In interviews over the past two days, American officials with access to the intelligence on the test said the United States kept mum about it in hopes that China would come forth with an explanation.
It was more than a week before the intelligence leaked out: a Chinese missile had been launched and an aging weather satellite in its path, more than 500 miles above the earth, had been reduced to rubble. But protests filed by the United States, Japan, Canada and Australia, among others, were met with silence
New to me, anyway. Edward Ellegood, up at Embry-Riddle, maintains a list of links to interesting space articles (particularly as they relate to space in Florida). I’ve been receiving his emails for a while, but didn’t realize that he also has a blog. I’ll be adding it to the blogroll.
Over at The Space Review, Christopher Stone agrees that the notion of space as a sanctuary from military activity in the twenty-first century is a fantasy.
I don’t think he has a prayer of getting the Democrat nomination, barring some political earthquake, but is he really running for running mate?
That would be interesting, if he actually became Vice President, because, traditionally, the Veep is in charge of the space program in the White House (Cheney has actually been one of the most hands off in this regard in years). And Richardson has been very supportive of NewSpace (at least partly because of all the hype over Spaceport New Mexico), so that could actually result in some useful changes of direction for NASA.
Not that I’m thrilled in general about a Dem in the White House, of course.
SpaceX’ next launch attempt has apparently been slipped to mid-February, due to a thrust-vector control issue. The static test firing will still occur this weekend, though.
Did the Chinese violate any treaties about not making messes in space when they destroyed their own weather satelllite? My dim understanding is that this issue remains unsettled in the Liability Convention, due to an inability to agree on a definition of the word “debris.” Any space lawyers out there more up to date?
I’d think that, at a minimum, if any of the bits strike someone’s satellite, or ISS, that the Chinese could be held liable under the OST. If it could be proven that it resulted from this event, that is (probably a difficult thing to do).
OK, Brian. You claim that SS1 cost five to ten million dollars per flight. So riddle me this: if Burt had decided to fly SS1 one more time, do you claim that he therefore would have had to come up with five to ten million dollars more to do so?
If so, why?
If not, then how much do you think that he would have had to come up with, and in that case, what was your original point, which was comparing SS1 cost to other suborbital vehicle costs (i.e., apples and kumquats). Wasn’t the intent of your mistaken posting to attempt to wrongly persuade people that SS1 is not a substantially cheaper vehicle to operate?
You may think that the difference between marginal and average costs is meaningless, but people who actual understand launch economics (and economics in general) do not.
Suffice it to say I find his “arguments” uncompelling, even if I were Catholic.
For one thing, he conflates advocates of space colonization with advocates of people looking for ET, as though the two things had anything to do with each other. He also deploys the foolish Antarctica analogy. He should stick to theology.