Thoughts from Eric Berger, which I missed last week due to the funeral and the conference.
From my monograph:
NASA gave up on reusability a decade ago, when Mike Griffin selected Constellation, with its expendable launch systems, capsule, insertion stages and landers. It could in fact be argued that Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) gave up on it after it was given responsibility for it in the 1990s, which it turned into the failed X-33 program, which failure the center then used as an excuse to illogically claim that reusability didn’t work.
One tech I didn't recommend that NASA develop for Mars: Low-cost access to space. Private sector is already taking care of that.
The five most livable places (aside from earth). They’ll all take a lot of tech, though. Of course, if you build your own, you can put them wherever you want.
Reading my Twitter feed this morning, with all the excited tweets from the NASA Social in Utah over “the most powerful rocket EVAR” has been quite depressing. It’s sad that people don’t understand what a load of bull they’re being fed.
And if it ever flies, it will be burning millions of taxpayer dollars per second. https://t.co/FyC80d3vEq
Roger Launius previously reviewed it at Quest, but he has a slightly different take at his blog, which he also posted at Amazon. I’m not unhappy with a four-star review, but I’m always interested in an explanation of why it’s not five, for future reference.
This is a timely new book from James Bennett, on the eve of the Brexit vote. Haven’t read it yet, but I will. I’ll be curious to see what, if anything, he says about space.
I’d be more gratified by being in this stratosphere if I could see more things happening that I’m actually influencing. But maybe I’m being too impatient. I also wish that being an influencer paid better.
[Wednesday-morning update]
The most amusingly ironic thing about this is that I'm in an ongoing war on the phrase "space exploration." https://t.co/USEAb5wfRJ