I went to read the NYT editorial that Sam pointed out, in which they advocate cancelling Shuttle and ISS. I assumed that if it was the right recommendation, it was probably for the wrong reasons, given their history, but I actually could find very little with which to disagree. Really, the only reason to keep Space Station Albatross going has been the diplomatic one. Unfortunately, that’s probably been enough, given that the administration has been loathe to give its enemies one more club with which to bash them over our relations with our “allies.” But as the Times points out, even they would probably be relieved to get out from under this white elephant themselves (though they’d know doubt spout crocodile tears about this latest unforgiveable breach in international relations).

Some are complaining in Sam’s post that the only reason that the Times is doing this is because they hate “the manned space program.” Well, if they do, it’s partly because there’s a lot to hate there, and little to love at this point. But they also have to reconcile this charge with the Times’ argument that killing off these deadweight programs could accelerate outward human exploration. In fact, usually the argument from NASA manned spaceflight enthusiasts whenever it’s suggested that we end the Shuttle (and/or ISS) program is that it will toll the end of manned spaceflight in the US, and that a bird in the hand is better than two in the…errrr…Bush.

That argument may have had some resonance prior to January 14th, 2004, when the only human-in-space policy was Shuttle and ISS, but it doesn’t any longer. Yes, some new president could come in and cancel the exploration initiative in 2008, and if that happens, it would be impossible to resurrect the Shuttle and station if they’re ended now. But barring some major political earthquake, I find that scenario unlikely. For better or worse, the public does seem to have some intrinsic desire to see human spaceflight at NASA continue, and I don’t think that it’s in the cards politically to end it. In fact, with the new program having been bought into by both the administration and Congress, I’d think that NASA manned space program proponents would be eager to shed these deadweight programs so they can get on to the more exciting activities of returning to the Moon and going on to Mars. Unless, of course, they’re getting their paychecks from the status quo…

And of course, this all ignores the vast potential for much more interesting private human spaceflight activities, which I’m quite confident will make almost everything that NASA is doing in this area irrelevant by the end of the decade.

Anyway, as I said, I could find little in the editorial with which to disagree. I’ll toss in my concurrence as well, though from a long-term policy standpoint, I don’t really think that it makes much difference to our future in space whether we end these dinosaurs now or later. Either way, humanity’s expansion into the cosmos will have little to do with anything happening at JSC, Marshall and the Cape now. They did some noble and needed pioneering things there forty years ago, but I’m afraid that when it comes to the future, they continue to represent the past.

In tomorrow’s New York Times, they call for the cancellation of Shuttle and ISS. I called for it last June. Seems like a long shot still.

Jeff Foust points to a memo that indicates agreement between NASA and the DoD on new launch systems. Read the comments, too (not just my continuing frustration with the man-rating myth, but the last one by Jim Muncy).

Rich Lowry says that it’s time to retire the Shuttle. He doesn’t really say anything new. Or wrong, as far as it goes.

But he hurts his case (at least with me) by citing Gregg Easterbrook. And there seems to be no recognition in his post of the potential for any non-NASA space activities, though it’s not possible to come up with any kind of sensible policy prescriptions without such a recognition. I also find it frustrating that these calls for ending the program are for the wrong reasons, when the best reason is (and always has been) that the program is a ghastly failure from the standpoint of cost and making spaceflight routine, which was its original goal.

Here are a couple of unprecedented views of an Orbiter in orbit.

Jim Oberg emails that Phil Klass has died:

Phil was a friend and colleague for more than thirty years, an award-winning technical journalist specializing in avionics, for ‘Aviation Week’ magazine. His iron will carried him through his last difficult years against physical hardships brought on by age and medical errors. He had a bulldog persistence in digging into stories most journalists considered too technical, too difficult, or even too un-researchable, both in military and civilian aviation and space systems, and in his pastime of ‘UFO stories’. He aroused fierce enmity in many circles, most of it a credit to his percing intellect and acerbic wit, and if one is best measured by the enemies one makes, Phil had even more reason to be proud. I was proud of him and proud to be his friend.

Nadya [Phil’s wife] went on to say that funeral services will be held at Mt. Lebanon Cemetery, plot 18-4, Section 8B, at 11:30 a.m. on Sunday, August 14. They will be in ‘Temple Micah Cemetery’, located at 2829 Wisconsin Avenue, interment at Mt. Lebanon Cemetery, which is located at 9500 Riggs Rd., Adelphi, MD (DC suburb).

My prediction was borne out. Except it was a day late. And on the other side of the country.

Taylor Dinerman has a new review of an old book. There seem to be only two copies available. With all of the Apollo nostalgia going around these days (especially at NASA) I’d bet there’s a market for a new printing. The proceeds would go to a brave and noble woman, who could use some legal (and sadly, medical) help.

Elon Musk seems to be planning an EELV killer. And I’ve added Jon Goff’s Selenian Boondocks to the blogroll, as well as an Air Force procurement officer’s blog (he’s stationed at Kirtland, but reports on Musk’s visit to Wright-Patt recently, where he seems to have been training) from which Jon got the story, and he seems at first glance to be interested in space procurement. In addition to the SpaceX story, Jon has a lot of good reportage of the recent Return to the Moon conference, and some appropriate criticism of NASA’s new lunar return architecture.

A few weeks ago, I solicited suggestions for additions to the space blogroll, and am embarrassed to admit that I never got around to doing the update, so here’s a second call. If you have a partial or fully space blog that you think that Transterrestrial readers will find interesting, point it out in comments (in other words, I’m actually inviting comment spammers to post here, as long as it’s the right flavor), and I’ll try to actually do an update this time, but if nothing else, you’ll get a little PR from the comments section.

“J. Random American” has a bit of fascinating deja vu from Aviation Week about Shuttle tile repair, and some good questions to which I don’t know the answers off the top of my head:

The similarity of the rest of the system to the original tps repair kit makes me curious about the circumstances under which the original tps repair system development was abandoned. Do we have some new 21st century technology that is essential to making it work which just wasn