I hadn’t previously commented on the story, because I don’t take it seriously (for one thing, even ignoring the design issues, how do they propose to get people to it at that price?), but Clark Lindsey notes a disparity in coverage between this fantasy, and a much more hopeful announcement by a real space hotelier.

[Update a few minutes later]

Jeff Foust is (unsurprisingly) skeptical as well.

It’s taken far too long, and cost far more than it’s worth, but it’s definitely progress.

We used to have a concept back in the eighties at Rockwell called Extended-Duration Orbiter (EDO) in which we’d pack extra fuel cells in the payload bay to extend the mission length of a Shuttle flight, because electrical power (provided by fuel cells, which had finite propellants) was the initial tallest pole in the tent to allowing longer missions.

Now that the station finally has surplus power with the last installation of solar panels, it can provide some to the Shuttle to allow an extended stay there.

Never shy to reveal his issues on his blog, Mark Whittington describes his false memories:

I remember being hooted at when I suggested that China might want to deny access to space to other countries, including new space entrepreneurs.

When did that happen, Mark? Got a cite to an actual web page?

Here’s an essay from Tad Daley describing why so-called “progressives” should be interested in the expansion of humanity into the cosmos.

[via Keith Cowing]

An interesting discussion over at Space Politics about public awareness of, ignorance about, and interest in: NASA, space, space science, and the vision. And I agree with “anonymous” that this is not a (completely) unfair characterization of the human spaceflight program:

ISS: 22 years, 100 billion. Science return: minimal. NASA has no money to use it once it

Pamela Gay is hosting the fifteenth Carnival of Space.

Not a lot, in terms of practical propulsion, but Centauri Dreams reports that there is progress.

…what the Shuttle astronauts had for lunch? I guess it’s good, because it means it must be a slow news day (i.e., everything is going smoothly for a 6:36 PM launch).

I’m still trying to decide whether or not to drive up. I’ll have to leave within a couple hours if I’m going to make it. Patricia is working up in Orlando today, so the problem of finding a parking/viewing location is compounded by the need to meet up somewhere.

[Update a little before 3 PM]

I’m having a gumption shortage. I can’t get sufficiently enthused to sit in a car for several hours today, when I’ve got so much stuff to do around here. So I’ll see if I can see it from down here.

NASA has a new graphical element. Keith Cowing is underwhelmed. Me, too. Lots of good comments from the readers. I liked this one:

‘Market tested research’ lands NASA with a triangle with tiny words on each corner?

They tested this where? The planet Triangulus?

Of course, I think that the lack of an inspiring logo is actually toward the bottom of the agency’s problems. But I think that this is symptomatic (even, if I can use a word, emblematic) of a general lack of imagination there, on all fronts.

But at least, as Keith illustrates, it’s already starting to inspire the crew for today’s flight.

If this story is true, Orion is becoming even more Apollo-like:

Previously, the Orion was designed to land on large airbags at a landing range, although earlier hints that was no longer going to be the case came via documentation that showed a water landing – off the coast of Australia – for the Orion 3 unmanned test flight in September 2012. The first manned flight, Orion 4, was due to land at Edwards Air Force Base.

Also part of the mass saving design cycle – knocking off a total of 1,200 lbs from Orion – is the deletion of green propellants on the Crew Module, returning to the tried and tested hypergolic Reaction Control Systems (RCS). This weight savings measure was made in-line with the change to a water landing, due to salt water’s neutralizing of potential hypergolic fuel spills after splashdown.

This has many program implications. Water landing has an impact on the trade as to whether to expend or reuse the crew module. Previous trades assumed a land landing, and indicated that both life cycle and per-mission cost would be much lower for reuse, assuming a certain number of flights. But if they land in water, they may not have as much confidence in their ability to refurbish. If this means going to an expendable, they just increased the marginal flight costs quite a bit. And going to hypergolics continues to delay the day that we get propellants that are both clean, and (relatively) easy to manufacture off planet, such as methane and LOX. Of course, if they’re not going to refurbish, then at least they don’t have to worry about servicing a hypergolic system as part of turnaround, which has always been one of the ops-cost drivers for the Shuttle.

In addition, water landing means that they have to deal with a fixed-cost recovery fleet, for a low flight rate, because I don’t think they’re going to get free aircraft-carrier service, as they did in Apollo.

These are the same short-sighted types of decisions that killed the Shuttle program–pinching pennies up front with potential large increases in operational costs. And all because they chose to oversize the system, and wastespend their money building a new NASA-unique launcher that’s turning out to lack the performance they need.

[Update a couple minutes later]

I see that Chair Force Engineer and Clark Lindsey are also less than impressed.

[Update in the early afternoon]

Keith Cowing reports that PAO denies that a decision has been made. Make of that what you will…