Cosmic Log: Sept. 3-9, 2005

George J. Becker, Lancaster, Calif.: "NASA will have to weigh the benefits of the possibility of keeping space shuttle faculties in the Gulf Coast or relocating elsewhere in the United States to avoid the specter of frequent hurricanes.  In the beginning of the space shuttle program, Vandenberg Air Force Base (Lompoc, Calif.) was to be a West Coast launch site.  Thanks to budget cuts, Vandenberg AFB never was expanded for shuttle launches.  While NASA might have gotten off easy this time, NASA might not be so lucky after the next hurricane.  NASA and its contractors might consider moving back out to the West Coast and move its displaced workers at the same time.  The facilities are still here at Plant 42, Edwards Air Force Base and Phillips Laboratory as well as throughout Southern California."Having grown up in the Antelope Valley (in Lancaster), in the shadow of Edwards AFB (where the shuttle landed last time) and Palmdale’s Plant 42 (where the shuttle fleet was built), with some of the people and the tooling available (what’s the cost of a retrofit?), it might make sense to move back out to California for a time to escape further hurricanes."Furthermore, it would be shortsighted of the United States to cut back on space exploration.  Just think of all the positive contributions that we have benefited from NASA as a community as a whole.  See the NASA "Spinoff 2004" book for further reading.  Cutting NASA out of the budget would be like cutting our respective noses off to spite our faces."

David Abramowitz, Springfield, N.J.: "I think J.E. Blankenship ofMcGrady, N.C., is sadly out of step with the importance of exploration. It is scary that his view of exploration is probably limited to what is behind the milk in his refrigerator. ... The scanner in his local supermarket, the X-ray machine at his dentist’s office, the GPS and cruise control in his car, the computer he sent his e-mail on all came from forward-thinking innovative explorations of sorts. We need to continue to explore space, the oceans, medical science and more to insure our place as a technological leader in the world of tomorrow. In Blankenship's defense, however, we can always be smarter about how to spend the money to do these things. The benefits we’ve gained from the international space station are insignificant as compared to wealth of knowledge we’ve gotten and may continue to get from the Hubble Space Telescope (if we were to properly maintain it). Scientists, not politicians or CPAs, should make the decision as to where to invest the money if we truly want a return on our exploration investment."Eric: "I understand and value the importance of NASA, exploration, and research for the sake of research.  However, I must admit that very little has been learned and even less has been gained over the last thirty years from NASA.  I visit the rover Web site and contemplate how much money is being spent on driving a golf cart across Mars and wonder what good it’s really doing … None!  We are not learning anything.  The idea that scientists are proving whether or not Mars had water at some point is bogus; it’s all speculation.  Looking at rocks from millions of miles away doesn’t really do the human race or the U.S. much good.  It makes us feel better, but it doesn’t help those who are in need.  I honestly doubt that humans will visit Mars in our lifetime. I might not even see them go to the moon.  Would it be “cool”?  Yes, but it’s not necessary. ... Don’t misunderstand me: I support and revel in NASA’s attempts to explore and uncover the secrets of the universe. But those pretty pictures from the Hubble Telescope didn’t seem to affect the fact that I paid $3.79 for gas this morning."

J.E. Blankenship, "I believe in the aftermath of Katrina and rising gas prices across the globe that some things should be done now, not a year later down the road. I think that space exploration projects should be halted! With over $1 billion spent to send one shuttle into space, and then to put a hold on all launches until futher notice, is bull. I ask one question: How many people in the U.S. would that $1 billion help? Who cares about Mars? We can't live there, so who gives a hoot about how it was created? It's here and so is our universe, and there is nothing we can do to change space."

"The human imperative to explore and settle new lands will be satisfied, by others if not by us. Humans will explore the moon, Mars, and beyond. It's simply a matter of which humans, when, what values they will hold, and what languages they will speak, what cultures they will spread. What the United States gains from a robust program of human space exploration is the opportunity to carry the principles and values of Western philosophy and culture along on the absolutely inevitable outward migration of humanity into the solar system and, eventually, beyond. These benefits are tangible and consequential. It matters what the United States chooses to do, or not to do, in space."

Jared Babin, "Not rebuilding New Orleans — whoever has the courage to say that should go to every family from Louisiana that ever served in the military, every family that lost a father or mother for the freedom of his brother. Tell them that they died in vain, because New Orleans is too expensive to rebuild. Their life, their father, mother, brother, or daughter's life was not a high enough price to pay. If you can convince them, then I will agree with you. Until then, I love New Orleans, and it will return stronger and better than ever!"Paul van Gent, Leiden, the Netherlands: "The flood that swamped New Orleans did not come from the sea or from the river, but from the adjacent lake. We once had our own Pontchartrain, we called it the Haarlemmer Lake. Throw a big ring-levee around it, turn it into Pontchartrain Polder, and create a load of jobs in the process."THKS, Hong Kong: "Yes, reclamation — to fill the bathtub basin of New Orleans. Can the Americans make use of the by-products of petroleum to rebuild the environmentally friendly green New Orleans? Millions of abandoned car tires? Why not? This is just a proposal. I don't know whether it's cost-effective or not."

Chuck Miller, Jacksonville, Fla: "Due to the highly toxic water flooding New Orleans, and the fact that the city is already below sea level (and sinking), I would raze and abandon the greater part of the flooded area after allowing residents back in to pack what belongings they can salvage. With much better levees, perhaps the area around the French Quarter could be saved/preserved as a tourist area. Suburbs could be built on higher land west and northwest of the area, away from the Gulf. Bear in mind that there will be more hurricanes, and obviously they'll be stronger than in the past due to global warming."Jim B., Miami: "Maybe you can take a look at a part of the Katrina disaster that has been ignored, the role of the U.S. Congress is placing New Orleans below the level of the Mississippi. In the 1950s, the U.S. Corps of Engineers determined that the Mississippi was silting in and shifting the main channel to the Atchafalaya River, bypassing New Orleans. By an act of Congress, the Corps of Engineers was ordered to keep the river where it was. Forty-plus years of silting later, New Orleans looks up at water on just about every side."David Stever: "May I suggest a name change for the rebuilt New Orleans? I'd suggest Newer Orleans would be appropriate. Also, as the John McPhee book someone else brought up points out, The River doesn't want to flow past Norleans no more. The mouth of the River wants to flow in the area of Morgan City, much to the detriment of Morgan City (I don't think that the city would survive the changing of the channel). The Achafalaya River will be the new channel as soon as Mother Nature figures out how to subvert the Army Corps of Engineers, and given how this White House has undercut the budget of the the Corps, that won't been too far in the future. Once the river has a new channel, Norleans will start sinking even faster then it is now, and a new port city will spring up somewhere along that new channel. On that day, without the flow of the river by it, the French Quarter would have about as many visitors as a boarded up Coney Island amusement park. ..."Jeff Whitsett, Houston: "Of course New Orleans will be rebuilt. And so it should as well. We, as people, have persevered through difficulty in the past and will continue to do so. The mentality that supports relegating New Orleans back to the swampland must also then support the idea of packing up Los Angeles and moving it away from the San Andreas Fault, moving Seattle away from the shadow of Mount Rainier, and dismantling the high rises in New York because they are too big of targets for terrorists. No, New Orleans will be rebuilt. The concern is to what capacity. The economy was not an expanding one prior to Katrina, and now that the population has moved beyond the borders of the city (and are now actively seeking jobs/homes in the shelter cities), both residents and businesses have to seriously question the legitimacy of returning to a city like this. So New Orleans will be rebuilt, but how much will be dependent on those people/businesses that choose to return."

Jeremy, Hong Kong: “Viewing this disaster from my adopted home of Hong Kong, one word consistently pushes itself to the front of my mind: reclamation. The growth in Hong Kong's economy has only been matched by one thing, the growth in its shoreline. Its latest and greatest buildings are constructed on landfill in the harbor. Its airport required the construction of an entire island! Now, think about the possibilities for New Orleans. A city under sea level? No problem, just build up the land. Trouble with water and landslides? Another major issue in Hong Kong, dealt with quite successfully. Build a system of waterworks, and in New Orleans' case, canals. With enough ingenuity and planning, much of the destruction caused by Katrina could be avoided in the future.”Harriet, Darien, Ga.: “I think a competition for the redesign of New Orleans would be an excellent idea! Looking forward to the end of petroleum era would be just one component of the design ideas, but a necessary one! Blueprints for the future? I love it!”Ron Servoss, Whittier, N.C.: “Should we really spend a lot of tax dollars rebuilding a city below sea level at the end of a major river that has cut under the levee in many places in years past? Get the people out. Build a state-of-the-art port. Then we won't have to do this again – maybe sooner than later. I lived there for years and I will miss the place too, but enough already.”R. Currer: “I think it was pure arrogance locating a city on the coast below sea level.  I think relocating [rather than] rebuilding is the answer. I realize there is a lot of history and commerce involved in a decision like that, but to rebuild in an area that will undoubtedly suffer a repeat of this tragedy in the future is ludicrous. Most of the demolition has already occurred. Rather than waste time and effort pumping the city out, it would be best to relocate the survivors inland until such time as a new, improved New Orleans can be built on a more appropriate (and saner) location.”Kevin English, Austin, Texas: “… These people who were physically capable of leaving the city and did not when a mandatory evacuation was ordered should have to spend the next 10 years of their lives working for free, reconstructing their city. We do need to seriously consider not rebuilding New Orleans. The $25 billion reconstruction cost translates to roughly $10,000 from every man, woman and child in this country. I think we should all get a say as to how this region of the country gets rebuilt.”

Jorge Fernandez, Miami: “It is a waste to spend more money on New Orleans. We spent two-thirds of the Louisiana Purchase on it, and now the city is a total loss. We need to abandon the city because nature has claimed it, and we’re fighting a losing battle against it. Take note that this is coming from someone who lives in Miami. Miami is not 6 feet below sea level, though, and I live inland. It would be a better to create a better port with modern technology. … Most of the survivors will relocate and settle in other areas, and only the die-hards would come back. …”Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg, Pa.: “If New Orleans rebuilds, it should probably eliminate those three troublesome canals. Their existence creates a much greater perimeter to protect and therefore a much greater likelihood of a breach. From the map, they really don't seem to go anywhere anyway. Apart from the levees along the lake and river, New Orleans should have an actual floodwall and gate system ‘inside the city’ to prevent one or two levee breaches from flooding the entire city.“Perhaps whatever is left of the canals they tear down can become just such a subdivision? On the National Geographic series ‘Megastructures,’ they showed how the Netherlands is designing lightweight homes that will actually float as flood waters gradually rise. They look like regular homes (not like a house boat), and they simply slide up a telephone pole-like post to remain in position. Such homes should obviously be structurally tested to endure the Category 5 hurricane-force winds that are not uncommon in the Gulf region.“It is also quite obvious ... that any city in a disaster-prone area needs to have a host of emergency-enhanced facilities and equipment to handle such potential crisis. Armored, amphibious police cars aren't so ridiculous-sounding after all, are they? …”

Marc Bozik, Bethlehem, Pa.: “… We need to establish a network of American households all over the country that would be willing to foster a family in times such as these. An ‘Adopt a Family’ program that could be mobilized in a matter of hours to relocate families caught in the aftermath of disasters (natural or man-made). These families would identify what size family they could accommodate for a matter of months until that family could either return to their homes or get their feet under them to start new somewhere else. I myself live in a very modest home in the Lehigh Valley with my wife, daughter and two dogs. I would be willing in times like these to open my home to a family of three to stay with us until times get better. … Naturally, I would want some assurance that there were guidelines and precautionary measures taken so that good people were placed with good people. That is where the government can help. Criminal background checks of all involved would be a prerequisite for placement. Funding and transportation would also be something that would be regulated and provided by the government. It is not too late to help those in the South during the current crisis. …”

Eric Collins, Starkville, Miss.: “The issue in my mind is whether or not we should be better preparing our citizens to deal with these kinds of situations.  There is already a civics course requirement in most public schools.  Should we not also include in this course a lesson on what to do and how to behave if you suddenly find yourself in any number of situations ranging from a prolonged power outage, to terrorist attacks, to massive devastation wrought by natural disaster. Among other survival skills that could be taught in such a setting, one thing that must be stressed is that no matter how bad it gets, we must not abandon our basic civic responsibilities to help each other if possible, but at the very least do no harm.”A. Vishnu, “The world shares the grief and sadness felt by the folks in New Orleans, but the richest nation in the world failed its people when it mattered most. I am on the other side of the world and looking at America, which suddenly appears to act with a Third World country mentality. … When anyone conducts any sort of activity, be it construction, a gathering or an evacuation drill, they must look at incorporating the highest safety measures when human life is involved. The president is protected 24/7 from every possible circumstance by the best people, equipment, weapons, vehicles, etc. Where do the people of New Orleans go to when they need protection from this disaster? Obviously, the government. But when the government is inefficient and ineffective, all hell breaks loose. America, evaluate and reinvent the ability to respond to human plight or suffering during disasters, whether it's man-made or natural, and be equally sensitive to their security, safety and well-being especially if they are poor, within the country or in a foreign land.”K.Y., Utah: “… Maybe the only good that can come out of this tragedy is for America to open its eyes to what we have become and where our leadership is taking us, and decide if this is where we really want to go. There's ‘The Control of Nature,’ a John McPhee book written years ago about people living in places where natural disasters are guaranteed, why people live there and how they justify it to themselves. Included is New Orleans (below sea level, relying on man-made levees to keep the Mississippi River from changing course), Iceland (volcanism) and Southern California foothills (fire, floods, mudslides, huge rolling rocks). Another fascinating book to add to the ‘post-Katrina reading list.’”

Wade Whitlock, Aberdeen, Md.: "The mayor of New Orleans has it right — these people don't have a clue. Check out Defense Tech today. What do you think the response to a bloody great dirty bomb would be? Any better than this?"

Chris Eldridge: "Given the situation of people shooting at rescue helicopters, I'm beginning to wonder if the breaches in the levees themselves was not an act of vandalism? Storm surge was supposed to flood the city by going over the levees, not by breaking them. I've heard that there were complaints about that section of levee, so perhaps just some windblown debris hit them?"

Nan Boyle: "I have not heard one person talk about a solution to the communications breakdown of line and cell phones. Has the development of an inexpensive satellite phone system been considered, or is that too inconceivable?"

Kurt Setschen, Zurich, Switzerland: "Schadenfreude or not, it is very clear that global warming has some strong effects to the climate. And it is also clear that air pollution has a strong effect on the warming. So why does Bush close his eyes on this? To protect U.S. business? What will happen now with the businesses in the areas where Katrina hit? Have they been protected? Or does it mean that rebuilding the damaged areas will be a good business for others that have not been affected? Protecting the global climate cannot be done if the biggest polluter country is not cooperating."

Patrick Bishop: "Isn't it about time we started seriously rethinking the design of our cities? In the case of New Orleans, imagine how much more expeditious our current efforts to evacuate refugees would be had the city incorporated a network of canals in its design ... let the enemy be doing some of our work for us. This may be something to think about as we rebuild."

"As Katrina was developing last week, I was in the tense middle of a fabulous book about the devastation of the Galveston hurricane of 1900. Taken from telegraphs and memoirs of the 'weather bureau' and residents of the Gulf area, it is a wonderful account of the state of weather forecasting of the time, including perceptions of politics, the 'can do' fearless attitude of the nation, and international and local competition for commerce and recognition. The book was authored by Erik Larsen (who also wrote 'The Devil in the White City,' another historical 'non'-fiction of the Chicago World's Fair). He has done incredible research of available archives, and portrays a time and place with such reality and emotional comprehension that his work transports the reader to the Gulf shore of the dawn of the 20th century with all the technological 'advances' and difficulties of the time. It is definitely an imperative read for those interested in natural disasters, and shows how human nature repeats itself from arrogance to complacency to outright panic in defiance of the elements."