Sunday, September 30, 2012
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Friday, September 28, 2012
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Bob Zubrin takes a shot as well.
Wednesday, September 26, 2012
I speculate that Brightman may not just be the latest person to go to the ISS. She might be the second passenger to sign up for Space Adventures' around the moon trip. I can imagine a live musical performance while the Soyuz is looping around the moon. It would be about the coolest thing ever.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
Monday, September 24, 2012
Apparently "Game Change" beat out both "Hatfields and McCoys" and "Sherlock" both better and more popular shows. This suggests the real reason why the screed won the Emmys
Sunday, September 23, 2012
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Keith Cowing beclowns himself with the title of his post on the subject "Romney Adopts Obama Space Policy." His rationale:
But when they get into details (commerce) they want to do what the Obama folks are already doing.
The problem is, that is not true. The Romney paper mentions creating a benign regulatory environment, buying goods and services from the commercial sector, and even expeditious technology transfers. It does not mention the president's Solyndra-like program of heavy government subsidies. Keith is just being a delusional partisan by suggesting that Romney would just adopt Obama's approach to commercial space and move on. Romney, unlike the people who surround the current president, understands what makes private business work.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Thursday, September 20, 2012
The Houston Chronicle has the text of the bill.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Addendum: Rev Carpenter responds.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Monday, September 17, 2012
Sunday, September 16, 2012
Addendum: Rand Simberg clearly did not read article I was responding to with any comprehension. Otherwise he would not post things like this:
Most people don’t realize how close it came to not happening, which is why they foolishly insist on trying to do it again.
But here's a quote from the piece that shows that if anyone is being foolish, it's Rand
Polls both by USA Today and Gallup have shown support for the moon landing has increased the farther we've gotten away from it. 77 percent of people in 1989 thought the moon landing was worth it; only 47 percent felt that way in 1979.
That means support for Apollo and by extension space exploration projects like it have actually increased since the 1960s. Suggesting that we should not use the model for space exploration because of fifty year old polling data is sort of like suggesting we should not fight a war ever again because of Vietnam or that the Great Society is still a great idea because government poverty programs were popular in the 1960s.
The problem is that the Apollo model worked. Kennedy set the goal and the goal was achieved. Liberals opposed (and still do) Apollo because they don't particularly care for space exploration. Libertarians claim that they like space exploration, but only through a particular unproven model of Solyndra or Obama's commercial crew.
Mind, if I were made Space Czar, I would modify the Apollo model a little bit to include both international and commercial partnership. But stating a clearly defined goal and pursuing it with adequate resources and a coherent plan works every time.
Saturday, September 15, 2012
Friday, September 14, 2012
Thursday, September 13, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Rand Simberg thinks I'm confused and that the president's very clear and specific exclusion of the moon was an "off-hand, off-teleprompter" remark about policy. I have to admit that Rand is actually right that I am a little confused. But then so is he, so is Garver, and so is the president. That is because the policy, such as it is, is confused. More than one respondent has suggested that the real policy is to not have any American beyond LEO for the foreseeable future. I can certainly agree with that judgment.
Monday, September 10, 2012
It should be noted that both of NASA's commercial programs, COTS and the CCP, have been carried out under the "Space Act Agreement" law. This legislation has enabled the COTS and CCP contractors to build their vehicles to fill NASA crew and cargo transportation needs without having to fulfill the costly and time consuming requirements of the Federal Acquisition Regulations. This raises the question: Why doesn't NASA ask all its contractors to work under the Space Act Agreement rules?
Addendum: In the meantime Paul Spudis gives the so-called "New Space" rent seekers the back of his hand.
Addendum 2: Mike Griffin adds a lengthy and sober critique of the current administration's space policy. Rand Simberg is annoyed as are many of the people leaving comments. I am hard pressed, though, to read anything in Dr. Griffin's talk that could be argued with or is at variance with known facts. But arguing with "New Space" people is often like trying to tell a flat Earther that the world is round. They just get mad.
Sunday, September 09, 2012
Saturday, September 08, 2012
Friday, September 07, 2012
Thursday, September 06, 2012
Wednesday, September 05, 2012
Addendum: Jerusalem back in. More anon.
Addendum 2: Also God.