Speaking of international space programs, here’s a news story claiming that Japan is going to establish a lunar base.

I don’t know how seriously to take it. It could just be a trial balloon by an agency official. But they don’t seem to be in any big rush about it.

Japan’s space agency, JAXA, is drawing up plans to develop a robot to conduct probes on the moon by 2015, then begin constructing a solar-powered manned research base on the planet and design a reusable manned space vessel like the U.S. space shuttle by 2025.

This was interesting too:

Long Asia’s leading spacefaring nation, Japan has been struggling to get out from under the shadow of China, which put its first astronaut into orbit in October 2003. Beijing has since announced it is aiming for the moon.

Some people think that China’s sending a man into space has kicked off a new space race with us. It may have kicked off a new space race, but the competitors will be Japan and India. And perhaps South Korea (if they can afford in the face of what’s almost certain to be a messy collapse north of their border).

The Japanese program has always been a derivative of NASA’s–the H2 is a knockoff of the Delta, and this talk about their own “Space Shuttle” is just more of that. I’ll take all of these countries seriously when I see significant creativity, and private space activity, and not just government chest thumping.

I was forwarded this email today by Mark Reiff:

My name is xxxxxx and I am a journalism student at xxxxxxxxxxx. I am currently writing a story about international collaboration in space exploration, with a focus on newer agencies and their impact on exploration overall. I was hoping you could answer a few questions for me or put me in touch with a policy analyst or expert who could. I couldn’t find a number for you, so I’m including my questions at the end of this e-mail. But if you’d rather chat on the phone, you can reach me at xxxxxxxx or on my cell at xxxxxxxxxx. My deadline for this is Friday, March 4, so any help before then would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks so much!

1. What motivates countries to join the space race?
2. How do new entrants impact foreign relations?
3. How do foreign relations impact scientific exploration?
4. How does scientific exploration impact foreign relations?
5. What political impacts does joining the space race have on a country?
6. How does president Bush

This looks like an interesting event, but at almost fifteen hundred dollars to attend, it’s way out of my price range.

And this is simply false:

Flight School is new for us – and new for space and aviation, which doesn’t yet have a single gathering where pioneers and entrepreneurs can talk strategy, tactics…and experience, whether in space and aviation or in the Internet computing industry.

Actually, there has been an annual event (and arguably two, if you count the Space Frontier Foundation meeting) that does exactly that for years, and it only costs a hundred dollars to attend.

In fact, it’s just a couple months from now, and I’ll be planning to attend. I’d encourage anyone else interested in alt-space to do so as well. If I had unlimited time and funds, I’d love to attend Esther Dyson’s event, but I suspect that Space Access will continue to be the best such conference, and certainly the best value, for some time to come.

Thomas James has a brief post that describes what’s really holding us back from space settlement.

He also joyfully points out that moonbat extraordinaire Bruce Gagnon now has a blog. I expect that Thomas will be a regular visitor, and commentator.

Eric Soskin writes about a sighting of some interesting public outreach for the new space exploration activities.

Clark Lindsey points out another boneheaded move by Congress in the name of “national security”:

Congress, in its collective ham-fisted oafishness, dictated after 9/11 that the government place restrictions on access to spacecraft tracking information. Apparently, this will keep terrorists from shooting down comsats with RPGs…

… Congress once again shows that it is incapable of making sensible policies with respect to space that carefully and effectively targets the particular problem without causing devastating collateral damage to nearby legitimate activity.

If you haven’t been paying attention to the current state of play in the regulation of suborbital vehicles over the past few months, Jeff Foust has a good, up-to-date summary today.

And yes, I am very busy, with some consulting on the Vision for Space Exploration. And I don’t get President’s Day (which I think is an atrocity to the memory of Lincoln and Washington) off.

Sam Dinkin is promoting better space journalism.

Chairman Boehlert had a very interesting opening to today’s hearing on the NASA budget. Some highlights:

I am for returning humans to the moon by 2020. I am for moving ahead prudently but swiftly with the development of a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) for that purpose. I am for retiring the Space Shuttle as soon as possible, but under absolutely no circumstances later than December 31, 2010. I am for a NASA that sees itself as a science agency, with all of Space Science, Earth Science and Aeronautics receiving theattention and funding accorded to priority areas. I am for a NASA that is open to outside ideas from academia and the private sector…

…We understand that the Administration could send up in the next month or so proposed language to amend the Iran Nonproliferation Act. That

Is that “very soon,” as in perhaps tomorrow, Keith?