perfidy

Courtesy AllahPundit comes the last guide to the Democratic primaries you will ever need.

Now, I'm not necessarily sayin' I endorse the views presented herein, but if you don't go read AllahPundit now you will regret it for the rest of your life, because my legions of minions will find out and sign you up for every g-d d-mn mailing list in the world there is, from Li'l Debbie Doll Collectors to Jack Chick's House 'o' Hellfire, from Concerned Christians Against Radial Tires to LaRouche For President '04. So go read it, or else pay the price!

A taste:

The first part of this series is here.

In the previous 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.

Once we have the first step under control, we can begin thinking about the precursors for a Mars mission: the ability to live, unsupported, in space for long periods; a ship that can get us to Mars; and the technology to live and explore on the Martian surface.

Living in Space

The Space Station is the second American experiment in living in space. (We allowed the first attempt, Skylab to burn up on reentry because we had stopped using disposable rockets before the shuttle was operational.) The space station will have value in the near term as a way station in orbit – a place for crews to rest, to assemble other vehicles for other missions, and a transshipment point for crews and supplies heading from the earth to the moon. As such, it will eventually need to be expanded, possibly with components from Shuttle-C vehicles, or with components launched directly from earth. Because of the constant comings and goings, and due to the need to use the ISS as an orbital construction site, it will not be suitable for experiments in long duration survival without outside inputs of supplies and so on.

To begin to solve the problem of living in space as the crew of a Mars mission, we would need to set up a separate laboratory to develop the technology needed to achieve self-sufficiency for periods of one to two years. This laboratory would be another orbiting space station, located near the ISS in case of emergency, but designed from the outset to take in a crew and remain isolated for a period of months, and then years as they test the equipment and techniques that will eventually keep the Mars crew alive. The philosophy behind this facility would have to be one of constant build/test/rebuild/test. Since there is little chance that we’d get it right in one, we should allow for the need to slowly and incrementally refine our knowledge, in conditions closely resembling the eventual mission.

The inhabitants (or inmates) of the lab would research closed cycle life support systems, growing food in space (and eating it), the effects of freefall on the human body and a thousand other needful things. While we branch out to other missions – on the moon, or elsewhere – we will have this laboratory constantly increasing our knowledge of how to survive and thrive in space. It will take years to prepare for the final departure of the Mars mission, and this laboratory will be working the whole time without holding up any other aspect of the preparations. (And naturally, this orbital facility would be backed up by many more researchers and engineers on Earth.) Some links: space station life support, Plant based life support, and an overview.

Yesterday President Bush announced a plan to "explore space and extend a human presence across our solar system." My initial reaction to the speech was one of general disappointment, with a few small slivers of hope. Disappointment because the plan sounds like many previous plans that have amounted to little more than wasted money and wasted opportunity. Disappointment because the timeframes are very long, and the plan has little focus.

Slivers of hope, because at least it is now the established policy of the United States to extend a human presence across the solar system, and more importantly the plan does not make any statements that threaten to extinguish the small candle of private space endeavors. Of course, it does not incorporate them, which is another disappointment. As I look around the blogosphere, intelligent commentators have expressed similar sentiments. Rand Sindberg, Joe Katzman over at Winds of Change, and Jay Manifold of A Voyage to Arcturus. For a good discussion of the rationales behind space exploration, see Laughing Wolf's take.

There are several problems with the plan the President outlined. First, if the Shuttle is going to be retired by 2010, but the new Crew Exploration Vehicle will not be available until 2014 at the earliest; what are we going to use in the intervening four plus years? Second, this CEV is intended to transport crew from the surface of the Earth to Low Earth Orbit, and from LEO to the lunar surface. It also might be intended as a crew habitat on the moon and part of a Mars mission as well. It is unlikely in the extreme that a vehicle can be designed that will satisfy all of these requirements; and even if one is designed, it will likely have fatal flaws like those of the shuttle. Third, there is no mention of developing a heavy lift vehicle, which would be necessary for most workable concepts for lunar development or trips to Mars. Fourth, the design timeframe for a Mars mission would stretch over six presidential elections and 13 congressional elections. I don't see how any program can maintain focus over this long a period in the face of that much politics. It seems inevitable that it will drift off into waste and endless redesign as many other programs have in the past.

There are other objections to the mission assumptions. Why are we planning a return to robotic exploration of the Moon? We have after all already walked on the moon, and there are currently orbiters circling the moon that should be capable of mapping out landing sites. Why is a human return to the moon placed more than a decade in the future? We managed to get to the moon in less than a decade, starting from scratch over forty years ago. I should think that nearly half a century of progress in computers, materials, engineering, and science along with the knowledge of how we did it the first time should reduce that timeline significantly. (Granted, cost certainly is an object this time around. Nevertheless....) Why are the Moon and Mars named as the only destinations? A mission to a Near Earth Asteroid would provide a shorter, but still long duration mission; enabling us to test our ability to survive away from Earth without worrying about the problems of landing on a planet. Further, such a mission would have the added benefit of providing some really good science and experience that will certainly come in handy as we move out into the solar system.

With these thoughts in mind, how should we go about getting to Mars?

First, we need to have a clear idea of what it takes to get to Mars: A Mars mission will necessarily be a long one, in all likelihood well over a year on the inside. There is no possibility for rescue in the event of a mishap, which puts additional pressure on planners. It takes a significant amount of energy to get there, slow to enter Mars orbit, and then land. New technologies will have to be developed to allow us to live on and explore the hostile environment of Mars' surface. And finally, we need to be able to get into Earth orbit in a safe, reliable and relatively cheap manner, or else all other considerations are moot. Most of the cost of the Bush Sr. Mars plan in the early nineties was driven by the astronomical cost per pound to orbit. Reduce that price, and things begin to be possible. So, we have in front of us several tasks that need to be addressed:

1. Design, build and test effective, safe and cheaper means of getting to LEO.
2. Learn how to survive without outside inputs of supplies for several years in space
3. Design, build and test an interplanetary spaceship capable of delta-v on the order of a couple km/s.
4. Design build and test the equipment the explorers would use on the Martian surface.

Each of these programs could be started simultaneously, and could run concurrently. As we will see, the technologies developed in these programs can be tested separately, and finally combined in a full-scale Mars mission.

Earth to Orbit The first and most crucial component of any plan to get to Mars, or indeed to anywhere beyond the surface of the Earth is to develop more effective ways to get to Earth orbit. The major flaw of the space shuttle is that it is an attempt to meet too many mission goals simultaneously. We would be better served by a variety of vehicles; each specialized to meet one mission profile. In the near term, there are three basic mission profiles:

1. Crew transport
2. Satellite and regular resupply missions to the space station
3. Heavy lift

There is little need and great expense in launching the 150,000lb. Shuttle orbiter merely to get seven humans into orbit. Our first goal should be the rapid design and testing of a new crew vehicle. There is a significant body of research already in existence, we should merely choose the most cost effective means of getting people into (and back from) orbit. The most likely candidate, at least in the short term, would be to design something along the lines of the Orbital Space Plane that NASA was talking about last fall. Launched on a reliable, disposable, multistage rocket such as the Atlas or Delta, this vehicle could carry several astronauts into orbit, and reenter the atmosphere much as the shuttle does. Advances in materials technology should make this vehicle reusable - at least for several missions. The OSP would be much smaller and much simpler than the Shuttle orbiter, and as a result should be much cheaper. An OSP docked to the space station could also serve as a emergency crew return vehicle as well. A vehicle as simple as this should take no more than a year to develop, given even remotely adequate program management. This is not groundbreaking technology, and should require mostly off the shelf components. If we developed this fast enough, there should be no need to reactivate the shuttle fleet. Our primary goal should be a first launch of an OSP by early 2005.

Initially, several of these vehicles could serve our needs to get astronauts into orbit. As our space endeavors grow, more could be constructed. Once launched, the base version would be capable of supporting its crew for several days - providing air, water, food and shelter. It would have a retro rocket that would allow the vehicle to de-orbit and come back to earth. While we are using the OSP, more advanced crew vehicles could be designed to further reduce costs and increase efficiency. But it would not require us to go without a crewed vehicle for any length of time, and while allowing us to retire the unsafe and inefficient space shuttle.

With a little forethought, the design could be made more useful. If allowances are made for wingless versions, and for the attachment of service modules, the same vehicle could serve as a template for a whole line of space vehicles, easily adapted for different roles. A wingless (and lighter) version could be lofted into orbit, mated to a modular service module. The service module would contain a more powerful rocket, fuel tanks and additional life support capability. This vehicle could then be used within Earth orbit as a utility vehicle, taxi or tugboat. If the service module included a small robotic arm, the OSP would become a construction vehicle. Further, the service module would turn the OSP into an Earth-Moon shuttle. Without the need to reenter the earth's atmosphere, or to land on the Moon, the OSP could transfer crew and small cargoes between Earth and lunar orbit. Thus, one vehicle would serve many needs without the massive over-design we see in the shuttle.

For satellite launch and regular resupply missions, we should emulate the Russians and use disposable rockets. Our Delta and Atlas rockets are reliable and not too expensive, at least in the short run. Without the space shuttle, more launches would go to these platforms, and prices should come down somewhat through economies of scale. As a enhancement to this general scheme, any restrictions on American companies using these rockets for private launches should be lifted. Developing a commercial launch industry, even with "primitive" disposable rocket technology, is only to the good. As with the crewed vehicles, we can continue design efforts for more advanced vehicles while using what we have.

The final mission profile is much easier to achieve than many would think. For decades now, ideas have been floating around for Shuttle Derived Vehicles. (Go here for a nice overview.) Essentially every time we launch the shuttle, we are using a heavy lift launcher. The shuttle orbiter weighs over 150,000lbs, and all of that is technically payload. Add in the nearly 50,000lbs of payload that the orbiter carries, that runs to quite a load. If we eliminate the orbiter, nearly all of that becomes useful payload.

Of the several schemes that have been proposed, the Shuttle-C idea is closest to reality. This system essentially replaces the orbiter with a cargo pod. The back of the cargo pod is identical with the orbiter's "Boat-Tail" and contains standard shuttle engines. In front of this is a thin, lightweight shell that would protect the cargo during launch. The payload capacity of the "C" is two to three times larger than with a standard orbiter, and costs would certainly be no more than a standard shuttle launch, as we avoid the expensive refurbishment that the orbiter goes through after every launch. There is no reason that I am aware of that we could begin launching Shuttle-C's in less than a year or two, as absolutely no new technology is required, and the redesign involves only an unscrewed cargo shell.

Once we have the Shuttle-C operational, we drop the per pound cost to orbit by at least a factor of three, and make possible launches we could not have attempted previously due to payload constraints. We could expand the space station if necessary, and launch the components for lunar bases and interplanetary missions. And again, while we are using the Shuttle-C, we can be designing more efficient follow-ons. The Shuttle-B would have a similar configuration, but would use cheaper engines designed for disposable rockets. More involved redesigns could use more Solid Rocket Boosters for even greater payload, or a wide variety of other variations.

(And of course, with some forethought, some of these components can be made more useful. The Shuttle-C cargo pod could conceivably become new pressurized living space, needing only retrofitting with furnishings. The perfectly functional shuttle main engines could be reused. The External Tanks could be brought into orbit and used as pressure space or fuel depots. Endless possibilities.)

The amazing thing is that with a little effort, and a willingness to actually build and test rather conduct endless studies; most of this hardware could be operational within a year or two, and none of it requires any new technology whatsoever. Once we have a new transportation infrastructure, we can go back and come up with better vehicles - or better yet, request bids for new vehicles from private industry rather than design them within NASA. These vehicles would allow us to almost immediately expand our presence in Earth orbit, and begin to gain the skills we will soon need further out. They would allow us to launch the hardware that we will use to return to the moon in style, rather than via robotic proxy. There's no reason we can't have a moon base by the end of the decade. I'll tackle the next three tasks in the next couple posts.

Riverbend has some critical reading on the subject...what, exactly, does our New Iraq have in store for her?

Let's keep in mind that she's already lost her job because of fundamentalism. What freedom is she going to lose next?

It is not "OK" for the US to allow the religious nutjobs over there to set up any kind of stupid Sharia law system. It is utterly unacceptable to have these alternate, binding courts. Sure, apparently you can use this secondary court system only if there's agreement. Exactly how does that happen? There are all kinds of intimidation that can be brought to bear.

Irshad Manji's recent "The Trouble with Islam" delineates the treatment of Muslim women with distressing detail. Riverbend is becoming a casualty. What good have we done if we simply exchange one oppressor (Hussesin) for another (the anonymous mullah).

Go read these Andrew Sullivan bits. Good stuff!

In other news, at tacitus.org Bird Dog coins a fancy new neologism to describe a Palestinian-mother-of-two-cum-suicide-bomber: "splodeydope."

The wheels of American Justice, just turn and turn...assuming you can get a trial, of course (the SC has yet to weight in on the issue of whether the government really needs to give you a trial at all).

Somebody please explain to me how Andrew Fastow gets ten years for destroying the financial futures of tens of thousands of people by lying and stealing from the public, while a Young woman gets twelve years for being a "part" of a crime she didn't even know was taking place.

These people stole billions from unsuspecting investors. They lied about the state of their company. It's called fraud. Every single one of them should go to jail for the rest of their lives.

Except there's no room for them in jail: We have to continue to imprison people like this:

Date of birth: 1964
Federal sentence: Life plus 5 years
Offense: Conspiracy to distribute
crack cocaine
Prior convictions: None
Date of sentencing: 1992
Algernon Lundy, a Alabama businessman for 15 years and
a father, had never been in trouble with the law and maintains
his innocence. Prosecutors said his cleaning service business
was a cover for a massive crack distribution ring and that he
was the organizer and his friends Ronald and Alvin were his
deputies. No drugs or cash were found or seized, no specific
drug activity recorded, no controlled buys conducted and no
drug source or drug customers identified. Algernon was convicted
of an 18-month involvement in a crack conspiracy almost
entirely on the testimony of Ronald. The sentencing
judge indicated he was bound by mandatory laws to impose
the life sentence. After the trial, Ronald wrote the judge that
he had been threatened and manipulated into falsely testifying
against Algernon in exchange for a lower sentence. The
courts, however, have ruled that Algernon should remain in
prison for life. Ronald is serving a 20-year sentence; the third
co-defendant remains at large.

What the hell is that? No evidence of any actual drugs? Nothing? And the guy gets MORE time than Fastow? Amazing!

This is exactly what we need more of, Repulicans! A judicial system that makes damn sure a judge doesn't become all "activist" and sentence according to the specifics of a case.

Have you ever wished you could be more like the Ministry of Minor Perfidy?

Have you ever wanted to deploy and discipline minions?

Have you ever wanted to invest in giant underground lairs, improbably large submarines, and silly footwear?

Now you can! Via rocketjones comes the Make Your Own Evil Plan generator. Now, I'm not saying you can learn to run with the big boys, but you sure can have fun playing in the kiddie pool.

In a world exclusive, Drudge is reporting that Clark, contrary to his statements in recent debates he has not always been against the war. In fact, in testimony before congress just two weeks before the Iraq resolution was passed, Clark had this to say:

"There's no requirement to have any doctrine here. I mean this is simply a longstanding right of the United States and other nations to take the actions they deem necessary in their self defense," Clark told Congress on September 26, 2002.

"Every president has deployed forces as necessary to take action. He's done so without multilateral support if necessary. He's done so in advance of conflict if necessary. In my experience, I was the commander of the European forces in NATO. When we took action in Kosovo, we did not have United Nations approval to do this and we did so in a way that was designed to preempt Serb ethnic cleansing and regional destabilization there. There were some people who didn' t agree with that decision. The United Nations was not able to agree to support it with a resolution."

"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we."

More Clark: "And, I want to underscore that I think the United States should not categorize this action as preemptive. Preemptive and that doctrine has nothing whatsoever to do with this problem. As Richard Perle so eloquently pointed out, this is a problem that's longstanding. It's been a decade in the making. It needs to be dealt with and the clock is ticking on this."

Clark explained: "I think there's no question that, even though we may not have the evidence as Richard [Perle] says, that there have been such contacts [between Iraq and al Qaeda]. It' s normal. It's natural. These are a lot of bad actors in the same region together. They are going to bump into each other. They are going to exchange information. They're going to feel each other out and see whether there are opportunities to cooperate. That's inevitable in this region, and I think it's clear that regardless of whether or not such evidence is produced of these connections that Saddam Hussein is a threat."

This is rather dramatically different from what he's saying now. What are the reasons for the turnabout? The obvious guess is that he switched to an antiwar tack for purely political reasons - and to eat into Dean's base within the Democratic party. What this says about his character, I leave as an exercise for the reader.

Unsurprisingly to anyone who's actually been paying attention, the Bush=Hitler ad failed to win moveon.org's "Bush in 30 seconds" ad contest.

The winner is far better and dead on message. Watch it here. Mark Kleiman thinks they should take out some Superbowl ad time. So do I!

Based on the early reports, I am disappointed. My eight month old son will be out of college before the earliest date we imagine being on Mars. We might not even be back on the moon until 2020, and they're talking about robotic missions to scout the way to the moon. Jeebus! We've done that, we've been there! Just go back for Chrissakes. At most, put up a lunar orbiter with a really good camera to pick a landing site.

Also, I am very dubious about this crew exploration vehicle. Something that launches from the Earth and lands on the moon does not sound smart. I'll do some more research, but this doesn't sound like a bold plan to explore the cosmos.