The Germans want ESA to rethink it.
SpaceX is being very disruptive.
The Germans want ESA to rethink it.
SpaceX is being very disruptive.
A story on the legal issues associated with personal suborbital spaceflight.
Stop being such a disruptive innovator!
Why should anyone care what Anthony Weiner thinks about anything?
…and then there’s college.
It’s foolish, even devastating, to put yourself deep into undischargeable debt to get a worthless degree. In a sane world, the people promoting this would be jailed for fraud.
Why does she still have a job?
Treacher explains.
Here’s a story by Dan Leone, in which Mo Brooks makes an historical ass of himself:
One SLS supporter, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.), said he was “astonished” that Bolden would claim the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama had nothing to do with the current gap in U.S. human spaceflight capability. Brooks’ district includes NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, which is leading the SLS effort.
“When the space shuttle was mothballed [in 2011], President Obama was president of the United States,” Brooks said. “He could have made the decision to continue to use the space shuttle, or to continue to keep it available in the event of an emergency. He chose not to.”
He had no practical choice, Congressman. The point of no return on the program was reached before Obama took office. The parts needed to keep it flying were already out of production, and the cost of restarting it would have been astronomical, if it could be done at all. It makes me weep to see such monumental ignorance from the people who are running space policy on the Hill.
But Dan misses what is, to me, the big story from the hearing. Interestingly, Brooks office released a transcript late in the day:
Congressman Brooks:… What would be the consequences to the operational capabilities of the Space Station if within the next year, Russia chooses to deny us access by no longer allowing us to hitch a ride on their rockets?
Administrator Bolden:…The partners would probably have to shut the Space Station down…
Congressman Brooks: If the Space Station is shut down for an extended period of time, say a few years more or less?
Administrator Bolden: I will go to the President and recommend that we terminate SLS and Orion…
Congressman Brooks: Let me make sure I understand the sequence of events from your testimony. You correct me if I err. If the Russians deny us access to the International Space Station, it’s your testimony that because of what services we provide to the International Space Station, you would have to shut it down. And if the International Space Station is shut down, you in turn would then see no reason to have the Space Launch System or Orion, so is it fair for me to infer that you would then recommend that those programs be shut down too?
They should be, regardless of what the Russians do. But this is stupid. We have invested over a hundred billion dollars in the ISS. It is only now starting to do any significant research. What Bolden is saying that he would abandon it, rather than risk flying without an abort system, even though we flew Shuttle without an abort system for thirty years. I’d like to think that he wouldn’t actually do that — that he’d decide to just ask SpaceX how soon they could start flying people to keep the program going. I hope that he was just bluffing to try to get Congress to properly fund Commercial Crew, because if he isn’t, it’s maddening. If he’s serious, it indicates that he’s completely unserious about spaceflight. And of course, someone should write a book about that.
[Friday-morning update]
Jeff Foust has the story now over at Space Politics.
[Mid-morning update]
Here’s another report, from Marcia Smith.
It’s not really a review, per se, but the book is featured at Ricochet today.
Jeff Foust mined Gwynne Shotwell’s Space Show interview for some interesting nuggets. Here’s what I found interesting:
Despite concerns about US access to the ISS given current tensions with Russia and NASA’s current reliance on Soyuz, Shotwell said she didn’t think it was feasible to greatly accelerate the development of a crewed Dragon. “We proposed a pretty forward-leaning program” for commercial crew, she said. “I don’t want to say that we couldn’t speed things up: we probably could, but it would have to be in lockstep with NASA.” She added that SpaceX current believes it can have a crewed Dragon ready “a little bit faster” than current NASA plans for flights in late 2016 or early 2017. [Emphasis added]
I’m pretty sure that if NASA went to her and Elon and said, “we want to fly this year, and we’re willing to do it without the abort system,” they’d be able to do it.
…is about to change to one of resilience and mitigation.
It badly needs to. We can afford a lot of resilience and mitigation if we stop impeding economic growth with insane anti-carbon policies.
A “flagship” LOX/Hydrogen system with solids (sounds like cross between an Atlas V and Delta IV), to be operational in 2020. This seems more like a national pride thing than a practical launcher, unless they can resolve their site and calendar restrictions out of Tanegashima.