Via WorldChanging, an item about a NASA sponsored simulation of Mars colonization that’s being sat on instead of released. I don’t see why there is a need to do much of anything active to release it other than just slap it on a web server, but then again, I’m not a NASA official. Who the hell knows what calculus leads to this sort of thing. From the article linked in the WorldChanging post it sounds like most likely somebody had an overly ambitious plan to release it on CD, and once the money dried up they didn’t come up with an alternative. If anyone reading this has free server space and is willing to host the game, I’d suggest contacting Professor Henry directly and offering to distribute the game. Double bonus if you distribute source as well. My bet is that if source is released the very first hack will be to add hostile aliens and weapons.

Thomas James mildly fisks a clueless space policy op ed.

By the way, I just got a complaint in the previous post that I’m doing too much politics, and not enough space stuff.

Maybe. I just don’t see that much going on in space right now worth commenting on, and if you browse through some of the space related blogs to the left, you’ll see that there’s not much activity there either (other than at the always-prolific Clark Lindsey’s site).

Maybe it’s just the dog days of August (and my continuing travails in getting the California house rented and finally getting to Florida), but I’m also getting a little burned out on space commentary. After almost three years of this, and a couple years of Fox News columns, I start to feel like I’m repeating myself. In addition, I just finished up a several-thousand word essay for The New Atlantis (in the mail to current subscribers, probably on line about the beginning of September, at which point I’ll put up a link to it), and I’m expanding it into a book, so I don’t have a lot of space energy remaining to blog about it unless something really topical pops up.

And I find the story of how the press is AWOL on Mr. Kerry’s tall tales, and clearly desperate to prop up his candidacy, the most fascinating thing going on right now.

Maybe Andrew can pick up the slack, but I suspect he’s busy as well.

[Evening Update, with thanks to Glenn for the link]

Per Bill Maron’s comment, I don’t think that space is an unimportant issue for this election. I think that, at least for those interested in space, it’s a very important one and an important election, and that Kerry would be a return to the stagnation of the nineties. But there are still over two months to the election, and most people aren’t really paying attention yet. To the degree that I’m going to invest much energy, mental or otherwise, in the subject, I think that it would be a better investment to do so in October rather than August.

Welcome Masten Space Systems to the new-vehicle fray. It’s another VTOL concept.

It’s Monday, which means a new issue of The Space Review. Sam Dinkin points out the logical economic fallacy of “space versus butter” (one in which Senator Kerry indulges himself). Thomas Olson examines the prospects for a commercial heavy lifter, and specifically a Shuttle-derived one. Unsurprisingly, they’re not good. Also, editor Jeff Foust has a review of Dennis Wingo’s new book, Moonrush.

Leonard David has a good survey of the state of space tourism, with a discussion on the risks of failure and their potential effects.

Alan Boyle has an email interview (something that I should have done long before now, if I hadn’t been buried in other issues recently) with John Carmack, in the wake of this past weekend’s vehicle loss (though not necessarily test failure). What was most interesting, though, was a little aside at the end of his column:

…Sunday’s explosive rocket mishap put Space Transport Corp. in the national limelight as an X Prize underdog with a can-do spirit.

The result: A slew of investors have e-mailed the cash-strapped company, saying they are interested in making an investment in the partners’ dream of developing space tourism.

“The national attention has been great. We’ve gotten a flood of e-mail, a lot from potential investors,” Space Transport vice president Eric Meier said Monday after he, company president Phillip Storm and volunteers cleaned up the wreckage and debris of Rubicon 1 on the beach near Queets.

“I’m trying to raise some money, and am responding to people who have expressed interest.”

Of course, it remains to be seen whether these were serious investors. We’ll find out in the next few weeks and months.

Alan Boyle has an email interview (something that I should have done long before now, if I hadn’t been buried in other issues recently) with John Carmack, in the wake of this past weekend’s vehicle loss (though not necessarily test failure). What was most interesting, though, was a little aside at the end of his column:

…Sunday’s explosive rocket mishap put Space Transport Corp. in the national limelight as an X Prize underdog with a can-do spirit.

The result: A slew of investors have e-mailed the cash-strapped company, saying they are interested in making an investment in the partners’ dream of developing space tourism.

“The national attention has been great. We’ve gotten a flood of e-mail, a lot from potential investors,” Space Transport vice president Eric Meier said Monday after he, company president Phillip Storm and volunteers cleaned up the wreckage and debris of Rubicon 1 on the beach near Queets.

“I’m trying to raise some money, and am responding to people who have expressed interest.”

Of course, it remains to be seen whether these were serious investors. We’ll find out in the next few weeks and months.

Alan Boyle has an email interview (something that I should have done long before now, if I hadn’t been buried in other issues recently) with John Carmack, in the wake of this past weekend’s vehicle loss (though not necessarily test failure). What was most interesting, though, was a little aside at the end of his column:

…Sunday’s explosive rocket mishap put Space Transport Corp. in the national limelight as an X Prize underdog with a can-do spirit.

The result: A slew of investors have e-mailed the cash-strapped company, saying they are interested in making an investment in the partners’ dream of developing space tourism.

“The national attention has been great. We’ve gotten a flood of e-mail, a lot from potential investors,” Space Transport vice president Eric Meier said Monday after he, company president Phillip Storm and volunteers cleaned up the wreckage and debris of Rubicon 1 on the beach near Queets.

“I’m trying to raise some money, and am responding to people who have expressed interest.”

Of course, it remains to be seen whether these were serious investors. We’ll find out in the next few weeks and months.

Al-Reuters has a story about Bigelow Aerospace:

The hotelier-cum-space entrepreneur cites his refusal to spend public money as the single most important factor in keeping his costs relatively low.

“It’s substantially important to use private money,” he said of space development. “You can’t do it on time or on budget on government money.”

It might be nice if, in addition to what he’s already doing, he or someone else would emulate another hotelier.

The latest revision of what used to be H.R. 3752 has been released by Sen Inhofe. The new bill is S. 2772 (no static link: go to Thomas and search for “s2772”). Changes are to the definition of suborbital rocket:

`suborbital rocket’ means a vehicle, rocket-propelled in whole or in part, intended for flight on a suborbital trajectory whose thrust is greater than its lift for the majority of the rocket-powered portion of its flight.

I’d prefer “thrust greater than weight,” since lift is a bit harder to keep track of without extensive instrumentation, but that’s just a matter of preferring the easier quantity to measure. Still, it’s a good definition. This eliminates the problem that Rocketplane Limited (formerly Pioneer Rocketplane) had with the definition.

There are some other relatively minor changes, and then this:

The Secretary of Transportation shall not require any additional license, permit, certificate, or other legal instrument be obtained from the Department of Transportation for any activity, including flight and return, for which a license or experimental permit has been issued under this chapter.

This is a nice addition, since it further lowers the bar for flight testing of suborbital vehicles. The experimental permit referred to is similar to the experimental permit for flight testing of aircraft, with the same intent: to lower the regulatory bar to new vehicle development. The entire homebuilt aircraft industry is built on the existence of aviation experimental permits. Anyone contemplating building their own suborbital spacecraft should read the portion of S.2772 dealing with experimental permits (section 3(c)(8) of the bill, about halfway down the page). Read the whole thing 🙂

Hat tip to Randall Clague of XCOR for letting me know about this development.