Page 14 of 55 - Previous page
A Planetary Classification Proposal
06/09/09 00:00:00
Apparently the American Astronomical Society is meeting today and is currently discussing “planethood” and the future of Pluto. I gave some thought to this last year and decided to post it here for comments. The idea is to move away from defining something as a planet or not and simply classify non-stellar objects using the Earth as a base planetary mass.
A planetary class is halfway between the mid point and the midpoint of the next class.
Planet class begins at 5 planets and goes down to .5 planets
| Class | Magnitude | Mass | Example |
|---|---|---|---|
| milli-planet | 0.001 | 1.90 x 10^24 kg | Pluto,Ceres (.0021) are in the milliplanet class |
| centi-planet | 0.01 | 1.90 x 10^25 kg | Mercury at.055 is in the centiplanet class |
| deci-planet | 0.1 | 1.90 x 10^26 kg | Mars at .107 is in the deciplanet class |
| planet | 1.0 | 1.90 x 10^27 kg | Earth (1), Venus (.6) are in the planet class |
| deka-planet | 10 | 1.90 x 10^28 kg | Neptune (17.147) is in the dekaplanet class |
| hecto-planet | 100 | 1.90 x 10^29 kg | Saturn & Jupiter are in the hectoplanet class |
| kilo-planet | 1000 | 1.90 x 10^30 kg | Upsilon Andromedae d (1,248) is in the kiloplanet class |
The brown dwarf limit is 4,131 planets, or 4.131 kiloplanets. This would solve the entire debate about Pluto and the rest of the Keiper Belt Objects since they would simply range from milliplanets (Pluto) down to nanoplanets (embryonic comets).
Comments
s/Aldridge/Augustine/g
05/19/09 00:00:00
(In case you're not a UNIX geek, the title of this article is the search and replace function in VI)
The official action that creates something like the Augustine Commission is the publication of a notice in the Federal Register. That happened yesterday and can be found here. The stated objectives for the commission are: bq. The identification and characterization of these options should address the following objectives: (a) Expediting a new U.S. capability to support utilization of the International Space Station (ISS); (b) supporting missions to the Moon and other destinations beyond low Earth orbit (LEO); © stimulating commercial space flight capability; and (d) fitting within the current budget profile for NASA exploration activities.
Now, if you are remotely familiar with US space policy, these objectives will seem very familiar. From President Bush's Vision for Space Exploration we have the following goals and objectives: bq.
- Implement a sustained and affordable human and robotic program to explore the solar system and beyond;
- Extend human presence across the solar system, starting with a human return to the Moon by the year 2020, in preparation for human exploration of Mars and other destinations;
- Develop the innovative technologies, knowledge, and infrastructures both to explore and to support decisions about the destinations for human exploration; and
- Promote international and commercial participation in exploration to further U.S. scientific, security, and economic interests.
- *We work. Hard. * One of the major complaints about the first tea party event was that it was on a week day which meant few people could come because of work. Most of the participants are between 30 and 60 and are in their prime working life. One of the reason’s Goliath’s Army can protest so well is that most have are young enough that taking time off from the Gap is relatively easy.
- *We pay taxes.* Because we work most of us earn enough to be above the “pay no income taxes due to deductions” line. That means the bulk of the income tax receipts to the IRS come from us. We may be the ones who are saddled with the burden but it also means we have a good bit of power if we decide to wield it.
- *We are geographically diverse.* We live in and have ties to “fly over country” that Goliath’s Army simply cannot relate to or easily access. Properly organized we can “flash mob” every middle of nowhere Congressman where ever he/she may be.
- *A good percentage of us are traditional single earner families. * That can mean that kids and mothers (or fathers) may have the time to do distributed activism kind of work. “Play dates” can be created where kids create the collateral that a subversive campaign needs. Think about all of those can drives during World War II.
- *We are more patriotic.* While patriotism (“love of country”) does exist on the left, the majority of those waving flags, supporting troops, and going to July 4th celebrations are largely on the right.
- *We are more religious.* Self-identification as Christian and church attendance is higher among those on the right. Churches make a great community nucleus to build around.
- *We are more respectful of and comfortable with the military (and vice versa). * Former military people understand organization, motivation, duty and honor. By using their skills and motivating them to become involved we can create a very strong and reliable organizational background.
- *
*
What do you, as a Tea Party participant, think should be added?
The only real differences are that the new Commission is asked to look at ISS directly and commercialization and sustainability are given more prominence. These were mentioned in Bush's VSE document but weren't given the same prominence. Just as Bush did, Obama has created a Commission to figure out the details. Bush created the President's Commission on Moon, Mars and Beyond which produced A Journey to Inspire, Innovate and Discover. In that report it outlines the charter objectives for the Commission as: bq. 1. a science research agenda to be conducted on the Moon and other destinations as well as human and robotic science activities that advance our capacity to achieve the policy; 2. the exploration of technologies, demonstrations, and strategies, including the use of lunar and other in situ natural resources, that could be used for sustainable human and robotic exploration; 3. criteria that could be used to select future destinations for human exploration; 4. long-term organization options for managing implementation of space exploration activities; 5. the most appropriate and effective roles for potential private-sector and international participants in implementing the policy; 6. methods for optimizing space exploration activities to encourage the interest of America’s youth in studying and pursuing careers in mathematics, science, and engineering; and 7. management of the implementation of the policy within available resources.
So what's the difference between then and now? The main one seems to be that Griffin chose to ignore much of that original Commission's recommendations. He threw sustainability out the window and completely ignored that “Go as you can pay” finding. Given all of that, one would think that, sans a new section on closing the gap and recovering from the Whitehouse's lack of oversight of Griffin, you should be able to load the Aldridge Commission report do a few search and replace operations with names and dates, and republish it as is. There are some things in the Aldridge Commission report that I didn't agree with such as its assumption that manned space is still NASA's purview. But all of this brings me back to 1) why was the Aldridge Commission report ignored and 2) what makes anyone think that Augustine's report won't also be ignored? What is different this time?
Until someone figures out how to route around Congress and the “standing army” issue nothing is going to change. If Augustine's report is anything like the Aldridge Commission's then it too will be ignored and NASA will keep going down the rat hole of bureaucratic institutionalization.
h2. Hmm… Route around the problem… What a great idea!
Comments
Army of Davids Having Tea
05/17/09 00:00:00
Glenn Reynods linked to How David Beats Goliath and had this to say about it: bq. Is getting active in every Congressional district kind of like a full-court press? But don’t wait for elections: “Insurgents operate in real time.†Give ‘em something new to react to all the time. But it’s not easy: “Effort can trump ability—legs, in Saxe’s formulation, can overpower arms—because relentless effort is in fact something rarer than the ability to engage in some finely tuned act of motor coördination.†And remember this, too: “When the world has to play on Goliath’s terms, Goliath wins.†This is part of what has bugged me about the Tea Parties I've been helping organize here in Atlanta and around the country. As we finished the first and started talking about the second one on April 15th, myself and others began asking what the protests were attempting to accomplish. The answer was exposure and getting fiscally conservative politicians elected. But both of those goals amounted to playing the game by Goliath's rules. Modern protesting for media impact was invented by the left. And electing fiscally conservative representation assumes that the Tea Party movement reflects a majority of the electorate. Recent polls suggest it isn't. Both amount to asking the other side's permission to be relevant.
But whether or not you are a minority doesn't matter. In today's world its actually an advantage if played well. Taking Malcom Gladwell's admonishment to play to your own strengths, lets do some analysis. What differentiates the people in the Tea Party movement from those in Goliath's army?
In all of the cases Malcom Gladwell discussed, the guy at a disadvantage was also in the minority. The left has captured public education and turned it into an indoctrination system. Because of that we may not be in the majority. Even if we are, that doesn't mean we can't get what we want. If anything the past century has been about minority groups demanding and getting what they want. Its time for us to demand that and do what it takes to get it.
Comments
Advice To Graduates On Getting Into Aerospace
04/30/09 00:00:00
This time of year I usually get a few requests from aerospace students about how to get into the business. Some have usually talked to someone who is convinced that aerospace is a dead end business. Over time I've developed a few themes that I'll list here:
Old vs New
I'm in the “new” space business so my advice is kind of skewed. This end of the industry is fun, vibrant and cash poor. The “old” end of the business pays well but it is fickle: contracts are canceled, government programs are realigned, and your career is more in the hands of Congress than yours. I don't know squat about the aeronautical side of the industry. If you are thinking about joining the New side of the industry you should be prepared to be poor and live the “startup” life for a while. Its a fun ride, especially if you are young.
Work for NASA but leave before it makes you cynical
Parts of NASA can be fun and interesting. NASA Ames is a good example. Having NASA on your resume is valuable (I'm not sure why, but it is). But only stay there a few years or else you will get sucked into the cynicism and bureaucracy.
Work in Mojave but leave or else you'll never get married
Find a company bending metal somewhere in Mojave and work with them for a while. Do an internship if you can. The point of view out there is invaluable for letting you know that, in the end, working hardware always trumps Powerpoint. But the social life in Mojave sucks if you are a guy. If you are female and into space then Mojave gives you a target rich environment.
No matter what, build something
Some Aerospace programs focus on simulations. Some focus on hardware. No matter what your program's focus, get out and build something on your own. Get some of your buddies together and commit to building a regeneratively cooled biprop rocket engine before you graduate. Or go rebuild a car. Or a house. Just build something. Especially if it requires you to learn welding, machining (no, not CAD/CAM, but basic old school non-CNC mill/lathe stuff). Then go learn CAD/CAM and make something really pretty and complicated. Use all of this to create a portfolio. Put that portfolio on your VisualCV.
Internships!
Several people on twitter reminded me of this one. I thought it was kind of obvious but it needs to be said. Assume that you will spend each summer doing an internship somewhere. Do two at a MINIMUM. Paid or unpaid doesn't matter. The unpaid ones are usually more interesting and fun. Try and do one outside your comfort zone (if you are an AE try something like working with a company building grocery carts). Use internships to explore your target employers later. Many companies hire interns in full time after they graduate. Some internships suggestions: a Web 2.0 startup, your Congressional representative, a design house, a non-profit (XPRIZE, AIAA)…
Go to some key conference and meet people
My current short list for conferences to go to: ISDC, Space Access, NewSpace, and SmallSat. Make yourself some business cards. Talk to people. Dress well, but don't wear a suit. If you're not used to networking then go to some networking events in your local city and get some practice at it. But don't be mechanistic about it. That other person is just as interesting as you are, find out about them before you start selling yourself.
Use LinkedIn, VisualCV, and yes, Facebook
There are a lot of tools out there that help you keep in touch with the people you meet and help you expand your network beyond the ones you already know. Use them. And clean out your sophomore year frat party pictures on Facebook.
Know your industry intimately
Read all of the space related blogs and trade rags you can. You don't have to know every dinky little NASA program, but be aware of industry wide politics and trends. While you are networking with people you should be able to speak intelligently about and be current on things like NASA's Constellation program woes, who SpaceX, what ULA does, what Operationally Responsive Space is, etc.
Join Students for the Exploration and Development of Space (SEDS)
If you don't have a SEDS chapter then create one. If you do, then join and get involved. The friends and connections you will make are invaluable.
*Go get an advanced degree. Get it from the International Space University (ISU) if you can *
With the economy the way it is, think about continuing on and getting a Masters. Think seriously about getting your Masters in something different than your undergrad. An AE undergrad and an MBA is a formidable combination. Think seriously about getting that Masters from the International Space University (ISU). ISU alumni are a very tight and influential group. Spending a year in France is something you can do easily when you are young. Its much harder when your married and have a mortgage and kids.
Become an expert at something
Find some aspect of aerospace that you know better than your professors or anyone else in the industry. Blog about it. Buck the trend of your fellow graduates and learn project management. Find some way to differentiate yourself from everyone else.
Do something risky
You are young. Your living expenses and commitments to others are as low as they will ever be in your adult life. Now is the time to double down and try something that us old farts would think its insanely foolish and risky. If you do this right it will probably lead to the next piece of advice.
Spectacularly fail at something
Try something really hard and really risky that you care about. If you succeed, then try something else until you fail spectacularly. Failure is a great teacher. And you will fail at something. Its helpful to learn how you deal with failure early.
Be Loud! (via @tim846)
Via twitter Tim Bailey (@tim846)said, “being loud about what you're doing & want to do: vids of what you build, write a blog/forum/comment, ask for internships”. Engineers sometimes forget that part of your career is marketing yourself. You don't need to be the Sham Wow! guy, but you do need to proclaim who you are, what you care about, and what you have done loudly and proudly. Ben Brocket, one of the most recent hires at Masten Space Systems, moved to Mojave without a job, lived in a van and did everything it took to get a job with one of the companies out there (us! woot!). He didn't wait for a recruiter to call him. He saw the kind of job he wanted, made sure he was qualified and did what it took to get it.
Comments
Beyond Protests and Phone Trees
03/02/09 00:00:00
As some on twitter surmised, I was involved in organizing one of the America's Tea Party protests last week here in Atlanta. Many of the people who attended (in the pouring rain!) had never done a protest like that. We had about 250 people come out with only 5 days notice and in some really bad weather. In my experience that's a very significant turnout.
But I'm afraid its not going to be sufficient. Looking at vote totals from 2008 you are going to have to do something different in order to move the electroal needle. Protests only have meaning when they indiciate consequences to not paying attention to that groups desires. The left has also deadened the media to the newsworthiness of protests. Unless they are a proxy for some other action, a protest is very ignorable and can easily be spun badly by singling out your fringe elements (yes, I do mean “Birthers”).
So here are two thoughts in an attempt to spark a discussion:
Solutions - Those of us enamored of small government need to figure out private sector solutions to perceived problems, document them in detail, and market them as aggressively as possible. About 50% of our countries citizens have rejected self-reliance as being to hard. We need to show them how modernity has made it easy and the preferred method. They just need a little bit of training to get there.
Actions with impacts - making our voice heard by embracing social media and using that to organize protests may be necessary, but, IMHO, it is insufficient. We need something that has a measurable impact on the system. Here are some of the suggestions I've heard so far:
1) Strike/sick-out/day-off - Usually centered on April 15th, this is a Producer's Strike. A time for those who pay taxes, pay their bills, and attempt to life a life of self-reliance take the day off in order to show the country who's carrying the load.
2) W-4 restructuring - Can you change your W-4 deductions so that for 3 months you claim as many as possible in order to reduce your per-paycheck payments to the Federal Government to as near zero as you can. Then later in the year you jack it back down it again in order to avoid penalties. That way you can achive a tax protest without getting into trouble with the IRS. I Am Not A Tax Lawyer so I have no idea if this will work or if its legal. Can anyone help out here?
3) Camp out in front of the office of those who voted for the stimulus bills on a permanent basis. As legally as possible we should harras the tar out of our elected officials. Not sure what this would achieve though.
Anyone got any other ideas?
Comments
Conservatism in a Time of Singularities
02/26/09 00:00:00
CPAC 2009 started today. Conservatives/Republicans from around the country are meeting to figure out what happened over the past 8 years and what to do about it. In many cases they are assuming that there is something “wrong” with conservatism and that it may need to be re-invented. “Conservatism” is a difficult thing to pin down. The Burke-ian view is the easiest one for this discussion. It is the view that Conservatism is the inclination to object to the capriciousness of Government and those who would use its power to constantly be attempting the “new”. The result of that view is what informed Burke's view of Liberty and made his view compatible with Hayek's. “Small government” conservatives put more weight on the government action aspect of that formulation while “social” conservatives give more weight to the “new” part, regardless of whether its Government action or not.
What I am proposing here is a new imagining of conservatism. My theory is that, while the Burke-ian notion of conservatism is still correct, there is a much more immediate and dangerous downside to Government attempting the “new” in an age where what is “new” happens at speeds beyond human comprehension. For background to this idea please consider Juan Enriquez's recent TED talk below. The juxtaposition of current economic issues, government spending, and the rate of change in biology and robotics is hard to distill more concisely than this:
Juan makes several obvious points but also leaves many other's unsaid. One of the ones that struck me was that, unlike previous transitions, the future Neanderthals will have access to significant weaponry. The other point is that these changes are coming and there is very little any Government can do to prevent it or indeed, even affect it. The concepts of identity, ability, retirement, work, wealth and lifespan are being made quaintly irrelevant. And no political system can hope to keep up with it. How can the American's with Disabilities Act cope with prosthetics that are inherently better than the organic originals and when people begin voluntarily giving up “legacy” limbs, organs or senses in exchange for better ones? Imagine your hearing and vision being upgraded from an AppStore the way we do our telephones. Can any Governmental process hope to cope with that?
The idea is that Burke-ian Conservatism is a model helping the American people cope with these changes. The movement can help educate America about the changes and help progressively shrink the Government that can't cope with what's coming. The only system that can cope with such a high rate of change is unencumbered individuals freely interacting in an open, yes laissez-faire, marketplace. The economies that understand this will thrive. The ones that don't (or won't) are going to go the way of homo neanderthalensis.
Comments
Changing Captains, not Crews or Missions
09/14/08 00:00:00
Recent news of GOP gains in the presidential and congressional races post convention have gotten me thinking. Most of these gains have happened almost immediately after the convention and even then, only happened after Palin's speeches. They also came after a previous week of the Democratic convention and weeks of pre-convention campaigning where the media acted as filter of each campaign's message.
My theory for why the GOP has had these recent gains is that this is the first time in almost eight years that someone besides Bush is talking about Republican values and policies, that the media wasn't able to filter what was being said, and that an almost unknown person is doing some of the talking. Its not that the American people have decided to turn any further left or right. They are simply tired of seeing a particular phraseology coming from a particular person.
Its the same phenomenon that causes a most perfectly good television show to start going downhill after the 4th year: viewers simply get tired of the same words coming from the same person. Campaigns understand this and that's the reason why Bush had only a short teleconference at the convention. Its why Obama's campaign attempts to minimize the exposure of the Clintons. It wasn't that McCain was trying to distance himself from what Bush and the Republican Party stood for. It was the same reason that a new Star Trek series never uses a previous Captain. They make cameos but they're never allowed to trump the new Captain.
I know this isn't some glaring new insight, but it at least made me thing of some consequences. The first is that if television had been around at the time, FDR would have never even been nominated to a third term, much less win it. (Its not clear that we would have won WWII, either.) I also think it might make sense to change our system to have terms of 5 or maybe 6 years but limit them to one term. Yes, that means we're letting television dictate our political system but I think its not really television itself, that is simply a reflection on how human beings deal with exposure to leaders. This also brings up another question: can “leaders for life” (dictator or monarch) survive in a wired world? Will they be deposed not because they are despotic or dictatorial but simply because their people are tired of their face and ready for a new Captain on next season's show?
Same mission and same crew. Just a different Captain?
Just a thought…
*UPDATE: * I was thinking about this further while mowing the grass and it seemed to resonate with one of my issues with the GOP over the past decade. One of the first things I learned leading volunteer and political organizations was any leader's #1 responsibility is to find his/her successor. Without continuity of competency at the top the organization dies. I saw this happening to the GOP over the past few years. The bench is just too weak. There are notable exceptions (Palin, Jindal) but they came up on their own. There seemed to be very little candidate development (not recruiting, development.
IMHO, political organizations should go visit Disney's teen star machine. They understand their market, its life cycle, and how to exploit it. The GOP should be out recruiting at the highschool level, digging into Model UN and Debate teams, student government, etc and showing these kids the ropes, putting them on the fast track to leadership roles in Young Republicans/student government/corporate leadership. Why did the GOP fall down on such a simple concept?
Comments
Choice in Education as a Civil Rights Issue
09/10/08 00:00:00
A Skribit suggestion asks “How can McCain justify linking education to civil rights as a single issue?” so I thought I'd dig into this one since it was one of the more interesting bits of his convention speech.
So why is it a civil rights issue? Mainly because “separate but equal” doesn't help if the school system itself sucks across the board. Brown vs Board of Education ruled that “separate but equal” was unconstitutional. The result is that all public schools were integrated. But that did nothing to guarantee that those would be good schools or that they would stay that way. In many cases the children were bussed to already under-performing schools. What the parents wanted, and the reason Brown was brought, was to give minority children a good education. Instead what we have now may be legalistically called equality of access but it is access to an inferior service. And, as before, the parents of minority children are powerless to move their child to a school that does provide a good education. And, as before, it is the government preventing them from doing so. The only difference is that the government is using financial controls as opposed to dogs and clubs. The government is now aggressively prosecuting parents for trying to put their kids into a good school. What kind of insanity makes that a crime?
The only way to actually achieve the original intent and spirit of what Brown was trying to accomplish is to open up the system to allow the parents to make the choices about which school their child will attend. This removes the government from the position of deciding who is allowed to go to which school.
What is truly sad is that Brown was needed to overcome racism. What is holding back school choice? Nothing but simple greed and inertia on the part of an antiquated and non-competitive public school administration. You would think the education of a child would be above those petty concerns.
Comments
Picking Up The Syringe Again
09/09/08 00:00:00
Its been a long time since I blogged about anything here. I've been keeping way to busy with Masten Space Systems, CASgroup, Refactored Networks, and even Barcamp Atlanta 2. I've also fed the blogging bug via Twitter. But as I started twitter more and more about politics (it is an election year) I started feeling uncomfortable doing it via Twitter. I think it was knowing that people were following for particular reasons (Masten Space, space in general, Atlanta startup stuff, etc) and that none of those people really cared about by politics. That and its hard expressing a complete thought in 140 characters. Although it does a very good job at “making every word tell”.
Anyway, so I'm back doing this again. I'll probably post more about political stuff than space stuff between now and the election, at which point I'll go get drunk, cuss a lot and get all of that out of my system. Hell, I think my next post is going to be on electronic medical record adoption rates. Boring, huh?
Comments
Astronaut Farmer - The Unrealistic Bits
02/27/07 00:00:00
Last weekend I dragged the wife to see The Astronaut Farmer. Big mistake! The movie was unrealistic on several fronts but the one that struck me full in the face was the doe-eyed forgivenes of Audie Farmer (Virginia Madsen) and the complete lack of any financial/business sense in Charles Farmer (Billy Bob Thornton). Yes, you could rail on about the barn not burning down after two engine firings or the land-shark flight that seemed to defy gravity. But this is Hollywood so we should all expect the laws of physics to be ignored with extreme prejudice. But what I didn't expect was the simplistic nature of the characters. You would think Hollywood would try and get that right.
First off, it seemed that Charlie Farmer was selectively intelligent. The man could run a 350 acre cattle ranch and rebuild an Atlas launcher and Mercury capsule, but he couldn't figure out a way to pay his mortgage? That requires an unbelievable level of tunnel vision that would have washed him out of the astronaut corp simply because he couldn't multitask. Did he have any plan for his second flight? Was he just going to find another rich relative that was about to die and squander their entire inheritance all at once?
Secondly, what woman (or bank) would have put up with 6 mortgages? The movie wasn't clear, but one assumes that Audie Farmer met and married Charles Farmer while he was in astronaut training. So you can assume that she knew that her husband had some fairly significant ambitions for the 1960s and that she bought into them to a certain degree. But there are limits that any sane wife would have set. And what about her dreams and aspirations? I half expected to hear Tammy Wynette's “Stand By Your Man” at points. And its something I've seen in business in general and the space business specifically: we neglect our wives. Yes, there are a few 'rocket' couples out there (the Millirons come to mind) but by and large this business causes our significant others a good bit of stress. That willingness to assume someone else's dreams and put up with the financial uncertainty just didn't seem to match Audie's apparent strength and drive. It just didn't seem realistic to see those very different character elements in the same person.But in the end I did get a little misty eyed when he did get into space. I did enjoy the personal validation of seeing my own dreams and aspirations portrayed on the big screen. So yea, I enjoyed the movie. But it would have been 10 times better if the characters had been more completely fleshed out and reasonable.
One a slight different note, I had two specific comments to anyone reading this who isn't from inside the industry:
1) The FAA/AST is NOT like the FAA portrayed in the movie! They are a very professional organization that is out there rooting for us as much as they can. Think about it: if we succeed it means they have job security! They live with and have to enforce a set of regulations. Do we wish some of the regulations were slightly different? Sure. But until we're flying all the time the regulators only have the old way of doing things to go by. 2) The people who really are building rockets in their garages are much more normal than what's portrayed in the movie. We try and treat our wives and families better than that, we do know how to do business and marketing before the fact instead of after it, and we do file our government required paperwork when asked to. We're just like you. Except that we're building rockets in our garages.
Comments