Larry Kudlow (ever the optimist) has some thoughts, and advice for Republicans.

My biggest concern is that there’s still a big housing overhang, with adjustables coming due over the next year, which will continue to exacerbate the real-estate market and finance.

(Doctor) Paul Hsieh explains why lovers of freedom should fear “universal health care”:

Government attempts to regulate individual lifestyles are based on the claim that they must limit medical costs that would otherwise be a burden on “society.” But this issue can arise only in “universal healthcare” systems where taxpayers must pay for everyone’s medical expenses.

Although American healthcare is only under partial government control in the form of programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, American nanny state regulations have exploded in recent years.

Many American cities ban restaurants from selling foods with trans fats. Los Angeles has imposed a moratorium on new fast food restaurants in South L.A. Other California cities ban smoking in some private residences. California has outlawed after-school bake sales as part of a “zero tolerance” ban on selling sugar products on campus. New York Gov. David Paterson has proposed an 18 percent tax on sugary sodas and juice drinks, and state officials have not ruled out additional taxes on cheeseburgers and other foods deemed unhealthy.

These ominous trends will only accelerate if the US adopts universal healthcare.

But how could it be a nanny state on steroids? That’s probably one of the first things that will be banned…

…comes to Washington.

As one commenter asks, is Nancy Pelosi the Botox Kid?

I think that it’s pretty much a fait accompli that someone will, and probably in less than three weeks. On The Space Show on Sunday, David Livingston asked me if I’d heard any rumors who might be the next administrator. I told him that the only name that I’d heard (and not from any off-the-record discussions) was Charlie Bolden. Bobbie Block has a blog post up now confirming him as a front runner.

I have no idea, assuming that he is in fact going to be chosen, and accepts, what this would mean for the agency, or my own desires for its future direction. The last time we had an astronaut as administrator (Dick Truly), it was kind of a disaster. He basically went to war with the GHW Bush administration over the Space Exploration Initiative, going so far as to send his congressional liaison over to the Hill to lobby against it, in preference to focusing on the space station, which eventually got him fired and replace by Dan Goldin (frying pan, fire). One shouldn’t draw grand conclusions from a single example (though many love to do so with Apollo, Shuttle, and ISS), but we have one unfortunate result of our one experiment with an astronaut administrator.

The other candidates mentioned are Scott Hubbard, Sally Ride (another astronaut, of whom I have good reason to think would be a disaster, from my point of view, because she doesn’t seem to share my own space vision based on past statements and activities), Wes Huntress and Alan Stern. Of those four, the only one that I can say right now that I’d like to see get the job is Alan Stern, based on his past comments about needing to harness private enterprise much more than the agency has been. For what it’s worth, Keith Cowing claims that none of them are interested in the job, with the possible exception of Hubbard.

What I found interesting though, is the last bit:

The current head of Obama’s transition team, Lori Garver, is hoping to be deputy administrator.

Lori has told me herself that she has no interest in being administrator, so this is consistent with that, at least. But I think it would be a mistake. I actually think that it’s more important for the deputy to be technical, with technical management experience, whereas the administrator need (even, perhaps in light of the Griffin experience, should) not be. The deputy is sort of like the COO of the agency, managing daily operations and coordinating the centers. The administrator is more like the CEO, and should be laying out strategy, and interacting with the public, White House and Congress. So while not necessarily endorsing her for either, I actually think that, assuming I had to make a choice, she’d be a better pick for administrator than deputy.

I’ve never talked about Ruben Van Mitchell much here, but he was a key player in the development of useful launch regulations, both on Hill and at the FAA, over the years. Unfortunately, he will do so no more. Condolences to family and friends.

[Bumped to Tuesday morning update]

There are a lot of justified encomia from space policy people (some of them high-powered) in comments at NASA Watch.

From Dennis Prager:

Who exactly in the European Union is condemning Israel? Its conservatives? Who in America is condemning Israel? Conservatives? Who in Australia or Canada? Conservatives? Of course not. As regards Israel (and America and much else), the Western world’s moral idiots, to use the term in the title of the Dershowitz column, are virtually all on the left, including and especially many of his colleagues in academia.

So, I have a question for my friend Dershowitz. (I say ‘friend’ because we’ve known each other for years and debated and dialogued together.)

Given that Israel’s security is so important to you, given that you believe that the ability to morally distinguish between Israel and its enemies is tantamount to the ability to distinguish between good and evil, and given that those who condemn Israel for its “disproportionate” response to Hamas terror-rockets are almost all on the left in America and Europe, why do you continue to identify yourself as a man of the left?

As he notes, there has to be a cognitive dissonance going on there. As well as a lot of other complicated issues.

I am expecting this to come along in a reasonable amount of time. I have lost my wisdom teeth, but I suspect that they’ll come up with other ways to find the needed stem cells.

[Via Mark Whittington]

The science of attractive faces.

Jay Norlinger has an ugly and depressing compendium of artists imposing their politics on their audiences.

I have to confess that I, too, have thusly sinned (though I think in a much milder manner). At the Space Access Conference last March, prefatory to giving a brief talk on propellant depots (with a hundred-and-one-degree fever, though I’m not sure that’s an excuse or that I wouldn’t have done it at normal temp) I made a brief (and oblique — probably only a few got it) joke about Hillary “dodging sniper fire” in Bosnia, which had been in the news recently. It wasn’t at all in the same class as Nordlinger’s examples, but it was probably inappropriate. It was in no way germane to the topic of discussion, and I can see in retrospect how some Hillary! supporters in the audience could have been offended, if they got it. For that I apologize here.

I’m glad to live in a country in which these artists can engage in such boorish behavior, but I’m glad also that we live in one in which we can use our own free-speech rights to point it out (even in real time), with admonishments, boos, or even voting with our feet. If more did so, perhaps the phenomenon would at least be tamped down. It’s probably hopeless, though, when you live in New York, or Ann Arbor, in which these cretins feel safe in their cocoon to behave in this manner.

Update a few minutes later]

This seems related somehow — fighting back against the new Hollywood Blacklist. Andrew Breitbart explains what he’s trying to accomplish. Roger Simon has further thoughts.

Leon Panetta gets a critical endorsement for taking over the CIA:

President Clinton called him “a trustworthy public servant who knows how to keep his mouth shut.”

“Leon was by my side for two and half years,” said Mr. Clinton. “About 14 months of his service came during the time that I was not having sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky, in the White House. During all those months, no one ever knew what my chief of staff knew or didn’t know, nor do they know it now.”

Mr. Panetta has also been a vocal opponent of the use of torture, but Mr. Clinton said “that’s likely just a lasting effect of his close contact with the former First Lady.”

The funniest thing is that I won’t be very surprised if Bill actually says something like this, given his foot-in-mouth behavior during the campaign.

Here is my take on that silly story about the Obama administration “merging” NASA and the Air Force to keep the Yellow Peril from beating us to the moon.

Meet the new culture of corruption.

Not the same as the old culture of corruption…

From Robert Kaplan:

How do you fight unconventional, sub-state armies empowered by ideas? You undermine them subtly over time, or you crush them utterly, brutally. Israel, unable to tolerate continued rocket attacks on its people, has decided on the latter course. Our own diplomacy with Iran now rests on whether or not Israel succeeds. We need to create leverage before we can negotiate with the clerical regime, and that leverage can only come from an Israeli moral victory—one that leaves Hamas sufficiently reeling to scare even the pro-Iranian Syrians from coming to its aid. In defense of its own territorial integrity, Israel has, in effect, launched the war on the Iranian empire that President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, in particular, can only have contemplated.

This war really started two and a half years ago, in Lebanon, and Israel has been fighting it mostly on its own, but as he points out, the US has to be ready to continue the pressure on Tehran if/when Israel crushes its puppet in Gaza.

Would entry heating from orbit pop a kernel of popcorn?

I don’t really have time to think about it much right now, but the answer is (as is often the case), it depends…

The Islamists want to roll the world back to the seventh century. Fortunately, the Congressional Democrats only want to revert back to 1993. It’s bad enough, though:

After decades of Democrat control of the House of Representatives, gross abuses to the legislative process and several high-profile scandals contributed to an overwhelming Republican House Congressional landslide victory in 1994. Reforms to the House Rules as part of the Contract with America were designed to open up to public scrutiny what had become under this decades-long Democrat majority a dangerously secretive House legislative process. The Republican reform of the way the House did business included opening committee meetings to the public and media, making Congress actually subject to federal law, term limits for committee chairmen ending decades-long committee fiefdoms, truth in budgeting, elimination of the committee proxy vote, authorization of a House audit, specific requirements for blanket rules waivers, and guarantees to the then-Democrat minority party to offer amendments to pieces of legislation.

Pelosi’s proposed repeal of decades-long House accountability reforms exposes a tyrannical Democrat leadership poised to assemble legislation in secret, then goose-step it through Congress by the elimination of debate and amendment procedures as part of America’s governing legislative process.

I was always grimly amused when I heard Democrats fulminating about how power-hungry Bush and the Republicans were. But this is what fascists do. Even “liberal” ones. Not that there’s anything wrong with that…

I wonder how (or even if) the media will cover this?

Ron Rosenbaum says don’t compare them with Hamas.

[Update a while later]

The reaction among the left to Gaza seems passing strange to me, given that so-called liberals tend to elevate intentions over actual results when evaluating policies.

Raising the minimum wage increases lower-class unemployment? Who cares, our hearts were in the right place in wanting them to have a living wage.

Raising capital gains taxes reduces government revenue? That’s all right, it’s what’s necessary for “fairness.”

Welfare creates dependency on the government? Hey, we’re just trying to help the poor. Who are you to criticize us, you cold-hearted right wingers?

Disarming people leaves them defenseless? You gun nuts are just trying to stop us from trying to reduce needless slaughter with guns.

Green policies are helping bankrupt California? How can you complain about us when we’re trying to save the planet?

But somehow, all this gets turned on its head when it comes to their analysis of the Middle East. What are the Israeli intentions? To live in peace, without a threat to their lives and nation, and to minimize casualties, on both sides, in any war waged against them.

What are Hamas’ intentions? Their intentions (and not secret ones, but stated openly and proudly, as Ron Rosenbaum points out) are the most evil imaginable (other than the extinction of the human race itself). Their explicit goal is the extinction of all Jews in creation. They are prevented from achieving this goal only by their lack of military weapons with which to do so. If their capabilities matched their intentions, Israel would be no more, as would Jewry (and other infidels, eventually) everywhere.

But somehow, their vile intentions, which should be condemned, by the traditional values of these “liberals,” become irrelevant to the discussion. No matter that their intentions (to create as many casualties on both sides as possible) are often partially achieved — they are completely ignored. The focus is not on intentions at all, of either party, but only on outcomes. And since, by Hamas’ design, the vast number of casualties occur in Gaza, by Israeli weapons, and despite the life and treasure they expend to minimize them, the Israelis are viewed as the problem, and their intentions be damned.

It is a “liberal” Bizarro world.

[Update a few minutes later]

Some thoughts from Caroline Glick:

Q: Is the media here in the U.S. or internationally remotely fair?

A: When the media are only interested in what is going on when Israel defends itself, the answer is no, they aren’t fair. They don’t pay any attention when hundreds of thousands of Israelis are relegated to bomb shelters for weeks and months on end. They don’t care that Israeli children can’t go to school or day care because Hamas is targeting schools and day-care centers. They only cover the story when Israel finally decides to put an end to this crazy situation where our children are growing up underground. And this is appalling.

From CNN’s coverage of events here, for instance, you could easily come away from the news thinking that Israel is attacking Gaza for no reason. The European media, and much of the U.S. media dismiss the significance of Hamas’s missile, rocket, and mortar campaign against Israel by noting that these projectiles are relatively primitive and have no guidance systems. But this misses and indeed distorts the entire point. Hamas doesn’t need advanced weapons. Its goal is not to attack specific military targets. Its goal is to attack Israeli society as a whole and terrorize our citizens. That’s what makes it such an outlaw.

In fact, this random bombing of civilian targets is the very definition of war crimes. Due to their random nature, every projectile launched against Israel by Hamas is a separate war crime. And that’s the real story. But again, outside of publications like National Review and the like, the Western media have ignored this basic truth and worse, they have turned the criminal nature of Hamas’s campaign into a justification for it.

…Q: A lot of critics say that Israel is just going too far in its attacks. What do you make of the charge?

A: The interesting aspect of this claim is what it tells us about the success of anti-Israel propaganda. For instance, Richard Falk, the Jewish anti-Semite who the U.N.’s Human Rights Council appointed to act as its rapporteur against Israel began accusing Israel of committing war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza the moment Israel began its campaign. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch systematically fabricate international “law” backed by “eyewitness” reports from Hamas supporters in order to accuse Israel of breaking it every single time it takes any steps to defend itself, no matter how restrained.

Israel has done nothing in its campaign against Hamas that could be considered going “too far.” It has done nothing in its campaign that could be considered “disproportionate.” It has targeted military targets and terror operatives.

The fact of the matter is that Israel is held to standards that are discriminatory while its enemy — an illegal, openly genocidal terrorist organization — is defended and shielded from attack by the media, by self-proclaimed human-rights activists and by hostile foreign leaders like British Foreign Minister David Miliband and Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan.

It’s what they do. Read the whole thing.

I’ll be on The Space Show tomorrow at 3 PM Eastern (noon Pacific), to discuss Ares, Shuttle, EELVs, alternate architectures, Mike Griffin’s job prospects, etc.

[Monday afternoon update, with a bump]

The podcast is now available.

It would be nice to say that I was surprised by Richardson’s…errrr…issues. But I wasn’t.

At all.

For one thing, it was hardly news. But it’s also not like this is anything new. There have been lots of shady behavior and associations with the New Mexico governor, going back to his stint in the Clinton administration. He probably didn’t know why the White House wanted him to find a job for former intern Monica Lewinsky, but unless he was stupid, he had to have figured out (at least after interviewing her) that it wasn’t because she was going to light the UN on fire with her diplomatic skills and encyclopedic knowledge of world affairs (though other types of affairs wouldn’t have been out of the question).

And as I noted a few weeks ago, when a state is characterized by insiders as “Lousiana with chiles,” it’s unlikely that the governor himself isn’t in the thick of the corruption. It also makes one wonder what kinds of deals that Virgin Galactic had to cut, perhaps partly under the table, to get the lease agreement signed. If so, was this really the Great WhiteHispanic Hope for commercial space, in Washington or elsewhere?

Anyway, Jonah Goldberg has some more impressions from his book tour:

With the exception of Bill Clinton, it’s difficult to think of a major politician who has been plagued more persistently by troubling rumors of all sorts. When I was in New Mexico not long ago, it felt like I was visiting Little Rock in the way everyone had a sketchy story, theory or little-known fact. Some was very vague, some of it was clearly over the top, and some of it was quite plausible. My guess, and this is only a guess, is that Obama has dodged a bullet here.

Of course, the question is why did it take so long for the bullet dodging to occur? How did he get the nomination in the first place? Should the president-elect blame it on bad staff again? Why can’t this guy find good help? As a reader at Instapundit writes: “They told me if I voted for McCain, I’d have a President who didn’t properly vet his nominees –- and they were right!”

[Update early afternoon]

Pejman Yousafzadeh has some useful thoughts on a replacement:

The Richardson withdrawal represents a remarkable stumble by a transition process that has been notable until now for its sure-footedness and its ability to garner praise from both Democrats and Republicans for the professionalism of its execution and for the quality of its appointees. It promoted the president-elect to say that Richardson “would have brought to the job of commerce secretary and our economic team great insights accumulated through an extraordinary career in federal and state office,” just before throwing Richardson under the bus. To this comment, my RedState colleague Francis Cianfrocca replies: “That makes me feel wonderful! Hey Mr. Obama, how about picking a Commerce Secretary with great insights accumulated though an extraordinary career in COMMERCE?” It’s not a bad idea. One of the commerce secretary’s responsibilities is to be an advocate for the formulation and implementation of trade policies and nowadays, the political class doesn’t seem to have the first clue how best to conduct trade policy. One would think that with the memory of the misguided Smoot-Hawley tariff — one of the epic fails of the 20th century — still relatively fresh in our minds, we would not veer towards protectionism. And yet, we see that the incoming Obama administration sought to counterbalance the appointment of a pro-free trade United States trade representative in Ron Kirk with the appointment of the anti-free trade — and pro-card check — Hilda Solis to the Labor Department. Given this antediluvian personnel appointment, we need a commerce secretary who has both read and understands the powerful point behind Frederic Bastiat’s most famous parody, but since the president-elect seems determined to choose his commerce secretary from the ranks of government rather than from the ranks of those who actually have firsthand experience with, you know, commerce, I’m not optimistic on this front.

Neither am I. Let’s hope for a surprise.

[Afternoon update]

This CBS report says that Kansas governor Kathleen Sebelius is on the short list to replace him as the nominee. I have no idea what that means for space commerce.

Max Boot, on why the world won’t allow Israel to win the war, or beyond that, why they cannot allow themselves to do so:

The essential dilemma Israel faces is this: It can’t ignore Hamas’s attacks, not only because of the damage they inflict, but also because of the terrible precedent they set. Israel has always been a state that is one battle away from destruction, and it cannot allow its enemies to think that it can be attacked with impunity. But at the same time Israel cannot do what it takes to wipe out the enemy, because of the constraints imposed by its own public, which is far less willing than in the past to suffer or inflict bloodletting.

So the Jewish state is forced to fight an unsatisfying war of attrition with Hamas, Hezbollah and other entities bent on its destruction. The current incursions are only one stage of this lengthy struggle. The odds are that once Israeli troops leave, Hamas will rebuild its infrastructure, forcing the Israelis to go back in the future.

This is the definition of a quagmire, yet Israel has no choice but to keep doing what it’s doing. Unlike the French in Algeria or the Americans in Vietnam, it cannot simply pack its bags and go home. If Israel is to continue to exist, it will have to continue to wage low-intensity war for a long time to come — definitely years, probably decades, possibly centuries.

Sadly, there are no good solutions. Does the incoming Obama administration understand this, and the nature of Israel’s (and our) enemy?

Though this MIT report on the future of human spaceflight came out a few weeks ago, I haven’t yet taken the time to read it, other than to read through the summary, which I found underwhelming. Fortunately, Jim Oberg has, and explains why I did in today’s issue of The Space Review:

…it promotes some non-historic and deeply troubling myths of space policy that have led to grief in the past and, if accepted for future decisions, could serve as a roadmap for frustration and disaster.

Fundamentally, the sense of the report remains torn between opposing goals: using space in the “best interest of the United States”, and using space in the best interests of the world as a whole.

First, it falls for the classic wish-fulfillment fantasy that playing nice together in space—forming partnerships on significant space projects—can actually compel terrestrial nations to become more friendly to each other despite deep-seated conflicting goals. Second, the report promotes the view that the cost of large space projects can only be afforded if they are shared by an international alliance—contrary to all experience, including that of the ISS, that splitting national responsibilities for integrated projects makes them more expensive, not less. And thirdly, it promotes a dangerously diversionary and dead-ended theory for the root cause of space disasters such as the loss of the shuttle Columbia and its crew: that there was just not enough money, a factor that can easily be fixed by budgetary largesse. Using such views as foundations for policy decisions in the coming years can only result in more waste, more losses, and a lot more tears.

There are also lesser issues, which can be dealt with in a follow-on review. Fundamentally, the sense of the report remains torn between opposing goals: using space in the “best interest of the United States”, and using space in the best interests of the world as a whole. While not a zero-sum game, “space leadership” does tend to benefit those who have it over those who do not, mainly in curtailing options to the secondary players and compelling dependent status on them for important space functions (think GPS). And while selling a policy aimed at benefiting the paying country (the US) may have domestic political value, too nationalistic a sales job at home could make selling it to potential partners more awkward.

Yes, such reports by academics often have this aerie-faerie, kumbaya quality that is divorced from real history or the real world, as I noted a few years ago. As Oberg points out, this politically correct fetish for internationalism for internationalism’s sake has actually held us back and cost us more than going it alone would have, despite claims (i.e., false rationalizations) to the contrary. But as he also notes, there’s always another danger to these kinds of groupthink reports:

The report’s treatment of spaceflight safety is inexplicably muddled, considering the talent available to the group.

Ignoring the factual inaccuracies, I think that muddling is an almost inevitable consequence of report-by-committee, because it’s always hard to get full agreement and consensus on such things, and it can fall prey to the Committee Effect. I’m wondering how it was actually done. Was it a bunch of inputs that were stitched together, or did one person sit down, take the inputs provided, and try to put together a coherent story? The latter is much more difficult (for that one person) but the former rarely provides a coherent (or consistent or fully accurate) narrative. In any event, like most space policy reports of this kind (see Commission Report, Aldridge), it will simply be put on the shelf to collect dust. Which, in this case, might not be the worst thing.

Particularly in comments. I haven’t figured out what the difference is between Twitter and a short blog post, and why I should have to deal with yet another channel of communication. Of course, I still haven’t figured out what Facebook is for.

Here are two stories that are kind remarkable, in terms of their locale. First, the Huffpo, of all places, says that Al Gore is a scam artist:

You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.

Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that “the science is in.” Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.

Contemplate it for a moment, even go read it in whole, before considering the second, a protest of thousands of people supporting Israel…in Paris.

Unfortunately, it was still smaller than the pro-terrorist crowds.

Apparently, here’s another example of the old adage that you get what you pay for:

RESIDENTS of a model housing estate bankrolled by Hollywood celebrities and hand-built by Jimmy Carter, the former US president, are complaining that it is falling apart.

Fairway Oaks was built on northern Florida wasteland by 10,000 volunteers, including Carter, in a record 17-day “blitz” organised by the charity Habitat for Humanity.

Eight years later it is better known for cockroaches, mildew and mysterious skin rashes.

Admittedly, cockroaches (aka “Palmetto bugs”), mildew and skin rashes (both mysterious and otherwise) aren’t exactly unheard of in Florida. Our own home is built on fill from dredging canals from the Intracoastal, and if we wanted to go to a second story, we’d probably have to sink deep pylons. But it does point out the hazards of feel-good limousine humanitarianism, and unrealistic expectations of recipients of free stuff. I certainly would have been a little nervous about living in a house hand built by one of the worst presidents of the twentieth century. The comments are great.

Fox News is reporting that Bill Richardson is withdrawing from the Obama cabinet as Secretary of Commerce, probably over his pay-to-play problem. He was perceived by the space community as someone who would provide full support for the department for commercial space, based on his record of supporting space tourism and related ventures as governor of New Mexico. I wonder if the transition team had some backups to go to, or if it will be a while before we know who will replace him?

[Update a couple minutes later]

Jeff Foust is already on the case, with linkage.

As Clark notes, here is a very nicely written piece on parabolic flight and weightlessness. Rare is the reporter (even science reporters) who get the physics right on this, because (as he points out) they get confused by the phrase “zero gravity,” which doesn’t really exist anywhere in the universe. Only one quibble:

Each period of ‘weightlessness’ is limited to half a minute or so; otherwise we ‘zeronauts’ would continue freefalling right into the Nevada desert at 600mph. As it is, during half-a-minute’s power- dive we drop nearly 20,000ft - although inside the plane we are completely unaware of this.

This gives the impression that weightlessness only occurs when you “drop” (i.e., descend in altitude). But it actually happens on the way up as well. In both cases, you are “falling” (in the sense that there is no force acting on you other than gravity). First you fall up, then hit the top of the trajectory, then fall down, weightless all the while, and unable to discern your direction of motion. If this seems counterintuitive, it is. But consider an elliptical orbit. As you approach perigee you’re heading down (toward the earth), and once you reach it, you start heading back up (away from the earth) to apogee, but you’re in orbit, and free fall the entire orbit. A parabola in an aircraft is an orbit that, if continued, would intersect the earth’s surface (which is why it is wise to not continue it). And of course, to be more technical yet, it is only parabolic in an approximate sense (assuming flat earth). In reality, it is a tiny section of an ellipse, because the contents of the aircraft are (briefly) in orbit, within the atmosphere.

I should also note that the phrase “power dive” is also misleading. “Power dive” implies that you are diving with engines at full thrust to get down as fast as possible, but in fact, the engines are barely running above idle throughout (until the pullout). Their only function is to overcome wind resistance so that the aircraft can approximate a cannon ball falling in vacuum.

If you defend Israel’s right to defend itself, and accurately point out that Hamas is committing war crimes on an ongoing basis, you’re a “right-wing activist,” but if you are a member of International A.N.S.W.E.R, cheering on the terrorists of Hamas, you’re merely a “protester.” As is pointed out, apparently 80% of Israelis are “right-wing activists.” News to many of them, I’m sure.

And here are some thoughts on Israel’s war objectives:

Israel will stop the operations not when the rockets stop, but rather when Israel thinks it has crippled Hamas and hindered its regenerative ability to the point where the next incredibly challenging step can be taken: Assist and empower Fatah enough in Gaza that it can once again raise a significant challenge to Hamas’s violent domination there. Fatah was decimated in Gaza by Hamas in ‘06 and ‘07. It must be rebuilt.

This would be consistent with the reports that Fatah is providing the IDF with targeting coordinates.

…when you need a damper arm between the pad and the launch vehicle.

It reminds me of the walkers that older folks sometimes have to use. For the same reason. This is almost getting to be a bad (and very expensive) joke.

…of evolution.

There are some interesting top stories over at Space News this weekend. First, there is discussion of the results of the Shuttle extension study, which says that it would be possible to extend Shuttle all the way to 2015 without impacting Ares development, as long as additional budget was provided. One of the biggest arguments against it is the risk of losing another orbiter:

According to the study, both options increase the risk of losing a crew or vehicle: The two-year extension increases the cumulative risk from a 1-in-8 probability to 1 in 6; extending operations through 2015 increases the risk to 1 in 4. The risk of losing an orbiter or crew on any given mission is 1 in 77, the report said.

I know that in the past NASA has been too optimistic about probability of crew/vehicle loss, but I think that 1 in 77 is probably too conservative now. I suspect that, post Columbia (and resolution of the foam issue and ability to inspect and safe haven at ISS for all missions other than Hubble), the Shuttle is probably as safe, or safer to fly now than it’s ever been. That’s not necessarily an argument not to retire it, but I don’t think that the risk of vehicle or crew loss is a compelling argument against extension, either.

I would seriously dispute this comment from Mike Griffin:

In a Dec. 15 interview, Griffin called reliance on Soyuz “unfortunate in the extreme,” but said NASA needs the $3 billion it spends annually on shuttle to move ahead with the replacement system.

“Every time I have spoken about [the gap] I’ve laid it at the feet of budget,” Griffin said. He emphasized that without an increase in NASA’s overall budget, extending shuttle operations will result in a corresponding delay to Orion-Ares 1.

I’ve got a better set of feet to lay it at — Mike Griffin’s decision to develop an unneeded new launch vehicle, which was not intended within the vision or the budget “sand pile.” He knew what the budget was going to be, but rather than moving out on developing actual exploration hardware, and encouraging private industry to get people to LEO via COTS D or something similar, he decided to take that money and develop Ares.

Speaking of which, he appears to be losing the battle to save it:

Griffin said NASA also explored the possibility of developing a larger rocket based on EELV hardware and systems. “We went through it and we came up with the answer that the EELV-derived solution didn’t save you any schedule, didn’t save you any money, wasn’t that safe, and when you look at going beyond the space station mission to the heavy-lift architecture, was quite a bit more expensive. So it didn’t win on any count,” Griffin said. “At this point I’m kind of wondering what has to happen to have people say, ‘OK, I guess they got it right.’”

No need to wonder, Mike. Here’s what has to happen. Show us the actual results of the analysis, along with the assumptions. Then we’ll be able to decide whether or not “they got it right.” Until you do so, we will remain (appropriately) skeptical. It’s too big a decision, with too many implications for taxpayers’ dollars, and our future in space, to just take your (and Scott Horowitz’ and Doug Stanley’s) word for it.

Finally, there is a story that claims that the Orbital proposal for COTS, which was the highest cost, was also the lowest rated. Given Dr. Griffin’s history (and potentially future) with OSC, this will be sure to raise some eyebrows. Particularly since it looks like Planet Space is going to protest. Charles Lurio notes via email that he has a source who claims that:

…a reason for rejecting Planetspace was that Griffin didn’t want an EELV to be used, since, though the only flights would be unmanned, it would further underscore to people that EELV was a viable alternative to Ares 1.

At the time, it sounded like an extreme story even given Griffin’s mania to save Ares 1.

Now, with the comment in the Space News item that Orbital had, “the highest price and lowest score,” I’m starting to think that the story may be a lot more plausible.

Unfortunately, it may be. He’s really on the defensive.

Clark Lindsey has more.

From Perry DeHavilland.

It would sure be nice to have a major political party that I could actually vote for.