Now that I’m burning my own music CD’s — a combination of what I already own and songs downloaded from iTunes — I’m also labeling my own CDs. The Fruit of the Murphy Loins were more than happy to take a marker to the bare plastic, but aesthete that I am, I wanted more, and so I use the Neato labeling system. It works fine, although I’m limited by my artistic ability, and I can’t leave the CDs in the car when it gets real cold because the CD shrinks more than the label which causes puckering which causes problems playing the CD. But HP has solved that problem for me with their new LightScribe technology which burns the flip side of the CD. I want one.

OK, my first two parter! Sadly, this was not a case of following a plan, but having to leave the computer before finished with the last post. And then I couldn’t get back until just now (the six hours I spent playing MOO3 over the weekend were absolutely vital to my mental well being and doesn’t count). Now I’m going to talk about the objections to the Bush Space Initiative (hey, the other night the guys on the local TV news were calling the storm that went through here on Sunday “The Ice Storm Of 2004” complete with graphics and theme music) that I discussed below.

First there are the philosophical objections. One objection is that since Bush proposed it, it must be bad. This is idea is either irrefutable or self refuting, depending on your view of President Bush.

Another objection is that the money should be spent here on Earth. Well, it will be spent here on Earth. Seriously, the amount of money is trivial compared to all that is spent on the social programs wanted by the people who feel this way. The choice between space exploration and curing every want here on Earth is a false one. We can try to do both, although I will note that the Government spending money has been tried as a cure-all and while it can be pretty effective, has been shown to not be 100% effective.

Then there is the objection that people get in the way of good science. To which I say, so what. I don’t recall a vote to give everything above the earth’s atmosphere to the exclusive purview of science and scientists. I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again – only this time with the words of President Bush, the goal of the space program is the “establishment of a human presence throughout the solar system.”

Then there are the technical objections. Cost is a big one. No, not what the President is projecting, but what the critics are. Rand Simberg, where you should always head first for your space needs, has a crack at the cost. I have to agree – we went to the moon over thirty years ago, we’ve continued to work on rocket engines etc. since then, so it should less expensive now. But I think you have to consider further – if you go to a car dealer and tell him you’re willing to spend $40,000 for a car, you’ll walk out with a car that costs at least that much. If you want something that costs only $10,000 you have to ask for a car that costs no more than that. I know some of you are thinking, yeah, but this is the Government we’re talking about here, but the principle is the same. And I know it can be done since I’ve lived through the revolution in munition costs – where once a single Tomahawk cost more than a million dollars, now you have JDAMs costing around 20 grand each. How did that happen? The government demanded it.

Then there are the technical hurdles – a heavy lift vehicle, why are we going to the moon to get to Mars (i.e. why leave one gravity well just to climb down another). The non-space enthusiast, and even the casual enthusiast, would be surprised at the full range of study and work that has been done in this area for decades, from space cottage industry of space enthusiasts, grad students, and professors all the way up to the big boys like Boeing and Lockheed Martin. It’s all engineering people, and we’ve done it before. Well, a lot of it, anyway. You’d be amazed at the amount of thought, study, and sheer ingenuity that has gone into how to get to Mars by a huge network of people over the years.

And finally, there is the objection that it was all government (and NASA hasn’t done a good job the last 20 years or so). Yes, President Bush gave NASA marching orders. I’m not sure what more people want him to do, since he cannot command private companies to do anything. Yes, NASA will most likely turn to the usual contractors for the official program. But there is nothing stopping the little guys from continuing their programs, and I think the renewed interest in space exploration can only help them — especially financially, which is where they need it the most in the short term.

There is a type of engineer who every engineer has encountered – the guy for whom nothing will ever work. When asked for thoughts, he spews forth problems. When presented with a task, he immediately begins looking for reasons it won’t work, not how to make it work. I had an older engineer explain to me that you need somebody like that around, because they made you solve all the problems and look for ways to make it work.

Cronaca tells us that New Zealander Bruce Simpson has had his garage based cruise missile project shut down by the New Zealand government. Well, if you read the BBC article Mr. Simpson says they chose to bankrupt him over a tax debt. Does this mean the IRS just didn’t like the way Leona Helmsley ran her hotels? Or the music Willie Nelson played?

Glenn Reynolds has firmly come down on the dark side in the OS wars, and he’s even tweaked James Lileks about it in the past (‘when elephants mate, it’s the grass that suffers’ – African Proverb). But is the ice thawing? First up, he linked to an article in Slate about his new car, the RX-8, that ends with: “Cute, peppy, compact, different: Call it the Mac OS X of engines.” Is he signalling a desire to switch?

He follows that up with a Tech Central Station column about the importance of looks in design entitled “Look and Feel.” Get it? That was the crux of the lawsuit between Apple and Microsoft and is a phrase in constant use amongst the mac faithful. And who pushes the importance of aesthetics in design more than Apple? Nobody, that’s who.

But he doesn’t stop there. He ends the piece with: “And I think that Virginia Postrel is right to say that we’ll see a greater emphasis on design — and, in particular, design that appeals to people, not just designers — over the next few decades than we’ve seen over the last few. That won’t change the world, exactly, but it’ll remove a lot of petty frustrations from our lives, and make many of the things we use more enjoyable.” Gee, sounds like an Apple ad – a computer for the rest of us. And remember Steve Job’s famous appeal to John Sculley: “Do you want to spend the rest of your life selling sugared water, or do you want a chance to change the world?”

Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Boeing’s entry in the Small Diameter Bomb competition had a successful first flight the other day. And there was much rejoicing.