I’m glad that Webb is working, but I continue to believe it was a mistake.
[Update a while later]
To clarify, I think it was a mistake to do it in the way it was done, but now that it’s operational, obviously it would be a mistake to abandon it now.
I’m glad that Webb is working, but I continue to believe it was a mistake.
[Update a while later]
To clarify, I think it was a mistake to do it in the way it was done, but now that it’s operational, obviously it would be a mistake to abandon it now.
…seems to be taking the loss well.
The Pentagon is still too reluctant to rely on commercial space services.
I missed this from a couple weeks ago.
They say it’s SSTO, but they talk about it as point to point. Hard to believe that it could handle noise restrictions at most airports.
I haven’t talked to Livingston in years, but maybe worth a call to find out more.
Fact checking what sounds like a monumentally dumb flick.
An interesting report on the internecine battle within the company in the wake of the FTC disallowing the acquisition by Lockmart. I found this amusing:
Aerojet has traditionally structured itself as an engineering company with high fixed costs and low margins, Thompson said. But if private equity buys the company, it will want to see more robust financial returns, which could come at the cost of innovation.
“This really comes down to whether the financial interests or the engineering interests within Aerojet prevail in the struggle,” he said. “My heart is with the engineering interests. My brain, which knows the history of these types of struggles, assumes the financial interests will ultimately prevail.”
Yes, for me, the first word that comes to mind when I hear the word “Aerojet” is “innovation.” Not.
That is the question at this Oxford debate this evening (in a couple hours, sorry about the short notice).
[Update toward the end of the debate]
As I’ve noted in the past, debates like this are pointless, because they are a false choice based on a false premise. We don’t have to choose between populating Mars and saving the planet; we have abundant resources for both. The false premise is that this is going to be a collective decision whose outcome will be determined by an Oxford debate. People who go to Mars will be doing so with their own money, so people on Earth who oppose it are going to have to make it illegal to prevent it. There is a word for people like that: jailers.
Here’s what I wrote on the day Columbia was lost. Scroll down and read from bottom up. There’s more on the previous pages. I think my takes held up pretty well.
Mike Rogers is concerned.
But he doesn’t lay out any vision or goals of what we should be trying to accomplish. He’s stuck in Sputnic/Apollo mode. It’s just that the race (for whatever it is) is now with China, instead of the USSR.
Maybe I should write an editorial response.