A dumb piece at Newsweek.
On the other hand, here’s a smart piece from Eric Berger: We’re going back to the moon, with or without NASA. Absent a major change of attitude in Congress, probably without.
A dumb piece at Newsweek.
On the other hand, here’s a smart piece from Eric Berger: We’re going back to the moon, with or without NASA. Absent a major change of attitude in Congress, probably without.
They say they’ve closed the loop on the propulsion system for the Lynx. Sounds like they still have to improve it to get needed performance, but that’s a breakthrough. One of the long poles, as well as the wings.
…and it’s on life support:
…let’s recap. Obamacare has depressed job growth, costs are escalating at a higher rate, barely a dent has been made in the numbers of uninsured, and insurers are either exiting the markets or failing altogether. Under any other circumstances, a program that failed on its promises so badly would have all sides moving quickly to repeal it and work on a replacement. Don’t bet on that outcome from this White House and its dwindling number of Democratic supporters on Capitol Hill. They will surely try to sell us the illusion of competence and success.
Because they’re as delusional about it as they are about the war.
Hell, it’s a whole beautiful state of losers:
Later, at the site where world leaders are meeting to negotiate a climate pact outside of Paris, Brown urged a small crowd to “never underestimate the coercive power of the central state in the service of good.”
“You can be sure California is going to keep innovating, keep regulating,” the Democratic governor said. “And, shall I say, keep taxing.”
Texas beckons. I just hope the transplants don’t ruin it there, too.
..is a “Faustian bargain“?
Really?
This is ridiculous. The wealthy have always had more access to better medical treatment, and always will. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t develop new medical treatments.
Thanks for the congratulations, but despite what LinkedIn is telling you, I don’t have one. I just updated my profile to reflect the LLC I set up a couple years ago. LinkedIn isn’t smart enough to figure out that when I add something I’ve been doing for a couple years, it’s not something new.
There will probably be some reportage of yesterday’s hearing, but Anthony Watts has his written testimony.
[Update a while later]
Bishop Hill has the video of Mark shredding the climate fascists on the committee.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Here is the video: A State Ideology.
[Update a few minutes later]
Here’s the story from Michael Bastasch.
[Late-morning update]
Here’s some whining at The Hill by some idiot from Texas, who thinks that Judith Curry is a “denier.”
An interview with Jeff Greason, at Space.com.
NASA Watch has a draft of the NAC statement on LEO operations and ISS transition. It’s as though it’s posted from an alternate reality:
Even after a shift of focus to cis-lunar space and beyond has occurred, NASA may need to maintain some capability to get astronauts into low Earth orbit. If the Agency concludes that such a capability is necessary, it would be unwise to assume the existence of commercial demand for human access to LEO that may or may not materialize. Taking steps to encourage commercial activity in LEO may not be adequate to guarantee a successful transition.
So WTF is this supposed to mean? By NASA “maintaining some capability,” do they mean on a NASA owned/operated rocket? When Commercial Crew is operational (and there is zero reason to believe that won’t happen, regardless of how much Congress attempts to delay it with budget cuts), that will be how NASA gets its astronauts into LEO. Even in the very unlikely event that no commercial demand emerges, that capability will remain in place for as long as NASA wants to use it, at a much lower cost than NASA has ever gotten anyone into space. So can someone on the NAC explain to me what this word salad means? What are they proposing? Because if they’re proposing SLS/Orion, that’s economically insane.
Comparing and contrasting NASA and private industry. I prefer the term “space transports” to RLVs, though.