I’ve long complained that NASA’s efforts to reduce costs were misdirected, because their focus was on technology (which is a problem, but not a major one) rather than new markets and financing (which is the problem). We’ve long known that many people would go into space if they could afford it–polls have always shown it–but NASA has steadfastly ignored this, instead always perverting every launch study they do into a replacement for the Shuttle–oversized, and underflown (the most recent example being X-33, though the SLI program shows signs of the same debilitating tendency).

They have spent (and in most cases, wasted) billions of dollars on this, when a tiny fraction of a percent of the funds that they’ve spent on these technology efforts could have funded some serious market polling that vehicle developers and investors could literally take to the bank.

Finally, after many years, a mere trickle of the NASA new-vehicle funding (this time out of the Space Launch Initiative) has gone toward this end, which will have value far beyond the billions previously spent on technology and system studies.

A NASA contractor, Futron, has directed Zogby International to do a poll, using funding from their market-analysis contract with NASA. Unlike previous polls, which queried the general public, this one focused on people with the actual means to go.

The unsurprising (to me) result is that rich folks are like any other–half of them want to go, and are willing to pay what it costs. Mark Shuttleworth isn’t a weirdo–he’s typical. Of course, the way in which the rich folks aren’t like you and me is that they can afford to.

To me, this is one of the most exciting things that’s happened in space in a long time (partly because I’ve been advocating it for many years). It will go a long way toward making investors take this market more seriously, the previous lack of which has been holding us back. The frustrating thing, of course, is that it could have been done any time over the past couple decades, had we had more visionary people running the agency.

I’ve long complained that NASA’s efforts to reduce costs were misdirected, because their focus was on technology (which is a problem, but not a major one) rather than new markets and financing (which is the problem). We’ve long known that many people would go into space if they could afford it–polls have always shown it–but NASA has steadfastly ignored this, instead always perverting every launch study they do into a replacement for the Shuttle–oversized, and underflown (the most recent example being X-33, though the SLI program shows signs of the same debilitating tendency).

They have spent (and in most cases, wasted) billions of dollars on this, when a tiny fraction of a percent of the funds that they’ve spent on these technology efforts could have funded some serious market polling that vehicle developers and investors could literally take to the bank.

Finally, after many years, a mere trickle of the NASA new-vehicle funding (this time out of the Space Launch Initiative) has gone toward this end, which will have value far beyond the billions previously spent on technology and system studies.

A NASA contractor, Futron, has directed Zogby International to do a poll, using funding from their market-analysis contract with NASA. Unlike previous polls, which queried the general public, this one focused on people with the actual means to go.

The unsurprising (to me) result is that rich folks are like any other–half of them want to go, and are willing to pay what it costs. Mark Shuttleworth isn’t a weirdo–he’s typical. Of course, the way in which the rich folks aren’t like you and me is that they can afford to.

To me, this is one of the most exciting things that’s happened in space in a long time (partly because I’ve been advocating it for many years). It will go a long way toward making investors take this market more seriously, the previous lack of which has been holding us back. The frustrating thing, of course, is that it could have been done any time over the past couple decades, had we had more visionary people running the agency.

In a comment about my post on the Chinese space program, Mark Whittington writes:

The Chinese missed a big opportunity to became a world wide imperial power. They not only shut down Zheng’s operation, but forbid all deepwater sailing, even those privately financed and run. It was a blunder of enormous consequence and I don’t think that the current Chinese leadership will repeat it.

My point was not that they didn’t miss an opportunity–they did. My point was the reason for that missed opportunity.

They didn’t then, (and don’t really now) understand the dynamism and strength of capitalism. Zheng He’s missions were not for wealth creation, or even acquisition–they were for national prestige. If that’s the reason that the modern dynasts go to the Moon, they will ultimately stumble as well (as we did, at least temporarily, over three decades ago).

Hey, Glenn’s got a new look at his site.

Suggestion–make the font in the posts a little bigger–it’s a little tough on us presbyopes.

Hey, Glenn’s got a new look at his site.

Suggestion–make the font in the posts a little bigger–it’s a little tough on us presbyopes.

Hey, Glenn’s got a new look at his site.

Suggestion–make the font in the posts a little bigger–it’s a little tough on us presbyopes.

The intelligence fiasco (and I think that’s what it was, and it was many years in the making) that led to September 11 reminds me of the old Indian (subcontinent) tale of the blind men and the elephant.

None of them had ever seen an elephant. So each one decided to describe it to the others by feel. “An elephant is like a tree,” said one, as he grasped a leg. “No, no, an elephant is like a snake,” said another, feeling the long, sinuous trunk. “You’re both wrong–an elephant is more like a rope than anything else,” exclaimed the third, as he stroked the tail. In the National Lampoon version, they show another one, kneeling behind it in a pile of elephant digestive output, saying, “An elephant is soft, smelly and mushy…”

Mindles H. Dreck describes our government agencies in much the same state in the summer of 2001.

…different agencies of the government have been offering warnings about Al Qaeda’s plans since at least 1998. Each had a different part of the picture. Of course, Al Qaeda’s plans are clear in 20-20 hindsight, but it might even have been clear at the time if the CIA, the FBI and other branches of government were coordinating their information and actions. If the FBI sees suspicious middle-eastern enrollment in flight schools, can’t they alert the CIA and coordinate surveillance of the students and their correspondents?

The agencies charged with protecting us have failed to think laterally, to assemble disparate bits of information and attempt to make something coherent from them. This is, in turn, a failure of leadership. Clinton and Bush both knew Osama bin Laden was planning major actions against Americans. Heck, he had already carried two off, one involving significant involvement by domestic actors. It was clear in 1993 that the mandates for the FBI and CIA must overlap. Both presidents had plenty of time not just to make plans to take OBL out, but to build better preventative intelligence. Both of them talked a much bigger game than they were willing to play. Both of them surrendered their leadership to the imperatives of entrenched bureaucracies run by archaic rules.

Palestinian murders Israeli civilians. He is funded by the Palestinian Authority, and glorified in the official Palestinian press as a “martyr.”

Israelis plot to murder Palestinians. They are arrested before they can carry it out.

Steven Jay Gould has died.

He lived with cancer for quite a long time.

I had some major disagreements with him about aspects of evolution, and I thought that much of his supposedly scientific critiques (like the Mismeasure of Man) were colored by his lifelong Marxism, but he was a hell of a baseball fan, and a great popular science writer. I hope he rests in peace.

Time is running out for a space tourist on this fall’s Soyuz flight.

According to NASA Watch, rumor has it that Lance Bass’ sponsorship deal with NBC has fallen through, and he’s now talking to CBS. Lori Garver hasn’t raised the money yet, either.

It looks like it may be premature to see sponsorship as a means of raising money for rides into space. For now, you probably still have to bring your own cash, as Tito and Shuttleworth did. If I were Lori, I wouldn’t have had that gall bladder pulled until the deal was signed.

But Shuttleworth wants to do it again. Maybe he’ll consider investing in some companies that can make it happen, and get him up while making some money, instead of just laying out cash for a ticket. Let me know, Mark–I have some ideas…