Stem Cells

My wife subscribes to a magazine called "Western Horseman" -- not the kind of thing I'd usually read, but this morning I happened to be thumbing through the May 2007 issue. Mostly I was marveling at the huge industry built around horses (they need lots of accessories!), but I happened upon a very interesting article: Stem-Cell Research Offers New Options, by Jennifer Zehnder. In it, Zehnder interviews Dr. Robert Harman, a San Diego veterinarian who has started a stem cell therapeutics company to treat lame horses. Unfortunately this article is not online, but here's the sub-heading and couple of paragraphs that caught my attention:

Embryonic Stems Cells take a Back Seat

The evolution of stem-cell technology for use in humans or animals is rooted in controversy. This is because early research led scientists to believe embryos were the only viable source for stem cells, but Harman is quick to point out lesser-known issues with such cell sources.

"Moral and political view aside, embryonic stem cells have huge flaws the public never hears about," Harman explains. "The recipient's body views embryonic stem cells as foreign genetic material, which translates into a lifetime of immuno-suppressant drugs."

What? You mean embryonic stem cells aren't the singular answer to all medical challenges?

Dr. Harman's company could have chosen embryonic stem cells, but instead they chose stem cells from adipose tissue (fat); they'll grow them from the animal being treated, so no immuno-suppressive drugs are needed.

Similar things are happening in human medicine as well, but I have not read such a direct and cogent explanation as I found in this article. The issue with humans is so wrapped up with reflexive liberal anger over President Bush's refusal to fund embryonic stem cell research that all discussion of it that I have found is very light on the facts and very heavy on the hype.

Especially prominent is the liberal claim that Bush has "banned" stem cell research. This is an especially disingenuous claim, as stem cell research is being funded by the Bush administration by a 4:1 margin over the funding in the Clinton administration. No research -- even on embryonic stem cells -- is banned. There's just no federal funding of it.

It's interesting to note that pharmaceutical companies (who are free to fund whatever research they want) are choosing to fund far more research on non-embryonic stem cell research -- and the total of their research expenditures dwarfs the federal governments funding. It's very much a tempest in a teapot, being driving by ideologues and demented Bush bashers.

Meanwhile, the science moves on ... and away from embryonic stem cells...

Fairness

In recent weeks the Democrats have been repeatedly floating the notion of reinstating the badly-misnamed "Fairness Doctrine". Older readers will remember that before the Reagan administration (during which the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed) there was very little political talk radio -- and the little that existed was so boring that virtually nobody listened to it. Then after the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed, talk radio exploded to become, today, the biggest success story in radio.

What happened?

It's very simple, really: the "Fairness Doctrine" required radio stations to give equal air time to all sides of a political issue. If a radio station had a commercial success with, say, a Communist talk show host -- then they'd have to have an equally long conservative show, liberal show, centrist show, Green show, and who knows what other kind of show. This was, of course, completely impractical -- so the radio stations did the only thing they could: they nixed all the political shows. When the "Fairness Doctrine" was repealed, the radio stations immediately started airing political talk shows, and they were very popular. In the 20+ years since the repeal, these talk shows have been thoroughly market tested -- the networks and stations know exactly what kind of talk shows people want to listen to. There's no mystery about this; all you have to do is look at your local stations' schedules and it's obvious: conservative and (to a lesser extent) libertarian talk shows dominate the air.

Today a more formal study about this phenomenon was published:

In a report titled "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio," the Center for American Progress concluded that 91 percent of weekday talk radio is conservative, compared with liberal content at 9 percent. The group, which said it analyzed 257 news and talk stations owned by the five biggest radio broadcasters, calls for stricter media-ownership limits and public-interest requirements.

"There is little free speech or free choice in a market system that pushes out one-sided information 90 percent of the time on the radio," said John Halpin, a senior fellow at the center. "Radio stations are licensed to operate in the public interest. Promoting one point of view over all others does not meet any reasonable public-interest standard."

Halpin's comments toe the Democratic story line: it's unfair that conservative and libertarian shows dominate. Never mind that those are the shows that people want (as they demonstrate by listening to them), it's unfair! And that translates -- in their small, controlling, anti-freedom brains -- directly into action. They must be stopped! Their message must be forbidden! Americans must listen to us!

Unspoken is the subtext: so we can control them!

The controlling nature of modern American liberals (as amply demonstrated by their ambition to reinstate the "Fairness Doctrine") is most disturbing to me. From my perspective, it's invidious and downright un-American. It's what's behind the nanny-state ambitions in California: banning spanking, mandating CFLs, motorcycle helmet laws, seat belt laws, and on and on. There seems to be an almost unstoppable momentum behind this, much like (if slightly later than) what happened in Europe. We need some good ideas about how to stop this...

Soviet Slide Rule

This circular slide rule is markedly different in almost every respect from the usual slide rules manufactured in the Soviet Union. Instead of being "just good enough", and generally lacking in any non-functional attributes, this thing is overbuilt, rugged, and pays great attention to both function and beauty.

It weighs over a pound, is almost 9" in diameter, and can multiply, divide, take sines and tangents, and inverse sines and tangents -- all accurate to 3 or 4 decimal places. Almost certainly it is a military slide rule, probably associated with artillery (calculating the elevation of the gun to aim it is a fairly involved exercise in mathematics).

You can read more about it here.

Solstice Morning

Today is the summer solstice -- the longest day of the year. I watched for the first moment that the sun peeked over our local hills (at 6:05 AM), and measured the azimuth as 36° from due north (I used a Brunton surveyor's compass, the "Classic" model, to do this). If the hills weren't there, sunrise would have been slightly earlier and the compass reading would have been a slightly smaller azimuth.

Tonight I will measure the azimuth at sunset as well. The hills are slightly lower there, so I'm expecting the azimuth to be something like 325° instead of the exact mirror of 36° (324°). But little errors like that aside, basically the sun will be traversing 360° - (2 x 35°) = 290° today -- the most it ever does at our latitude (33°). At noon today, the sun will be at the highest elevation ever seen at our latitude: 23° + (90° - 33°) = 80°.

Update and bump:

At 1:00 PM (instead of noon, because of daylight saving time), I measured the elevation of the sun, using the clinometer built into the Brunton surveyor's compass. I took 5 readings and averaged them. The result: 10.4° -- as predicted, within the limits of my instrument's accuracy.

Update and bump, II:

Just before sunset (at 7:28 PM) I measured the azimuth of where the sun will set. In doing so, I realized that I had made dumb error this morning when measuring the azimuth of the sunrise: I set the 14° deviation for magnetic north into the compass backwards, introducing a 28° error. The azimuth this morning should have been 64°, not 36°. The azimuth of the sunset should be 360° - 64° = 296°. That agrees very well with the 295° I just measured (with the magnetic north deviation set correctly!). This morning I computed the sun's azimuthal transit incorrectly as well, it should have been 360° - (2 x 64°) = 232° of azimuthal transit.

Puppiosity

You just know this cute, coy little puppy is about to do something totally, outrageously bad!

Via Cute Overload, natch...

Quote of the Day

From Captain Ed Morrissey at Captain's Quarters:

Ralph Nader has Democrats looking for a wooden stake and a truckload of garlic.

Thanks for the chuckle, Captain!

Operation Arrowhead Ripper: Day One

Michael Yon has filed a dispatch from the battle in Baqubah (Operation Arrowhead Ripper). An excerpt:

Our guys are tough. The enemy in Baqubah is as good as any in Iraq, and better than most. That’s saying a lot. But our guys have been systematically trapping them, and have foiled some big traps set for our guys. I don’t want to say much more about that, but our guys are seriously outsmarting them. Big fights are ahead and we will take serious losses probably, but al Qaeda, unless they find a way to escape, are about to be slaughtered. Nobody is dropping leaflets asking them to surrender. Our guys want to kill them, and that’s the plan.

A positive indicator on the 19th and the 20th is that most local people apparently are happy that al Qaeda is being trapped and killed. Civilians are pointing out IEDs and enemy fighters, so that’s not working so well for al Qaeda. Clearly, I cannot do a census, but that says something about the locals.

Go read the whole thing!

I am especially heartened by his report of the objective: to kill the Al Qaeda terrorists...

Inkjet Printers Lie!

Do you own an inkjet printer? If so, read this article! Here's the lead:

A new study says that on average, more than half of the ink from inkjet cartridges is wasted when users toss them in the garbage. Why is that interesting? According to the study, users are tossing the cartridges when their printers are telling them they're out of ink, not when they necessarily are out of ink.

Stand By For ... Global Cooling?

Here's some more recent research that suggests that global warming is tied more to solar power output than to mankind's activities. The article starts off with some political posturing, and then gets into the meat of it:

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

It then details the research activities, and concludes the science discussion with this:

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

It's well worth reading the whole thing, both for the details of the science and for the political commentary (by a scientist!).

The more actual research (as opposed to computer models) I read about, and the more I observe the behavior of the "true believers", the more skeptical I become about anthropogenic global warming...

Fanatics With Guns....

As I was reading this excellent (as always) piece by Ralph Peters, this passage made me stop and think:

At the height of last week's fighting in Gaza, one Palestinian in 300 carried a weapon in support of Hamas - a third of one percent of the population. Now Hamas rules 1.5 million people.

Numbers still matter, of course. But strength of will can overcome hollow numbers. And nothing - nothing - gives men a greater strength of will than religious fanaticism.

That's exactly the aspect of the radical fundamentalist Islamic movement that scares me the most -- they have that powerful underlying motivation that animates their every action, whereas we look a lot like sheep ambling towards the slaughterhouse. Only something like 9/11 seems to wake us up, and even then only briefly. We lack that motivation, and they have it. And it gives them power that frightens me.

The entire piece is an excellent, sober analysis of the recent events in Palestine and the Gaza Strip. As they say, read the whole thing. Here's his (very slightly) hopeful conclusion:

The true believer always beats the feckless attendee. The best you can hope for is that the extremist will eventually defeat himself.

And that does leave us some hope: Fanatics inevitably over-reach, as al Qaeda's Islamo-fascists have done in Iraq, alienating those who once saw them as allies. But the road to self-destruction can be a long one: The people of Iran want change, but the fanatics have the guns. And sorry, folks: Fanatics with guns beat liberals with ideas.

Faith is the nuclear weapon of the fanatic. And there's not going to be a religious "nuclear freeze." It doesn't matter how many hearts and minds you win, if you don't defeat the zealots with the muscles.

Catch Ralph's commentary every chance you get, and don't miss his books.

Poop on the Porch

Mike D. passed this story along:

I bought a bird feeder. I hung it on my back porch and filled it with seed. Within a week, we had hundreds of birds taking advantage of the continuous flow of free and easily accessible food.

But then the birds started building nests in the boards of the patio, above the table, and next to the barbecue. Then came the poop. It was everywhere: on the patio tiles, the chairs, the table...everywhere. Then some of the birds turned mean: They would dive-bomb me and try to peck me even though I had fed them out of my own pocket. And others birds were boisterous and loud: They sat on the feeder and squawked and screamed at all hours of the day and night and demanded that I fill it when it got low on food.

After a while, I couldn't even sit on my own back porch anymore. I took down the bird feeder and, in three days, the birds were gone. I cleaned up their mess and took down the many nests they had built all over the patio. Soon, the back yard was like it used to be...quiet, serene and no one demanding thei r rights to a free meal.

Now let's see...our government gives out free food, subsidized housing, free medical care, free education and allows anyone born here to be an automatic citizen. Then the illegal's came by the tens of thousands. Suddenly our taxes went up to pay for free services; small apartments are housing 5 families; you have to wait 6 hours to be seen by an emergency room doctor: you child's 2nd grade class is behind other schools because over half the class doesn't speak English; Corn Flakes now come in a bilingual box; I have to press "one" to hear my bank talk to me in English, and people waving flags other than "Old Glory" are squawking and screaming in the streets, demanding more rights and free liberties.

Maybe it's time for the government to take down the bird feeder.

This is the first immigration-related email in quite a while that I agree with. It analogizes nicely a couple of the points I keep making about our current immigration policy: the welfare programs are wrong-headed, and "immigrants" who are really just transient workers with no intention of becoming Americans are undesirable. Removing the welfare programs -- and enforcing immigration law in the workplace -- would indeed "clean up our porch".

But I'm pessimistic about this happening. More likely, I think, is the direction things seem to be headed in Congress: some token (and utterly useless) "border security" efforts, some token internal enforcement, and a huge broadening of immigrant welfare programs and an amnesty for those already here.

All of which makes me start thinking about the unthinkable: where else, other than America, might I want to live? Because if we continue down this path, I don't think my country is going to remain the kind of place I want to live in...

Metric System

Most Americans have only a passing acquaintance with the metric system. Most Americans I know -- even technical folks -- have no intuitive sense of even the most basic metric units, such as meters, °C, kilograms, etc. Likewise, most find conversions a bit intimidating, and would most likely have to hit the books (or the web) to convert, say, inches to centimeters.

I recently found the map at right, which shows (in red) the countries of the world that officially do not use the metric system. I knew there weren't many -- I'd probably have guessed ten or so -- but only three? Look at the company we're in: Liberia and Myanmar (formerly Burma).

In my own experience, this is a little misleading, but not too much. Everywhere I've ever been (and I've never been to Liberia or Myanmar) everyone is at least familiar and comfortable with the metric system. However, in some countries, remnants of the older, non-standard units still exist. For example, in the UK one can still find some speed and distance signage on the roads that uses miles instead of kilometers, and in the grocery stores you'll find some items packaged in non-round metric values (like 454 grams) that just happen to be a round Imperial value (454 grams equals 1 pound).

Even here, the metric system is starting to "sneak in" a bit. Wine is normally packaged in metric sizes these days. Many mechanics are familiar with the metric hardware found on Japanese and European cars. Electronics technicians and engineers generally use the metric system, even though they may not even know it. We even passed a law a decade or so ago mandating a switch to the metric system. What's holding up the works?

Probably it just boils down to this: completely switching to the metric system would involve a considerable expense without an obvious way to recover the expense. Certainly if the entire world (and especially such a huge market as the United States) were using a single system of measurement, there would be lots of small efficiencies that would benefit us all. But if you look at it from the perspective of most individuals or companies, mostly you see additional expense and no extra revenue.

For example, suppose you owned a saw mill in Idaho that catered to the local building trade. To switch to the metric system would mean that (for instance) a 2x4 (in inches) becomes a 5x10 (in cm). All of your products would be affected. You'd have to print new price sheets and catalogs. You'd have to buy new software to plan your cuts for the new products. You'd have to re-tool all your fixed jigs, and likely you'd want to buy new saw blades that had a metric kerf. You'd have to train all your workers, and even your customers. All of this would cost a significant amount of money -- but where's the benefit to the company? None at all...

Only a small minority of individuals or companies in the U.S. would actually see a benefit by conversion. Some companies currently make two versions of their products -- one built to the metric system for the international market, and one built to English measures for the American market. These companies would benefit by having a simpler product line. Some individuals would benefit because they must, for their work, use both systems; having one would be easier. But there aren't very many examples like this. Most of us, and most companies, would simply incur a useless expense in converting.

Which probably explains the recurring complaints by international trade organizations about our intransigence in sticking with English measurements. I'm sure they'd like nothing better than to see us uselessly wasting our money and time converting, while they can sit back righteously praising our efforts -- which temporarily would make them more competitive.

Having said all that, I must also say this: I wish the U.S. had already adopted the metric system. It grates on me that we are not participating in one of the few worldwide standards that actually makes sense. But I don't think it's going to happen anytime soon, for the reasons given above. Unless, of course, the moonbats come to power -- in which case we'll be switching to the metric system along with changing our national language to French (or perhaps Esperanto)...

Guess the Speaker

Who do you think said these positive things about the terrorist group Hamas today?

The United States and Israel decided to punish all the people in Palestine and did everything they could to deter a compromise between Hamas and Fatah," he said.

...the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was "criminal."

...(the Palestinian election which Hamas won) was "orderly and fair" and Hamas triumphed, in part, because it was "shrewd in selecting candidates," whereas a divided, corrupt Fatah ran multiple candidates for single seats.

...the United States and others supplied the Fatah-controlled security forces in Gaza with vastly superior weaponry in hopes they would "conquer Hamas in Gaza" - but Hamas this month routed Fatah because of its "superior skills and discipline."

Jimmy Carter, the Georgian peanut farmer who was, to our everlasting shame (especially those who voted for him), a duly elected President of these United States. Out there in his dotage, speaking out publicly despite his evident brain damage, bad-mouthing his country and supporting (of all things!) Hamas -- the terrorist group whose manifesto includes the death of all infidels (non-Muslims) and specifically the destruction of Israel and the United States.

Pause to reflect for a moment.

At this point, after so much self-righteous, preachy, traitorous nonsense from this man, my only reaction is to be proud that he is not a Californian. Or that I'm not a Georgian. Or both.

Another Border Patrol Chase...

Nobody was killed, this time. The photo at right is a Google Earth view of the vicinity, with my best guess about where the crash occurred circled in orange. This Union-Tribune story is so short that any conceivable excerpt would include it all, so here it is:

Jamul pursuit ends in crash

Six people in a Honda Civic crashed on Lyons Valley Road in Jamul tonight after being pursued by the Border Patrol, the California Highway Patrol said.

Undercover Border Patrol agents tried to pull over the driver, who then led them on a five-mile pursuit. The Honda went off the road and struck a rock about 10 p.m.

The CHP said two people in the Honda suffered moderate injuries and two ran away. Eastbound lanes of Lyons Valley Road were blocked at Chaparral Heights during an investigation.

That's all I've been able to find out about it. If any local residents know any more, please let us know in the comments.

Major Combat Operations Begin in Iraq...

Michael Yon is, for my money, the most credible reporter currently working on the war in Iraq. He's a very interesting character whose life and talents have uniquely prepared him for this role. Yon is a former Special Forces warrior, so he has no problem getting the respect or attention of our soldiers or their officers -- and no problem understanding what they're doing. Where he really shines, though, is in his beautiful writing and ability to convey complex ideas eloquently and readably. As if all that wasn't enough, he's also a very talented photographer -- you've almost certainly seen some of his work.

For quite a while now, Yon has been successfully pursuing a career as a reader-supported, independent reporter. His only source of income at the moment is the "tip jar" on his web site, where appreciative readers make contributions of all sizes to help keep him going.

I've been reading Yon's work ever since he first started posting, and he's been the best single source of good information I've found about Iraq (and, to a lesser extent, Afghanistan). He has consistently been a critic of the war in Iraq -- not of the fact of the war, but of the way it has been executed. In today's dispatch, I sense some real optimism on his part about the major combat operations just starting today in Iraq. Yon is deeply knowledgeable about the situation in Iraq, and has much time with boots on the ground -- and he knows our military and its leadership very well. His choice for the perfect commander in Iraq: General David Petraeus, whom he calls "the doctor" below. Yon made that choice in 2005, and has been wondering ever since why General Petraeus wasn't back there and in charge. Now he is, and Yon is obviously impressed with the results, and seems to be cautiously optimistic about the outcome. Here's an excerpt from the dispatch, but you really need to go read the whole thing:

The doctor has made a decision: Al Qaeda must be excised. That means a large scale attack, and what appears to be the most widespread combat operations since the end of the ground war are now unfolding. A small part of that larger battle will be the Battle for Baquba. For those involved, it will be a very large battle, but in context, it will be only one of numerous similar battles now unfolding. Just as this sentence was written, we began dropping bombs south of Baghdad and our troops are in contact.

Northeast of Baghdad, innocent civilians are being asked to leave Baquba. More than 1,000 AQI fighters are there, with perhaps another thousand adjuncts. Baquba alone might be as intense as Operation Phantom Fury in Fallujah in late 2004. They are ready for us. Giant bombs are buried in the roads. Snipers—real snipers—have chiseled holes in walls so that they can shoot not from roofs or windows, but from deep inside buildings, where we cannot see the flash or hear the shots. They will shoot for our faces and necks. Car bombs are already assembled. Suicide vests are prepared.

The enemy will try to herd us into their traps, and likely many of us will be killed before it ends. Already, they have been blowing up bridges, apparently to restrict our movements. Entire buildings are rigged with explosives. They have rockets, mortars, and bombs hidden in places they know we are likely to cross, or places we might seek cover. They will use human shields and force people to drive bombs at us. They will use cameras and make it look like we are ravaging the city and that they are defeating us. By the time you read this, we will be inside Baquba, and we will be killing them. No secrets are spilling here.

These operations, which just began today, are the same operations that Harry Reid declared a failure a few weeks ago -- before the soldiers were even in Iraq, and before the operation had even begun. Al Jazeera and similar Arabic media outlets have been carrying stories of gloating Al Qaeda members ever since. They claimed victory based on the statements of Reid, Pelosi, and other such surrender monkeys. If Yon's reporting is even close to accurate -- and based on his past performance, I'm confident that it's spot on -- then Al Qaeda is in for a memorable comeuppance. If he's right, our troops are in for a tough slog, one that will carry substantial casualties -- but Al Qaeda is in for much worse.

I'll be thinking of our troops today, and wishing them well. I made a contribution to Michael Yon, and I hope you will as well. Yon is embedded with our troops, headed into combat today; he's planning on filing daily dispatches via satellite.

Computer Problems Doom the Space Station?

Update and Bump:

Multiple news sources are reporting that the ISS's computers are back up and have passed all their operational tests. Damned the bad luck!

Original Post:

All over the news this morning was the saga of the ongoing computer failure at the International Space Station (ISS). As best I can understand the (very) non-technical stories, the German-built (under Russian contract) computer system that controls the life support system, the environmental systems, and the spacecraft's attitude (direction) failed a few days ago. All attempts to resuscitate it have been unsuccessful, but these attempts are ongoing. Right now the only reason the astronauts can stay there is because the space shuttle is docked with the ISS and is providing attitude control.

But here's the real kicker: if the stories are correct, there's a looming deadline -- the limit of the space shuttle's stay. If the problem cannot be fixed by then, the ISS will have to be abandoned -- left drifting aimlessly in space. After some time, it will be slowed down by friction with the upper Earth's atmosphere, and will fall out of orbit in a hail of flaming wreckage.

I can hardly wait! That useless, purposeless hunk of junk called the ISS has been sucking the money from all the good programs at NASA for a long time now. I can't think of a better end than this, with no deaths or injuries to the astronauts, and a flaming decent into hell for the ISS. Hooray! Now I just hope I'm not being set up for a major disappointment, like an emergency shuttle repair mission that cancels yet another real science program...

Manned Space Flight

Over the past few months, several of my readers have emailed me about my opposition to manned space flight programs. The gist of these emails is surprise that I (a complete geek) would take this position, and accusations that I'm ignoring the long-term imperative for mankind to live in more than one place. A couple writers suggested that I lacked an appreciation of the romance and frontier adventure inherent in manned space flight.

Well.

I'm not actually opposed to manned space flight. I am opposed to the use of public funds for manned space flight in its current incarnation, and for the objectives set for so far. If a private company can raise the capital to pursue a profit-seeking venture in space (as several have done), then I'm all for it. I think the X prize notion for incremental technology advances (even for advances that support manned space flight) is a wonderful idea -- a relatively small amount of public funding that generates a large amount of competitive invention and development. But tens of billions of dollars spent for a useless space station, or a lunar station, or a visit to Mars? In my book, those are mind-boggling boondoggles run by an inefficient bureaucracy for no good purpose at all. Much better to either not spend those public dollars at all, or to invest them instead in something with an obviously useful objective -- such as, say, a replacement for storage batteries (one of the key problems facing alternative power technologies).

I'd also be supportive of publicly funded research to solve the two key problems with long-term manned space flight: propulsion systems and the energetic radiation problem.

Chemical rockets -- currently the only propulsion system available to lift payloads from the Earth's surface to near-Earth orbits -- are woefully inadequate for any serious manned exploration of space. They're outrageously expensive, dangerous, and (usually) badly polluting. It simply isn't practical to launch thousands of such rockets a year. If manned space operations are to become routine, this issue must be solved. We need a practical, safe, cheap lift system. Some alternatives to chemical rockets have been proposed, most notably "rail guns" and "space elevators". Both have lots of challenges, and it remains to be seen whether either can be successfully developed. It seems most likely to me, however, that the real answer hasn't even been thought of yet. I could support public funding in an intelligent way to get at an answer for this problem.

The energetic radiation problem has been discussed in the media, but it still isn't widely known (based on my own informal discussions with ordinary people). Simply put, everywhere in space outside of a planetary magnetosphere there is lots of very energetic radiation that is dangerous for astronauts -- dangerous enough that weeks of exposure is certain to lead to a high incidence of radiation-related illnesses and (if the exposure is long enough) death. The "energetic" part of the phrase implies something else: shielding is very difficult. Several feet of lead would be required to reduce the radiation to levels comparable to that found on the Earth's surface. Can you imagine a spaceship whose hull was lined with several feet of lead? Absurd, of course -- but nobody has yet come up with a good answer for this problem. Again, I could support a wise expenditure of public funds for the purpose of attacking this challenge.

So... Imagine a future where we've got a good lift system and where we have solved the energetic radiation problem. Would I then support public funding of manned space flight? I don't know the answer to that without knowing what he objective is. If it was a lunar station or a visit to Mars, my answer would still be "no". However, I think the question is actually moot -- because under those conditions, I think entrepreneurs would be raising capital to fund their own profit-seeking manned space flight. What would their objectives be? I have no idea, though I could imagine tourism, solar power, and some kind of natural resource exploitation being natural categories.

In the meantime, I believe NASA's role should be limited to robotic research missions (which have in the past ten years accomplished truly amazing things) and nurturing research on the tough challenges to manned space flight...

Everest Panorama

A friend sent along this spectacular 360° panorama, taken at the peak of Mt. Everest in the Himalaya mountains. You need to click on the image at right to see it at full size, and you'll probably have to scroll left and right to see the whole thing.

Thank you, Richard S.!

Solstice Approaching...

Just four days from now, on June 21, the summer solstice occurs. On that day, the sun is above the horizon longer than on any other day of the year.

The photo at right is from HPWREN's automatic camera on top of Lyon's Peak, a couple miles almost due south of my house. The camera looks at a 90° swath of the horizon, centered on due north. It was taken just a little while before sunset. You can see that the sun is on the left (which is west), and nearly in view. That means the sun's direction is just a few degrees less than 315°, well north of west and much further north than it normally sets. Each day until June 21 it will set (and rise) a little further north. Between June 21 and December 21 (the winter solstice), it will set (and rise) a little further south each day.

There's your astronomy lesson for the day...

Hummer Juice Mass Production...

Every summer as the number of flowers decrease, the hummingbirds start drinking more from our feeders. In addition, the number of hummingbirds (and in recent years, orioles) attracted to our feeders increases every year. This year we are seeing much larger numbers of orioles feeding, most especially hooded orioles, but also at least two pairs of Bullock's orioles. The rate of sugar water ("hummer juice") consumption at our feeders is now at about six quarts per day.

For years we've been mixing the hummer juice two quarts at a time, the size being set the by size of the pitcher we made it in. Typically in the summer, we'd have to make two batches a day, as the feeders ran out. That's quite a bit of repetitive work -- so a few days ago I decided to try to make the job easier.

I located the perfect hummer juice container: a five gallon container with a spigot. It's made by Coleman, and is intended to be a water jug for camping. I also located a pet food container with an airtight spin-on lid that's perfect for storing 50 pounds of sugar. Now I'm making five gallons of hummer juice in one batch, enough for several days of happy hummers. An added bonus: it's very convenient to fill the feeders from the Coleman container, using a funnel. But it sure feels like mass production when I make a batch! I start by filling the Coleman container half full of hot tap water. Then I pour five quarts (about 9.5 pounds) of sugar into the hot water, swizzling it with a section of half inch PVC pipe as my swizzle stick. Once I've got the sugar all dissolved, I fill the container the rest of the way with hot water and add about a 3:1 mixture of yellow and red food coloring. The hummers couldn't care any less about the nice orange color that results, but (very subjectively) it does seem to attract the orioles. Then a little more swizzling with my giant swizzle stick and I'm stocked up on hummer juice for days...