You know how once you become aware of something, you can’t get it out of your head? You learn a new word and it suddenly pops up everywhere, or a song someone mentions is playing all over the place. Well today that phenomenon was arm-swinging – I had a very emphatic arm-swinger walking in front of me, and suddenly I couldn’t look at anyone without evaluating their upper limbs’ movements. Habits range from stiff, motionless robots to wanna-be Olympic sprinters to the side-to-side speed skaters (isn’t that just inefficient?).
Which one are you?
Of course, being a scientist, I next found myself wondering about the mertis of arm-swinging. What’s the most energy-efficient strategy? Is it really necessary in the first place? If one arm is occupied with a bag, does the other compensate and pump harder?
From one digression to another, new fodder for my acronym rant. When I stopped swinging my arms long enough to withdraw some money at a cash machine, I was redundantly horrified to see the screen notifying me that I was at a “such-and-such Bank ATM Machine.” Soon thereafter, it asked me to enter my “PIN Number!”
Speaking of acronyms, there was a pretty interesting article today about NASA and its chief, Michael Griffin. He was in London yesterday on his way to France, and stopped long enough to give an interview and urge Britain to seriously consider human spaceflight. Looking forward to seeing the results of that study in a few months.
Griffin is kind of a breath of fresh air among beauraucrats, possibly because he’s a scientists by training, not a politician. Griffin has at times skated on thin ice by revealing his own personal beliefs on NASA-related endeavors, namely that the Space Station is over-rated and global warming is undeserving of the hype. I certainly don’t agree with him on everything, but on two particular points, he’s right on the money.
First is his assertion that the US space program is going to get worse before it gets better. NASA is retiring the space shuttle in 2010 and will likely be without a human launch vehicle for at least five years (and quite likely longer, depending on November’s result). This sacrifices the redundancy of Space Station supply: it has traditionally been mandated that the ISS have two independent means of supply, in case of a malfunction or unforseen circumstances on the ground. In one of his better zingers, Griffin says that “anyone who doesn’t understand why that is a problem, from my perspective, just hasn’t done enough real things in their life.” Shyeah, welcome to lab work!
It’s going to be interesting to see how people respond to seeing the Russians and/or Chinese taking the apparent lead in space exploration over the next decade.
Griffin’s other wise point is the need for continuity. Even a politician can see that the quickest way between two points is a straight line, so quadrennial zig zags in the form of administrations’ strategic differences is pretty damaging. This seems like a slightly veiled warning for the next President – Griffin will, after all, soon be out of a job regardless of the victor. Certainly programs can be adjusted and optimized, but I think it’s hard to argue that a full change of strategy is worthwhile. Hopefully the next President will heed Griffin’s warning.
The loss of a backup space shuttle for the space station supply is really scary. Will other nations step in to ensure that the station is safe and supplied? Is that why Griffin was urging Britain to step up manned space flight?
I am curious about the differences NASA (N.A.S.A.? I am pretty sure it’s not Nasa :) ) has experienced under a scientist’s direction as opposed to a politician’s. Was the scientist (Griffin) as capable of securing funding and maintaining positive public opinion as a politician would be?
Your penultimate paragraph is slightly ominous in a way.
For station resupply, there are several options. The Russian Soyuz and Progress craft will continue to deliver consumables, science experiments and fuel long after the US shuttle retires. Then there’s Europe’s Automated Transfer Vehicle (ATV) the first of which docked with the station a few months back. Several private companies are also working on vehicles to resupply the station, and the Japanese also have a craft in development.
Getting humans to the station is another matter. As things currently stand, only Russia will have that ability once the shuttle retires in 2010. Europe is unlikely to have a manned vehicle ready before 2015. The Chinese could possibly deliver humans but are not a partner nation in the space station. The best hope again comes from private industry. The SpaceX Dragon capsule, fitted to one of Elon Musk’s Falcon 9 rockets, seems the most likely to succeed, but there’s a long way to go before this system is proven.
Thanks for the assist Matt – wasn’t aware of the ATV, but that is good news. As for human capabilities, if I recall correctly, the Soyuz can serve as an evacuation vehicle in a pinch, and I’d be surprised if the ATV and/or other private contributions don’t have the same feature. But given that the Russians and the Chinese are the best hopes of assistance, I find the geopolitical ramifications fascinating.
Yes, there’s always a Soyuz permanently docked to the space station, should the crew need a quick escape. The ATV can’t be used as an escape craft as it has no heat shield and is designed to burn up on reentry. The European Space Agency are looking at modifying the craft to support human crews, but this is a significant design change that won’t be possible for some years. In short, there’s no likely manned option other than Soyuz for some years after shuttle retirement.