Life On Mars

This week, we visit with Republican candidate for Senate in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts Beth Lindstom, who’s running a valiant attempt to unseat someone by the name of Elizabeth Warren. No idea who she is. Then, our old friend Toby Young stops by to discuss his recent experience with the digital pitchfork and torch mob on the internet and what we ought to do about it (do read his fantastic essay on this topic on Quillette.com, The Public Humiliation Diet and buy his books that are discussed on the show). Also, the Cohen tapes, the roaring economy, and is there life on Mars? Hope so, because we feel like moving there.

Music from this week’s show: Life on Mars by David Bowie

 

Subscribe to The Ricochet Podcast in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.

Now become a Ricochet member for only $5.00 a month! Join and see what you’ve been missing.

There are 82 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Yudansha Member
    Yudansha
    @Yudansha

    As is so frequently the case, Peter is just dead, flat, wrong.  The correct answer is “yes.”

    • #31
  2. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    J Ro (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    $800 billion over 25 years isn’t that much.

    I’d rather build a wall on the border with Mexico.

    Where do people get the idea that we can only work on space exploration, OR build a wall, OR recover from a hurricane/earthquake…

    Well, for one thing, many of us are conscious that our federal government is $21,277,260,000,000 in debt already. This naturally makes us want our government to prioritize and to limit federal spending of our tax dollars.

    Good luck with that

     

    • #32
  3. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    kedavis (View Comment):
    America can walk and chew gum at the same time. Last I heard, there’s a plan to build 2 aircraft carriers at once.

    No disagreement. However if you have a long term spending program – congress, senate and president will all want to change the flavour on average every 6 years. (if yer lucky) Look at the sillyness that Obama did to NASA (the  #1 priority is “Muslim outreach”! thing) Thankfully Obama didnt give a flyin rat’s about space, which allowed the COTS program to continue that gave SpaceX a chance to grow up.

    An aircraft carrier development, construction and deployment program is a very different animal, than space space exploration. First, its run by the pentagon – and there is enough independence there to prevent lone congressmen from directing spending. Secondly, there is a defined goal of the aircraft carrier program – not  a lot of wiggle room for “Muslim outreach” or using leftover technology from the last white elephant…

    Now that I think of it – its funny that SLS is using leftover Shuttle components and technology in order to “Save money” and yet, the development program has been going since 2008, and is currently projected to cost $35 Billion… So good thing they’re being frugal, and cleaning out the old junk in the closet.

    Also, now that I think of it, SLS is a perfect example when you have a long term space technology development plan – Congress sticks its fingers into everything though the entire budgeting process – the same thing happened to the Shuttle.

    • #33
  4. JuliaBlaschke Lincoln
    JuliaBlaschke
    @JuliaBlaschke

    Arnold Falk (View Comment):
    So fellows, give us a break out here, and stop with the “idiotic” and “mentally ill” references. “Flamboyant”, “sometimes inappropriate”, “sometimes untrue or misleading”, and a whole bunch of others are OK, but not “idiotic” and “mentally ill”.

    I much prefer idiotic and mentally ill. We don’t know what the Europeans will do about Trump’s cudgel. We have only Trump’s idiotic bragging and a few “we will work towards” from the Europeans. We also have another 12 billion borrowed from the Chinese (the real trade enemies) to add to the trillion dollar deficit to prop up some American farmers. Trump considers “flamboyant” to be rare praise. He thinks being called “sometimes inappropriate” is a tribute to his leadership. “Sometimes untrue or misleading” is what he believes of nearly everyone else. And that makes him “mentally ill” in my opinion.

    • #34
  5. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    $800 billion over 25 years isn’t that much.

    I’d rather build a wall on the border with Mexico.

    Where do people get the idea that we can only work on space exploration, OR build a wall, OR recover from a hurricane/earthquake…

    Because we spend a lot of money on those other things and there’s no wall!

    Build the wall, then go to Mars.

    • #35
  6. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    $800 billion over 25 years isn’t that much.

    I’d rather build a wall on the border with Mexico.

    Where do people get the idea that we can only work on space exploration, OR build a wall, OR recover from a hurricane/earthquake…

    Because we spend a lot of money on those other things and there’s no wall!

    Build the wall, then go to Mars.

    We could build the wall quickly if Congress would appropriate the money.  Unfortunately, the Dims and the CoC Rs don’t want to do it.

    • #36
  7. Arahant Member
    Arahant
    @Arahant

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Because we spend a lot of money on those other things and there’s no wall!

    Build the wall, and send the illegal aliens to Mars.

    FTFY

    • #37
  8. Max Ledoux Coolidge
    Max Ledoux
    @Max

    Arahant (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    Because we spend a lot of money on those other things and there’s no wall!

    Build the wall, and send the illegal aliens to Mars.

    FTFY

    Only John Jones.

    • #38
  9. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    J Ro (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    $800 billion over 25 years isn’t that much.

    I’d rather build a wall on the border with Mexico.

    Where do people get the idea that we can only work on space exploration, OR build a wall, OR recover from a hurricane/earthquake…

    Well, for one thing, many of us are conscious that our federal government is $21,277,260,000,000 in debt already. This naturally makes us want our government to prioritize and to limit federal spending of our tax dollars.

    By all means prioritize.  But cutting $22 or $32 or even $60 billion a year for world-changing research, technology, and exploration just because it’s somehow easier than cutting even 1/10th of that somewhere else, because Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren will start screaming even louder, THAT is mentally ill.

    • #39
  10. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    kedavis (View Comment):

    J Ro (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    $800 billion over 25 years isn’t that much.

    I’d rather build a wall on the border with Mexico.

    Where do people get the idea that we can only work on space exploration, OR build a wall, OR recover from a hurricane/earthquake…

    Well, for one thing, many of us are conscious that our federal government is $21,277,260,000,000 in debt already. This naturally makes us want our government to prioritize and to limit federal spending of our tax dollars.

    By all means prioritize. But cutting $22 or $32 or even $60 billion a year for world-changing research, technology, and exploration just because it’s somehow easier than cutting even 1/10th of that somewhere else, because Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren will start screaming even louder, THAT is mentally ill.

    The initial funding my Dad got in 1964 for his Timation (for Time Navigation) system was $35K.  With slight modifications (and a lot more money) it became GPS.    One does not always need billions of dollars.  Space X has shown that a budget conscious private company can do wonderful things in space exploration.

    • #40
  11. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    J Ro (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    $800 billion over 25 years isn’t that much.

    I’d rather build a wall on the border with Mexico.

    Where do people get the idea that we can only work on space exploration, OR build a wall, OR recover from a hurricane/earthquake…

    Well, for one thing, many of us are conscious that our federal government is $21,277,260,000,000 in debt already. This naturally makes us want our government to prioritize and to limit federal spending of our tax dollars.

    By all means prioritize. But cutting $22 or $32 or even $60 billion a year for world-changing research, technology, and exploration just because it’s somehow easier than cutting even 1/10th of that somewhere else, because Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren will start screaming even louder, THAT is mentally ill.

    The initial funding my Dad got in 1964 for his Timation (for Time Navigation) system was $35K. With slight modifications (and a lot more money) it became GPS. One does not always need billions of dollars. Space X has shown that a budget conscious private company can do wonderful things in space exploration.

    This is the primary reason I would prefer that most future NASA programs be done like COTS. NASA works with private companies to develop the technology that NASA can then buy at a fixed price. (no cost-plus contracting) I think this development methodology is far superior to NASA’s internal programs – you only have to look at SpaceX and SLS for a comparison… SpaceX developed their rockets at a fraction of the cost, in a fraction of the time. Billions of dollars in SLS has yet to fly.

    Should anyone think that Elon Musk is the secret sauce that makes SpaceX work, I think we could look to the recent troubles at Tesla to realize that is unlikely the case. Not to devalue the man, there is no arguing with his success – I think he’s more legendary than factual.

     

    • #41
  12. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    The initial funding my Dad got in 1964 for his Timation (for Time Navigation) system was $35K. With slight modifications (and a lot more money) it became GPS. One does not always need billions of dollars. Space X has shown that a budget conscious private company can do wonderful things in space exploration.

     

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    This is the primary reason I would prefer that most future NASA programs be done like COTS. NASA works with private companies to develop the technology that NASA can then buy at a fixed price. (no cost-plus contracting) I think this development methodology is far superior to NASA’s internal programs – you only have to look at SpaceX and SLS for a comparison… SpaceX developed their rockets at a fraction of the cost, in a fraction of the time. Billions of dollars in SLS has yet to fly.

    Should anyone think that Elon Musk is the secret sauce that makes SpaceX work, I think we could look to the recent troubles at Tesla to realize that is unlikely the case. Not to devalue the man, there is no arguing with his success – I think he’s more legendary than factual.

     

    Both examples involve building on existing technology, sometimes using equipment already built at taxpayer expense, which is great for private companies but it doesn’t mean THEY did it all as free enterprise.

    “If I have seen further, it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants.”

    • #42
  13. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    J Ro (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    $800 billion over 25 years isn’t that much.

    I’d rather build a wall on the border with Mexico.

    Where do people get the idea that we can only work on space exploration, OR build a wall, OR recover from a hurricane/earthquake…

    Well, for one thing, many of us are conscious that our federal government is $21,277,260,000,000 in debt already. This naturally makes us want our government to prioritize and to limit federal spending of our tax dollars.

    Also, I suspect that a large portion of the people who object to “Wasting tax money” on space research etc, are those who don’t pay federal taxes to start with.  So it’s not “our” money to them.  They just want it more for themselves, not “wasted” on stuff that doesn’t pay their rent for them, give them free cellphones, etc.

    • #43
  14. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    The initial funding my Dad got in 1964 for his Timation (for Time Navigation) system was $35K. With slight modifications (and a lot more money) it became GPS. One does not always need billions of dollars. Space X has shown that a budget conscious private company can do wonderful things in space exploration.

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    This is the primary reason I would prefer that most future NASA programs be done like COTS. NASA works with private companies to develop the technology that NASA can then buy at a fixed price. (no cost-plus contracting) I think this development methodology is far superior to NASA’s internal programs – you only have to look at SpaceX and SLS for a comparison… SpaceX developed their rockets at a fraction of the cost, in a fraction of the time. Billions of dollars in SLS has yet to fly.

    Should anyone think that Elon Musk is the secret sauce that makes SpaceX work, I think we could look to the recent troubles at Tesla to realize that is unlikely the case. Not to devalue the man, there is no arguing with his success – I think he’s more legendary than factual.

    Both examples involve building on existing technology, sometimes using equipment already built at taxpayer expense, which is great for private companies but it doesn’t mean THEY did it all as free enterprise.

    “If I have seen further, it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants.”

    Timation and GPS required space hardened atomic clocks with relatively low power demands.  This was beyond the technology of 1964 and helped spur advances.  My Dad worked for the Naval Research Lab.  He worked closely with private industry contractors such as Bob Kern.  Kern built the first cesium atomic clock launched into orbit in 1977.

    • #44
  15. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    The initial funding my Dad got in 1964 for his Timation (for Time Navigation) system was $35K. With slight modifications (and a lot more money) it became GPS. One does not always need billions of dollars. Space X has shown that a budget conscious private company can do wonderful things in space exploration.

     

    OccupantCDN (View Comment):

    This is the primary reason I would prefer that most future NASA programs be done like COTS. NASA works with private companies to develop the technology that NASA can then buy at a fixed price. (no cost-plus contracting) I think this development methodology is far superior to NASA’s internal programs – you only have to look at SpaceX and SLS for a comparison… SpaceX developed their rockets at a fraction of the cost, in a fraction of the time. Billions of dollars in SLS has yet to fly.

    Should anyone think that Elon Musk is the secret sauce that makes SpaceX work, I think we could look to the recent troubles at Tesla to realize that is unlikely the case. Not to devalue the man, there is no arguing with his success – I think he’s more legendary than factual.

     

    Both examples involve building on existing technology, sometimes using equipment already built at taxpayer expense, which is great for private companies but it doesn’t mean THEY did it all as free enterprise.

    “If I have seen further, it is because I have stood upon the shoulders of giants.”

    Yes, and no. Yes the designers of a new launcher will use technologies generally available, but no, spacex has shown that its better to start with a clean sheet design and use current technologies rather that re-use technology that was developed in the 1960’s designed into systems in the 1970’s and deployed in the 1980s. Just to keep employment at shuttle contractors.

    Its really congress that has turned the launch industry into a low technology, low innovation swamp, that desperately needed disruption.

    • #45
  16. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Although the video has a scary title “SpaceX Killer” its really just a run down of how other commercial launchers are innovating to catch up.

    • #46
  17. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    But in many ways they’re still just “innovating” on top of technologies that were originally discovered and developed at taxpayer expense.  And I think there’s good reason to believe that at least SOME later coming technology might also have to be discovered after “wasting” a lot of taxpayer money, which private industry will again then jump on and improve and make a lot of money from.  While also improving peoples’ lives, and paying a lot of salaries AND a lot of taxes.  Peter might somehow think that doesn’t make sense, but I think it does.  The space program and similar ventures have overall made stupendous “return on investment” even if the bean counters haven’t yet figured out how to count those beans.

    • #47
  18. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    kedavis (View Comment):

    But in many ways they’re still just “innovating” on top of technologies that were originally discovered and developed at taxpayer expense. And I think there’s good reason to believe that at least SOME later coming technology might also have to be discovered after “wasting” a lot of taxpayer money, which private industry will again then jump on and improve and make a lot of money from. While also improving peoples’ lives, and paying a lot of salaries AND a lot of taxes. Peter might somehow think that doesn’t make sense, but I think it does. The space program and similar ventures have overall made stupendous “return on investment” even if the bean counters haven’t yet figured out how to count those beans.

    Not really, what spacex is doing was assumed to be impossible – until spacex did it. The Falcon landing back looks like something out of a bugs bunny cartoon – you’d expect a door to open at the base of the rocket, and Marvin the Martian to come bouncing out.

    Its not just the landing – its also the supersonic retro burn – which will be important for a mars landing. (the maneuver the first stage does seconds after separation – where it flips over and fires its rocket into the face of a supersonic jet stream) Its important for landing a manned flight on mars, because the martian atmosphere is too thin to aero-brake  an extremely heavy lander. The Curiosity rover was the heaviest object to be successfully landed on Mars – I think it weighed 2 Tonnes when it hit the atmosphere (I cant seem to confirm that factoid at the moment) .. A manned mission to mars will need to weigh north of 40 tonnes. A powered landing, is the only way safe enough to land an expedition on the surface. 

    • #48
  19. kedavis Coolidge
    kedavis
    @kedavis

    Okay but powered landings have been done before including on the Moon.  It’s not exactly brand new.  (The Lunar Excursion Module weighed between 16 and 18 tons depending on equipment/fuel load/etc.  And the moon has no atmosphere at all!)

    Also, reusable rockets aren’t exactly brand new either.  Even if a lot of it was just early experimenting to eliminate a lot of bad options from the list of possibilities, SpaceX and others are certainly benefiting from things like the Delta Clipper project which most people have never even heard of.  And a lot of other design ideas that never amounted to what they hoped for, also all go into the mix of research that companies like SpaceX can use and benefit from without spending all that money themselves.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_DC-X

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Star_Clipper

    This video of Delta Clipper testing is from the 1990s.  Almost 30 years ago. And the “Failure” at the end was not any kind of design flaw or whatever, just a screw-up where someone didn’t connect some hydraulic lines or something.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JzXcTFfV3Ls

    Why didn’t things so promising get more of a chance?  Maybe too many people like Peter Robinson figuring first let’s give everyone a sweater to tie around their waist, THEN go to Mars!

    • #49
  20. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    kedavis (View Comment):
    Why didn’t things so promising get more of a chance? Maybe too many people like Peter Robinson figuring first let’s give everyone a sweater to tie around their waist, THEN go to Mars!

    Powered landings had been done before – but never when the retro-rockets are fired into a supersonic jet stream – that was a huge concern. They worry about the dynamics of the rocket bell filling with hot exhaust from the combustion chamber – but having the jet steam slow the exhaust down causing the rocket bell pressurize and possibly fracture.

    The DCX project was a technology development project that where too ambitious for its time (uncharacteristically of NASA). You’re pointing to the outcome – yes land a rocket on its tail had been done before – but not after it was used to successfully throw a second stage into an orbital trajectory – come back from the edge of space and mach 7, to land on the X. The old clips of the DCX clips look remarkably similar to Spacex’s Grasshopper flights. Funny watching your TLC clip, They have the “Flight Operations Control Center” – you know how NASA loves their acronyms would that be the FOCC? would people who work there be called FOCCers?

    There where probably half a dozen better designs for the Shuttle, than the lemon that congress ultimately stuck NASA with. While we can look back now and think a lifting body orbiter would’ve been fantastic – in the late 60’s- early 70s the design was just too radical. NASA did go back to lifting bodies with the HL20 project in the 1990’s (much of that research lives on in the Dreamchaser) My 2 favorite alternative shuttle designs are Saturn-Shuttle (a modified Saturn V first stage is used in place of the external fuel tank and SRBs) and the HL42 – a larger version of the HL20.

     

    • #50
  21. J Ro Member
    J Ro
    @JRo

    kedavis (View Comment):

    J Ro (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):

    Max Ledoux (View Comment):

    kedavis (View Comment):
    $800 billion over 25 years isn’t that much.

    I’d rather build a wall on the border with Mexico.

    Where do people get the idea that we can only work on space exploration, OR build a wall, OR recover from a hurricane/earthquake…

    Well, for one thing, many of us are conscious that our federal government is $21,277,260,000,000 in debt already. This naturally makes us want our government to prioritize and to limit federal spending of our tax dollars.

    By all means prioritize. But cutting $22 or $32 or even $60 billion a year for world-changing research, technology, and exploration just because it’s somehow easier than cutting even 1/10th of that somewhere else, because Nancy Pelosi and Elizabeth Warren will start screaming even louder, THAT is mentally ill.

    I can see why you might think $32 billion is not a lot of tax payer money for such a long term project. Heck, this year our government spent THREE TIMES that amount ($95,841,040,916) in interest payments on its current debt. In one month. June 2018.

    https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

    • #51
  22. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    I was hoping that Rob or James would ask candidate Lindstrom if she will get the Warren put-down, Fauxcahontas, correct unlike the “idiot” Trump.

    • #52
  23. Richard Easton Coolidge
    Richard Easton
    @RichardEaston

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    I was hoping that Rob or James would ask candidate Lindstrom if she will get the Warren put-down, Fauxcahontas, correct unlike the “idiot” Trump.

    I wondered what she thinks about RomneyCare.

    • #53
  24. Hugh Member
    Hugh
    @Hugh

    Eustace C. Scrubb (View Comment):

     

    Too obscure.

    But it shouldn’t be! Spread the word about Life on Mars! (U.K. version rather than the lesser American version.)

    The UK version was the best!

    • #54
  25. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    J Ro (View Comment):

    I can see why you might think $32 billion is not a lot of tax payer money for such a long term project. Heck, this year our government spent THREE TIMES that amount ($95,841,040,916) in interest payments on its current debt. In one month. June 2018.

    https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

    4% on the ten year treasury and the USA is broke. 

    Central banking > everything else you worry about with respect to government and politics. 

    • #55
  26. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Listen to the  recent Reason Magazine interview of  Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky. It is utterly impossible to control or “improve” government spending with political will. Gee, why is that? 

    Be sure to vote!

    • #56
  27. Taras Coolidge
    Taras
    @Taras

    Richard Easton (View Comment):

    Bishop Wash (View Comment):

    I was hoping that Rob or James would ask candidate Lindstrom if she will get the Warren put-down, Fauxcahontas, correct unlike the “idiot” Trump.

    I wondered what she thinks about RomneyCare.

    “Pocahontas” obviously has a lot more impact than the twee “Fauxcahontas”.  Trump understands this kind of thing better than his critics do (or his rivals did in 2016).

    Toby Young’s advice, that conservatives should unilaterally disarm in the Twitter wars, is very bad.  Which is why I’m certain all anti-Trumpers will adopt it in with enthusiasm!  (Like “Fernando”, they would rather “look good than feel good“; i.e., win.)

     Incidentally, Elon Musk‘s bottom line is that the human race will either spread to space or go extinct.

     We may not have much time.  Scientists are learning more and more about how the immune system works.  It’s probably already possible, and may have already been done in China or North Korea, to genetically engineer a pathogen that will kill 100.000000% of the human population.  We may be just one laboratory accident away from extinction already. 

    • #57
  28. RufusRJones Member
    RufusRJones
    @RufusRJones

    Taras (View Comment):
    Toby Young’s advice, that conservatives should unilaterally disarm in the Twitter wars, is very bad.

    All of that critical theory and Alinsky stuff is real and it works. All Democrats use it reflexively, now. The media is 90%v pro-statists no matter what the cost. Act accordingly. 

    • #58
  29. OccupantCDN Coolidge
    OccupantCDN
    @OccupantCDN

    Hey, its tangentially related … Mars is on its closest approach and the Astrophysical Observatory is having an observation night. for the general public to look at Mars. I am going. Although it kinda Bumms me out, Tuesday is PLO night. (Pot Limit Omaha – a form of poker – not the other PLO)

    Check your local listings – maybe there are similar events happening near you – It’ll be a late night 10pm – 1am, so maybe not an option for those with early mornings.

    • #59
  30. Bishop Wash Member
    Bishop Wash
    @BishopWash

    I’m not up on all the Jewish stereotypes. Could someone explain Sarah Silverman’s first joke that Rob likes so that my sides can split from laughter too?

    • #60
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.