Friday, November 30, 2007
FWIW, I work in the Pentagon, on the Iraq policy desk.
I just finished reading Children of Apollo. I loved it.
But. (always a "but" ain't there?)
You mispelled Dana Rohrabacher's name.
I worked for Dana as his original space aide and for his first six years in Congress (then I went over to the Senate Commerce Committee staff as a space expert) (they paid more).
Now, I have to tell ya, Dana pays *very well* for his staffers, given what he could pay them, and given what other Congresscritters pay. But it ain't enough for a newly-wed with kids.
I also loved the way Pete Conrad kept popping up throughout the book. I worked for Pete as his Washington guy from 1997 until his death in 1999 -- and for Universal Space Network until 2002. You got the Pete *I* knew dead-on IMHO. What a guy. *sigh*
Just wanted to drop a note. I read the blog every day (although I gotta tell ya, I'm one of the Internet Rockteer Club bozos).
-- Tim Kyger
This is praise indeed, as Tim has worked very tirelessly to advance the space frontier from a political/activism angle since I can remember.
The book he is refering to, of course, is my alternate history book, Children of Apollo, the cover of which can be seen to the left.
My apologies to the good Congressman for getting his name messed up. It will be among a number of editing glitches that will be corrected, especially in an upcoming ebook edition for the Amazon Kindle.
I am also reminded that soon I must write an essay about the Internet Rocketeer Club, how does one spot a member, and how to avoid being a member.
We recommend that the NASA Administrator direct the Ares I project manager to develop a sound business case--supported by firm requirements, mature technologies, a preliminary design, a realistic cost estimate, and sufficient funding and time--before proceeding beyond preliminary design review (currently planned for July 2008) and, if necessary, delay the preliminary design review until a sound business case demonstrating the project's readiness to move forward into product development is in hand.
In other words, do what you're doing anyway. Talk about stating the obvious.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
In fact, maybe not just a race.
The moon may lack traditional loot — there's no gold, no oil, no trade route — but that doesn't mean it's worthless. Harrison Schmitt, the only astronaut to walk on the moon who was also a scientist (in fact, a geologist), advocates mining it for helium-3, a rare isotope thought to be an ideal fuel for fusion reactors. Since 2002, Ouyang Ziyuan, the chief scientist of China's lunar exploration team, has made his country's intentions clear: "Our long-term goal is to set up a base on the moon and mine its riches for the benefit of humanity." But by far the moon's biggest asset is its primal cachet. Lunar settlers could brandish their nationalism over all of Earth every night. Add to that the fact that the moon is perfect practice for conquest of Mars, the Asteroid Belt, and moons of Jupiter, Saturn, and beyond. In human history, anywhere there's value, there are eventually property rights.
It's been several hundred years since a virgin patch of Earth was successfully claimed by anyone. Now that we may be facing valuable unsullied territory again, it would be wise to come up with a better system. Do we really want to see a repeat of the Americas, colonial Africa, or the Middle East? "As I tell my students, when humans have a conflict there are only two options: to reach agreement or to fight," Gabrynowicz says. "Even agreeing to disagree or doing nothing simply puts these options further into the future; it does not create additional options. At the level of nations, these options are law or war."
Lunar war? Over helium-3? Over a barren, inhospitable rock that costs a fortune to get to? It's not worth the effort. Of course, people once said that about the North Pole.
The GOP YouTube Debate started with a country and western song about the candidates. Then it proceeded with a bang when Rudi Giuliani accused Mitt Romney of employing illegal aliens and, in effect, operating a "sanctuary mansion."
The night kind of went downhill from there.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
My response, by the way, would be, "Yes, but not by 2020."
But all is not lost, cinema fans. It may be that if the Surge continues to be successful, in the not-so-distant future a wholly different kind of Iraq War movie will emerge. And they will be made by the veterans themselves. If we are particularly lucky, they will seem more like Casablanca than Redacted.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Addendum: Green technology? Well, OK, but I always liked Tom's adventures in space the best. Still, I disaagree with Quint about setting the series in the 1910s (very politically incorrect if you've read the books) or even the 1950s-60s (the era when I read them.) Tom is eternal and is available for each generation.
Monday, November 26, 2007
"If China can go to the moon, eventually with a manned program, it will represent the ultimate achievement for China in making itself essentially the second most important space power, accomplishing what even the Soviets had not," says Dean Cheng, a China military analyst for CNA, a private research corporation. Watch China's lunar rocket blast off »
According to Cheng, the Chinese are now embarking on a systematic space program the world has not seen since the 1960's and for the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States is facing real competition. That may explain why the head of NASA, Michael Griffin, recently warned that "China will be back on the moon before we are . . . I think when that happens Americans will not like it."
But there could be a lot more at stake than just lunar boasting rights. It's unlikely the Chinese will land at Tranquility Base and pull down the Stars and Stripes. But the goal could be mining resources. One powerful, potential fuel source is helium-3. Helium-3 originated from the sun and was deposited in the moon's soil by the solar wind. It is estimated there are up to two million tons on the moon, and virtually none on Earth.
That being the case, one wonders why Teddy Kennedy is still opposing Cape Wind.
China continues to dump huge resources into its space program, in 2003 becoming just the third nation after the U.S. and Russia to launch its own citizens into space.
Now leaders in Beijing are seriously pursuing ways to send taikonauts -- their name for astronauts -- to the moon before America's scheduled return around 2020.
That fits China's strategy to prove it's a 21st century force to be respected and reckoned with, and something experts say the Chinese could pull off.
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Friday, November 23, 2007
Thursday, November 22, 2007
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Addendum: Rand Simberg, Jeff Foust, and Clark Lindsey all weigh in on the Obama scheme.
There's a depressing pattern in some of the comments section. First is the mindless cheering coming from some of the Internet Rocketeer Club since Obama would essentially destroy human space flight in this country, at least as practiced by NASA. There seems to be no awareness that there would be nothing under an Obama administration to replace it. No EELV based schemes. No Launcher Direct. No commercial alternatives. Just a yawning, ten year gap during which the US would be utterly dependent on the kindness of strangers to get people into space and the commercial launch industry, such as will exist, driven off shore by high taxes and draconian regulations.
The other bit of foolishness coming out is the proposition that had X been done (the spiral plan, the EELV plan, or whatever) Orion would by flying by 2009 and thus would be harder to kill. Both propositions are doubtful. But even if true, say goodbye anyway to the return to the Moon under Barack Hussein Obama.
Not that I expect the Senator to ever become President, even if he does beat Hillary. And I must say that Obama and Clinton seem to be competing with one another over who can say the most foolish things. Obama, with his snickering about having been a coke head and boasting about how he got his foreign policy credentials at age 10, and Hillary with her multiple flip flops, maniacal laugh, and massive duplicity seem to be proving the proposition that Democrats are not ready for prime time.
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
That makes two major Democrat candidates who are hostile to space.
Addendum: The RNC responds.
Monday, November 19, 2007
A key conclusion:
Finally, there is no predetermination that the process of discovering new VPs would distract from NASA’s ability to execute its current programs. Instead, the process of discovering, developing, and delivering new VPs will help NASA to define its mission and strengthen its offerings to the stakeholders it must serve across many Administrations and Congressional sessions. Those who argue that the expenditure of resources necessary to discover, develop, and deliver new VPs will distract NASA from existing program challenges ignore the possibility that the process will produce results that are synergistic, amplifying both the relevance and longevity of the VSE as well as the non-VSE VPs that accrue from it.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Saturday, November 17, 2007
According to NASA sources, the Ares 1 first stage, as currently designed, would produce a frequency of 25 Hz at liftoff. The concern is that this oscillation could shake the Ares 1 upper stage and Orion capsule designed to carry human passengers, causing considerable damage and that it could also adversely affect the Guidance, Navigation, and Control avionics in the rocket's Instrumentation Unit.
This sounds really bad. But Keith, following sound journalistic practice, asked for official comment. He got this response:
"The Ares Project Office identified Ares I thrust oscillation as a potential integrated stack challenge as a part of its system definition review which concluded in October. Thrust oscillation or resonant burning is a characteristic of all solid rocket motors. It is caused by vortex shedding inside the solid rocket motor, similar to the wake that follows a fast-moving boat. When the vortex shedding coincides with the acoustic modes of the motor combustion chamber, pressure oscillations generate longitudinal forces that may affect the loads experienced by the Ares I during the last phase of first-stage flight. NASA is assessing the analyses in more detail, looking for any potential impacts to the integrated stack and ways to mitigate those impacts. Results are due in spring 2008. It is a normal part of the development process to identify, mitigate and track challenges such as this."
One wonders, therefore, what to make of this. There is no space system ever developed that has not encountered technical challenges that have to be studied, worked through, and solved. The combustion stability problems of the F1 engine that eventually powered the Saturn V and the weight problems experienced by the original lunar module come to mind. Indeed, some private efforts--Elon Musk's Falcon 1 comes to mind--have had problems that have to be worked.
So is this oscillation problem just one of the normal problems that have to be solved in the course of developing a new space system? Or is it a major design flaw that will actually prevent the development of the Ares 1 into a viable launcher? The knee jerk reaction I'm seeing on the Internet seems to be that it's the latter. But a glance at the history of space technology leads me to think that it's likely the former. In any case, stay tuned.
Friday, November 16, 2007
A an interesting analysis of the political dynamic this is causing has been posted by Jeff Foust. The comments are worth the time reading it, if only for the entertainment value. Especially the one suggesting that Griffin should have lied to a committee of the Senate.
The reaction of the politicians are, oddly, somewhat encouraging. Time was when a NASA Administrator offered a Congressional committee such a stark choice, he would be given an impossible one. "You will cut the gap between the shuttle and Orion. And by the way, we'll also be cutting your budget. Have a nice day." Both Senators Nelson and Hutchison should be lauded for not going down that road.
Of course there are the folks who want to trash the current approach and do something else. It's a matter of debate that any of these new approaches would reduce the gap or even work. In any case I suspect that if we went down that road, we might spend years arguing over which one was best.
It seems that there are two options. One is to hope that the supporters of NASA in Congress get the rabbit out of the hat, along with the needed two billion dollars. The other is to hope that Elon Musk (or someone else) can deliver in a timely fashion.
Thursday, November 15, 2007
Of course there is another possible development. Some studios are already outsourcing productions to places like Canada and New Zealand where espenses, because of lower labor costs, are lower. Electricians, carpenters, and other people who work behind the scenes work cheaper in these and other countries than in heavily unionized California.
What if the studios decided to go all the way, terminating their agreements with creative unions like the Writers Guild, and go looking for creative talent overseas? Except for high end name talent, one could conceive of the idea that writers, actors, and directors in Vancouver, Christchurch, and Sydney can turn out product just as well as higher priced people in California.
Indeed, there are other states of the union where creative talent can be found, states where labor laws are a little more favorable to business. There are some productions already up and running in Florida. Texas, a large, cosmopolitan state would be another possibility.
The problem, of course, is that NASA will likely have answers that might satisfy the committee but will not satisfy the Internet Rocketeer Society since it will not result in the above answer. (By the way, the NASA answers might--indeed even likely--be accurate. While during the early space station era, NASA folks were adroit at obfuscation, that does not seem to be the case now.)
The other problem, besides the possibility of NASA trying to hide problems until it's too late, is the possibility that Congress will decide to help and be aerospace engineers, just as they did for the space station. That was one factor in the mess that became the International Space Station.
Rand Simberg, oddly enough, touches on this. I'm not sure about his solution. The political class has been as eager to intefeer in private business as it has in public programs.
Addendum: Mike Griffin's actual testimony.
Wednesday, November 14, 2007
My skepticism withered in the face of somebody potentially accomplishing the impossible, particularly since Musk came across as a pleasant guy rather than a blowhard wallowing in his own dot-com buzz.
Read the whole thing.
We polled his suburban Houston district and found that voters resist his contrarian and stark libertarian perspective that even sells out local interests. When told that “Ron Paul consistently opposes taxpayer funding for NASA and wants to eliminate the agency,” 61 percent of Republican primary voters said this information would make them less likely to vote for Paul’s reelection.
It is too bad that Paul is stark raving mad, especially on the war, and has among his supporters people who are, charitably speaking, unsavory. Otherwise I know of certain people who would support him with enthusiasm just for that stand alone.
Issued 31 January 2007
(Click here to
confirm these are legitimate.)
#5: Marcy Meckler. While shopping at
a mall, Meckler stepped outside and was "attacked" by a squirrel that
lived among the trees and bushes. And "while frantically attempting
to escape from the squirrel and detach it from her leg, [Meckler]
fell and suffered severe injuries," her resulting lawsuit says.
That's the mall's fault, the lawsuit claims, demanding in excess of
$50,000, based on the mall's "failure to warn" her that squirrels
#4: Ron and Kristie Simmons. The
couple's 4-year-old son, Justin, was killed in a tragic lawnmower
accident in a licensed daycare facility, and the death was clearly
the result of negligence by the daycare providers. The providers were
clearly deserving of being sued, yet when the Simmons's discovered
the daycare only had $100,000 in insurance, they dropped the case
against them and instead sued the manufacturer of the 16-year-old
lawn mower because the mower didn't have a safety device that 1) had
not been invented at the time of the mower's manufacture, and 2) no
safety agency had even suggested needed to be invented. A sympathetic
jury still awarded the family $2 million.
#3: Robert Clymer. An FBI agent
working a high-profile case in Las Vegas, Clymer allegedly created a
disturbance, lost the magazine from his pistol, then crashed his
pickup truck in a drunken stupor -- his blood-alcohol level was 0.306
percent, more than three times the legal limit for driving in Nevada.
He pled guilty to drunk driving because, his lawyer explained, "With
public officials, we expect them to own up to their mistakes and
correct them." Yet Clymer had the gall to sue the manufacturer of his
pickup truck, and the dealer he bought it from, because he "somehow
lost consciousness" and the truck "somehow produced a heavy smoke
that filled the passenger cab." Yep: the drunk-driving accident
wasn't his fault, but the truck's fault. Just the kind of guy you
want carrying a gun in the name of the law.
#2: KinderStart.com. The specialty
search engine says Google should be forced to include the KinderStart
site in its listings, reveal how its "Page Rank" system works, and
pay them lots of money because they're a competitor. They claim by
not being ranked higher in Google, Google is somehow infringing
KinderStart's Constitutional right to free speech. Even if by some
stretch they were a competitor of Google, why in the world would they
think it's Google's responsibility to help them succeed? And if
Google's "review" of their site is negative, wouldn't a government
court order forcing them to change it infringe on Google's
Constitutional right to free speech?
And the winner of the 2006 True Stella
Award: Allen Ray Heckard. Even though Heckard is 3 inches
shorter, 25 pounds lighter, and 8 years older than former basketball
star Michael Jordan, the Portland, Oregon, man says he looks a lot
like Jordan, and is often confused for him -- and thus he deserves
$52 million "for defamation and permanent injury" -- plus $364
million in "punitive damage for emotional pain and suffering", plus
the SAME amount from Nike co-founder Phil Knight, for a grand total
of $832 million. He dropped the suit after Nike's lawyers chatted
with him, where they presumably explained how they'd counter-sue if
he pressed on.
Come caveats on a few of the points, though:
Visit Williamsburg and talk about how Jamestown was settled and how the frontier spirit is alive and well in America and how 400 years from now the Moon and Mars will be settled.
I'm not sure that people can be made to be very excited about something 400 years from now. I suspect the emphasis should be on things that can happen now and in the near future.
Make fun of the new race for the next humans to set foot on the Moon and suggest that you'd like to see Google offer a prize to the winner of that race, too (on top of their rover prize).
Does anyone see a contradiction here? I suggest playing up the race, hinting that the prize is who gets to expand their political and economic system not only to the Moon, but beyond. I'm not sure, also, that tell Google that it should offer a humans to the Moon prize would be very useful. Touting more realistic prizes would be, however.
I would finally suggest making a space policy speech, most certainly in a private space setting like Los Crucas or Mojave. Bring together the themes of private space and public space and demonstrate how they support one another.
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Monday, November 12, 2007
"But in a telephone interview afterward, she said that in the short term she would subordinate Bush administration proposals for human exploration of the Moon and Mars to restoring cuts in aeronautics research and space-based studies of climate change and other earth science issues.
"Travel to the Moon or Mars 'excites people,' she said, 'but I am more focused on nearer-term goals I think are achievable.'"
In other words the exploration initiative would be gutted under a Hillary Clinton Administration.
And also, Dinerman had little or nothing to say about Clinton's silence on commercial space. Considering her desire to tax and/or regulate everything in sight, the prospect is not bright.
I have a somewhat more sobering analysis of the Clinton space policy.
My view is that yes indeed there is a race to the Moon, but it is far more complicated and nuanced than the one waged in the 1960s. To suggest otherwise would seem to this analyst to engage in simple denial of what is occuring in front of our eyes.
While the number of combat deaths is higher in the military now than two decades ago, the suicide and homicide rate was substantially higher in the 1980s, as were accidents and fatal illnesses, all of which led to a higher death toll among military personnel than in recent years.
The study measures the death toll for every American war and also measures the total death toll per year from 1980 - when 2,392 military personnel died of various non-combat related causes - through 2006, when 1,858 soldiers died in both combat- and non-combat-related action combined.
Read it all.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
A number of points jumped out at me.
In the absence of real-world examples, the wishful thinking of armchair designers leads to a "grass is always greener" mentality: *every* alternative must be better than what has been tried already, because we know all too well the disadvantages of what we have tried, but of the road not taken, we can see only the advantages.
That brings me to mind the reoccurring kerfuffle over NASA's chosen method to return to the Moon. Every disadvantage of the Ares boosters are highlighted (and at times exaggerated) and every advantage of whatever chosen alternative is being discussed is touted.
Jorge Frank goes on to suggest a road not taken:
The alternative - the real "road not taken" - would have been to build small experimental vehicles, starting from suborbital and working our way up, that explore all the different "corners" of the design trade space resulting from this multi-variable problem, and learning, one painful step at a time, what works and what doesn't. Since these experimental vehicles would neither have carried payloads nor flown operational missions, there would be no attachment to them; they would have flown for a few years each and then retired and replaced with the next X-vehicle, just as happened with all the previous X-vehicles up to and including the X-15.
Very sound engineering practice and likely something that would have been very difficult to finess politically in 1972. The demand put on NASA by the Nixon Administration was not to indulge in technology R&D that would one day in the future maybe result in a family of operational vehicles. The mandate was to come up with the solution to cheap access to space. Do it as soon as possible and, by the way, with half the budget you want. NASA was to so this thing or cease to be.
It is fortunate that the dynamic of space politics is not quite so on the edge thirty five years later. There are now a number of small companies trying out different approaches, some of which presumably will fly in the fullness of time. Meanwhile NASA can stick to exploration and science and let the private sector do the job it was meant to.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
Robot Prostitutes, Lovers, and Spouses
David Levy, a world renowned expert in artificial intelligence, recently suggested that by 2050, people will not only have sex with robots on a regular basis, but will actually marry them. He is not actually the first to imagine this.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Lew Harris, the editor of website Movies.com, said the films have struggled to be successful because the subject matters of Iraq and 9/11 remain too close to home. And in many cases, the films have not been entertaining enough.
"These movies have to be entertaining," Harris told AFP. "You can't just take a movie and make it anti-war or anti-torture and expect to draw people in.
"That's what happened with 'Rendition' and it has been a disaster," he said.
"People want war movies to have a slam-bang adventure feel to them ... But Iraq is a difficult war to portray in a kind of rah-rah-rah, exciting way.
"And it's just too close to home. The Vietnam war movies didn't start until long after the war was over.
"But here for the first time you're seeing things that you're reading about in the newspaper or seeing on television in movie theatres. I'm not sure that's something that people want. A lot of people go to the movies to escape."
Harris is missing the point. These films depict America in general and America's soldiers in particular as being evil. No matter how weary one is about the war, most people are not going to pay money to have that kind of message pounded into them.
I also disagree that the Iraq War is "difficult" to portray in an exciting way. This is only the case if one has the view that we (that is to say the United States) are the bad guys and the terrorists are not. There are plenty of stories coming out of Iraq that would make great cinematic fare, if someone in Hollywood had the courage to make it. Which, alas, no one does.
Gitesh Pandya comes closer to the truth:
"I just think it's something that people are not willing to pay top dollar to see, especially when we get so much coverage at home for free," Pandya told AFP. "At the end of the day it's not content people are willing to pay for."
Pandya said the subject matter of the films also made them particularly vulnerable to poor reviews.
"Older-skewing films are affected by reviews a lot more than a movie aimed at teenagers. It's possible for a teen movie with horrible reviews to be a commercial success; but for films targeting an older audience, the reviews can make or break them," he added. "And the reviews for these films have not been great."
What is left out of this analysis is that coverage of the Iraq War, for the most part, has been horrible and biased against the American effort. Of course people will not pay to see a movie that is just as horrible and biased. But she's right about poor reviews affecting box office. People have become quite cynical about Hollywood's political slant and are just refusing to see any film with a hint of political subtext. That's what, in my opinion, hurt The Kingdom, a film that actually depicted Americans fighting the War on Terror in a good light.
Stephen Bochco, on the other hand, is totally clueless:
Veteran television producer Steven Bochco, whose 2005 television series "Over There" about a platoon of soldiers fighting in Iraq ended after just one season, said it was hard to engage audiences in a "hugely unpopular war."
"TV is fully saturated with this war and I don't know if you can do a serious drama about this war and locate any angle that would overcome the negativity about it," he told the New York daily Newsday.
Iraq films remain a difficult sell for audiences because of the swirl of confusion surrounding the rights and wrongs of the conflict, he added.
"World War II was hugely romanticized in terms of its fiction. There were unambiguous villains, and the feeling we were fighting the right people over the right issues, as opposed to this war, which many people feel is misguided.
Over There was a horrible series, which not only was filled with technical and historic mistakes (using Vietnam era Huey helicopters, for instance, rather than modern Blackhawks), but was just badly written, badly directed, and badly acted. Its failure had nothing to do with the alleged "unpopularity" of the war (which I think is over stated by the polls.) Bad television tends not to prosper no matter what the subject matter.
And, I'm sorry, we are fighting unambiguous villains, the right people over the right issues. But Bochco, not being able to recognized this fact, was incapable of creating and running a television show about the war in Iraq.
Here's an idea. Let's recruit some Iraq and Afghan war vets and give them a chance to write and direct their own stories. And not just folks with the approved, Hollywoood lefty atttitude. One thing wrong with Hollwyood is a lack of idealogical diversity. An infusion of folks who have actually "seen the elephant" would enrich the film business and help it to break out of the stale, horrible rut of one America hating film after another. The people on the European film festival circuit may be appalled, but I'll bet actual audiences will cheer.
Thursday, November 08, 2007
It's been noted many times in the past (and Coyote's report notes as well) that one of the reasons that this concept has had trouble getting acceptance and ownership within the government is that it's had no natural home. DoE thinks it's a space program, and NASA thinks it's an energy program, and both agencies consider it to be outside their charters. I do like the idea of the establishment of a quango, perhaps using COMSAT as a model, to provide a government-blessed (and at least initially, funded) focus for this.
SOLARSAT, I think, would be a great name for this.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Tuesday, November 06, 2007
One item jumped out at me:
China has also emerged as one of the three spacefaring nations, because they understand the value of space activities as a driver for innovation and a source of national pride in being a member of the world's most exclusive club. China today not only flies its own taikonauts, but also has plans to launch about 100 satellites over the next five to eight years. It should be no surprise, especially to those who have read Tom Friedman's book "The World is Flat" or John Kao's "Innovation Nation", that this environment in China is breeding thousands of high-tech start-ups.
The Chinese have adapted the design of the Russian Soyuz to create their Shenzhou spacecraft. However, the similarity between the two ends at the out mould line; the Shenzhou spacecraft is both more spacious and more capable. They plan to conduct their first spacewalks and orbital rendezvous operations, and to build their own space station - admittedly simpler than ours - in the coming years. While they have not stated an intention to do so, the Chinese could send a mission around the moon with the Shenzhou spacecraft, as we did with the Apollo 8 mission, which inspired our nation and the world during the Christmas season of 1968. China could easily execute such a mission with their planned Long March V rocket, currently under development and reportedly rivaling any expendable rocket in the world today. I have no doubt that they will have it in use, as they plan, by around 2012.
Of course some people are still dissmissive of the Chinese space effort.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Neither piece touches on Clinton's hostility to the exploration initiative, as evidence from the interview of her in the New York Times. Fortunately, I do.