I always take news stories about space (or anything, really) in China with more than one grain of salt, but if this turns out to be true, I’ll start to take them more seriously. No serious space power is going to do much in space as long as they continue to throw all the hardware away.
…will be the ObamaCare disaster.
Not really news, though.
Naturally the Trump campaign is bellowing its disapproval of the Cruz-Kasich deal. But there’s nothing unfair about enabling the anti-Trump majority, if it exists, from stopping the nomination of a candidate it believes would be disastrous for the party and dangerous for the nation.
Finally. I hope it’s not too late. Of course, “bellowing” is what the Trump campaign does best.
[Update a few minutes later]
As a result of this profound success, whatever the differences between the two major parties may have been on other issues, these two fundamental bedrock principles underlying the creation and continuation of the post-1945 world order have remained uncontroversial among serious political leaders for the seven decades ever since.
Unfortunately, this has now changed. In both major parties, powerful figures have arisen who are challenging this long-held consensus. Among the Democrats, the chief usurper is the Marxian socialist Bernie Sanders. Among the Republicans, it is the national socialist Donald Trump. Both would gut the Western alliance. Both would wreck the system of global free trade. Both would cause a global depression. Both would unleash the dogs of war. While their rhetoric is quite different, on the central issue of defending or betraying the Pax Americana, the program of both is the same.
It is to be expected that a rabid left-wing socialist like Bernie Sanders would support such a program, and one must be thankful that the remaining Atlanticist forces within the Democratic Party appear to have him and his faction in check – at least for this election year. But what can one say of the Republicans and allegedly “right wing” radical Donald Trump? National Review founder William F. Buckley used to say that conservatives should support the most conservative electable candidate. Hillary Clinton would continue the Obama administration’s deleterious liberal policies for four more years. So she is certainly no conservative. But Donald Trump would destroy the Western alliance and the world economy. On the basis of that comparison, if the two were to face off in November, as incredible as it may seem, William F. Buckley would have no choice but to vote for Clinton. Surely we can do better.
Unfortunately, the problem with Clinton goes far beyond per prospective policies. She would be the most corrupt president since, well…the last time we had a President Clinton. Though Obama’s been no slouch in that regard, either.
Why I regret my vote for Trump.
— Jim Treacher (@jtLOL) April 26, 2016
…and beyond: What could come next.
I was struck by the irony of the president threatening the nation against which we won a war for independence, and who used to be our strongest ally, to prevent them from declaring independence.
[Update a while later]
I think there’s a lot to Dinesh D’Souza’s theory that it’s about Obama senior’s anti-colonialism.
SpaceX has just announced that they’re going to attempt to add another vehicle to their reusable fleet, with another landing attempt at sea early next Wednesday morning from the Cape.
Meanwhile, here’s the most comprehensive analysis I’ve seen so far of how much they can reduce cost and prices, but it’s based on a lot of assumptions.I found this curious:
Musk said the fuel used on a Falcon 9 is between $200,000 and $300,000. Reserving fuel in the first stage for landing adds mass to the vehicle and deprives it of performance, effectively carrying fuel instead of extra payload — a penalty that expendable rockets do not need to pay. Musk was addressing not the performance penalty, but the issue of fuel cost, which is a non-issue in the overall economics of reusability.
Actually, much of the point of reusability is to get to the point at which one cares about propellant costs. It’s expendables in which they are a non-issue.
In which we may not be able to predict natural variability.
Gee, just like now. This is profoundly ignorant of history. Does he imagine anyone predicted the Medieval Warm Period? Or the Little Ice Age? Has he ever heard of the Dust Bowl?
I don’t know if this report is true, but I have no particular reason to disbelieve it.
Dr. Eades reviews what appears to be a very interesting book.
My thoughts: No, we can’t sustain the current human population without agriculture. But then, we’re not sure how we’re going to sustain a human population in space, either. We need advances in technology to solve either problem. I suspect that we’ll be manufacturing meat in the not-too-distant future that will have the taste, texture and nutrition of the real thing, and that will be good for all, including wildlife. But even absent that, I’d amend the old bumper sticker. Grains aren’t food. Grains are what food eats.
The results could leak:
Later the same month Herridge reported an intelligence source saying there was “incredulity” about what was “being discovered.” And more recently we’ve seen former FBI agents write a letter to Director Comey urging him not to let politics interfere with the case, as if there was some ambient concern, perhaps filtering to them from current agents, that interference might happen.
Again, all of this is reading between the lines, but it does appear there is some sense within the FBI that the evidence is there to move forward assuming political influence doesn’t win the day. And if so, this may be a sort of warning from the rank-and-file who don’t want politics taking precedence here. The message is: you won’t be able to bury this.
But they’ll try.