Say No to Mars on Drugs, Bitches

I've long been a skeptic of the idea of sending humans to Mars before we can determine whether or not there is a functioning biosphere on the planet.  This recent post articulates my thoughts better than I ever could.  Some choice quotes:

At NASA, the faith takes the form of a cargo cult. The agency has persuaded itself that re-enacting the Moon landings with enough fidelity will reward them with a trip to Mars, bringing back the limitless budgets, uncomplicated patriotism, and rapt public attention of the early sixties. They send up their rockets with the same touching faith that keeps Amtrak hauling empty dining cars across the prairie, dreaming of the golden age of rail.

I would compare keeping primates alive in spacecraft to trying to build a jet engine out of raisins. Both are colossal engineering problems, possibly the hardest ever attempted, but it does not follow that they are problems worth solving. In both cases, the difficulty flows from a very specific design constraint, and it’s worth revisiting that constraint one or ten times before starting to perform miracles of engineering.

Even the astronaut corps recognizes that exploring Mars and keeping it pristine are irreconcilable activities, like trying to drill for oil in a cleanroom. The problem goes beyond practical questions like how to store 17 months of astronaut shit and gets to the crux of the matter: why is bringing a leaky, bacteria-filled terrarium to Mars step one in our search for Martian life? What incredible ability do astronauts have that justifies taking this risk?

And it is hard to overlook that the $93 billion NASA has already spent through 2025 to not land anyone on the Moon would be enough to send probes to every world in the solar system, including moons we know have oceans of liquid water and two entire planetary systems that haven’t been visited since Voyager 2 gave them a quick once-over in the 1980’s.

The difficult and unglamorous problems of a Mars mission—how do you wash your socks? What is there to eat?— get no love from Elon. Once you get beyond “rocket factory go brrrrr,” there is no plan, just a familiar fog of Musky woo. The Mars rockets will refuel from autonomous robot factories powered by sunlight. Their crews will be shielded from radiation by some form of electromagnetic handwaving. Life support, the hardest practical problem in space travel, “is actually quite easy”. And of course Musk dismisses the problem of microbial contamination (which I can’t emphasize enough is governed by international treaty) as both inevitable and no big deal.

The arguments against any country or company sending a mission to Mars are overwhelming.  But the subject has become an entirely emotional discussion, like the efficacy of Ivermectin in treating COVID, though with less immediate harm.  Budgetary realities will probably push the problem out well into the 2040s at least, by which time a bit more reality will hopefully intrude and the whole project will be scrapped in favor of more robotics.

Random Book Review - The Year Without Summer: 1816 and the Volcano That Darkened the World and Changed History

Author: William K. Klingaman and Nicholas P. Klingaman
Released: 2013
Format reviewed: Hardcover
Pages of content: 283
Rating: 2/5

The Year Without Summer: 1816 and the Volcano That Darkened the World and Changed History is an interesting but poorly edited book that doesn't prove its overly long title.  It covers the effects of the 1815 eruption of the Mount Tambora stratovolcano on the island of Sumbawa, Indonesia, which is by current consensus the largest eruption of at least the past 1000 years.  It focuses in on the details of the weather in 1816 in eastern North America and Northwestern Europe, and on the subsequent effects on food availability

Unfortunately, the descriptions of weather often run on far longer than they really need to, and only the authors' engaging writing style save large portions of the book from extreme tedium.  In some cases the details of a single day can run to several pages.  The book is also completely lacking in graphics, even basic maps, which can be frustrating to someone who hasn't memorized the location of minor European cities such as Glarus.  Yes, the internet exists, but a book is still a low tech device that can be used anywhere there is light, and a non-fiction book should not shun visual information so completely as this one.

Overall, I found The Year Without Summer readable but disappointing.  Its description of the details of the eruption is cursory, and it doesn't attempt to link climate to the weather that fills so many of its pages.  The book is almost exclusively focused on Northeast America and Northwest Europe, which may interest readers of an English-language book printed in America more than other places around the world, but the limited geography betrays the title.  And it does very little to prove that the eruption changed history.  I can't recommend this book to anyone other than specialists who might find use for the detailed description of the weather in the time period.

You Don't Know How Lucky You Are

Random Sunday afternoon thought: on November 6, 2012, America dodged two bullets, and Romney wasn't the biggest of the two.  The other bullet was anti-empiricism in the political arena.  Nate Silver was the nominal target, but if the second bullet had hit, it would have taken out all facts in the public discourse for decades to come.  "Skewed" polls would become the norm, and narrative would have ruled the land.  All of the very considerable amount of data about climate change, growing inequality, the negative effects of lower tax rates on the rich, the exorbitant cost and low performance of our health care system, scientific measurements of the effects of polluting chemicals, and on and on and on, would have become irrelevant.  The explosion of anti-empiricism would have had deeply harmful effects on the overwhelming majority of people in this country, and on the rest of the globe.  But the American people dodged that bigger bullet, mostly without even knowing it was headed our way.

Our Lousy Media

Consider this series of screenshots (via Shawn in comments):

There was an interesting report released this week.

But if you watched Fox, you wouldn't know.

To be fair and balanced, NPR isn't doing any better.

Nothing new here, either.

Elsewhere, there's a fair amount of chatter.

Why is this important, you wonder?

Because the end of the controversy isn't being reported like the beginning.

The false accusations against the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit were widely reported, even in less biased news organizations, despite the evidence being thin.

But the final proof that they were false, and that the observational record that underlies the theory of anthropogenic climate change is solid, is absent from the airwaves so far.

Controversy sells.

Denouement doesn't .

But by not reporting both equally, our media creates false impressions.

And it's one of the reasons our media sucks.

Long, Long Ago in a Galaxy Far, Far Away

.. a star shone.  Lots of them, in fact.  And somewhat more recently, some people have made it their career to look at them.  That's not a bad choice, if you can hack the math.  However, as science has progressed, the number of sites where cutting-edge research can be done has shrunk, especially at the optical wavelength.  Because the Earth's atmosphere is opaque to much of the electromagnetic spectrum, including light to some degree, telescopes are best located at high-elevation sites.  A site should also be dry, have stable air, and be upwind from large land masses so that the amount of aerosols is lower.  And finally, a site should not have a lot of light pollution.  Those factors limit the number of premier sites for optical astronomy to three, which are northern Chile, the island of La Palma in the Atlantic, and the islands of Hawai'i and Maui in the Pacific.  Southern California would be included in that list, but the megalopolis of LOSSAN gives off too much light pollution.  So the best sites in the US are farther from the coast, in Arizona and New Mexico.  Western Morocco, Namibia, and Baja California are being looked at for potential locations by more observatories as other good sites fill up, but for now they remain mostly undeveloped.

All that is by of way introducing my latest maps, which are of major astronomical observatories in North America and in South America.  Both maps contain all of the "research-class" telescopes that I have found on the net.  Included are all optical (which includes near-UV and infrared) telescopes over 1.0m (40"), many optical telescopes down to about 0.4m depending on location, a number of project-dedicated optical telescopes, most solar telescopes, and most radio telescopes.  Not included are telescopes primarily used for teaching, historic telescopes, telescopes at science museums and planetariums, telescopes used by amateurs for minor planet discovery, and indirect observing projects such as neutrino and cosmic ray observatories.  There's nothing wrong with those instruments, or their purposes.  But either they aren't used for research that will contribute to the body of astronomical knowledge, or they can't image distinct sources.  As always, I have tried to be as thorough as possible, but there are certainly a few inaccuracies.  And since I don't speak Spanish or Portuguese, the South American map is undoubtedly incomplete.

Enjoy!

Our Skies Are Bigger Than Our Wallet

Today, NASA announced its plan to develop a heavy lift vehicle (aka rocket) called - rather uncreatively - the Space Launch System (SLS).  It would use many parts and technologies from the Space Shuttle program in an effort to save money.  But despite that, the cost is huge: $3 billion annually through the first test flight in 2017, for a total of $18B.  That's too much, as far as I am concerned, especially in light of the fact there is no defined need for it.  There's plenty of hoped-for missions amongst human spaceflight supporters, such as to the Moon and to Mars, but those are entirely unfunded at this point.  If the cost was lower, then I would support the program despite its speculative nature.  But at $3B per year, the funding will definitely eat into other programs.  I have no idea if the $18B price tag is justified in terms of the manpower and materials needed to accomplish the task, or if that number is bloated due to too much contracting and sub-contracting.  I do know that making the SLS man-rated will add to the cost, and as I explained before, there's no reason to do so given the parallel development of commercial capsules and the availability of the Russian Soyuz vehicle (though the Soyuz launch system had a small problem last month).

At this point the best option for a heavy lift vehicle is the Falcon Heavy, which has a test launch scheduled in early 2013.  It will only have a maximum capacity of 50,000 kg to low-earth orbit, as compared to 70,000 kg for the first launch of the SLS, which is intended to have a maximum capacity of 130,000 kg.  But the Falcon Heavy will be available much sooner, at a much lower cost, and, again, as of now there is no defined need to lob something that heavy into orbit.  If for some reason a larger spacecraft is needed, it can be assembled in orbit, just like the Space Station has been.  That would add costs to a mission, but probably not so much that the $18B SLS program would become justified.

Lasting Relief

I had been planning to write a post on the end of the Space Transportation System (STS), a.k.a. the Space Shuttle once the Atlantis landed successfully.  But mistermix beat me to it, hitting all the points I was going to make.

• Thank FSM it's over.  Ever since the Challenger disaster, and even more so after the Columbia disaster, I gritted my teeth during each flight.  The STS program ended up being the most deadly manned program in history (not counting related on-the-ground accidents), killing 14 astronauts, vs. 4 during the entire course of the Soviet Union/Russian program.
• It was a Frankenstein.  I don't know the history of how the program evolved, so I don't know if the Shuttle could have been designed better.  But the additional weight of a man-rated reusable vehicle made launches of satellites and robotic missions much more expensive.  The Shuttle was approximately three times heavier than its payload capacity.
• Ease up on the jingoism.  The pride element of objecting to using a Russian rocket is silly.  They have a reliable launch vehicle and space capsule, so it makes sense to use it now that there is no requirement to launch large ISS components.
• Kill the ISS already.  The International Space Station is the most expensive thing on Earth built by humans, and is unlikely to yield scientific or technological results that will come anywhere close to justifying its immense cost.  It should be flown into the Pacific Ocean.  But because it's an international program, doing the sensible thing won't happen until at least 2020.
• Crowds are no fun.  Money is always an issue, and the extraordinary expense of the STS and ISS probably crowded out a lot of more rewarding robotic missions.  The caveat is necessary because there is no way of knowing if any of the money spent on the manned missions over the past three decades would have been spent otherwise, but I think it's likely that a good portion of it would have been.
• It ain't over 'til its over.   Space is still out there, and there are incredible things yet to discover.  The gee-wiz factor of putting men into space is gone, at least for the time being.  But robotic mission can yield fantastic results, as programs like Voyager, Hubble, and the Mars Rovers have shown.  There's no reason to equate the end of the Shuttle program with the end of space exploration.

 So what should NASA be doing in the near future?  This is how I see it:

• Minimal support of the ISS.  Because it is an international program, keeping the ISS alive is necessary for political reasons.  But the US should do no more that meet its obligations.
• Minimal development of COTS capsules.  Currently, three different unmanned supply vehicles are available to take cargo and fuel to the ISS: the European Automated Transfer Vehicle, the Japanese H-II Transfer Vehicle, and the Russian Progress vehicle.  They have completed 2, 2, and 46 trips respectively.  Since there is no immediate need, NASA should provide limited funding to American companies for developing similar capabilities, or manned capsules.
• General spaceflight research and development.  This would be NASA's slush fund for interesting but not immediately applicable technology development.  One specific goal I would recommend is to find a way to capture and de-orbit space debris.
• Aeronautics research and development.  The first "A" in NASA is usually an afterthought.  But given how important air travel and freight are, some effort should be put into research applicable to atmospheric vehicles.  The emphasis should be on fuel efficiency.
• Robotic exploration.  This should be the main focus of NASA for the next decade.  While there have been mishaps, the list of successful missions is much, much larger.  The missions can be divided into three categories
  1. Solar system exploration.  This includes missions to planets or other bodies, and Sol observation.  Dawn and SOHO are two such missions.
  2. Earth observation.  Any mission to observe the Earth not undertaken by NOAA or the military falls here.  The Aqua/Terra satellites comprise one notable program.
  3. Astronomy and physics.  The Hubble is the most famous example of this type of mission, but there are many others.  The James Webb Space Telescope is the next big one scheduled for launch, but it may be canceled due to budget cuts.
• Heavy lift development.  This is admittedly the most dubious item in the list.  As of 2011, the Atlas V HLV is the largest available launch vehicle, with a claimed capacity to LEO of 29,000kg.  In contrast, the Saturn V was able to launch 118,000kg into orbit.  The STS was able to launch as much as 109,000kg to LEO, but most of that was the Shuttle itself.  There has been talk for years about developing an unmanned launch vehicle from the STS components, and NASA appears to be on the verge of announcing they intend to do just that.  But no one has identified a need to lob anything that weighs 70,000kg or more into orbit, either right now or in the foreseeable future.  So there are reasons for putting the program on hold.  To me, there are two arguments for the program.  One is that nobody else is likely to do it.  Other space agencies and various commercial organizations have slowly raised the capacity of their systems over the years.  But a much bigger rocket would have to be designed from scratch, and I think it's unlikely that anyone but the Chinese government would be willing to make such a huge and largely speculative investment.  The other is that most of the components are already available in the US from the existing Shuttle infrastructure.  They would have to be re-integrated after a new fairing system is designed, and then tested.  But if NASA plans and executes wisely, it should be able to have the new system ready in less than a decade and for a reasonable-ish cost (leaving aside the issue that it is pointless right now).

No discussion about NASA is really complete without noting that it still receives indirect support from the Department of Defense.  The two programs are largely separate, but they often use the same contractors and the same launch vehicles, which reduces NASA's costs over being the sole customer government customer.  Occasionally there is some direct cooperation, though its nothing like what took place in the 1960s.  In addition, NOAA is in charge of a satellite fleet, but they are purchased, not built in-house, and are launched on commercial rockets.

This Time I Can Pronounce It

Unlike the last one, I can pronounce Grímsvötn, which is the volcano currently erupting in Iceland.

Let's Hope This One Doesn't Come True

As all good liberals know, The Onion has a proven record of being the best source of future news on the planet.  So we should all hope this little article doesn't come true.

Ancient Coal Combustion Technology Discovered

A new paper on the Permian-Triassic extinction event which was published this week is quite an interesting one.  The P-Tr (peter?) event is considered to be the most severe in the geologic record, with a huge number of families being wiped out in short order.  The new research is the first to provide clear support for the theory that the Siberian Traps flood basalt eruption contributed to the event, or might even have been the definitive cause.  The formation of the large igneous province has been propsed as a cause for a while, but a more recent idea is that the magma came up through a large region of coal beds.  The intense heat of the magma set the coal on fire, and the combination of eruption and combustion products led to a very large increase in carbon in the atmosphere.  The paper argues that the burning coal also injected a large amount of toxic material into the global environment.  (My guess is that the toxics are heavy metals, as the preview mentions coal fly ash.  But I can't say for sure because, as of now, the full article is behind a pay wall.)  The combination of rapid climate change and toxic materials caused the large number of extinctions.

While this paper is très intéressant, it also happens to be inconvenient for me.  I have seven different books on extinction events in one of my wish lists, and parts or all of each one may have suddenly been rendered obsolete.  I'll have to look at the contents now, instead of just selecting them on the basis of their covers titles.  Le sigh.

Two Are Better Than One

It's been expected for a while, but nonetheless the publication of a study confirming the existence of two different species of elephant in Africa is good news.  It's good because, as the linked article points out, the previous management strategy that treated all elephants in Africa as one species put the existence of African Forest Elephant at serious risk.

I just find this stuff fascinating, personally.  The development of methods of genetic analysis for distinguishing species has led to substantial advances in taxonomy that would have taken decades using old methods.  (That may have also had a negative effect on future taxonomic research, but I suspect the concern is overblown because post-docs will seize opportunities in relatively understaffed fields once they learn about them.)  I think the next big question for taxonomists and geneticists to answer is how often are genes transferred between complex species.  This question has immediate relevance in the age of genetic engineering.

Still Got That Big Ass?

It's that time of year again, the time when people who monitor such things tell us what we don't want to hear: we're a bunch of fatty fat-asses. Still. And while Vermont and New England in general are less dimensionally-gifted than the rest of the country, the trend is in the wrong direct. Obesity increased in all six states.

There are some positive developments to be noted. One is that nearly every state, as well as the federal government, has developed programs to reduce obesity. Another positive is the trend away from driving by today's youth. Fewer teenagers are getting driver's licenses, though that doesn't necessarily mean they are using a more strenuous means of transport. But it may mean that cars are less important as status symbols. A weaker cult of the automobile means that people are more likely to consider and support transportation options other than motor vehicles. A third positive is the increasing support for bicycling as an option for commuting. The current Secretary of Transportation has voiced this, and support at the local level has been increasing for several years.

Unfortunately (I seem to use that word a lot), I don't see an overall improvement for a while. The trend towards increasingly sedentary lifestyles will continue because the number of jobs that requires a college degree and the ability to sit in front of a computer for hours will continue to increase. The ever-growing selection of electronic entertainment options will keep people indoors as well. Our diets will continue to be unhealthy as long as our agricultural policy remains in the grip of agribusiness puppets - a.k.a. Midwestern senators, which will be the case for the foreseeable future. And the most important factor (IMHO), our car-centric built environment, will remain in place for decades.

Ottawa's Shakedown

Those damn Canadians are trying to shake down the good ole' U.S. of A. Literally.

We should have expected Chicago-style thuggery from them.

Born to Watch Volcanoes

I've been watching the eruption of Eyjafjallajökull in Iceland obsessively for the past few weeks, and I've put much of the information I've found into two maps:

• Eyjafjallajökull 2010 Eruption Map
• Eyjafjallajökull 2010 Eruption Addendum

Enjoy!