Conscious Choice cover

From the press release: In this ground-breaking new history of early America, historian Robert Zimmerman not only exposes the lie behind The New York Times 1619 Project that falsely claims slavery is central to the history of the United States, he also provides profound lessons about the nature of human societies, lessons important for Americans today as well as for all future settlers on Mars and elsewhere in space.

 
Conscious Choice: The origins of slavery in America and why it matters today and for our future in outer space, is a riveting page-turning story that documents how slavery slowly became pervasive in the southern British colonies of North America, colonies founded by a people and culture that not only did not allow slavery but in every way were hostile to the practice.  
Conscious Choice does more however. In telling the tragic history of the Virginia colony and the rise of slavery there, Zimmerman lays out the proper path for creating healthy societies in places like the Moon and Mars.

 

“Zimmerman’s ground-breaking history provides every future generation the basic framework for establishing new societies on other worlds. We would be wise to heed what he says.” —Robert Zubrin, founder of founder of the Mars Society.

 

Available everywhere for $3.99 (before discount) at Amazon, Barnes & Noble, and all ebook vendors, or direct from the ebook publisher, ebookit. And if you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and I get a bigger cut much sooner.


SpaceX wins contract to launch Europa Clipper to Jupiter

Capitalism in space: NASA today awarded SpaceX a $178 million contract to use its Falcon Heavy rocket to launch Europa Clipper to Jupiter.

If all goes according to plan, Clipper will lift off in October 2024 from NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida and arrive in orbit around Jupiter in April 2030. The probe will then study Europa in depth during nearly 50 close flybys of the moon over the course of about four Earth years, mission team members have said.

The award is not really a surprise. Falcon Heavy is really the only operational rocket with the power capable of launching this mission. Because for years Congress had mandated Europa Clipper be launched on SLS, it was designed with more mass than normal for such planetary missions. Delays in the SLS program however finally forced Congress to relax that mandate, but that left NASA with a payload too heavy for all operational rockets except Falcon Heavy, and even that requires this six year flight, with flybys of the Earth and Mars to get it to Jupiter.

The price for the launch is significantly greater than SpaceX normally charges for its Falcon Heavy, but since it was the only game in town, I suspect SpaceX drove a hard bargain.

Readers!
 

My July fund-raising campaign for 2021 has now ended. Thank you all for your donations and subscriptions. While this year’s campaign was not as spectacular as last year’s, it was the second best July campaign since I began this website.


And if you have not yet donated or subscribed, and you think what I write here is worth your support, you can still do so. I depend on this support to remain independent and free to write what I believe, without any pressure from others. Nor do I accept advertisements, or use oppressive social media companies like Google, Twitter, and Facebook. I depend wholly on the direct support of my readers.


If you choose to help, you can contribute via Patreon or PayPal. To use Patreon, go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation. For PayPal click one of the following buttons:
 


 

Or with a subscription with regular donations from your Paypal or credit card account:


 

If Patreon or Paypal don't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
 

Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652

10 comments

  • Skunk Bucket

    By October of 2024 Starship should be flying often. Will SpaceX still be using Falcon Heavy then? How big a deal would it be to switch the Europa Clipper to the newer launcher?

  • George C

    Skunk Bucket: The JPL people building and operating the Clipper deserve a minimum risk solution with the longest proven track record for the launch vehicle.

  • Richard M

    Not too much of a hard bargain, though, I think…

    We’ve long known this would be a fully expended Falcon Heavy launch, even with the gravity assists…and we know SpaceX charges $150 million for a fully expended Heavy. So $28 million on top of that seems actually pretty modest for what we know will be NASA’s payload processing requirements.

    Anyway, as Eric Berger noted, it sure as hell beats $2 billion for an SLS launch – not least, an SLS launch it’d probably have to wait a couple years for.

  • The price for the launch is significantly greater than SpaceX normally charges for its Falcon Heavy, but since it was the only game in town, I suspect SpaceX drove a hard bargain.

    Richard M has a good point regarding this … or perhaps SpaceX would give a government agency a better deal, were it not for another government agency threatening to interfere with the R&D efforts of SpaceX.

  • James Street

    “The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits”
    – Milton Friedman

  • Edward

    James Street quoted: “‘The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase Profits’ – Milton Friedman

    Profits are the reward for increasing economic efficiency over the competition.

  • Jeff Wright

    SLS supporters pushed for Europa missions. Talk about biting the hand that fed you. Dishonorable.

  • There is no lander included? Someone paid attention …

  • Dick Eagleson

    Jeff W.,

    SLS supporters pushed for Europa Clipper for the same reason they pushed for Gateway, to give SLS something to do. The most ardent Europa Clipper supporter in Congress, before his failed re-election effort three years ago, was John Culberson who, himself, was beginning to make exasperated noises about perpetual SLS delays by the end of his tenure in the House. He was a long-time SLS backer but was pretty obviously in the process of choosing Europa Clipper over SLS when it began to appear no SLS could be available to launch Europa Clipper by the date required for an expedited passage to Jupiter.

    Both of SLS’s “side gigs” – deployment of Gateway and launch of Europa Clipper – have now gone to SpaceX’s Falcon Heavy. SLS has simply been too slow to reach operational status, is too expensive and production-limited and has even been discovered to have launch physics incompatible with Europa Clipper. There is nothing in the least “dishonorable” about NASA acknowledging both physical and fiscal reality. What’s actually dishonorable is the continued insistence by supporters that SLS is somehow worth the insane amounts of money lavished on it.

  • Edward

    NASA itself attempted to support SLS. Almost five years ago NASA asked the science community for ideas for scientific missions or probes that would benefit by a launch on SLS. One would think that this would have generated many ideas for sending larger probes to various planets or asteroids, but the reaction was silence. It seems that the capabilities of SLS were more than offset by the cost and infrequent availability. The science community did not get excited about SLS. Even the choice of SLS for Europa Clipper was not the idea of the science community but was Congress’s idea.

    Congress demanded that they get a rocket to play with, and they even designed its basic parts as well as its capabilities, even though they had no idea at all what they wanted to do with it. This is SLS’s Achilles’ heel. Without a mission to drive their design, SLS and Orion were crippled by what Paul Spudis described in his book The Value of the Moon: “Regrettably, strategic confusion currently abounds in the American civil space program.” Unfortunately, Congress did not do their due diligence to find out what the market wanted, and they certainly didn’t know what they wanted. Instead, all they ended up with were jobs at Space Shuttle manufacturing facilities rather than a system that would or could improve our exploration of the solar system and universe. Spending money on a system that keeps jobs and favors certain companies without producing anything of use may sound like corruption, but make no mistake: it is. This is a major reason for letting free markets choose what to produce — and an added benefit is that it is at no cost to taxpayers, only to investors and those who purchase the chosen goods and services.

    Congress designed a launch system that had little utility, and the President who didn’t even want SLS had then set up a possible mission that no one wanted, even asteroid scientists didn’t want his mission. As for the mission to create a sustainable Moon base, one flight per year hardly seems enough to sustain a base, and even then SLS would have to forsake all other possible missions, such as science.

    The free market, on the other hand, did its own due diligence and realized that launch costs as low as $2000 per pound, in 1990s dollars, would make access to space affordable enough for many commercial uses of space. Falcon 9 has shown that this was correct. In the 1990s, reusability was seen as the means to this end, even though the Space Shuttle had failed to provide it. Even though Congress failed to learn the lessons of the Space Shuttle, entrepreneurs did.

    Many believe that there is a new space race between government space and commercial space to see who gets to the Moon first. The real space race is between commercial companies to see who can provide launches for the lowest price, and who can provide improved space services for the lowest price. Soon, we should see who can produce the best goods in space for the lowest price.

    So we are left wondering (other than government, the favored companies, their employees, and the communities that share a billion dollars each year) who are the SLS supporters? Wouldn’t Boeing be better off making a reusable, inexpensive super heavy launch vehicle? Wouldn’t Lockheed Martin be better off making a reusable, inexpensive manned spacecraft? Wouldn’t Thiokol (now part of Northrup Grumman) be better off making a more affordable reusable solid rocket booster? Even Aerojet Rocketdyne’s RS-25 was more affordable as a reusable engine than as an expendable one.

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *