid an enormous sum to mislead them. And yes, misleading is exactly what's happened in this case.

Jean Carnahan is fully aware that her son was at fault in the accident. She is also fully aware that Parker-Hannifin's vacuum pumps did not fail in the accident. She pursued the case anyway, and has won a $4 million settlement from the manufacturer, after suing for over $100 million.

Jean Carnahan, you are a bad person. A lot of people are going to lose their livelihoods; these aviation companies are small, and these kinds of things are really hurtful to the industry. But you don't seem to give a shit about them, and it strikes me as pathetic that you honor the memory of your dead husband and son by lying in court for money. You are an example of exactly what is wrong with ethics in this society.

You suck.

Drudge is excerpting an article from the redoubtable Mort Kondracke, editor of the hill rag Roll Call. Since I don't want to spend $199 for a subscription to that wonderful publication, you will have to be satisfied with this:

"Here's a harrowing pair of facts for Democrats: In 60 years, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without carrying the youth vote. And right now President Bush's approval rating among 18- to 29-year-olds is 62 percent, higher than his nationwide rating. Top Republican strategists admit that the youth vote is fluid, but right now the trends are all in their direction, which they hope is a harbinger not only for 2004, but also a possible longer-term party realignment."

A Bush campaign official said, "It's called the theory of political socialization. Who are the most Democratic people in America? It's the over-65 age group. Why? Because the two presidents they knew best were Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. And who are the most Republican? People in their 40s, who came of age in the last two years of Jimmy Carter and the first two years of Ronald Reagan. If your politics were being formed during the last two years of Bill Clinton and the first two years of George Bush, there's a fairly good chance that we'll have your support."

Kondracke writes, "It seems impossible that a generation reared on free-love television and rap music, a generation far more tolerant of ethnic diversity and homosexuality than its elders, could support the GOP, whose base in anchored in the religious right. In fact, Democratic theorists such as Ruy Teixeira, John Judis and Stan Greenberg look upon the expanded role of minorities, cosmopolitan regions and diversity-minded young people to produce an 'emerging Democratic majority' through the force of demography.

"But, at the moment, the numbers support the view of GOP leaders that young people are trending Republican because they like Bush."

We've talked about this here before, and I think that 'ol Mort is missing an important factor - most of these kids' parents were 60's or 70s style liberals, and there is nothing more aggravating to a hippy than to have your son join the Young Republicans. Also, I think a lot of this hinges around reaction to the war on terror, as the 9/11 attacks are the event for people this age, and the Republicans are seen as the ones doing something about it.

By way of Kathy K over at On the Third Hand, we have this rather surprising
article from Ralph Peters in the Post. Peters is not known for his loving feelings about Clinton, or his administration. But read the article... it's interesting, and has some important things to say about relations between the middle east and the U.S.

On another note, we have this from the Middle East Quarterly: an analysis of the failure of the Oslo accords, and what lessons can be drawn from it.

Staying with the Israeli theme, we come to this thought provoking gem from Tech Central Station, one of the most awkwardly named good websites around. The demographic trends mentioned in that article are one of the biggest problems facing the state of Israel right now - and for a long time to come.

The spin the press is putting on the candidates is nothing short of breathtaking...

Edwards is something of a wildcard. Since nobody expected him to get anywhere, the press hasn't created his "alternate press world identity" yet. I am sure they are scrambling at this very minute to come up with the short list of three platitudes that they'll use to define everything about him.

Yeah, the news networks are looping that Dean bit over and over again. Nice. Maybe we can dig up a few of Bush's verbal faux-pas and do the same thing.

Oh, yeah. Not gonna happen, 'cause the press corps doesn't want to endanger their relationship with the White House. What a bunch of pussy-whipped wankers. And I mean that in the general, non-sexist sense. ;)

Dean is a pretty decent guy all around, very much a moderate, but somewhat excitable on the podium. I think his campaign felt that they would make the switch to positive after taking Iowa. Now that hasn't happened, and the situation is just bizarre, for them...on the plus side, they haven't had Gephardt pounding away at them in New Hampshire for the last month.

And all the talk of Dean being "unqualified" is just completely ridiculous. He's dramatically more qualified than Bush ever was (as are all the Democratic candidates), and more qualified than Bush is right now.

We have a good deal of insight into Bush's decision process right now. We used to think he looked like a monkey, and called him Incurious George. Now we know that he has an inner monkey too; the inner monkey lives in his brain, and has a dartboard with little pasted-on names of policies.

Where is the one, single, written piece of evidence of serious policy analysis and thinking, done by this man? Every modern President has an extensive written record...but this one doesn't...won't give interviews...never says _anything_, because if you don't say anything, it can't come back to haunt you.

All I have to say about last night's surprise in Iowa is this:

YAAAAAAAARRRUAAAAGH!

Dean is toast. Crunchy, blackened toast.

I mean, I still support Dean's candidacy with the same reservations I've had all along, but I made up my mind about him months ago. Thing is, I pay more attention to politics than do 99% of the feedbags in this country, so last night was not my first introduction to the man.

The problem is the other 99%. Dean doesn't really have an "anger problem" like the press makes out. He gets stern, and he comes off abrupt, but his actual outbursts are nowhere to be seen. Nevertheless, the "anger thing" is what 90% people know about him, if they know anything at all. And last night, when Dean capped off a state-naming tirade with a weird, strangled Chewbacca death-cry, he sealed his identity forever as The Deaniac. The Vermonster. Captain Insano. Whether he deserves it or not, every word of every speech Dean has given in the last year now amounts to one thing: "YEAAAAARGH!"

He's toast. Howard Stern was goofing on Dean this morning, looping the stangled Chewbacca death over and over, and introducing Howard Dean to millions of potential voters who previously had no idea who he was.

With this is mind, I offer Johno's Irrefutable Axiom of Politics #1: When 99% of Americans first hear about your candidacy because Howard Stern thinks it's funny, you are toast.

The results from the Iowa Caucus were surprising to me. Not that Dean faded, because for several days his strength has been flagging. What surprised me was the sudden Edwards surge - to second place, no less. I am sure Johno will agree with me that Kerry's win is not exactly a good thing, but then I don't think any of them winning is a good thing.

Speaking of good things, it looks like Gephardt will, unlike Quixote, stop tilting at windmills and withdraw from the race. Three down, seven to go.

Over at Common Sense and Wonder, Max reports that the has been a realignment in the election markets.

Last week I mentioned that I was tempted to short the Dean-NH Contract at Tradesports.com. At the time it was pricing in a 85% chance of a Dean NH victory. And since I could see that Dean would probably lose Iowa, I figured the price of that contract would plummet. Now the Dean contract is only trading at 40. Oh well.

FYI, here are the latest from the political markets:

Iowa Electronic Market probabilities for candidates to win the Democratic nomination:

Kerry - 34.5%
Dean - 24%
Clark - 17%
Hillary - 2%
Lieberman - 1%
Gephardt - 0%
Field (Edwards and the rest) - 22%

(There's a lot of other good stuff there, check it out.)

With Gephardt knocked out, even with his strong labor support, I agree with Max that it looks like Kerry v. Dean for the big nomination. However, Edwards is showing strong and he can't be ruled out. For one thing, even though his positions are almost identical to Kerry's, it's a major plus for him that he isn't Kerry. It will be interesting to see when the Rev. Al either leaves the race, or makes whatever move he had in mind when he got in, because he surely didn't think he was going to win. I predict that Dean, Kerry, and Edwards will be in until the convention, at least nominally. I further predict that the other candidates will leave in this order: Lieberman, Clark, Kucinich, Sharpton.

Lieberman, despite his appeal to the middle, can't crack 5%, and will realize this soon enough. Unless Clark does a lot better in New Hampshire than most people think, he will drop, because I don't think he's getting the funding he needs to persevere. Kucinich is just too crazy to quit early. Sharpton might stay until the convention, just to try to pull some kind of kingmaker move with his support in the black population. Who knows.

[wik] James at Outside the Beltway has a good roundup of the the Caucuses.

[alsø wik] Greg over at Begging to Differ has an interesting thought about the Edwards rise and Dean fall:

Edwards seems to be positioning himself as the Pollyanna of the campaign, someone capable of giving voters positive messages they can feel good about. In Iowa, it seems to have paid off, big time. For Edwards to pull in over thirty percent of the vote is remarkable. It also makes one wonder if Dean's appeal doesn't translate into votes. (Possibly, Democrats feel the same way about Dean that many conservatives feel about Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly: they get a cathartic buzz from listening to their schtick, but they'd never choose either to be their leader.)

This seems to me to be a good take. The calm, cornfed midwesterners of Iowa are not as likely to respond to the Dean anger as some flinty New Englanders or flame hungry internet supporters. I have a hard time believing that Edwards is anything more than a set of carefully crafted policy points with no soul, but hey! I could be wrong.

According to the Blog Ecosystem, somtime over the weekend, the Ministry has moved out of the water and onto dry land. We are now Crawly Amphibians. We kick ass. Seriously.

Phil Dennison points to the news that producer Danger Mouse is planning to lay vocals from Jay-Z's "The Black Album" over the Beatles' "The White Album" to create "The Gray Album." Very reasonably, he asks, "Does anyone think that this will make either of these recordings objectively better? Has the world of commercial hip-hop become so creatively bankrupt and moribund that this is considered groundbreaking, or something? . . . This is creativity?"

Fair point. But while I agree that remixes tend to be bland and flabby affairs that add little of merit to the original, I think Phil is throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

For example, the Flaming Lips recently remixed Kylie Minogue's "Can't Get You Out Of My Head," slowing down the original dance pap to a crawl, underlining an obsessive creepiness almost totally absent from the original except to the imaginative listener. Although this is only one example out of a mediocre ten thousand, it's great and revelatory stuff within the context of pop music.

Also, Phil conflates "remixes" with the more recent phenomenon of "vs. recordings." Although long-established in the reggae world (check out King Tubby vs. Sly & Robbie sometime-- magic!), where remixes are common, this is new to the pop world. Dropping Jay-Z onto a Beatles cut is a prime example of this practice.

I own a bootleg "vs." recording that truly does amplify the originals-- the vocals from Eminem's "Without Me" over the music bed from Led Zeppelin's instrumental, "The Crunge." Beyond just being funny or novel, Eminem's phrasing and particular flow, when slowed down to LZ's tempo, happen to complement and groove on the Zep track perfectly. I find the results mind-alteringly enjoyable.

Though I doubt the Jay-Z and Beatles matchup will rise to this level, I'm actually anxious to hear what Jay-Z's laconic, Joe-Frazier-like style will do over top of Across the Universe.

My point, I guess, is that the good name of the remix has been dragged so thoroughly through the mud that it's difficult to see the good in it. But the revolution is over: the studio is now a musical instrument in its own right, as are recordings. Not everyone has to agree that that way lies genius; reasonable people may differ. But I happen to think so, and if you want evidence, I urge you to get a copy of the Eminem/Led Zep and the Flaming Lips/Kylie Minogue as proof.

Brad DeLong highlights a Tom Friedman column that advocates immediately moving into the Israeli-Palestinian situation and forcing Israel's withdrawl.

Let's put a few facts down: First, we spend around $200 Billion and 500 soldier's lives so we can capture Saddam Hussein (there doesn't seem to be any other reason for the war, that was given before the war, that's held up).

Second, we spend aroun $4 Billion a year on aid for Israel, mostly in the form of military aid.

Third, the burn rate for cash in Iraq is around $4 Billion a month.

Fourth, building a Palestinian economy from the ground up would probably cost less than $10 Billion, and it might be a lot less than that. And that's presuming we'd see no long term assets or returns.

Fifth, the primary reason that Palestinians object to the fence is that their economy would be destroyed.

Sixth, the single most significant justification given for Islamic hatred of the US is its support of Israel at the expense of the Palestinian people.

If you add all that up, you realize that instead of throwing all that cash away in Iraq blowing shit up so we can have a theocracy there, we could have forced the creation of the wall between Palestine and Israel, made our aid to Israel contingent on acceptance of our designation of the line's path, and then rebuilt the Palestinian economy by investing an amount equal to the Israeli aid directly behind the wall.

Taking a page from Irshad Manji, we could have used micro-loans to jumpstart the businesses, and we could have specified that fully 50% of those loans must be made to women.

What does all this achieve? It puts significant economic power in the hands of women, which directly counters the stupidest and most pathetically mysoginistic parts of what purports to be Islam in the Palestinian territorires. It gives both sides peace and security. It gives the Palestinians something to do, and a way to feed their families. It will also significantly improve America's standing around the globe, and particularly in Islamic countries.

It strikes me that Bush's Administration has done a magnificently bad job of managing government spending. Republicans can crow all they like about tax rates and so forth; yes, there are a few Americans who are paying significantly less federal tax under this President. Most people's tax burdens are pretty much unchanged. What has changed, dramatically, are the outlays.

Bush's war of choice in Iraq is costing every American taxpayer thousands of dollars, personally. That's right, boys and girls -- what does your chunk of $200 Billion come out to? With around 130 million taxpayers, that adds up to over $1500 each. So while Bush giveth a $300 tax cut to the common man (under duress -- Bush didn't want the $300 credit; he wanted a tax cut for the wealthy), he taketh $1500 for this stupid war. That's what you're going to be paying.

The winner of MoveOn's video contest shows children working in factories to pay off the deficit. It's dead on. Interest payments on the debt currently run around $175 Billion per year. That's going to escalate dramatically over the next ten years. While all this debt is accruing, interest rates are going to begin to rise, making that debt dramatically more expensive to service.

Compound interest is a wonderful thing if you're an investor. If you're a debtor, it really, really sucks.

Remember that Chi-Chi's in Western Pennsylvania that gave all those folks Hepatitis-A a while back, and killed three of 'em? Well, it's open for business once again. With "larger than expected crowds."

Wha?

Tell 'em, Freda!

"'There cannot be a safer place to eat right now. I'm sure you could drag your tongue across the floor, it's so clean,' said Freda Gennaro, a 59-year-old medical sales representative as she sipped on a berry margarita with her husband Lou, 66."

Human beings are the only animals who would return to the location of a food source known to be lethal, and then rationalize about it. Idiots. I'm not a betting man, but if I was I'd wager that Western Pennsylvania's gene pool is going to get a leetle more hepatitisey in the weeks to come.

[wik] On second thought, I've changed my mind. Live dangerously if you want to. Prove Darwin right. But for the love of God, don't order the human poo burrito.

For once, the headline does not give you the hole story. Apparently, someone in Montana never heard the joke whose punchline is, "No, we ride the horse into town!"

Nekkidness. Hand Lotion Fu. No Breasts. Joe Bobb says check it out.

[wik] hat tip to Rocket Jones.

The first two parts of this series are here and here.

In the first post, I discussed how we could quickly and relatively cheaply develop the means to launch people and large cargos into orbit. That is the necessary precursor to any significant endeavor in space. While the methods I outlined would reduce costs to orbit, they would not make them exactly cheap. But they would give us a ladder while others could work on building an escalator. The second post discusses, in broad outline, one idea for developing the life support technology that the Mars mission would require.

Once we have the first step under control, we can begin thinking about the precursors for a Mars mission: the ability to live, unsupported, in space for long periods; a ship that can get us to Mars; and the technology to live and explore on the Martian surface.

How do we get around?

There is much more research to be done on propulsion systems for a future Mars mission. Right now, the two best possibilities are Bob Zubrin's Mars Direct concept and nuclear fission rockets. Zubrin suggests that we send, in advance of the human crewed flight, unmanned gas stations to Mars. These automated facilities would land in a likely spot, and then use solar or nuclear-thermal energy to suck in Martian air and refine it into oxygen and rocket fuel. Only when the gas station signals that its tanks are full will the crewed mission depart. This is a very clever idea, because it does not require that we take every last ounce of food, fuel, water and air needed for the return journey all the way around. There is every indication that Zubrin's idea is feasible, but it would require some solid engineering effort to bring it into being.

The second idea is to use nuclear rockets. In this concept, instead of using the traditional chemical rockets we're all familiar with, hydrogen fuel is passed through an extremely hot, Uranium reactor core. The as the hydrogen passes through the reactor, it is heated and the expansion of the hydrogen gas provides the thrust. This type of rocket is more effective than typical chemical rockets for two reasons: 1, the reactor can operate at a higher temperature, yielding greater thrust; and 2, since only very light hydrogen is used, we need far less mass to get the same thrust compared to burning hydrogen and much heavier oxygen. The first experimental nuclear rocket, called the Kiwi, achieved a specific impulse of over 850 seconds. (Specific impulse is a measure of a rocket's efficiency.) The Shuttle Main Engine is among the most sophisticated and efficient chemical rockets ever built, and has a specific impulse of around 450. With a little effort, there is no question that we could develop nuclear rockets with twice the efficiency of the best chemical rockets.

Either way, the effect is to cut the fuel requirements for a trip to Mars, which makes the whole thing significantly easier to manage. While we research both methods, we can begin planning our first mission beyond the moon. To prepare for the Mars mission, we should have some experience with long duration flights. We can do a dress rehearsal of the Mars mission by mounting an expedition to one of the Near Earth Asteroids. These asteroids are small bodies of rock or metal that have orbits that cross Earth's. Some of these asteroids are very close to Earth, at least in terms of how much fuel we need to burn to get to them. Rather than a three-year mission to Mars, we can plan a one-year mission to an asteroid.

There are several advantages to an NEA mission. First, we get to test much of the hardware for a Mars mission on a shorter mission. Second, we can test the propulsion, guidance, system integration, and construction of our space ship without being held up by delays in either the life sciences or surface exploration programs. A shorter mission means that if need be, we could do the whole thing on canned air and food in toothpaste tubes if necessary - though obviously we would want to test whatever life support technologies have emerged from the lab described in the previous post. Also, we won't need to worry about complicated tasks like refueling on Mars' surface, aero-braking, etc., that a full Mars mission would require. Third, it will provide good science - asteroids are remnants from the formation of the solar system, and will tell us much about that history. Further, geological assays will tell us how easy it might be to mine or otherwise develop asteroids for commercial uses. All in all, it would be a good work up to prepare us for our ultimate goal of reaching Mars.

Whichever method - chemical or nuclear - the NEA mission will be both a useful test of Mars mission technology and skills and valuable in its own right for prestige and scientific gain. 

Buckethead, yesterday you said about the Bush/Hitler moveon.org flap:

Imagine that the situation was reversed. Some conservative group sponsors an ad contest. Someone enters something equally offensive, something with racist or religious overtones that sends the left over the edge. That group, and anyone associated with it would be crucified. It wouldn't be a minor story on the news, largely talked about in the blog world. People would be forced to resign in disgrace. It wouldn't matter if the offensive ad didn't win.

Now we have a similar situation to serve as a test of that assertion. The Rev. Sun Myong Moon, owner of Conservative newspaper The Washington Times posted the following to his website this week (courtesy blogcritics): "There will be a purge on God's orders, and evil will be eliminated like shadows. Gays will be eliminated, the 3 Israels will unite. If not then they will be burned. We do not know what kind of world God will bring but this is what happens. It will be greater than the communist purge but at God's orders." To review, Moon just called for the murder of at least 40 million gay people, on God's orders. 

Blogger John Gorenfeld has some past gems from Moon, such as "Homosexuals and fornicators are like dirty dung eating dogs."

The New York Press also has an editorial on the matter, which includes this moderate and thoughtful statement: "So much crazy-talk and hate (over a period of years, even) yet no outcry."

Film star Ron O'Neal succumbed to cancer on Wednesday.

A moment of silence for Superfly. As Curtis Mayfield said, "a terrible blow, but that's how it goes." I hope they let him drive that huge black Cadillac through the Pearly Gates.

Courtesy AllahPundit comes the last guide to the Democratic primaries you will ever need.

Now, I'm not necessarily sayin' I endorse the views presented herein, but if you don't go read AllahPundit now you will regret it for the rest of your life, because my legions of minions will find out and sign you up for every g-d d-mn mailing list in the world there is, from Li'l Debbie Doll Collectors to Jack Chick's House 'o' Hellfire, from Concerned Christians Against Radial Tires to LaRouche For President '04. So go read it, or else pay the price!

A taste:

The first part of this series is here.

In the previous post, I discussed how we could quickly and relatively cheaply develop the means to launch people and large cargos into orbit. That is the necessary precursor to any significant endeavor in space. While the methods I outlined would reduce costs to orbit, they would not make them exactly cheap. But they would give us a ladder while others could work on building an escalator.

Once we have the first step under control, we can begin thinking about the precursors for a Mars mission: the ability to live, unsupported, in space for long periods; a ship that can get us to Mars; and the technology to live and explore on the Martian surface.

Living in Space

The Space Station is the second American experiment in living in space. (We allowed the first attempt, Skylab to burn up on reentry because we had stopped using disposable rockets before the shuttle was operational.) The space station will have value in the near term as a way station in orbit – a place for crews to rest, to assemble other vehicles for other missions, and a transshipment point for crews and supplies heading from the earth to the moon. As such, it will eventually need to be expanded, possibly with components from Shuttle-C vehicles, or with components launched directly from earth. Because of the constant comings and goings, and due to the need to use the ISS as an orbital construction site, it will not be suitable for experiments in long duration survival without outside inputs of supplies and so on.

To begin to solve the problem of living in space as the crew of a Mars mission, we would need to set up a separate laboratory to develop the technology needed to achieve self-sufficiency for periods of one to two years. This laboratory would be another orbiting space station, located near the ISS in case of emergency, but designed from the outset to take in a crew and remain isolated for a period of months, and then years as they test the equipment and techniques that will eventually keep the Mars crew alive. The philosophy behind this facility would have to be one of constant build/test/rebuild/test. Since there is little chance that we’d get it right in one, we should allow for the need to slowly and incrementally refine our knowledge, in conditions closely resembling the eventual mission.

The inhabitants (or inmates) of the lab would research closed cycle life support systems, growing food in space (and eating it), the effects of freefall on the human body and a thousand other needful things. While we branch out to other missions – on the moon, or elsewhere – we will have this laboratory constantly increasing our knowledge of how to survive and thrive in space. It will take years to prepare for the final departure of the Mars mission, and this laboratory will be working the whole time without holding up any other aspect of the preparations. (And naturally, this orbital facility would be backed up by many more researchers and engineers on Earth.) Some links: space station life support, Plant based life support, and an overview.

Yesterday President Bush announced a plan to "explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system." My initial reaction to the speech was one of general disappointment, with a few small slivers of hope. Disappointment because the plan sounds like many previous plans that have amounted to little more than wasted money and wasted opportunity. Disappointment because the timeframes are very long, and the plan has little focus.

Slivers of hope, because at least it is now the established policy of the United States to extend a human presence across the solar system, and more importantly the plan does not make any statements that threaten to extinguish the small candle of private space endeavors. Of course, it does not incorporate them, which is another disappointment. As I look around the blogosphere, intelligent commentators have expressed similar sentiments. Rand Sindberg, Joe Katzman over at Winds of Change, and Jay Manifold of A Voyage to Arcturus. For a good discussion of the rationales behind space exploration, see Laughing Wolf's take.

There are several problems with the plan the President outlined. First, if the Shuttle is going to be retired by 2010, but the new Crew Exploration Vehicle will not be available until 2014 at the earliest; what are we going to use in the intervening four plus years? Second, this CEV is intended to transport crew from the surface of the Earth to Low Earth Orbit, and from LEO to the lunar surface. It also might be intended as a crew habitat on the moon and part of a Mars mission as well. It is unlikely in the extreme that a vehicle can be designed that will satisfy all of these requirements; and even if one is designed, it will likely have fatal flaws like those of the shuttle. Third, there is no mention of developing a heavy lift vehicle, which would be necessary for most workable concepts for lunar development or trips to Mars. Fourth, the design timeframe for a Mars mission would stretch over six presidential elections and 13 congressional elections. I don't see how any program can maintain focus over this long a period in the face of that much politics. It seems inevitable that it will drift off into waste and endless redesign as many other programs have in the past.

There are other objections to the mission assumptions. Why are we planning a return to robotic exploration of the Moon? We have after all already walked on the moon, and there are currently orbiters circling the moon that should be capable of mapping out landing sites. Why is a human return to the moon placed more than a decade in the future? We managed to get to the moon in less than a decade, starting from scratch over forty years ago. I should think that nearly half a century of progress in computers, materials, engineering, and science along with the knowledge of how we did it the first time should reduce that timeline significantly. (Granted, cost certainly is an object this time around. Nevertheless....) Why are the Moon and Mars named as the only destinations? A mission to a Near Earth Asteroid would provide a shorter, but still long duration mission; enabling us to test our ability to survive away from Earth without worrying about the problems of landing on a planet. Further, such a mission would have the added benefit of providing some really good science and experience that will certainly come in handy as we move out into the solar system.

With these thoughts in mind, how should we go about getting to Mars?

First, we need to have a clear idea of what it takes to get to Mars: A Mars mission will necessarily be a long one, in all likelihood well over a year on the inside. There is no possibility for rescue in the event of a mishap, which puts additional pressure on planners. It takes a significant amount of energy to get there, slow to enter Mars orbit, and then land. New technologies will have to be developed to allow us to live on and explore the hostile environment of Mars' surface. And finally, we need to be able to get into Earth orbit in a safe, reliable and relatively cheap manner, or else all other considerations are moot. Most of the cost of the Bush Sr. Mars plan in the early nineties was driven by the astronomical cost per pound to orbit. Reduce that price, and things begin to be possible. So, we have in front of us several tasks that need to be addressed:

1. Design, build and test effective, safe and cheaper means of getting to LEO.
2. Learn how to survive without outside inputs of supplies for several years in space
3. Design, build and test an interplanetary spaceship capable of delta-v on the order of a couple km/s.
4. Design build and test the equipment the explorers would use on the Martian surface.

Each of these programs could be started simultaneously, and could run concurrently. As we will see, the technologies developed in these programs can be tested separately, and finally combined in a full-scale Mars mission.

Earth to Orbit The first and most crucial component of any plan to get to Mars, or indeed to anywhere beyond the surface of the Earth is to develop more effective ways to get to Earth orbit. The major flaw of the space shuttle is that it is an attempt to meet too many mission goals simultaneously. We would be better served by a variety of vehicles; each specialized to meet one mission profile. In the near term, there are three basic mission profiles:

1. Crew transport
2. Satellite and regular resupply missions to the space station
3. Heavy lift

There is little need and great expense in launching the 150,000lb. Shuttle orbiter merely to get seven humans into orbit. Our first goal should be the rapid design and testing of a new crew vehicle. There is a significant body of research already in existence, we should merely choose the most cost effective means of getting people into (and back from) orbit. The most likely candidate, at least in the short term, would be to design something along the lines of the Orbital Space Plane that NASA was talking about last fall. Launched on a reliable, disposable, multistage rocket such as the Atlas or Delta, this vehicle could carry several astronauts into orbit, and reenter the atmosphere much as the shuttle does. Advances in materials technology should make this vehicle reusable - at least for several missions. The OSP would be much smaller and much simpler than the Shuttle orbiter, and as a result should be much cheaper. An OSP docked to the space station could also serve as a emergency crew return vehicle as well. A vehicle as simple as this should take no more than a year to develop, given even remotely adequate program management. This is not groundbreaking technology, and should require mostly off the shelf components. If we developed this fast enough, there should be no need to reactivate the shuttle fleet. Our primary goal should be a first launch of an OSP by early 2005.

Initially, several of these vehicles could serve our needs to get astronauts into orbit. As our space endeavors grow, more could be constructed. Once launched, the base version would be capable of supporting its crew for several days - providing air, water, food and shelter. It would have a retro rocket that would allow the vehicle to de-orbit and come back to earth. While we are using the OSP, more advanced crew vehicles could be designed to further reduce costs and increase efficiency. But it would not require us to go without a crewed vehicle for any length of time, and while allowing us to retire the unsafe and inefficient space shuttle.

With a little forethought, the design could be made more useful. If allowances are made for wingless versions, and for the attachment of service modules, the same vehicle could serve as a template for a whole line of space vehicles, easily adapted for different roles. A wingless (and lighter) version could be lofted into orbit, mated to a modular service module. The service module would contain a more powerful rocket, fuel tanks and additional life support capability. This vehicle could then be used within Earth orbit as a utility vehicle, taxi or tugboat. If the service module included a small robotic arm, the OSP would become a construction vehicle. Further, the service module would turn the OSP into an Earth-Moon shuttle. Without the need to reenter the earth's atmosphere, or to land on the Moon, the OSP could transfer crew and small cargoes between Earth and lunar orbit. Thus, one vehicle would serve many needs without the massive over-design we see in the shuttle.

For satellite launch and regular resupply missions, we should emulate the Russians and use disposable rockets. Our Delta and Atlas rockets are reliable and not too expensive, at least in the short run. Without the space shuttle, more launches would go to these platforms, and prices should come down somewhat through economies of scale. As a enhancement to this general scheme, any restrictions on American companies using these rockets for private launches should be lifted. Developing a commercial launch industry, even with "primitive" disposable rocket technology, is only to the good. As with the crewed vehicles, we can continue design efforts for more advanced vehicles while using what we have.

The final mission profile is much easier to achieve than many would think. For decades now, ideas have been floating around for Shuttle Derived Vehicles. (Go here for a nice overview.) Essentially every time we launch the shuttle, we are using a heavy lift launcher. The shuttle orbiter weighs over 150,000lbs, and all of that is technically payload. Add in the nearly 50,000lbs of payload that the orbiter carries, that runs to quite a load. If we eliminate the orbiter, nearly all of that becomes useful payload.

Of the several schemes that have been proposed, the Shuttle-C idea is closest to reality. This system essentially replaces the orbiter with a cargo pod. The back of the cargo pod is identical with the orbiter's "Boat-Tail" and contains standard shuttle engines. In front of this is a thin, lightweight shell that would protect the cargo during launch. The payload capacity of the "C" is two to three times larger than with a standard orbiter, and costs would certainly be no more than a standard shuttle launch, as we avoid the expensive refurbishment that the orbiter goes through after every launch. There is no reason that I am aware of that we could begin launching Shuttle-C's in less than a year or two, as absolutely no new technology is required, and the redesign involves only an unscrewed cargo shell.

Once we have the Shuttle-C operational, we drop the per pound cost to orbit by at least a factor of three, and make possible launches we could not have attempted previously due to payload constraints. We could expand the space station if necessary, and launch the components for lunar bases and interplanetary missions. And again, while we are using the Shuttle-C, we can be designing more efficient follow-ons. The Shuttle-B would have a similar configuration, but would use cheaper engines designed for disposable rockets. More involved redesigns could use more Solid Rocket Boosters for even greater payload, or a wide variety of other variations.

(And of course, with some forethought, some of these components can be made more useful. The Shuttle-C cargo pod could conceivably become new pressurized living space, needing only retrofitting with furnishings. The perfectly functional shuttle main engines could be reused. The External Tanks could be brought into orbit and used as pressure space or fuel depots. Endless possibilities.)

The amazing thing is that with a little effort, and a willingness to actually build and test rather conduct endless studies; most of this hardware could be operational within a year or two, and none of it requires any new technology whatsoever. Once we have a new transportation infrastructure, we can go back and come up with better vehicles - or better yet, request bids for new vehicles from private industry rather than design them within NASA. These vehicles would allow us to almost immediately expand our presence in Earth orbit, and begin to gain the skills we will soon need further out. They would allow us to launch the hardware that we will use to return to the moon in style, rather than via robotic proxy. There's no reason we can't have a moon base by the end of the decade. I'll tackle the next three tasks in the next couple posts.

Riverbend has some critical reading on the subject...what, exactly, does our New Iraq have in store for her?

Let's keep in mind that she's already lost her job because of fundamentalism. What freedom is she going to lose next?

It is not "OK" for the US to allow the religious nutjobs over there to set up any kind of stupid Sharia law system. It is utterly unacceptable to have these alternate, binding courts. Sure, apparently you can use this secondary court system only if there's agreement. Exactly how does that happen? There are all kinds of intimidation that can be brought to bear.

Irshad Manji's recent "The Trouble with Islam" delineates the treatment of Muslim women with distressing detail. Riverbend is becoming a casualty. What good have we done if we simply exchange one oppressor (Hussesin) for another (the anonymous mullah).

Go read these Andrew Sullivan bits. Good stuff!

In other news, at tacitus.org Bird Dog coins a fancy new neologism to describe a Palestinian-mother-of-two-cum-suicide-bomber: "splodeydope."

The wheels of American Justice, just turn and turn...assuming you can get a trial, of course (the SC has yet to weight in on the issue of whether the government really needs to give you a trial at all).

Somebody please explain to me how Andrew Fastow gets ten years for destroying the financial futures of tens of thousands of people by lying and stealing from the public, while a Young woman gets twelve years for being a "part" of a crime she didn't even know was taking place.

These people stole billions from unsuspecting investors. They lied about the state of their company. It's called fraud. Every single one of them should go to jail for the rest of their lives.

Except there's no room for them in jail: We have to continue to imprison people like this:

Date of birth: 1964
Federal sentence: Life plus 5 years
Offense: Conspiracy to distribute
crack cocaine
Prior convictions: None
Date of sentencing: 1992
Algernon Lundy, a Alabama businessman for 15 years and
a father, had never been in trouble with the law and maintains
his innocence. Prosecutors said his cleaning service business
was a cover for a massive crack distribution ring and that he
was the organizer and his friends Ronald and Alvin were his
deputies. No drugs or cash were found or seized, no specific
drug activity recorded, no controlled buys conducted and no
drug source or drug customers identified. Algernon was convicted
of an 18-month involvement in a crack conspiracy almost
entirely on the testimony of Ronald. The sentencing
judge indicated he was bound by mandatory laws to impose
the life sentence. After the trial, Ronald wrote the judge that
he had been threatened and manipulated into falsely testifying
against Algernon in exchange for a lower sentence. The
courts, however, have ruled that Algernon should remain in
prison for life. Ronald is serving a 20-year sentence; the third
co-defendant remains at large.

What the hell is that? No evidence of any actual drugs? Nothing? And the guy gets MORE time than Fastow? Amazing!

This is exactly what we need more of, Repulicans! A judicial system that makes damn sure a judge doesn't become all "activist" and sentence according to the specifics of a case.

Have you ever wished you could be more like the Ministry of Minor Perfidy?

Have you ever wanted to deploy and discipline minions?

Have you ever wanted to invest in giant underground lairs, improbably large submarines, and silly footwear?

Now you can! Via rocketjones comes the Make Your Own Evil Plan generator. Now, I'm not saying you can learn to run with the big boys, but you sure can have fun playing in the kiddie pool.

In a world exclusive, Drudge is reporting that Clark, contrary to his statements in recent debates he has not always been against the war. In fact, in testimony before congress just two weeks before the Iraq resolution was passed, Clark had this to say:

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

This is rather dramatically different from what he's saying now. What are the reasons for the turnabout? The obvious guess is that he switched to an antiwar tack for purely political reasons - and to eat into Dean's base within the Democratic party. What this says about his character, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

Unsurprisingly to anyone who's actually been paying attention, the Bush=Hitler ad failed to win moveon.org's "Bush in 30 seconds" ad contest.

The winner is far better and dead on message. Watch it here. Mark Kleiman thinks they should take out some Superbowl ad time. So do I!

Based on the early reports, I am disappointed. My eight month old son will be out of college before the earliest date we imagine being on Mars. We might not even be back on the moon until 2020, and they're talking about robotic missions to scout the way to the moon. Jeebus! We've done that, we've been there! Just go back for Chrissakes. At most, put up a lunar orbiter with a really good camera to pick a landing site.

Also, I am very dubious about this crew exploration vehicle. Something that launches from the Earth and lands on the moon does not sound smart. I'll do some more research, but this doesn't sound like a bold plan to explore the cosmos.

By way of TL Hines, Writer, we hear of a practical joke of quite monstrous proportions. Yahoo Entertainment News reports that a disgruntled Japanese Tourism Official, known only as M.L. Tanaka has painstakingly created a faux Japanese-English phrase book that gives dangerously incorrect English translations of common phrases.

Among the nearly 2300 incidents reported to the Japanese Embassy:

• A 29-year-old Tokyo man visiting San Francisco for the first time meant to ask a female store clerk, "May I please have film for my camera?" But what he actually said was, "Would you place your copious breasts in my mouth?" He was slapped in the face, then got tossed out by the manager.
• Four family members from Osaka were thrilled see their favorite American singer coming out of a ritzy store in Beverly Hills. While waving frantically, they shouted out what they believed to be, "We love you so much." Unfortunately, what they really said was, "We're here to take your head." The four were arrested and detained for six hours by police.
• A 45-year-old tourist from Okinawa looking for the legendary Apollo Theater in Harlem thought he was asking a group of young men, "I am lost. Which way is uptown?" In reality, he said, "I know martial arts. May I kick your ass?" He was chased five blocks before being rescued by police.

Five blocks. In Harlem.

"The man who compiled this dictionary clearly went out of his way to wreak havoc," says New York hotel concierge Jacqueline Porseman, who arranges tours for many VIP guests from Japan. No kidding. Be kind to the next Japanese tourist who respectfully asks to kick your ass, for he knows not what he does.

The Ministry of Minor Perfidy is tickled to announce (and we are rarely, if ever tickled, so pay attention) that we have enhanced the functionality of the Ministry's blog post format. Though we first demanded politely, in the end we were forced to brutally torture hundreds of HTML gnomes to pry from their greedy minds the occult knowledge required to effect these marvelous changes. As you are all aware, the Ministry is more than willing to sacrifice the blood of others to bring you the high quality service you have become accustomed to. Let this be a warning to all.

To describe, rather to sum up the changes to the bottom of each post:

• The clumsy "profile" link has been terminated, and its broken body thrown to the pigs.
• What little functionality the profile link once had has been granted to the author link, which previously could only create another instance of the blog.
• The category name has been enhanced with a link to the relevant category page.
• The trackbacks link has been added.
• Several '|' symbols were added, because they are awful nifty.
• All of the text in the bottom is now either marked as a hyperlink, or is in the paler grey typeface, so it all matches.
• There was some general rearrangement for aesthetics and proper Feng shui.

Allow the warm glow of satisfaction to permeate your pathetic souls as you revel in the knowledge that the Ministry is continuing its relentless quest to provide you with the highest quality blogging experience no money can buy.

... and pretty soon you're talking real money. Before we have all the details on the President's bold plan for space exploration I'd like to make one comment about the objections that are already being raised.

One billion dollars. It sounds a lot like Dr. Evil if you say it right. But spread over five years, this is chump change to the federal government. In this article, Stephen Moore of the very conservative Club for Growth (and someone whose economic thinking I generally admire) says that the new program is a "total fiscal absurdity."

Well, I call bullshit. If the liberals and old people can have $400 billion for drugs, well I want a goddamn flag on Mars for .25% of the money needed to keep grandpa in viagra.

It is all well and good to provide for the needs of our citizenry, and to build bombs to smite those that offend us. But we can spend a little (relatively speaking) to do something that merely expands the horizons of our knowledge, inspires us with pride in accomplishing something truly unprecedented, and lays the groundwork for our grandchildren's exploration of a boundless frontier.

Screw you, penny pinchers.

[wik] Of course, there are also very real benefits. There are the nifty technological spin offs. There is the pleasing thought that this will maintain our strategic dominance of space in the face of possible Chinese or even European interference. Also, it keeps us at the cutting edge, and assures that all the smart people will keep coming here to work with the smart people already here, and keep us on top. And don't forget, condos on Mars will piss off the environmental wackos no end!

[alsø wik] Johno comments,

"But I'm a sentimental man and place a LOT of stock in grand historic gestures of combined human enterprise. We can either embrace the stars, or turn our backs on them. It's this dicking around in low-earth-orbit with expensive and delicate experimental machinery that I can't freaking stand. "

Too true. As I commented over at Insults Unpunished, the space station and shuttle were entirely useless unless there was a large goal, or at least enterprise in space. Its like building a billion dollar greyhound bus to travel back and forth to a four billion dollar bus station in the middle of Death Valley. Unless we go to the moon or planets or asteroids, or actually create a "there" in orbit ourselves, neither of these expensive technological gimcracks have any purpose or utility.

People who favor robotic exploration go on and on about scientific bang for taxpayer buck, blah blah blah; but they can never answer the question, "well can your robot plant a fucking flag on Mars, and feel the exhilaration that every man on Earth can identify with?" The answer is no. Grand Guestures are expensive, but they are grand; and no penny pinching, cost cutting bureaucrat will ever get them for us.

According to The NY Times the President is getting ready to unveil a $1.5 billion initiative to promote healthy marriages. Straight marriages.

Here's an excerpt:

For months, administration officials have worked with conservative groups on the proposal, which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy marriages."

The officials said they believed that the measure was especially timely because they were facing pressure from conservatives eager to see the federal government defend traditional marriage, after a decision by the highest court in Massachusetts. The court ruled in November that gay couples had a right to marry under the state's Constitution.

"This is a way for the president to address the concerns of conservatives and to solidify his conservative base," a presidential adviser said.

Now, let's play that one again!

For months, administration officials have worked with smurf groups on the proposal, which would provide at least $1.5 billion for training to help couples develop interpersonal skills that sustain "healthy marriages."

The officials said they believed that the measure was especially timely because they were facing pressure from smurfs eager to see the federal government defend traditional marriage, after a decision by the highest court in Massachusetts. The court ruled in November that gay couples had a right to marry under the state's Constitution.

"This is a way for the president to address the concerns of smurfs and to solidify his smurf base," a presidential adviser said.

Just what the hell is so smurf about spending more than a billion dollars on Federally-subsidized marriage counselling? Furthermore, what the hell does smurf even mean any more? Does it mean a) morally rigid along value-lines received from Christian teachings, b) fiscally minimalist and prudent, or c) anything and everything to all people?

How can you spend money (even a trickle) on a program like this, which deigns to get involved in people's private lives, and call it conservative?

I don't get this. Oh, wait-- sorry-- I do get this. It's an election year and the President has to pander once again to the Christian Right by spending federal money telling poor people not to break up and gay people not to get together. Aside from being very close to incoherent on an actual policy level, every step like this drives even lower the likelihood that people like me, the socially liberal fiscal conservatices, will vote to re-elect him.

[wik] A final note. "Poor" people tend to fight about money. The fix for that? I dunno... maybe something to do with money, a living wage, federal state and local tax/fee structures, that kind of thing. Maybe even a crash course in elementary family budgeting and retirement investment. But what do you want to bet that won't be the focus of this shiny new Federal program?

[alsø wik] One more thing. Spending federal money on fixing marriage at this point strikes me as closing the barn door after the horse has escaped, gone to town, gotten drunk, and been discovered taking candid photos in flagrante delicto with six hot fillies.

[alsø alsø wik] Ever the wag, Matthew Yglesias observes "[t]here should be bipartisan appeal since funding and implementing the program would involve putting the government in your bedroom and your pocketbook -- what's not to like?"

Minister Buckethead offered below a link to the 50 most unappreciated films of recent years. At the risk of giving everything away, I want to throw my endorsement behind their well considered and totally deserving number-one choice, The Iron Giant.

The ending makes me cry every single time I see it, which is somewhere in the neighborhood of twenty and counting. Just a perfect, perfect film, and one of my all-time top five favorites. I like it better than The Godfather sometimes.

Steve, over at Begging to Differ, reports on a pretty good idea: Creating an Iraqi Oil Trust and giving shares in the trust to all Iraqi citizens. This would resemble the Alaskan Oil Trust, where all state oil revenues are pooled, and then dividends paid to Alaska residents. The difference here would be that the shares could be bought and sold, so that Iraqis would in effect have ownership of the oil, and would have more freedom do decide what to do with their shares - sell them, keep them, whatever.

This is a good idea on several levels. One, it gives the Iraqi people on an individual level, a stake in the country's wealth and future. Two, it gives them a clear title on a source of wealth that they can use as they see fit. Three, it would remove or at least mitigate one of the major sources of corruption in resource rich third world ountries - government control of vast wealth. I approve heartily, and this could be something that materially assists the formation of a civil and democratic soceity in Iraq.

Also on that estimable webpage, is a post by Greg linking to and commenting on a list of the fifty most underrated recent movies. This is an interesting list, and as I informed Greg, I have seen 36 of them, and actually own 15 of those. The remaining 14 will give me a goal, now that I can no longer easily go over to the multiplex thanks to the arrival of Sir John-the-can't-be-quiet-in-a-movie-theater. I have seen one, one movie in the last eight months. I used to see at least one a fortnight. Go over and see my additions to the list.

Dean rants a bit about how the Left in this country wouldn't be satisfied if we found thousands of tons of Anthrax. Apparently the discovery of a few old shells with mustard gas in them satisfies him, in terms of "going to war 'cause of WMDs".

Do five seconds of research on the internet on Mustard Gas, and you discover that it isn't a weapon of mass destruction. With a lethality level of around 1% on the battlefield, it just doesn't fit the bill. Of course, if you're a Bush apologist who wants to make a little hay, you pretend it's a WMD.

Whatever.

If Bush had gone in and found those ten thousands tons, he'd have been vindicated. Most of the thinking left would have supported his action. But it didn't happen that way. Exactly where should the Buck Stop?

Not Fooling Anybody, recommended by the inestimable Lileks, is an amusing compendium of places that have been awkwardly and none to subtly transformed. While the site seems to have entirely missed the pervasive, "Hey that used to be a Red Barn" phenomenon that you so often get in Ohio, they did have this comment to make about my lovely home state: 

CREATIVE INTERPRETATION: Convenient adaptation of drive-thru for alcohol purposes; very Ohio  

which is of course, at the bottom of the ocean.

Go here, and be appalled. I won't actually put this on my webpage. But when some people complain that certain other people are questioning their patriotism, then this might be the reason why.

Michael Totten has an interesting post up concerning a marked trend among Democratic presidential candidates: pandering to the left. As a conservative and relatively staunch Republican, I have been dismayed at the complete lack of potential in the Dem candidates. Dennis Miller said a while back that he hadn't seen a starting nine like this since the '62 Mets. (Interestingly, according to this statistical analysis, the '62 Mets are only the fifth worst team in history. Surprisingly, the Indians do not appear in the bottom 30. Surprisingly, the '54 and '95 Indians are ranked 8th and 9th even though they lost the World Series, and the '48 Indians who did win the series are only ranked 25th. Go Tribe!)

Wesley Clark is a non candidate in every respect save one - he is actually running for president. He made the incredibly bold statement that if he were president, we'd all be safe from terrorism. His focus on internationalism will deter Muslim fundamentalists from attacking us. This must make the French feel better, at least someone thinks that listening to them will actually enhance security.

A good friend of mine in the military told me that Clark is not highly regarded by those in uniform. They give him good marks for bravery back in Vietnam, and apparently he is a good planner. But as for leadership and character, he is held in very low esteem indeed. It is significant that not one retired admiral or general has endorsed him, and many have launched some rather nasty broadsides. (Still serving officers are not allowed to endorse candidates.)

Clark has no real agenda that I can detect, aside from wanting to be president. This is why it is very easy for him to listen to his minders and spinners, and take the leftward steps to try to get momentum in the early running. However, nothing that he is saying now gives us any clue as to what he thinks, and all of it will assuredly be held against him by Rove should he actually get the nomination.

Lieberman is the only Democrat that has a chance in the election - considering that polls indicate that national security is still very important to the public, and that the public supports by a wide margin the invasion and occupation of Iraq. No Democrat has any serious credibility on national security, least of all Dean; but Lieberman has absolutely no chance of getting the presidential nomination. Barring catastrophe, Bush will win by a large margin come November.

[wik]I worry that the Democrats are imploding, and imploding in a significantly more serious way than parties do from time to time. All of the rhetoric that we are hearing, with the partial exception of Lieberman, is aimed at the left half of the democratic party. Like Totten says, this is going to scare the middle toward the right. And Bush is doing nothing to alienate the middle - and although this irritates the conservative core, very few (like spoons) are going to withhold their votes from Bush come November. This is a recipe for a blowout.

However, the problem for me as a conservative is that without a healthy Democratic party that takes things like national defense and the opinion of the middle of the country seriously, there is nothing to keep the Republicans on their toes. They have not been called the stupid party for nothing - only lately the Democrats have been even more stupid. A weak opposition leads to prescription drug benefits and many other things that piss me off, and decided spoons to look for someone else to vote for. (No word yet on who he's chosen, though.)

Via Pejman and the Corner, comes this:

Who saw Paul O'Neill on Today this morning? He's backtracking from all the Suskind-CBS hype attacking the president. He says he wishes he could retract his "blind and deaf" remarks, and says he'll vote for Bush in the fall because he doesn't see anyone else as "capable." With Katie as with Lesley Stahl, you see liberal reporters trying to put words in his mouth. The more he talks, the more it shows he doesn't fit their anti-Bush mold any more than he fit Bush's.

A commenter on Pejman's site had this to say:

Timing the wait until the first accusation that the Bush administration somehow 'got to' O'Neill on my... mark.

My current estimate: tempest in a teacup.

An internal audit of Wal-Mart employment records has revealed a total of more than 100,000 labor-law violations ranging from minors working during school hours to failure of employees to take legally mandated breaks.

An internal audit and they found that many? Jesus! Let's put Wal-Mart's auditors on the trail of Nicole Brown Simpson's real killers and we'd get that mess cleared up right quick too!

All I can say is, it's about time some attention was paid to Wal-Mart's relationship with their workforce. For all their happy-family rhetoric, Wal-Mart treats their workers with as much respect as most people treat public bathrooms. Union-busting, unfair wage practices, illegal immigrants, unpaid overtime, and tacit managerial coercion are all well-documented.

Wal-Mart responds: "[A] spokesperson told the paper the audit was meaningless, since what looked like violations could simply reflect employees' failure to punch in and out for breaks and meals they took."

So their contention is that they don't watch our workers every minute of every day, and really pretty much leave them to their own devices, like any good parent would. Riiight. Because you know how mellow and easygoing managers are about the time clock. More likely, it was made "known" that anyone punching out for breaks would be pushed to the bottom of the happy-family enthusiasm-scrum and eventually relegated to straightening the bra display and cleaning the crapper. And, jeez, Wal-Mart's protestations would be a lot easier to take if everyone and their brother hadn't already read Nickel and Dimed.

I've worked in union shops and non-union shops, and all I can say is that a good union well managed is a great thing. Right now Wal-Mart is in the same position US Steel was back in the day, what with their size and their benevolent attitude toward the meatsacks that they employ. They union-busted too, and they lost eventually. What's it going to take for a service-industry labor movement to gain traction?

[wik] In response to a question by Minister Buckethead, allow me to clarify. This 100,000 labor violations was collected from a total of 128 Wal-Mart stores only.

[alsø wik] Commenter Murdoc observes that my math is bad, and it's 77.8K violations. But Murdoc takes his arithmetic wizardry one step further and reasons that if these 128 stores are any indication, this suggests that the rate of labor violation for all Wal-Marts is on the order of almost two million per week. Mmmmmm, now that's perfidy!