The latest, after last week’s space-policy turmoil.
I think that Bridenstine (and Scott Pace) feel compelled to publicly support it, in the hope of maintaining Congressional support for NASA budgets in general, but I’m not sure it’s a great strategy.
[Update a while later]
Welcome to the new moon race.
Politico seems to be doing a fiftieth anniversary issue.
I’ve been on the road, to Michigan and DC, for the entire month so far, so I’m on the plane, looking forward to getting home in a few hours.
Bob Zimmerman writes that it won’t happen without cutting the pork.
In other words, it won’t happen.
(Friday-afternoon update)
Tweet from @realDonaldTrump: “For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon – We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!”
No comment, but there’s a lot of response on Twitter.
There is a new report out from the Reason Foundation, by Jeff Greason and James Bennett, on how it needs to be rethought and reorganized. I haven’t read it yet, but I expect it to be good (I saw Jeff today at the Space Settlement Forum, where I gave a talk on space property rights).
There are a bunch of new ones out as part of the fiftieth anniversary. Here’s a list (including some old classics as well).
The IG has released its report. Bob Zimmerman is (as usual) unimpressed with our betters in Washington.
Culberson losing his seat may have been the death knell for this mission, at least as it has been planned so far. I think Enceladus is more interesting, anyway, at least from the standpoint of looking for life. I hope that Yuri Milner follows through on that.
I’m not sure I’m sufficiently into Star Wars to want to engage in audience participation.
NASA has released the study summaries.
…will require a new policy direction.
You don’t say. I’ll be speaking at Steve’s Space Settlement Forum next week about property rights.