Washington File

I am sure this blog will soon disappear, but I hope Maggie is still around...that is the most petty comment I have seen to date on this site. I mispronounce (and mis-spell) a number of words but that should not have any impact on what I am trying to say. The question of what is right and wrong in language, as most anthropologists and linguists will say, depends on what is accepted by society. In other words, there is no right or wrong, as long as what you are saying is socially understood. NUCULAR sounds good to me and a whole bunch of people.

I guess we can now add illiterate to Mr. Champs list of failings.

Just heard Henry Champ on tv mispronouncing
the word NUCLEAR......It is not nuke you lar.
What is it with this word that people cannot
see what it says and pronounce it correctly?
Jay Leno and George Bush both pronounce it wrongly. It is very disappointing to heard our
Canadian journalist mispronounce that word.

The NASA program has started to crumble from within.

The Deep Space Network (DSN) is barely able to meet NASA's needs now. Due to lack of internal funding to increase DSN assets -- missions will soon start having problems meeting basic telecommunications needs now.

My proposal at:
http://hireme.geek.nz/dsn-at-home.html

Attempts to fix some of the DSN problems, but ultimatly the DSN will need to be redesigned (organizationally and infrastruturally) from the ground up. Probably in the long run, I suspect the ESA and NASA will have to merge their Deep Space telecommunications systems.

Canadians have become so naive. We live in our country as if nothing will touch this peace keeping nation. Our day is coming and we won't have time to worry about America or any other country. Canada has contributed alot but so has America and they have been a world power for along time. Cut people some slack. I think we need to worry about our own country and the vision that is here instead of thinking we have it all together.

I think it's important to differentiate manned space missions and the space station from other space endeavours. There are many more reasons than "emotional" and "knowledge gathering" for being involved in space. This technology has provided us with a host of practical day to day applications. Our communications are dependent on space technology. By the way, it was Canada which built and operated the first geostationary communications satellite (Anik 1) in 1972. Navigation today is more accurate than ever before possible because of the global positioning system. Satellites map, explore for minerals and provide other intelligence. You can debate the value of manned missions to a space station, but it would be a mistake to generalize those arguments to include all "space missions".

To those like Mike Neff who believe that space exploration will lead to a way out of environmental (man made or not), think again.

We have no other rock that is nearly as hospitable as planet earth. Mars barely qualifies, and that includes 9-15 month journey through high levels of radiation, only to arrive at a planet that may or may not have liquid water readily available. The air is not breatheable, the tempature averages somewhere near what you find in Resolute in the middle of February, the atmospheric pressure I believe (someone correct me if I am wrong) 1/100 of ours and gravity also substantially less than here on earth. Has any human ever been born and raised in such an environment? No, and would suggest that such an experiment would leave us with a new species within a couple of generations.

Terra-forming the planet, although theoretically possible (and quite fascinating), would take around 100,000 years according to a former NASA employee and Mars- expert (last name starts with a Z...that's all I remember) Travel to our next star would take a couple of hundred years using technology that won't exist in practical terms until the latter part of this century at best.

I love astronomy, I am fascinated by the stars and planets around us, but practically speaking, space travel intended to "save us from ourselves" is ridiculous. For those who support it for its scientific/emotional value, I put forth the following analogy; would you allow your children to starve so that you could drive around in a BMW? We have much large problems here on earth today that science could be dedicating its energy and resources...once those are fixed, then sign me up! I always wanted to go to Mars.

Larry, if you think Henry Champ is anti-american, you need to get out of Baltimore some more...do you not see what has happened in the world since 9/11? America, for the first time in years, had the support of the entire world community. Hundreds of thousands of people marching in Terhan in SUPPORT of the US...and now, America's reputation in the world is as low as ever....one word sums up what has happened since then...Iraq.

China will surpass America in terms of GDP. We are witnessing the beginning of the re-bipolarization of the world.

You think Henry Champ is anti-american? You ain't seen nothin'.

Larry (et al.),

It seems that Canada's contributions are not well known, specifically for space exploration. But more importantly, it's clear you don't understand the economics and politics. Canada can't easily compete when it comes to the expensive rockets and lifting capabilities.

U.S. companies have the economy of scale there, not to mention cross-border politics such as ITAR that limit us in that market. But we can compete quite well in the smaller "smart" niches. Not only do we provide the Canadarm on the shuttle, but the Canadarm2 on the station (we own it), the Mobile Sericing System, MSS camera system, the Space Vision System on the shuttles and space station (used to assemble the modules among other things), and much of the shuttle inspection system now in place (orbital boom sensor system - including the boom and a laser scanner), not to mention astronauts, and hopefully soon the ISS service robot (Dextre).

There are a variety of other systems provide by Canada or Canadian companies. Our competitive niche, given the economics of scale and our expertise, is in robotics and machine vision. This extends beyond shuttle and station to things in development like rendezvous and docking, navigation, drilling in space, and landing systems for servicing satellites or Lunar or Mars landing and exploration. These are not trivial contributions. Rockets are certainly a necessity for getting into space, but that's not all there is.

There are two broad reasons for space missions.

1. Emotional reasons. ie- allowing the public to feel collectively engaged in discovery.

There will always be 'space junkies' and others who love space missions for their own sake. Many desire a big mission they could get behind, such as George Bush's manned mission to Mars. There are others, like myself, who would toss away such sentiments in favour of funding more pragmatic goals. We could divert space funds to a United Nations Peacekeeper Training Centre. Or we could become THE international team deployed for disaster relief worldwide. These are just examples of feel-good sentimental investments of space funds that would not only allow us to feel proud but also aid humanity in a selfless way.

2. Scientific reasons. ie- obtaining new knowledge that may aid everything from cancer research to origins of the universe.

Space missions have indeed produced new exciting knowledge. For example, our understanding and tracking of aerosols' effects on our atmosphere have been achieved in large part from satellite data. However, a distinction must be made between scientific pursuits and sensationalistic exploits. Satellites are valuable and many should continue to be launched. Manned missions to Mars and other nonsense are political ideas designed purely for votes and not for science. If the HUGE amount of money invested in frivolous space missions had instead been invested in small-scale scientific pursuits, the collective results could be extraordinary.

Furthermore, the argument that we need space missions to prepare for the inevitable time when Earth becomes uninhabitable is ignorant of capitalism. If technology allows human habitation beyond Earth, it will be the wealthy elite who benefit. We peasants will remain Earth-bound. If we invest frivolous space funds in cleaning up Earth then we may prevent Earth's destruction.

Space missions have a role, but frivolous ones divert money from more noble pursuits.

I don't see negativity in Henry Champ's postings at all. I rate him up there with Kurt Vonnegut Jr. and V.S. Naipal for "feel good" literature.

I agree. We do owe continued research into space flight to our future generations. As a species living on a small planet we are using up our depleting resources at an ever accelerating rate. There can only be one result of this insanity and space exploration is the only long term answer. The space station is education. We had better learn how to travel in this medium better, and soon.

I don't understand what you mean by "put up or shut up", in the grand scheme of things Canada and Canadians have contributed greatly to virtually all areas of human endeavour including space exploration. Perhaps if your American press adopted a wider world-view you might understand that not every contribution to the wealth of human experience has been an American one. But like the weather maps on your local news stations, all knowledge of anything not American stops at the border. We are members of NATO by the way. Betcha' didn't know that either.

Maybe we ought to trumpet our contributions a bit more loudly; in my travels around the world I have met many, many people with absolutely no knowledge of our country and our history but perhaps none so ignorant of us as those who live the closest - in the United States ("I went to Canada once. It's very clean."). I agree that we can and should do more with regard to space exploration, after all there's always more to do, isn't there?

Larry, whatever are you talking about? Where is the anti-Americanism here?

Perhaps you believe that a country with one tenth the population and one-tenth the GDP of America should "put up" 50% of the cost, but that's just not realistic. Canada has made its contributions and did a good job. The point of an international effort is that each participant contributes in their area of expertise. Canada's contributions have functioned all but flawlessly.

American techology is no better than Canadian techology but like alot of things in this world americans do and canadians comment and complain about america. As two of the contributors pointed out the US Space Shuttle has failed twice killing all the astronauts on-board. They also pointed out that the Russians built the main space station module and kept the station supplied while the shuttle (SUV) fleet was down. All this is true but I'm not talking about the Russians I'm talking about the Canadians! What has Canada done? Its easy to point out our failures they are very public and painful but we try. We have lost good men and women to this program and we will lose more. It is time for Canada to put up or shut up it is really that simple. I have read many of Mr. Champ's blogs and he is anti-american in my opinion he enjoys the "dark side".

While I very strongly agree that "We owe it to future generations to probe the deep", we have to look at the economics of the space station. Comparatively, it is much cheaper and easier to send unmanned probes, such as the Galileo, NEAR, Cassini, MESSENGER, New Horizons, and the variety of probes sent to Mars, than it is to fund the shuttle and space station programs.

I whole-heartedly agree with Henry's comment that we owe it to future generations to probe the reaches of space. And I think Canadian astronauts like Steve McLean are just as important a contribution to that exploration as the canadarm, the rocket motors, etc.

The reason we know the ozone layer is depleating , the best wayof keeping track of global warming as a whole has involved space.
We are not just fiddling around up there , it is serious business.

Larry: You may have seen the article on the proposed Cape Breton Spaceport elsewhere on this service. If you have, then you'll know as a certainty that a lot of us up here are enthusiastically looking forward to the days of doing more of our own heavy lifting and a fair bit less riding on the coat-tails of others. It's not only a responsibility -- I would stand with Mr. Champ and many others from many nations and argue to all the naysayers everywhere -- it's a joyous calling.

Mr. Champ: thank you for stepping up and standing up. It matters, and it's appreciated.

Larry, anti-American is a much stronger term than Bush has made you believe. Contrary to reports in the "unbiased media" barons like (giggle) FOX News, you CAN actually voice an opinion on a single issue without being opposed to the whole concept.

With that said, the space station's benefits are, and always were, more along the lines of a laboratory than just a platform for launching shuttles without all that undue concern over gravity and such. Zero gravity poses a lot of questions to some people, and there is scientific interest in what experiments the station would allow.

Bush on the other hand, isn't a scientist (no, not even the mad kind). True, Einstien barely got through school, but Bush might have different reasons... For Bush to say the station's use is to launch man-to-moon missions could be true, but likely is just Bush saying to himself:"We got a station in space, why not launch from it. Heh, Heh, Heheh" without heeding that voice of reason that says:"It's not for launching shuttles."

Before Larry from Baltimore waxes lyrical about American technical superiority vs. Canada or anyone else he should be reminded that it was the Russians who built the rockets and the main modules of the space station, not the US. And Russian rockets kept it alive when the US space SUV failed. Again. I suspect the only reason the US funds the project at all is maintain a controling influence on space technology by "hijacking" any MIR 2 project.
The White House's only motivation is probably it's addiction to the mirage of "full spectrum dominance".

OK two points.
First point. "We owe it to future generations to probe the deep." We (Americans) fund the lion's share of the cost, you Canadians ride on our coat tails. So when you talk about $100bn dollars remeber the US taxpayer is picking up the tab.
Second point. Canada built the Canadarm. Big deal. Who cares? Next time build the rockets or the computer system or something that matters in the grand scheme of things. Canadians love to take pop shots at America but rarely do they step up to the plate. Mr. Champ is not negtive. He's just anti-American. He just tries to hide it behind the veil of journalism.

I congratulate Steve MacLean, and I wish him and his colleagues safety and success on this space mission. However, I do not see the point of space missions in this day and age.

In the cold war era space missions were a way of boasting military know-how in a non-violent way. They were efforts of exploration, boldly going where no one had gone before. But now, what is the point? Frivolous, hand-waving 'exploration' of space we've already explored?

Mr. Champ, you say "we owe it to future generations to probe the deep." Please, do no such thing on behalf of us younger folks. If the generation with money and power actually wants to do something for future generations, might I suggest cleaning up the mess you've created of Earth. Pollution, over-fishing, global warming, ozone depletion, habitat destruction, and one of the largest extinction events of our species' existence. Maybe I'm an old-fashioned young guy, but I was brought up to believe you should fix what you've broken before you go out to play.

Henry Champ's article,like his news reports is full of thoughtful information. Re the space station....it started out as a good idea but, as is often the case with projects which are subject to the whims of elected and non-elected official, they can easily be misused. Unfortunately, those with the most pure desires and plans are so often misled and taken "advantage of". It is also interesting to note that Canada built the Canadarm with, as far we know, no particular resulting problems whereas, the shuttle itself made in the 'good ol' U.S.of A' sems to have a bit of a problem with 'bits' falling off. Ho.Hum. Such is life. Thank goodness Canada is still 'holding its' own. Keep it up Henry. Alec.Streter