Monday, May 28, 2012
Friday, May 25, 2012
Dragon Has Made It!!
They did it! The Dragon capsule was captured by the robotic arm of the ISS and has now for the most part been berthed. The crew wil lbe performing tests on bolts, a pressurization test, etc...but for the msot part, the mission was successful. Tomorrow the crew will open up the capsule. NASA TV will be showing it live starting at 5:30 AM EST. They covered the berthing today as well (for anyone who missed it, they probably have it recorded for a person to watch). This marks a very historic day, as it proves the viability of private commercial spacecraft and is the only private company to have launched and docked a spacecraft at the ISS, something that beforehand was only accomplished by NASA, the European Space Agency, the Japanese Space Agency, and the Russian Space Agency. If all goes according to plan, we will be able to start launching astronauts to the space station on this spacecraft in a few years. And then there's NASA's future spacecraft for deep space missions, SpaceX's planned Falcon Heavy rocket, and quite a few other private space companies working on their own spacecraft. Provided they are successful, we will have entered into a new era of private spaceflight.
Huge congrats to both SpaceX and of course its founder, Elon Musk. One HELL of an accomplishment to make in only a decade!
Huge congrats to both SpaceX and of course its founder, Elon Musk. One HELL of an accomplishment to make in only a decade!
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Congrats (So Far) to SpaceX!
I just caught the launch on television and got to watch it live! The Dragon
capsule is now in orbit and is headed for the International Space Station, which
will take a couple of days, but if all goes according to plan, then Space X will
become the first private company to successfully launch a payload to the
International Space Station. The Falcon 9, one of their rockets (and used on
this mission), provides the lowest cost per pound/kilogram and does so with huge
improvements in reliability. It is also a reusable rocket. On Thursday, the
Dragon spacecraft must demonstrate its guidance, control, and communications
systems. If successful, then on Friday it wil lbe allowed to fly within 10m of
the ISS, where the crew will grab it. The company was launched by tech
entrepreneur Elon Musk. What is really amazing is that all the critics said what
Musk is trying to do is impossible, that he doesn't know what he is doing and
was doomed to fail. Each time he'd meet a goal, successfully launching a rocket,
they'd then say, "Okay, he made it that far, but he won't make the next goal."
When SpaceX started up around a decade ago, no one gave it much serious thought,
that it was just the fantasies of a tech entrepreneur but never something that
would become a serious contender for space launching, but it seems like now it
will be a serious contender for giving America the ability to launch its own
astronauts back into space without having to rely on other countries like Russia
(and also not having to rely on other countries to launch our satellites and
supplies to astronauts in space).
NASA in 2008 selected SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch vehicle (rocket) and Dragon spacecraft capsule for resupplying the International Space Station, although first SpaceX must complete a set of milestones established by NASA to win the contract. Prior to this, the business of launching satellites has been dominated by the big defense/aerospace companies and as such, they haven't had much need to innovate as there was a lack of competition. SpaceX's rockets, which it seems will be both cheaper and more reliable, are going to give them a real run for their money though it seems. The cost of launching satellites has been increasing each year, so if successful, Space X will really lower the cost, allowing NASA to spend more money on other things. SpaceX's biggest planned rocket is called the Falcon Heavy and that will be able to lift neary twice the payload of the Space Shuttle and more than twice the payload of the Delta IV Heavy. The next few days will tell if they are successful or not in reaching the ISS, but there was HUGE applause though as the rocket got into orbit and then they showed live the solar panels on the spacecraft deploying. The Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft are designed to carry astronauts to the space station as well. Once they complete a mission in which astronauts are launched, Musk will have really done our nation a truly national service, giving us space launch capability and private-sector to boot! He already has done a national service I think, but when they start launching astronauts will be really cool.
It is really neat in the sense that the modern world as we know it is a result of the space program. The computer, the Internet, the GPS system, modern electronics, and a whole host of other things too numerous to list here, would literally not exist or would exist in a much more primitive form, had it not been for the space program. But now we see the private sector, utilizing the technologies that have come about from the space program, advancing America's space launch capabilities. Maybe America will again make it to the Moon and back, through a combination of NASA and private enterprise.
Here is the statement from the White House from John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology:
"Congratulations to the teams at SpaceX and NASA for this morning’s successful launch of the Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. Every launch into space is a thrilling event, but this one is especially exciting because it represents the potential of a new era in American spaceflight. Partnering with U.S. companies such as SpaceX to provide cargo and eventually crew service to the International Space Station is a cornerstone of the President’s plan for maintaining America’s leadership in space. This expanded role for the private sector will free up more of NASA’s resources to do what NASA does best -- tackle the most demanding technological challenges in space, including those of human space flight beyond low Earth orbit. I could not be more proud of our NASA and SpaceX scientists and engineers, and I look forward to following this and many more missions like it."
The policy of relying more on the private-sector is great, but I disagree with the President for cutting the funding for NASA, as that is the one government program that actually is partially self-sustaining because it continues to pump out new research and development that the private sector takes advantage of. It's probably the one government program that should not see any real cuts, as it is already a miniscule protion of the budget. And until the private-sector proves its mettle, we want NASA to continue working on its own replacement spacecraft (currently the Space Launch System and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle). Thie Chinese have made it clear that they want to be the first back to the Moon, and if the U.S. did it with 1960s technology, I'm sure the Chinese could eventually pull it off.
As a side note (and something I mentioned in a post some ways back), James Cameron recently made a record-breaking dive to the bottom of the Marianna Trench (in a submersible which he designed too, he also has worked at designing special camera, both for movies and space exploration), making it the fourth time any craft has successfully dived down that far. He spent three hours down there, the longest ever (the last time any person went to the Challenger Deep (deepest part) was the U.S. Navy in 1960, two men for twenty minutes). Cameron was the first solo dive and the longest manned dive. The dive was the culmination of seven years of planning and the design and construction of a special submersible (Cameron is very big on ocean exploration, hence the movies The Abyss, Titanic and also the aquatic-based world of Avatar). This dive was really big-time as well in that not only is his craft revolutionary in design as far as submersibles go, but it is also private-sector, not government. And the deep sea is harder to explore than outer space (more humans have walked on the Moon, and for far longer, than have explored the bottom of the ocean), so that was also a big deal.
Good times for human exploration!
NASA in 2008 selected SpaceX's Falcon 9 launch vehicle (rocket) and Dragon spacecraft capsule for resupplying the International Space Station, although first SpaceX must complete a set of milestones established by NASA to win the contract. Prior to this, the business of launching satellites has been dominated by the big defense/aerospace companies and as such, they haven't had much need to innovate as there was a lack of competition. SpaceX's rockets, which it seems will be both cheaper and more reliable, are going to give them a real run for their money though it seems. The cost of launching satellites has been increasing each year, so if successful, Space X will really lower the cost, allowing NASA to spend more money on other things. SpaceX's biggest planned rocket is called the Falcon Heavy and that will be able to lift neary twice the payload of the Space Shuttle and more than twice the payload of the Delta IV Heavy. The next few days will tell if they are successful or not in reaching the ISS, but there was HUGE applause though as the rocket got into orbit and then they showed live the solar panels on the spacecraft deploying. The Falcon 9 rocket and Dragon spacecraft are designed to carry astronauts to the space station as well. Once they complete a mission in which astronauts are launched, Musk will have really done our nation a truly national service, giving us space launch capability and private-sector to boot! He already has done a national service I think, but when they start launching astronauts will be really cool.
It is really neat in the sense that the modern world as we know it is a result of the space program. The computer, the Internet, the GPS system, modern electronics, and a whole host of other things too numerous to list here, would literally not exist or would exist in a much more primitive form, had it not been for the space program. But now we see the private sector, utilizing the technologies that have come about from the space program, advancing America's space launch capabilities. Maybe America will again make it to the Moon and back, through a combination of NASA and private enterprise.
Here is the statement from the White House from John P. Holdren, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology:
"Congratulations to the teams at SpaceX and NASA for this morning’s successful launch of the Falcon 9 rocket from Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida. Every launch into space is a thrilling event, but this one is especially exciting because it represents the potential of a new era in American spaceflight. Partnering with U.S. companies such as SpaceX to provide cargo and eventually crew service to the International Space Station is a cornerstone of the President’s plan for maintaining America’s leadership in space. This expanded role for the private sector will free up more of NASA’s resources to do what NASA does best -- tackle the most demanding technological challenges in space, including those of human space flight beyond low Earth orbit. I could not be more proud of our NASA and SpaceX scientists and engineers, and I look forward to following this and many more missions like it."
The policy of relying more on the private-sector is great, but I disagree with the President for cutting the funding for NASA, as that is the one government program that actually is partially self-sustaining because it continues to pump out new research and development that the private sector takes advantage of. It's probably the one government program that should not see any real cuts, as it is already a miniscule protion of the budget. And until the private-sector proves its mettle, we want NASA to continue working on its own replacement spacecraft (currently the Space Launch System and Orion Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle). Thie Chinese have made it clear that they want to be the first back to the Moon, and if the U.S. did it with 1960s technology, I'm sure the Chinese could eventually pull it off.
As a side note (and something I mentioned in a post some ways back), James Cameron recently made a record-breaking dive to the bottom of the Marianna Trench (in a submersible which he designed too, he also has worked at designing special camera, both for movies and space exploration), making it the fourth time any craft has successfully dived down that far. He spent three hours down there, the longest ever (the last time any person went to the Challenger Deep (deepest part) was the U.S. Navy in 1960, two men for twenty minutes). Cameron was the first solo dive and the longest manned dive. The dive was the culmination of seven years of planning and the design and construction of a special submersible (Cameron is very big on ocean exploration, hence the movies The Abyss, Titanic and also the aquatic-based world of Avatar). This dive was really big-time as well in that not only is his craft revolutionary in design as far as submersibles go, but it is also private-sector, not government. And the deep sea is harder to explore than outer space (more humans have walked on the Moon, and for far longer, than have explored the bottom of the ocean), so that was also a big deal.
Good times for human exploration!
Friday, May 18, 2012
Time for a Rant
New York State Democrats Seeking to Increase State's Minimum Wage from Current $7.25/Hour to $8.50/Hour
::::BANGS HEAD::::
REALLY!?!?
We are in the middle of a recession, youth unemployment is at an all-time high, and these guys want to increase the minimum wage all the way up to $8.50/hour!? The minimum wage is a price control. It artificially increases the cost of labor to businesses in the same way placing a tax on gasoline increases the cost of it and gets people and business to purchase less of it, provided the increase is high enough. LABOR IS NO DIFFERENT. You artificially increase labor's cost, and you are going to see a spike in the unemployment rate. Yes, you can increase the cost of labor artificially without seeing a spike in the unemployment rate if the increases are minimal, but this depends on the type of unemployment rate as well. In terms of the overall unemployment rate, the minimum wage probably doesn't increase it that much. Where the minimum wage increases tend to have a bad effect is on the youth, which are the people that the media are always pointing out are suffering through a very high unemployment rate right now (in order for the minimum wage itself to really begin to raise the overall unemployment rate, you'd probably have to implement something like a "living wage" as many on the Left desire).
Well what do these Democrats think will happen if you raise the cost of cheap labor (often youth) to business? They will higher less such workers. Thus, we have another case of the left putting the working person up onto a pedastal and then, well-meaning or not, trying to push through a policy that is only going to send the economy even further into the crapper. Note how House Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver says the following:
Silver said the issue was about "a full day's pay for a full day's work."
"When push comes to shove, this is a moral issue," he said.
Note the phrasing, "A full day's pay" (whatever that is supposed to mean) "for a full day's work." Words that are very arbitrary in meaning but that are meant to appeal to the empty-headed on this issue. The amount you make as a laborer depends on what skills you have to offer. What value can you provide to employers on the labor market. Obviously if you have a Ph.D in computer engineering and know how to design microprocessors, you are not going to just start off at minimum wage. Minimum wage is because such laborers are generally unskilled. They have virtually nothing to offer except very basic labor skills. But this is fine for youth, such as teenagers, who are able to get jobs and thus garner work experience and begin their foray into adulthood.
Saying that the minimum wage should be increased not only prices youth out of the labor market, but it also is entitlement-minded. No one is entitled to a decent-paying job that allows you to live a nice life. If you want to live a nice life, then you need to research what skills are needed in society, then acquire said skills and this way you will be more highly-valued in the labor market. Or you can start a business and produce goods and/or services. Either way, the economy works where you have to produce something of value to society, which is determined by the market. That is when you are then traded money, which you then can trade for other goods/services. If you have a nice home and car, it means you have a skill that is valued highly or own a business that produces enough of some good or service that you make enough money to own those things. Saying the minimum wage increase is a "moral issue" relies on the entitlement mindset and ignores economics.
Some say, "The cost of living in New York State is very high." Yes, it is. But you aren't supposed to just make minimum wage for the rest of your life. Thinking that you should be able to just get a job and be paid minimum wage, but that minimum wage should be adequate to afford you a nice lifestyle and raise a family and all that, is an entitlement-mindset in the extreme. It's basically saying, "I am too lazy to acquire any skills or do anything whatsoever to make myself valuable in some way to society, so I want to use the force of the government in order to legally increase how much an employer must pay me." If all you can continually earn is minimum wage, then you have virtually nothing to offer to society. It is up to YOU to acquire the skills to create value in some way to offer to society.
I think the truly moral thing to do (albeit not necessarilly politicially popular as too many people do not know any better) would be to eliminate the state minimum wage (and the national minimum wage) outright. This would lower the price of unskilled labor to the market level and allow more people to actually get work. And the Republican party seems utterly idiotic in how they are counter-arguing the issue. They aren't pointing any of this out, but instead are using the argument that the minimum wage hike will result in higher taxes and reduced social services. Well maybe, but they could completely turn this issue on its head with the Democrats by making the argument that the truly moral thing to do is to leave the minimum wage fixed where it is at, or else risk raising the unemployment rate further, and in particular the youth unemployment rate.
They could say, "At the end of the day, this IS a moral issue, and as such, we do not want to be artificially increasing the cost of youth and unskilled labor to businesses, which will result in them having fewer opportunities for employment in this economy." I don't know for sure, but I would be willing to bet that this push for an increase in the minimum wage is also tied to the unions, who push for minimum wage increases because the minimum wage protects unionized labor from cheaper non-union workers, and also a lot of union contracts are tied to the prevailing minimum wage, which means that an increase in the minimum wage increases the amount of money the workers, and hence the union, will make, which thus increases its power.
Then we get this:
Myrna Capaldi, a single working mother of a teenager from Kingston, led two dozen demonstrators with the Workers Justice Center to Skelos' office. After a 25-minute wait, the bilingual family social services worker was happy to meet with Skelos' aide.
"Every dollar I earn is already spent before I get my paycheck," Capaldi said.
MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE POPPED OUT A CHILD WHEN YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY SKILLS, AND STILL DON'T HAVE ANY SKILLS, TO MAKE YOURSELF VALUED MORE HIGHLY AS A LABORER.
Rant over.
::::BANGS HEAD::::
REALLY!?!?
We are in the middle of a recession, youth unemployment is at an all-time high, and these guys want to increase the minimum wage all the way up to $8.50/hour!? The minimum wage is a price control. It artificially increases the cost of labor to businesses in the same way placing a tax on gasoline increases the cost of it and gets people and business to purchase less of it, provided the increase is high enough. LABOR IS NO DIFFERENT. You artificially increase labor's cost, and you are going to see a spike in the unemployment rate. Yes, you can increase the cost of labor artificially without seeing a spike in the unemployment rate if the increases are minimal, but this depends on the type of unemployment rate as well. In terms of the overall unemployment rate, the minimum wage probably doesn't increase it that much. Where the minimum wage increases tend to have a bad effect is on the youth, which are the people that the media are always pointing out are suffering through a very high unemployment rate right now (in order for the minimum wage itself to really begin to raise the overall unemployment rate, you'd probably have to implement something like a "living wage" as many on the Left desire).
Well what do these Democrats think will happen if you raise the cost of cheap labor (often youth) to business? They will higher less such workers. Thus, we have another case of the left putting the working person up onto a pedastal and then, well-meaning or not, trying to push through a policy that is only going to send the economy even further into the crapper. Note how House Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver says the following:
Silver said the issue was about "a full day's pay for a full day's work."
"When push comes to shove, this is a moral issue," he said.
Note the phrasing, "A full day's pay" (whatever that is supposed to mean) "for a full day's work." Words that are very arbitrary in meaning but that are meant to appeal to the empty-headed on this issue. The amount you make as a laborer depends on what skills you have to offer. What value can you provide to employers on the labor market. Obviously if you have a Ph.D in computer engineering and know how to design microprocessors, you are not going to just start off at minimum wage. Minimum wage is because such laborers are generally unskilled. They have virtually nothing to offer except very basic labor skills. But this is fine for youth, such as teenagers, who are able to get jobs and thus garner work experience and begin their foray into adulthood.
Saying that the minimum wage should be increased not only prices youth out of the labor market, but it also is entitlement-minded. No one is entitled to a decent-paying job that allows you to live a nice life. If you want to live a nice life, then you need to research what skills are needed in society, then acquire said skills and this way you will be more highly-valued in the labor market. Or you can start a business and produce goods and/or services. Either way, the economy works where you have to produce something of value to society, which is determined by the market. That is when you are then traded money, which you then can trade for other goods/services. If you have a nice home and car, it means you have a skill that is valued highly or own a business that produces enough of some good or service that you make enough money to own those things. Saying the minimum wage increase is a "moral issue" relies on the entitlement mindset and ignores economics.
Some say, "The cost of living in New York State is very high." Yes, it is. But you aren't supposed to just make minimum wage for the rest of your life. Thinking that you should be able to just get a job and be paid minimum wage, but that minimum wage should be adequate to afford you a nice lifestyle and raise a family and all that, is an entitlement-mindset in the extreme. It's basically saying, "I am too lazy to acquire any skills or do anything whatsoever to make myself valuable in some way to society, so I want to use the force of the government in order to legally increase how much an employer must pay me." If all you can continually earn is minimum wage, then you have virtually nothing to offer to society. It is up to YOU to acquire the skills to create value in some way to offer to society.
I think the truly moral thing to do (albeit not necessarilly politicially popular as too many people do not know any better) would be to eliminate the state minimum wage (and the national minimum wage) outright. This would lower the price of unskilled labor to the market level and allow more people to actually get work. And the Republican party seems utterly idiotic in how they are counter-arguing the issue. They aren't pointing any of this out, but instead are using the argument that the minimum wage hike will result in higher taxes and reduced social services. Well maybe, but they could completely turn this issue on its head with the Democrats by making the argument that the truly moral thing to do is to leave the minimum wage fixed where it is at, or else risk raising the unemployment rate further, and in particular the youth unemployment rate.
They could say, "At the end of the day, this IS a moral issue, and as such, we do not want to be artificially increasing the cost of youth and unskilled labor to businesses, which will result in them having fewer opportunities for employment in this economy." I don't know for sure, but I would be willing to bet that this push for an increase in the minimum wage is also tied to the unions, who push for minimum wage increases because the minimum wage protects unionized labor from cheaper non-union workers, and also a lot of union contracts are tied to the prevailing minimum wage, which means that an increase in the minimum wage increases the amount of money the workers, and hence the union, will make, which thus increases its power.
Then we get this:
Myrna Capaldi, a single working mother of a teenager from Kingston, led two dozen demonstrators with the Workers Justice Center to Skelos' office. After a 25-minute wait, the bilingual family social services worker was happy to meet with Skelos' aide.
"Every dollar I earn is already spent before I get my paycheck," Capaldi said.
MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE POPPED OUT A CHILD WHEN YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY SKILLS, AND STILL DON'T HAVE ANY SKILLS, TO MAKE YOURSELF VALUED MORE HIGHLY AS A LABORER.
Rant over.
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Government Study of Government Study of Government Studies
Yes, you read that correctly. Back in 2010 the Pentagon issued a study to learn how much all the studies that the Defense Department was being inundated with cost. However, that "study of studies," if you will, hasn't been producing results and is still on-going, so the Government Accountability Office was ordered to perform (you guessed it!) a study of the study of studies: LINK
Monday, May 14, 2012
Should Police Be Allowed to Use Drones?
This is a subject that gets into the area of letting the police do the things they need to do to enforce the law and prevent crime versus protecting people's rights. The Left and the Ron Paul libertarians are generally opposed to the use of drones, but some among the neoconservative right, who are usually okay with more expanded governmental powers for stopping terrorism (for example the Patriot Act, which many on the left and libertarian right are against) and maintaining a strong standing military, are also against this.
The reasoning is that drones are an instrument of war, and their use will end up being abused, even if they try to create safeguards to protect against such a thing, and thus that police forces should not be allowed to utilize such tools of warfare. Just like the standing military, modern police forces are militarized a lot more than they used to be. With the problems of terrorism and modern weapons and so forth, and in major cities in particular, the police forces are in some ways paramilitary forces, some capable of counter-terrorism, complete with highly-trained fighting units that wear helmets and body-armor, are equipped with high-powered weapons, snipers, armored vehicles, etc...but at the same time, just as with granting the government some extended capabilities to deal with terrorism, there is a limit, after which you really begin infringing on people's rights and freedoms. With police, it's the same. Police may be more militarized today, but there's still a limit in terms of just how much capability they should be given.
Charles Krauthammer, a prominent neoconservative, believes usage of drones by police should be outlawed completely, which I find very interesting. This is one of the things that has made me interested in this issue, as usually the folks like Krauthammer are the ones arguing about how the Left, the ACLU, and the Libertarians are blowing things out of proportion and that America is not becoming a police state as they often claim. But in this case, he agrees completely with them.
The reasoning is that drones are an instrument of war, and their use will end up being abused, even if they try to create safeguards to protect against such a thing, and thus that police forces should not be allowed to utilize such tools of warfare. Just like the standing military, modern police forces are militarized a lot more than they used to be. With the problems of terrorism and modern weapons and so forth, and in major cities in particular, the police forces are in some ways paramilitary forces, some capable of counter-terrorism, complete with highly-trained fighting units that wear helmets and body-armor, are equipped with high-powered weapons, snipers, armored vehicles, etc...but at the same time, just as with granting the government some extended capabilities to deal with terrorism, there is a limit, after which you really begin infringing on people's rights and freedoms. With police, it's the same. Police may be more militarized today, but there's still a limit in terms of just how much capability they should be given.
Charles Krauthammer, a prominent neoconservative, believes usage of drones by police should be outlawed completely, which I find very interesting. This is one of the things that has made me interested in this issue, as usually the folks like Krauthammer are the ones arguing about how the Left, the ACLU, and the Libertarians are blowing things out of proportion and that America is not becoming a police state as they often claim. But in this case, he agrees completely with them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)