Late last week my wife returned to work after spending nearly four months at home following the birth of our daughter Fiona in January. She has a pretty prestigious job, and her employer has one of the more generous maternity leave provisions you will find in the US labor market. When she went back after her leave with Liam I was in the second and final year of my graduate program, and the plan was that after graduation I would find a full-time position in my field and Liam would then be in day care three days a week while continuing to spend two days with my mother-in-law (grandma will not be denied!). For this to make financial sense any job I would take would need to pay me at least what it would cost to cover day care, the other incidentals that come with being employed, student loan payments, plus a little extra left over (else why go through all that trouble?). Given the extremely weak market for state and local government jobs at the time I graduated in August 2010 (my masters is in public policy), one which has not improved much in the time since, the plan did not come to fruition as hoped and I continued to be the main caregiver for Liam through all of 2011.
Now that the leave for Fiona is over, I am returning to this role for at least the next several months, with the only difference being that on the grandma days I will be at my part-time gig, which sort of fell into my lap late in January. I realize that my situation puts me squarely within a couple of growing male demographics, those being men who are primarily stay-at-home dads and men whose wives bring in the majority of the household income. I imagine that in many cases the latter enables the former, as it certainly does in mine, since if your wife has the higher earning potential it makes sense for her to remain in the labor force while you take care of the kids. However, I also realize that for a variety of reasons not everyone can afford to have someone stay home as a full-time caregiver, a situation I was reminded of yesterday when I read that the best friend of one of my sisters was going back to work after having her baby a mere six weeks ago. Combine this with the front page feature in the Sunday Star Tribune being about the disturbing rise in infant day care deaths, and the subject of parental leave is very much in the forefront of my thoughts today.
The article was framed using the story of a couple in one of the more rural MN counties whose infant son died in a home day care after being put to sleep face down. As anyone with young children knows, this is completely against all current recommendations on how to position an infant for sleep, but the provider did it anyway and then also failed to check on him every 15 minutes, which is the licensing standard for a home day care. While there is no way of knowing whether the infant's death could have been prevented if the provider had just followed the recommendations, the other, just barely mentioned tragedy is that his mother was already back at her $9/hr job less than two months after giving birth, with the father having already returned to his job sometime before. Now there is probably some heartless bastard out there who will ask "If a couple needs to rely on the income from a $9/hr job to get by, why are they having children in the first place?" To which I would reply: so that there might be someone around to take care of your old cranky ass when the callous kids you raised (if you had any) unceremoniously leave you at the nursing home. But seriously, though I agree that there are plenty of people out there who should not have kids but do, one cannot base someone's fitness as potential parent solely on their paycheck.
It is wisdom like this that has been absorbed and implemented in policy by pretty much every high-income country out there, and some middle-income ones as well. The EU, Japan, and other OECD members have at least some government guaranteed paid parental leave (some countries have separate maternity, paternity, and parental leave provisions, others roll it all into the same system), except for the good old US of A. While there are some state-level leave requirements and supports, the only thing at the federal level is unpaid FMLA, and you'd better hope grandma doesn't get seriously ill in the same year. Employers thus have a great deal of discretion in deciding whether or not to offer paid leave as part of their benefit packages, and so they run the spectrum from the relatively generous leave my wife was able to enjoy to none at all. Thus situations like the one in the Star Tribune article and that of my sister's best friend are relatively common, and on the whole we all suffer for it.
What the rest of the rich world (especially the Nordic countries) has learned that we choose to ignore is that children whose parents are able to stay home with them in their early years will on average be much more likely to be socially well-adjusted, fare better in school, and grow up to be productive members of society than those whose parents are forced by economic necessity to be away earning income. The initial investments to support generous parental leave may be large, but they are paid back several times in the form of lower crime rates, improved mental and physical health, and a generally happier citizenry. In short, we owe it to ourselves and future generations to set up a system like they have in Sweden, where its benefits are already evident, or else we will continue to pay up the wazoo for not having it. Businesses will of course protest as they are dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century, but we give the child the vaccination even though we know they will cry as it is being administered.
Monday, May 7, 2012
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
So there's this book that I'm in...
It is not entirely a coincidence that the last time I posted here was just a few days before my daughter Fiona was born. A few weeks after that I started a new part-time job, and as such I haven't kept this thing up to date for a while. Today happens to be the final day of my wife's maternity leave, so starting tomorrow I will be taking care of both children three days a week and working the other two, which I imagine will leave even less time for casual blogging, but even so I hope to start making it worthwhile for my few readers to stop by a little more often.
In addition to the other recent changes in my daily routine, over the past few months a growing amount of buzz has been generating around a book that will be available later this year. That book is Atheist Voices of Minnesota, an anthology of essays written by people who, unsurprisingly, consider themselves a) atheists, and b) Minnesotans. Some of the contributors are widely known figures within the freethought movement, such as P.Z. Myers and August Berkshire (whom I've known for many years), others are card-carrying members of the atheist blogosphere, including Greg Laden and Stephanie Zvan, but the majority are people who just wanted to share their story (or at least part of it) with the wider world. As you have probably guessed, I happen to be in this last group, and while my essay is not long, it will be the first time any work of mine (not counting the occasional letter to the editor) will appear in print for a mass audience. Thus you can understand why I am eager to promote the book, and hope you will all purchase it when it comes out on August 28th (you can pre-order it on Amazon right now). I submitted my essay gratis, and all profits from the book's sales are going to Minnesota Atheists (a fine organization, if I may be so bold), so I won't be deriving any direct financial benefit, but if the discussion and feedback it generates lead to other opportunities I won't complain.
And I've got to say, after just watching the Twins get no-hit (and thus shut out for the second game in a row, and thus swept) by a thus far mediocre Angels club, it will be nice to have something to look forward to this summer.
In addition to the other recent changes in my daily routine, over the past few months a growing amount of buzz has been generating around a book that will be available later this year. That book is Atheist Voices of Minnesota, an anthology of essays written by people who, unsurprisingly, consider themselves a) atheists, and b) Minnesotans. Some of the contributors are widely known figures within the freethought movement, such as P.Z. Myers and August Berkshire (whom I've known for many years), others are card-carrying members of the atheist blogosphere, including Greg Laden and Stephanie Zvan, but the majority are people who just wanted to share their story (or at least part of it) with the wider world. As you have probably guessed, I happen to be in this last group, and while my essay is not long, it will be the first time any work of mine (not counting the occasional letter to the editor) will appear in print for a mass audience. Thus you can understand why I am eager to promote the book, and hope you will all purchase it when it comes out on August 28th (you can pre-order it on Amazon right now). I submitted my essay gratis, and all profits from the book's sales are going to Minnesota Atheists (a fine organization, if I may be so bold), so I won't be deriving any direct financial benefit, but if the discussion and feedback it generates lead to other opportunities I won't complain.
And I've got to say, after just watching the Twins get no-hit (and thus shut out for the second game in a row, and thus swept) by a thus far mediocre Angels club, it will be nice to have something to look forward to this summer.
Wednesday, January 4, 2012
You heard it here 85,647th.
Geez, Iowa GOP voters, when I wrote "eke out a narrow plurality" yesterday I didn't think you would take me so literally. Also, while the exit of Bachmann is in no way surprising given my other prediction, I admit I will miss her particular brand of insanity as the national nomination process wears on, but mainly because it means we Minnesotans will now probably have to endure another defense of her Congressional seat. Finally, while I am admittedly late to the bandwagon, a big thank you to Rick Santorum and his second place finish for giving the blogosphere and Twitterverse a deep gushing well of double entendre headlines to exploit. If only the Santorum outpouring had prompted Perry's withdrawal too.
And somewhere among the depths of whatever compound he is holed up in, Tim Pawlenty continues to beat his head against the wall.
And somewhere among the depths of whatever compound he is holed up in, Tim Pawlenty continues to beat his head against the wall.
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
I pity Iowans
So after several months of seemingly endless televised debates, untold millions (in the most literal sense, thanks to the Citizens United ruling, which may gain another opponent in Newt Gingrich) spent in advertising, and more "frontrunners" than you can shake a stick at, the Republicans in Iowa are finally voting. Likely to the great relief of the other 75% of the state's residents who still have a brain, as well as those poor souls who live close to the Iowa border and receive their TV broadcasts. As far as the actual outcome of the caucuses, I could care less about which yahoo ekes out a narrow plurality, but am interested to see how many candidates read too much into the results and drop out because of them. Then I will have to mentally prepare to weather all the advertising that will be directed at Minnesota voters until we have our caucuses on Feb. 7th.
I am also starting to keep track of the alternative nomination process going on at Americans Elect, which is touting itself as a non-partisan method for choosing a presidential candidate. As someone interested in electoral reform generally, I am very curious to see how this experiment plays out, especially since the candidate who emerges from it could theoretically have ballot access in all 50 states by the time they are nominated. While I could see it potentially being hijacked by one or more losing Republicans, judging by the responses to most of the questions I have answered on the site there appears to be a relatively left-of-center demographic already signed up, and the requirement that the nominated candidate must choose a running mate outside their own party (if they have one) may provide some safeguard. It isn't completely idiot proof, but it is definitely a step in the direction of a more meaningful and inclusive nomination process, as opposed to the media circus going on a couple hundred miles south of me. Hang tough, Iowans, your well earned respite is almost here.
I am also starting to keep track of the alternative nomination process going on at Americans Elect, which is touting itself as a non-partisan method for choosing a presidential candidate. As someone interested in electoral reform generally, I am very curious to see how this experiment plays out, especially since the candidate who emerges from it could theoretically have ballot access in all 50 states by the time they are nominated. While I could see it potentially being hijacked by one or more losing Republicans, judging by the responses to most of the questions I have answered on the site there appears to be a relatively left-of-center demographic already signed up, and the requirement that the nominated candidate must choose a running mate outside their own party (if they have one) may provide some safeguard. It isn't completely idiot proof, but it is definitely a step in the direction of a more meaningful and inclusive nomination process, as opposed to the media circus going on a couple hundred miles south of me. Hang tough, Iowans, your well earned respite is almost here.
Wednesday, November 9, 2011
Happy Carl Sagan Day!/Space Week 2011 #7 "Back to Basics: The Cosmic Perspective"
Greetings, everyone.
So I've once again let my Space Week series drag on a bit, to the point where we are now at Carl Sagan Day. Given that Carl Sagan had an enormous influence on how I perceive the Universe, and therefore on how I interact with, think about, and envision the future of said Universe, I think it appropriate to revisit on his birthday the basic principles of a worldview I like to call the Cosmic Perspective.
I don't remember exactly when I first heard the name of Carl Sagan, but I suspect it was sometime in the late 80's, staying up to watch some random episode of The Tonight Show on which he appeared. It was probably right around the time of Voyager II's encounter with Neptune. I had always been interested in astronomy, but there were only so many books on the stars and planets at the local library, and for the time being I had moved on to other subjects. It was a little less than two years later that I took a full course in astronomy at Saturn (the school, not the planet) and learned what Carl Sagan was all about. Over the duration of the quarter I got to watch several episodes of the landmark PBS series Cosmos that first aired in 1980. Being less than three years old, I never watched it that first time, but after seeing a few hours of it ten years later I realized he was no mere talking head.
From that point on I began following the latest developments in astronomy and space exploration with fanatic devotion, and it seemed that Carl Sagan had a hand in every discovery. However, it was not until 1994, when I read his Pale Blue Dot that I truly started to understand the depth of his vision. It was he that truly helped me realize the vastness of the Universe, and how all of human thought and experience pales in comparison. At the time I was nearing the end of that long process which resulted in the final jettisoning of my theistic worldview, and in Carl Sagan I found someone who had already thrown off those shackles from his mind and faced reality with unbridled optimism. Thus his example helped me to take that final leap of non-faith and begin my own self-directed journey through the Universe.
For many years I have quietly marked his birthday in my own calendar of observances, but more recently Carl Sagan Day has been promoted more widely among the freethought community, and I happily join the chorus of those who are building a groundswell of greater public recognition for the life and work of this great man. When you are done reading what follows, head on over to the Symphony of Science to check out some awesome music videos featuring Sagan and other prominent scientists. You could also try to make an apple pie from scratch, but if you succeed I would very much like to see your recipe for Universe, which is a necessary prerequisite.
Now about that Cosmic Perspective. This is the term I use to refer to a set of principles that inform how I look at many aspects of the Universe in which we find ourselves. The first five are based on the best evidence we have available about how the Universe developed and the forces that continue to act within it and define what is possible. The last could be considered a matter of opinion, but I have a feeling most people will find it one that a sound mind should hold. They are:
1. The Universe is incomprehensibly huge.
Basically, just think of the biggest thing you can possibly think of. For most of us, it is the Universe, but just in the time it took to think that thought it has gotten bigger. And even were it not in a state of continual and accelerating expansion, it would still be pretty darn big.
2. Humanity occupies no privileged place within it.
We may be unique, but that does not make us special in the sense that anything is watching out for us. As a species, we have to deal with the same laws of physics as everyone else, including the remorseless Second Law of Thermodynamics, which economists have neatly adopted and summarize with the adage "There's no such thing as a free lunch." We may have abilities others lack, but it is up to us to use them in a coordinated manner to promote our continual survival.
3. Our existence is the result of a convergence between a number of random processes, one that may or may not have occured elsewhere.
We live in a pretty quiet part of the galaxy, and our planet is situated in a favorable orbit around the Sun to sustain liquid water on the surface. Our species is the result of billions of years of random mutation combined with natural selection, a process that does not have any predetermined outcome, and if you started with the same set of initial conditions and set the ball rolling again you might not get anything even remotely resembling us. Whether or not those initial conditions were or are present on other planets is still being determined, but their results will not affect the conclusion that at this point we are still at the mercy of forces we cannot control and are only just barely beginning to understand.
4. The continuance of that existance is not guaranteed.
A logical consequence of #'s 2 and 3 is that if we want to stick around as a species, it will have to be through our own hard work. The list of cosmic level events that could snuff us out before we even had a chance to react is long and sobering (read Neil de Grasse Tyson's Death by Black Hole if you want more on this), so we may be doomed regardless, but fooling ourselves by thinking we are invincible or under some special protection is neither a healthy or effective way to deal with this fact.
5. The development and settlement of outer space and other worlds is the best strategy for continued existence.
While some good things could be said for trying to downscale or transform our industrial civilization to a point where it does not put the biosphere in imminent peril, and such efforts definitely need to continued, the old phrase "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" is in operation here. Given the reality of #4, remaining on Earth is not a viable long term survival strategy, since unless we can slow down or stop the Sun's gradual increase in output, the Earth is doomed in the long run no matter what we do. And if we do develop the capacity to affect the Sun's development, it will likely be as a result of continuing expansion into the Solar System and eventually to other stars.
6. All else being equal, existence is preferable to non-existence.
As I said, in the strictest sense this is a matter of opinion, but if you disagree with it there is not a great deal we can talk about.
So there you have it. I am now going to listen to "A Glorious Dawn".
So I've once again let my Space Week series drag on a bit, to the point where we are now at Carl Sagan Day. Given that Carl Sagan had an enormous influence on how I perceive the Universe, and therefore on how I interact with, think about, and envision the future of said Universe, I think it appropriate to revisit on his birthday the basic principles of a worldview I like to call the Cosmic Perspective.
I don't remember exactly when I first heard the name of Carl Sagan, but I suspect it was sometime in the late 80's, staying up to watch some random episode of The Tonight Show on which he appeared. It was probably right around the time of Voyager II's encounter with Neptune. I had always been interested in astronomy, but there were only so many books on the stars and planets at the local library, and for the time being I had moved on to other subjects. It was a little less than two years later that I took a full course in astronomy at Saturn (the school, not the planet) and learned what Carl Sagan was all about. Over the duration of the quarter I got to watch several episodes of the landmark PBS series Cosmos that first aired in 1980. Being less than three years old, I never watched it that first time, but after seeing a few hours of it ten years later I realized he was no mere talking head.
From that point on I began following the latest developments in astronomy and space exploration with fanatic devotion, and it seemed that Carl Sagan had a hand in every discovery. However, it was not until 1994, when I read his Pale Blue Dot that I truly started to understand the depth of his vision. It was he that truly helped me realize the vastness of the Universe, and how all of human thought and experience pales in comparison. At the time I was nearing the end of that long process which resulted in the final jettisoning of my theistic worldview, and in Carl Sagan I found someone who had already thrown off those shackles from his mind and faced reality with unbridled optimism. Thus his example helped me to take that final leap of non-faith and begin my own self-directed journey through the Universe.
For many years I have quietly marked his birthday in my own calendar of observances, but more recently Carl Sagan Day has been promoted more widely among the freethought community, and I happily join the chorus of those who are building a groundswell of greater public recognition for the life and work of this great man. When you are done reading what follows, head on over to the Symphony of Science to check out some awesome music videos featuring Sagan and other prominent scientists. You could also try to make an apple pie from scratch, but if you succeed I would very much like to see your recipe for Universe, which is a necessary prerequisite.
Now about that Cosmic Perspective. This is the term I use to refer to a set of principles that inform how I look at many aspects of the Universe in which we find ourselves. The first five are based on the best evidence we have available about how the Universe developed and the forces that continue to act within it and define what is possible. The last could be considered a matter of opinion, but I have a feeling most people will find it one that a sound mind should hold. They are:
1. The Universe is incomprehensibly huge.
Basically, just think of the biggest thing you can possibly think of. For most of us, it is the Universe, but just in the time it took to think that thought it has gotten bigger. And even were it not in a state of continual and accelerating expansion, it would still be pretty darn big.
2. Humanity occupies no privileged place within it.
We may be unique, but that does not make us special in the sense that anything is watching out for us. As a species, we have to deal with the same laws of physics as everyone else, including the remorseless Second Law of Thermodynamics, which economists have neatly adopted and summarize with the adage "There's no such thing as a free lunch." We may have abilities others lack, but it is up to us to use them in a coordinated manner to promote our continual survival.
3. Our existence is the result of a convergence between a number of random processes, one that may or may not have occured elsewhere.
We live in a pretty quiet part of the galaxy, and our planet is situated in a favorable orbit around the Sun to sustain liquid water on the surface. Our species is the result of billions of years of random mutation combined with natural selection, a process that does not have any predetermined outcome, and if you started with the same set of initial conditions and set the ball rolling again you might not get anything even remotely resembling us. Whether or not those initial conditions were or are present on other planets is still being determined, but their results will not affect the conclusion that at this point we are still at the mercy of forces we cannot control and are only just barely beginning to understand.
4. The continuance of that existance is not guaranteed.
A logical consequence of #'s 2 and 3 is that if we want to stick around as a species, it will have to be through our own hard work. The list of cosmic level events that could snuff us out before we even had a chance to react is long and sobering (read Neil de Grasse Tyson's Death by Black Hole if you want more on this), so we may be doomed regardless, but fooling ourselves by thinking we are invincible or under some special protection is neither a healthy or effective way to deal with this fact.
5. The development and settlement of outer space and other worlds is the best strategy for continued existence.
While some good things could be said for trying to downscale or transform our industrial civilization to a point where it does not put the biosphere in imminent peril, and such efforts definitely need to continued, the old phrase "Don't put all your eggs in one basket" is in operation here. Given the reality of #4, remaining on Earth is not a viable long term survival strategy, since unless we can slow down or stop the Sun's gradual increase in output, the Earth is doomed in the long run no matter what we do. And if we do develop the capacity to affect the Sun's development, it will likely be as a result of continuing expansion into the Solar System and eventually to other stars.
6. All else being equal, existence is preferable to non-existence.
As I said, in the strictest sense this is a matter of opinion, but if you disagree with it there is not a great deal we can talk about.
So there you have it. I am now going to listen to "A Glorious Dawn".
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Space Week 2011 #4 "Red Rover, Red Rover, send Curiosity right over."
Greetings, everyone.
Since their arrivals on opposite sides of Mars in January 2004 the twin rovers Spirit and Opportunity have performed above and beyond anyone's wildest dreams. After more than six years on the Martian surface, Spirit ceased transmitting in March of 2010, and while many attempts to re-establish contact were made, none were successful and the book on Spirit was officially closed in May of this year. Opportunity remains operational and has logged over 21 miles during its investigations. It is currently on its way to a feature called Cape York, where it will spend the winter in an area favorable for maintaining power to its solar batteries. Pretty impressive when you consider they were each given life expectancies of only 90 days. While I will make no predictions on how much longer Opportunity will last, if the combination of good engineering and favorable surface conditions continue it may very well live to see itself become obsolete.
About every two years the positions of Earth and Mars in their orbits allow for an optimal trajectory between the two planets. 30 days from now we will be in the next of these launch windows and the latest Mars rover will be sent on its way. Scheduled for liftoff at 9:25 AM CST, on Nov. 25th, (the day after Thanksgiving in the U.S, so you have no excuse not to watch on NASA TV or follow it online) the Mars Science Laboratory aboard the rover Curiosity will be the largest and most complex robot ever sent to the Martian surface. The size of a small SUV, the rover is packed with a multitude of scientific instruments that will study the atmosphere, the geology, the chemistry, and (potentially) the biochemistry in and around its intended landing site. Also, upping the awesomeness quotient by a factor of 100, it will be the first rover ever equipped with a frickin' laser defense system! Oh alright, the laser is technically part of the science payload, and its primary purpose will be to zap rocks and let other instruments examine the gases that are created or escape as a result, but if any little green men get too close...
Other fun Curiosity features include a 7-foot robotic arm for taking soil samples (the laboratory has tools to run many experiments on Martian dirt), tons of cameras, and a plutonium-238 power source, as solar panels would be unable to generate the energy necessary to run the rover's many systems. And for all you GD hippies now worried about radioactive contamination, keep in mind that with the thin atmosphere and lack of a magnetic field, the Martian surface is quite irradiated already, so Curiosity's impact will be negligible. The chosen landing site is the floor of the Gale Crater, a feature about 90 miles in diameter right along the Martian equator. Of the 30 sites that were considered, it rose to the top of the heap for having terrain that was both scientifically interesting and not too difficult for the rover to traverse. It would have been off limits to previous rovers, but improvements in our abilities to both build rovers and to land them precisely put the site on the table.
What will Curiosity find there? Who knows? And if we did know, what would be the point in going? So make it a point to watch the launch next month before you head off to the mall, though you might just want to make sure you pre-order the Curiosity replica (a must-have item for this holiday season, laser sadly not included) to put under the tree for junior just in case. Then, if all goes well, Curiosity will land in Gale Crater in August of 2012 to begin its 23 month (a full Martian year) primary mission. Those of you in need of more technical details can head over to the Mars Science Laboratory home page and geek out for a bit, and anyone with the Google Earth software can instantly call up the most up to date satellite images of the Martian surface and explore to their heart's content.
Since their arrivals on opposite sides of Mars in January 2004 the twin rovers Spirit and Opportunity have performed above and beyond anyone's wildest dreams. After more than six years on the Martian surface, Spirit ceased transmitting in March of 2010, and while many attempts to re-establish contact were made, none were successful and the book on Spirit was officially closed in May of this year. Opportunity remains operational and has logged over 21 miles during its investigations. It is currently on its way to a feature called Cape York, where it will spend the winter in an area favorable for maintaining power to its solar batteries. Pretty impressive when you consider they were each given life expectancies of only 90 days. While I will make no predictions on how much longer Opportunity will last, if the combination of good engineering and favorable surface conditions continue it may very well live to see itself become obsolete.
About every two years the positions of Earth and Mars in their orbits allow for an optimal trajectory between the two planets. 30 days from now we will be in the next of these launch windows and the latest Mars rover will be sent on its way. Scheduled for liftoff at 9:25 AM CST, on Nov. 25th, (the day after Thanksgiving in the U.S, so you have no excuse not to watch on NASA TV or follow it online) the Mars Science Laboratory aboard the rover Curiosity will be the largest and most complex robot ever sent to the Martian surface. The size of a small SUV, the rover is packed with a multitude of scientific instruments that will study the atmosphere, the geology, the chemistry, and (potentially) the biochemistry in and around its intended landing site. Also, upping the awesomeness quotient by a factor of 100, it will be the first rover ever equipped with a frickin' laser defense system! Oh alright, the laser is technically part of the science payload, and its primary purpose will be to zap rocks and let other instruments examine the gases that are created or escape as a result, but if any little green men get too close...
Other fun Curiosity features include a 7-foot robotic arm for taking soil samples (the laboratory has tools to run many experiments on Martian dirt), tons of cameras, and a plutonium-238 power source, as solar panels would be unable to generate the energy necessary to run the rover's many systems. And for all you GD hippies now worried about radioactive contamination, keep in mind that with the thin atmosphere and lack of a magnetic field, the Martian surface is quite irradiated already, so Curiosity's impact will be negligible. The chosen landing site is the floor of the Gale Crater, a feature about 90 miles in diameter right along the Martian equator. Of the 30 sites that were considered, it rose to the top of the heap for having terrain that was both scientifically interesting and not too difficult for the rover to traverse. It would have been off limits to previous rovers, but improvements in our abilities to both build rovers and to land them precisely put the site on the table.
What will Curiosity find there? Who knows? And if we did know, what would be the point in going? So make it a point to watch the launch next month before you head off to the mall, though you might just want to make sure you pre-order the Curiosity replica (a must-have item for this holiday season, laser sadly not included) to put under the tree for junior just in case. Then, if all goes well, Curiosity will land in Gale Crater in August of 2012 to begin its 23 month (a full Martian year) primary mission. Those of you in need of more technical details can head over to the Mars Science Laboratory home page and geek out for a bit, and anyone with the Google Earth software can instantly call up the most up to date satellite images of the Martian surface and explore to their heart's content.
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Space Week 2011 #3: "50 Years of Human Spaceflight"
Greetings, everyone.
I know its been a while since the last one, and sadly writing/blogging is still something I do only as a hobby. Now it is only a coincidence that I am writing this on Oct. 22nd, the day after the latest failed prediction of the Rapture. Interestingly enough it also happens to be Darkness Day, the annual ritual at Surly Brewery where they sell their most excellent Russian imperial stout, called Darkness (I got mine, thank you very much). In a way I was almost hoping the Rapture would actually happen, since then the Tribulation, or, as most people call it, the Republican presidential nomination campaign, would have been blessedly over, but unfortunately it looks like we still have another year and few weeks of stupid bombardment to endure from the candidates. On to the topic at hand.
The first official Space Week was celebrated in 1999, and one year later I began my annual article series in honor of it. Space Week and its attendant activities are coordinated loosely by an organization called the World Space Week Association (WSWA), which works closely with the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS) to plan events and generate publicity. For the past several years the WSWA has declared a theme for Space Week, and for 2011 the theme was "50 Years of Human Spaceflight". This was highly appropriate since April 12, 2011 was the 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's historic orbital flight aboard Vostok I. This day has long been celebrated in Russia, and some other former Soviet republics, as Cosmonauts' Day, and the commemorations there featured massive public ceremonies with all the pomp and circumstance that comes with them. While this may seem quaint to westerners we should remember that of the many legacies the Soviet Union left behind, the Soviet space program and its early achievements are one of the few of which Russia can be justly proud. Thus I am more than willing to let them whoop it up in Yuri's honor (having read a few things about him, I think he would heartily approve), but I also hope that one day April 12th will be celebrated worldwide on the scale it deserves.
Now that the hoopla has died down, though, we can look back on those 50 years with a more sober eye and ask ourselves "What have we really accomplished?" Regrettably, when I consider human spaceflight specifically I think my answer has to be not all that much, especially in comparison with how robotic exploration has fared. We started out pretty good, going from one man completing an orbit or two to sending crews of three to the Moon and back in barely eight years. But since then we have been stuck in low Earth orbit, with no nation or coalition of nations willing to make the investments necessary to truly push out into the Solar System. Why we have yet to make good on that early potential is a subject on which I can pontificate at length, but in a nutshell the reasons have more to do with the political (Cold War detente in the 70's turned the Space Race into a crawl) and economic (putting people in orbit is pretty damn expensive) environments than with any scientific barrier. Now, however, I think we might finally be ready to get going again, and the catalyst for this, oddly enough, is the retirement earlier this year of the Space Shuttle. Like many of you, I watched the final launch with a tear in my eye, nostalgic for the class of vehicles that for my entire lifetime has been the way NASA sent people into space. But look again at that last sentence. If the phrase "my entire lifetime" didn't jump out at you...well it should have.
I was born in 1977, so can no longer consider myself a spring chicken. Think for a minute how much computer technology has advanced from that time to today and you might be able to understand my disappointment. But hopefully that is water under the bridge. The shuttles were never meant to be around as long as they were, and we are capable of making something much better, so now that they are finally out of the way perhaps we will. This motivation coupled with two other factors are what I believe will help us get human exploration rolling again. Firstly, the last 30 years haven't been a complete waste, far from it. Thanks to the construction of the International Space Station (ISS) and the research now going on there we now know a lot more about how the human body might fare over the course of a long-term space voyage and the hazards from which it will need to be protected. Secondly, renewed and increased competition, both from other nations and from nascent private companies, will require NASA to up its game. The Chinese became the third nation to send their own people into space in 2003, and I will not be surprised if other emerging powers such as India or Brazil do so by the end of this decade. Also, the first private spaceport is now under construction in New Mexico, and later on we will take a closer look at how that industry is faring. For the next few years ISS crews will be using single-use Russian Soyuz capsules to get to and from orbit, but it is hoped that eventually private carriers could perform that function (though sadly you will be SOL if you bought a ticket to space from Pan-Am in 1968).
This handoff should then allow the folks at NASA to focus on the next big target, whether that be a return to the Moon, a near Earth asteroid, or even Mars. Anything that gets us beyond low Earth orbit on a consistent basis really, and the sooner the better. Though to expect advances in human spaceflight at a rate comparable to that in computing is pretty unrealistic, significant progress is possible when there is a clear goal and a reliable commitment of resources to make it happen. It will be expensive, certainly, but not beyond the pale, especially when many nations pool their funds and expertise, and investments of that type often pay off several times over as they spawn new technologies and create a more highly skilled workforce. I can think of nothing better to get this country out of the collective funk it has been in since late 2008, in both the economic and psychological sense, and look forward to the day when going into space will be as routine as air travel is currently.
I know its been a while since the last one, and sadly writing/blogging is still something I do only as a hobby. Now it is only a coincidence that I am writing this on Oct. 22nd, the day after the latest failed prediction of the Rapture. Interestingly enough it also happens to be Darkness Day, the annual ritual at Surly Brewery where they sell their most excellent Russian imperial stout, called Darkness (I got mine, thank you very much). In a way I was almost hoping the Rapture would actually happen, since then the Tribulation, or, as most people call it, the Republican presidential nomination campaign, would have been blessedly over, but unfortunately it looks like we still have another year and few weeks of stupid bombardment to endure from the candidates. On to the topic at hand.
The first official Space Week was celebrated in 1999, and one year later I began my annual article series in honor of it. Space Week and its attendant activities are coordinated loosely by an organization called the World Space Week Association (WSWA), which works closely with the United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Use of Outer Space (COPUOS) to plan events and generate publicity. For the past several years the WSWA has declared a theme for Space Week, and for 2011 the theme was "50 Years of Human Spaceflight". This was highly appropriate since April 12, 2011 was the 50th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's historic orbital flight aboard Vostok I. This day has long been celebrated in Russia, and some other former Soviet republics, as Cosmonauts' Day, and the commemorations there featured massive public ceremonies with all the pomp and circumstance that comes with them. While this may seem quaint to westerners we should remember that of the many legacies the Soviet Union left behind, the Soviet space program and its early achievements are one of the few of which Russia can be justly proud. Thus I am more than willing to let them whoop it up in Yuri's honor (having read a few things about him, I think he would heartily approve), but I also hope that one day April 12th will be celebrated worldwide on the scale it deserves.
Now that the hoopla has died down, though, we can look back on those 50 years with a more sober eye and ask ourselves "What have we really accomplished?" Regrettably, when I consider human spaceflight specifically I think my answer has to be not all that much, especially in comparison with how robotic exploration has fared. We started out pretty good, going from one man completing an orbit or two to sending crews of three to the Moon and back in barely eight years. But since then we have been stuck in low Earth orbit, with no nation or coalition of nations willing to make the investments necessary to truly push out into the Solar System. Why we have yet to make good on that early potential is a subject on which I can pontificate at length, but in a nutshell the reasons have more to do with the political (Cold War detente in the 70's turned the Space Race into a crawl) and economic (putting people in orbit is pretty damn expensive) environments than with any scientific barrier. Now, however, I think we might finally be ready to get going again, and the catalyst for this, oddly enough, is the retirement earlier this year of the Space Shuttle. Like many of you, I watched the final launch with a tear in my eye, nostalgic for the class of vehicles that for my entire lifetime has been the way NASA sent people into space. But look again at that last sentence. If the phrase "my entire lifetime" didn't jump out at you...well it should have.
I was born in 1977, so can no longer consider myself a spring chicken. Think for a minute how much computer technology has advanced from that time to today and you might be able to understand my disappointment. But hopefully that is water under the bridge. The shuttles were never meant to be around as long as they were, and we are capable of making something much better, so now that they are finally out of the way perhaps we will. This motivation coupled with two other factors are what I believe will help us get human exploration rolling again. Firstly, the last 30 years haven't been a complete waste, far from it. Thanks to the construction of the International Space Station (ISS) and the research now going on there we now know a lot more about how the human body might fare over the course of a long-term space voyage and the hazards from which it will need to be protected. Secondly, renewed and increased competition, both from other nations and from nascent private companies, will require NASA to up its game. The Chinese became the third nation to send their own people into space in 2003, and I will not be surprised if other emerging powers such as India or Brazil do so by the end of this decade. Also, the first private spaceport is now under construction in New Mexico, and later on we will take a closer look at how that industry is faring. For the next few years ISS crews will be using single-use Russian Soyuz capsules to get to and from orbit, but it is hoped that eventually private carriers could perform that function (though sadly you will be SOL if you bought a ticket to space from Pan-Am in 1968).
This handoff should then allow the folks at NASA to focus on the next big target, whether that be a return to the Moon, a near Earth asteroid, or even Mars. Anything that gets us beyond low Earth orbit on a consistent basis really, and the sooner the better. Though to expect advances in human spaceflight at a rate comparable to that in computing is pretty unrealistic, significant progress is possible when there is a clear goal and a reliable commitment of resources to make it happen. It will be expensive, certainly, but not beyond the pale, especially when many nations pool their funds and expertise, and investments of that type often pay off several times over as they spawn new technologies and create a more highly skilled workforce. I can think of nothing better to get this country out of the collective funk it has been in since late 2008, in both the economic and psychological sense, and look forward to the day when going into space will be as routine as air travel is currently.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)