perfidy

The first four parts of this series are here, here and here and here.

In the first post, I discussed how we could quickly and relatively cheaply develop the means to launch people and large cargos into orbit. That is the necessary precursor to any significant endeavor in space. While the methods I outlined would reduce costs to orbit, they would not make them exactly cheap. But they would give us a ladder while others could work on building an escalator. The second post discusses, in broad outline, one idea for developing the life support technology that the Mars mission would require. The third post talks about propulsion options and precursor missions to Near Earth Asteroids. The fourth part discusses how to reach the moon, and what to do once we get there.

What Does it All Mean?

What I have proposed over the last four posts is a comprehensive outline for the beginnings of a human exploration of space. If we choose to go to Mars, we need to be certain that in the process we create the means to repeat the feat at any time we choose. That was the great mistake of the Apollo program – we achieved our goal, but to do it again would require another great expenditure of treasure and effort. The four programs I outlined would prepare us not only for a mission to the Red Planet, but for a hundred other missions that we can imagine easily; and many more that we cannot now envision. Once we are in space, new doors will open, and we will perceive opportunities that are hidden from our planet bound eyes.
The four programs are interlocking, and each will develop important capabilities that will be essential for a Mars mission. One of the greatest advantages of a scheme such as the one I have outlined is that setbacks in one area (save the first) will not hinder the progress in the others. The end result will be that lessons learned in all of these can be incorporated into the final Mars mission design, and that mission will be more robust, and safer, than anything we could plan or execute from the ground.

We can leverage our existing launch technology to get more people and material into space far cheaper than we can now. The designs that I propose are not complicated, and there is little reason that they could not be brought into being within the next couple years. Any aerospace company could design the OSP, so long as NASA stayed out of the development process. We should create a not overly detailed specification – crew capacity, safety margins, and rockets it must be capable of being launched on. Then, several companies will submit bids and prototypes. Then, we select one. The military has always been able to get this kind of thing done in several years, and once upon a time, NASA did it in months. Given a high enough priority, we could have these things flying by the end of 2005. The Shuttle-C is even easier, given that nearly every single bit of design work has already been done. We could have a heavy lift launch vehicle by the end of this year if we really wanted to.

Once we have these two vehicles in place, then the ball starts rolling. We develop our life systems technology in earth orbit while sending the first pieces of the lunar outpost to the moon. Astronauts begin exploring the moon and developing the skills we will use on Mars while prototype nuclear rockets are tested in space. Later, an NEA mission spacecraft is assembled at the ISS, possibly fueled with lunar ice, and incorporating life support systems developed in the orbital laboratory. While that mission is underway Mars rovers and landers and all the equipment the explorers will use is undergoing brutal testing on the airless moon; and new experiments in propulsion, life systems and all other useful things are underway. When the NEA mission returns, we gather all that knowledge together, and plan the Mars mission.

What form will the Mars mission take? I don’t know. But there are several things we can predict. If for more than a decade we have been expanding our ability to live and work in space; we will be able to build a bigger spacecraft than most have imagined to this point. An experienced crew at the ISS will enable us to assemble in orbit a more capable spaceship than could be launched in one piece from the ground. This allows us to make the ship safer, through redundant systems; and the mission more fruitful, because we can take more equipment to Mars with us. Whether we use a variation of Zubrin’s Mars direct plan, or opt for a nuclear rocket, doesn’t really matter. Either way, we can take advantage of direct experience in exploring space both on the NEA mission and on the moon.

So what's the timeline? I would suggest the following:

• Shuttle-C by the end of 2005
• Orbital Space Plane first flight in by mid 2006
• Mass production of disposable rockets and shuttle components should lower costs
• Launch life support research lab by end 2006
• Test wingless OSP (interorbit shuttle) by end 2006
• Test land an automated lunar lander 2007
• Begin construction of lunar base 2008
• Slowly increase fleet of OSPs, interorbit shuttles and lunar landers through 2010, add on to ISS or launch lunar orbit station
• Test propulsion and ship assembly methods through 2010
• Hopefully, by 2010 we have better earth to orbit vehicles, and launch costs decline
• Launch NEA mission in 2011
• Test Mars exploration equipment on lunar surface 2010 and forward
• NEA mission returns 2012
• Begin construction of Mars spaceship 2014
• Launch mission 2016
• 2017, we land on fucking Mars.

A key component to keeping this schedule without breaking the Treasury would be lowering the per pound cost to orbit. But I think, truly, that we can invent the vehicles that will do that. If we can invent a spaceship that costs no more than twice what a Boeing 747 costs, and that costs little more to operate and turn around between flights, sending a pound to orbit will cost perhaps three times what it costs to air-freight that pound to Australia. On that cost level, we can move into space in a big way.

Well so what?

This plan assumes that the government would be the prime motivating force behind the Mars mission and all the precursor programs I have outlined. This is merely one sensible way we could go about it – at least in terms of getting to Mars. Getting to Mars is an inspirational idea, and we would learn and see incredible things if we did it. Enough to justify the expense? Perhaps. However, this plan has many advantages in relation to the civilian space industry.

In the 1830s, it would have made little sense to build an intercontinental railroad in the United States. There was no need, because the United States itself did not span the continent, and there was little worth going to on the left coast at that time. Decades later, of course, there was gold, and growing settlements, and a hundred other reasons that people wanted to go to California. The Federal government – for its own reasons – assisted private industry in creating the means for people to travel west to California, but in the process created the means to travel to everywhere in between – for their own reason.

In the early part of the twentieth century, the federal government assisted the nascent aviation industry. First, by offering contracts for air mail delivery which helped early airlines and airplane manufacturers both. Second, by conducting basic research into aerodynamics which was shared with the aviation industry. This allowed aviation companies to convince financiers to invest in their projects with some confidence, because government scientists said it was possible.

These two models should guide us in our thinking about how to approach space development in the 21st century. NASA’s adversarial stance toward private space industry needs to end now. If anyone doubts this – remember the fuss that NASA raised over the flight into orbit of Dennis Tito. Tito was rich, to be sure, but used to work for NASA and was not exactly the least qualified space tourist you could have found. Government can have a role – but it should be to assist private industry rather than hinder it. Like the railroads, the government can sponsor the creation of the means for anyone to get into space. Offering contracts for vehicles and services, we will unleash the creativity of the marketplace to produce solutions. And the government funding will get the nascent space industry “over the hump” to the point where they are as viable in the marketplace as Lockheed or Boeing.

I proposed the two vehicles from the first post simply because they would be the easiest and quickest way to get us into space. But frankly, they are stopgaps. They would get men and material into space until private industry can supply us with a more cost effective alternative. The companies competing for the X-Prize may – even without government help – soon provide us with a better way to orbit. But there is little doubt that if the government offered a guaranteed contract for purchase to the first space capable, fully reusable vehicle, this would happen a lot sooner.

In a future where the government pursues deep space exploration but leaves the grunt work of travel to orbit to private industry, there are many possiblilities. We could see the production of true aerospace planes that can take off and land from airports and deliver small cargoes to orbit or to destinations on earth. Cone shaped SSTOs like the Delta Clipper might take off regularly from spaceports on the Florida coast, and gigantic cargo lifters might launch from floating platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. If the government defines only the goal, any number of technologies might be produced to meet it. Specialization will increase efficiency as well.

And once these thousand flowers have bloomed, there is no reason that they cannot be used for purposes other than government funded deep space exploration. If access to space becomes if not cheap, at least affordable – then people will find ways to use it. Hotels in space, research labs sponsored by universities and corporations, and privately owned shipyards for Mars missions all become possible. And we should not forget that throughout the history of the space age, most commercial space activity has focused on Earth. Communications satellites, GPS, weather satellites, and the like all serve the needs of people on Earth. What other services could be provided if we could lift bigger and more capable satellites into orbit? And any vehicle that can reach orbit can just as easily reach the other side of the Earth in 45 minutes. I am confident that FedEx or United Airlines could think of ways to profitably use that capability. Space technology is not confined to utility only in space – everything that we develop will allow us to do things here on Earth as well.

And once we begin to move into space, there are other possibilities as well. Instead of chemical or nuclear rockets, entrepreneurs could explore the use of solar sails and ion drives. These do not have the brute power of the rockets we know, but accelerate continuously – and slowly. Over time, they can exceed the greatest speeds possible by conventional rockets. And solar sails have the added and great advantage of requiring no fuel whatsoever – just the skill to spin an aluminized Mylar film a couple square kilometers in area.

And when we think of space habitats, we think of aluminum canisters hauled to orbit at great expense. But there is no gravity in space, and no need for immensely strong structures. Some clever fellow could invent an inflatable habitat, taking next to no space in a launch vehicle, but expanding to tens of yards in diameter. Modern materials like Kevlar would provide protection from micro-meteors even better than aluminum does. String several of these together, and you have an instant space habitat; instant real estate in fact that could be rented or sold for profit. If we make it possible to get there, people will create places to go and reasons to stay – that is in our nature. In time, people will travel to the moon, the asteroids, and Mars on commercial spaceliners, and build lives there. Travel in space, in zero gravity is much easier than getting into orbit. In terms of energy expended, once you’re in orbit, you’re halfway to anywhere in the solar system. Once we build a road over that barrier, ordinary people (like me!) could travel into space, and pursue whatever dreams they have.

If we build the transcontinental railroad, all the things that come after it will happen naturally, and in ways we could never plan in advance. All the connecting spur lines, whistle-stop towns, mining communities, industry and agriculture, settlement and so on will develop on their own. People will become rich and poor, but the world will be a more interesting place. (Hopefully, we won’t run into hostile Indians, though.)

The first three parts of this series are here, here and here.

In the first post, I discussed how we could quickly and relatively cheaply develop the means to launch people and large cargos into orbit. That is the necessary precursor to any significant endeavor in space. While the methods I outlined would reduce costs to orbit, they would not make them exactly cheap. But they would give us a ladder while others could work on building an escalator. The second post discusses, in broad outline, one idea for developing the life support technology that the Mars mission would require. The third post talks about propulsion options and precursor missions to Near Earth Asteroids.

Getting to the Moon

President Bush mentioned a return to the moon as a primary goal. This is one of the few things he got right. A permanent presence on the moon will allow us to conduct research and development that will directly aid a future Mars expedition. The utility of a lunar research outpost falls into two general categories:

• Developing technology and skills for the exploration of a hostile environment.
• Research into the production of materials and fuel that could be used in a Mars mission.

Before we discuss how a lunar base will be useful to us, let’s discuss how we might get there. In the first post, I mentioned the development of a variant of the Orbital Space Plane that could be used as an Earth/Moon shuttle. Unlike a standard OSP, this model would be wingless – saving mass by eliminating wings that will never be needed. It will be a small pressurized cabin, with life support for several crew for perhaps a week. By adding a service module along the lines of that used by the old Apollo capsules, we can extend the life support duration by a couple weeks, and also add a rocket motor that will give our shuttle the ability to leave Earth orbit and travel to Lunar orbit.
Back with Apollo, we had to launch everything needed for the mission all in go. Since there is no need for the massive thrust necessary to leave the earth’s surface, a much smaller rocket will allow us to move crew and cargo back and forth between Earth and Lunar orbit. Since we now have an orbiting space station, we no longer have to worry about getting everything we need into orbit all at once. Empty Shuttle-C fuel tanks can be used as refueling depots to top off the tanks of the inter-orbit shuttles. Cargo and crew will reach orbit on OSPs and conventional disposable rockets. All of these will be assembled together at the ISS, and depart for Lunar orbit.

Once we reach Lunar orbit, we have the problem of getting to the surface. To establish a Lunar base we need to get habitat modules, crew and supplies down to the moon. In keeping with the idea that specialized vehicles are better than general purpose ones (as long as you have the lift capacity that frees you from the necessity of doing everything in one launch) we can develop one or two more vehicles. But to save on design effort, we should make them modular, so that we can get the most use out of our design dollar. We’ve already adapted the OSP for a crew and small cargo shuttle. The immense cargo payload of the Shuttle-C will allow us to lift something bigger into orbit – something more on the lines of a truck rather than a taxi. This vehicle would have a rocket and fuel tanks at the back, an open framework for cargo in the middle, and a crew module at the front. The rocket would be powerful enough to land the vehicle on the lunar surface, and be equipped with landing gear and a crane.

The cargo shuttle could carry a standardized habitat module and land it wherever we intend on setting up a base. Once on the moon, the crane would lower the hab to the ground where it could be linked to other modules, forming a small outpost. Once free of the habitat module, the now empty shuttle would begin service as a shuttle between the lunar surface and lunar orbit. Subsequent moon bound cargos could even be automated – launched from Earth on a Shuttle-C, and boosted toward the moon by a smaller rocket. Once in Lunar orbit, the cargo shuttle could dock, load up the cargo and return to the lunar base. Crew transfers would also be done in lunar orbit. (In time, it might be worth the expense to deploy a small lunar orbiting space station – something much smaller than the ISS – basically a habitat module, a docking port and a solar array. This would simplify the process of cargo and crew transshipment, and give a refuge for emergencies in Lunar Orbit.)

For the first few years, there might be only one or two cargo shuttles, both likely in use on and around the moon. (The cargo shuttles would also be the best means for long range transportation on the moon.) Three or four of the OSP-derived interorbit crew shuttles would meet the needs of transporting crew between different locations in Earth orbit; and to lunar orbit. But as time goes by, we could slowly add more of each of these vehicles, steadily increasing our space transportation infrastructure as our presence in space expands. At no point is there a need for large, single expenditures. There is no reason why a simple OSP – either the space variant or the regular earth landing style – should cost more than a single jet fighter; and the cargo shuttle should not be that much more.

As we build this infrastructure, we can create a lunar base and keep it staffed and supplied. The lunar base at the start would be one or two habitat modules approximately the size and shape of the ones making up the ISS, and similar in construction. Once on the moon, a lunar bulldozer would cover them with soil to protect the inhabitants from solar radiation. As needs require, more habitat modules can be launched and integrated into the base. From this small but safe outpost, the astronauts could begin the research that will allow us to successfully explore Mars.

What to do on the Moon

What research will they be doing? As I mentioned above, there are two main avenues: exploration technology and skills, and materials and fuel. First, exploration. Research has already been started on the construction of Mars rovers – and prototype vehicles will be tested in desolate areas like Canada, the Antarctic and Detroit. But there can be no better place to test than the moon, which has the dual advantages of being in some respects a harsher environment than Mars and yet is close enough to allow for the rescue of our astronauts in case of accident. As we develop rovers, models for Mars habitats, new space suits, Mars rated exploration gear and so on, we will ship them to the moon. There, astronauts will use these vehicles to explore the vicinity of the lunar base and gain practical skills in exploring a hostile environment. These skills will be necessary when we get to Mars.

As far as materials go, many have proposed that we could mine for minerals on the moon, and use those materials in the construction of our Mars bound spaceship. The advantage of using lunar materials for deep space activities is that they only have to be launched out of a gravity well one-sixth as deep as Earth’s, with the cost in fuel proportionally lower. Aluminum, silicon and oxygen are the major components of the lunar regolith, or soil. Using relatively simple techniques, the loose soil of the moon could be baked to remove the oxygen, and smelted for aluminum and other elements. It is conceivable that lunar aluminum could be used for structural components for a Mars mission, but on the whole I think this is unlikely in the timeframe we’re talking about here - though in future decades, there is little doubt that lunar building materials will play an important role in our expansion through the solar system.

The first usable export from the moon will likely be oxygen, and it is possible that some lunar oxygen might find it’s way into a Mars mission. The major problem is that even with the smaller gravity well, the transportation infrastructure would not be up to bulk shipment of oxygen for use as fuel or for life support. The small number of landers will be used to deliver crew and materials to the lunar surface, and deadheading the landers back to orbit will save precious fuel. If lunar oxygen was being produced, the quantities in the early stages would be small. These would be small prototype facilities, designed to learn how to best use the moon’s resources, and not geared toward mass production.

There is one exception to this general forecast – if large quantities of ice were discovered at the lunar poles, hidden from the sun at the bottoms of craters that have not seen daylight in billions of years. This would present a wonderful opportunity. With a small amount of electricity – easily available on the moon for two weeks at a time – water ice could be directly converted into rocket fuel. (Of course, the water can also be used for life support – but in much smaller quantities.) Lunar landers could refuel at the moon, saving the cost of shipping fuel from Earth, and load their cargo bays with fuel for use elsewhere. One of the worst logistical bottlenecks in space development is getting sufficient supplies of fuel into orbit, because for every pound of fuel you end up with in orbit, you have to burn ten times as much to get it into orbit. Then, to get a store of fuel to the moon, you have to burn more fuel to leave earth orbit, and more again to get down to the lunar surface. Finding a convenient source of fuel on the moon would greatly ameliorate that bottleneck, and reduce the cost of any endeavor we undertake in Earth orbit or beyond.

There are of course other reasons to go to the moon. If we established a presence on Mars, we could use that foothold to pursue several scientific endeavors. Selenology, or lunar geology would keep many planetologists busy, and teach us much about the origins of the solar system. The lunar farside would be an ideal place to look into the heavens. A farside observatory would be shielded from Earth by the entire bulk of the moon, have no interference from atmosphere, have a low gravity to make large mirrors easier to construct and install, a stable base free of the problems of orientation that had to be solved on Hubble, and (given a regular human presence) easier to keep in good working order. Space several of these around the edge of the farside, and you could use interferometry to get resolution far in excess of anything we’ve done so far. These scientific projects and others would be made possible by a human presence on the moon.

Apparently, there is a special unit of the Russian armed forces that specializes in extreme cold weather beer retrieval.

BBC reports that soldiers recently spent a week conducting beer retrieval operations in and around a frozen river near Omsk.

What's next, Mandrake? Beer? American beer? How's THAT tie in with your post-war commie conspiracies?

After reading the text of the State of the Union Address, I am appalled. There's a few good lines in there, but it's mostly a mess of pandering, blather, and outright crazy-talk designed to appeal to... who, exactly? Fiscally liberal social conservatives?

Apparently, I am the exact opposite of the President's ideal constituency. Increases in federal spending? Making the tax cuts permanent? A shout-out to the PATRIOT Act? No newideas for the war on terrorism? Federal drug testing in public schools? Federal steroid testing (what?)? Unquestioning support for the notion that gay people are less worthy than others? More crap about Medicare and No Child Left Behind? Closing with a "God is on our side/ 'just and true'" line?

What's a fiscal moderate-to-conservative and flaming social liberal to do? I hereby announce my purchase of a ticket for the Anybody-But-Bush bandwagon. I'll vote for a summer squash before I'll vote for that pandering, malignant sack of pus.

Nat at "Bad Thoughts" takes a break from his well-argued international affairs coverage to provide this bon mot on the President's moonshot proposal:

Bush works on space program, gets dizzy from model glue

W00t! In other news, the new issue of the Economist features a story on Bush's space plan that discusses much of what Buckethead and the rest of us have been talking about this past week (part 1, part B, part III, etc.). We should feel good: their analysis mirrors ours, and as you know the Economist employs smart-type people.

The only head-scratcher in an otherwise balanced and thoughtful article is this: "One expensive lesson of the Shuttle programme is that trips into space are too infrequent to justify building a re-usable spacecraft." Huh? All the shuttle program has shown us is that government trips into space are infrequent and expensive, and much of that depends on the nature of the Shuttle itself.

Later in the piece, the Economist staffers note the X-Prize and tout the potential profitability of private manned space flight, and the greater dividends yielded by confining NASA to the unmanned sciency stuff. Yet they don't put two and two together to see the grandiose vision that the members of this weblog unanimously espouse. Does that mean they're wrong and we're right? Damn skippy, it do!

It's not often that you end up calling a widow nasty names. Mel Carnahan was the governor, whose son, Randy Carnahan, was at the pilot in command of a small plan a few years ago that went down. When the accident happened, Carnahan was in the middle of thoroughly trouncing John Ashcroft in an election.

There's a little background on Aero-News Network, if you care to read more. You can also read the complete NTSB brief.

The bottom line is this: Parker-Hannifin makes vacuum pumps. Jean Carnahan sued them, claiming they were responsible for the accident. Her theory was that the vacuum pumps stopped. About a year ago the NTSB (the National Traffic Safety Board) finished its exhaustive review of the accident. Their conclusion? The pilot failed to control to airplane properly, even though he had functioning, backup equipment. Very specifically, they found that the vacuum pumps were operating normally at the time of impact. In other words, the vacuum pumps did not fail. The NTSB can make this determination because they are able to gauge the angular momentum that the pumps have (due to spinning action) at the time of impact. They are very experienced in making these kinds of judgements, and they're not wrong about it.

The funny thing about NTSB reports is that, while they're by far the most authoritative and scientific study of transporition accidents, they're not admissible in court. The jury doesn't get the hear the official scientific opinion of on what happened. They're allowed to hear the ramblings of a trial attorney, who's paid an enormous sum to mislead them. And yes, misleading is exactly what's happened in this case.

Jean Carnahan is fully aware that her son was at fault in the accident. She is also fully aware that Parker-Hannifin's vacuum pumps did not fail in the accident. She pursued the case anyway, and has won a $4 million settlement from the manufacturer, after suing for over $100 million.

Jean Carnahan, you are a bad person. A lot of people are going to lose their livelihoods; these aviation companies are small, and these kinds of things are really hurtful to the industry. But you don't seem to give a shit about them, and it strikes me as pathetic that you honor the memory of your dead husband and son by lying in court for money. You are an example of exactly what is wrong with ethics in this society.

You suck.

Drudge is excerpting an article from the redoubtable Mort Kondracke, editor of the hill rag Roll Call. Since I don't want to spend $199 for a subscription to that wonderful publication, you will have to be satisfied with this:

"Here's a harrowing pair of facts for Democrats: In 60 years, no Democrat has ever won the presidency without carrying the youth vote. And right now President Bush's approval rating among 18- to 29-year-olds is 62 percent, higher than his nationwide rating. Top Republican strategists admit that the youth vote is fluid, but right now the trends are all in their direction, which they hope is a harbinger not only for 2004, but also a possible longer-term party realignment."

A Bush campaign official said, "It's called the theory of political socialization. Who are the most Democratic people in America? It's the over-65 age group. Why? Because the two presidents they knew best were Franklin Roosevelt and Herbert Hoover. And who are the most Republican? People in their 40s, who came of age in the last two years of Jimmy Carter and the first two years of Ronald Reagan. If your politics were being formed during the last two years of Bill Clinton and the first two years of George Bush, there's a fairly good chance that we'll have your support."

Kondracke writes, "It seems impossible that a generation reared on free-love television and rap music, a generation far more tolerant of ethnic diversity and homosexuality than its elders, could support the GOP, whose base in anchored in the religious right. In fact, Democratic theorists such as Ruy Teixeira, John Judis and Stan Greenberg look upon the expanded role of minorities, cosmopolitan regions and diversity-minded young people to produce an 'emerging Democratic majority' through the force of demography.

"But, at the moment, the numbers support the view of GOP leaders that young people are trending Republican because they like Bush."

We've talked about this here before, and I think that 'ol Mort is missing an important factor - most of these kids' parents were 60's or 70s style liberals, and there is nothing more aggravating to a hippy than to have your son join the Young Republicans. Also, I think a lot of this hinges around reaction to the war on terror, as the 9/11 attacks are the event for people this age, and the Republicans are seen as the ones doing something about it.

By way of Kathy K over at On the Third Hand, we have this rather surprising
article from Ralph Peters in the Post. Peters is not known for his loving feelings about Clinton, or his administration. But read the article... it's interesting, and has some important things to say about relations between the middle east and the U.S.

On another note, we have this from the Middle East Quarterly: an analysis of the failure of the Oslo accords, and what lessons can be drawn from it.

Staying with the Israeli theme, we come to this thought provoking gem from Tech Central Station, one of the most awkwardly named good websites around. The demographic trends mentioned in that article are one of the biggest problems facing the state of Israel right now - and for a long time to come.

The spin the press is putting on the candidates is nothing short of breathtaking...

Edwards is something of a wildcard. Since nobody expected him to get anywhere, the press hasn't created his "alternate press world identity" yet. I am sure they are scrambling at this very minute to come up with the short list of three platitudes that they'll use to define everything about him.

Yeah, the news networks are looping that Dean bit over and over again. Nice. Maybe we can dig up a few of Bush's verbal faux-pas and do the same thing.

Oh, yeah. Not gonna happen, 'cause the press corps doesn't want to endanger their relationship with the White House. What a bunch of pussy-whipped wankers. And I mean that in the general, non-sexist sense. ;)

Dean is a pretty decent guy all around, very much a moderate, but somewhat excitable on the podium. I think his campaign felt that they would make the switch to positive after taking Iowa. Now that hasn't happened, and the situation is just bizarre, for them...on the plus side, they haven't had Gephardt pounding away at them in New Hampshire for the last month.

And all the talk of Dean being "unqualified" is just completely ridiculous. He's dramatically more qualified than Bush ever was (as are all the Democratic candidates), and more qualified than Bush is right now.

We have a good deal of insight into Bush's decision process right now. We used to think he looked like a monkey, and called him Incurious George. Now we know that he has an inner monkey too; the inner monkey lives in his brain, and has a dartboard with little pasted-on names of policies.

Where is the one, single, written piece of evidence of serious policy analysis and thinking, done by this man? Every modern President has an extensive written record...but this one doesn't...won't give interviews...never says _anything_, because if you don't say anything, it can't come back to haunt you.

All I have to say about last night's surprise in Iowa is this:

YAAAAAAAARRRUAAAAGH!

Dean is toast. Crunchy, blackened toast.

I mean, I still support Dean's candidacy with the same reservations I've had all along, but I made up my mind about him months ago. Thing is, I pay more attention to politics than do 99% of the feedbags in this country, so last night was not my first introduction to the man.

The problem is the other 99%. Dean doesn't really have an "anger problem" like the press makes out. He gets stern, and he comes off abrupt, but his actual outbursts are nowhere to be seen. Nevertheless, the "anger thing" is what 90% people know about him, if they know anything at all. And last night, when Dean capped off a state-naming tirade with a weird, strangled Chewbacca death-cry, he sealed his identity forever as The Deaniac. The Vermonster. Captain Insano. Whether he deserves it or not, every word of every speech Dean has given in the last year now amounts to one thing: "YEAAAAARGH!"

He's toast. Howard Stern was goofing on Dean this morning, looping the stangled Chewbacca death over and over, and introducing Howard Dean to millions of potential voters who previously had no idea who he was.

With this is mind, I offer Johno's Irrefutable Axiom of Politics #1: When 99% of Americans first hear about your candidacy because Howard Stern thinks it's funny, you are toast.