Andersen

James Andersen Annotated Bibliography English 1010 Allison Fernley Head in the Sky, Feet on the Ground I always wanted to be an astronaut. Well a fighter pilot, and then an astronaut. What kid doesnt? Right? Then, in fourth grade, I got the coke bottle glasses. In retrospect, the glasses werent the major problem. Thats really not why I brought that up. The point is I study space and astronomy as often as I can. Its immensity and mystery still leave me feeling that same sense of awe that I felt as that kid in fourth grade, who dreamt of flying the Space Shuttle. For many of those in my generation who love space the end of the shuttle program is bittersweet. It placed skylab in orbit and was critical to the construction of the International Space Station (ISS). The Hubble rescue resuscitated a program which is, to this day, rendering astronomical data which is as irreplaceable as it is beautiful. Yet it was time for the program, which was no longer cost effective or safe, to finally retire. A replacement was in the works but it demanded more in man power and funding than budgetary concerns would allow. But we need to be able to get to space. This need was punctuated by the recent air burst explosion of an asteroid over Siberia. If we were lucky enough to catch an inbound asteroid early enough, the US doesnt currently have a platform we could use to respond to the threat. After listening to many viewpoints and potential solutions, President Obama decided to privatize the process of sending astronauts and goods to earth orbit. Ultimately, the hope is that private firms competing for NASA contracts will produce a space taxi and package delivery system, allowing NASA to focus on scientific advancement. While I feel that the privatization of the space program is inevitable and necessary, I have reservations about the private sector being the only solution. There is no way to quantify the contribution

Andersen

which our species space program has made to our general quality of life. Among their countless contributions are the lightweight materials in our cars, the miniaturization of electrical circuits which resulted in microcomputers, and the basis for the data compression technology which makes the internet possible. If you remove these things our lives would be impossibly different. For instance, imagine a medical community without MRIs and ECGs. This explosion of technology and knowledge is tied to a government run and sponsored space program. Could privately funded entities guard certain technological advancements closer, resulting in restrictions on potentially ground breaking scientific and technological breakthroughs? Another worry is that, with budgetary pressures the way they are, successful privatization may leave NASA and its programs underfunded. It would be easy for us to forget or ignore the contributions which NASA has made and dismiss their budget as an unwarranted expense. This begs the question, is privatization a good idea? Here are some viewpoints:

Autry, Greg. "Houston, We Have a Market: Privatizing Space Launches Pays Off Big." Forbes. 02 10 2013: n. page. Web. 2 Nov. 2013. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2013/10/02/houston-we-have-a-marketprivatizing-space-launches-pays-off-big/>. In Houston We Have a Market: Privatizing Space Launches pays off Big, Greg Autry argues that the privatization of space travel is a resounding success. He begins the article by contrasting the government shutdown with two separate milestones which were accomplished by private companies during the same timeframe. Space X successfully launched an unmanned test of its intended manned Falcon 9 system while Orbital Sciences successfully docked the Cygnus Capsule with the ISS. Both of these tests were made possible by the Commercial Orbital Transport Service or COTS. COTS is the official program which has extended the knowledge and support of NASA to the private sector with the intent to help them produce viable commercial space programs. To date the entire cost of the COTS

Andersen

program to taxpayers has come to less than half the cost of a single shuttle flight. And the results are exceptional. The two remaining companies have operational platforms under a federal program for contracting supply missions to the ISS. These private entities, which are competing with government programs from other nations such as Japan and Russia, have produced a significant number of high skilled high-paying jobs. Autry concludes that Congress should place a priority on additional funding for this project. Autry demonstrates the effectiveness of the plan to privatize space travel using the logos appeal. His appeal is a bit cheeky as it contrasts major milestones in the privatization race against the petty infighting which caused the government shutdown. NASA was literally unable to report these successes because their website was shut down. He shows that for a fraction of the cost of one shuttle mission COTS has helped to produce two viable commercial alternatives to governmental space delivery systems. Because of this logical appeal, Autry earns his conclusion that congress should place a priority on reinforcing this program that has been so resoundingly successful. This article will assist in illustrating not only the capacity the private sector has to advance space flight, but also how effective a tool COTS is in advancing the technology and reducing the cost. The impact of these two tests is tremendous in advancing humanity and in validating Obamas decision to privatize. The article is one of many which has swayed my opinion towards a more favorable viewpoint on the capacity for private and government interests to cooperate.

Barber, Elizabeth. "Will the United Nations protect us from an asteroid?" Christian Science Monitor. 29 10 2013: n. page. Web. 4 Nov. 2013. <http://dbprox.slcc.edu/login? In Will the United Nations Protect Us from an Asteroid? Elizabeth Barber argues that the new UN committee is our best bet for detecting and coordinating a global response to potentially damaging Near-Earth Objects (NEO). Barber begins with some of the facts. This fall an asteroid labeled 2013

Andersen

TV135 passed the earth roughly 4.2 million miles away, and will be back in 2032, where it may have a one in 63,000 chance of striking the earth. If it does hit, it will impact with the force of a 2,500 megaton bomb. Barber points out that we have no current plans in place to respond to threatening NEOs. The scary thing, she continues, is that there are so many of them. Astronomers are certain that the 10,322 detected NEOs are a mere fraction of those not yet seen. She uses the recent injuries caused by air detonation of an undetected asteroid in Siberia to illustrate how little we know about potentially damaging or lethal NEOs. The sobering fact is that there is very little we can do to deflect these objects if we do not detect them early enough. Barbers article is primarily logos, an appeal to the facts regarding NEOs and the reality of their potential to impact the Earth. She uses facts such as NEOs in existence and recent events like the Siberia impact to illustrate the timeliness of the issue. She effectively illustrates the necessity of the US committee to address NEOs. I will use this article to assist in defining the kairos and pathos of the essay. Nothing is more timely and emotional than our survival. The space program of our species is integral to responding to such threats as these. I am still not certain I want to include the Asteroid kairos/pathos connection, however it could provide strong versions of both those rhetorical appeals, with references to Quixote almost writing themselves. Asteroids may not be the bogeyman or they could irrevocably redefine our life tomorrow. The UN feels it is salient enough to address; therefore, it is probably timely for me to address.

Benson, Michael. "Exploring the Planets Enriches Us at Home." New York Times 10 08 2012, U.S. n. pag. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. <http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/11/opinion/exploring-the-planetsenriches-us-at-home.html?_r=0>. Michael Bensons op-ed Exploring the Planets Enriches Us at Home suggests that budget cuts will have a negative impact on NASAs planetary exploration projects which may ultimately ruin a group

Andersen

of irreplaceable scientific innovators. He explains that the twenty percent budget cut that NASA has now experienced will put an end to many of the projects at NASA which have developed irreplaceable technology such as microcomputers and data compression. Benson goes on to note that, in many cases, these are divisions with unique personnel which took decades to assemble. As a result their reconstruction at a future date may prove nearly impossible. He contrasts this technological innovation with the NASAs actual expenditure, which amounts to less than one half of one percent of the federal budget. He concludes that, given the life changing innovations that NASA has produced for the world, we should not kick those that produced these astounding accomplishments to the curb. The primary tone of this piece follows a logically based empathetic plea to keep NASA in play. The article covers just a few of the significant and irreplaceable technological advancements which NASA has produced. This is an effective argument for government consideration towards their continued existence. Bensons viewpoint echoes my own concerns about what budget pressures might do to NASA. The scientific contributions of a publicly funded NASA have made irreplaceable contributions to our society and could continue to do so. Keeping a significant portion of research and development in NASAs purview may prove critical to the public dissemination of scientific discoveries.

Frost, Robert. "Why is Privatized Space Travel a Challenge? ." Forbes. 10 31 2012: n. page. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. <http://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2012/10/31/why-is-privatized-space-travel-achallenge/>. Robert Frost, an Engineer and Instructor at NASA, answered the question Why is Privatized Space Travel a Challenge? in a Forbes Tech column by chronicling the technological and logistical issues which a space program encounter. He begins by illustrating the complexity of space vehicles, which contain millions of parts, which sit on tons of explosives, moving at inconceivable

Andersen

speeds, through rapidly changing physical situations. Frost shows that much of the challenges addressed in one space going platform will need to be readdressed in new platforms. He continues on to explain that this complexity gets even more intense with the addition of manned space craft. Everything added redefines the fundamental needs of the craft, effecting every system deeply. Exacerbating this is the reality that a significant portion of the previous generations knowledge is not applicable to the current design restrictions. The private sector is starting from scratch in a number of ways. On top of all this the fundamental principle of space flight is to anticipate everything, because failure to do this can cost billions, or even human lives. Frost is logical and direct in answering a readers question regarding the challenges which the private sector faces as it works towards operational space platforms. This is just logos, which is all it really needed to be. I realize that this is not an op-ed. It is a laymans explanation of the complex nature of space ships from a NASA engineers perspective which I hope to use in explaining the gravity of the challenges which this endeavor presents to the private sector.

Garmong, Robert. "We Should Privatize Space Exploration." Central New York Business Journal. 18.28 (2004): 20. Web. 28 Oct. 2013. <http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=f5h&AN=14192540&site=ehost-live>. In We Should Privatize Space Exploration Robert Garmong argues that the success of Space X program has shown the government involvement in the space program is obsolete. Noting a government panel which recommended increased private sector involvement, Garmong asks why no one has taken it a step further and suggested the complete privatization of all space activities. He points to the different goals and subsequent varied results that NASA has gone through over the years as varied political pressure and funding issues have redefined the agencies capacities. Garmong asserts that these restrictions

Andersen

would be less severe in the private sector. He chronicles how inefficiencies inherent in space shuttles generic nature produced a generic space craft which was overly complicated, inefficient and unsafe. He accuses NASA of extending the shuttle program specifically because of bureaucratic institutional inertia and reticence to fire long standing employees. Garmong illustrates the dilemma the engineers of NASA face where they have to balance the hard facts of space flight with an ever changing rule-set of political correctness when he recounts that the Columbia Disaster could have been averted if they only used Freon based insulation instead of the environmentally friendly foam which caused the fatal damage. Ultimately, Garmong argues that, without the set of space property rights which privatization would produce, humanities efforts in space are hobbled. He concludes that, even though they have paved the way, it is time for the private sector to take over and run with the results. Garmong is using effective logos to support his opinion about the failures of NASA. He makes a strong case for the institutional inertia which leads to a NASA that is behind the times and looks like it wants to stay that way. The facts he presents support his argument. Unfortunately I find the argument fairly one sided. It presupposes much about the pressures that lead to NASAs mistakes, often defaulting to casting the character of NASA in the worst possible light. This rubs me the wrong way, but probably because I am predisposed to liking NASA. Garmong is going to be one of my primary they say viewpoints. His argument is persuasive but omits a couple of key points regarding NASAs effectiveness. If you just look at NASAs failures then they are a grim group indeed, but in that same light wouldnt we all be? Many of NASAs shortcomings are due to the political nature of their oversight, others are human nature related hurdles any organization would have to overcome. It is a mistake to overlook NASAs monumental accomplishments.

Knapp, Alex. "Asteroid Impact was the coup de grace for dinosaurs." Forbes. 2 10 2013: 2. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.

Andersen

<http://dbprox.slcc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh& AN=85424843&site=eds-live>. In Asteroid Impact was the coup de grace for dinosaurs Alex Knapp argues that questions regarding the cause of the Dinosaurs demise have been laid to rest by recent findings about the asteroid that struck Earth just off the Yucatan peninsula. Recent scientific advances in the accuracy of dating techniques has produced definitive data. The impact, Knapp explains, was the point of no return, a final straw from which the stressed environment of the earth could not recover. While there were other factors, the impact was simultaneous with the extinction. Knapp, also examines contribution of significant climate shifts that happened in the million year period leading up to the impact. The stress of this shift, combined with the impact, produced the massive extinction event which claimed the last of the dinosaurs. Knapp concludes that, while separately these events may have been survivable, combined they were devastating. Knapp presents a very effective central route logos appeal recounting facts surrounding the Yucatan asteroid impact. He is most effective in linking the asteroid impact and the extinction event. The importance of the impact of climate change on the event is also emphasized. By effectively connecting the climate change and the impact, Knapp has illustrated how the impact made it impossible for the Earth to continue sustaining the Dinosaurs ecosystem. The concepts in this article are part of the kairos and pathos elements of my argument. The timeliness is both that we are experiencing climate change and the proximity of NEOs. The Pathos is that the dinosaurs fate could be ours. It shows that an impact does not need to completely obliterate our ecosystem to deal a deathblow to our race or planet. Our race has placed this planet in an artificially stressed environmental state. An impact could well be the tipping point for us as it was for the dinosaurs. If I end up using this research, it could be coupled with the UN piece by Barber in order to bring additional gravity to the reasons space exploration matters right now.

Andersen

Smith, Josh. "NASAs New Mission: Exploring the Heavens on a Budget." National Journal. January.21 (2011): 17-17. Web. 2 Nov. 2013. <http://dbprox.slcc.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=575 48384&site=eds-live>. Josh Smith wrote an op-ed for the National Journal entitled, NASAs New Mission: Exploring the Heavens on a Budget, which argues that there is potential for a NASA which has been relieved of its space going duties to focus on developing new technology. He begins his argument by remembering the space race of the 1960s where people were enthralled by the possibilities of space travel. Contrasting with this is the lackadaisical attitude that much of the world has towards a seemingly slow developing and uninteresting space program. This fall from fame has left NASA, and its pie in the sky goals which lack immediate real world benefit, vulnerable to budget cuts. Adding to this is the retirement of the shuttles, the only manned space vehicle that the US has. This vulnerability has made it difficult to divert additional discretionary funds to the agency. Obama has proposed a compromise which will enable NASA to continue research and development of technology while relieving them of the exceptional overhead that sustained space flight programs present. This compromise would be to privatize space travel. This would allow NASA to stop worrying about the everyday details of space flight and focus on technology which might reduce the overwhelmingly expensive cost of breaking into orbit, which averages out at 10 grand per pound. Smith concludes that, provided NASA survives its detractors attempts to limit its budget, this may prove the most effective way to allow NASA to focus on pushing our boundaries even further into space. Smiths evaluation of NASAs budgetary concerns is primarily from the logical perspective. He begins, however, with an appeal to pathos by reminiscing back to the space race and the golden era of NASA when it was almost universally well regarded. This effectively contrasts with the ambivalence or

Andersen

10

even hostility which NASA meets now, as it deals with aging equipment and budgets which seem to never be met. He backs each sentient with significant facts, like the graph illustrating NASAs budgetary rollercoaster and the expensive cost of achieving orbit. His discussion of the uncertainty in NASAs future well earns the question posed at the end of the article; is space worth the money? This article illustrated the funding tug of war NASA is perpetually enduring. Additionally, it will help to shed light on the mercurial nature of the changing political directives leveled at NASA. Considering there are some projects which span multiple changes in national prosperity and political viewpoints the technical challenges NASA face become even more complicated. These pressures emphasize the tug of war inherent in maintaining a space going platform, illustrating how it reduced NASAs capacity to explore and research. This is one of the strongest arguments in convincing me that the privatization of space flight can eventually produce better research for everyone.

There are many voices surrounding humanities endeavor to break the bonds of the earth. Few of them argue that it is a useless struggle. Many dispute the method. These arguments have persuaded me that tasking private interests with the heavy lifting is the best way to let NASA to focus on research and exploration. This will pave the way for big brains to spend their efforts on important issues like NEO s and planetary exploration. It may be the case that President Obamas decision to privatize the space delivery platforms is one of the best things to happen to NASA, and humanities space interests, in decades.