Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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.
As is so frequently the case, Peter is just dead, flat, wrong. The correct answer is “yes.”
Good luck with that.
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.
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.
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.
FTFY
Only John Jones.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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
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.
The UK version was the best!
4% on the ten year treasury and the USA is broke.
Central banking > everything else you worry about with respect to government and politics.
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!
“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.
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.
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.
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?