past v present in US space

Ranges depend on whether you measure from the first or last flight of a program that was active over some time period.

Past achievements in space exploration:

• First US satellite in orbit to first man in space: 3 years
• First US satellite in orbit to first man in orbit: 4 years
• First man in orbit to first Moon landing: 8 years
• Moon landings to LEO space station: 1-4 years
• Moon landings to LEO Space Shuttle: 9-11 years
• Pioneer 10 to Voyager 1 and 2: 5 years

Current vision of space exploration:

• First LEO Space Shuttle to LEO space station completion: 19 years
• From LEO Space Shuttle to Moon landing: 10-29 years
• From LEO Space Shuttle to Mars landing: 17-36+ years
• Cassini to Europa Jupiter System Mission: ~10 years

Where did the ambition go?! Maybe I will help re-inject some this summer.

eating Fox

1. Clinton on Fox
2. Stewart on O’Reilly
3. Colbert on O’Reilly
4. O’Reilly on Colbert

Today, I feel like a(n)…

• American
• Democrat
• Far-sighted decision maker
• Concerned citizen
• Agent of change
• Responsible person
• Patriot

people who I really don’t want running a country

1. Joe Six-Pack
2. Hockey Mom
3. NASCAR Dad
4. Anyone on the receiving end of this bailout
5. Sarah Palin

Things I wish Obama had said in this debate

1. After McCain first mentioned the surge and Obama’s opposition to the surge:

“When our generals first concieved of the surge, their goal was to reduce the violence in Bahgdad to give the Iraqi politicians time to reach a political solution.  The question at issue here is not whether the surge has reduced the violence in Bahgdad, but whether the surge–now that it’s over–resulted in a lasting political solution.  The answer is ‘no.’  We are still in Iraq; when my administration or Senator McCain’s administration begins, we will still be in Iraq; we must remain in Iraq until the obligations we have incurred to the Iraqi people are borne out.  I do not think that it’s unreasonable to say, then, that the surge has actually failed in its goals.  Our generals are very good at what they do–when President Bush told them to reduce the level of violence, they did.  The failure was not on that tactical level, but on the strategic level of the President.  Had President Bush used the opportunity of the surge to push for a political solution in Iraq, we might have been able to welcome our soldiers home before he leaves office.”

2. When McCain first mentioned “winning” the Iraq War:

“Senator McCain just said that we ‘are winning’ and ‘will win’ the war in Iraq.  What John McCain and George Bush have never done is tell the American people what ‘winning in Iraq’ really means.  At first we thought it was eliminating WMDs, then we thought it was turning Iraq into a democracy.  Last year, at the time of the surge, ‘winning’ seemed to mean ‘reducing the level of violence.’  This is a question that the current administration has avoided answering through the entire war, and Senator McCain is still not answering it.  He’s talking about ‘coming home with victory.’  But while he’s trimming 18 billion dollars of spending from the budget, he’s going to be letting American taxpayers shell out $10 billion every month for a war in which he, as President, will not even tell us what we’re fighting for.  I say: our involvement in Iraq is not a traditional war with victory and defeat measured by objectives captured or lives lost.  There is no point when we can declare ‘Mission Acomplished’ until we define what our mission is.  If I am elected, I will be looking for a stable Iraqi government and an Iraqi security force that is capable of maintaining order without leaning on hundreds of thousands of our soldiers and trillions of our dollars.  I will work towards that goal as quickly as I can, and I will give our capable generals the resources that they need to accomplish it.  But I will also put pressure on the Iraqi government to reach a lasting political solution, so that our brave servicemen and women can come home before my first term ends.  That is what I will work towards as victory.  Senator McCain, you cannot talk about winning the war without telling us what war we are fighting.  What would you call ‘winning’ this war?”

3. When McCain mentioned Obama’s “naivete” or said he “doesn’t understand:”

“Senator McCain just brought up, again, the issue of my potential inexperience.  That is a good thing; the American people should weigh their decisions very carefully in this election.  Let me just say this: I know that I don’t have the level of policy experience that Senator McCain has.  That is why I have brought many advisors more experienced than I am into my campaign.  That is also why I chose Joe Biden as my running mate.  He complements my skills and weaknesses so that, when you vote for me and Joe in November, you will be casting your ballots for a ticket that does have the combined experience that America needs.  Because it’s not just me who thinks these so-called ‘naive’ things–Senator Biden, Senator Clinton, and many other experienced Democrats and Republicans share my views.  But more than that–I may not have years of making foreign policy decisions, but I have lived in foreign countries and know what issues are important in the wider world and what the rest of the world thinks of America.  These are important things for a President of the most powerful country in the world to consider.  Finally, when I don’t know something back to front, I’m willing and eager to find out everything I can from the best experts.  We’ve just gone through eight years where our President had absolutely zero foreign policy experience–less than I have–when he was elected to the White House.  He was not willing to find out about the world, learn from his mistakes, or consult experts.  I will completely change that attitude, because it has gotten us nowhere good.”

4. When McCain said that he would solve the economic crisis by cutting earmarks:

“There’s a difference here in what Senator McCain has said he would do, and what his actions imply he would do.  He’s brought pork home to Arizona before.  What’s more, in the last few weeks, he chose a running mate who said ‘please’ to the Bridge to Nowhere that John railed about so much in his campaign ads.  Governor Palin only decided to oppose that bridge after it became a national scandal.  That’s the same attitude that got us into the current financial crisis: deregulate, deregulate, let the free market take care of it, and only when it becomes a national scandal and financial crisis does Senator McCain talk about regulating Wall Street to prevent this sort of thing from happening and costing taxpayers a trillion dollars again some time in the future.”

5. Instead of saying “that’s just not true, I don’t know where John is getting his figures” to the $900-million-dollars-of-earmarks comments:

“Now I don’t know where John is getting his figures here, but the truth is that his campaign has been spreading disinformation about me for quite some time now.  He is making these claims that aren’t backed up by facts, just trying to get the American people to make a snap judgment about me that is a completely inaccurate mischaracterization.  This is Karl-Rove-style, South-Carolina-2000 politics, and America is sick of this.  I respect Senator McCain, but I respected him a lot more back when his ‘Straight Talk Express’ meant something.”

Veepgate: Hey, newly-minted feminist Republicans…

1. That the media presses Gov. Sarah Palin hard on issues and asks her tough questions (not enough, in my opinion) is not sexist.
2. The media presses Gov. Sarah Palin hard on issues and asks her tough questions  because they take her candidacy seriously.
3. The media presses Gov. Sarah Palin hard on issues and asks her tough questions because they want the public to be well informed.
4. The media presses Gov. Sarah Palin hard on issues and asks her tough questions because that is the treatment they would give to a male candidate.
5. The only reason to take umbrage at the media so pressing Gov. Palin is as a defensive reaction if she is not, in fact, equipped to handle that pressure–as if McCain did not intend her to be taken seriously when he picked her, but instead just wanted to make a publicity stunt and grab for Clinton supporters.
6. And that, newly feminist Republicans, would be sexist.

reasons why one might forget how many houses one owns

1. One is outrageously rich and owns more houses than one can count.
2. One is senile.
3. One is easily distracted.
4. One does not actually listen to things people ask of or tell to one.
5. One is horribly out of touch with reality.

science, creationism, and “open-mindedness”

I recently had a discussion (actually, my first-ever intelligent discussion) with a creationist. Our discussion was, mainly, about the nature of the debate rather than any specific points — after all, neither of us was going to convince the other. However, one of his main contentions was that so-called “evolutionists” were close-minded in nature and desperately clung to the theory of evolution when there are scientific problems with that theory.* Some responses:

• The purpose of science is, in fact, to discriminate. It sorts out theories that accurately explain existing phenomena and predict the future behavior of the universe from those that do not provide sufficient explanations or make inaccurate predictions. It is not “close-minded” to reject a hypothesis that has been disproved many times over during the past hundred-odd years. This is just science doing its job! If, each time we educated a new scientist, we had to start from scratch without any established theories, we would still be at the level of the ancient Greeks. Very optimistically. Then again, it is the Platonic tradition to disbelieve observations of the physical world, so maybe that’s where the creationists want us.
• Logically, to prove a hypothesis, we must either find an analytical proof based on irrefutable premises or show that the hypothesis is true for every single possible case. A frequent contention by scientists is that creationism cannot be placed on par with a scientific theory because it has no predictive power. But ah-ha, say the creationists, Dr. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., used creationist premises to make predictions about the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune that were borne out after Voyager II. This proves that creationism has predictive power. Not so, I say! It proves only that creationist premises (and many barely-justifiable assumptions) lead to a prediction that is consistent with the physical world in a single case. Creationists will have to show a lot more predictions than that to demonstrate that they have a scientific theory on their hands. In fact, I challenge them to use Genesis to make accurate (or any) predictions in the biological sciences, rather than in a specific application of magnetic theory that is so underdeveloped at present that scientists have had to revise it every single time a probe visits an outer planet. Is it really so close-minded to expect logical rigor when arguments are presented as scientifically rigorous?
• On the other hand, disproving a hypothesis requires only a single counterexample. By this test, creationism has been disproved many times over by various methods that date the Earth, Solar System, galaxy, and universe to far greater ages than the ~6000 years nominally required by creationism. In fact, Judeo-Christian biblical creation can be refuted on these grounds taking as a premise nothing but the inerrant truth of the bible: Genesis contains two creation myths, each of which is mutually exclusive of the other (different initial conditions, order of events, and duration of events). By the premise, both must be taken as true, however, if either one is true, then the other must be false. Since either one (or both) creation myths is false, the premise must be false. Ergo, neither myth can be treated as fact. Again, all I am applying here is the simple logic of implication; I am not necessarily closing my mind off to all alternatives. I even opened myself up to the creationist premise of the literal truth of the bible.
• The theory of evolution has, well, evolved since the time when Darwin first postulated it. This is because science often uncovers phenomena that elucidate a new aspect of a field, and existing theories must be revised to account for that data (see previous remark about gas giants). In other words, when a theory cannot explain some data, scientists revise the theory (sometimes extensively). Thus, we do not “cling desperately” to evolution, since the theory itself has been repeatedly modified. However, creationism, by virtue of coming out of a supposedly irrefutable bible, has never been modified to fit new data. Rather, creationists “desperately cling” to their belief by re-interpreting the data to fit the existing theory. Well, I exaggerate slightly — creationism was modified to fit observed data once: by a guy named Darwin, who allowed that God must have created life through the process of evolution.
• One thing that creationism will never be able to do is use the scientific method to provide a convincing inductive argument for biblical creation. To do this, creationists would have to take as a premise not the literal truth of the bible, but the accuracy of observation and their ability to draw logical conclusions from those observations. They would then have to use their observations alone to show that, logically, the most likely explanation for the data is that the world was miraculously created 5768 Earth calendar years ago and that the creator was their preferred god. First, I note that they do not currently take this approach — rather, they work backwards: take bible as true, go find evidence to support that premise/conclusion. (Creationists often obfuscate their argument by building their conclusions into their premises.) Second, and more importantly, there is no way creationists could support their theory in a scientific manner. There are two reasons why I know this. One — available data (e.g., the age of the Earth, Solar System, galaxy, and universe as obtained by radioisotope dating, measuring the speed of light, plate tectonics, measured sedimentation rates, crater counting, timing formation models for Solar System or galactic features, etc) do not support the theory. Two — even if creationists could show that the universe was <6000 years old, they would still have to show that it was created in a six-day period by a god (who they would also have to show the existence of, by logical interpretation of data). This is scientifically impossible unless said god were to appear and submit to observational tests. Here, creationists usually go back to invoking their bibles, which is where they build their conclusions into their premises. Now, I may seem unnecessarily harsh: What does all this have to do with open-mindedness? My point is simply that even if I give the creationists the benefit of the doubt, their theory does not stand up to truly scientific analysis and, in fact, they could not arrive at their theory through the methods of science. Whether scientists are “open-minded” or not has nothing to do with the validity of creationist theory.

* Many creationists have latched on to the term “evolutionist” to describe anyone who believes in a non-biblical creation; that is, that evolution guides the development of life and that the universe is >5768 years old. Essentially, the term applies to most scientists. However, I reject the use of the word “evolutionist” because it seeks to portray evolution as a belief system rather than a scientific theory. I do not believe in evolution, rather, I am convinced of evolution, perhaps of the punctuated equilibrium variety, by a preponderance of evidence. Furthermore, my convictions that the theories governing relativity, radioactive decay, plate tectonics, etc, are sufficiently accurate to date the formation of the Earth, Solar System, and universe are not dependent on my being convinced of evolution.

Lists of Things Official 2008 Campaign Coverage: A case for Obama

The most important global issues facing us today are ones that will affect life on Earth for the next 50-100 years:

1. Global climate change
2. Energy shortages
3. Extremism
4. Education
5. Developing nations
6. Ethnic conflicts
7. Fast-paced technology and science advancement

In addition, national issues will require far-reaching actions on the part of our legislators and executives:

1. Improving (i.e., repairing) the national healthcare system
2. Ameliorating the national debt and trade deficit
3. Reducing our dependence on fossil fuels
4. Addressing the skyrocketing costs of a college education
5. Improving public attitudes towards science and enhancing the education system
6. Rebuilding our relations abroad
7. Actually safeguarding citizens from terrorist attacks

These challenges can best be addressed not by a candidate with merely a point-by-point list, but by a candidate who is willing to shape and adapt their views based on changing inputs and ever-more-refined information.  The necessity of far-reaching solutions also requires that the candidate be willing to prioritize these comprehensive solutions above their own desire for a political legacy.  For most of this election cycle’s candidates, the Presidency is the end of the line: the chance to culminate their personal political careers and establish a lasting legacy (all the more ripe a prize after the failures of the current administration).  For these reasons, I believe that it is extremely important to elect a younger, more dynamic, more open leader.

Obama ‘08.

Lists of Things Official 2008 Campaign Coverage: Who’s the real conservative?

• John McCain
  • Cut Congress’ $223 million “Bridge to Nowhere”
  • Stay in Iraq for 100 years
• Pick a Democrat, any Democrat
  • Who cares about the “Bridge to Nowhere”
  • End the Iraq War (est. current price tag: $2 trillion; est. price tag for continued combat operations: $10 billion per month)

Note for the mathematically reluctant: $10 billion/month × 12 months/year × 100 years = 12 trillion dollars, or approximately the entire US 2006 GDP.