Category Archives: Political Commentary

Political Commentary, Space

Assembling The Station

7 Comments

Here’s a nice animation of ISS assembly. One of the most tragic things about the current approach to the Vision for Space Exploration is that it completely ignores all of the experience gained in orbital assembly over the past decade, instead reverting to Apollo on Geritol.

[Update a couple minutes later]

What a coincidence. I just got an email titled “Gee, Scolese Sounds Like A Critic Of ESAS” (I don’t know if the sender wants to be attributed):

I’m watching the Appropriations hearing, and in response to a question from Chairman Mollohan re plans for moon exploration, etc… Scolese talks about ISS as an example of success at assembling complex systems in LEO and that he would like to see NASA come up with an architecture to build things and then go explore.

Gee. What a concept.

You’ll have to get the transcript, but it sounds pretty treasonous…

At this point, just making Scolese the formal administrator is sounding pretty good to me.

[Update early afternoon]

Rob Coppinger is live twittering the hearing (not a permalink). And he has some thoughts on Scolese’ testimony as well:

In an extraordinary exchange between NASA acting adminisrator Christoper Scolese and the US House of Representatives’ committee on appropriations’ subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies chair, Scolese said that the agency was still working on what “return to the Moon” meant and whether that was a outpost, which he went on to describe as expensive, or an extended sortie like Apollo

So much for Apollo on steroids…

Let’s hope.

[Late afternoon update]

Here’s more extensive coverage of the testimony:

“We were looking at an outpost on the moon, as the basis for that [2020] estimate and that one is being revisited,” he said. “It will probably be less than an outpost on the moon, but where it fits between sorties, single trips, to the moon to various parts and an outpost is really going to be dependent on the studies that we’re going to be doing.”

“Recall [that] the Vision [for Space Exploration] was not just to go to the moon as it was in Apollo, it was to utilise space to go on to Mars and to go to other places,” he added. “We’ve demonstrated over the last several years that with multiple flights we can build a very complex system reliably – the space station – involving multiple nations…and we’ll need something like that if we’re going to go to Mars.”

Scolese’s further comments hinted that the agency’s plans might shift to include a greater emphasis on destinations beyond the moon. “So what I would like to see from NASA over time is an architecture that…will give us flexibility for taking humans beyond low-Earth orbit and allowing us to have options for what we can do at the moon as well as other destinations…[like] Mars or an asteroid…so that there are options on what we do in 2020,” he said.

Good news, bad news. The good news is that (as noted up above) he’s more interested in building an in-space infrastructure than Mike Griffin ever was. The bad news is that he’s backing off from the commitment to a lunar outpost. On the other hand, the in-space infrastructure may allow a revisiting of that issue if it can be shown to reduce the costs of lunar operations. And ESAS would never have allowed an affordable lunar outpost in any event. The activity rate would have been far too low.

[Bumped]

Political Commentary

The Vision Deficit

2 Comments

The two Reason editors (multi-media and print) critique the first hundred days:

So here we are, 100 days into the great eight-year triumph of Hope over Change, a new Era of Really Good Feelings in which only one thing has become increasingly, even irrefutably, clear: President Barack Obama is about as visionary as the guy who invented Dippin’ Dots, Ice Cream of the Future. Far from sketching out a truly forward-looking set of policies for the 21st century, as his supporters had hoped, Obama is instead serving up cryogenically tasteless and headache-inducing morsels from years gone by.

On issue after issue, Obama has made it clear that instead of blasting past “the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long,” (as he promised in his inaugural address), he’s moving full speed ahead toward policy prescriptions that already had less fizz than a case of Billy Beer back when Jimmy Carter was urging us all to wear sweaters and turn down our thermostats. Instead of thinking outside the box, Obama is nailing it shut from the inside.

Read all.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

Under My Bus

10 Comments

Celebrating the first hundred days. I think that most of us will be under that bus before this is over.

[Update a few minutes later]

The audacity of audacity:

“Those of you who are watching certain news channels on which I’m not very popular, and you see folks waving tea bags around, Obama said, “let me just remind them that I am happy to have a serious conversation about how we are going to cut our health care costs down over the long term, how we are going to stabilize Social Security.”

“But,” Obama continued, “let’s not play games and pretend that the reason [for the deficit] is because of the Recovery Act.”

Talk about “playing games.” Yes, how could 800 billion dollars of unnecessary spending possibly have anything to do with the deficit? Why, that’s just crazy talk.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

An Amazing Admission

5 Comments

From Tom Friedman:

So to recap: the Bush team kept us safe from an implacable foe by using interrogation methods which the American public approved of and by fighting (often against the admonitions of Friedman and his colleagues) and largely prevailing in Iraq. The latter effort may deal a death blow to Al Qaeda which one supposes made it a very worthwhile endeavor. Well, yes, Friedman awards Obama the prize for “doing [his] best” in a war largely waged by his reviled predecessor – who is rarely praised for doing his best, but we get the point.

It must be some other George W. Bush who was the worst foreign policy president in history – because the 43rd president, by Friedman’s accounting, got some very big things right, despite ferocious odds. (One of President Bush’s librarians might want to clip this one out for the “Bush Legacy Inadvertently Revived By Obama” file.)

As time goes on, and particularly now that the Dems own the Senate, it’s going to get harder and harder for them to continue to blame everything on Bush.

Business, Economics, Political Commentary

GM Thoughts

5 Comments

From Mitt Romney:

GM’s new proposal, clearly produced under government duress, is worse than virtually any of the alternatives. It would give GM to the UAW and the U.S. government and make taxpayers pick up the bills. Of course, billions more from government would be drawn down right away. But the UAW could also depend on the Obama administration to keep up the subsidy for years and years to come. Government and Union co-ownership: It would be as ineffective as it is un-American.

The right course for GM is an out-of-court restructuring or bankruptcy. Either would keep the company in business and rid it of burdensome costs, work rules and obligations. The government could backstop the post-restructuring debt, helping the company get on its feet. GM must not fail: If its costs are brought in line with its competition, it can ultimately thrive and grow jobs. What is proposed is even worse than bankruptcy—it would make GM the living dead.

I was never a big Romney fan, but he’s looking pretty damned good right now.

Media Criticism, Political Commentary

What They Said

6 Comments

National Review on Benedict Arlen:

Arlen Specter belongs to a type familiar to Congress: the time-serving hack devoid of any principle save arrogance. He has spent three decades in the Senate but is associated with no great cause, no prescient warning, no landmark legislation. Yet he imagines that the Senate needs his wisdom and judgment for a sixth term. He joined the Republican party out of expediency in the 1960s, and leaves it out of expediency this week.

Those who attribute his defection to the rise of social conservatism are deluding themselves. It is not as though he has been a reliable vote for any other type of conservatism. He has stood apart from the mainstream of his party on welfare reform, trade, taxes, affirmative action, judicial appointments, tort reform, and national-security law. The issue that finally caused an irreparable breach with Republicans was the stimulus bill. Some Republicans are blaming Pat Toomey for pushing Specter out of the party by challenging him from the Right. But it is not Toomey’s fault that Specter is out of step with Pennsylvania Republicans. Whatever they think of the prudence of his challenge at the time he announced it, conservatives should be rooting for Toomey now.

It’s worth noting that the notion that the Republican Party has become more socially conservative is a myth. It was actually much more so in the early eighties (one of the reasons that I wasn’t then, and have never been, a Republican). As a commenter at Instapundit points out, it just seems that it’s more socially conservative today because, with its utter abandonment of fiscal conservativism in the Bush years, the social conservatism is the main distinguishing feature from the Democrats.

[Update early afternoon]

Dan Riehl has some more thoughts:

Big picture, Specter leaving is a significant opportunity, but only if the GOP seizes upon it as a pivot point to genuinely become the party of limited government, reduced spending and low taxes. As for social conservatism, which started this discussion here, morphing into a more democratic-based discussion of a civil society based upon values without Federal legislation is a sound approach that, hopefully, social cons can still embrace. It really is more about values, than just God, in the public square, any way. As for Specter (D) – is being the Party of a 3-plus trillion dollar Federal budget really a good thing? I’m unconvinced.

If the Republicans could rebrand themselves as a federalist party, and a true one, not just fair-weather federalists, I might become one.

Business, Economics, Media Criticism, Political Commentary

One Hundred Days

10 Comments

One hundred screwups. And here’s a pretty serious one:

The feds will ask the banks to increase their tangible equity by converting preferred shares to common stock, including the taxpayers’ preferred shares that were purchased with TARP funds. The WSJ editorial board called this a “backdoor nationalization.” That’s exactly what it is. It’s also a nationalization that increases taxpayer exposure to bank losses without recapitalizing the banks, without providing an exit strategy, and without building in effective safeguards against politically directed lending.

The country’s in the very best of hands.

Education, Political Commentary

Look Who’s Teaching

8 Comments

Is it any wonder that our children are growing up so ignorant, when this kind of thing isn’t a rarity, but probably typical? A history teacher who thinks that George Washington wrote the Bill of Rights?

I guess we should be thankful that he knows that George Washington even existed. This is why people home school.

I am also awed by Cam’s ability to maintain his civility and politeness with this ignoramus.