Which Way NASA?

[webfarmer]

My guess is that he'll pull the plug on the increasingly unsafe geezerware.

Obama's NASA Dilemma - Technology Review - 20 Nov 08

"When president-elect Barack Obama takes office in January, he will be faced with a rare situation. Within his first 100 days, he will have to decide the fate of America's space program.

While other presidents have had the luxury of putting off major decisions on NASA, the Obama administration has a deadline. By April 30, 2009, the new president must decide whether to shut down the Space Shuttle program--currently the United States' only way to get humans into space and to service the International Space Station (ISS)--or extend the program at no small cost. While the current administration has signed an authorization bill to keep the Space Shuttle flying until the end of 2010, the legislation only prevents NASA management from mothballing Shuttle-related programs until the end of April 2009.

Delaying the choice any further would be expensive, experts say, since resurrecting shut-down production lines and purchasing phase-out parts would dramatically increase costs."

Comments

[webfarmer.livejournal.com]

Oh, I certainly understand the appeal of all this stuff. I was a Sputnik kid in the US of A. Science and space travel are almost part of my genetic code. I have a scientific and advanced engineering degree.

But that's why it's hard to be too romantic about it. The numbers are important and the numbers aren't good. The same is true for nuclear power as you've probably noticed lately. That's another Heinlein era technology that people ooed and aahed over in those days. Heck even guys like Lovelock are still doing it.

When things start getting religious and not based on numbers, I get worried. That's true on going to war as it is on going into a certain technology.

I'd bet you recycling waste dumps would be more cost effective for resource extraction than going to mine asteroids. By quite a bit too. We have HUGE steps to still make in recycling. Why not put the money there than into some speculative fiction adventure?

My main point is that this kind of wishful thinking can keep us from doing things that can be done and can be effective in the near term. Following that path has serious dangers and we shouldn't be doing it just to exercise a romantic whim if that's all it is.

I think Lovelock is right about how global warming is more important than it's certainly being prioritized. Hopefully with Obama in, that problem can still be turned around. Obama is a romantic guy but one who also believes in the power of the pragmatic. Of looking at the numbers.

That's why I'm so encouraged by his energy policies to date. We'll see if he implements them as the were framed in the campaign or finds it necessary to yield to the political power that Areva is systematically building in various parts of the US and not only through their lobbyists.

Here's what our energy priorities should be:

1. Conservation and efficiency
2. Renewables
3. Cogeneration
4. Decommissioning baseload fossil plants as fast as possible.
5. Decommissioning nuclear plants as soon as practically possible.

Our priorities have been just the opposite of that. Let's hope we can get the big ship turned before it's too late. If that means some otherwise attractive activities need to be put to the side. So be it.

Lovelock

[markmc03.livejournal.com]

To be fair, he favours nuclear energy because he feels the consequences of global warming outweigh the potential risks presented by nuclear power.

I'm just pessimistic about our chances period.

Re: Lovelock

[webfarmer.livejournal.com]

Mark, I think I'm being fair. There's only so much money to go around and only so much time to turn the ship. Those are the two main problems with global warming. That makes nuclear plants which cost oodles (McCain's "modest" suggestion would be $315 billion), can't be made in mass quantities (shortages in proper steel and personnel), take a long time to build (10 years in the States) takes these things off the list of things to do if one is really serious about global warming.

Lovelock simply doesn't know what the hell he's talking about in this area. He should stick to atmospheric science where he does know what he's talking about.

I'm pessimistic too but I'm not ready to start taking the experimental treatments when the standard and proven ones haven't been properly implemented.

Re: Lovelock

[webfarmer.livejournal.com]

Sorry about the broken syntax on that one. The dangers of editing and not re-reading. I think you get the drift.