30 thoughts on “Jeff Sessions”

  1. “I wouldn’t miss him if Trump were to fire him.”
    Trump seems to want lots of distraction, but I think getting rid of Session would be distraction Trump should avoid.
    ” In addition to Glenn’s reasons, he’ll probably continue to do whatever he can to protect SLS from within the administration.”
    I have been against SLS, but at this point, I would increase funding, if it would make it fly sooner.

    On to another news, Musk favors a lunar base:
    https://www.space.com/37549-elon-musk-moon-base-mars.html

    I don’t favor a lunar base. I favor lunar exploration of lunar poles to determine if there is minable lunar water.
    And the decision to mine the lunar water, would not be govt choice, but those willing to invest in such a business.
    If someone other than govt starts mining lunar water, then a lunar base [govt or whatever] of some sort, could be planned.
    But I thought it was surprising that Musk thought a lunar base would good idea. Strictly from rocket launch provider point of view, it would good for your business- so that part is not surprising.

    1. I have been against SLS, but at this point, I would increase funding, if it would make it fly sooner.

      Why in the world would you want a catastrophic program to fly sooner?

      1. “Why in the world would you want a catastrophic program to fly sooner?”
        If paying 20K a year to build a house, and you are doing this for 9 years, what would you do? So got foundation and the roof are on. And it’s hideous house.

        1. If paying 20K a year to build a house, and you are doing this for 9 years, what would you do? So got foundation and the roof are on. And it’s hideous house.

          Sunk cost. What are you going to do with that hideous house, even if you finish it? It’s very easy in such situations, even when you’ve spent lots of money and the project is significantly underway for the project to not be worth finishing.

          For SLS we have in addition the creation of a huge conflict of interest between NASA, various political forces, and a dependent supply chain, and the interests of the US in space. For example, how many projects will be twisted so that they can only fly on SLS rather than a much cheaper launcher like Falcon Heavy merely to provide validation for the SLS? I think we’re already seeing some of that.

          It also nurtures a population of political merchants with an interest in sabotaging private space launch viability in order to protect their SLS sugar daddy.

          1. -Sunk cost. What are you going to do with that hideous house, even if you finish it?-
            The point would be to finish it.
            If can’t be finished, end it [btw, no one is claiming it can’t be finished]
            If I were building the house- I would finish whatever in mid progress which could be finished soon. And sell it [unfinished]- if could not finish it quickly.

            But this is NASA- not a business.
            NASA “saves” money by taking forever to do anything.
            The mistake started with idea of planning on building house which take + 9 years to build.
            Anyways the senators are building a rocket, I have them finish building their rocket.
            It’s their baby, let’s see it walk.

            -For SLS we have in addition the creation of a huge conflict of interest between NASA, various political forces, and a dependent supply chain, and the interests of the US in space.-

            Yes. NASA should not be building rockets. And Senators shouldn’t building rockets.

            -For example, how many projects will be twisted so that they can only fly on SLS rather than a much cheaper launcher like Falcon Heavy merely to provide validation for the SLS? I think we’re already seeing some of that.-
            You mean like the Shuttle program did.
            I think we are at different place than with Shuttle program. I don’t anyone making argument that the more SLS flies the cheaper it will be. I don’t think the Military wants to use SLS.

            So, don’t favor spending more money to increase SLS flight rate, and don’t favor spending any money on making it lift 130 tons, just get it to the 70 ton payload by spending more money- if it would get it flying sooner.

      2. If we could take all of the money spent on SLS/Orion to date and change how much was spent in any given year, would SLS/Orion be flying today?

        My suspicion is that the answer is yes. Spending more money could get SLS done because a lot of the costs of SLS are overhead costs that accrue regardless of what work is being done. But this is the same problem that makes SLS/Orion so terrible in operation. It is the operational costs of SLS/Orion that make the program not worth continuing more than the development/production costs.

    2. Strictly from rocket launch provider point of view, it would good for your business- so that part is not surprising.

      Ya, and he needs something to do between Martian launch seasons.

    3. Musk is simply coming to realize that his plan is even more ambitious than he first realized. A smaller ITS is a rational adjustment. A moon base isn’t something he really wants, but he sees it as a possible financial path to what he does want. I hope to address this in my book which is stalled until some research material reaches me from Amazon.

      1. By smaller, do you mean something that a FH could lift?

        The way I see the ITS is as an ascent/decent vehicle and not necessarily a space ship. But when sending them to Mars, why not put passengers on them? IMO, trading the living space for more passengers would be the way to go but perhaps you also want some of that extra space in case the ship has to loiter for a while.

        Ships that carry only a hundred people aren’t going to let you get to millions of colonists any time soon. But depending on the turnaround time on a launch, they could get a lot more people into LEO with fewer ITS’s in a launch season.

        Let’s say the have 10 ITS’s. If they all go to Mars that’s 1000 people. Not bad for an initial trip. But if those 10 ITS’s can launch once a week, you can put 52,000 people into LEO in a year. Granted, that creates the problem of what is a good sized space ship(s) to move them to Mars but colonization looks a lot more feasible at that point.

        Even if 5 ITS’s are on Mars and 5 on Earth that’s still 26,000 people. And you wouldn’t want to launch an ITS from Mars empty, so it creates opportunities for shipping some other form of items back to Earth.

        1. Elon seems to have made the mistake of thinking linearly when growth is a curve. 100 passengers can not happen in regular flights without getting the funding in place first. 1000 ITS is even worse.

          Start with a stretch Dragon as I put forth years ago. Red Dragon doesn’t work because it can not carry enough landing fuel for a reasonable safety margin even with just 2 crew.

          FH can put 16 mt in mars orbit. That means a small, perhaps 8 crew one way lander. Although it could be refueled to return to earth, there’s no point to that. Cost per crew would not be sustainable, but it would get a permanent base established which makes lower cost per crew possible later.

          Having enough infrastructure producing at known rates on mars means greatly reducing the risk and mass of following missions.

          For the ITS to make sense they have to operate with a full crew to bring down cost per crew. That only happens after a productive base is established. But that is not enough.

          Expecting passengers to arrive on mars destitute isn’t going to encourage the required market volume. Nor provide for required on going supply needs.

          The answer exists, but Musk is not the source. He is simply a possible enabler.

        2. I see the ITS is as an ascent/decent vehicle and not necessarily a space ship

          I think I see where you’re going? ITS on mars just as SSTO.

          So perhaps you have an Aldrin cycler of 1000 crew class. Ten ITS load it up as it passes Earth. 10 ITS stationed in mars orbit take them from the cycler when it passes mars.

          Only the cycler makes the journey. The ITS each serve a particular planet?

    1. Drats. He wasn’t particularly old either. Seems to have been heart failure. I’m a big fan of the power beaming approach. Condolences to his family.

      1. The concept of laser propulsion is about as old as he was. It’s a shame it didn’t make more progress during his life. RIP.

  3. Sessions is worse than disappointing for Glenn’s exact reasons.

    Trump screwed up. Perhaps he’s not (never was) my god king?

  4. Thinking further, this could be just what Trump needs? He can use asset forfeiture as a reason to dump Sessions. Then replace him with someone that will not recuse but will fire Mueller, solving a number of problems in one sweep and come out of it more popular.

    1. “Thinking further, this could be just what Trump needs? He can use asset forfeiture as a reason to dump Sessions.”

      Not sure how Trump feels about asset forfeiture; I hate it but Trump has voiced his support of eminent domain, admittedly something different but still.

      ” Then replace him with someone that will not recuse but will fire Mueller, solving a number of problems in one sweep and come out of it more popular.”

      Agreed. I also agree with Trump saying that Sessions should have let him know he was going to recuse himself on the Russian matter during the vetting process of AG. Maybe Sessions will be so embarrassed by Trump publically rebuking him that he will offer/tender his resignation; probably not but one can hope.

      1. Wouldn’t the normal procedure be for Trump to just suggest to Sessions that he tender his resignation? A very political move for sure, but there’s a time honored reason for such things.

  5. Tim: I also agree with Trump saying that Sessions should have let him know he was going to recuse himself on the Russian matter during the vetting process of AG.

    Is there any indication that Mr. Sessions, prior to confirmation, planned his recusal?

    From what I’ve read, Justice Dept. ethics officials discussed it with him after he was confirmed, but that he didn’t decide until the Washington Post reported his meeting with Ambassador Kislyak, contradicting his confirmation testimony.

    1. The timeline really isn’t important at this point. Sessions has become a liability. Excuses don’t have to be true, just expedient. Even in this hyper-intense media circus nobody could question Trump if he came out against asset forfeiture.

      As for eminent domain, any rich real estate mogul would be for it. Nobody would ever accuse Trump of being a saint (or god/king.) We need to focus on accomplishments. Not articles of faith.

    2. Whether or not he planned or didn’t plan to recuse himself, I seem to recall the possibility being discussed before he was appointed? Maybe I am mis-remembering. But this seems like something that should have been anticipated. Also, since the pressure to recuse was manufactured, Trump could have just acted like other Presidents and told Sessions not to do it.

      Its not like the media could have gone too much harder on him and recusal certainly didn’t mean the media was going to go easier on the matter.

  6. If Trump were to fire Sessions, I would hope Sessions would be replaced by someone who ISN’T a drug warrior.

    1. Trump doesn’t like drugs because of what they can do to people and he is a moderate centrist, meaning he has no problem with some things being illegal.

      I would like to think that legalizing weed would help things out but most of the crime from drug users is from people who do drugs other than pot. I have yet to see a compelling case to legalize meth but I could support arrests leading to not just punishment but also forced behavioral changes.

      The problem with a lot of the prison reform stuff I have seen is that it doesn’t consider the victims and doesn’t actually change the perpetrators.

      1. ” I have yet to see a compelling case to legalize meth . . .. ”

        Here’s one: it’s your body, so you have the right to decide what and what not to put in it. Of course, if you think you’re body doesn’t belong to you, then I guess that’s not very compelling.

        1. It does belong to you, but your actions on meth destroys the people around you… every… time… without… exception.

          If an adult want to take meth, then fine. Enforce the criminal penalties for their associated actions. Give meth to a minor? Death penalty should help discourage that.

          1. “It does belong to you, but your actions on meth destroys the people around you… every… time… without… exception.”

            Really? So if I take meth, people drop dead magically around me? Could you explain?

          2. people drop dead

            Not what I said. It destroys people. Some may use it for years. They and their families are still destroyed by it.

            I am not aware of any exceptions. I am aware of people that after destroying their life and their relationship with their families were able to stop taking meth and put together some type of life, but they could at any moment go back to it, throwing away any small amount of achievement.

            I’ve seen it happen to people for decades. People that think they’re the exception that can handle it are just fooling themselves.

  8. Asset forfeiture has got to go or at the very least be restricted to people who have been convicted of a crime. The extrajudicial f’ing with people who may or may not be engage in crime is a poor substitute for just enforcing the law.

    A person whose activities justify this behavior from LE should also justify them going to jail, which is the appropriate and legal punishment.

Comments are closed.