It looks like the “two-phase” approach to the Senate Launch System, which would have resulted in a rocket that flew only four times for billions per flight, is dead. The problem is, they still have to operate within the absurd design constraints imposed by the porkers on the Hill.
Category Archives: Economics
Going Galt
Obama tunes out, and business goes on a hiring strike:
After April 13 Obama Democrats went into campaign mode. They staged a poll-driven Senate vote to increase taxes on oil companies.
They began a Mediscare campaign against Ryan’s budget resolution that all but four House Republicans had voted for. That seemed to pay off with a special election victory in New York’s 26th Congressional District.
The message to job creators was clear. Hire at your own risk. Higher taxes, more burdensome regulation and crony capitalism may be here for some time to come.
I’m hoping for not more than another year and a half, until January, 2013. We’ll probably survive that long, though there will be a lot of unnecessary suffering. I don’t want to think about another five years of it.
The GM Bailout
A critique of the economic simplemindedness of its defenders. These people need to read Bastiat.
[Update later afternoon]
Todd Zywicki lays out the ugly story.
Back From Florida
But taking a day off to rest from my “vacation.”
Meanwhile, go read my CEI colleague Iain Murray’s thoughts on the hidden tax and the cost of federal regulations.
How Big Is The National Debt?
This big. Scary.
Economic Stagnation
…explained at thirty-thousand feet. And our masters in Washington have no idea how destructive their idiotic policies are. Or perhaps they do.
[Update a few minutes later]
The Marxian worm. Which reminds me of the piece I wrote a while back: You just might be a Marxist.
[Update a couple minutes later]
It occurs to me for the first time that a cost-plus contract is intrinsically Marxist in nature. There is an implicit assumption that value is produced when the contractor is reimbursed for time and materials.
[Update a few minutes later]
An oldie but goody: Cultural Marxism.
The COTS Hearings
Based on the Twitter feed, it looks like the committee continue to be (as Michael Mealling tweets) asshats, but at least it was an opportunity for Gwynne to explain costs to them. There are lies, damned lies, and Congressional cost estimates (note in comments at the link “Edgar”‘s analysis — I wonder if that’s Edgar Zapata?). I’ll be curious to see Jeff Foust’s report later, though we probably won’t see it until Monday, at The Space Review.
[Update a few minutes later]
More on the cooked books from Keith Cowing. I’m guessing the culprit is Ken Monroe, head staffer.
Turning On A Dime
Remember the Bob Zubrin who cast scorn on the idea of propellant depots?
Well, now he has a new proposal:
Zubrin’s concept is, at its core, a space access subsidy program. Rather than spend billions on new launch vehicles, he envisions NASA instead spending a modest amount of money—he suggested $1.2 billion a year, about six percent of its current $18.5-billion annual budget—buying the most “cost-effective” launch vehicles available. That cost effectiveness would be some function of its price and payload capacity; Zubrin has a particular preference for SpaceX’s proposed Falcon Heavy, which could launch up to 53 metric tons into low Earth orbit (LEO) for as little as $80 million a launch.
NASA would then, in turn, resell that launch capacity to itself, other government agencies, and the private sector, at the artificially low price of $50 per kilogram, or about $2.65 million per fully-loaded Falcon Heavy. Those launches, he said, would take place on a regular schedule, regardless if the capacity on each vehicle is fully subscribed. “You don’t hold the train in the station until it fills up,” he explained. Any excess capacity would be filled with consumables like water, oxygen, and propellant, which could be stored on orbit for use by any interested parties.
Emphasis mine.
In what does he propose to store the propellants, if not depots?
I should note, though, to be fair, that he wrote the PJM stuff a few weeks ago, so it’s possible he’s changed his mind.
You Don’t Say
Obama administration policies are responsible for high gas prices.
If they really wanted to wreck the economy, what would they be doing differently?
In Which My Respect For Pawlenty Increases
He’s willing to tell Iowans that we must end not only ethanol subsidies, but farming subsidies in general.
[Update a few minutes later]
That’s not all:
“Later this week, I’m going to New York City, to tell Wall Street that if I’m elected, the era of bailouts, handouts, and carve outs will be over,” Pawlenty said. “No more subsidies, no more special treatment. No more Fannie and Freddie, no more TARP, and no more ‘too big to fail.’”
He’s also planning to go to Florida tomorrow and tell affluent seniors that “we will means test Social Security’s annual cost-of-living adjustment.”
“Conventional wisdom says you can’t talk about ethanol in Iowa or Social Security in Florida or financial reform on Wall Street,” Pawlenty said. “But someone has to say it. Someone has to finally stand up and level with the American people. Someone has to lead.”
I just hope this goes over better than Fritz Mondale’s promise to raise our taxes in 1984. I think, though, that if he can survive Iowa with the ethanol stand, these positions will stand him up well with the Tea Party.