The end of the space shuttle AKA the "flying deathtrap"

This week marks the end of one of the most dangerous and expensive vehicles in American history.  The (sometimes) reusable launch system and orbital spacecraft.  


Yes it's NASA's own Space Shuttle.

Space enthusiasts worldwide view this as a tragic scientific regression.  A backwards step in the history of mankind.  
But I would argue that these people are willing to overlook an atrocious safety record, spiraling costs and limited scientific advancements.


I do not intend this to be anti-science or anti-exploration, let me say firstly that the space shuttle has achieved many things.  The launch of the Hubble space telescope for example and the assembly of the International space station to name but two.
However consider that the Space shuttle is not a requirement to launch instruments into space.  Russia was able to build and maintain the Mir space station over a 10 year period with no space shuttle and no loss of life.  In fact the Russians/USSR have not lost a man in space in 40 years.


Lets take a look at the safety record of NASA's Space Shuttle.
In 1986 seven brave astronauts died in the Challenger disaster, on only it's 10th mission.  The failure was a simple technical problem that was overlooked


Repeated warnings from design engineers voicing concerns about the lack of evidence of the O-rings' safety when the temperature was below 53 °F (12 °C) had been ignored by NASA managers.

The shuttle was grounded for 3 years while the incident was investigated.
17 years later the Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated on re-entry, killing all 7 crewmen.  Once again the disaster was avoidable.


Ground control engineers had made three separate requests for high-resolution images taken by the Department of Defense that would have provided an understanding of the extent of the damage, while NASA's chief thermal protection system (TPS) engineer requested that astronauts on board Columbia be allowed to leave the vehicle to inspect the damage. NASA managers intervened to stop the Department of Defense's assistance and refused the request for the spacewalk, and thus the feasibility of scenarios for astronaut repair or rescue by Atlantis were not considered by NASA management at the time.


Taken as a whole, it might seem that 30 years of service and 2 accidents is an acceptable statistic.  But there were, in total only 135 missions.  If you consider the chance of an accident are 2/135 (1 in 67.5), it really hits home how dangerous this vehicle is.  To put this in perspective, for all space flight only 18 people have ever died.  14 of those were in the space shuttle.  


Compare this to other forms of travel, e.g. passenger jets, your odds vary from 1 in 9.2 million to 1 in 843744 depending on the airline.
Source: OAG Aviation & PlaneCrashInfo.com accident database, 1985 - 2009 


Ok sure, passenger jets are low risk, they are not cutting edge science.  Let's compare it to something more risky, how about fighter pilots (fixed wing) in Vietnam?  Flying a variety of the latest tech in unfamiliar territory, with limited training, in the 60s and 70s while people shoot at you?  Chances of crash?  About 1 in 2333.
Source: Schlight, John. "A War too Long: The USAF in Southeast Asia 1961–1975" (PDF). Air Force History and Museums Programs. Retrieved 20 February 2007. Page 103

So in 2011, is it acceptable for NASA to continue to launch people into space given they have a 1 in 67.5 chance of disintegrating?
During war we can accept losses.  With huge risk we should see huge reward.  But what benefit are the citizens of the United States seeing from the space shuttle program?  Are some stunning pictures from Hubble worth lives?  Is the completely worthless, designed-by-committee, "ISS" producing tangible real-world benefits equal to the risk of death and monetary cost of putting it in place?

The actual total cost of the shuttle program through 2011, adjusted for inflation, is $196 billion. The exact breakdown into non-recurring and recurring costs is not available, but, according to NASA, the average cost to launch a Space Shuttle as of 2011 is about $450 million per mission.

With 134 missions, and the total cost of US$192 billion (in 2010 dollars), this gives approximately $1.5 billion per launch over the life of the program.

Source:  Nasa.gov

You be the judge.  
Am I against a space program?  No.  I am simply intellectually honest enough to recognise that the Space Shuttle is an overpriced deathtrap.  The risk/reward ratio is completely unacceptable and the project would have been axed many years ago if billions of dollars hadn't already been sunk into it.
One motto we should all live by is "Don't throw good money after bad".


Many science bloggers are lamenting the fact that there is no NASA replacement for the shuttle, and the USA will have to rely on other countries to launch people into space.  
To me, this is a good sign.  For years NASA have stubbornly refused to decommission a dangerous space vehicle, with everyone expecting them to eventually phase in a replacement.
This lack of a new reusable space vehicle could be the start of a new era in which NASA might think before they act, assess risk, stop cutting corners, stop jumping the gun (see Mars bacteria), and refrain from pandering to impatient space geeks who value pretty pictures over the lives of astronauts.

We can only hope.

Why Evolution Is Moot.

One of the greatest debates among the religious and non-religious centres on evolution Vs Creation.  This as I will argue, is moot, and distracting from a much larger issue.

Many religious groups have lobbied at great expense to have Intelligent Design brought into schools, or at least have the theory of Evolution evaluated critically by students. 

Too much time is spent attempting to debunk every single "breakthrough" made by paleontologists, who simply close ranks and ridicule any objective outsiders.

In the same vein I believe there is too much money and effort spent on trying to convince people of the literal truth of the bible, even with the best intentions we can lose sight of better arguments, the metaphorical "lower hanging fruits".

My view is that the whole evolution Vs Creation debate is a distraction from the bigger issue:

Genesis Vs Abiogenesis.

Specifically the genesis of life on Earth (the Creation of the Earth and the Heavens is a topic for another time).

We all know the the biblical text of the book of Genesis.  Some believe it to be literally true, others believe it to be non-literal to varying degrees.  But one thing religious people can agree on is that without God, there is no life.  

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. "

Genesis 2:7

God created a man from the materials and elements present in the crust of the Earth and breathed life into the body.

Lets look at the scientific side of the story.

A scientist would tell you that life on Earth is billions of years old.  Some tube-like formations in rock might be evidence for the earliest microbial life, but the best evidence we have is that the first known life forms are something called cyanobacteria.  A type of microorganism that is still in existence today.  

These organisms are about 2 microns across.  They have DNA, the complex double helix structure that is present in all known life.  We can measure the complexity of a DNA strand by counting it's base-pairs.  These are complimentary molecules which bind together two strands of the DNA's double helix.  A far more complex life form such as a human being has billions of base pairs.  How many would you expect the earliest form of life to have?  10?  50?  

Wrong, cyanobacteria are known to have over a thousand base pairs.

If these are truly the earliest life forms, it should follow evolutionary theory that they are the simplest conceivable life.  

The Darwinists tell us that nothing that small would leave evidence, which is a basic admission that this gap will NEVER be filled.  I guess they are relying on "good faith" (irony anyone?) that these supposed, simpler organisms predate the cyanobacteria.

But this is just scratching the surface.

Darwinists have absolutely no idea about the origins of life.  You see, evolution is the origin of species.  It requires as a premise that life already exists.  

Abiogenesis is the science of the origins of life.  

How in a Godless world do we go from Earth and water to life?  How does the first body get built, and who breathes the life into it?

This is where you really start to see a lot of hand-waving and stuttering.  There are actually dozens of hypotheses, I use that word because they are too vague to be considered theories or even scientific models. 

One of the more famous hypotheses, dating back to the 20s, is the primordial soup hypothesis, the idea that simply mixing all the ingredients for life together and stimulating it with an external energy source, life would organise itself by random chance.  But even in this contrived environment, the only result were amino acids.  

These acids are critical to life and occur in metabolic processes.  But they are simple molecules, orders of magnitude more simple than the structure of DNA.  Additionally, even if DNA were to be created by random processes, this is like creating the mind without a body.  The DNA is instructions for the development of a living organism.  It still needs to exist within an organic cell of some kind.

Other ideas range from the Clay "theory", to the RNA World "theory", or my personal favourite "panspermia" (or as I like to call it, the "alien-of-the-gaps theory").  Some of these are pretty whacky so I won't go into details, but if you are really interested I link to an article at the bottom.

While paleontologists and geneticists have bit into evolution like a dog with bone and refused to let it go, no one can agree on abiogenesis.  Having a dozen or more hypotheses shows that they simply cannot provide any kind of evidence and are simply changing their ideas when one doesn't work out.  Some of the same ideas from a hundred years ago, or the some newer ideas from the 70s still get bandied about as if they are solid scientific facts supported by evidence, but there is no a shred of paleontological, genetic, or experimental evidence for any of them.  

The bottom line is that science has not discovered a means by which life can arise from non-living material.

But open a science text book and what do you see?  References to the primordial soup!  An outdated idea that is not even taken seriously by evolutionary biologists anymore.  This is what needs to be removed from biology textbooks.  It is NOT a scientific fact, it is NOT EVEN a theory!  The text books should state the truth:  

There is no scientific explanation for the origins of life on Earth.  

(It's not even a controversial statement.)

Lobbyists take note.

additional reading:

http://www.mbari.org/staff/conn/botany/phytoplankton/phytoplankton_cyanobacteria.htm

http://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/Glossary.aspx?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis#Current_models

Atheist Schism

There is trouble afoot in the world of atheists, a new controversy threatens to split the community in two.  
But what scientific issue could possibly divide men and women of reason and logic?  What intellectual debate could cause such a rift in the world of the Godless.
The answer is simple.
ELEVATOR ETIQUETTE.  (Or to my British friends "LIFT ETIQUETTE")
The story is a true tour de force of childish bickering and shrieking, hysterical overreactions.
Let me introduce the heroes/villains of the story.

First there is Rebecca Watson, a 30 year old Boston native divorcee and atheist of no discernible expertise or talents.  Well-known amongst skeptics and atheists as the founder of "Skepchick" a group of skeptical, feminist, "chicks" (figure that one out), and regular podcaster.  Her claim to fame is being both a skeptic and a female.  Her average looks and frequent, crass, sexual comments afford her generous attention from the legions of drooling, geek-lord fans at events such as Dragon*Con and TAM, not to mention weekly audiences in the tens of thousands for her podcast contributions.

Next we have the atheists' "god" himself Richard Dawkins.  70 year old Kenyan born British evolutionary biologist, educated at Oxford, a 2 time divorcee, AKA Darwin's rottweiler.  Hater of all religions, atheist activist, author and media personality.

Now the stage is set, lets explain the story.  Rebecca "Skepchick" Watson, (the one who is always talking about sex on the "Skeptics guide to the universe"), was giving a talk at a Hotel in Dublin (the subject of the talk was feminism and the objectification of women), on her way back to her room she was allegedly, possibly propositioned by a man in an elevator.  

He said he "found her very interesting", and would she like to get some coffee in his hotel room?

Well, aghast at this, she declined, then proceeded to blog about how all men were insensitive meanies.

Richard Dawkins, presumably drunk on port, or sherry perhaps, decided that he would chime in on the video blog with an incredibly childish and sarcastic post about how Muslim women should stop complaining because of poor little Rebecca's plight.





After confirming it was in fact Dawkins and not a 13 year old troll, it turned into an all out flame war. With all the big names coming down on Skepchick's side. Phil Plait, the bad astronomer, former president of the JREF, hysterically claiming that she was a hair's breadth away from being raped. Even PZ Meyers chimed in with a critique on Dawkins, as did of course, any and all atheists without penises.

Watson, presumably emboldened by her new found and somewhat more mainstream attention encouraged her drooling, hairy palmed male fans and fellow female skeptic(s) to join hands in boycotting all things Dawkins until he apologises.  She declared him to be a thing of the past who they did no-longer need.

So in conclusion. After one idiotic comment on an online blog, the world's most famous atheist has managed to marginalize himself, Dawkins is now a relic, with no respect even among his own.  He is not needed anymore, after all, they now have the Skepchick!

Moving up in the atheist community is Rebecca Watson, a woman of limited charisma, with no expertise, no relevant qualifications, no publications, no credentials of any kind.

Survival of the fittest? On the contrary.

This is a lose/lose for the Godless, don't these people claim to follow science and evidence?  Looks like they are following their heroes wherever they may lead them.  I've seen more mature debates in a schoolyard.