Thinking Clearly About Space

[dobbins]

Recently SDC ran a four part series from Ad Astra called "Thinking Clearly About Space". A lot of people seem to have missed it.<br /><br />Thinking Clearly About Space Part I: Hustling the Future<br />By Monte Davis<br /><br />For more than a century, space enthusiasts have been hurrying the future: projecting how the world will be changed by technologies and capabilities humanity does not yet have.<br /><br />By 1900, the prescient Russian scientist Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was thinking about staged rockets, liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen propellant, orbital stations, solar power in space, space colonies, and asteroid mining. In the 1920s, Germany's Hermann Oberth and his circle developed an agenda for expansion into space that is still with us today. Between their work and the science fiction that inspired and fed on it, no development in history has been so vividly described so far in advance of its realization.<br /><br />We are all impatient to see it happen. Some of us devote our careers to making it happen. But there’s a difference between hurrying the future and hustling it. Hustling means deceiving ourselves or others about how far along we are, about the timing and cost of the steps to come, and—crucially for space advocates—about how widely and deeply our enthusiasm is shared.<br /><br />One way to hustle the future is to mis-read the past. How many times has space been compared to the New World? Yet the day Columbus returned to Cadiz, there were countless other European ships—working, money-making ships—capable of retracing his course. How often have 1961’s manned space flights been compared to the Wright brothers’ flight in 1903? Yet the day that Wilbur and Orville flew, there were countless machine shops capable of copying what two bicycle mechanics had done on a shoestring budget. We’re not there yet in space. We’re not even close.<br /><br />Or think farther ahead, to space colonization. Europeans headed for the New World knew that it offered air to breathe, water

 

[dobbins]

Thinking Clearly About Space Part II: Everybody Wants Space<br />By Monte Davis<br /><br />Who can resist the poetry of Humanity’s Timeless Outward Urge? Space is the endless frontier, we say—it’s in our genes. It’s the next inevitable step in evolution. It’s our species-level insurance against global disasters. It’s the spread of life and intelligence from a pale blue dot to the 99.9…% of the cosmos that isn’t Earth. Throw the bone, cue the music, match dissolve to orbit: thank you, Mr. Kubrick.<br /><br />It’s all profoundly moving. It may even turn out to be true. But it’s an obstacle to progress, if talk of Humanity persuades us that most actual human beings share our enthusiasm. (Or would, if only there were enough Leadership, enough Vision, enough space advocacy conferences). Zoom in from evolutionary time to the United States, 1965-2005. There’s a consistent pattern in polls throughout those years. If people are asked "Should the nation do X in space?" a majority often says yes. But when asked to rank government activities by spending priority, a larger majority puts space way down the list. They did so at the height of Apollo (roughly 4% of federal spending), and they do so today (at the less than 1% typical of the decades since).<br /><br />A lot of energy goes into lamenting that, and arguing over what went wrong after Apollo. Try Occam’s razor instead: perhaps we enthusiasts are part of a majority in thinking new achievements in space are admirable, but a minority in the priority we put on achieving them with tax money. Try facing facts: the pace from Sputnik through Apollo was an exception, not the norm. It was enabled by military missile technology that had already done the hardest part of the engineering. It was funded in a unique Cold War period when everything the US and USSR did was part of a global contest. And Apollo itself was aimed at a specific "flags and footprints" victory within that contest. It was never meant to be a foundation for sustained expa

 

[dobbins]

Thinking Clearly About Space Part III: Hardware and Hand-Waving<br />By Monte Davis<br /><br />One of the clichés of space enthusiasm is author Robert Heinlein’s "Once you’re in orbit, you’re halfway to anywhere." It’s a vivid expression of the physics of launching a spacecraft and escaping earth’s gravity well. The velocity change required to attain low earth orbit, just 200 miles up, is more than twice that needed to go on from Low Earth Orbit (LEO) to the Moon. It’s comparable to that needed for reasonable travel times from LEO to other planets, thousands of times farther away.<br /><br />We usually repeat the cliché in the service of our hopes. After all, we put a satellite in orbit in 1957, and human beings in 1961. We were halfway to anywhere two generations ago—let’s get on with it!<br /><br />But the cliché misleads as much as it enlightens. On a trajectory from LEO to "anywhere," the velocity change can be applied at modest accelerations -- over hours, days or months. That’s why low-thrust, long-duration "ion" engines are useful for planetary probes. But a rocket from the ground to LEO must use at least one G of acceleration to lift off at all, and must punch through the drag of the atmosphere and reach orbital velocity as fast as possible. If it didn’t, the rocket equation would demand even more propellant, making it more massive and even harder to accelerate, and so on in an ugly exponential curve. So Heinlein was right in saying that the energy required to reach orbit and to travel beyond orbit are comparable. But the power (the rate of energy release) required is far greater for that first short step.<br /><br />That need for extremely high power has shaped the drive to space since Konstantin Tsiolkovsky first saw it clearly in the 1890s. The recipe for rocket performance is "burn as hot and fast as possible; if that’s not enough, get bigger." So rocket engineering meant engines burning as close to meltdown or explosion as we dared to push. The engines lifted ai

 

[dobbins]

Thinking Clearly About Space Part IV: The Virtuous Cycle<br />By Monte Davis<br /><br />The temptation to slip from hurrying the future to hustling it is always present. You can see the latest variation at every space conference, on every space forum and weblog:<br /><br /> * “What will make us a space-faring civilization is people making money on space tourism and orbital hotels; on solar-power satellites or on helium-3 from the moon or asteroid mining.”<br /><br /> * “NASA and the big aerospace vendors and the politicians are all in the same bureaucratic swamp, maintaining their turf and their constituencies. Look at Spaceship One! Only private enterprise is lean and innovative enough to get us out.”<br /><br /> * “Sure, rockets have always been expensive, but that’s only because we make so few of them and fly them so rarely. With high flight rates and the streamlined operations that will bring, costs will drop to a fraction of what they are today.”<br /><br />The common thread is that we don’t need more federal spending or new technology to speed our progress into space. All we need is the proven power of market economics to transform what is new, rare and expensive (electricity 1850, automobiles 1900, computers or jet aircraft 1950) into the routine and affordable.<br /><br />Like any effective hustle, this one contains a lot of truth. Profit is a powerful and enduring motivation, at least as old as the urge to explore. NASA does share some dysfunctional, business-as-usual traits with other government agencies, especially those that buy expensive technologies with a long lead time (paging Donald Rumsfeld). Higher flight rates would reduce cost per pound to orbit—first by spreading development and support costs (often larger than hardware costs) over more flights, then by helping us learn to develop and support more efficiently.<br /><br />But let’s look more closely, because sometimes the most insidious hustle is the one that implies, “You’ve seen through the old sca

 

[scottb50]

I think it's the superman attitude the government has to aviation in general. Six month physicals, it wasn't until the 70's you could get hired if you wore glasses. Everything is over dramatized by the FAA and the same theme carries on into Space. Even if you leave it to private industry they have to live with government oversight, which at times can be totally clueless.<br /><br />A case in point is Palo Verde Nuclear power plant, the two operating reactors were shut down because the paper trail for the emergency system wasn't in order and they couldn't prove the reactors would automatically shut down if coolant leakage occured. <br /><br />Now APS wants to raise rates to re-coup the costs.<br /><br />I don't think we can put people into Space until we can show dependability near that of commercial aviation. <br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

"I don't think we can put people into Space until we can show dependability near that of commercial aviation."<br /><br />Then we will never put people in Space.<br /><br />

 

[spacester]

I read this series carefully when it came out, and I was also disappointed that it got virtually zero attention here. I agree with the analysis, heck, I’ve been operating with that same analysis for years actually. I have openly declared that the goal is to speed up space development, so I suppose he would look at my ideas as yet another hustle. If I aspire to be more than a hustler, I need to be able to show that it is not a hustle.<br /><br />The three hustles he speaks of are 1) Humanity’s Timeless Outward Urge, 2) Hand-Waving and 3) Getting on the Virtuous Circle. The bottom line for him on each, in order, is 1) Public Support is a mile wide and an inch deep, 2) Getting ‘halfway to anywhere’ is hard and it is expensive and 3) Market Economics is no guarantee of success.<br /><br />None of these concepts are new to these boards, and Mr. Davis’ position is very close to my own. The one place where I take exception is a subject I’ve been wanting to address, and it’s right there at the end of his series:<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> So be wary the next time you hear someone talking as if it’s a done deal, as if private enterprise in space must deliver our future in space faster than government programs have. </font><br /><br />I find that to be a very strange and spurious comment yet I have heard it here more than once. I can’t think of anybody around here who is more enthusiastic than me, but I NEVER think in terms of it ‘being a done deal’. All my words in support of alt.space are in its defense in the face of opposition. <br /><br />If I can paraphrase R.A.H in my sig, then I might as well paraphrase John Lennon: ‘All I am saying is give alt.space a chance’ <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Attitudes like ‘Well, until they put something in orbit, I think they should be treated as a joke, and if they want to talk about doing more than that before they’ve done that, they are dishonest hustlers.’ I just find that attitude astonishingly closed minded <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Let me make one thing clear. My main problem is with the alt.space fan boys that constantly slam NASA and talk about start ups as if their success was a lead pipe cinch, not with most of the start ups themselves. However some of the start ups seem to have a business plan based on the dot.coms, geared more towards attracting investors than towards actually putting something into space.<br /><br />I don't like or respect the alt.space Cato Institute crowd with the knee jerk Libertarian claims that evil old NASA is preventing the great commercial revolution in space. Most of these people know next to nothing about business and even less about space.<br /><br />Look back at the early days of the auto industry. Most of the companies that entered the business failed real fast. The same was true of most of the companies that entered aviation when it was a new field. There is no logical reason not to expect the same pattern with the space start ups. Most of them are going to fail, just like most of the companies that enter any new field fail.<br /><br />Space start ups aren't anything new, companies have been trying to break into the field for the past 25 years and there are already lots of dead companies that have come and gone during that period. There will be more of them.<br /><br />No start up was in a better position than Space Industries Inc. It was founded by one of the greatest space engineers of all time, Max Faget. The man who did the preliminary design work for every manned spaceship the USA has ever flown from Mercury through the Shuttle. The man who invented the LES, who invented the glide test system the Shuttle Enterprise used when he was flying model airplanes in college. The President of the Company was Deke Slayton who ran the astronaut program form the later days of Mercury all the way to the early Shuttle launches. They didn't just talk about the Conestoga rocket, they actually achieved a suborbital launch in 1982. They didn't just talk about a space station, t

 

[JonClarke]

Thank you for posting these excellent pieces. I thought they were first rate when I first read them and they are even better second time round. I can't think of any major point I would disagree with. Anyone who thinks that space is easy or that NASA, ESA, RSA and the rest are fundamentally stupid needs to have these pieces tatooed on their anatomy.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em>  Arthur Clarke</p> </div>

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"I don't like or respect the alt.space Cato Institute crowd with the knee jerk Libertarian claims that evil old NASA is preventing the great commercial revolution in space. Most of these people know next to nothing about business and even less about space."</font><br /><br />Well, I happen to consider myself a libertarian and, IMO, this attitude has, in the past, had merit. There is no doubt in my mind that NASA, has been less than encouraging towards commercial space endeavours.<br /><br />However, from all I have read about Dr. Griffin, I am convinced that his attitude toward such things is about as different from NASA's previous policy as it gets. He appears to be putting out every possible signal that NASA's new approach is to include private enterprise in the VSE as much as government regulations will allow. He talks about commercial opportunities in things like an orbital fuel depot, ISS resupply and crew exchange, lunar outpost habitat construction and much more. His attitude is that government alone can not do all that needs to be done to fully accomplish the goals of the VSE. The government's role is essentially that of providing the basic transportation infrastructure, similar to the construction of the interstate highways, and creating opportunities for private enterprise to provide useful services in LEO and beyond.<br /><br />Not all libertarians think alike, just as not all republicans or all democrats think alike. I like to think that I am a practical libertarian. If a government agency can stimulate a new industry and assist in the creation of opportunities for private enterprise then I'm all for that. NASA, historically, has not been that kind of government agency. Under Dr. Griffin's leadership, I believe they can and will be. Time will tell, but I am encouraged by what I see so far.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[gunsandrockets]

http://uplink.space.com/showthreaded.php?Cat=&Board=suggestions&Number=371533&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=0&vc=1

 

[dobbins]

It's published on SDC. Just moved from one place to another.<br /><br />

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow">Let me make one thing clear. My main problem is with the alt.space fan boys that constantly slam NASA and talk about start ups as if their success was a lead pipe cinch, not with most of the start ups themselves. However some of the start ups seem to have a business plan based on the dot.coms, geared more towards attracting investors than towards actually putting something into space.</font><br /><br />The constant slamming of NASA is simple frustration, a perfectly natural human reaction from visionaries frustrated with the pace of progress. The question to ask is if they have anything to offer other than the slamming. When you make that evaluation, it is self-defeating to focus on the lowest common denominator.<br /><br />It is interesting that you refer to alt.space companies as ‘start-ups’. It indicates to me that you’re not even aware that many of the key players have been around for quite a few years now, they post profits and they grow. Yet you lump them all together as ‘start-ups’.<br /><br />I simply do not see anyone who says that anyone’s success is a ‘lead-pipe cinch’. No one - show me a quote, link to a post. You are making up this perfect correspondence between NASA-bashing and irrational support of alt.space. Sure, there’s a rough inverse correlation between supporting one or the other (unwise thinking IMO), but I think you would be well served by giving us cheerleaders the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps if we see for-profits as the way it’s going to get done, we also are able to bring some business sense to the table, perhaps we are not completely ignorant on business matters.<br /><br />If you see a certain confidence, it’s about what the alt.space community will do *as a whole* - not a blind acceptance of some individual business plan. The inexorable progress of private enterprise is easy to believe in.<br /><br />Of course some start-ups will fail – but then again, as you show, to some extent we’ve ‘been there, done that’, we <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[dobbins]

Let's try this again. SOME, that's SOME not ALL. members of the alt.space community don't know beans about space and they know even less about business. That doesn't stop them from babbling non-stop and getting mad when someone attempts to inject a little reality into the discussion.<br /><br />I'm talking about people who constantly use WHEN. WHEN Bigelow has a dozen stations in orbit, WHEN Virgin Galactic is making daily flights to the stations, WHEN SpaceX is launching super cheap Falcon 9s.<br /><br />Ever hear of the word IF? If Bigelow succeeds, IF SpaceX succeeds. That is being realistic instead of being a fan boy with two inch thick rose cohered glasses. Fan boy space cadets do NOT help the alt.space community any more than they help the general space community. All they do is convince some people that the space community is full of flakes.<br /><br />I Hope that some of these companies do succeed. I'm so concerned about that Falcon I launch that I'm tracking the weather at the launch site (doesn't look good).<br /><br />

 

[spacester]

<font color="yellow"> Fan boy space cadets do NOT help the alt.space community any more than they help the general space community. All they do is convince some people that the space community is full of flakes.</font><br /><br />I just don't see what harm is done by being optimistic.<br /><br />Ever hear of the word SUPPOSE? <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /><br /><br />Perhaps when they say WHEN they are merely saying SUPPOSE<br /><br />Do you really believe that mere discussions of future possibilities are out of order until the enabling technologies are firmly in place? We really are not allowed to talk about Falcon IX payloads until Falcon I launches?<br /><br />Perhaps you’re getting bent out of shape because one’s man’s well-informed speculation is another man’s absurd fantasy. Perhaps there is a natural distribution of opinion from most cynical and pessimistic to most believing and optimistic. Perhaps there should be room for all perspectives in our discussions. Steely-eyed realism can co-exist with sour-puss pessimism and unbridled optimism, can’t they? If not, why not?<br /><br />I just don’t see the harm; can you connect the dots for me? Whoever expected the space community to be flake-free anyway? Is that your recipe for progress? Exterminate all the flakes? I doubt it, but that’s one way for me to explain your apparent objection to optimism.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[spacefire]

"IF" the VSE ever gets off the ground....it will still not meet its accomplished goals and will cost a lot more than anticipated <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">"IF" the VSE ever gets off the ground</font>/i><br /><br />touche</i>

 

[dobbins]

"I just don't see what harm is done by being optimistic."<br /><br />There is a huge difference between being optimistic and being unrealistic.<br /><br />I am optimistic that one day private space ventures will exceed the size of all government space ventures combined. I'm realistic that that day isn't just a few years down the road.<br /><br />Private space ventures aren't something new, I've seen them come and go over the past 25 years. In that time they have accomplished less than the US government did before NASA opened it's doors on October 1st, 1958. NASA went from being a new agency of the federal government to landing a man on the Moon in less than 11 years, something it did by throwing an almost unlimited amount of tax dollars at the problem. The private ventures do not and will not ever have that kind of funding but I hear some people talking like they are going to accomplish more than NASA did between 1958 and 1969 on a shoestring. That simply is not realistic.<br /><br />God knows I'm frustrated, with NASA and with the privates. It's damn frustrating to watch the privates make promise after promise and not deliver for 25 years. It's damn frustrating to have see NASA drop a system that could go to the Moon in favor of a glorified "Gemini" Space plane that can carry 5 passengers along with the two pilots for the same LEO missions and the same duration that we did in the mid 60s. It's damn frustrating to be stuck in LEO while one super duper spaceplane after another died after hitting a brick wall of budget and technical realities. I've been frustrated with both the public and private space programs for a very long time.<br /><br />However there is one lesson I've learned over that time. If you are unrealistic in your expectations you will quickly get dismissed as a crackpot, and that if the loudest voices are unrealistic and drowning out the sober realists then many people start dismissing the whole concept of space as a lunatic scheme.<br /><br />Gaetano is an extre

 

[n_kitson]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>It's damn frustrating to be stuck in LEO<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br />I can understand your frustration. The problem is that since we put the first man in orbit in 1961, the physics of space travel have not changed. I think of it as analogous to air travel.<br /><br />Since the 1960's the most capable passenger aircraft has been the 747. It's been updated with new computers and avionics, but it is still the same basic plane, providing more or less the same economics, speed and comfort. It's really frustrating for me, as a frequent flyer, that decades after the 747 and the X-1, we are still traveling at subsonic speeds. The newest thing on the block is a super-jumbo, that's slightly cheaper to operate but flies the same speed and offers the same level of comfort as a 747.<br /><br />Sure, the technology exists to build a large supersonic aircraft, and, as with spacecraft there have been many concepts over the years - AST, EAST, HSCT, T244, etc. None of these have been built. Why? Not because it is technically impossible, but because the laws of physics make them ridiculously expensive to design and the noise pollution unacceptable.<br /><br />Similarly, we have the technology to send a man to the moon or Mars, or to build an operational space plane. But, as with large supersonic aircraft, it is ridiculously expensive to design and operate with limited indications of any return on investment.<br /><br />Unless we find a radical solution, manned space flight is not going to be cheaper, it is not going to be routine and it will not survive budget decisions. The laws of physics are still the same in 2005 as they were in 1961.

 

[dobbins]

One aspect of the economics has changed. The USA is a far wealthier nation than it was in the 1960s. At it's peak the NASA budget was a little over 4% of the federal budget for 1966. That was 5.933 Billion dollars or adjusted for inflation 34.759 Billion dollars. Now NASA's budget is 0.7% of the federal budget. A Raise to just 1% of the federal budget would be a little over a 40% increase for NASA. It would go from 16.4 Billion to 23 Billion dollars. That would allow us to do a lot more and at a rate of only 1/4 the fraction of the federal budget that NASA got in it's peak year of funding.<br /><br />

 

[nyarlathotep]

>>"Unless we find a radical solution, manned space flight is not going to be cheaper, it is not going to be routine and it will not survive budget decisions. The laws of physics are still the same in 2005 as they were in 1961."<br /><br />Well, there is a certain radical solution proposed in the 60's that would drastically cut the cost of getting payload to orbit while at the same time obeying the laws of physics. Orion.<br /><br />If we're ever going to start thinking clearly about spaceflight, we're pretty soon going to have to arrive at the conclusion that chemical rockets are too inefficient to ever be cheap at moving serious amounts of mass into orbit. Orion is really the only sensible option. <br /><br />Considering that it's already a radioactive wasteland thanks to the British, and that it's thousands of miles from any major population centre, Maralinga would probably be the worlds best launch site.

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"Orion is really the only sensible option."</font><br /><br />I have a real problem with using the Orion concept as a launch vehicle. Certainly, there are ways to use nuclear power at launch and these should be pursued, but exploding nuclear bombs in the atmosphere is not a "sensible option."<br /><br />OTOH, Orion might very well be useful for in-space propulsion as the radiation issues are less of a concern. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>

 

[dobbins]

I'm not some kind of knee-jerk tree hugger. I'm a strong proponent of nuclear power and consider most of it's opponents to be a pack of ignorant Luddites cowering in fear of of a boggy man that doesn't exist. I'm not some foe of nuclear weapons, my Grandfather was at Oakridge during the war and helped get that genie out of it's bottle. Despite this even I consider Orion to be one of the most hair-brained schemes I ever saw excusable only by the lack of knowledge of fallout dispertation and EMP effects at the time it was being worked on in the 1940s and 1950s.<br /><br />There is no remote location for launch when you set off nukes in the stratosphere. The fallout will be dispersed over the globe. There is no remote location when you are setting off nukes in the upper atmosphere the Electro Magnetic Pulses from each of the hundreds of nukes set off just reaching orbit is going to fry electronics over a wide portion of the Earth's surface as well as taking out satellites that are already in space.<br /><br />

 

[dobbins]

Daedalus is a far more realistic approach than Orion.<br />

 

[Swampcat]

<font color="yellow">"Daedalus is a far more realistic approach than Orion."</font><br /><br />You are likely right. I was simply pointing out that I was not opposed to the Orion concept, per se, only to its use as a launch vehicle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="3" color="#ff9900"><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>------------------------------------------------------------------- </em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong><em>"I hold it that a little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."</em></strong></font></p><p><font size="1" color="#993300"><strong>Thomas Jefferson</strong></font></p></font> </div>