Lost in Space?
Regarding your article in the February Desert
Exposure on
the proposed spaceport for southern New Mexico ("Have
Spacesuit, Will Travel"), I am in awe at how incredibly
out of touch Governor Bill Richardson and so many other people are,
when it comes to what it is that really matters for the people of New
Mexico.
Your article on the spaceport raised some good
questions towards the end, pointing out some of the truth about promised "jobs," some
of the real costs that are being played down, and the likelihood of
a serious accident and how that will certainly affect people's perceptions.
You also reveal how this whole thing is really more about creating
a playground for the very rich at the expense of New Mexico taxpayers,
who will be paying to make it possible for these jaded folks to hang
a new thrill on their walls, next to photos of their luxury yachts,
Lear Jets, and the heads of African safari kills, all to complement
expensive art, architecture and furnishings, and prove, of course,
just how brave they really are.
But is this bravery, really? They will take flight on a huge luxury
airplane to a high altitude, ride in a luxury rocket, travel barely to
the edge of space, and spend exactly 10 minutes floating around in freefall.
They will look through thick windows at the Earth, across an ideological
as well as physical distance that will only reinforce the huge ways in
which they are already out of touch with any of the real tragedies, struggles
and heartaches that are going on all over the Earth's surface, as well
as right here in New Mexico.
Instead, these extremely pampered and vain folks will take possession
of another expensive, exclusive thrill, viewing the globe's curvaceous
and colorful beauty through the rose-tinted glasses that immense wealth
puts between their sensibilities and the very real world that most of
the rest of us live in, a world rapidly being destroyed by the privileges,
affluence and self-images these folks for the most part passionately
defend with systems founded in hate, alienation and violence. It really
seems that these folks actually believe they need to leave the Earth
in order to experience a connection to it.
And what is all this about jobs, and how the spaceport
is going to provide us folks down here in poor and remote southern
New Mexico with real work? How many times have you heard that in the
past, and seen the truth become the opposite? All over the US the reality
has almost always been otherwise, when the "promise" of jobs is used to justify the spending
of taxpayers' money. A few construction jobs for a short while, probably
filled for the most part by skilled workers from out of state, a short
boom and then a bust, folks moving in from elsewhere to staff the more
technical "spaceport" positions, and the rest of the so-called
jobs will be a few minimum-wage positions serving the "special" people
in their luxury quarters, before and after their "flight" into
space.
But, they say it is going to be affordable for the rest of us, one day,
to fly into space, just like the rich folks made it possible for the
rest of us to own computers and televisions. If you really believe that,
then I have a bridge in San Francisco I'd like to sell you. Pretty soon
the rich folks won't be satisfied with 10 minutes floating on the edge
of space. As the technology and experience develop, and assuming the
greater economy and the Earth's resources hold out long enough and there
are no disasters of one sort or another (none of which I would call safe
assumptions), they will go farther and farther out into space, and it
will always and forever remain a possibility out of touch to all but
the very wealthy, unless perhaps you are one of the pilots, or a stowaway,
or something. There are huge, numerous and glaring differences between
flying off into space and how it was that computers became possible for
the not-so-average westerner.
Who is going to make money on all of this? Rich folks, aristocracy from
Europe, investors and developers, real-estate speculators, industrialists
and capitalists, and of course the politicians that make it all possible,
as their election coffers are stuffed with donations from all these folks.
And who is going to pay for it? New Mexico taxpayers. And if it all goes
belly up, as many people think is likely, who loses? New Mexico taxpayers.
When is the last time you heard of a rich person losing money when a
taxpayer-financed boondoggle went belly up? These folks are experts on
making money when ventures fail, nearly as good as they are at making
money on the so-called successes.
And that is of course what it is all really about,
past the playgrounds and toys for the wealthy—making money. For folks
such as that, owning the Earth and making money is all that life is
about, and for those of us who believe that life has very little to
do with money or ownership, we are forced, by the nature of "possession," to
suffer the absence of what we know does not matter nearly so much as
the real human and life-affirming values that these people never do
more than pay lip service to.
This is something that we need to see does not address what really matters
to New Mexicans: $135 million can go a long ways towards providing good
education, good libraries, decent health care, proper diets for school
kids, healthy and energy-efficient buildings, restored community centers,
alternatives to consumption and life-affirming job opportunities. It
is truly immoral to spend New Mexico taxpayer dollars to create playgrounds,
toys and mere opportunities to make money for the wealthy.
Any New Mexico legislator who votes to support this
foolishness should be voted out of office in the next election.
John Fridinger
Silver City
I enjoyed "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel." It
was an excellent article, meticulously researched and well written.
You should get a Pulitzer.
One thing I might add: If New Mexico has such advantages for space launches,
e.g altitude, low humidity, etc., why didn't NASA locate a launch facility
here? If New Mexico is so desirable, why isn't Sir Branson paying us,
instead of us paying him?
Of course, it really isn't "us" paying him, is it? It's our
politicians paying him with our money. Some of those so eager to subsidize
a British billionaire are the same ones who rail against "tax cuts
for the rich" and other such nonsense.
Imagine a cartoon showing Governor Richardson's pockets being picked:
One by Richard Branson, another by the BNSF Railroad (Rail Runner—could
be another Pulitzer story exposing waste and incompetence). But pickpockets
are thieves, and it would be unfair to call Branson and the railroad
thieves. The real thief is our government, and the thief-in-chief is
Bill Richardson.
It is true, as you say, history rewards the bold, the risk taker—-BUT
NOT ALWAYS! In fact, as one who has personal experience with venture-capital
investing, hardly ever.
If it was my money, I'd bet on one of the competitors
you mentioned, Elon Musk. His company, Space Explorations Technology,
was described in a Feb. 5 New York Times article.
Musk has a detailed business plan that starts small, builds revenues
with a nuts-and-bolts space launch business, a business that already
exists, and limits risk. Branson's game plan aims for the glamour,
the flashy part of the space industry that doesn't yet exist —tourism—
and is all risk.
Some may say I have no imagination. Not true.
I have an infinite amount of imagination as long as I'm using YOUR
money and I'm not going to ever be held accountable for how it's spent—sort
of like a politician making long term "investments."
One way to bring some accountability into the space endeavor, and to
also involve the political class's own money, is to fund the effort through
the New Mexico Public Employees Retirement Association, which at last
count had over $10 billion in assets—probably more than Sir Richard.
The trustees—all of whom, I believe, are state employees—should be
happy with a less than one percent rate of return knowing that they are
investing in the future of New Mexico, a New Mexico made stronger and
richer due to their investment, a New Mexico that will eventually produce
good jobs and more taxes. And all thanks to their far-reaching vision.
Of course, if it turns into a big money pit, the pensioners will have
somebody to sue, won't they? Sounds fair to me.
Peter Burrows
Silver City
Why all the negativity about the spaceport? Anything that brings excellent-paying
jobs to this state, which thus far has mostly resembled a third-world
country without the charm, is a good thing. The high pricetag for the
tourism flights will reduce over time (as is does with any new technology).
Further, it is not solely about space tourism. The innovations that will
be produced by New Mexicans will help move our world away from a dependence
on energy solely produced on Earth to all the tons of resources available
in space and other celestial bodies. New Mexico can either grow (and
grow up) or it can remain a cesspool of low-paying, under-educated, welfare
state. The choice is yours.
Most importantly, the spaceport is not the idea of Porky Pig Bill Richardson!
Our state was lucky to be chosen by the creators. I've attended many
events where Peter Diamandis has spoken and we are damned lucky to even
be considered. Do your part and support new technology and responsible
growth rather than just the typical hippie fodder and illegals on welfare
commerce we have now.
Greg Jones
Your excellent assessment of our proposed spaceport
confirmed my own view of the idea. Space tourism will be viable when
there is someplace to go, such as a space station on the moon, with
casinos, surface excursions and zero-g games. The queen of Spain didn't
hock her jewels so that Columbus could take a boatload of gawkers out
to see the monsters at the edge of the map. I expect that if the spaceport
is built, it will, before long, be littered with travel trailers and
motor homes all winter, as are so many New Mexico parks, and cows will
graze along the runways.
Jack Warner
Silver City
Just finished reading "Have Spacesuit, Will Travel." Very
interesting. I wonder if there will be conveniently located barf bags.
This link (www.space.com/peopleinterviews/yaniec_991020.html)
mentions that a third of those flying on the "Vomit Comet" get
violently ill. And they are only weightless for 30 seconds or so. Could
be a messy flight.
I thought Desert Exposure was going to be
a photography magazine when I discovered it online last month. I was
a little disappointed at first, but then I read the story on biofuels
("Grease
Is the Word," January 2006). When I finished it I went
to the January 2005 issue and started reading. I am up to the April
issue. A very pleasant surprise. I wish I'd picked up a copy when I
passed through Silver City last October.
Dave Goudy
Port Orchard, Wash.
Another Oil Peek
You've probably received more than a few e-mails
on Bob Foster's letter
to the editor regarding abiotic petroleum (February).
Here is a layman-friendly article from the American Association of
Petroleum Geologists: www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm.
Evidently the abiotic origin of petroleum is a debated topic and not
the universally accepted theory among petroleum geologists and other
scientists as Mr. Foster would have us believe. The hypothesis of an
abiotic origin for oil came out of the Soviet Union during the 1950s
and 1960s partly due to Stalin's insistence that the USSR locate substantial
oil deposits within its borders. Some consider it a relic of Soviet
era, pre-plate tectonic geological science. I first encountered the
idea in an article written by the astronomer Thomas Gold for the Atlantic
Monthly sometime in the 1990s. Currently the idea's leading
proponent in the US is J.F. Kenney, who studied with Russian and Ukrainian
scientists. Rather than being the fact that Mr. Foster claims it is,
it is at best a hypothesis. Most working petroleum scientists successfully
use the model of a biologic origin for oil. It is a simpler model that
fits the data with better predictability. Most of the deposits that
have been the "poster children" for abiotic oil can be explained
using biogenetic models. There is no data to suggest, much less prove,
that abiotic oil supplies are "infinite," at least, for the
next several thousand years. That is speculation and not science. There
is also no data to suggest that there is meaningful deep recharge of
these alleged deposits, that is, anything that would be useful to us
in a economic sense. Also, the presence of a natural resource does
not indicate economic feasibility. Origins and availability are different
issues.
Mr. Foster may be basing his assertions on the
work of Craig R. Smith and Jerome Corsi. Their book Black
Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil resurrects
the abiotic oil hypothesis. A quick visit to the authors' respective
Web sites is instructive. Smith is an author, businessman and CEO of
Swiss American Trading Corp., a gold investment firm. Corsi is a Swift-boat
vet and coauthor of Unfit to Command, the book that
helped to sink John Kerry. He has a poli-sci degree from Harvard.
Unfortunately, as with the evolution "debate" (if it can be
called that), scientific ideas are being hijacked to support political,
economic, social and/or religious agendas. The abiotic oil scenario presented
by Mr. Foster seems like a "Deus ex machina" so that our
society can go along fat and happy and not deal with the potential
repercussions of the decline of cheap oil.
Maggie Knox
Silver City
A Bloomin' Puzzle
Your article on sacred datura (Tumbleweeds,
February — this story is not available online)
was interesting. One fact I picked up from some botany/desert plant
book was not mentioned and I'm not sure how accurate it is. Basically,
the book said that sacred datura had five points on each bloom while
common daturas (several varieties) had 10 points per bloom.
While some claimed the sacred datura caused visions
and was toxic if overdosed, the common datura was just poisonous, even
in very small doses.
J.D. Larock
via email
Author Jay Sharp replies: Remembering that there are dozens
of species of datura worldwide, the one that I talked about
specifically in the story is the Datura (genus) meteloides (species),
which is common across the Southwest. It is also called jimson-weed,
hairy jimson-weed, jimson weed, devil's apple, thorn apple, stinkweed,
devil's weed, malpitte, moonflower, toloache as well as sacred datura
and a host of other names. Another datura, one that grows to the east
of us, is the Datura (genus) stramonium (species).
It is also called jimson-weed, smooth jimson-weed, etc. Both species
have numerous common names. Both have similar flowers, although the
Datura meteloides has the larger bloom of the two. I would treat both
plants as if they were highly poisonous from root to bloom. One thing
that makes them particularly dangerous is that the level of alkaloids
(the substances that can cause delirium and death) may vary from plant
to plant. A fragment of one plant might generate hallucinations; a
similar fragment of a second plant might kill you. I have a feeling
that a lot of shamans found an early grave as a result of their use
of the datura.
Let us hear from you! Write Desert Exposure Letters,
PO Box 191, Silver City, NM 88062, fax 534-4134 or email letters@desertexposure.com.
Letters are subject to editing for style and length.
Back to top of page.
|
March 2006