--FIRST -PREV NEXT-
[Ed. Note: This is the beginning of a five-year project, examining the Civil War 150 years after the fact, in real time. It's been said before -- and I believe it to be true -- that the Civil War was fundamental in shaping the character of our nation. You cannot understand what America is today without understanding the nature of that conflict. And since none of us are as smart as all of us, I'd appreciate all the help I can get from other bloggers out there. Let me know what you've written, and I'll publish links.]
First, let's get something out of the way before we start: the Civil War was about slavery. Any other bone of contention between North and South could have been resolved through negotiation. Slavery was at the core of the Southern economy, though, and it was something for which the leadership of the South was willing, even eager, to fight. This will become crystal-clear over the next year, as we examine the events in the run-up to Fort Sumter.
A century and a half ago this week in Charleston, South Carolina, the Democratic National Convention came to order at Institute Hall. You have to understand that conventions worked differently, back in the day. These days, we know who the party's nominee will be before the opening gavel, since the primaries have settled the issue months ahead of time. There will be some negotiating on the fine points of the platform, but the broad outlines of that will have also been settled. Not so in 1860. Both nominee and platform were totally up for grabs. And that was a problem, since there were serious divisions between the Northern and Southern wings of the party.
The Dred Scott case, decided by the Supreme Court in 1857, was extremely unpopular in the North even among Democrats. Stephen A. Douglas, the front-runner going into the convention, had only narrowly beaten off a challenger in the 1858 Illinois Senate race by repudiating the Dred Scott decision. This was a very unpopular stance with the Southern delegates, particularly those among them known as the "Fire-Eaters", who wanted an explicitly pro-slavery platform.
Negotiations on the platform lasted for about a week. Douglas' argument, that a pro-slavery platform would cost them votes in the North, carried considerable weight. The minority report on the platform, the Northern position, was adopted on April 30 by a vote of 165 to 138. Fifty Southern delegates then promptly walked out of the convention. They went down the street to Military Hall, convened themselves as the "real" convention, and basically waited for the rest of the convention to cave to their demands. They didn't. With the platform settled to the majority's satisfaction, the convention proceeded to nominations.
The dueling conventions, therefore, produced two Democratic candidates for President that year: Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois representing the Northern wing of the party, with Herschel V. Johnson of New York as his running mate; and John C. Breckenridge of Kentucky representing the Southern wing, with Daniel S. Dickenson of New York as his running mate.
You don't need to be a professional political consultant to guess that a split convention wasn't going to end well for the Democratic Party that November. Everyone in both of the Charleston conventions had to have known that. By and large, these weren't stupid men. On the other hand, though, their opponents had also recently undergone a split themselves; the Republicans were still a very new party, and there were still a few Whigs running around here and there. A split party couldn't contest a three-way race, but they might have a fighting chance in a four-way race.
Still, one thing is undeniably clear. The Southern delegates were perfectly willing to throw their party's chances on the fire for the sake of their "peculiar institution." They were utterly inflexible, unwilling to move, steadfast in their refusal of compromise. Other issues may well have provided fuel for the conflagration to follow, but the Southern intransigence on slavery provided both the spark and the dry tinder.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Video Del Fuego, Part XXVII
I've been getting my amateur spaceman groove on with Orbiter. While I was looking for new and nifty things to try, I came across a really interesting video:
The Apollo Applications Program started out as a fairly ambitious effort to find interesting uses for the expensive hardware NASA was developing for the Moon landings. In the end, the only parts of AAP to come to fruition were Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. In one of its original iterations, Skylab was to use what had been called the Wet Workshop concept. That is, the spent S-IVB stage itself would become the interior of the space station. The empty fuel tank would be pressurized, and then filled with equipment for an extended stay ... pretty much anywhere. Plans had been drawn up for a variety of options, from Earth-orbit stations, to Lunar orbit, to flyby missions to Mars or Venus. None of them came to life, though. Mounting costs led to the cancellation of the later Apollo lunar landings, which freed up a couple of Saturn V vehicles. This meant that a two-stage Saturn V could launch a fully-prepped S-IVB dry workshop all in one go, crew-ready. Arguably, Skylab was more effective as a dry workshop than as a wet workshop.
Still, this would have been one freaky mission to have been on. President Nixon would have seen them off ... and President Ford would have welcomed them back on their return.
"President who? Ah, Houston, did something important happen while we were away?"
It's just as well that we didn't. Glorious as it might have been, it carried a steep opportunity cost in terms of other things that couldn't have been done. Between them, Pioneer Venus and Magellan cost maybe a quarter what this would have, and returned far more data.
Still, it's fun to imagine.
[Addendum: This video was put together by the same person who did the Voyage video featured earlier. He's got a pretty great sense for timing and music. I simply must get a copy of that Beethoven piece.]
The Apollo Applications Program started out as a fairly ambitious effort to find interesting uses for the expensive hardware NASA was developing for the Moon landings. In the end, the only parts of AAP to come to fruition were Skylab and the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project. In one of its original iterations, Skylab was to use what had been called the Wet Workshop concept. That is, the spent S-IVB stage itself would become the interior of the space station. The empty fuel tank would be pressurized, and then filled with equipment for an extended stay ... pretty much anywhere. Plans had been drawn up for a variety of options, from Earth-orbit stations, to Lunar orbit, to flyby missions to Mars or Venus. None of them came to life, though. Mounting costs led to the cancellation of the later Apollo lunar landings, which freed up a couple of Saturn V vehicles. This meant that a two-stage Saturn V could launch a fully-prepped S-IVB dry workshop all in one go, crew-ready. Arguably, Skylab was more effective as a dry workshop than as a wet workshop.
Still, this would have been one freaky mission to have been on. President Nixon would have seen them off ... and President Ford would have welcomed them back on their return.
"President who? Ah, Houston, did something important happen while we were away?"
It's just as well that we didn't. Glorious as it might have been, it carried a steep opportunity cost in terms of other things that couldn't have been done. Between them, Pioneer Venus and Magellan cost maybe a quarter what this would have, and returned far more data.
Still, it's fun to imagine.
[Addendum: This video was put together by the same person who did the Voyage video featured earlier. He's got a pretty great sense for timing and music. I simply must get a copy of that Beethoven piece.]
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Spring is Sprung
Springtime is once again upon us, at least for those of us who live in the Northern Hemisphere. I've been spending more time enjoying the splendid weather than doing deep thinking. But I do have an assortment of thoughts about what's going on hereabouts:
1) I don't get baseball. I don't dislike baseball, I just don't really get it. In a strange way, baseball is a lot like space flight, in that participant spend most of their time standing around waiting for something interesting to happen. There are bits and pieces of the game I find entertaining. Such as, for example, the time Nolan Ryan had this fool twenty years his junior in a headlock, administering an impromptu lecture with his pointer knuckles on the virtues of respect for one's elders. Along with Zinedine Zidane's last play, surely this was one of sport's finest moments. But such things are few and far between. And it's entirely possible that I'd find baseball more interesting if my home team were anyone but the Texas Rangers.
2) I don't get basketball, either. If baseball is too slow, basketball is too fast. By the time I figure out what's happened, play has long since moved on. I've no doubt that I could figure it out if I really wanted to ... but I have no real desire to do so. I spend enough time on the couch as it is.
3) Andy Reid WILL rue the day. Granted, Philadelphia was in a rut, and had to do something. Making the move to your QB of the future makes good sense in that regard. But trading McNabb to a division rival? Someone you know you'll play at least twice every year? Sure, on one hand you could argue that the Philly defense knows all about McNabb, and you could say that this means they're not afraid of him. But, the flip side of that same coin is that McNabb knows the Philly defense inside and out. He's going to be powerfully motivated this year to fold their defensive playbook 'till it's all corners, and stick it somewhere it's gonna hurt. And he just might be able to do it, too. One thing I do know: the Philiadelphia-Washington games for the next couple of years are going to be good, old-fashioned grudge-ball. McNabb's return to Philadelphia, in particular, will be fine sport.
4) J. K. Rowling will be writing a new book. Exactly what it's going to be, no one knows. That said, I've daydreamed about what a sequel series could look like. We do know that Harry and Ron went to work for the Ministry as investigators of a sort. But you have to wonder: who would they be investiating that they'd be all that worried about? They'd already put paid to the biggest Big Bad that they're ever likely to find. So it'd be a more light-hearted series, with a couple of wise-cracking agents foiling the schemes of the bad guys. Now, where have I seen something like that before?
"The Man From U.N.C.L.E." plus wizards could be really fun.
5) Polywell marches on. I've talked about the Polywell project before. Last year, we covered the latest Navy research contract. We know nothing definite yet, but the indications seem to be that interesting things are afoot. They have not released any results, but they are seeking funds for development of a full-scale 100MW reactor. One of two things is true here: either they're running a scam, or they've got solid enough results from their Navy work that they want to begin work on a commercially-available version. I'm inclined to think it's the latter. And while I'm not sure that I want to donate, if they offer stock I'm damn sure buying. This could be the real thing, folks. And if it is, hold on to your hats, because the whole world's going to change. We'll know more in about a year or so -- the thing to watch for are the follow-on contract awards -- but at this point I'm guardedly optimistic.
6) START me up? I happened to be in a position to catch the signing of the new START treaty between the United States and Russia on live TV. The interesting thing is how little both parties actually give up. Nuclear weapons are acknowledged by most professionals as having little to no military utility. This wasn't true when they were introduced in 1945. Back then, atomic weapons were strategic bombing writ large; if I showed you a random decimated cityscape photo from WWII, unless there was a distinguishing landmark present or you were a dedicated scholar, you probably couldn't tell me if you were looking at a photo of Hiroshima, Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden, or Berlin. The only difference is that in the first of those cases, the devastation was wrought with one bomb in one sortie. Now, however, if we want to shut down a city, we can identify a dozen or so weak points -- single points of failure in the infrastructure -- and destroy them simultaneously without touching anything else. What need, then, for nukes? They chew up tremendous resources without contributing anything really useful. Except, that is, for deterrence. Their only use is to stay the hands of those similarly armed. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to be rid of them entirely. That bell probably can't be un-rung. But, we can reduce our stockpile to the minimum required to present a credible threat. This treaty goes a good way towards that goal, provided that the Senate will ratify it.
And that's about it for now. Spring calls!
1) I don't get baseball. I don't dislike baseball, I just don't really get it. In a strange way, baseball is a lot like space flight, in that participant spend most of their time standing around waiting for something interesting to happen. There are bits and pieces of the game I find entertaining. Such as, for example, the time Nolan Ryan had this fool twenty years his junior in a headlock, administering an impromptu lecture with his pointer knuckles on the virtues of respect for one's elders. Along with Zinedine Zidane's last play, surely this was one of sport's finest moments. But such things are few and far between. And it's entirely possible that I'd find baseball more interesting if my home team were anyone but the Texas Rangers.
2) I don't get basketball, either. If baseball is too slow, basketball is too fast. By the time I figure out what's happened, play has long since moved on. I've no doubt that I could figure it out if I really wanted to ... but I have no real desire to do so. I spend enough time on the couch as it is.
3) Andy Reid WILL rue the day. Granted, Philadelphia was in a rut, and had to do something. Making the move to your QB of the future makes good sense in that regard. But trading McNabb to a division rival? Someone you know you'll play at least twice every year? Sure, on one hand you could argue that the Philly defense knows all about McNabb, and you could say that this means they're not afraid of him. But, the flip side of that same coin is that McNabb knows the Philly defense inside and out. He's going to be powerfully motivated this year to fold their defensive playbook 'till it's all corners, and stick it somewhere it's gonna hurt. And he just might be able to do it, too. One thing I do know: the Philiadelphia-Washington games for the next couple of years are going to be good, old-fashioned grudge-ball. McNabb's return to Philadelphia, in particular, will be fine sport.
4) J. K. Rowling will be writing a new book. Exactly what it's going to be, no one knows. That said, I've daydreamed about what a sequel series could look like. We do know that Harry and Ron went to work for the Ministry as investigators of a sort. But you have to wonder: who would they be investiating that they'd be all that worried about? They'd already put paid to the biggest Big Bad that they're ever likely to find. So it'd be a more light-hearted series, with a couple of wise-cracking agents foiling the schemes of the bad guys. Now, where have I seen something like that before?
"The Man From U.N.C.L.E." plus wizards could be really fun.
5) Polywell marches on. I've talked about the Polywell project before. Last year, we covered the latest Navy research contract. We know nothing definite yet, but the indications seem to be that interesting things are afoot. They have not released any results, but they are seeking funds for development of a full-scale 100MW reactor. One of two things is true here: either they're running a scam, or they've got solid enough results from their Navy work that they want to begin work on a commercially-available version. I'm inclined to think it's the latter. And while I'm not sure that I want to donate, if they offer stock I'm damn sure buying. This could be the real thing, folks. And if it is, hold on to your hats, because the whole world's going to change. We'll know more in about a year or so -- the thing to watch for are the follow-on contract awards -- but at this point I'm guardedly optimistic.
6) START me up? I happened to be in a position to catch the signing of the new START treaty between the United States and Russia on live TV. The interesting thing is how little both parties actually give up. Nuclear weapons are acknowledged by most professionals as having little to no military utility. This wasn't true when they were introduced in 1945. Back then, atomic weapons were strategic bombing writ large; if I showed you a random decimated cityscape photo from WWII, unless there was a distinguishing landmark present or you were a dedicated scholar, you probably couldn't tell me if you were looking at a photo of Hiroshima, Tokyo, Hamburg, Dresden, or Berlin. The only difference is that in the first of those cases, the devastation was wrought with one bomb in one sortie. Now, however, if we want to shut down a city, we can identify a dozen or so weak points -- single points of failure in the infrastructure -- and destroy them simultaneously without touching anything else. What need, then, for nukes? They chew up tremendous resources without contributing anything really useful. Except, that is, for deterrence. Their only use is to stay the hands of those similarly armed. I'm not sure we'll ever be able to be rid of them entirely. That bell probably can't be un-rung. But, we can reduce our stockpile to the minimum required to present a credible threat. This treaty goes a good way towards that goal, provided that the Senate will ratify it.
And that's about it for now. Spring calls!
Friday, April 02, 2010
We Have Met The Enemy ...
When it comes to your health, and the care thereof, your worst enemy isn't any political figure. It's not either of the major national parties. It isn't anyone -- or any agency -- within the Federal Government. Nevertheless, it's someone you're fairly familiar with. Allow me to share a story by way of illustration:
A longtime friend of mine has a hangnail. No, that's not quite accurate; he has THE hangnail. He's had it for a long, long time. It's old enough to vote, buy its own liquor, and qualify for discounted auto insurance. Most of the time, he ignores it. The rest of the time, he attempts to treat it himself with a terrifying array of hand and power tools. I don't think he's tried a soldering iron or belt sander yet, but really, it's only a matter of time. He's tried just about everything ... except, that is, the services of a qualified podiatric surgeon, which would pretty much fix the problem for good. But that's far too easy.
His problem isn't that he doesn't have insurance. His problem is that he just doesn't like doctors.
So: my worst enemy? Like just about everyone else, it's the fool that stares back at me out of the mirror when I'm shaving. He'll be the death of me if I give him half a chance. And at the end of the day, my health is my responsibility and no one else's. I enjoy the benefits if I take care of business, and I suffer the consequences if I don't.
I've been doing a much better job of that lately. I've learned a few things since I first got serious about this last summer, and this is as good a time as any to share them with you. It's possible that you've heard it before. Actually, in summary, you have heard it all before: diet, and exercise. But the summary omits a few important details ... such as a form of exercise that's vitally important if you're truly interested in re-making yourself.
But first things first: it must start with nutrition. Steve over at Nerd Fitness likes to say, "You can't outrun your fork." He's absolutely right. This can be really hard at first, but it's really important. Like trying to run your car on scented lamp oil, you won't get far without the right fuel. For some, this was an easy step. For me, it meant changing my whole relationship with food. This has been an ongoing effort for over ten years on my part, and I've managed to stop over-eating, and basically eat the "right" thing more often than not these days. However, this by itself is not enough.
The next layer is, of course, cardio exercise. What kind isn't quite as important as intensity and consistency. It has to be vigorous, and it has to be at least three times a week. It almost goes without saying that you really need to pick something you enjoy doing for its own sake, or at a bare minimum something you can tolerate. I hate running. But for some weird reason, my brain doesn't really interpret elliptical machines as running, even though it's basically the same motion. And I love cycling and swimming. So, ten minutes of each, three times a week, and there we are.
But, as I said earlier, the summary -- diet and exercise -- omits an important detail. There's a leg missing from the tripod: strength training. I didn't get serious about this until nine months ago. Until I saw what it did in conjunction with the other two, I never realized how important it really was.
Mehdi makes a pitch for the benefits of strength training both here and at his own site. At the risk of repetition, I'll put in my own two cents. Simply put, muscle tissue is denser than fat. If you build muscle, even if you don't lose an ounce, you'll look trimmer. But you will lose weight, because muscle tissue burns fat constantly, even at rest. But that's only the beginning. I find that I have more energy. I find that I don't get sick as often, and recover faster when I do. I sleep better. And I have the confidence that comes from knowing that I have never been stronger, not even when I was half my age.
I've found the StrongLifts program very useful. It has several key advantages. First, it's free. All you have to do is go to the website, write down the routine and/or download the free e-book, and it's yours. Second, compound exercises are a great time-saver. Bodybuilders spend hours at the gym, working one or two muscles at a time. But with compound exercises, spend 30 minutes a day three times a week, and that's all you need. And third, you can start small and build up. It's great for beginners. You feel a little bit silly the first few weeks, lifting nothing but the bar and a few tiny weights. But soon, you work up to some respectable amounts. Within six months, I was squatting my own bodyweight. I'm aiming for twice that, and will probably be able to within the year.
And while it's easier with a gym, you don't need much equipment to do good strength training. You don't actually need anything: Pavel Tsatsouline's book Naked Warrior shows you a solid strength routine that requires no equipment at all. And here's a kettlebell routine that requires only bare-bones equipment.
Life's hard. It's even harder when you're weaker than you need to be. Do yourself a favor, and look into strength training. It may be the best choice you ever made.
A longtime friend of mine has a hangnail. No, that's not quite accurate; he has THE hangnail. He's had it for a long, long time. It's old enough to vote, buy its own liquor, and qualify for discounted auto insurance. Most of the time, he ignores it. The rest of the time, he attempts to treat it himself with a terrifying array of hand and power tools. I don't think he's tried a soldering iron or belt sander yet, but really, it's only a matter of time. He's tried just about everything ... except, that is, the services of a qualified podiatric surgeon, which would pretty much fix the problem for good. But that's far too easy.
His problem isn't that he doesn't have insurance. His problem is that he just doesn't like doctors.
So: my worst enemy? Like just about everyone else, it's the fool that stares back at me out of the mirror when I'm shaving. He'll be the death of me if I give him half a chance. And at the end of the day, my health is my responsibility and no one else's. I enjoy the benefits if I take care of business, and I suffer the consequences if I don't.
I've been doing a much better job of that lately. I've learned a few things since I first got serious about this last summer, and this is as good a time as any to share them with you. It's possible that you've heard it before. Actually, in summary, you have heard it all before: diet, and exercise. But the summary omits a few important details ... such as a form of exercise that's vitally important if you're truly interested in re-making yourself.
But first things first: it must start with nutrition. Steve over at Nerd Fitness likes to say, "You can't outrun your fork." He's absolutely right. This can be really hard at first, but it's really important. Like trying to run your car on scented lamp oil, you won't get far without the right fuel. For some, this was an easy step. For me, it meant changing my whole relationship with food. This has been an ongoing effort for over ten years on my part, and I've managed to stop over-eating, and basically eat the "right" thing more often than not these days. However, this by itself is not enough.
The next layer is, of course, cardio exercise. What kind isn't quite as important as intensity and consistency. It has to be vigorous, and it has to be at least three times a week. It almost goes without saying that you really need to pick something you enjoy doing for its own sake, or at a bare minimum something you can tolerate. I hate running. But for some weird reason, my brain doesn't really interpret elliptical machines as running, even though it's basically the same motion. And I love cycling and swimming. So, ten minutes of each, three times a week, and there we are.
But, as I said earlier, the summary -- diet and exercise -- omits an important detail. There's a leg missing from the tripod: strength training. I didn't get serious about this until nine months ago. Until I saw what it did in conjunction with the other two, I never realized how important it really was.
Mehdi makes a pitch for the benefits of strength training both here and at his own site. At the risk of repetition, I'll put in my own two cents. Simply put, muscle tissue is denser than fat. If you build muscle, even if you don't lose an ounce, you'll look trimmer. But you will lose weight, because muscle tissue burns fat constantly, even at rest. But that's only the beginning. I find that I have more energy. I find that I don't get sick as often, and recover faster when I do. I sleep better. And I have the confidence that comes from knowing that I have never been stronger, not even when I was half my age.
I've found the StrongLifts program very useful. It has several key advantages. First, it's free. All you have to do is go to the website, write down the routine and/or download the free e-book, and it's yours. Second, compound exercises are a great time-saver. Bodybuilders spend hours at the gym, working one or two muscles at a time. But with compound exercises, spend 30 minutes a day three times a week, and that's all you need. And third, you can start small and build up. It's great for beginners. You feel a little bit silly the first few weeks, lifting nothing but the bar and a few tiny weights. But soon, you work up to some respectable amounts. Within six months, I was squatting my own bodyweight. I'm aiming for twice that, and will probably be able to within the year.
And while it's easier with a gym, you don't need much equipment to do good strength training. You don't actually need anything: Pavel Tsatsouline's book Naked Warrior shows you a solid strength routine that requires no equipment at all. And here's a kettlebell routine that requires only bare-bones equipment.
Life's hard. It's even harder when you're weaker than you need to be. Do yourself a favor, and look into strength training. It may be the best choice you ever made.
Video Del Fuego, Part XXVI
Presented for your viewing pleasure, ten of the best high-speed passes ever, each of which proves that "Maverick" from Top Gun was, in fact, a sissy.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Waterloo
"Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake."
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
There is a man to whom I would like to introduce you. Some of you will have heard of him. His name is Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher, Field Marshal of the Prussian Army at Waterloo, and in my opinion the unsung hero of that battle.
He had already had a long and distinguished career in the Prussian Army, a career that included the distinction of being one of the few generals to have gotten the better of Napoleon, at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813. But in 1815 his luck hadn't run quite so well. Napoleon had returned from his exile at Elba, and was back in charge in France. Von Blucher marched to meet Napoleon's army, acting in concert with his British allies under Wellington, but Napoleon got there first. While leading a charge at the Battle of Ligny, von Blucher's horse was shot out from under him, and he was trapped under the animal's body for several hours.
Most men would have called it a day after that. Gebhard von Blucher was, most decidedly, nothing like most men. Once his aides had hauled the carcass off of him, von Blucher poured some brandy on his wounds, drank the rest, gathered what was left of his army, and led them on a two-day forced march. On the 18th of June, 1815, von Blucher arrived at Waterloo with the battle hanging in the balance, just in time to pay Napoleon back, with interest.
It is worth noting that he was seventy-two years of age.
Now, I say all of this by way of prologue, since there's been a lot of blather lately about the health care bill being Obama's Waterloo. I think the comparison is apt, just not in the way that conservative pundits had surely intended it a few weeks ago. Metaphorically, Obama did not play the part of either Napoleon or of Wellington. He played the part of von Blucher, the closer. He may have showed up late to the campaign, he may have suffered an early reverse, but he rallied when it counted.
Additionally -- and somewhat tangentially -- there are a few things I find interesting about reactions to the bill.
One: I hear a lot of blather about "death panels" and "rationing" ... I find that as grimly amusing as I did last summer. As I said then, when you have a finite good and an infinite demand, you will have rationing. Medical care is a finite good: there are only so many doctors and nurses to go around. Medical care isn't quite in infinite demand, but we all want to live longer and healthier. The question is, how do we allocate those resources? One extreme is to allocate purely on the basis of the ability to pay, the other extreme is pure first-come, first-served. As I said earlier, I find both extremes unsatisfactory, for slightly different reasons. I think the new bill strikes a better balance than the one we had previously, though.
Two: The other complaint I hear is that people object to paying for the care of deadbeats and freeloaders. I'd have some sympathy for this viewpoint ... if we weren't paying for it already. If you're uninsured, and you have a serious medical problem, where do you go? To the emergency room. Emergency rooms can't turn anyone away for lack of ability to pay, that's the law. Now, doctors and hospitals have to make up that budget shortfall somewhere. They have to. Otherwise, they go under, which does none of us any real good. So, they pass that cost along to anyone they can. Those of us who can pay, do, and we find that our fees for services and procedures are inflated slightly. We also pay higher county taxes, to support the public hospitals that are shouldering the burden. More people insured means less of this nonsense. It may mean that I have to shell out a little more tax money, to pay for those premiums. Fine. At least that way, I see the bill up front, and not as a hidden cost that I can never really know. Maybe I'm weird, but I prefer to take my lumps where I can see 'em.
Three: I suspect this will have blown over by November. Understand this isn't to say that the Democrats won't take a thumping in November. I believe that's still in the cards, since a roaring, booming recovery is somewhat unlikely between now and then. Lots of people out of work translates into an angry, discontented electorate. Like it or loathe it, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; the Republicans were on the receiving end in '08, and since the Democrats are wearing the "in power" hat, it's their turn in '10. They will lose seats in the House and the Senate, the only question is how many. Intrade is quoting a 55% chance the Democrats will retain control of the House, and 75% that they'll keep the Senate. That sounds about right, given what we know today. If Pelosi keeps her job, she'll have a knife-thin majority, and will have to do some fancy dancing to get anything done legislatively.
Four: Even if Pelosi loses her job, health care reform is here to stay. There's simply no way the Republicans can capture enough seats to win a super-majority in both houses, which is what they would need to pass a repeal over a Presidential veto. And as the weeks go by, they'll discover that while the bill may poll poorly, the actual pieces of the bill will poll quite well, and their constituents won't want those bits repealed. Even though they'll blather on endlessly about repeal, understand that they have no real intention of actually doing it.
Five: It strikes me that a big part of Obama's modus operandi appears to consist of not interrupting his opponents while they make mistakes. At any point in this process, the Republican caucus could have proposed an alternative plan, or participated in the crafting of the bill. If they had, they probably could have gotten parts of their plan in the bill. Instead they elected to stonewall, betting that they could derail the whole thing ... with the result that they had to eat the whole thing. Mind you, he's not perfect, and he's as prone to mistakes and miscues as anyone. But for all that, even his mistakes are a move or two ahead of the other player's. It is an education, watching this man operate. Whether you love him or hate him, there's no denying he's fiendishly effective. He's a master of the left-hand dagger, of the sucker-punch you never saw coming.
Six: Speaking of which, I think it's fairly apparent that the Republicans are out of airspeed, out of altitude, and out of ideas. They're running on rage at this point. Rage is a useful servant but a perilous master ... and angry people make stupid mistakes. Until they take the time to figure out what they're really for as opposed to what they're against, they're going nowhere with great sound and fury. For the next few years, it's all aboard the Crazy Train. I would like to be disproven on that. Virtually everything is cyclical, and they're bound to regain power eventually; it's vitally important that they work through their fit of the howling crazies before that happens.
And that's about it for a very eventful week ... possibly the biggest we'll see in quite some time to come.
-- Napoleon Bonaparte
There is a man to whom I would like to introduce you. Some of you will have heard of him. His name is Gebhard Leberecht von Blucher, Field Marshal of the Prussian Army at Waterloo, and in my opinion the unsung hero of that battle.
He had already had a long and distinguished career in the Prussian Army, a career that included the distinction of being one of the few generals to have gotten the better of Napoleon, at the Battle of Leipzig in 1813. But in 1815 his luck hadn't run quite so well. Napoleon had returned from his exile at Elba, and was back in charge in France. Von Blucher marched to meet Napoleon's army, acting in concert with his British allies under Wellington, but Napoleon got there first. While leading a charge at the Battle of Ligny, von Blucher's horse was shot out from under him, and he was trapped under the animal's body for several hours.
Most men would have called it a day after that. Gebhard von Blucher was, most decidedly, nothing like most men. Once his aides had hauled the carcass off of him, von Blucher poured some brandy on his wounds, drank the rest, gathered what was left of his army, and led them on a two-day forced march. On the 18th of June, 1815, von Blucher arrived at Waterloo with the battle hanging in the balance, just in time to pay Napoleon back, with interest.
It is worth noting that he was seventy-two years of age.
Now, I say all of this by way of prologue, since there's been a lot of blather lately about the health care bill being Obama's Waterloo. I think the comparison is apt, just not in the way that conservative pundits had surely intended it a few weeks ago. Metaphorically, Obama did not play the part of either Napoleon or of Wellington. He played the part of von Blucher, the closer. He may have showed up late to the campaign, he may have suffered an early reverse, but he rallied when it counted.
Additionally -- and somewhat tangentially -- there are a few things I find interesting about reactions to the bill.
One: I hear a lot of blather about "death panels" and "rationing" ... I find that as grimly amusing as I did last summer. As I said then, when you have a finite good and an infinite demand, you will have rationing. Medical care is a finite good: there are only so many doctors and nurses to go around. Medical care isn't quite in infinite demand, but we all want to live longer and healthier. The question is, how do we allocate those resources? One extreme is to allocate purely on the basis of the ability to pay, the other extreme is pure first-come, first-served. As I said earlier, I find both extremes unsatisfactory, for slightly different reasons. I think the new bill strikes a better balance than the one we had previously, though.
Two: The other complaint I hear is that people object to paying for the care of deadbeats and freeloaders. I'd have some sympathy for this viewpoint ... if we weren't paying for it already. If you're uninsured, and you have a serious medical problem, where do you go? To the emergency room. Emergency rooms can't turn anyone away for lack of ability to pay, that's the law. Now, doctors and hospitals have to make up that budget shortfall somewhere. They have to. Otherwise, they go under, which does none of us any real good. So, they pass that cost along to anyone they can. Those of us who can pay, do, and we find that our fees for services and procedures are inflated slightly. We also pay higher county taxes, to support the public hospitals that are shouldering the burden. More people insured means less of this nonsense. It may mean that I have to shell out a little more tax money, to pay for those premiums. Fine. At least that way, I see the bill up front, and not as a hidden cost that I can never really know. Maybe I'm weird, but I prefer to take my lumps where I can see 'em.
Three: I suspect this will have blown over by November. Understand this isn't to say that the Democrats won't take a thumping in November. I believe that's still in the cards, since a roaring, booming recovery is somewhat unlikely between now and then. Lots of people out of work translates into an angry, discontented electorate. Like it or loathe it, sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander; the Republicans were on the receiving end in '08, and since the Democrats are wearing the "in power" hat, it's their turn in '10. They will lose seats in the House and the Senate, the only question is how many. Intrade is quoting a 55% chance the Democrats will retain control of the House, and 75% that they'll keep the Senate. That sounds about right, given what we know today. If Pelosi keeps her job, she'll have a knife-thin majority, and will have to do some fancy dancing to get anything done legislatively.
Four: Even if Pelosi loses her job, health care reform is here to stay. There's simply no way the Republicans can capture enough seats to win a super-majority in both houses, which is what they would need to pass a repeal over a Presidential veto. And as the weeks go by, they'll discover that while the bill may poll poorly, the actual pieces of the bill will poll quite well, and their constituents won't want those bits repealed. Even though they'll blather on endlessly about repeal, understand that they have no real intention of actually doing it.
Five: It strikes me that a big part of Obama's modus operandi appears to consist of not interrupting his opponents while they make mistakes. At any point in this process, the Republican caucus could have proposed an alternative plan, or participated in the crafting of the bill. If they had, they probably could have gotten parts of their plan in the bill. Instead they elected to stonewall, betting that they could derail the whole thing ... with the result that they had to eat the whole thing. Mind you, he's not perfect, and he's as prone to mistakes and miscues as anyone. But for all that, even his mistakes are a move or two ahead of the other player's. It is an education, watching this man operate. Whether you love him or hate him, there's no denying he's fiendishly effective. He's a master of the left-hand dagger, of the sucker-punch you never saw coming.
Six: Speaking of which, I think it's fairly apparent that the Republicans are out of airspeed, out of altitude, and out of ideas. They're running on rage at this point. Rage is a useful servant but a perilous master ... and angry people make stupid mistakes. Until they take the time to figure out what they're really for as opposed to what they're against, they're going nowhere with great sound and fury. For the next few years, it's all aboard the Crazy Train. I would like to be disproven on that. Virtually everything is cyclical, and they're bound to regain power eventually; it's vitally important that they work through their fit of the howling crazies before that happens.
And that's about it for a very eventful week ... possibly the biggest we'll see in quite some time to come.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Video Del Fuego, Part XXV
Here's a nifty video of a simulated Mars mission, made with a freeware space simulator, Orbiter. Orbiter can be as easy or as hard as you want to make it. There's a spaceplane with an autopilot so good that it'll fly itself into orbit, letting you enjoy the ride; and there's a faithful reproduction of the Apollo spacecraft -- complete with realistic control panels -- that lets you experience the Moon landings like nothing else.
The video parallels the Stephen Baxter novel, Voyage, which was a fairly interesting read. The architecture made me itch, though; they move stuff around waaay too much for my taste. If something went wrong with any of those transposition maneuvers, the crew is utterly screwed.
Still, I want this mod, so I can try it myself.
The video parallels the Stephen Baxter novel, Voyage, which was a fairly interesting read. The architecture made me itch, though; they move stuff around waaay too much for my taste. If something went wrong with any of those transposition maneuvers, the crew is utterly screwed.
Still, I want this mod, so I can try it myself.
Wednesday, March 03, 2010
Primary 2010 Post-Mortem: We Put the "Goober" in Gubernatorial
What a chore that was.
We have about ten million elected offices here in Texas. Between local, county, state and school board offices, I'm not sure I can even count high enough to enumerate the number of offices I vote for on a regular basis. I know people who vote only for a couple of races at the top of a ticket and skip the rest of the ballot, but I can't roll that way. I have to read each and every bit of the ballot, and make a decision. Which means that it usually takes me a good five, ten minutes to mark the ballot, even when I'm basically picking half of the races at random. (Skipping, picking randomly, same difference ... in the end, those races always get decided by the handful of voters that actually vote for a reason, so the rest of us do no real harm.)
I was wrong about the Republican primary, by the way; it didn't turn on class, but on discontent. Somehow, Perry was able to turn lingering voter discontent against Washington against Hutchison, while simultaneously playing on his experience at the expense of Debra Medina, who was trying for the Tea Party vote. In the end, all Medina ended up doing was to come close to forcing a runoff that she wouldn't have been part of. For all my doubts about Perry's mental acuity, there's little wrong with his political instincts; that was a rather deftly-executed pivot. His commercials set my teeth on edge -- there's that damned outdoorsy jacket again, it comes out every campaign -- but there's no denying their effectiveness. He'll be using that riff for November. Count on it.
But the Democrats aren't running a faceless apparatchik this time. Bill White, the former mayor of Houston, was in a six-man race, but his seventy-plus-percent vote sure doesn't reflect that. A successful businessman, then a successful mayor of Texas' largest city, he's liable to give Perry a run for his money. It's going to be hard to paint White as a tax-hungry business-hater, given that he not only got his start as an entrepreneur, but cut taxes every year while Houston's mayor. It will be curious to see where the lines of attack develop.
The victory speeches give us some clues. Perry will probably keep fanning the flames of discontent towards Washington. White, on the other hand, pointed out how much debt has been added to Texas' balance sheet on Perry's watch. (Mind you, the governor has damn-all to do with that, but the recriminations will be fun to watch.)
Meanwhile, David Dewhurst, the incumbent Lieutenant Governor, cruised unopposed to the Republican nomination, and will face Linda Chavez-Thompson in the general election. This race, as always, will slide completely under the radar even though the Lieutenant Governor is an extraordinarily powerful office by comparison with their colleagues in other states. As I've said before, it's the Lieutenant Governor that really runs the Legislature. A trained monkey could probably do the Governor's job...
Now, to look ahead to the Fall elections ... one thing hasn't really changed from two years ago. The General Election will turn, as the last one did, on voter discontent. Rightly or wrongly, that's probably going to attach to the Democrats. It's happened to the party that's held the Presidency in two previous mid-term elections during economic downturns: 1982 and 1994. In 1982, the Republicans took a drubbing, and in 1994 the Republicans took the House. Bush avoided this in 2002, owing to a lingering rally-round-the-flag effect. That notwithstanding, the trend has generally been for the party that owns the White House to pay a stiff penalty for not turning things around quickly enough. It ain't right or fair, but it is what it is.
That said, the pieces are all on the board for a recovery. So, any talk of a Republican resurgence in 2012 is at best premature. Even if they win majorities in one or both houses, Obama will be able to tack to the center and make them look like loonies. If anything resembling a strong recovery is underway by spring 2012, he'll enjoy all the advantages of incumbency. Our last three two-term Presidents -- Reagan, Clinton, and Bush -- enjoyed improved economic conditions late in their first term that boosted their re-election bids.
Let the Tea Party rave as they will. The economic news between now and early 2012 will set the stage for the next election. If the Dow's up and unemployment's down, it's going to be rough sledding for the Republicans.
We have about ten million elected offices here in Texas. Between local, county, state and school board offices, I'm not sure I can even count high enough to enumerate the number of offices I vote for on a regular basis. I know people who vote only for a couple of races at the top of a ticket and skip the rest of the ballot, but I can't roll that way. I have to read each and every bit of the ballot, and make a decision. Which means that it usually takes me a good five, ten minutes to mark the ballot, even when I'm basically picking half of the races at random. (Skipping, picking randomly, same difference ... in the end, those races always get decided by the handful of voters that actually vote for a reason, so the rest of us do no real harm.)
I was wrong about the Republican primary, by the way; it didn't turn on class, but on discontent. Somehow, Perry was able to turn lingering voter discontent against Washington against Hutchison, while simultaneously playing on his experience at the expense of Debra Medina, who was trying for the Tea Party vote. In the end, all Medina ended up doing was to come close to forcing a runoff that she wouldn't have been part of. For all my doubts about Perry's mental acuity, there's little wrong with his political instincts; that was a rather deftly-executed pivot. His commercials set my teeth on edge -- there's that damned outdoorsy jacket again, it comes out every campaign -- but there's no denying their effectiveness. He'll be using that riff for November. Count on it.
But the Democrats aren't running a faceless apparatchik this time. Bill White, the former mayor of Houston, was in a six-man race, but his seventy-plus-percent vote sure doesn't reflect that. A successful businessman, then a successful mayor of Texas' largest city, he's liable to give Perry a run for his money. It's going to be hard to paint White as a tax-hungry business-hater, given that he not only got his start as an entrepreneur, but cut taxes every year while Houston's mayor. It will be curious to see where the lines of attack develop.
The victory speeches give us some clues. Perry will probably keep fanning the flames of discontent towards Washington. White, on the other hand, pointed out how much debt has been added to Texas' balance sheet on Perry's watch. (Mind you, the governor has damn-all to do with that, but the recriminations will be fun to watch.)
Meanwhile, David Dewhurst, the incumbent Lieutenant Governor, cruised unopposed to the Republican nomination, and will face Linda Chavez-Thompson in the general election. This race, as always, will slide completely under the radar even though the Lieutenant Governor is an extraordinarily powerful office by comparison with their colleagues in other states. As I've said before, it's the Lieutenant Governor that really runs the Legislature. A trained monkey could probably do the Governor's job...
Now, to look ahead to the Fall elections ... one thing hasn't really changed from two years ago. The General Election will turn, as the last one did, on voter discontent. Rightly or wrongly, that's probably going to attach to the Democrats. It's happened to the party that's held the Presidency in two previous mid-term elections during economic downturns: 1982 and 1994. In 1982, the Republicans took a drubbing, and in 1994 the Republicans took the House. Bush avoided this in 2002, owing to a lingering rally-round-the-flag effect. That notwithstanding, the trend has generally been for the party that owns the White House to pay a stiff penalty for not turning things around quickly enough. It ain't right or fair, but it is what it is.
That said, the pieces are all on the board for a recovery. So, any talk of a Republican resurgence in 2012 is at best premature. Even if they win majorities in one or both houses, Obama will be able to tack to the center and make them look like loonies. If anything resembling a strong recovery is underway by spring 2012, he'll enjoy all the advantages of incumbency. Our last three two-term Presidents -- Reagan, Clinton, and Bush -- enjoyed improved economic conditions late in their first term that boosted their re-election bids.
Let the Tea Party rave as they will. The economic news between now and early 2012 will set the stage for the next election. If the Dow's up and unemployment's down, it's going to be rough sledding for the Republicans.
Friday, February 19, 2010
A Fine and Enviable Madness
"... it was, in fact, a fine and enviable madness, this delusion that all questions have answers, and nothing is beyond the reach of a strong left arm." -- from The Mote in God's Eye, by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
I love my job. I love the alchemy that takes the stuff of daydreams, and spins it into hard, tangible reality. What we have dreamed, we have done; generations of men dreamed of flight, and dreamed of touching the stars ... and when you look up tonight, you'll see airplanes lazily crossing the sky, and on the Moon our footprints still lay. Generations of physicians dreamed of a world without disease ... and in one singular case, the dream was realized. I've been vaccinated for smallpox, but most people younger than me haven't.
This is National Engineers' Week. We celebrate it during the week of George Washington's observed birthday, in honor of our first President's first career as a surveyor. The mechanic arts as they were called then were recognized early to be key to both our prosperity and our security. Whenever America has faced a steep challenge, her engineers have always answered, and delivered the goods.
It's a profession that could easily lead to a swelled head, if Nature wasn't always there to take us down a notch or three as required. We rarely enjoy the "luxury" of hiding our mistakes. An unscrupulous doctor might hide their mistakes in the morgue, and an incompetent lawyer's mistakes vanish into the prison system. But an engineer's mistakes? They tend to come unglued with a loud BANG overhead, distributing debris over two or three time zones. We never have to look far for accountability, it always comes looking for us.
But most of us don't chafe under that kind of responsibility, rather, we relish it. We enjoy knowing that our work counts for something. We don't dread the possibility of highly-visible failure; the challenge motivates us to make our work as clean and error-free as we know how. The challenge -- the satisfaction of having done a difficult job well -- is a large part of what gets us out of bed most mornings.
It can be a crazy life sometimes. Schedules get very unpredictable, close to delivery time. But on the whole I wouldn't have it any other way. It truly is "a fine and enviable madness."
The Sons of Martha
by Rudyard Kipling
The Sons of Mary seldom bother, for they have inherited that good part;
But the Sons of Martha favour their Mother of the careful soul and the troubled heart.
And because she lost her temper once, and because she was rude to the Lord her Guest,
Her Sons must wait upon Mary's Sons, world without end, reprieve, or rest.
It is their care in all the ages to take the buffet and cushion the shock.
It is their care that the gear engages; it is their care that the switches lock.
It is their care that the wheels run truly; it is their care to embark and entrain,
Tally, transport, and deliver duly the Sons of Mary by land and main.
They say to mountains "Be ye removèd." They say to the lesser floods "Be dry."
Under their rods are the rocks reprovèd -- they are not afraid of that which is high.
Then do the hill-tops shake to the summit -- then is the bed of the deep laid bare,
That the Sons of Mary may overcome it, pleasantly sleeping and unaware.
They finger Death at their gloves' end where they piece and repiece the living wires.
He rears against the gates they tend: they feed him hungry behind their fires.
Early at dawn, ere men see clear, they stumble into his terrible stall,
And hale him forth like a haltered steer, and goad and turn him till evenfall.
To these from birth is Belief forbidden; from these till death is Relief afar.
They are concerned with matters hidden -- under the earthline their altars are --
The secret fountains to follow up, waters withdrawn to restore to the mouth,
And gather the floods as in a cup, and pour them again at a city's drouth.
They do not preach that their God will rouse them a little before the nuts work loose.
They do not preach that His Pity allows them to drop their job when they damn-well choose.
As in the thronged and the lighted ways, so in the dark and the desert they stand,
Wary and watchful all their days that their brethren's days may be long in the land.
Raise ye the stone or cleave the wood to make a path more fair or flat;
Lo, it is black already with the blood some Son of Martha spilled for that!
Not as a ladder from earth to Heaven, not as a witness to any creed,
But simple service simply given to his own kind in their common need.
And the Sons of Mary smile and are blessèd -- they know the Angels are on their side.
They know in them is the Grace confessèd, and for them are the Mercies multiplied.
They sit at the feet -- they hear the Word -- they see how truly the Promise runs.
They have cast their burden upon the Lord, and -- the Lord He lays it on Martha's Sons!
I love my job. I love the alchemy that takes the stuff of daydreams, and spins it into hard, tangible reality. What we have dreamed, we have done; generations of men dreamed of flight, and dreamed of touching the stars ... and when you look up tonight, you'll see airplanes lazily crossing the sky, and on the Moon our footprints still lay. Generations of physicians dreamed of a world without disease ... and in one singular case, the dream was realized. I've been vaccinated for smallpox, but most people younger than me haven't.
This is National Engineers' Week. We celebrate it during the week of George Washington's observed birthday, in honor of our first President's first career as a surveyor. The mechanic arts as they were called then were recognized early to be key to both our prosperity and our security. Whenever America has faced a steep challenge, her engineers have always answered, and delivered the goods.
It's a profession that could easily lead to a swelled head, if Nature wasn't always there to take us down a notch or three as required. We rarely enjoy the "luxury" of hiding our mistakes. An unscrupulous doctor might hide their mistakes in the morgue, and an incompetent lawyer's mistakes vanish into the prison system. But an engineer's mistakes? They tend to come unglued with a loud BANG overhead, distributing debris over two or three time zones. We never have to look far for accountability, it always comes looking for us.
But most of us don't chafe under that kind of responsibility, rather, we relish it. We enjoy knowing that our work counts for something. We don't dread the possibility of highly-visible failure; the challenge motivates us to make our work as clean and error-free as we know how. The challenge -- the satisfaction of having done a difficult job well -- is a large part of what gets us out of bed most mornings.
It can be a crazy life sometimes. Schedules get very unpredictable, close to delivery time. But on the whole I wouldn't have it any other way. It truly is "a fine and enviable madness."
The Sons of Martha
by Rudyard Kipling
The Sons of Mary seldom bother, for they have inherited that good part;
But the Sons of Martha favour their Mother of the careful soul and the troubled heart.
And because she lost her temper once, and because she was rude to the Lord her Guest,
Her Sons must wait upon Mary's Sons, world without end, reprieve, or rest.
It is their care in all the ages to take the buffet and cushion the shock.
It is their care that the gear engages; it is their care that the switches lock.
It is their care that the wheels run truly; it is their care to embark and entrain,
Tally, transport, and deliver duly the Sons of Mary by land and main.
They say to mountains "Be ye removèd." They say to the lesser floods "Be dry."
Under their rods are the rocks reprovèd -- they are not afraid of that which is high.
Then do the hill-tops shake to the summit -- then is the bed of the deep laid bare,
That the Sons of Mary may overcome it, pleasantly sleeping and unaware.
They finger Death at their gloves' end where they piece and repiece the living wires.
He rears against the gates they tend: they feed him hungry behind their fires.
Early at dawn, ere men see clear, they stumble into his terrible stall,
And hale him forth like a haltered steer, and goad and turn him till evenfall.
To these from birth is Belief forbidden; from these till death is Relief afar.
They are concerned with matters hidden -- under the earthline their altars are --
The secret fountains to follow up, waters withdrawn to restore to the mouth,
And gather the floods as in a cup, and pour them again at a city's drouth.
They do not preach that their God will rouse them a little before the nuts work loose.
They do not preach that His Pity allows them to drop their job when they damn-well choose.
As in the thronged and the lighted ways, so in the dark and the desert they stand,
Wary and watchful all their days that their brethren's days may be long in the land.
Raise ye the stone or cleave the wood to make a path more fair or flat;
Lo, it is black already with the blood some Son of Martha spilled for that!
Not as a ladder from earth to Heaven, not as a witness to any creed,
But simple service simply given to his own kind in their common need.
And the Sons of Mary smile and are blessèd -- they know the Angels are on their side.
They know in them is the Grace confessèd, and for them are the Mercies multiplied.
They sit at the feet -- they hear the Word -- they see how truly the Promise runs.
They have cast their burden upon the Lord, and -- the Lord He lays it on Martha's Sons!
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Stupid Nuke Tricks
One of the most interesting (and to my mind, hopeful) things about the recent State of the Union address was the support that President Obama gave to an increased role for nuclear power in America. It was even better to see that his proposed FY2011 budget included funding for this initiative. While nuclear power does have its hazards, those hazards are manageable if you give sufficient care to planning beforehand. Plus, if you're truly serious about weaning us off of fossil fuels, there's just no way to make up the energy shortfall without nuclear power. The numbers are inexorable. You just can't get there from here, otherwise.
But not all nuclear power is created equal. While some uses are good and responsible, other uses lie somewhere on the continuum between dumb and stone barking mad. We're going to look at some of the crazier ideas to come from my colleagues over the last sixty years or so.
Project Orion: Imagine, if you will, a spacecraft poised for flight. And not just any spacecraft -- this beast tips the scales at ten thousand tons or so. It's stocked with provisions for an expedition to Saturn, the crew is strapped in and ready for launch, and the countdown nears zero. Then, when the count reaches zero, the mighty engine roars to life. It is more or less at this point that an atomic bomb drops down into the gap under the launch gantry and detonates.
Ummm ... say what?
No, that's not a particularly gruesome form of sabotage. Orion is supposed to work that way. The technical name for this is pulsed nuclear propulsion, and the name almost but not quite makes you forget that you're zooming through space by lighting off nukes under your butt.
It all started with one of the early above-ground nuclear tests. They put all kinds of things in the fireball region, just to see what the blast would do. One of the things they tested was a graphite-covered steel sphere. To everyone's astonishment, the sphere was recovered after the blast more or less unharmed. Ted Taylor and Freeman Dyson got to discussing this experiment over hamburgers, and had a splendid idea. If you were to take a graphite-coated steel plate, and mount it to the world's biggest shock absorbers, you'd have a dandy rocket system. You could lift absurd amounts of weight, and take it anywhere in the Solar System. And you don't really need a landing gear as such, since anywhere you land is going to be by-God FLAT by the time you get there...
They got as far as building a small test model that flew using chemical explosives, in 1959. "Hot Rod" flew for 23 seconds, to a height of 56 feet, and proved that the principle was at least possible. Then it came time to develop full-scale vehicles ... at which point the higher-ups took notice, and pronounced the idea nuts. The Test Ban Treaty pretty much put a kibosh on the whole idea, to say nothing of what the launch would do to the host state's property values.
Project Pluto: A nuclear missile, by any meaningful use of the word. Not only would it have carried a nuclear warhead, but it would also have been powered by a nuclear ramjet. And in its later iteration, the Supersonic Low Altitude Missile, it would carry multiple warheads that it could distribute to several targets. "A fine idea," the brass said, "now how do you propose to test it?" This is a non-trivial problem. A conventional flight-test program would distribute radioactive exhaust over the American southwest. They hit on the idea of a static test using a railroad car, when the same higher-ups that had pronounced Orion crazy saw this plan, and wondered if American universities had a bumper crop of mad scientists that year. SLAM was cancelled in favor of cheaper, safer ICBMs.
Convair X-6: A nuclear bomber. In the same sense that SLAM was a nuclear missile. In the early days, SAC had a problem, in that their bombers didn't have enough range to reach the Soviet Union from bases in the United States. Several solutions were proposed to this problem, one of which was -- you guessed it -- a bomber powered by a nuclear reactor. On paper it looked like a good idea. Fuel wasn't an issue, so the airplane could stay airborne as long as the crew had food and water. So, they modified a Convair B-36 bomber into the X-6 configuration to see if the idea was in any way practical. The X-6 accumulated 216 hours of flight time, 86 of those with a live reactor, between 1955 and 1957. The test program was scrapped after that. The reason was that aerial refueling technology was cheaper and safer, and besides, no one was really excited about the prospects of cleaning up after one of these things crashed.
Ford Nucleon: Ah, the 1950s. The era of big cars, chrome, fins, nuclear-powered sedans ...
Wait. What?
Yes, you read that right. Ford, not satisfied with the Edsel fiasco, designed a concept car in 1958 powered by a nuclear reactor. No stopping for gas -- the Nucleon could cruise a full 5,000 miles on a single charge, at which point you'd roll up to your dealer and have them install a fresh reactor module. But the car has several obvious flaws. First, given that you're sitting ahead of the front wheels, steering without hitting anything is liable to be a sporting challenge. And second, rear-end collisions ... well, the Pinto had nothing on this baby.
Then again, nothing discourages tailgating quite like the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Now, Ford management never had any serious plans to actually sell this monster. They displayed the mock-up just to prove that their mad scientists were just as crazy as anyone else's. They'd been beaten to the punch with the first jet-powered car, after all, and weren't about to fall behind again.
None of these proposals survived the early 1960s. As scientists began to understand the implications of nuclear technology better, they began to understand that nuclear technology needed a lot of care and tending, lest it become a hazard and a nuisance. The more exuberantly insane proposals died a quiet death ... not that exuberant insanity is a bad thing, mind you, but it requires close supervision by the non-crazy. There's good crazy, and there's bad crazy, and someone's got to be able to tell the difference.
But not all nuclear power is created equal. While some uses are good and responsible, other uses lie somewhere on the continuum between dumb and stone barking mad. We're going to look at some of the crazier ideas to come from my colleagues over the last sixty years or so.
Project Orion: Imagine, if you will, a spacecraft poised for flight. And not just any spacecraft -- this beast tips the scales at ten thousand tons or so. It's stocked with provisions for an expedition to Saturn, the crew is strapped in and ready for launch, and the countdown nears zero. Then, when the count reaches zero, the mighty engine roars to life. It is more or less at this point that an atomic bomb drops down into the gap under the launch gantry and detonates.
Ummm ... say what?
No, that's not a particularly gruesome form of sabotage. Orion is supposed to work that way. The technical name for this is pulsed nuclear propulsion, and the name almost but not quite makes you forget that you're zooming through space by lighting off nukes under your butt.
It all started with one of the early above-ground nuclear tests. They put all kinds of things in the fireball region, just to see what the blast would do. One of the things they tested was a graphite-covered steel sphere. To everyone's astonishment, the sphere was recovered after the blast more or less unharmed. Ted Taylor and Freeman Dyson got to discussing this experiment over hamburgers, and had a splendid idea. If you were to take a graphite-coated steel plate, and mount it to the world's biggest shock absorbers, you'd have a dandy rocket system. You could lift absurd amounts of weight, and take it anywhere in the Solar System. And you don't really need a landing gear as such, since anywhere you land is going to be by-God FLAT by the time you get there...
They got as far as building a small test model that flew using chemical explosives, in 1959. "Hot Rod" flew for 23 seconds, to a height of 56 feet, and proved that the principle was at least possible. Then it came time to develop full-scale vehicles ... at which point the higher-ups took notice, and pronounced the idea nuts. The Test Ban Treaty pretty much put a kibosh on the whole idea, to say nothing of what the launch would do to the host state's property values.
Project Pluto: A nuclear missile, by any meaningful use of the word. Not only would it have carried a nuclear warhead, but it would also have been powered by a nuclear ramjet. And in its later iteration, the Supersonic Low Altitude Missile, it would carry multiple warheads that it could distribute to several targets. "A fine idea," the brass said, "now how do you propose to test it?" This is a non-trivial problem. A conventional flight-test program would distribute radioactive exhaust over the American southwest. They hit on the idea of a static test using a railroad car, when the same higher-ups that had pronounced Orion crazy saw this plan, and wondered if American universities had a bumper crop of mad scientists that year. SLAM was cancelled in favor of cheaper, safer ICBMs.
Convair X-6: A nuclear bomber. In the same sense that SLAM was a nuclear missile. In the early days, SAC had a problem, in that their bombers didn't have enough range to reach the Soviet Union from bases in the United States. Several solutions were proposed to this problem, one of which was -- you guessed it -- a bomber powered by a nuclear reactor. On paper it looked like a good idea. Fuel wasn't an issue, so the airplane could stay airborne as long as the crew had food and water. So, they modified a Convair B-36 bomber into the X-6 configuration to see if the idea was in any way practical. The X-6 accumulated 216 hours of flight time, 86 of those with a live reactor, between 1955 and 1957. The test program was scrapped after that. The reason was that aerial refueling technology was cheaper and safer, and besides, no one was really excited about the prospects of cleaning up after one of these things crashed.
Ford Nucleon: Ah, the 1950s. The era of big cars, chrome, fins, nuclear-powered sedans ...
Wait. What?
Yes, you read that right. Ford, not satisfied with the Edsel fiasco, designed a concept car in 1958 powered by a nuclear reactor. No stopping for gas -- the Nucleon could cruise a full 5,000 miles on a single charge, at which point you'd roll up to your dealer and have them install a fresh reactor module. But the car has several obvious flaws. First, given that you're sitting ahead of the front wheels, steering without hitting anything is liable to be a sporting challenge. And second, rear-end collisions ... well, the Pinto had nothing on this baby.
Then again, nothing discourages tailgating quite like the threat of nuclear annihilation.
Now, Ford management never had any serious plans to actually sell this monster. They displayed the mock-up just to prove that their mad scientists were just as crazy as anyone else's. They'd been beaten to the punch with the first jet-powered car, after all, and weren't about to fall behind again.
None of these proposals survived the early 1960s. As scientists began to understand the implications of nuclear technology better, they began to understand that nuclear technology needed a lot of care and tending, lest it become a hazard and a nuisance. The more exuberantly insane proposals died a quiet death ... not that exuberant insanity is a bad thing, mind you, but it requires close supervision by the non-crazy. There's good crazy, and there's bad crazy, and someone's got to be able to tell the difference.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
