Amidst the big anniversary tomorrow, it's easy to forget that it's been exactly thirty-six years since Apollo XIII headed off on its ill-fated voyage around the moon. It occurred at an inauspicious time, for those who are triskaidekaphobic.

[Update a few minutes later]

It's also been five years since the X-33 died. That didn't happen soon enough.

I disagree with this, though:

NASA was willing to take the risks inherent in the winged potato for one reason: LockMart was willing to put its money where its mouth was, to a degree that Rockwell, McDonnell Douglas, or Boeing weren't. LockMart had even touted its orbital "VentureStar" as a replacement for the shuttle and Titan IV, ready for flight between 2004 and 2006.

This isn't true, for two reasons. First, NASA picked it because they were enamored with the technology. Second, there's no evidence that Lockheed was "willing to put its money where its mouth was," and quite a bit to the contrary. Their business plan was a joke, and not a good one, but NASA was unable to distinguish between a good and a bad business plan. If Lockheed had really been willing to put its money where its mouth was, it would have made the investment to complete the program. I don't believe for a minute that Lockheed-Martin management ever intended to develop Vstar with their own money. They just told NASA what it wanted to hear.

My understanding is that once Lockheed pledged its own money it was game over. The NASA people knew that other approaches were techically better, but the internal investment by Lockheed apparently trumped all technical considerations and they were unable to go with the better approach.

My understanding is that once Lockheed pledged its own money it was game over.

I don't know where this myth comes from. Everybody pledged their own money. The RFP required cost sharing--it wasn't an option. Lockheed was chosen for its sexy technology.