Mark Whittington has a completely pointless post:
…not much remarked, is the implicit endorsement of NASA’s Vision for Space Exploration by one of the leading new commercial space companies
Is this supposed to be news? Is Mark aware of any commercial space company that is opposed to the VSE, or sending humans to the moon and Mars? I’m not. So what’s the big deal?
Or is he confusing ESAS with VSE again?
Number 51, over at Astroengine.
Well, not all of it, but quite a bit. Rob Coppinger has some thoughts on the issue of ISS downmass requirements, which is something that doesn’t get as much attention as the launch payload. Once Shuttle goes away, we lose an awful lot of downmass capability, at least in theory, though I don’t think we’ve been returning all that much in it lately.
Jeff Foust has a brief report on the next steps for Spaceport America, now that the vote is out of the way.
Procurement “irregularities” at Marshall Space Flight Center? On the Ares program?
Why, who could ever imagine such a thing? Particularly after it got off to such a completely non-corrupt start, with no conflicts of interest at all, via Scott “Revolving Door” Horowitz.
Procurement “irregularities” at Marshall Space Flight Center? On the Ares program?
Why, who could ever imagine such a thing? Particularly after it got off to such a completely non-corrupt start, with no conflicts of interest at all, via Scott “Revolving Door” Horowitz.
Procurement “irregularities” at Marshall Space Flight Center? On the Ares program?
Why, who could ever imagine such a thing? Particularly after it got off to such a completely non-corrupt start, with no conflicts of interest at all, via Scott “Revolving Door” Horowitz.
Or should it be “wither VSE and ESAS”?
My analysis on what the presidential election could mean for NASA’s current plans for human spaceflight, over at Popular Mechanics.
Bottom line: don’t expect “steady as you go…”
[Update late evening]
Mark Whittington has his usual (i.e., idiotic) response:
The problem here is that without a lot of those billions being spent not only on technology development, but operational experience, it will be a long time before private business gets us to the Moon, if at all. And we they do get there, they may have to have visas signed by the Chinese who will have beaten everyone there.
Yes, [rolling eyes] having to have visas signed by the Chinese to land on the moon should be our biggest concern. Not the fact that NASA has chosen an architecture that is fundamentally incapable of establishing a fully-fledged lunar presence and is unlikely to survive politically (and ignoring the fact that the Chinese are on a track to get a human on the moon sometime in the next century, at their current rate…).
I haven’t had time to read it yet, but Dennis Wingo has a long essay on NASA’s forty-year failure to close the deal with the American people. More thoughts when I have a chance to read, but some of the other folks here may be interested.
Apparently, the Soyuz entered hatch first, instead of leading with the heat shield, and burned off an antenna. I hate when that happens.
Yi said during a news conference at the Star City cosmonaut training center outside Moscow that she was frightened. “At first I was really scared because it looked really, really hot and I thought we could burn,” she said.
I’ll bet it was some serious pucker in that capsule for all three of them.
As the article notes, this is the second time in a row they’ve had a non-nominal entry, and the third time in five years. Is their quality, in manufacturing or launch processing, declining? Not good news if we’re reliant on them for transportation after 2010. And no, I don’t think the problem was too many women aboard (what an idiot).
Faster please, Elon.
[Update a few minutes later]
Jim Oberg shares my concerns about Russian quality problems. And he’s in a lot better position to know.