Transterrestrial Musings

This looks like an interesting event. I just sent Alan a draft copy of my book in anticipation of it.

Five myths.

On the airport shuttle at LAX.

Even without hearing the president’s speech tonight, as a space policy analyst, whenever I hear about a “Sputnik moment” from a politician, I shudder, because I can be almost certain that it will have nothing whatsoever to do with Sputnik, let alone space policy. It will likely be guaranteed to be a foolish and false analogy, just like “…if we can land a man on the moon, why can’t we…”.

Sputnik (like Apollo) was a unique event in American (and perhaps even human) history. It was the heart of the Cold War. We were in an existential battle with an enemy (the Soviet Union) about the capability to bombard each other with nuclear weapons. Both adversaries were developing rockets, with help from captured Germans from the recent world war. We got the cream of the crop, because Von Braun had decided that he had better prospects to pursue his dreams of planetary exploration by humans with the American ideals, and had consciously escaped to the west with his hand-picked team. He was ever the pragmatist with his ambitions (including his looking the other way at Dora and other Nazi work/death camps that supported his rocket program during the war).

But of course, the president’s speech had nothing to do with that. It was about…other things…that have nothing to do with Sputnik, in either analogy or reality.

Sputnik was about pure, raw, technological skill, in an area in which we felt vulnerable at the time.

It had nothing to do with what made America exceptional.

Look, if the president wants to talk about space, then I’m all in favor of it. But, given his political proclivities, I’m glad he doesn’t. Let’s just not talk about what a “Sputnik moment” it was.

I’m not a big fan, but I didn’t jump on her for her latest supposed politically correct faux pas. And it turned out that my judicious patience was correct, because she apparently loves Christmas.

I should add that, if I had jumped into the fray against her, I’d be apologizing now. I’m glad I don’t have to, but I’d still have done it with grace.

SpaceX has just announced an attempt at 9:03 EST tomorrow.

What to look for this evening, hour by hour, starting at 6 PM Eastern time.

…against drugs.

The most recent disquisition on the idea is now available on line, as a PDF.

[Update a little later]

Yes, it’s long and wonky (it’s an appendix of a Space Policy Institute study), but once past the first couple pages it gets more interesting.

[Late evening update]

For those not aware, “SSA” is a TLA for “Space Situational Awareness.”

[Update a few minutes later]

I read this several months ago, and only passed it on in a hurry this morning on my way out the door, but by way of encouraging interest in the article, here is a representative sample of it:

Throughout the early days of aviation, there was a network of mutually supporting connections between the predecessors of the Air Force and the aviation industry, including both aircraft manufacturers and the airline operators. All parts of the aviation world generally supported each other. Due to NASA’s peculiar status as the sole civil government space organization for the majority of its life, NASA on the one hand has tightly controlled its contractors and discouraged robust discussion of means and ends when such collided with perceived NASA organizational goals. Meanwhile it viewed the emergence of private entities providing service directly to customers with hostility, or at a minimum an awkward uncertainty as to how such efforts should interact with the agencies. A USSG would be able to start with a clean slate and strive for a more balanced relationship with an industry whose existence and prosperity is part of its charter and rationale. A USSG might better be able to have comfortable and useful interactions with the Air Force, NASA, and the commercial space sector.

Really, read the whole thing, if you’re into space policy.

I went over to El Segundo last week and did a PJTV interview with Instapundit about space policy. It’s up now.

I do not find this woman attractive.

Not that women are falling all over themselves to try to figure out how to make themselves attractive to me.

Why are we so afraid to call socialists socialists?

…from Shirley Sharrod:

The word racist is losing its sting. Racism used to be such a horrible thing to call someone, but since Obama became President it has been over-used by the left to describe anybody who disagrees with Progressive politics. It doesn’t seem as evil a word as it used to be, that is very sad.

…Damn, those lefty “reporters” really hate Andrew Breitbart. They couldn’t wait to pounce on him for this story despite the fact that they couldn’t have read his post that well. Do they hate him for his politics or because he does their job much better than they do? I pick both.

I did a radio interview on a Fargo station a couple hours ago (yes at 5:10 AM PDT) on my PJM piece, and have another one scheduled on the Martha Zoller show at 8:20 this morning (11:20 Eastern, in Gainesville, GA). We do seem to need a new word to describe the concept of thinking that someone else is inferior because they have a different hue to their skin, because the leftists have removed all useful meaning from the word “racism.”

[Update a few minutes later]

This week in racism.

[Update a while later]

What Sharrod’s speech wasn’t about — racial transcendence:

Pardon me, but I think I’ll stay off the Canonize Shirley bandwagon. To me, it seems like she’s still got plenty of racial baggage. What we’re seeing is not transcendence but transference. That’s why the NAACP crowd reacted so enthusiastically throughout her speech.

Yes, there does seem to be overshoot the other way. She’s certainly no saint, particularly given her slander of Fox News.