prior probability

I will write up a proper eulogy over the weekend, but for now it is with a heavy heart that I share the somber news that my father Don Francisco Florentino Guerra Fernandez died earlier this morning. He was a one-of-a-kind character who loved tinkering with his tools and tending to his own garden, and I am the man, husband, and father I am today because of my father’s love, protection, and good counsel …

Standing next to my wife Sydjia (far left), myself (second from right), and three of his grandchildren (Adys, Aritzia, and Kleber), is my father Don Francisco. (This picture was taken in December of 2020.)

I know it’s not going to happen, but the United Nations should declare May 1st “International Victims of Communism Day”. To this end, allow me to share my colleague and friend Ilya Somin’s original May Day Proposal from 2007: see here or here. Below is an excerpt, which I have lightly edited for clarity and style (all links are from the original):

Today is May 1st or “May Day“, which began as a holiday for socialists and labor union activists, not just communists. But over time, the date was taken over by the Soviet Union and other communist regimes and used as a propaganda tool to prop up their regimes. I suggest that we instead use this day to commemorate those regimes’ millions of victims. The authoritative Black Book of Communism estimates the total at 80 to 100 million dead, greater than that caused by all other twentieth century tyrannies combined. We appropriately have a Holocaust Memorial Day. It is equally appropriate to commemorate the victims of the twentieth century’s other great totalitarian tyranny, and May Day is the most fitting day to do so. I therefore suggest that May Day be turned into Victims of Communism Day.

Alas, my father is in really bad shape right now, but (contra Hume) my mother and I are still holding out for a miracle. In his honor, below is the soundtrack of my father’s favorite movie, Andy Garcia’s “The Lost City“.

Here is a link to a photo of my father Don Francisco (far left) with his niece Vivian, my mother Oilda, and myself (far right).

I won’t be blogging today or tomorrow due to an illness in my family. (My father was operated on yesterday, so my mother and I will be in the hospital by his side.)

Apropos of my research on space junk, I wondered how the debris problem is solved in the fictional world of Star Trek; below are some helpful links:

1. Fandom: “Debris” [https://archive.ph/2GcC0]
2. Quora: “In Star Trek, why are phasers not used against space debris, meteor showers etc.?” [https://archive.ph/tnXv9]
3. Physics Forum: “Plasma shields like in star trek will they be possible” [https://archive.ph/86pXT]
4. Reddit: (see below)

5. YouTube: (see below)

Thus far this week (see here , here, and here), I have surveyed the newly-published space polices of Department of Defense and the U.S. Space Force, as well as a third report from the RAND Corporation, all of which call for the U.S. military to procure some of the services and systems they need for their outer space operations from private commercial providers. In addition, I also identified a blind spot in all three reports: they omit any discussion of the problem of space debris resulting from greater satellite congestion in outer space, especially in Low Earth Orbit. Lastly, I suggested a different approach (an approach that I am further developing with my colleague and friend Justin Evans) to this “tragedy of the outer space commons”: markets and property rights, i.e. space auctions. Simply put, domestic agencies like the FCC and international ones like the ITU should assign property rights in orbits and allow those rights to be freely traded.

Before taking a deeper dive into our market-based solution to this new tragedy of the commons, however, I should mention that many other solutions to the problem of space debris have been proposed. Broadly speaking, these proposals fall into one of two categories: regulation or innovation, i.e. one group of proposed solutions is purely legalistic or regulatory in nature, while the other is technical or technological.

For an example of the technical approach, see this 2009 paper in Space Review proposing the use of lasers and other “energy systems” to eliminate orbital debris from outer space (Taylor Dinerman, “Unilateral orbital cleanup“, Space Review, May 4, 2009), or this 2011 thesis calling for the development of a “satellite recycling system” that could be used to repair inoperable satellites and even retrieve particles of space junk (Major Patrick V. Long, “Space Junk Norms: US Advantages in Creating a Debris-Reducing Outer Space Norm“, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Thesis, May 2011).

By contrast, for some examples of the regulatory or legalistic approach, check out this 2014 paper by Nodir Adilov, Peter J. Alexander, and Brendan M. Cunningham calling for a new Pigovian tax on space launches as well as this 2003 law review article by Robert Bird and this 2013 comment by Gabrielle Hollingsworth calling for a new international agreement or a modification of existing outer space treaties.

Starting next week, I will survey both of these competing groups of proposed solutions to the problem of space junk (i.e. regulatory solutions versus technical ones) and explain where both fall short.