…are a necessary tragedy.
My column on this week’s anniversaries, in historical perspective. Actually, it’s a 500-work summary of the book.
[Update a few minutes later]
Right on cue, some idiot comes up in comments with the usual, “End human spaceflight. If you want science, send a robot.”
Of course, the word “science” didn’t appear in the piece.
Clark Lindsey critiques Kenneth Chang’s article about the difficulties of living in space.
They’re suddenly very forthcoming about progress.
As long as it’s not the motor that has to work this year.
On the 28th anniversary of the event (and my birthday), Mollie Hemingway (to whom I gave a copy of the book at the Ricochet podcast Sunday night) has already read and reviewed it over at The Federalist. I would clarify this, though:
He suggests that NASA consider returning to an R&D function consistent with its original charter, otherwise getting out of the human spaceflight business entirely.
I don’t necessarily want them out of the human spaceflight business entirely, but I do want to get them out of now-mundane things like getting people (or anything) into orbit, and focus on the systems they need to go beyond. We have a commercial launch industry, and they should avail themselves of it instead of trying to compete with it.
[Afternoon update]
Molly has a post up at Ricochet, with a lot of discussion in comments.
[Bumped]
[Update a while later]
I was particularly gratified by this:
In any case, the book is just wonderful. I’m not someone who’s particularly interested in space exploration (though I have gone to many Space Shuttle launches and landings, so maybe I’m selling myself short). I’m definitely not someone with much knowledge of the space industry. And I wasn’t sure if this book would be so technical or wonkish as to be inaccessible. It’s not. It’s just a really engaging read with a compelling story about human nature, risk and reward.
That was what I was aiming for.
Here’s a piece I wrote four years ago, but it holds up pretty well today, I think.
Its not just Apollo 1. The Outer Space Treaty was opened for signing on the same day the astronauts died, forty-seven years ago yesterday. It was a major setback, in many ways, to opening up space. And for many, that was the idea.
Mark Lardas had a review a couple weeks ago in the Galveston Daily News, but it was behind a paywall. But I just learned that he reposted it at Ricochet. It’s an appropriate time to note it, given that today is the 47th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire, and tomorrow is the 28th anniversary of the Challenger disaster.
[Update late afternoon]
Here’s another brief (partial) review, in comments at the same web site. It’s the first one to discuss the quality, as opposed to the content of the book.
One of the arguments against human expansion into outer space is that we will instead retreat into virtual worlds as the technology evolves. I think it’s an interesting technological race.
It would be nice if they did. That would be a lot easier to deal with than their real problem, which is propulsion.
As Jeff explains, there’s a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of spaceflight regulation in the US, both here and across the pond. As I noted on Twitter:
Let's be very clear: The FAA has NO STATUTORY BASIS 2 withhold a license from VG with regard to passenger safety. No test flights required.
— SafeNotAnOption (@SafeNotAnOption) January 26, 2014
The purpose of VG's test flights is to satisfy THEMSELVES that the vehicle is safe for their customers. The FAA DOES NOT care, legally.
— SafeNotAnOption (@SafeNotAnOption) January 26, 2014
To emphasize, you could have 1% chance of survival, and the FAA will STILL ISSUE THE LICENSE, as long as you've been made aware of that.
— SafeNotAnOption (@SafeNotAnOption) January 26, 2014
This, from Jeff’s article, is a good summation of the license situation, despite the recent misleading stories about it:
The emphasis on a lack of a commercial launch license, then, is something of a red herring. Virgin doesn’t need a launch license now to continue its testing regime, isn’t late now in receiving one, and given current law, there’s no reason to believe the Virgin won’t receive one before it plans to begin commercial flights, so long as as it can demonstrate the vehicle’s safety to the uninvolved public.
Yes.
[Afternoon update]
Jeff Foust also has a summary of the London Times article that’s behind their paywall, with some corrections.
[Update a couple minutes later]
If the reporting is true, and they really are finally running away from the hybrid, and particularly the rubber hybrid, as fast as possible, I wonder what the implications of this are for Sierra Nevada? Will they continue to promote hybrids, and will they still use one in Dream Chaser assuming it flies in three years? I’d bail on it myself and just buy something from XCOR, but they have a lot of PR invested in the technology, thanks to Jim Benson.