The Space Shuttle may be retired, but America's not out of the space business. Not yet. A week from Monday, on April 30th, a SpaceX Falcon 9 will lift off from Kennedy Space Center in Florida, carrying a loaded Dragon spacecraft bound for a rendezvous with the International Space Station. Here's a summary of what's planned:
If everything works as planned, Falcon9/Dragon will begin regular cargo flights. The next step? Well, they're building a model with seats, aren't they?
The obvious difference between the two is that the cargo version has a wider front hatch that uses the passive berthing mechanism, where the manned version has the active docking mechanism. The manned version also has some pretty beefy descent engines.
Of course, the planned tests have to work. Things could still go horribly pear-shaped. But they've got a good track record so far. We're beginning to see a transition that I've been expecting for about ten years now. Then, the government was the sole source for space flight. Now, that is moving into private industry. It's too early to tell if that's a good thing or not, but I strongly suspect that it is. We'll see lower costs, and more innovation, as more private players get into the market. Bend the cost curve down far enough, and some really interesting things can begin to happen.
A week from Monday, we'll take a big step down that road. Cross your fingers.
Friday, April 20, 2012
Friday, April 13, 2012
Election 2012: Primary Post-Mortem
And, that's a wrap. (Warning: Strong Language, last lines from Burn After Reading)
So, what did we learn, if anything, from Primary 2012? For one, we learned that the Old Guard of the Republican Party, even though it's not near as strong as it used to be, is still alive and kicking. The Tea Party candidates surged and floundered in their turns, but Romney somehow churned through it all and came out on top anyway. The cachet of being "Not Mitt Romney" never gleamed brightly enough to attract enough voters. Even in the midst of their burgeoning ideological rigidity, electability still matters. And for another, we learned that "It's His Turn" is a very powerful thing within the Republican Party. That may come as part of the first point, but it still bears some mention. Since Nixon, the majority of Republican candidates seem to have been the strongest challenger from the previous primary. In 1980, Reagan was the nominee, who ran a strong second in 1976. In 1988, Bush was the nominee, who ran a strong second in 1980. In 1996, Dole was the nominee, who had been a perennial contender since the last Ice Age. Bush the Younger in 2000 was an anomaly. But McCain in 2008 was not, and neither is Romney in 2012.
This, of course, sets the stage for Santorum in 2016. But, as much as I might like to savor the bowel-freezing horror that portends, we have another important event to consider. The General Election is now on like Donkey Kong. (As always, the numbers are courtesy of Intrade, current as of Friday evening.)
Barack Obama, 60.8%: His probability took a big hit last summer during the debt crisis, but has since recovered to the 60% level he's enjoyed for most of the last year and a half or so. This is looking like a modestly incumbent-friendly year so far. We're in a recovery -- not a booming recovery, but still, a recovery. Unemployment is down. GDP is up. Stocks are up. We've wound down Iraq, and we're winding down Afghanistan. If these trends continue, and there's no major shock event, the public's general tendency has been to re-elect the incumbent. Incumbent Presidents standing for re-election have generally won, unless the economy had been trending downward. Carter was turfed for a sour economy, and the Iranian situation. Bush the Elder was turfed for a sour economy. Reagan, Clinton, and Bush the Younger all had rising economies to buoy their re-election bids. Currently, it's looking to hold true for Obama as well.
Mitt Romney, 38.0%: This is a fact that Romney understands about as well as anyone else. So, he has to paint a picture that highlights a sour, lackluster economy. On top of that, he still has to contend with the fact that the base isn't all that fired up about his candidacy. The biggest thing to watch for in the Romney campaign will be his Vice-Presidential pick. Right now, the four top contenders are Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, and Paul Ryan. But we may well see someone not on that list. The safe pick for Romney would be someone well-loved by the Republican base, someone who would solidify his right-wing street cred. But it's far from clear to me who that might be. The second biggest thing to watch for is whether or not Romney continues to tack to the right, both leading up to and after the Republican National Convention. Obama has enjoyed the incumbent's luxury of not having a serious primary challenger. The main advantage of that is that he's been able to command the center, at least so far. If Romney begins to tack to the center, he might be able to carve out some of Obama's softer centrist support ... but if he has to keep running to the right to tack down a slightly disgruntled base, he concedes the center to Obama, and with it the election.
And The Winner Is... I'd still take 3-2 odds in favor of President Obama's re-election. That probably won't change until convention time.
Speaking of which: the Republican National Convention begins on August 27, and the Democratic National Convention begins on September 3. The fun begins for real the weekend before August 27, which is when Governor Romney will probably spring his VP pick on us. Until then, vote early, and vote often!
So, what did we learn, if anything, from Primary 2012? For one, we learned that the Old Guard of the Republican Party, even though it's not near as strong as it used to be, is still alive and kicking. The Tea Party candidates surged and floundered in their turns, but Romney somehow churned through it all and came out on top anyway. The cachet of being "Not Mitt Romney" never gleamed brightly enough to attract enough voters. Even in the midst of their burgeoning ideological rigidity, electability still matters. And for another, we learned that "It's His Turn" is a very powerful thing within the Republican Party. That may come as part of the first point, but it still bears some mention. Since Nixon, the majority of Republican candidates seem to have been the strongest challenger from the previous primary. In 1980, Reagan was the nominee, who ran a strong second in 1976. In 1988, Bush was the nominee, who ran a strong second in 1980. In 1996, Dole was the nominee, who had been a perennial contender since the last Ice Age. Bush the Younger in 2000 was an anomaly. But McCain in 2008 was not, and neither is Romney in 2012.
This, of course, sets the stage for Santorum in 2016. But, as much as I might like to savor the bowel-freezing horror that portends, we have another important event to consider. The General Election is now on like Donkey Kong. (As always, the numbers are courtesy of Intrade, current as of Friday evening.)
Barack Obama, 60.8%: His probability took a big hit last summer during the debt crisis, but has since recovered to the 60% level he's enjoyed for most of the last year and a half or so. This is looking like a modestly incumbent-friendly year so far. We're in a recovery -- not a booming recovery, but still, a recovery. Unemployment is down. GDP is up. Stocks are up. We've wound down Iraq, and we're winding down Afghanistan. If these trends continue, and there's no major shock event, the public's general tendency has been to re-elect the incumbent. Incumbent Presidents standing for re-election have generally won, unless the economy had been trending downward. Carter was turfed for a sour economy, and the Iranian situation. Bush the Elder was turfed for a sour economy. Reagan, Clinton, and Bush the Younger all had rising economies to buoy their re-election bids. Currently, it's looking to hold true for Obama as well.
Mitt Romney, 38.0%: This is a fact that Romney understands about as well as anyone else. So, he has to paint a picture that highlights a sour, lackluster economy. On top of that, he still has to contend with the fact that the base isn't all that fired up about his candidacy. The biggest thing to watch for in the Romney campaign will be his Vice-Presidential pick. Right now, the four top contenders are Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, Bob McDonnell, and Paul Ryan. But we may well see someone not on that list. The safe pick for Romney would be someone well-loved by the Republican base, someone who would solidify his right-wing street cred. But it's far from clear to me who that might be. The second biggest thing to watch for is whether or not Romney continues to tack to the right, both leading up to and after the Republican National Convention. Obama has enjoyed the incumbent's luxury of not having a serious primary challenger. The main advantage of that is that he's been able to command the center, at least so far. If Romney begins to tack to the center, he might be able to carve out some of Obama's softer centrist support ... but if he has to keep running to the right to tack down a slightly disgruntled base, he concedes the center to Obama, and with it the election.
And The Winner Is... I'd still take 3-2 odds in favor of President Obama's re-election. That probably won't change until convention time.
Speaking of which: the Republican National Convention begins on August 27, and the Democratic National Convention begins on September 3. The fun begins for real the weekend before August 27, which is when Governor Romney will probably spring his VP pick on us. Until then, vote early, and vote often!
Friday, April 06, 2012
Video Del Fuego, Part LIV
The history of Man can be read as a long litany of rage against Evolution's iniquities. Evolution didn't give us gills? Well screw you, Mr. Evolution, we're going to go diving anyway. Didn't give us wings? Up yours, we're going to go flying despite that. Can't breathe vacuum? So what? We'll bring air along in bottles.
The last few weeks have taken us from one extreme of Earth to the other. Last time, we saw an intrepid adventurer seeking to skydive from the edge of space. This time, James Cameron got it into his head to go somewhere only two other human beings have ever been before: the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
Water, you have to remember, weighs in at just over a ton per cubic yard. And the pressure of that column of water is equal to the density (62.5 lbs/ft^3) times the depth. At the bottom of the Challenger Deep, 35,814 feet below the surface, the pressure is a staggering 1100 TONS per square foot. There's a damn good reason this has only been done twice. You basically have to design a submersible that can take a near-miss from a tactical nuke.
And, it goes without saying, he took cameras with him. And why not? Making movies is what the man does, after all. I have to admit, I skipped both Avatar and Titanic when they came out. But, I'm absolutely going to see this in 3D on opening weekend. Maybe even more than once.
Inveniam viam aut facium, reads an inscription on one of the memorials to Robert Peary. "I shall find a way or make one." It's a fit motto for any explorer, and one that James Cameron can now proudly claim. Well done, sir. Well done, indeed.
The last few weeks have taken us from one extreme of Earth to the other. Last time, we saw an intrepid adventurer seeking to skydive from the edge of space. This time, James Cameron got it into his head to go somewhere only two other human beings have ever been before: the bottom of the Mariana Trench.
Water, you have to remember, weighs in at just over a ton per cubic yard. And the pressure of that column of water is equal to the density (62.5 lbs/ft^3) times the depth. At the bottom of the Challenger Deep, 35,814 feet below the surface, the pressure is a staggering 1100 TONS per square foot. There's a damn good reason this has only been done twice. You basically have to design a submersible that can take a near-miss from a tactical nuke.
And, it goes without saying, he took cameras with him. And why not? Making movies is what the man does, after all. I have to admit, I skipped both Avatar and Titanic when they came out. But, I'm absolutely going to see this in 3D on opening weekend. Maybe even more than once.
Inveniam viam aut facium, reads an inscription on one of the memorials to Robert Peary. "I shall find a way or make one." It's a fit motto for any explorer, and one that James Cameron can now proudly claim. Well done, sir. Well done, indeed.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Election 2012: March Madness
Monopoly is one of those weird "family" games that just about everyone's played, but hardly anyone's ever actually finished. One problem with it is that it's a brutally long game, especially if you have six to eight players. Another is that, given that your goal is to drive all the other players into bankruptcy, it tends to be a fairly harsh game to play to completion. Once one player gets a solid lead, everyone else starts saying, "Screw this, let's find something else to do." But anyhow, there are several winning strategies. Some involve getting key color groups early. Another method involves first making sure that no one else can win. How do you do that, you ask? Well, first, you have to get one property in every color group. That ensures that no one else can develop a monopoly. Then, get one monopoly. It really doesn't matter which one, so long as you can afford to build it up. Then, it's a long slog of attrition.
Electopoly, the fine game the GOP is playing right now, is actually very similar. What brought Monopoly to mind is a new feature over on Nate Silver's site, the Romney Magic Numbers Calculator. Because the path to winning the GOP nomination -- indeed, any party's nomination -- entails doing three things. First, you must win enough delegates to ensure that no one else can gain a majority on the first ballot. Second, you must win enough delegates to ensure that you will win a plurality of delegates on that first ballot, thus making your case that much stronger on subsequent ballots. And here's the clincher -- the final goal is to win enough delegates to ensure that you win on the first ballot.
The race for the GOP nomination is just about over. Nate Silver estimates that Romney has a 100% chance of sewing up enough delegates to keep anyone else from a first-ballot victory, a 99% chance of guaranteeing himself a plurality of delegates, and a 91% chance of winning outright. It's taken three months, and we'll probably go through two more of going through the motions, but it's just about over at this point. And now, the numbers from Intrade, current as of 6PM Friday evening:
(By the way, Intrade has a spiffy new feature for primary-watchers: a scoreboard. This would have been nice to have three months ago, but still, better late than never. Hope they keep it for the general election...)
Mitt Romney, 93.1%: Sometimes, I wonder if the man truly wants the job. He does the damnedest things. Every time he gets ahead, he says something truly astounding to alienate either part of his base, or part of the electorate. "I was a severely conservative governor ... and by the way, I drove 1,200 miles with my dog in a box on top of my car. I'm against the individual mandate ... but you know, it's all like an Etch-A-Sketch, I'll just shake it up after the convention." I mean, what is this dude's major malfunction? Whether he wants it or not, he's liable to be the Republican nominee, try as he might to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. His opposition is so sad and pitiful that they won't be able to get out in front of him, no matter how hard he tries. He may as well get used to the idea.
Ron Paul, 1.1%: And it's a signal of just how sad and pitiful that they've gotten that Ron Paul is now in second place, probability-wise.
Rick Santorum, 1.0%: And here's the man who puts the "sad" in "sad and pitiful". Even if you gave him all of the delegates from the "pitiful" side of the race for Not-Romney, he still wouldn't be ahead. Both the "sad" and the "pitiful" sides of that race are pinning their hopes on a brokered convention. But first, they somehow have to pull enough delegates to keep Romney from winning outright, something I no longer believe either of them can do. Brokered conventions are to politics as bunch sprints are to professional cycling, and both tend to happen only when someone's screwed up. As much as Romney seems to keep trying to throw the race, no one seems to be able to capitalize.
Newt Gingrich, 0.3%: That's partly because Newt's kind of mailing it in at this point. Theoretically, he's also counting on a brokered convention. He's still touting his "debating" skills against Obama, which has always sounded kind of bizarre to me. Because, you see, the debates? They're not really debates. They're a weird kind of dual press conference where both guys have to answer the same questions put to them by a moderator. The rules of engagement don't allow them to speak directly to one another. So how do mad debating skills get you anywhere? Beats me. But Gingrich has always been full of strange ideas.
Veep Watch: I don't put much stock in Veep-guessing. But that's an important thing to watch. Once Romney has it well and truly sewn up, he'll start canvassing for a running mate, and he'll probably spring that on us the Friday before the GOP convention opens. As I've said before, it's important to watch because that's his first Presidential decision, and that will give us a huge window into his thought processes. Who he chooses, and why, will give us a better measure of the man than anything he's said so far.
And The Winner Is: The percentages are running 60.8% that the Democrats will keep the White House, versus 38.8% that the Republicans will take over. These have held steady for a while, and will probably stay there until the conventions. I'd still take 3-2 odds on Obama/Biden for the win.
Primary season isn't quite over, though. Lots of states haven't voted yet, and even if the Presidential nominee is just about a foregone conclusion, there are plenty of other races on the ballot. And if you've never attended a precinct caucus, this is as good a year to go as any. Remember, vote early, and vote often!
Electopoly, the fine game the GOP is playing right now, is actually very similar. What brought Monopoly to mind is a new feature over on Nate Silver's site, the Romney Magic Numbers Calculator. Because the path to winning the GOP nomination -- indeed, any party's nomination -- entails doing three things. First, you must win enough delegates to ensure that no one else can gain a majority on the first ballot. Second, you must win enough delegates to ensure that you will win a plurality of delegates on that first ballot, thus making your case that much stronger on subsequent ballots. And here's the clincher -- the final goal is to win enough delegates to ensure that you win on the first ballot.
The race for the GOP nomination is just about over. Nate Silver estimates that Romney has a 100% chance of sewing up enough delegates to keep anyone else from a first-ballot victory, a 99% chance of guaranteeing himself a plurality of delegates, and a 91% chance of winning outright. It's taken three months, and we'll probably go through two more of going through the motions, but it's just about over at this point. And now, the numbers from Intrade, current as of 6PM Friday evening:
(By the way, Intrade has a spiffy new feature for primary-watchers: a scoreboard. This would have been nice to have three months ago, but still, better late than never. Hope they keep it for the general election...)
Mitt Romney, 93.1%: Sometimes, I wonder if the man truly wants the job. He does the damnedest things. Every time he gets ahead, he says something truly astounding to alienate either part of his base, or part of the electorate. "I was a severely conservative governor ... and by the way, I drove 1,200 miles with my dog in a box on top of my car. I'm against the individual mandate ... but you know, it's all like an Etch-A-Sketch, I'll just shake it up after the convention." I mean, what is this dude's major malfunction? Whether he wants it or not, he's liable to be the Republican nominee, try as he might to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. His opposition is so sad and pitiful that they won't be able to get out in front of him, no matter how hard he tries. He may as well get used to the idea.
Ron Paul, 1.1%: And it's a signal of just how sad and pitiful that they've gotten that Ron Paul is now in second place, probability-wise.
Rick Santorum, 1.0%: And here's the man who puts the "sad" in "sad and pitiful". Even if you gave him all of the delegates from the "pitiful" side of the race for Not-Romney, he still wouldn't be ahead. Both the "sad" and the "pitiful" sides of that race are pinning their hopes on a brokered convention. But first, they somehow have to pull enough delegates to keep Romney from winning outright, something I no longer believe either of them can do. Brokered conventions are to politics as bunch sprints are to professional cycling, and both tend to happen only when someone's screwed up. As much as Romney seems to keep trying to throw the race, no one seems to be able to capitalize.
Newt Gingrich, 0.3%: That's partly because Newt's kind of mailing it in at this point. Theoretically, he's also counting on a brokered convention. He's still touting his "debating" skills against Obama, which has always sounded kind of bizarre to me. Because, you see, the debates? They're not really debates. They're a weird kind of dual press conference where both guys have to answer the same questions put to them by a moderator. The rules of engagement don't allow them to speak directly to one another. So how do mad debating skills get you anywhere? Beats me. But Gingrich has always been full of strange ideas.
Veep Watch: I don't put much stock in Veep-guessing. But that's an important thing to watch. Once Romney has it well and truly sewn up, he'll start canvassing for a running mate, and he'll probably spring that on us the Friday before the GOP convention opens. As I've said before, it's important to watch because that's his first Presidential decision, and that will give us a huge window into his thought processes. Who he chooses, and why, will give us a better measure of the man than anything he's said so far.
And The Winner Is: The percentages are running 60.8% that the Democrats will keep the White House, versus 38.8% that the Republicans will take over. These have held steady for a while, and will probably stay there until the conventions. I'd still take 3-2 odds on Obama/Biden for the win.
Primary season isn't quite over, though. Lots of states haven't voted yet, and even if the Presidential nominee is just about a foregone conclusion, there are plenty of other races on the ballot. And if you've never attended a precinct caucus, this is as good a year to go as any. Remember, vote early, and vote often!
Friday, March 16, 2012
Video Del Fuego, Part LIII
(or, Crazy Austrian Watch)
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the U.S. Air Force was developing aircraft capable of flying at extreme altitudes. While some of the aircraft had already been built, such as the U-2, and others were in production, the ability of a pilot to eject safely at such incredible operational altitudes wasn't yet firmly established. So, the Air Force undertook Project Excelsior. And on August 16, 1960, Captain Joseph Kittinger rode a helium balloon up to 102,800 feet above the desert, and then stepped out into the abyss. It was the longest distance a man had ever fallen, and lived to tell about it.
Now, an Austrian skydiver named Felix Baumgartner wants to kick it up a notch.
Why? Kittinger, who is a technical adviser to Baumgartner, says it's about building a better space suit. I'm thinking that's hogwash. Baumgartner wants the record, and the bragging rights that go with it. And Red Bull wants the publicity that will go along with nailing said record. They've built the suit, the chutes, and the balloon. Now, they're testing them out.
On March 15, 2012, Baumgartner made the first test jump from 71,000 feet. There will be another test jump from about 90,000 feet, before the Real Thing from 120,000 feet. While Baumgartner is known for risk-taking, he's not known for stupid risk-taking. Unless something weird happens, the record is liable to be his sometime this summer.
One thing is certain, though. The view on the way down is going to be spectacular no matter how it ends. And, maybe, that was the point all along.
In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the U.S. Air Force was developing aircraft capable of flying at extreme altitudes. While some of the aircraft had already been built, such as the U-2, and others were in production, the ability of a pilot to eject safely at such incredible operational altitudes wasn't yet firmly established. So, the Air Force undertook Project Excelsior. And on August 16, 1960, Captain Joseph Kittinger rode a helium balloon up to 102,800 feet above the desert, and then stepped out into the abyss. It was the longest distance a man had ever fallen, and lived to tell about it.
Now, an Austrian skydiver named Felix Baumgartner wants to kick it up a notch.
Why? Kittinger, who is a technical adviser to Baumgartner, says it's about building a better space suit. I'm thinking that's hogwash. Baumgartner wants the record, and the bragging rights that go with it. And Red Bull wants the publicity that will go along with nailing said record. They've built the suit, the chutes, and the balloon. Now, they're testing them out.
On March 15, 2012, Baumgartner made the first test jump from 71,000 feet. There will be another test jump from about 90,000 feet, before the Real Thing from 120,000 feet. While Baumgartner is known for risk-taking, he's not known for stupid risk-taking. Unless something weird happens, the record is liable to be his sometime this summer.
One thing is certain, though. The view on the way down is going to be spectacular no matter how it ends. And, maybe, that was the point all along.
Friday, March 09, 2012
Sesquicentennial, Part XX: The Tides Of Change
--FIRST -PREV NEXT-
It's a fairly common misconception that wars are times of rapid technological change. You'll often hear someone say that the submarine came out of World War I, or that jet engines and atomic energy came out of World War II, but that's not entirely true. Submarines and aircraft had been around for years prior to World War I. Jet engines had been invented immediately prior to World War II, and they had a fairly good idea of what atomic power could do, even if they didn't know exactly how to go about doing it.
There is one thing wartime does do, though: it greatly reduces institutional inertia. An active enemy tends to focus your attention closely. New ideas that had once butted up against an obstinately conservative Quartermasters' Corps would now fall on far more sympathetic ears. A case in point: ironclad warships.
Three technological trends were converging: steam power, high-power naval guns firing explosive shells, and iron armor. The first ship that combined all three was a French ship, La Gloire, launched in 1859. The new high-power guns proved to be a huge problem for purely wooden-hulled ships. This had been proven at the Battle of Sinope where a numerically-inferior Russian force annihilated a Turkish squadron, using their superior gunnery. Explosive shells could turn even the stoutest ship into kindling in fairly short order. The obvious answer would be to bolt iron armor onto the ship's exterior ... the problem being, sails couldn't move such a heavy ship very easily. Enter our third element, steam power. With the invention of the screw propeller in the 1840s, steam power became a practical method for warship propulsion. Coal-fired boilers could easily provide the raw power to shove hundreds of tons of iron plating through the waves.
But, as I mentioned, these were slow coming to the Western shores of the Atlantic. The U.S. Navy had adopted steam power, but was slow to combine all of the elements together. The secession of Virginia, and with it the loss of the Norfolk Naval Yards, began to force a re-evaluation of affairs.
Upon the secession of Virginia, orders were issued to destroy all useful items at the Naval Yards lest they fall into secessionist hands. Unfortunately, the orders were bungled, and the USS Merrimac partially sank into shallow water before she had burned completely. The Merrimac was salvageable, and could be put back into service. It was decided to rebuild her as an ironclad warship, the CSS Virginia. It would be an expensive undertaking. But the combination of steam propulsion, high-power guns, and sloped armor would make the Virginia more than a match for her blockaders.
Word of this conversion reached Washington in early summer of 1861, and was not received happily. The Union could not afford to fall behind in this kind of arms race. But, as I have said before, the Union was far more able to keep pace in this kind of competition than the Confederacy ever was. The Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, issued an order for a review of ironclad designs, and three were accepted. One of these was a ship designed by Swedish-born inventor John Ericsson, the USS Monitor, laid down on October 25, 1851, and completed 118 days later.
This would not be a day too soon.
On the 8th of March, CSS Virginia sallied forth to break the Union blockade. Ordinarily, it's foolish to think that a single ship can break a blockade ... but this was not an ordinary situation. The guns of the Union blockade squadron had almost no effect. The Virginia rammed and sunk the USS Chesapeake, and had forced the USS Congress to beach itself prior to hammering it into surrender with her own guns. The Virginia was not entirely unhurt, sustaining significant damage to her smokestack, and having several armor plates loosened. But her appearance had thrown the entire Union blockade into disarray. The first day of the Battle of Hampton Roads was over, and it looked like another Confederate victory was in the making.
During the night, the USS Monitor arrived from the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and the odds were evened out.
On paper, the Virginia had more guns than the Monitor, but that doesn't tell the whole story. While Virginia's guns were laid out in a standard fixed arrangement, the Monitor's guns were mounted in a turret. That meant that while Virginia would have to maneuver carefully to bring her guns to bear, the Monitor could fire upon anything she could see. This day's battle, the very first of ironclad-on-ironclad, would show which was better: more guns, or more easily aimable guns.
And the answer was a resounding "Beats Me."
Neither ship could get a conclusive advantage on the other. While either ship could reduce a wooden ship to kindling, neither one could score a telling hit upon the other. They pounded one another unmercifully for hours, to little avail. Hit after hit glanced off of stout iron plating, doing no real damage to the ship underneath. Virginia scored a brief advantage when a lucky turret shot temporarily blinded Monitor's captain, forcing Monitor to briefly withdraw. The day had already worn on towards late afternoon, so Virginia took this as an opportunity to withdraw, herself. She returned to her base, for badly-needed repairs.
On the one hand, the results of the Battle of Hampton Roads were inconclusive. The Union suffered far heavier losses and casualties, owing to Virginia's rampage on that first day. But on the other hand, the blockade wasn't broken. Within a month, two more Union ironclads would join the blockade, and within a month after that advancing Union troops would occupy Norfolk itself. But the conclusiveness or lack thereof was beside the point. Ironclad had fired upon ironclad, and naval warfare would never again be the same. Sailors had seen the future, and it was full of metal.
The days when "the ships were wood and the men were iron" were over.
It's a fairly common misconception that wars are times of rapid technological change. You'll often hear someone say that the submarine came out of World War I, or that jet engines and atomic energy came out of World War II, but that's not entirely true. Submarines and aircraft had been around for years prior to World War I. Jet engines had been invented immediately prior to World War II, and they had a fairly good idea of what atomic power could do, even if they didn't know exactly how to go about doing it.
There is one thing wartime does do, though: it greatly reduces institutional inertia. An active enemy tends to focus your attention closely. New ideas that had once butted up against an obstinately conservative Quartermasters' Corps would now fall on far more sympathetic ears. A case in point: ironclad warships.
Three technological trends were converging: steam power, high-power naval guns firing explosive shells, and iron armor. The first ship that combined all three was a French ship, La Gloire, launched in 1859. The new high-power guns proved to be a huge problem for purely wooden-hulled ships. This had been proven at the Battle of Sinope where a numerically-inferior Russian force annihilated a Turkish squadron, using their superior gunnery. Explosive shells could turn even the stoutest ship into kindling in fairly short order. The obvious answer would be to bolt iron armor onto the ship's exterior ... the problem being, sails couldn't move such a heavy ship very easily. Enter our third element, steam power. With the invention of the screw propeller in the 1840s, steam power became a practical method for warship propulsion. Coal-fired boilers could easily provide the raw power to shove hundreds of tons of iron plating through the waves.
But, as I mentioned, these were slow coming to the Western shores of the Atlantic. The U.S. Navy had adopted steam power, but was slow to combine all of the elements together. The secession of Virginia, and with it the loss of the Norfolk Naval Yards, began to force a re-evaluation of affairs.
Upon the secession of Virginia, orders were issued to destroy all useful items at the Naval Yards lest they fall into secessionist hands. Unfortunately, the orders were bungled, and the USS Merrimac partially sank into shallow water before she had burned completely. The Merrimac was salvageable, and could be put back into service. It was decided to rebuild her as an ironclad warship, the CSS Virginia. It would be an expensive undertaking. But the combination of steam propulsion, high-power guns, and sloped armor would make the Virginia more than a match for her blockaders.
Word of this conversion reached Washington in early summer of 1861, and was not received happily. The Union could not afford to fall behind in this kind of arms race. But, as I have said before, the Union was far more able to keep pace in this kind of competition than the Confederacy ever was. The Secretary of the Navy, Gideon Welles, issued an order for a review of ironclad designs, and three were accepted. One of these was a ship designed by Swedish-born inventor John Ericsson, the USS Monitor, laid down on October 25, 1851, and completed 118 days later.
This would not be a day too soon.
On the 8th of March, CSS Virginia sallied forth to break the Union blockade. Ordinarily, it's foolish to think that a single ship can break a blockade ... but this was not an ordinary situation. The guns of the Union blockade squadron had almost no effect. The Virginia rammed and sunk the USS Chesapeake, and had forced the USS Congress to beach itself prior to hammering it into surrender with her own guns. The Virginia was not entirely unhurt, sustaining significant damage to her smokestack, and having several armor plates loosened. But her appearance had thrown the entire Union blockade into disarray. The first day of the Battle of Hampton Roads was over, and it looked like another Confederate victory was in the making.
During the night, the USS Monitor arrived from the Brooklyn Navy Yard, and the odds were evened out.
On paper, the Virginia had more guns than the Monitor, but that doesn't tell the whole story. While Virginia's guns were laid out in a standard fixed arrangement, the Monitor's guns were mounted in a turret. That meant that while Virginia would have to maneuver carefully to bring her guns to bear, the Monitor could fire upon anything she could see. This day's battle, the very first of ironclad-on-ironclad, would show which was better: more guns, or more easily aimable guns.
And the answer was a resounding "Beats Me."
Neither ship could get a conclusive advantage on the other. While either ship could reduce a wooden ship to kindling, neither one could score a telling hit upon the other. They pounded one another unmercifully for hours, to little avail. Hit after hit glanced off of stout iron plating, doing no real damage to the ship underneath. Virginia scored a brief advantage when a lucky turret shot temporarily blinded Monitor's captain, forcing Monitor to briefly withdraw. The day had already worn on towards late afternoon, so Virginia took this as an opportunity to withdraw, herself. She returned to her base, for badly-needed repairs.
On the one hand, the results of the Battle of Hampton Roads were inconclusive. The Union suffered far heavier losses and casualties, owing to Virginia's rampage on that first day. But on the other hand, the blockade wasn't broken. Within a month, two more Union ironclads would join the blockade, and within a month after that advancing Union troops would occupy Norfolk itself. But the conclusiveness or lack thereof was beside the point. Ironclad had fired upon ironclad, and naval warfare would never again be the same. Sailors had seen the future, and it was full of metal.
The days when "the ships were wood and the men were iron" were over.
Friday, March 02, 2012
Election 2012: Spring Is Coming
The second month of the 2012 Presidential primary season has drawn to a close, and we've narrowed it down to a four-man race on the Republican side. As much as everyone's saying that this primary is dragging on far longer than it should, I have to remind them of that one salient fact: This IS only the second full month of voting. Most states haven't even weighed in yet. Now, if we get into April and it's still a three- or four-man race, things could get ... interesting. I expect a bit of a down-select to happen come Super Tuesday. (As always, figures from Intrade.com, current as of Friday afternoon.)
The Year Of The Super-PAC: The various Super-PACs aren't a party per se, but they're having a huge effect on this campaign. It's difficult to over-state the effect that they're having this year. Without Super-PACs, Newt Gingrich would have sank without a trace months ago. Without Super-PACs, Rick Santorum might well have done likewise, or would at least be struggling for support. With Super-PACs, both candidates are struggling for the coveted "Not-Romney" spot ... and don't forget that Romney has that particular card up his sleeve, as well.
There are both good things and bad things associated with this. On the positive side, it's going to cause the campaign to go on longer than it might have otherwise. That's a good thing, because it gives the voting public more time to get to know these men, and to examine their strengths and weaknesses in some detail. But that also touches on a down side ... maybe the voters get to know them a little too well. The longer and more negative the campaign becomes, the farther to the right the candidate has to shift to win the nomination, and the harder it becomes to tack back to the center for the general election. That's going to be a hard pivot for the Republican nominee, whoever that ends up being. That's going to be more like a slight veer for the Democratic nominee, who will be ... well, let's just get on with it:
The Democrats: Yes, we all know it's over. It's just about official, now. Over here, Megan McArdle has an article about an upcoming Obama fundraiser. Said fundraiser's promotional e-mail has this picture as a logo:
That sure seems to settle it. Vegas seems to have caught up, giving Barack Obama a 96.7% chance of re-nomination, with only a handful (3.0%) of holdouts backing Hillary Clinton. And for the VP spot, Biden isn't quite getting that much love, with only an 91.0% chance. A full 10.0% are still betting on Hillary Clinton for VP, even though we all know that ain't gonna happen. Biden's on the campaign literature, people. It's a done deal. As I've said all along, unless one of them takes a ride on a tornado, it'll be Obama/Biden in November for the Democrats.
The Republicans: But on the other side of the aisle, the four-way knife-fight in a phone booth continues in full force. Only one man will be left standing, but he cannot fairly be said to have won, only to have lost less severely than his opponents. They're running to the right so fast, the winner will have a very hard time tacking back to the center for the general election.
Mitt Romney, 83.0%: Vegas still loves him, although he's got some hard sledding between here and the acceptance speech. And, some sources are hinting at money problems for the Romney campaign. It turns out that there's a disadvantage to hitting up the deep pockets first, for the maximum amount ... once they're tapped, they're tapped. If you draw less than the maximum from a broader pool, you can hit them up again later. Plus, as I've said before, Romney has a pair of serious problems that stand between him and the nomination. First, health care reform. I'm not saying Obama swiped his plan ... actually, I am. When someone does have a good idea, you should steal it shamelessly. The problem is, the GOP electorate remembers this, and will probably hold it against Romney to some extent. Also, there's the problem that a fair number of Southern Evangelicals aren't entirely convinced that Mormons are Christian. That will also come into play down South. Still, Romney still has money and organization, and those are two nice friends to have.
Rick Santorum, 6.1%: I was spectacularly wrong last time about Santorum's prospects. He has indeed found traction with the religious fundamentalist wing of the GOP, and is the current front-runner in the "Not-Romney" subclass of this year's Republican primary. He's not doing too badly on the fundraising front, either. As I mentioned above, if you collect smaller amounts from a larger donor pool, you can go back to that well again and again. That was a good strategy for Obama in 2008, and it's proving to be a good one for Santorum in 2012. The betting public isn't sold on his nomination prospects, but that could easily change with a strong showing down South. He could hit it big on Super Tuesday. If he does, then the fight could go all the way to the convention floor.
Newt Gingrich, 3.6%: While Romney has both money and organization, and while Santorum is finding lots of funding, Newt Gingrich has neither. His campaign has rather spectacularly deflated since his early surge. He's pinning his hopes on a big Super Tuesday showing, especially since his biggest base of support is in the South. But he's failed to get on several ballots, including Virginia's, so his organization's basic ineptitude is liable to do him in, if his mouth doesn't beat them to it. Right now, I'd lay odds that Gingrich punches out after Super Tuesday, but I'm not sure I'd put money on it.
Ron Paul, 2.3%: Now, I'd bet an arbitrarily large amount on Ron Paul's candidacy going all the way to the convention. Dr. Paul isn't leaving the race until they pry his candidacy from his cold, dead fingers. The thing I like about Ron Paul is that he's not running to the right like the other candidates. He's saying the same things he's said all along. There are plenty of reasons not to like him, but you know where he stands. He's stark staring blazing-midday-Sun-on-Mercury crazy, but at least he's dependably consistent about it. To an extent, I respect that.
And The Winner Is... As of Friday afternoon, they're giving the Democrats a 60.1% chance of keeping the White House, versus the Republican Party's 38.8% to take it away. If you can find someone willing to give you 3-2 odds, Obama/Biden for the win would be a good bet.
Remember, kids, vote early, and vote often!
The Year Of The Super-PAC: The various Super-PACs aren't a party per se, but they're having a huge effect on this campaign. It's difficult to over-state the effect that they're having this year. Without Super-PACs, Newt Gingrich would have sank without a trace months ago. Without Super-PACs, Rick Santorum might well have done likewise, or would at least be struggling for support. With Super-PACs, both candidates are struggling for the coveted "Not-Romney" spot ... and don't forget that Romney has that particular card up his sleeve, as well.
There are both good things and bad things associated with this. On the positive side, it's going to cause the campaign to go on longer than it might have otherwise. That's a good thing, because it gives the voting public more time to get to know these men, and to examine their strengths and weaknesses in some detail. But that also touches on a down side ... maybe the voters get to know them a little too well. The longer and more negative the campaign becomes, the farther to the right the candidate has to shift to win the nomination, and the harder it becomes to tack back to the center for the general election. That's going to be a hard pivot for the Republican nominee, whoever that ends up being. That's going to be more like a slight veer for the Democratic nominee, who will be ... well, let's just get on with it:
The Democrats: Yes, we all know it's over. It's just about official, now. Over here, Megan McArdle has an article about an upcoming Obama fundraiser. Said fundraiser's promotional e-mail has this picture as a logo:
That sure seems to settle it. Vegas seems to have caught up, giving Barack Obama a 96.7% chance of re-nomination, with only a handful (3.0%) of holdouts backing Hillary Clinton. And for the VP spot, Biden isn't quite getting that much love, with only an 91.0% chance. A full 10.0% are still betting on Hillary Clinton for VP, even though we all know that ain't gonna happen. Biden's on the campaign literature, people. It's a done deal. As I've said all along, unless one of them takes a ride on a tornado, it'll be Obama/Biden in November for the Democrats.
The Republicans: But on the other side of the aisle, the four-way knife-fight in a phone booth continues in full force. Only one man will be left standing, but he cannot fairly be said to have won, only to have lost less severely than his opponents. They're running to the right so fast, the winner will have a very hard time tacking back to the center for the general election.
Mitt Romney, 83.0%: Vegas still loves him, although he's got some hard sledding between here and the acceptance speech. And, some sources are hinting at money problems for the Romney campaign. It turns out that there's a disadvantage to hitting up the deep pockets first, for the maximum amount ... once they're tapped, they're tapped. If you draw less than the maximum from a broader pool, you can hit them up again later. Plus, as I've said before, Romney has a pair of serious problems that stand between him and the nomination. First, health care reform. I'm not saying Obama swiped his plan ... actually, I am. When someone does have a good idea, you should steal it shamelessly. The problem is, the GOP electorate remembers this, and will probably hold it against Romney to some extent. Also, there's the problem that a fair number of Southern Evangelicals aren't entirely convinced that Mormons are Christian. That will also come into play down South. Still, Romney still has money and organization, and those are two nice friends to have.
Rick Santorum, 6.1%: I was spectacularly wrong last time about Santorum's prospects. He has indeed found traction with the religious fundamentalist wing of the GOP, and is the current front-runner in the "Not-Romney" subclass of this year's Republican primary. He's not doing too badly on the fundraising front, either. As I mentioned above, if you collect smaller amounts from a larger donor pool, you can go back to that well again and again. That was a good strategy for Obama in 2008, and it's proving to be a good one for Santorum in 2012. The betting public isn't sold on his nomination prospects, but that could easily change with a strong showing down South. He could hit it big on Super Tuesday. If he does, then the fight could go all the way to the convention floor.
Newt Gingrich, 3.6%: While Romney has both money and organization, and while Santorum is finding lots of funding, Newt Gingrich has neither. His campaign has rather spectacularly deflated since his early surge. He's pinning his hopes on a big Super Tuesday showing, especially since his biggest base of support is in the South. But he's failed to get on several ballots, including Virginia's, so his organization's basic ineptitude is liable to do him in, if his mouth doesn't beat them to it. Right now, I'd lay odds that Gingrich punches out after Super Tuesday, but I'm not sure I'd put money on it.
Ron Paul, 2.3%: Now, I'd bet an arbitrarily large amount on Ron Paul's candidacy going all the way to the convention. Dr. Paul isn't leaving the race until they pry his candidacy from his cold, dead fingers. The thing I like about Ron Paul is that he's not running to the right like the other candidates. He's saying the same things he's said all along. There are plenty of reasons not to like him, but you know where he stands. He's stark staring blazing-midday-Sun-on-Mercury crazy, but at least he's dependably consistent about it. To an extent, I respect that.
And The Winner Is... As of Friday afternoon, they're giving the Democrats a 60.1% chance of keeping the White House, versus the Republican Party's 38.8% to take it away. If you can find someone willing to give you 3-2 odds, Obama/Biden for the win would be a good bet.
Remember, kids, vote early, and vote often!
Friday, February 17, 2012
Sesquicentennial, Part XIX: Man In Motion, Cont'd
--FIRST -PREV NEXT-
From antiquity, prime campaigning season has always been from the spring thaw through harvest time. It is by no mere coincidence that the first month of Spring was named by the Romans for their god of war. March was the month in which the Legions would take up their implements and, well, march. As technology improved, the "season" broadened somewhat, but not by much. You still had to keep your troops fed, and marching troops around in the winter snow wasn't the easiest thing in the world. Major winter campaigns were very rare indeed, and the successful ones were successful mostly by virtue of surprise. So, not a whole lot happened between November and February.
"Not a whole lot" didn't mean "nothing", although it wasn't immediately obvious to a casual observer. The United States Navy was slowly extending its blockade southward down the Atlantic coast. By December 1861, the blockade had been extended down past the Carolina coast. By the month, the Confederacy had fewer and fewer ports with which to receive and ship foreign goods. And while the blockade inched its way down the Atlantic coast, the Union Army was making its way down the Mississippi River.
Which brings us back to Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant, encamped in Cairo, Illinois. When we last left General Grant, he had been preparing to sally forth to meet the Confederates at Belmont. It was an inconclusive affair. While General Grant was able to take the Confederate fort, he did not have enough men with him to keep it. When General Gideon Pillow arrived with reinforcements, Grant was forced to retire back to his base of operations at Cairo. But this was only a temporary setback. The battle had given Grant and his volunteer force a much-needed jolt of confidence. Plus, Grant had gotten some reinforcements of his own. Flag Officer Andrew Hull Foote had shown up, with some brand-new U.S. Navy gunboats, and Grant decided that this was a good time to introduce the Confederates to what combined arms could do.
Basically, when asked "Shall we attack by land, or by sea?" Grant answered, "Why not both?"
It was with this in mind that, in early February, General Grant set forth out of Cairo, and marched down the Tennessee River, towards the Confederate-held Fort Henry. Fort Henry had eleven guns trained on the river to prevent unfriendly traffic. Only six were positioned to guard against a landward assault. Although hastily constructed, Fort Henry could probably have withstood one or the other. Grant gambled that they couldn't handle both. On February 4th, he landed his troops about three miles downriver, and deployed to prevent the garrison's escape, and also to prevent its reinforcement. Within two days, he had all the approaches covered, and his main attack began on the 6th, with a sustained bombardment by the Union Navy gunboats. The battle lasted a little more than an hour before the Confederate garrison surrendered.
The fall of Fort Henry opened up the Tennessee River to Union shipping and gunboats all the way into Alabama. But that wasn't all that Grant had in mind for this campaign. Nearby, on the Cumberland River, was another Confederate stronghold, Fort Donelson. He marched his troops twelve miles overland, while Flag Officer Foote sailed his gunboats down the Tennessee River, then up the Cumberland, in order to fire on the fort. Fort Donelson's gunners had better luck, or better aim, than their counterparts at Fort Henry, and Foote's gunboats had to withdraw. But the real damage had been done. Grant had Fort Donelson surrounded, by the evening of February 14th. The next day, on the 15th, General Floyd made a breakout attempt that was almost successful. Only almost. This left General Floyd in a bit of a pickle.
Because, you see, General Floyd is a man we've met before. John Floyd, you may remember, was President Buchanan's Secretary of War. The Union might just want to have a few words with him about some of his deployment orders, two years or so ago. So, General Floyd resigned his command, and handed things over to General Pillow. General Pillow, in turn, handed his command over to General Buckner, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. General Buckner remained, and attempted to negotiate surrender terms with General Grant.
I say, "attempted." Buckner's request for an armistice, and terms for surrender, prompted this reply from Grant:
Sir: Yours of this date proposing Armistice, and appointment of Commissioners, to settle terms of Capitulation is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted.
I propose to move immediately upon your works.
I am Sir: very respectfully
Your obt. sevt.
U.S. Grant
Brig. Gen.
Buckner was left with the unappealing choice of either accepting unconditional surrender, or attempting to defend his now-undefendable position. Buckner chose the former. Fort Donelson surrendered to the Union on February 16, 1862.
The news of this victory shot through the Union like a lightning bolt.
On the one hand, it's easily understandable: this was, after all, the first major victory by Union forces against the Confederates. It went a long way towards erasing the sting of the ignominious defeat at Bull Run. But on the other hand, it was a very small matter, far away from what most people thought was the more important theater of war, back in the East. But on the other other hand, a very important goal had been achieved. Union gunboats, supply boats, and troops could now freely navigate the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. Free navigation of same had also been denied to Confederate forces, whose transportation network wasn't all that good to begin with.
And, overnight, Ulysses S. Grant had become a national hero. His victories at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson won him not only fame, but a promotion to Major General. He wouldn't rest on his laurels, though. He wasn't quite finished in the Tennessee River valley just yet. He aimed to push his troops as far up the Tennessee River as he could possibly go.
Up ahead was a sleepy little town that few had heard of yet, called Shiloh.
From antiquity, prime campaigning season has always been from the spring thaw through harvest time. It is by no mere coincidence that the first month of Spring was named by the Romans for their god of war. March was the month in which the Legions would take up their implements and, well, march. As technology improved, the "season" broadened somewhat, but not by much. You still had to keep your troops fed, and marching troops around in the winter snow wasn't the easiest thing in the world. Major winter campaigns were very rare indeed, and the successful ones were successful mostly by virtue of surprise. So, not a whole lot happened between November and February.
"Not a whole lot" didn't mean "nothing", although it wasn't immediately obvious to a casual observer. The United States Navy was slowly extending its blockade southward down the Atlantic coast. By December 1861, the blockade had been extended down past the Carolina coast. By the month, the Confederacy had fewer and fewer ports with which to receive and ship foreign goods. And while the blockade inched its way down the Atlantic coast, the Union Army was making its way down the Mississippi River.
Which brings us back to Brigadier General Ulysses S. Grant, encamped in Cairo, Illinois. When we last left General Grant, he had been preparing to sally forth to meet the Confederates at Belmont. It was an inconclusive affair. While General Grant was able to take the Confederate fort, he did not have enough men with him to keep it. When General Gideon Pillow arrived with reinforcements, Grant was forced to retire back to his base of operations at Cairo. But this was only a temporary setback. The battle had given Grant and his volunteer force a much-needed jolt of confidence. Plus, Grant had gotten some reinforcements of his own. Flag Officer Andrew Hull Foote had shown up, with some brand-new U.S. Navy gunboats, and Grant decided that this was a good time to introduce the Confederates to what combined arms could do.
Basically, when asked "Shall we attack by land, or by sea?" Grant answered, "Why not both?"
It was with this in mind that, in early February, General Grant set forth out of Cairo, and marched down the Tennessee River, towards the Confederate-held Fort Henry. Fort Henry had eleven guns trained on the river to prevent unfriendly traffic. Only six were positioned to guard against a landward assault. Although hastily constructed, Fort Henry could probably have withstood one or the other. Grant gambled that they couldn't handle both. On February 4th, he landed his troops about three miles downriver, and deployed to prevent the garrison's escape, and also to prevent its reinforcement. Within two days, he had all the approaches covered, and his main attack began on the 6th, with a sustained bombardment by the Union Navy gunboats. The battle lasted a little more than an hour before the Confederate garrison surrendered.
The fall of Fort Henry opened up the Tennessee River to Union shipping and gunboats all the way into Alabama. But that wasn't all that Grant had in mind for this campaign. Nearby, on the Cumberland River, was another Confederate stronghold, Fort Donelson. He marched his troops twelve miles overland, while Flag Officer Foote sailed his gunboats down the Tennessee River, then up the Cumberland, in order to fire on the fort. Fort Donelson's gunners had better luck, or better aim, than their counterparts at Fort Henry, and Foote's gunboats had to withdraw. But the real damage had been done. Grant had Fort Donelson surrounded, by the evening of February 14th. The next day, on the 15th, General Floyd made a breakout attempt that was almost successful. Only almost. This left General Floyd in a bit of a pickle.
Because, you see, General Floyd is a man we've met before. John Floyd, you may remember, was President Buchanan's Secretary of War. The Union might just want to have a few words with him about some of his deployment orders, two years or so ago. So, General Floyd resigned his command, and handed things over to General Pillow. General Pillow, in turn, handed his command over to General Buckner, for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me. General Buckner remained, and attempted to negotiate surrender terms with General Grant.
I say, "attempted." Buckner's request for an armistice, and terms for surrender, prompted this reply from Grant:
Sir: Yours of this date proposing Armistice, and appointment of Commissioners, to settle terms of Capitulation is just received. No terms except unconditional and immediate surrender can be accepted.
I propose to move immediately upon your works.
I am Sir: very respectfully
Your obt. sevt.
U.S. Grant
Brig. Gen.
Buckner was left with the unappealing choice of either accepting unconditional surrender, or attempting to defend his now-undefendable position. Buckner chose the former. Fort Donelson surrendered to the Union on February 16, 1862.
The news of this victory shot through the Union like a lightning bolt.
On the one hand, it's easily understandable: this was, after all, the first major victory by Union forces against the Confederates. It went a long way towards erasing the sting of the ignominious defeat at Bull Run. But on the other hand, it was a very small matter, far away from what most people thought was the more important theater of war, back in the East. But on the other other hand, a very important goal had been achieved. Union gunboats, supply boats, and troops could now freely navigate the Tennessee and Cumberland rivers. Free navigation of same had also been denied to Confederate forces, whose transportation network wasn't all that good to begin with.
And, overnight, Ulysses S. Grant had become a national hero. His victories at Fort Henry and Fort Donelson won him not only fame, but a promotion to Major General. He wouldn't rest on his laurels, though. He wasn't quite finished in the Tennessee River valley just yet. He aimed to push his troops as far up the Tennessee River as he could possibly go.
Up ahead was a sleepy little town that few had heard of yet, called Shiloh.
Friday, February 10, 2012
Video Del Fuego, Part LII
I used to love building model airplanes, right up to the point when I didn't. I'm not exactly sure how that happened. Mostly, I think I just lost the patience for detail work and painting. So basically, I was out of the modelling hobby before I discovered the various kinds of radio-controlled flying models.
That's probably for the best. If I'd discovered that this sort of thing was available, I'd have never gotten any productive work done. Ever.
The ingenuity of the truly dedicated hobbyist is astounding. It's hard to believe some of the things they've come up with. There are flyable models of just about every aircraft you've ever heard of. They can get pretty big. Especially since there's no way to make a small flyable model of a B-36:
And while you can make a smaller flying model of a Spitfire, some things are easier when you go big:
But you haven't seen anything yet ... Back in the day, they used to sell radio-controlled models of "jets", which were models that kind of looked like jets, with propellers on the front. Not very interesting. So naturally, someone figured out how to make a really small jet engine. And behold:
Actually that one sounds like a ducted fan, as opposed to a real jet. But never fear, those do exist.
The problem with real jet engines? When things go wrong, they can get really explodey, really fast. Which is why just about everyone carries a fire extinguisher:
But what if that's not enough to slake your need for speed? Scale modelers like Steve Eves take it to the next level, with a flying 1/10 scale model of a Saturn V. (Yes, that Saturn V.)
Which leads us to these guys, who built a rocket of their own design, and punched it up to 121,000 feet.
Which just about defies description. Bear in mind, this is what our hobbyists do. On their own time. For fun. Now, imagine what our professionals could do, given clear direction...
National Engineers Week is February 19th through the 25th. Remember, if you can read this, thank a teacher; but if you're reading this on a computer, thank an engineer.
That's probably for the best. If I'd discovered that this sort of thing was available, I'd have never gotten any productive work done. Ever.
The ingenuity of the truly dedicated hobbyist is astounding. It's hard to believe some of the things they've come up with. There are flyable models of just about every aircraft you've ever heard of. They can get pretty big. Especially since there's no way to make a small flyable model of a B-36:
And while you can make a smaller flying model of a Spitfire, some things are easier when you go big:
But you haven't seen anything yet ... Back in the day, they used to sell radio-controlled models of "jets", which were models that kind of looked like jets, with propellers on the front. Not very interesting. So naturally, someone figured out how to make a really small jet engine. And behold:
Actually that one sounds like a ducted fan, as opposed to a real jet. But never fear, those do exist.
The problem with real jet engines? When things go wrong, they can get really explodey, really fast. Which is why just about everyone carries a fire extinguisher:
But what if that's not enough to slake your need for speed? Scale modelers like Steve Eves take it to the next level, with a flying 1/10 scale model of a Saturn V. (Yes, that Saturn V.)
Which leads us to these guys, who built a rocket of their own design, and punched it up to 121,000 feet.
Which just about defies description. Bear in mind, this is what our hobbyists do. On their own time. For fun. Now, imagine what our professionals could do, given clear direction...
National Engineers Week is February 19th through the 25th. Remember, if you can read this, thank a teacher; but if you're reading this on a computer, thank an engineer.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
One Of These Days, Alice...
Recently, Newt Gingrich caused a stir in the run-up to the Florida GOP primary by suggesting that, by 2020, a Gingrich Administration would set up a permanent base on the Moon. Leaving aside the question of whether or not it's a good idea ... Actually, never mind, that's a good discussion to have. There are several good reasons why we want to do that, eventually. But there are several equally good reasons that there's just no way in Hell we're going to get there from here by 2020.
One reason is radio astronomy. The biggest problem with radio astronomy is interference. We use radio for everything. We use it to talk to each other, to share pictures and music, to share information. We use it to find out how far airplanes are from one another, and to keep passenger airplanes from running into mountains. Our power lines leak radio frequency energy, even though we'd really rather they didn't. All of this makes radio astronomy, the science of exploring the universe by analyzing the radio frequency radiation coming at us from deep space, a very tricky discipline indeed. Wouldn't it be nice, if you could put a radio telescope somewhere that was shielded from all of Earth's radio frequency output?
Another reason is clean energy, albeit indirectly. If you were to put farms of solar power panels in geosynchronous orbit, you could beam clean energy down from space 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Building them is a fairly tall order, and it would be cheaper to haul the building materials up from the Moon than it would be to haul them up from the Earth.
You're free to disagree with me on this, of course, but I'm convinced that an outpost on the Moon is a good idea for our long-term future, not just as a nation but as a species. But it's vitally important that we do it right. And there's just no way to do it right in only nine or ten years. Let's make a quick outline of what needs to be done in order to get there from here.
First, you need a mature transportation infrastructure. The longest pole in this tent is efficient, reusable transportation to and from low Earth orbit for both crew and cargo. You're going to be moving a lot of cargo both up and down, so you need to be able to do it cheaply, and on a reliable, dependable schedule. You also need to be able to develop the technology for in-space refueling, so that you can store fuel and supplies at an orbital supply depot. You'd also like to have really efficient engines for space propulsion, so that you can be as miserly with that fuel as possible. Finally, you will need to develop closed-loop life support, so that your base can be as self-sufficient as possible. Now, where have we heard this before? (Hold on to that thought. We'll come back to it later.)
Given all of that, here's how you'd need to proceed:
(1) Stockpile some fuel and supplies in low Earth orbit.
(2) At the same time, haul up some parts, and assemble a couple of cislunar freighters.
(3) Load the freighters with fuel, supplies, and parts.
(4) Once they arrive in Lunar orbit, they will assemble a second fuel and supply depot.
(5) Once back in Earth orbit, load the freighters with fuel, supplies, parts, and a couple of lunar landers.
(6) Once back in Lunar orbit, the landers will take the parts down to the surface, and begin construction.
This way, you have a sustainable supply chain to keep the project going for as long as you need to. And there's no way to do this in only ten years. Oh sure, if we already had all of the enabling technologies, we could make it happen. But we don't. And therein lies the problem. Some of us learned the wrong lessons from Project Apollo.
Project Apollo left us with an awesome legacy. Six flags and twelve sets of footprints stand in eternal testimony to what we can do as a nation when we plant our feet, fix our eyes on the ball, and swing for the fences. But it also leaves a false impression that we can do anything -- literally anything -- with only nine years' notice. And that's not necessarily true.
We have a lot of hard work to do before we're ready to undertake the challenge of building a permanent outpost on the Moon. We've barely begun that work. If we undertake the "Flexible Path" option outlined in 2009's Augustine Commission report, we will have done the lion's share of the preparation by 2020. Then, and only then, can we realistically undertake the task.
Anyone who tells you different is either lying, crazy, or just delusional. Although in Gingrich's case, it may well be all of the above.
One reason is radio astronomy. The biggest problem with radio astronomy is interference. We use radio for everything. We use it to talk to each other, to share pictures and music, to share information. We use it to find out how far airplanes are from one another, and to keep passenger airplanes from running into mountains. Our power lines leak radio frequency energy, even though we'd really rather they didn't. All of this makes radio astronomy, the science of exploring the universe by analyzing the radio frequency radiation coming at us from deep space, a very tricky discipline indeed. Wouldn't it be nice, if you could put a radio telescope somewhere that was shielded from all of Earth's radio frequency output?
Another reason is clean energy, albeit indirectly. If you were to put farms of solar power panels in geosynchronous orbit, you could beam clean energy down from space 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Building them is a fairly tall order, and it would be cheaper to haul the building materials up from the Moon than it would be to haul them up from the Earth.
You're free to disagree with me on this, of course, but I'm convinced that an outpost on the Moon is a good idea for our long-term future, not just as a nation but as a species. But it's vitally important that we do it right. And there's just no way to do it right in only nine or ten years. Let's make a quick outline of what needs to be done in order to get there from here.
First, you need a mature transportation infrastructure. The longest pole in this tent is efficient, reusable transportation to and from low Earth orbit for both crew and cargo. You're going to be moving a lot of cargo both up and down, so you need to be able to do it cheaply, and on a reliable, dependable schedule. You also need to be able to develop the technology for in-space refueling, so that you can store fuel and supplies at an orbital supply depot. You'd also like to have really efficient engines for space propulsion, so that you can be as miserly with that fuel as possible. Finally, you will need to develop closed-loop life support, so that your base can be as self-sufficient as possible. Now, where have we heard this before? (Hold on to that thought. We'll come back to it later.)
Given all of that, here's how you'd need to proceed:
(1) Stockpile some fuel and supplies in low Earth orbit.
(2) At the same time, haul up some parts, and assemble a couple of cislunar freighters.
(3) Load the freighters with fuel, supplies, and parts.
(4) Once they arrive in Lunar orbit, they will assemble a second fuel and supply depot.
(5) Once back in Earth orbit, load the freighters with fuel, supplies, parts, and a couple of lunar landers.
(6) Once back in Lunar orbit, the landers will take the parts down to the surface, and begin construction.
This way, you have a sustainable supply chain to keep the project going for as long as you need to. And there's no way to do this in only ten years. Oh sure, if we already had all of the enabling technologies, we could make it happen. But we don't. And therein lies the problem. Some of us learned the wrong lessons from Project Apollo.
Project Apollo left us with an awesome legacy. Six flags and twelve sets of footprints stand in eternal testimony to what we can do as a nation when we plant our feet, fix our eyes on the ball, and swing for the fences. But it also leaves a false impression that we can do anything -- literally anything -- with only nine years' notice. And that's not necessarily true.
We have a lot of hard work to do before we're ready to undertake the challenge of building a permanent outpost on the Moon. We've barely begun that work. If we undertake the "Flexible Path" option outlined in 2009's Augustine Commission report, we will have done the lion's share of the preparation by 2020. Then, and only then, can we realistically undertake the task.
Anyone who tells you different is either lying, crazy, or just delusional. Although in Gingrich's case, it may well be all of the above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
