If this is true, whoever sets up lectures at Harvard had his sense of irony removed at birth:
HARVARD UNIVERSITY EDMOND J. SAFRA FOUNDATION CENTER FOR ETHICS
Eliot Spitzer, former Governor and Attorney General of New York, will deliver a public lecture as part of the 2009/10 Labs Lectures on the Question of Institutional Corruption.
Truly amazing.
…over at DumpDede.com.
Dennis Wingo says that NASA doesn’t need more money, it just needswhat NASA needs is a better architectural approach. I agree. But that’s doesn’t keep the jobs in the right places.
Despite my initial misreading of it, though, I even think that it’s possible to do it without the extra three billion. And it had better be, because I doubt if they’re going to get it.
One of the things that I do miss about living in Florida for the past five years was the occasional (but in retrospect, not often enough) opportunity to get together with Bob and Lou Poole for dinner (they lived about twenty-five miles away). Here are his thoughts on the influence of Ayn Rand.
…to Obamacare. Couldn’t happen soon enough, but maybe it did.
I think that historians will note that the high-water mark of the Obama presidency, at least in terms of trying to ram his radical agenda through in the wake of his election victory, will be the cap’n’tax bill that passed the House in the spring. From here on out, he won’t even have enough support from the Blue Dogs to attempt to commit political suicide with the rest. They know now that he can’t save them. And as Rush said yesterday (I caught ten minutes of him on the way to a client’s office), Nancy Pelosi doesn’t care if they lose their elections, as long as she doesn’t lose her majority. She’d rather have a thin majority of faithful cadres than a bigger one of ideologically suspect and unreliable moderates. So they had better realize that their loyalty is to their own voters, particularly in the so-called “Red” states (I never fail to be amazed at how the media has managed to foist that color on Republicans, when it’s so much more appropriate to the other party — I could swear it used to be the other way around in the nineties), and not to either the White House or their leadership.
As for NY-23, I think that there are several lessons there, but one of them is that if the Republicans want to win, they have to put up good candidates. Face it, Hoffman was a pretty geeky guy, and the Democrat was a Blue Dog, and not a bad fit for the district. It’s actually better for the Republicans to have him in place now, when he won’t have much time to develop his incumbency, and can come up with a better (i.e., not a “Republican” to the left of him, or dweeby carpet bagger with no political experience) candidate next fall. If they hadn’t been idiots, they would have come up with a better candidate in the first place, but considering what a Charlie Foxtrot the thing was, it’s pretty amazing that they came as close to beating Owens as they did. The Republican establishment had better pay close attention, and draw the right lessons.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Just in case Dick Morris is wrong, and we need to put a wooden stake through its heart, get to Washington tomorrow if you can.
But the president is spurning them, natch:
Barack Obama has announced that he is withdrawing from all existing treaties and security arrangements with the ursine community. Explaining his sharp break with the Bush administration’s policy of supporting overseas bear operations, president Obama said “bears are still our valued allies, but we can no longer pursue the arrogant policy of unilaterally supporting one member of the animal kingdom over another.”
He added, “Of course I believe in bear-exceptionalism, just as I believe in badger exceptionalism and tree sloth exceptionalism. But the days of a pecking order in the animal kingdom, with top of the food-chain predators and disrespected bottom-of-the-food-chain prey, are over.”
Some animals are more equal than others.
…on the cheap. Some members of the press corps are truly pathetic.
As Hugh Hewitt wrote a few years ago, if it’s not close, they can’t cheat.
The editorial board at the Orlando Sentinel (Florida’s largest paper) weighs in:
If U.S. space-policy decisions were dictated based solely on spectacle, the Ares I would be a shoo-in as NASA’s next manned vehicle. Unfortunately for fans of the rocket, cost, design and timing also matter.
Problems with all three argue for scrapping Ares I and assigning commercial rockets the task of flying to the international space station in low-Earth orbit. That would allow the agency to concentrate on its pre-shuttle mission of cutting-edge exploration.
I think we’re reaching the point at which its supporters are trying to swim up Niagara Falls.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Mark Matthews over at the Sentinel has a story on the hearings discussing the future of the program.
This should shock no one:
“There are a few people in the administration who want to kill Ares I and put all the money in commercial and the [Augustine] report tends to endorse that type of scenario. I think that is absolutely wrong,” said Doc Horowitz, former astronaut and Constellation architect.
If I were him, I’d just shut up, and hope that the IG doesn’t decide to open a belated investigation into his revolving door between NASA and ATK.
And then there’s this little tidbit at the end:
…there are whispers that the administration is exploring plans outside options presented by the Augustine committee, although it is unclear as to what they could include.
I suppose they could include (e.g.) bringing in the Chinese. We could just put it on the tab with all the other things we borrow money from them to buy from them.
…this time from Henry Spencer:
Such separation problems – even including collisions – have happened before. Large rocket motors often produce noticeable thrust for a surprisingly long time after they officially shut down, as remaining gases and fluids leak out, and this thrust can overwhelm the effect of small separation motors trying to separate the stages. (Just such a problem caused the failure of a Falcon I launch last year.) Or perhaps not all the Ares I-X separation motors actually fired.
Two such problems in one launch would be an odd coincidence, but there’s at least one way that both could have the same cause: suppose a wiring error sent the ignition signal for some of the separation motors to the tumble motors instead?
This may sound far-fetched, but there have been a number of cases of cross-wiring of multiple similar devices, especially in early tests of new systems. For example, on the second unmanned test of the Saturn V in 1968, a shutdown command directed at one second-stage engine shut down its neighbour as well, because they were partly cross-wired.
Well, even if true, it’s not reasonable to expect them to get the wiring perfect. They had to launch this thing on a pinch-penny budget of only half a billion dollars.
And the controversy of “did it or didn’t it recontact” continues in comments at NASA Watch.