The LA Times has a feature on their editorial section called the “Dust-Up,” which is sort of a daily two-sided debate on a given issue, with each week having a theme. This week, in recognition of the half century since Sputnik, they’re hosting a dialogue between Homer Hickam and yours truly. Homer went first today, and I get the last word du jour. It will be the other way around tomorrow, when we talk about destinations.

And note, I did not lead off with “Homer, you ignorant slut.”

[Update in the evening]

I see that Keith is whining again, that I’m not sufficiently obsequious to the space agency to which I’m giving the best technical advice that I can, for pay.

Well, Keith, here’s the deal. I’m a (I like to think) competent space systems engineer, who can help NASA execute its goals, however misguided. I do that because I like to think that I have professional integrity, and (honestly) because doing such things is my job, and it’s how I pay my bills. They don’t (at least for now) pay me to tell them how to open the cosmos, so I don’t do that for pay from them. I do it in other venues. I just help them do what they’re trying to do, as mistaken as it is, as best I can.

I didn’t realize (as you seem to think) that part of my job is to praise their programs publicly, even though I think them not in the best interests of the nation, or our goals of opening space. If NASA thinks that’s part of my job, I guess I’ll hear about it. If they want to pay me to do that, I’ll consider it, but I doubt if I’d take the job.

But if they did, I think that would be a sad commentary on the federal space program, and NASA’s belief in what it’s doing. And I’m willing to stick my neck and mortgage out and continue to write what I think.

I’ll do you the courtesy of thinking that you do the same.