If this new paper is correct, we should be firing up our SUVs.
Thirty years on, how do climate predictions hold up?
Not well. [paywall]
He’s going to be on The Space Show in a few minutes (2 PM PDT), talking about space law and space property rights. I’ll be interested to hear what he has to say.
BTW, just turned in the proposal to NASA this morning, so I’m sort of decompressing.
[Update a few minutes later]
Welp, five minutes past, and so far he’s a no show.
[Update a couple minutes later]
OK, sounds like they’re about to start now.
[Update toward the end]
Nice to hear him endorse the multilat idea I’ve been (and will continue to be) promoting.
As one of the few remaining moon walkers, I admire him, which is why it saddens me to see him regurgitating pro-SLS propaganda. I’m in the last throes of a proposal, or I’d take it apart, but maybe someone else will.
That’s quite a hed and URL of this NYT story about private space facilities. I don’t know why it would require fifteen weeks of training, though. I think that’s more likely to put wealthy people off than the price tag.
Alan Boyle (unsurprisingly) has a better story about it.
The (rare) voices of reason:
10. Can we put the polarization genie back in the bottle, on climate or anything else? I really don’t know. But I do wonder how those advocating further radicalization of climate advocacy imagine any of this ends.
11. Making ever more radical demands might be a fine strategy were there someone to negotiate with. But by the reckoning of most prominent climate hawks, there isn’t.
12. Nor does it appear that a more inclusive climate coalition is likely to bring larger congressional majorities. Any Democrat-only climate strategy has to be predicated on not only winning but holding purple/red districts over multiple elections.
13. These are precisely the districts that radicalized climate rhetoric alienates culturally and the green policy agenda punishes economically. Since the failure of cap and trade in 2010, climate activists have taken rhetoric to 11, and what it got them was Trump.
And it will continue to.
Doug Messier is less than impressed with Peter’s latest announcement. Well, it seemed like a good idea at the time (the 1990s).
Some advice from Scott Hubbard. But here is the problem:
…the new administrator must provide NASA and the rest of the world much more clarity on the brief statement issued by Vice President Pence and the newly revived Space Council that the United States will “lead the return of humans to the Moon.” Studies of the future of human space exploration have for decades emphasized that Mars is the target of greatest interest for reasons of science and exploration.1–4 The last initiative that attempted to include both human landings on the Moon and eventually Mars, the so-called Constellation program, collapsed from its own budgetary (over) weight.
Two points: First, the assumption that human spaceflight is about “science and exploration.” I’ve written about this error at length. Second is the notion that Constellation collapsed because it was attempting to do both the Mars and moon. It wasn’t seriously trying to do either. NASA wasn’t seriously trying to do either.