So, the Aerospace Industries Association has issued a position paper for a strategy on human space exploration, but it’s pretty unspecific about what the actual policy should be:
Developing this recommended path forward will not be easy; to that end, AIA encourages this Independent Study on Human Exploration of Space to address in detail:
• Near term human exploration milestones including robotic precursors. The lack of proximate exploration activity now could severely hinder our future exploration capability.
• Mission-oriented technology priorities that tie development of needed enabling technologies to milestones on our track toward eventual Mars exploration.
• Integration of science and technology missions with a parallel human exploration strategy. Exploration, science, and technology must progress hand in hand.
• The implementation, within fiscal constraint guidance, of societal and national goals stated as Key Objectives in the NASA Authorization Act of 2010.
• Path forward options if fiscal constraints change.
One good thing — there’s no mention whatsoever of heavy lift. The only way defenders of it will find it is to call it a “mission-oriented technology” or “needed enabling technology” for Mars. But it’s a hard case to make, if orbital storage and transfer of propellant is deployed.
I find this story kind of incredible. The hotel itself seems feasible enough, but how in the world do they expect to get the cost down to less than $200,000 per person? And the comments are hilariously clueless. I particularly liked this one:
As much as I would love to go to space, I think it would get very boring after about 5 min of looking out the tiny window. you would be seeing the same view for 5 days, and who seriously is going to look out of the window the whole time? the rest of the time you’re spending it in cramped quarters. I really feel humans do not belong in outer space.
“Feel” is the operative word here. This is clearly a person who doesn’t do much in the way of real thinking.
Senator Hutchison can’t retire soon enough for me. As a commenter notes, there’s nothing in her press release about actually accomplishing anything in space. It’s all about the jobs.
There’s a front-page story today. As I noted in a comment there, I found the final sentence interesting:
The rocket has just two successful test launches.
While true, there are other ways to phrase it. They could have left out the “just,” which implies that the number is both low, and bad. There is also an implication that there have been unsuccessful launches. It would have been just as accurate, and more favorable to the company, to write, “The rocket has had two successful launches, with no failures.” They could have even pointed out that the capsule performed successfully on its first and only flight.
Some thoughts on the nautical origins of the symbolism of the Space Shuttle. I agree with some commenters, though — a true space ship would never enter the atmosphere. And it’s where NASA’s focus should be, not on a giant rocket to nowhere.
We didn’t put a man on the moon because some company thought they might be able to make a profit doing it. It takes vision to involve the common good of the American people without regard for profit. If you’re charting a course for this country and your big idea is “NO WE CAN’T”, then I don’t want you leading this country.
No, Rachel, we put a man on the moon because we wanted to show that a democratic socialist space program was superior to a totalitarian socialist space program. If we’d done it for profit, it would have taken a lot longer, but we’d still be doing it.