More thoughts on James Hansen’s demand of an auto de fe by those in the pay of Big Oil (further cementing the notion that this isn’t science–it’s a religion). No one expects the WARM MONGER’S INQUISITION…
Read the comments.
I do wonder if this is a violation of the Hatch Act.
[Wednesday morning update]
As usual, Doug Cooke defends ESAS:
The “direct” variation fails to meet NASA’s needs on several grounds. It is vastly over-capacity and too costly to service the International Space Station, but worse, its lift capacity would not be enough for NASA to maintain a sustained presence on the moon.
Advocates for the “direct” variation are touting unrealistic development costs and schedules. A fundamental difference is that the Ares I and Orion probability of crew survival is at least two times better than all of the other concepts evaluated, including “direct”-like concepts.
Also as usual, he provides no evidence for his assertions. We are simply supposed to accept them because Doug Cooke says so. Have we ever seen the actual report that came out of the sixty-day study, with a description of methodology and assumptions? I haven’t.
I’m not necessarily a big fan of “Direct,” but his statement raises more issues than it answers. Why doesn’t the “lift capacity allow a sustained presence on the moon” in a way that ESAS does? Why should it be assumed that NASA’s new launch system will service space station? I thought that this was what COTS was for? What are the marginal costs of an additional Jupiter launch versus Ares 1?
Give us some numbers, and provide a basis for them, and we might take this seriously.
[Wednesday morning update]
More thoughts and comments at NASA Watch, and from Chair Force Engineer.
As usual, Doug Cooke defends ESAS:
The “direct” variation fails to meet NASA’s needs on several grounds. It is vastly over-capacity and too costly to service the International Space Station, but worse, its lift capacity would not be enough for NASA to maintain a sustained presence on the moon.
Advocates for the “direct” variation are touting unrealistic development costs and schedules. A fundamental difference is that the Ares I and Orion probability of crew survival is at least two times better than all of the other concepts evaluated, including “direct”-like concepts.
Also as usual, he provides no evidence for his assertions. We are simply supposed to accept them because Doug Cooke says so. Have we ever seen the actual report that came out of the sixty-day study, with a description of methodology and assumptions? I haven’t.
I’m not necessarily a big fan of “Direct,” but his statement raises more issues than it answers. Why doesn’t the “lift capacity allow a sustained presence on the moon” in a way that ESAS does? Why should it be assumed that NASA’s new launch system will service space station? I thought that this was what COTS was for? What are the marginal costs of an additional Jupiter launch versus Ares 1?
Give us some numbers, and provide a basis for them, and we might take this seriously.
[Wednesday morning update]
More thoughts and comments at NASA Watch, and from Chair Force Engineer.
Rich Lowry is feeling sorry for Senators Dodd and Conrad.
You know, people who don’t know what a kind-hearted and sensitive soul Rich is might think that he’s being sarcastic.
Seriously, if these were Republican Senators, you know that the media would be howling about it, with demands for hearings and Justice Department investigations. But they’re not.
That’s what Barack Obama, and anyone who supports US ethanol price supports and tariffs against Brazilian imports is.
I agree.
By the way, so are Algore and James Hansen…
That’s what Barack Obama, and anyone who supports US ethanol price supports and tariffs against Brazilian imports is.
I agree.
By the way, so are Algore and James Hansen…
This would be an interesting development:
As Father Dall’Oglio warns darkly, Muslims are in dialogue with a pope who evidently does not merely want to exchange pleasantries about coexistence, but to convert them. This no doubt will offend Muslim sensibilities, but Muslim leaders are well-advised to remain on good terms with Benedict XVI. Worse things await them. There are 100 million new Chinese Christians, and some of them speak of marching to Jerusalem – from the East.
As Spengler notes, the Muslims should be worried. That truly would be the first real challenge to them, if not since the founding of the religion, at least since the Crusades.
Whose side do you think that the left will take? How many guesses do you want?
[Evening update]
In comments, Carl Pham asks:
What’s to be appalled about in the Crusades, eh? Is this just regurgitating some politically-correct pap y’all were fed in public school?
I’m only appalled by the Crusades in the same sense that I’m appalled by the Middle Ages in general (I don’t actually recall learning about them in public school, which in itself, regardless of the learning content, is an interesting commentary about public school in the sixties and early seventies. It’s no doubt worse now, since it’s better to know nothing of the Crusades than to be mistaught them).
And in being appalled, I’m judging it by modern sensibilities. As I said, Islam was more (much more) appalling in its behavior.
Then. And more importantly (and even more), now.
But I’m sure I’ll get more Anonymous Morons in comments, whom I’ll take great pleasure in appropriately naming, unwittingly making my point about which side the leftists will take.
Also:
If you want to look for unpleasant proselytizing by Christian nations, take a look at South and Central American under the Spanish in the 1500s and 1600s. The Crusades do not quality. Islam is only pissed about them because they coincided with the high-water mark of Islam’s own effort to conquer the world.
Agreed. Latin American’s dismal state is a consequence of having been colonized by Spain (and it was a Christian Spain). It continues to be mired in a feudal culture, which has only transmogrified into a socialist/fascist one, as exemplified by “liberation theology.” Which is (unfortunately) not that far off from the “black liberation theology” of Senator Obama’s former church.
Or is it a sleeping possum?
Am I the only one to think that this was a misfired strategy by Obama to be all things to all people? The latte drinkers would be impressed by the Latin, and the possum would appeal to the bitter guns’n’God clingers. You know, the ones with the bumper stickers that say “Eat More Possum”?
Nahhh, the campaign is clever, but it’s not that clever. Or maybe it’s too clever by half.
Amity Shlaes, on Barack Obama:
The New Deal exists principally on an emotional plane for Obama. To him the New Deal is something you play like a song, to make you or your constituents feel better. Let me be clear: It’s too early to judge Obama on economics. But he does seem unaware of the economic consequences of government expansion that happens under the New Deal name.
Politicians generally act as if there is no cost to reconnecting with voters by building new New Deals. But the whole exercise of writing law out of New Deal nostalgia is a form of national narcissism. Call it New Deal narcissism.
We could afford to burnish our social contracts if there were no competition from abroad. But there is.
Which is one reason why the so-called progressives hate globalization. And ironically, one of the primary reasons for the Great Depression, and certainly for its length and depth, was economic isolationism in the form of Smoot-Hawley. The New Deal was a flawed, fascist attempt to make up for our economic disengagement from the world. The war ended the depression. Unfortunately, much of the New Deal, and the mentality that led to it, remains in place. Obama is simply the latest Great Man, a man of Change, and Action, to want to preserve and expand it.
Amity Shlaes, on Barack Obama:
The New Deal exists principally on an emotional plane for Obama. To him the New Deal is something you play like a song, to make you or your constituents feel better. Let me be clear: It’s too early to judge Obama on economics. But he does seem unaware of the economic consequences of government expansion that happens under the New Deal name.
Politicians generally act as if there is no cost to reconnecting with voters by building new New Deals. But the whole exercise of writing law out of New Deal nostalgia is a form of national narcissism. Call it New Deal narcissism.
We could afford to burnish our social contracts if there were no competition from abroad. But there is.
Which is one reason why the so-called progressives hate globalization. And ironically, one of the primary reasons for the Great Depression, and certainly for its length and depth, was economic isolationism in the form of Smoot-Hawley. The New Deal was a flawed, fascist attempt to make up for our economic disengagement from the world. The war ended the depression. Unfortunately, much of the New Deal, and the mentality that led to it, remains in place. Obama is simply the latest Great Man, a man of Change, and Action, to want to preserve and expand it.