Fly Us To The Moon

Three Million dollars = 13.392 Minutes

CJM — Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:50:56 EDT

John McCain's attempt to nail Senator Obama on the Adler Planetarium's Projector is a clear example of the fact that McCain has no idea on how education is an important integral aspect of growing a strong nation. He asserts that the projector's $3,000.000.00 dollars that was asked for in a bipartisan bill is "Pork Barrel Spending" when the bill was out front and in the open.

In comparing this learning tool for children and adults alike to the cost of the war in Iraq, I found that in the time it took me to research, compose & post this I had already surpassed the cost of $3,000,000.00.

The cost of the war in Iraq is at 10 billion a month (31 days.) That in comparison to the cost of the Planetariums complex projection system is $3 million dollars for 13.392 minutes.

This won't be well recieved by the GOP.

CJM — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 22:45:08 EDT

Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.

http://www.military.com/opinion/0,15202,164859,00.html

IEC Polywell Fusion (WB-7)

CJM — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 21:02:12 EDT

I sure hope Senator Obama knows about this potential new source of low cost energy. If it works then it would be very disruptive as a technology to other energy alternatives but would speed up the independence away from fossil fuel, and would speed up our space travel also!

[off-topic] Support Team USA by

Eric from Tacoma, WA — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 20:50:44 EDT

visiting www.homedepot.com and clicking on the Olympic rings/ "It's time to turn clicks into gold" banner near the bottom of the page. For every click, Home Depot will donate $1 to Team USA on your behalf. The ticker shows that over $670,000 has been raised so far.

And now that HD has given Team USA a dollar for you, I challenge you to donate a matching dollar to the campaign!

Space at Netroots Nation

Ferris Valyn — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 18:46:04 EDT

Space policy made a pretty decent splash at Netroots Nation. We had an excellent panel on space policy, and an excellent platform meeting. For those of you who don't remember, we had Andrew Hoppin moderating, and Chris Bowers, Lori Garver, Patricia Grace Smith, and George Whitesides all speaking. You can about the panelists here.

Join me over the fold to read, and see it

Upcoming events about space and space policy

Ferris Valyn — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:05:07 EDT

Hey Everyone,

I figured now would be a good time to remind everyone (again) about some upcoming space events, that would be worth going to. We have a couple of major events this week, as well as future events upcoming. I promise reports to any and all I attend, and I suggest that you attend as well

Redstate, Senator Obama, space policy, and our group

Ferris Valyn — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:21:44 EDT

Generally, when I do a diary about space, its either about current events, proposing good space policy, or remarking on the fact that Senator Obama hasn't fully developed a space policy. But today's is a little different - its actually not about space, so much as reaction to 1 line, I wrote, about Senator Obama. What was the line, and who reacted? Well, come over to the flip side, and you can find out (although you can probably guess who was doing the reacting

Senator Obama, bring back the National Space Council

Ferris Valyn — Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:56:43 EDT

This is being re-posted from my diaries over at dailykos

In many of my past diaries, I commented on Senator Obama, and his lack of a space policy, and the concern that he is anti human spaceflight. These diaries have ranged from long explanations, to something that was probably close to a rant.

However, today I want to talk about something that, Senator Obama can do, which doesn't require massive new spending, but would show an openness to the idea of manned spaceflight, and would fit well within his comments and concerns about having a coherent space policy. Senator Obama, please bring back the National Space Council.

Manned Missions

CJM — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 19:58:25 EDT

Senator Obama, there should be no question as to wether the US should continue and bolster a vigorous manned space program without pause. This coupled with unmanned missions and the pursuit of fusion energy for space travel can be the winning combination that gets us where we want to be in space travel and value for what we hope to accomplish.

The Constellation mission will be a very important stepping stone to the giant leaps to come. We cannot afford to cut this funding and stall the program, only to pay more later to start back up and be way behind the potential. There is no good trade off of a vigorous manned space program for funding of education.

I say to you Senator Obama that we must do both, and they must be intertwined, and in the words of President Kennedy we must do it, not because it is easy but because it is hard, but we must do them together.

It is in the DNA of mankind to push the limits, it is what kills us and what keeps us alive!

From Senator Nelson, a real and quick way to reduce Gas prices.

CJM — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 18:06:21 EDT

Thank you for contacting me about drilling for oil off Florida and other coastal states.

President Bush has proposed allowing drilling rigs off coastal States as a way, he says, to reduce gasoline prices. But he must know this won't happen. That's because a report from inside the Bush administration specifically shows that increasing offshore drilling won't have a significant impact on gas prices for decades.

And we simply cannot wait that long on the hope of giving Americans some relief at the pump.

To lower gas prices now by an estimated 25 to 50 percent, we must reign in the real culprits: speculators who are able, because of legal loopholes, to bid up the price of oil to unrealistic and shocking highs. Oil now costs about $140 per barrel, but recent congressional testimony from a leading industry executive showed that the price of crude should only be $55 per barrel given the laws of supply and demand. That means gas prices should be about $2.28 a gallon-- not more than $4.

This is why I have introduced legislation-- S. 3134-- that would ban unregulated speculative trading in oil futures. If Congress will pass this bill, we can bring gas prices back down to earth.

Meantime, the oil companies will claim loudly that they need to drill off the coast of Florida so they can increase the oil supply. But what they won't tell you is that they aren't drilling on nearly 32 million of acres they already have under lease from the Federal government. I think they should drill there first-- in areas where the infrastructure for transporting oil already exists-- before demanding more areas be open to leasing and drilling activities that could take years to produce a single drop of oil.

Americans are being gouged, and now is not the time to allow the administration to give away the store before it leaves office. It's time to do what's really necessary to lower the price of gas: reign in profiteers and speculators. I hope you will be able to support passage of S. 3134. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office again.

Dear Steve Robinson,

John Messerly — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 15:45:53 EDT

To: Steve Robinson, space policy spokesperson for the Obama campaign.

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your long time support of Barack and your service in advising him on science policy. I am primarily interested in energy independence issues, but as a close follower of Space Policy (I admin the Space and Aeronautics Policy blog on democrats.org), I would like the opportunity to offer some observations about the recent debate you participated in at the International Space Development Conference.

What Bush tapped into with his ill-advised "Vision for Space Exploration" policy was the romance of endless frontiers to be explored. It is deeply American. We are inspired by limitless opportunities and broad vistas of opportunities.
Factually speaking, conservative estimates are that we can do 10 times more exploration for the same dollar. We should be leveraging that fact.
Our message should be: we want to do 10 times more space exploration than what McCain-Bush proposed. Nasa's estimate that a Apollo sized commitment to a manned Mars mission wouldn't get us there before 2037. Our question is not, why should we go there, but why should we wait that long? Let's stop robbing missions based on remote controlled vehicles that are delivering real science for manned missions that are delivering negligible science.
Beware the "Robot trap". Use the term "remotely controlled exploration" or explorers. Stop referring to Robots and Robotic missions because as a factual matter with the Mars rovers for example, only rudimentary functions are partially autonomous- all exploration is human directed. Yet the deceptive "Robot" label is the preferred terminology of manned spaceflight advocates because it leverages the "Man is better than Robot" theme, and dooms your position. So challenge the premise of any question that rests on the Robot Trap. Opportunity and Spirit rovers, same as UAVs, have marvelous support software, but exploration is performed by instructions from explorers on earth. Both manned and remotely piloted vehicles are human exploration, relying on human distinctions unsubstitutable human judgment. The difference is that manned is vastly more expensive, relies on a single human's rather than multiple expert judgments, puts a human in not just in harms way, but in an exceptionally dangerous environment where even minor errors can result in death.
Co-opt the central argument for manned craft. Freely admit that today's remote controlled exploration vehicles take as many as 3 days to do what it would take an astronaut 30 minutes to do. But point out that the Opportunity and Spirit Rovers have collectively spent over 109 months on Mars and are still going strong. Using the discount of 3 days of remote rover = 30 minutes of astronaut time on surface, these remotely piloted explorers have already done the work of more than 90 manned days on the Mars surface, assuming astronauts on a manned mission worked flat out, 6 hours every day with no down time.
Redefine the argument for manned missions as a quantitative rather than qualitative difference. Freely admit that the people exploring Mars have not physically touched the Martian surface- but challenge the listener to be brutally honest. The astronaut in 2037 would no more touch the surface either, and would be safely separated from Mars, inside the self contained pressurized spacecraft complete with robust life support and communications that the lay audience calls a spacesuit. The intermediary technology always separates the human from the Mars- the difference is- by what degree, and at what cost benefit? In one case the distance is one inch. In the other the distance is a couple million miles. Manned mission advocates want us to wait 30 years to get that distance down to one inch. Our challenge to McCain: Is the wait worth the benefit? This turns the tables of the debate, putting McCain on the defense, as the one without vision, the one seeking to retard exploration.

Thanks for your time in considering these options for future confrontations with space spokespersons representing the Bush-McCain " Vision for Space Exploration" that will doom us to a 30 year delay in space exploration. An example of how I employ these themes and rhetoric may be found on the democrats.org space and aeronautics policy blog. Link to a recent post here. Although I am for reconsideration of Constellation/Ares in favor of heavier investment in climate change monitoring and remote exploration of space, contrary to the appearance given in this post, I am not an opponent of manned missions. In fact I fiercely believe this gets us a significantly more aggressive space policy using the same resources budgeted by the Republicans. I foresee manned bases on the moon and mars, but see the base construction and extraction of local resources largely conducted by vehicles operated remotely by humans on earth. I personally believe it is the fastest and smartest way to extend humanity's dominion to the inner and outer planets.

Warm regards,

John

Politics at the International Space Development Conference, 2008

Ferris Valyn — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 18:25:33 EDT

Recently, I attended the 2008 International Space Development Conference (ISDC). While there, a number of space issues were discussed, espcially concerning policy. I felt everyone here could benefit from reading about it. Before I go into what happened, with regard to the politics, let me give a short background about ISDC. ISDC is put on every year, for 26 years, by the National Space Society. Its purpose is to promote space development. It brings together scientists, engineers, policy makers, businessmen, even artists and philosophers, to talk about and discuss space development.

With that firmly established, join me on the other side, to talk about some of the political discussions that happened there, this year.

What A Night!

Carole@www.Americans-Away-From-Home.com — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:44:10 EDT

The night felt like magic.

YES WE ChAmpagNe

Every minute or two, another superdelegate endorsement was announced for Barack Obama. They kept coming faster and faster; it really did feel like an avalanche of superdelegates were announcing support for Obama. On the Obama website, supporters wrote messages about how happy they were, and how much joy they were feeling. Some said they had red, white, and blue balloons waiting to hang outside their doors the moment Obama won the nomination; some said they'd break out special bottles of (beer) (champagne) they saved for this night. On Democrats_Worldwide, the international discussion group for Democrats, the mood was euphoria as people toasted to Obama in messages from Cape Cod to Australia to Afghanistan to Paris.

ok

harry — Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:01:56 EDT

Screw it, let's do it....

Of Obama, Richardson, and Space

Ferris Valyn — Sun, 23 Mar 2008 13:25:19 EDT

This week, Governor Bill Richardson endorsed Senator Barack Obama. Governor Richardson was clearly inspired by Obama's speech. Now, the question is, will he be able to provide counsel to Senator Obama (and to an Obama administration, should that happen). And in particular, my hope is that Richardson will be able to provide counsel to Senator Obama on the issue of space policy. Please join me over the fold

mirror

harry — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 17:52:03 EDT

stay infont of a mirror (morning times) and say:: yes, we can change, yes ,we can,,, then see the changes in your life after a month and in your country after a year,,,, just try it

Why Nasa matters to Climate Change

John Messerly — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 17:58:55 EDT

Current research indicates that the anticipated changes that might result from an increase in atmospheric CO2 are not so simple. Computer models are being used to project climate change, but because the actual mechanism of climate change is not well understood, doubts have been raised in the science community about their accuracy. Recent papers suggest that previous studies have significantly underestimated the phenomenon, and that the "fierce urgency of now" actually happenned 8 years ago.

Even with extensive measures of CO2 emissions, scientists agree that the processes that govern the carbon cycle are not very well understood. This fact is siezed on by extremists who would deny climate change due to human activity exists.

There are two responses to this. The first is political. Many of those swayed by such rhetoric are actually reflexively responding to the notion that this is some sort of hippie environmentalist fad hoax. This can be disarmed by reloading the problem as an energy independence issue and that we must get off oil because it sends money to the terrorists. This appeals to their sense of patriotism, mom, and apple pie. I don't think this is a dishonest tack to take. The point is accurate, and while the consequences of global warming are far more crushing than those of dependence on foreign supplies of energy, energy independence is a vital national security issue, and rallies us to the defence of our nation even if global warming were a fantasy.

The second response is that it is just as true that we could be underestimating the threat as overestimating it. When threat assessment is weak due to poor understanding of fundamentals, both consequences are equally dangerous A juried paper published two weeks ago in Geophysical Research Letters shows that if stabilization targets are to be reached, CO2 emissions must go to zero. Simple reduction to 20% of 1990 levels (Barack's plan for the US), even if achieved on a global scale would be insufficient. Further, the study shows that the climate changes are likely to be virtually permanent. [WaPost article] [Research paper]

If true, that's bad for the "wait and see" approach. Maybe these early reports are alarmist, but maybe they are like Billy Mitchell's demonstration in 1925 that the age of battleships was over. "Wait and see" was costly but not crippling at Pearl Harbor, because we had time and resources to bounce back and build carriers. But if this latest study is correct, "Wait and see" won't work. Farmlands lost due to warming won't return to production for centuries. Extreme storm conditions that emerge will become the norm for the forseeable future.

Bush's war on science has not missed opportunities to reduce knowledge of climate change. Built at a cost of 100 million dollars, since 2001, the Deep Space Climate Observatory has been sitting in a closet. That's 7 years of information not collected on climate change. The reason? Republicans politicized the project- referring to it as "GoreSat", and although the NAS reported that the science it would return was "vital", the Bush White House had NASA quietly kill the project.(NYTimes opinion: Scorched Earth)

It's nuts. Whether you are someone that thinks climate change is a hoax, or someone who thinks the threat has been seriously underestimated, given the stakes, it is important to know for sure one way or the other.

What we are stuck with are ground based observations, but measurements of atmospheric CO2 vary drastically from year to year, and the datasets are sparse. Without a better understanding of these variations, scientists will have difficulty predicting how the atmosphere will respond in the future. Although NASA has defunded study of climate in order to pay for Bush's idiotically expensive scheme for Mars exploration, JPL's Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) will be launched next year and will provide scientists with some of the information that they will need to better understand the carbon cycle. It was scheduled for launch in 2007, but the Bush administration's cuts forced this out to the current December 2008 launch date.

It's pretty cool, because it's spectrometer produces a 3 dimensional model of CO2, and it leads in a formation of US and French climate satellites known as the "A-train", so that data samples can be correlated. The OCO data will revolutionize our understanding of the carbon cycle, obtaining data on CO2 sources and sinks using reflected sunlight to measure carbon dioxide concentrations down to a 1% accuracy – around four parts per million molecules of air. The entire earth will be coverred every 16 days for a period of 2 years. Each column sample of CO2 will be less than 3 cubic KM, and a remote sensing algorithm will produce CO2 concentrations at various altitudes. That's a hefty dataset. (source)

It is crucial this data be acquired as soon as possible. The increases in CO2 were 1.1 percent in the 1990s. Since 2000, the increases have been 3 percent. In 2004, the increase was 5.41%. (source)

Could be a fluctuation, or things may get real nasty real fast. -Especially if the CO2 sinks are getting saturated. (study) Given the rate of Coal plant construction in China, my guess is that ahead of us is a challenge much greater than Iraq, the economy, or health care.

Meanwhile, the media is talking about red phones, plagiarism, vp offers, and monsters. Yep, it's silly season.

Essays to Senator Obama - The Space Economy Pt3

Ferris Valyn — Mon, 10 Mar 2008 22:22:56 EDT

Dear Senator Obama,

It is clear, through your statements, that you have questions about what role human spaceflight can and does play on our society. You have said that you want to have a full evaluation, and have a clear understanding about how and where we can have the most impact in our spending on space.

Part of the problem is how we've interacted with space, and how we view it. For a long time, space has been viewed as being beyond the reach of the average person, and that it can only provide us more scientific knowledge.

However, there is growing evidence that this is about to change, and that properly harnessed, space can have an incredibly positive effect on society - it can help with our economy, and it can help provide us with clean, cheap energy.

It is for this reason I have written these essays - so you can understand how human spaceflight can have a beneficial impact on society, why the time is now that it can have such a beneficial impact, and how best to capitalize on this.

In this first essay, I talk about the economy, and orbital space businesses.

Essays to Senator Obama - The Space Economy Pt2

Ferris Valyn — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:39:08 EST

Dear Senator Obama,

It is clear, through your statements, that you have questions about what role human spaceflight can and does play on our society. You have said that you want to have a full evaluation, and have a clear understanding about how and where we can have the most impact in our spending on space.

Part of the problem is how we've interacted with space, and how we view it. For a long time, space has been viewed as being beyond the reach of the average person, and that it can only provide us more scientific knowledge.

However, there is growing evidence that this is about to change, and that properly harnessed, space can have an incredibly positive effect on society - it can help with our economy, and it can help provide us with clean, cheap energy.

It is for this reason I have written these essays - so you can understand how human spaceflight can have a beneficial impact on society, why the time is now that it can have such a beneficial impact, and how best to capitalize on this.

In this second essay, I talk about the economy, and suborbital space businesses.

Essays to Senator Obama - The Space Economy Pt1

Ferris Valyn — Wed, 05 Mar 2008 21:05:17 EST

Caucus Tonight After You Vote

Robert from Houston, TX — Tue, 04 Mar 2008 13:44:09 EST

The Space technical arm of the National Society of Black Engineers asks Texas Obama supporters to caucus tonight after you vote. Under certain administrations, the US Space program has gone from a source of hope to an agency whose usefulness some now question. But the opportunity is now here to unleash the true potential of the space program in a way that will benefit America even more than the lunar program of the 1960s...but only if NASA is pushed to explore the Moon in a way that benefits our society.

NSBE Space believes that education and energy in particular are two key areas where we can and must do more in the space program. Scientists predict that by 2050, the world will use 20 TeraWatts of power annually - more than three times the current world's production. By comparison, the Moon annually receives 13,000 TeraWatts of solar energy from the Sun. If we could tap even a tiny percentage of this power and combine it with terrestrial fuel cell plants, we would no longer need gasoline, natural gas, coal, or any other fossil fuel that now pollutes our atmosphere and is the thinly veiled reason for wars that should never have been fought. This change cannot happen overnight - we do not currently possess the full technology to harness this energy. But we know how to learn it. In 1961, President Kennedy challenged NASA to simply reach the Moon in ten years. Let's not repeat that. In 2009, can President Obama challenge NASA to instead do something USEFUL with the Moon? It's our choice, by 2030 we can be paying $20 a gallon for gas, or we can have our Chevrons, Exxons, BPs, etc. supplying us with clean, unlimited energy from the Moon.

Tonight at your Caucus, introduce the three resolutions below and help Obama bring hope like you have never seen before.

Obama, the Houston Chronicle, and Space

Ferris Valyn — Mon, 18 Feb 2008 21:57:24 EST

Cross posted at dailykos

As you probably know, Senator Obama was endorsed by the Houston Chronicle. However, in their endorsement, the Chronicle responded to a statement from Obama, and added a caveat to their endorsement. What was the comment, and what was the subsequent caveat? Come over the fold, and see

My Personal Letter to John Edwards posted on his web site

Ralph — Thu, 31 Jan 2008 12:43:58 EST

I posted the following letter to John Edward's Web site which I would like to share with you all.

I urge you to follow up with your own letters at:

http://www.johnedwards.com/about/contact/form/

It was supposed to be short but I am Fired up for some reason ;-) (Go Figure! Wait ... Go Obama! ... that's better.)

Here it is ... English majors contact me directly (to fix my english ... if I want to be a writer when I grow up I need all the edjucation I can get) ... oh, because it was a post to a form there was not an introductory salutation ... I forgot to put a decent one (how does it work? The Honorable Senator? Etiquette lessons anyone?)

Ralph in Chicago

----------------------------------------

Although you are likely getting deluged with messages of all sorts (hoping that in fact most of them are those wishing you and your family very well as I do at this moment,) I would like to add my name and my 'voice' to those requesting that you endorse your fellow democrat Barack Obama for president of the *United* States of America in 2008.

I supported you in 2004 even when the "presumptive" nominee was going to be John Kerry because back then I believed we needed change in a major way and that your platform at the time was one that would have brought us victory in that November and a jump start to the many fixes our party advocates for today. This time around it was good to see you running even in the midst of a very historic election and although I was rooting for Obama to run, I knew that if you were in the fray, it would insure that very important issues were addressed (and stressed ... sir, you definitely did not disappoint in that regard) and that the discourse would be civil at least until the Republican candidate fleshed out.

I will tell you with all candor that well before Mrs. Clinton decided to run, I felt that her presence would invigorate Republicans and bring up simmering divisions in our own party in regards to her legacy or at least the deep seated "impressions" of what and who she represents. I was hoping for the sake of the party that she would be satisfied with her current role which, as you know, is very challenging and rewarding to its own right. Frankly, if Obama did not run as I almost expected him not to, you would have been my first and only choice.

But now things have changed drastically since the opening of the 2008 election season (like Christmas, it seems to be getting earlier and earlier!) There are forces out there that are struggling to keep the vitriolic status quo alive and well telling us "that's JUST the way it is." Well it does NOT have to be that way. We decide if that's the way it should be. We, the people … When the status quo whacks the opposition in the head they are effectively whacking us in the head also telling us we are too dumb, or stupid, or naive to know what's good for us or how things work. And we let them because we do not have the wherewithal to do it ourselves. We have been so beaten down that many of us have lost the gumption to fight.

But sir, YOU have gumption ... you have proven gumption over and above the rest of us and I certainly admire that quality and was hoping it would stick around for a bit longer at least to keep everyone on their toes and to continue to inspire us, the voters, the people, that the process DOES mean something. And no matter what happens now I KNOW you will continue to fight for us and continue your public service to our great nation.

And in that light I would like to say that you have a kindred Spirit in Barack Obama. I am sure you have seen and heard him on the stump. As soon as he made his pledge to you, he immediately presented the case to the good people in Denver. Your platform is now infused in his though perhaps we can argue if had already been there or not. To be sure, I feel that he shows that he will not only carry forth your tremendous legacy but he will fight for the nomination and not fold over completely. Sir, I think you actually gave him the courage to not let the status quo try to roll over him. He will make an excellent president as you would have been. I respectfully ask in this urgent present that you endorse him as soon as possible to let this country's skeptics and cynics know that you truly stand for all of us, Red State, Blue State, White, Black, Old, Young, Rich, Poor, Man, Woman, Liberal and Conservative.

Stand with him and stand with all of us and help us take back our country and bring back true decency and compassion to the greatest nation in civilization.

I thank you for your time and attention (and to the person who vetted this note before you got it and who is certainly to be commended for their tireless service to America!)

Ralph Rivas
Chicago

Obama's space policy - Its out, but its not good

Ferris Valyn — Sun, 13 Jan 2008 17:30:06 EST

Cross-posted at Dailykos

So, those who were/are my regular readers (as well as some Obama supporters who aren't regular readers) know that I have been pushing for Senator Obama to have a space policy, after he released his educational plan around Thanksgiving. Well, in the last few weeks, the Obama campaign has begun to rectify that. First, on Jan 2nd, Lisa Ellman, Obama's policy director, issued the following statement,

Obama believes we should continue developing the next generation of space vehicles, and complete the international space station. While Obama would delay plans to return to moon and push on to mars, Obama would continue unmanned missions, and use NASA to monitor the forces and effects of climate change, support scientific research, and maintain surveillance to strengthen national security. Obama also believes we need to keep weapons out of space.

And on Thursday, this week, the Senator released a full policy statement. Come over the fold, and I'll give you my thoughts

Manned space exploration

John Messerly — Sat, 05 Jan 2008 21:33:40 EST

Who's your favorite space explorer? Armstrong? Glenn?

Mine is the Opportunity (Mars exploration) rover. 4 years after setting down on Mars, it is still toiling away, uncovering more of Mars' secrets. In terms of science return on dollar invested, it has been a magnificent investment.

Sure- it doesn't get any mention in the news any more. But though science can be dramatic, drama is not the point. Unfortunately, Bush believes it is, and so set Nasa on a track towards re-asserting America's manhood in space- designed to land men on the moon again by. That's what his man in space policy to send astronauts to Mars is about.

Landing men on Mars will be a huge distraction and resource hog for Nasa. Other than the fleeting drama it will provide, such a goal makes very little sense from a science or business (spin off technology) perspective. It's not complicated to figure out why. Unlike technology of the 60's, robotic exploration means engineers can push the envelope in experiments of new approaches. Manned exploration forces engineers to be extremely conservative. The risk taking necessary for breakthrough technologies means dead astronauts- so guess what. It's a bad bet to count on the breakthroughs coming from manned programs. So really, it doesn't take a genius to realize which approach generates more new technologies. That means fewer growth opportunities for Florida and Texas businesses hoping to generate spin off technology products for global markets.

Next consider the cost of proving our manhood in space. 90% of the equipment necessary for manned missions are useless baggage on Telerobotic missions. Telerobotic explorers are on a one way trip. No return fuel needed. No human crew being present on the vehicle means massively redundant systems are not necessary, nor is the bulky life support systems required. Reliable airbag landing systems can be used because machines can be subjected to 40G stresses.

Sure- let's build bases on the Moon, Mars and Europa that "live off the land", we return samples from the outer planets and send high velocity ion propulsion probes outside of the solar system. We can do all of this dramatic stuff a lot faster if we don't have to be 100% sure that every mission will be a success. Ok- the eyes that see all this will be separated from the mars environment not by a piece of clear plastic in a helmet, but by the silicon of a high resolution camera. The distance from the human explorers face to the mars environment will not be measured in inches but in millions of miles.

Is that difference worth waiting 30 years or more for and spending 10 times as much money that could be spent on 10 times more Nasa exploration in unmanned form? For what? So we can do then what we can do today on mars minus the in situ hemoglobin? The price of human vanity is indeed very high.

The nice thing about Telerobotics space exploration is that we can be there without having to wait 20 years to develop the technology to safely move our bodies there. It's good for American businesses that can profit from accelerated risk taking engineering efforts that the telerobitic approach allows. It's good for science because we get an order of magnitude more science bang for the buck. Lastly, it's even good from the perspective of the drama of exploration because we don't have to wait decades to make baby steps to the planets. Instead we can move their boldly and use space as a vast proving ground of radical new technologies that on earth will make our country more competitive.

(Disclaimer- I am not in any way associated with the space or aerospace industry or an inhabitant of Florida or Texas or anyone so connected. I am a former software engineering manager at a well known company and hold a handful of patents in the field. Now I mostly change my children's diapers.)

Cast a Vote for Obama NOW on Dailykos

Joe — Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:03:18 EST

Go to http://www.dailykos.com/ and cast a vote for Obama as winning today's last Iowa debate.

Vote Today Online Poll for Obama

Joe — Thu, 29 Nov 2007 15:00:09 EST

Daily Kos has a poll put up today at 9:42 AM. Make sure to go there today and vote for Obama! It’s still early…Obama’s now in second place at 26% behind Edwards at 35% Let’s change these numbers to reflect the grassroots support we are seeing moving in his direction.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/11/29/124013/18

Senator Obama, you need a space policy

Ferris Valyn — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 12:32:28 EST

Senator, recently you released your education proposal. To provide part of the money for funding it, you propose to delay the Constellation program. Now, Constellation has some serious flaws, as anyone who looks at it will tell you – Ares I is a complete waste, and there are serious issues with Orion, and Ares V as well. That said, if you are going to be pulling money from Nasa, and spaceflight in general, on a basic fairness, you need to tell us what your vision is for spaceflight in general (and Nasa in particular).

There is more on the other side

Create renewable, cleaner energy.

*Richard Zack* — Tue, 09 Oct 2007 17:53:30 EDT

"The United States has 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. We use 25 percent of the world's oil. We can't drill our way out of the problem. What we can do is create renewable, cleaner energy sources for the twenty-first century. Instead of subsidizing the oil industry, we should end every single tax break the industry currently receives and demand that 1 percent of the revenues from oil companies with over $1 billion in quarterly profits go toward financing alternative energy research and the necessary infrastructure. Not only would such a project pay huge economic, foreign policy, and environmental dividends - it could be the vehicle by which we train an entire new generation of American scientists and engineers and a source of new export industries and high-wage jobs."

-- From The Audacity of Hope, page 169, by Barack Obama

Are you a liberal?

*Richard Zack* — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 16:27:22 EDT

"If by a Liberal, they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a Liberal, then I'm proud to say I'm a Liberal."
-- President John F. Kennedy

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but morally treasonable to the American public"
-- President Theodore Roosevelt

"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves"
-- President Abraham Lincoln