Canadian Murray Soupcoff doesn’t have much hope for enlightenment from the Joint Congressional Committee investigating intelligence failures leading to September 11. They seem to think that history began on January 20, 2001.

Mark Steyn says that, as dumb as the terrorists were, the bureaucracy was even dumber. It had to be one of the easier pieces for him to write–all he had to do was lift it right from the news reports.

Maybe a few of them have woken up, now.

This is a good week for North Americans to see flyovers of ISS and Shuttle.

A French “anti-racist” group is attempting to prevent the publication of Oriana Fallaci’s latest book, claiming that it’s “anti-Muslim.”

Can we please just drop the word “racism” from the English vocabulary? It’s lost all useful meaning.

You know, when Eleanor Clift, Joe Conason, and other Bubba derriere smoochers were saying that the stories about White House vandalism were just a vicious, lying smear campaign against the sainted Clintons?

Well, of course, nice guys always finish last. The Bush Administration tried to downplay it as part of the “new tone,” but outraged Democrats were demanding an apology.

And of course, as usual, the reality is that the stories were true.

You know, when Eleanor Clift, Joe Conason, and other Bubba derriere smoochers were saying that the stories about White House vandalism were just a vicious, lying smear campaign against the sainted Clintons?

Well, of course, nice guys always finish last. The Bush Administration tried to downplay it as part of the “new tone,” but outraged Democrats were demanding an apology.

And of course, as usual, the reality is that the stories were true.

You know, when Eleanor Clift, Joe Conason, and other Bubba derriere smoochers were saying that the stories about White House vandalism were just a vicious, lying smear campaign against the sainted Clintons?

Well, of course, nice guys always finish last. The Bush Administration tried to downplay it as part of the “new tone,” but outraged Democrats were demanding an apology.

And of course, as usual, the reality is that the stories were true.

Joe Katzman at Winds of Change (who I’ve finally gotten around to adding to my link list) has some interesting thoughts on what the “Abdullah Al Muhajir” aka “Jose Padilla” case implies about Al Qaeda’s abilities and preparedness. He believes that it indicates that they are even less competent and sophisticated than has been previously evidenced by their behavior, and that this represents, if not an actual intelligence coup, one that can throw enough fear and panic into the terrorist network that it will help us turn many more. In short, he thinks it was their Midway.

He may be right, and it’s a good time to review much of the mythology about this organization. Right after September 11, much of the press were praising bin Laden as an “evil genius,” his tactics being lauded as “brilliant.” Unfortunately, even as recently as a couple of weeks ago, even the redoubtable Condi Rice was feeding into this myth–“no one could have foreseen anyone driving hijacked airliners into skyscrapers,” when in fact, many had foreseen it, including Tom Clancy, and as recently as a few weeks before the events, members of the sci.space.policy newsgroup (though the latter were discussing hijacking space freighters, rather than airliners, but the principle was the same). It was easily foreseeable, as long as one wasn’t a high-level bureaucrat at the FBI or CIA.

But any realistic current appraisal, looking back over the past few months, should conclude that if there are intelligent people running this organization, they are few and far between. Most of the ones to which we’ve been exposed seem fanatical and not particularly bright.

The leadership (like much Arab leadership–remember Saddam and the Gulf War–the “Mother of all Battles”?) relies more on bluster and fiery rhetoric than competence. Mullah Omar continued to make his loony predictions of the death of America, even as he was being chased around southwestern Afghanistan, living out of his car.

And as for the foot soldiers, Richard Reid aka Maxwell Stupid is not an exception–he’s probably quite typical. As is Johnny “Jihad” Walker, who walked around Yemen being more Islamacist than the Islamacists, to the point at which he became a joke among the locals.

Even one of the successful hijackers, the misogynistic extremist Mohammad Atta, was so blatant in telegraphing his intentions that it was only the politically-correct tolerance that was so prevalent prior to September that prevented him from being turned in by the government loan officer, for threat to commit bodily injury, if nothing else. Based on descriptions of the behavior of all the hijackers on the airplanes, none of them would have succeeded in their missions on September 12–they would have been far too obvious. And as Joe points out, there’s nothing to indicate that they’ve learned any lessons from any of this.

We have been fortunate, and will probably continue to be, because there are two sets of people here–one is the set of people competent, intelligent and knowledgable to carry off things like this, without tipping their hands beforehand. I belong to that set.

The other set is people who are insane and angry enough to do it (to which, of course, I do not).

The people that we have to worry about is the intersection of those two sets (to go back to Jay Manifold’s Venn Diagram tutorial). That set of people is, fortunately, miniscule.

Unfortunately, it’s not zero, and we will have to remain vigilant.

But not panicked.

There’s an interesting (if not entirely accurate) history of the ill-fated X-38 program in the Houston Chronicle today. However, being the Houston Chronicle, it has a NASA-centric bias. I’ll probably put up a longer discussion of this issue in the next couple days, and it may be the basis of my Fox column on Thursday. Suffice it for now to say that, in my humble opinion, this was an extremely flawed concept, in both requirements and design. Killing it may force some rationality on JSC and the space station partners.

But just let me point out at least one instance of sloppy reporting, or economic ignorance.

Though it no longer has a mission, the one-of-a-kind X-38 orbital test plane will have a market value of $1.4 billion once the assembly is finished, according to two appraisals sought by NASA. That is what it would cost somebody else to build the same craft.

There is a confusion here of two different economic concepts–value and cost.

I can readily believe that it would cost $1.4B to build another vehicle like this to NASA’s specifications. That doesn’t mean that it would have a “market value” of that amount. Value is simply what someone is willing to pay for it on the market.

No one would value it at that price other than NASA. And no one would pay such ridiculous costs for human space access, other than NASA. As long as NASA makes the market, costs will continue to be high.

I got another long email today from an Elizabeth Yager, who works for United Space Alliance, the main contractor for the Shuttle. She, like many, apparently completely missed my point. In addition, she, like many of my readers, fancies herself a deft psychoanalyst.

Bitter are we?

Well, no, not exactly.

Don’t tell me that a kid can’t do something just because the odds are slim.

All right. I won’t tell you that. I haven’t in the past, and I won’t now.

If everyone thought that way, then we would have no astronauts, no doctors any of the other professions that require skills that go above and beyond what you learn in high school.

Yes, but even I don’t think that way, so I don’t understand your point.

Obviously you are going to have to have a background in science and technology to become an astronaut.

Well, if you mean to work for NASA, yes, that’s the case, given the way they’ve rigged the deck. But all the word astronaut means is, literally, “space traveler.” There is nothing inherent in that description that requires a background in science and technology, any more than it’s required for one to be an “aeronaut” (that is, someone who rides in an airplane). And of course, I never proposed that anyone not learn science.

Just like you have to have some kind of athletic skills to be a NBA player…. each profession requires it’s own skill, that’s what makes it a profession. Would you want someone operating on you if they didn’t have a medical degree?

Ummm…no, and you still seem to continue to miss the point, but I can understand how that might be the case, being steeped in the NASA “science uber alles, only Astronauts can go into space” culture.

I didn’t think so, so would you honestly want to send up astronauts that aren’t qualified in the fields they are going up to study? For instance, would you want the Commander or Pilot of a multi-million dollar vehicle to have no experience ever flying?? That’s what I thought.

I’ll be happy when she gets to the end of these strawmen, and things that I don’t think, and didn’t write.

I am proof that if you have a dream and you work hard at it, it can eventually come true. It does take time. Ever since I was ten years old, I’ve wanted to be an astronaut. And sure, when you’re ten years old, everyone wants to be an astronaut. But how many people do you know still want to be an astronaut 14 years later? Not likely. How many people do you know that, regardless of their dream at ten, still have that dream when they are adults? It’s rare and that’s the kind of determination and sacrifice it takes to fulfill a dream of any kind. You have to want it and no matter how tough it gets, you endure and you make it happen. I’m from Louisville, Kentucky, originally, and in Kentucky there isn’t much opportunity for space education. So I knew I would have to leave and go away to gain the education that would one day land me a job here at NASA… and yes that required science and math.

You’re to be greatly admired for your determination and drive. I’m still waiting for you to write me something that was relevant to my column, though.

I work for a company called United Space Alliance, in Houston, TX. They are the primary space shuttle subcontractor for NASA. I analyze the shuttle’s trajectory it takes in order to rendezvous with the station. I also work real-time support in Mission Control, figuring out contingency plans in case something goes wrong. I have a bachelor’s degree in Engineering Physics and am currently working on a Masters of Engineering in Space Operations, as I work full time. It’s a lot of hard work, but it’s worth it because I know one day I will fly into space as an astronaut. If you don’t put in the time and effort it takes to accomplish somthing, then you will never succeed at anything.

Yes, true, all true. I know many people at USA. Many of my former colleagues from Rockwell were transferred there when the company was formed, in a shotgun marriage presided over by Dan Goldin.

To respond to your NASA comment about budget and crew size……yes the astronaut canadate selection is small but if you have that tenacious drive that I’ve always had, then it can become a reality.

Of course it can. Who said otherwise? All I said was that the chances were very high that it wouldn’t become a reality, no matter how good you were, because in addition to the tenacious drive, other factors are involved, including personality, and that there are many more people who are qualified than there are slots for them, because of NASA’s approach, and the failure of our space policy. The fact remains that what we were told in the sixties in school–that there would be a great deal of activity in space in the seventies and eighties, and that there would be many opportunities for us to go–was simply a lie. That’s my point.

They can’t just let anyone become an astronaut, you have to have “the right stuff” (to quote one of the best movies ever) in order for that to happen. You have to be an expert in your field, a field that relates to space, whether it be medical, aerospace or flying.

Well, again, that’s just to be a “NASA astronaut,” not a space traveler. But even if you’re an expert in your field, you’re still unlikely to be able to go. Even if you pass NASA’s extreme criteria and become an official “astronaut,” you’ve still got a good chance at not going, because there are so few flight positions, due to the way that the program has been screwed up.

I mean, the reason NASA has a limited budget in the first place is because tax payers aren’t willing to pay to send people up into space anymore. It’s not exciting enough for them these days.

NASA’s problem is not a limited budget. They’ve had many, many billions of dollars to spend over the years. The problem is in how they spend it. But even if their problem were purely one of insufficient money, it’s not surprising, with attitudes like yours (e.g., The taxpayer should just give us money so we can go into space, even though we’re not going to do a damn thing to help them get into space. Why can’t these stupid taxpayers be satisfied with watching a few of us have fun up there on TV? Don’t those ignorant peons understand how important it is that we send a few of our valuable “astronauts” around and around in a space station? Why don’t they find that exciting? Damned luddites!)

But what they don’t understand are all of the benefits (we use everyday) that have come from Human Space Exploration, such as scratch resistant lenses, athletic shoes, the dustbuster, trash compactors, golf clubs… just to name a few.

Pardon me, but that’s nonsense. Do you really believe that we wouldn’t have those things if we hadn’t had a “space program”? Well, at least you didn’t trot out the old myth about Teflon, which was invented in the 1930s…

I do agree that NASA should do a better job of educating the public on where their tax dollars are going, but that’s another story for another time.

Well, the only thing that you seem to agree with is something that I didn’t say. I don’t believe that the problem isn’t the messenger–or even the message. The public knows exactly what they’re getting for their manned space dollars. They just don’t think that it’s necessarily worth the money. Frankly, neither do I, when I know we could be getting a lot more “space program,” for a lot less.

So how can you expect private industry to front all this money for space colonization or exploration if the tax payers aren’t willing to pay an extra $0.25 a year to help the government?

What kind of question is that? What does one have to do with the other? Can you describe the logic here?

But your article is obviously completely underlined with bitter hostility towards the space program, maybe because you didn’t make it.

What do you mean, “I didn’t make it”? I made it as much as you did. I worked for the largest NASA contractor, for many years, many of them as a manager and project manager. My hostility is toward those who make the space policy that confines us to little dreams, and insignificant, but extremely expensive, achievements.

And it’s not at all “bitter.” Life is too short for emotions like that. I am trying to get people to think about space in a different way, so that the next generation’s dreams can be fulfilled.

And the only way you didn’t make it is if you didn’t want it enough.

Oh, that’s utter nonsense. If there are ten people who “want it” enough, and only two flight slots, there are eight people who aren’t going to fly, no matter how badly they “want it.”

Because it is possible to have a dream, as small in odds as becoming an astronaut, and to make that dream a reality. And it can happen with any dream not just science/technology related ones. So don’t you dare go telling kids out there that their dreams are not achievable just because the odds are less than that of becoming a garbage man! What are dreams if not possible realities for our future?

I never told anyone that. My criticism was not of kids for dreaming–it was of the political establishment that created a “space program” whose purpose was to create jobs in Houston and other places, instead of to fulfill kids’ dreams.