CAIB

I know this is dated material, but I have never had time to look it over completely.  A couple hundred pages of pdf to read over about the Columbia accident.  My impression going in is that we have a political problem.  One thing about this report that I can comment upon right now is that it was quite thorough.  In that respect, it is impressive.  I'll have more to say on it later.

NOVA: Columbia - Space Shuttle Disaster

Update:  I haven't written anything new about this yet, but I have thought about it.  I continue to believe that we have a political problem.  This may have contributed to the accident, but probably didn't cause it directly.  If you look at the budget history of NASA, it is called upon to do more and more with less and less money.  Therein lies at least part of the problem.

A short blurb on the following post

from Nextbigfuture.  I have it listed at my stumbleupon page.  Well, I haven't been on my stumbleupon page in a couple of years.  All the links are still there.  And I saw this one from 2008.  It was about in vitro meat.  Reminds me of the post I wrote recently about aquaponics and aeroponics .  Here you are, you can also produce meat without the animal.  If you're interested, there's a paperback that covers the topic:  Meat Substitutes: Tofu, in Vitro Meat, Soy Protein, Quorn, Wheat Gluten, Tempeh, Textured Vegetable Protein, Bk Veggie, Laetiporus

Gold moving again

But this time it is moving down.   Let's look at some charts and see what's going on here.





The dollar hasn't moved much, so that's not what is causing this move.




You have a downward move here, but it isn't all that big.  About 1.5 %.




The commodity index is about 2.5% down.  That is a little less than gold at this juncture.




About 3.5% on the gold index.

What's up with all this?  China is making some noises about tightening up monetary policy?  How does that affect policy over here?  Has the Fed changed its QE2 plans?  If China goes with the tightening, does the Fed follow?  If the Fed doesn't follow China, what then?  A weaker dollar, I would think.  This is what the administration wants.  So why all the consternation?  The stock markets should be pleased.  But that's not the case today.  This hasn't changed my opinion.  Unless the Fed changes policy, we still have an inflation scenario.  But this might cool down the commodities a bit.  China is driving that up.  If China slows down, commodity prices could fall, or at least slow down their upwards move.  But that doesn't account for a weaker dollar.   Obama could be looking for a weaker dollar to help exports.  In short, nothing has fundamentally changed in my opinion.

NOTE: these charts may change tomorrow even if they are posted here.  As of this post, the charts look like that now.  Tomorrow, these charts could look different.  These are not screen shots but java created charts in real time.  As of this moment, it is 1:20pm central time, 11/12/2010.  

Space politics as a canary in the coal mine

Like a lot of things, the wheels seem to come off after Clinton left office.  This may surprise people who see this blog as a right wing blog.  Why would I write that?  This blog isn't going to be a blindly partisan blog.  The objective evidence exists, why deny it?  Things were going much better before Bush took office.  So, do I blame Bush for it?  This is too simplistic an analysis.  It is the one most people will make.  People will say that if it happens on his watch, it must be his fault.  I want to go deeper than that.

History didn't start on January 20, 2001 when Bush took office.  In terms of the manned space program, what did Bush inherit?  He inherited the Shuttle and the International Space Station (ISS).  The Shuttle had a history that predated Clinton's administration, but the ISS was mostly a Clinton initiative.  As for the Shuttle, it first flew in 1981, so it was 20 year old system by the time Bush came into office.  The Challenger disaster happened during the Reagan administration.  But other than that, it had a safe and productive operational history.  The ISS was still under construction.  The Shuttle was being used in large part to build it.

The wheels started coming off with the Columbia Accident.  Now, instead of being an anomaly, there were two catastrophic failures with the loss of two crews and two Shuttles.  There were the investigations of each and the results of each investigation.  The result of the last investigation was the conclusion that the Shuttle needed to be retired.  So, the question arose, what comes next?

Let's start with the Columbia Accident Investigation Board.  This is guidance for what came next, which was the Constellation program, which in turn, was recently cancelled by the Obama Administration.  I haven't read this yet.  The question I want to answer is this:  was the Constellation program a good response to the problem with the Shuttles, or was it a bad response?  What was good about it?  What was bad about it? 

After studying that, I can merge that with what I have already produced on this blog.  I have looked at the Augustine Commission and gave my opinion on that.  The Augustine Commission is the most recent guidance on future manned exploration of space.  But it isn't necessary the last word.  Politics being what it is, some adjustments are inevitable.  The political problems we are facing now are related to cost efficiency.  The previous questions related to safety.  Now the question is a matter of economics.  Combining these two factors together poses the ultimate question.  Is manned space exploration worth the risk in terms of human life and economic costs and benefits?  

I think that it is.  Not only that, but our future as a species may depend upon it.  If we fail, then we may fail as a species.  We may meet the fate of the dinosaurs.  But why the failure?  Is it possible to succeed?  Is it feasible politically?  Never mind the costs and benefits.  This question relates to the ability of human beings to do what it takes to survive as a species.  It is a collective problem.  It affects everyone on this planet.  It may well be technically and economically possible to explore and colonize space, but that is meaningless if it isn't politically possible.

Politics is often driven by economics.  If the economics of manned space exploration won't work, then the politics  may not support it.  But if the politics on the whole is too dysfunctional to ascertain the costs and benefits and correctly formulate policy in accordance with these findings, it won't matter whether it is feasible and desirable or not.  It just won't get done.  The political bridge will be just too far.  A way has to be found to cross that political bridge.

My opinion as of this writing is that there is no vision in current space policy; actually it may be far worse than that.  The guy who wrote that says he's pissed.  My question is, why isn't everybody pissed?  This most recent election may not improve matters any.  There is no vision because of the confused nature of our politics.  What Bush does gets cancelled out by Obama.  The next president or this Congress just elected may cancel out this president. In the meantime, we are losing ground.   Money keeps getting spent, but little is accomplished.  If the manned space program is dying, is it because we are dying as a nation?  When will we wake up?  Ever?  If we don't do it, who will?  Anyone?

I am going to keep posting on this subject.  The next project is to study the Columbia Accident Investigation Board pdf file.  I will post on that coming up.

Nukes on the moon?

Not bombs, but reactors.  There are small, safe reactors that might fit on a rocket, and perhaps even a moon lander.  This is a speculation, but it may be possible.  According to this, the reactors are the size of hot tubs.  Doesn't say what it weighs.   Now, the Altair lander for the Constellation program can carry tons of cargo.  If the hot tub size reactor doesn't weigh too much, it might just fit.  With as much power as one of these generates, it would be possible to do a lot of interesting stuff.

Austan Goolsbee on growing the US economy

Austan Goolsbee on Obama's growth strategy



In theory, this may work.  In practice, it will mean a possible trade war.  Our
trading partners will not likely give up their market share here without a fight.
As for doubling exports, that is just a number being pulled out of a hat.  He
doesn't justify that number.  What justification does he have in saying that it
can be reached?

Who's Getting the Bone?

Don't worry, the title is in reference to money being the dog's lunch, a bone. The dog in my opinion is China. They are going nuts because of QE 2. For many years now, the Chinese have been given affirmative action help in order to grow their economy. The yuan is worth so very much more than it's official price. Again for years now they have been taking over manufacturing for all of the things we used to make. So as the USA lost market shares to the Chinese we lost jobs as well. QE2 MAY BE A BARGAINING CHIP TO GET THE REST OF THE WORLD'S HANDS OUT OF THE COOKIE JAR. I have no way to prove it, but we have been trying to get China to play fair for a long time, and they just won't do it. They are the dog, they've got the bone and they'll fight to keep it. We are left to play a game of chicken, basically telling the world,"if we go down, we're taking you with us. Play nice or we all get spanked.