Charles Krauthammer has some thoughts on the day after the anniversary (many of which were similar to mine, but some different), this morning. Also, check yesterday’s post and scroll to the bottom for some late-night updates, if you didn’t already.

[Update at 10 AM]

Here’s a Sputnik link I missed yesterday, from Michael Belfiore. He notes another anniversary, that I thought about writing something about, but didn’t get the time. Also, it’s a little disappointing (though not entirely unexpected) that three years later, we haven’t made more progress.

Note: I’m going to keep this post at the top of the page all day, so you might want to scroll to see if I’m putting up other stuff.

Homer and I continue our week-long space policy debate over at the LA Times, this time with a discussion of the event that kicked off the space age, and its impact down the five decades since.

[Update at 8 AM EDT]

Jeff Foust is having a Sputnikpallooza over at The Space Review today. In particular, you should read his essay on the wonder and disappointment of the past half century, which reflects and expands on a lot of the themes that I’ve been debating with Homer Hickam all week.

[Update a few minutes later]

Did Sputnik create the Internet? Well, it’s a stretch, but it was, at least indirectly, one of the pieces of the puzzle. Anyway, it has at least as good a claim as Al Gore…

[Update at quarter to nine]

Dwayne Day’s prognostication about military space systems fifty years from now is worth a read–they will look a lot like todays. But he has one key caveat, that could make them quite wrong:

Weapons delivery from space has been possible for decades. What has changed is that it is now possible to precisely deliver conventional weapons onto an enemy. But the cost is prohibitive compared to other forms of weapon delivery such as cruise missiles or bombers, which have the benefit of reusability. Given the cost of putting something into orbit, the goal is to keep it there as long as possible rather than bring it down to hit something. That seems unlikely to change barring a radical decrease in launch costs.

Emphasis mine.

[9:15 Update]

Lileks has Sputnik beeps.

Alan K. Henderson is collecting Sputnik links today as well.

[10 AM update]

Alan Boyle has a roundup of space history links, and is collecting Sputnik memories in comments. People are welcome to leave some here as well, of course. As I noted to Homer (as does Alan) we were a little too young for it to leave an impression. And of course, for many of my readers, it’s as far away an event for them as WW II was for me.

[Update at 10:25]

It’s Sputnik, the movie!

Update at 4 PM EDT]

The satellite versus the supermarket. How did we really win the Cold War? I wonder if this LA Times editorial was influenced by the week’s discussion between me and Homer?

[Update at 5 PM EDT]

Jim Oberg has further thoughts on Sputnik and the space age at fifty.

[Evening update]

My final thoughts for the anniversary on Sputnik, the past and the future, are up at TCSDaily.

[Update at 10 PM]

Tim Cavanaugh, at the LA Times, who masterminded my dust-up with Homer Hickam this week, has a piece on how space has been making us crazy for fifty years.

And our last dust-up edition is up, in which I talk about transhumans in space.

Well, Hillary’s science policy has been released. No surprises here.

The “space policy” is motherhood (again, as expected):

Hillary will enhance American leadership in space, including:

• Pursuing an ambitious 21st century Space Exploration Program, by implementing a balanced strategy of robust human spaceflight, expanded robotic spaceflight, and enhanced space science activities.
• Developing a comprehensive space-based Earth Sciences agenda, including full funding for NASA’s Earth Sciences program and a space-based Climate Change Initiative that will help us secure the scientific knowledge we need to combat global warming.
• Promoting American leadership in aeronautics by reversing funding cuts to NASA’s and FAA’s aeronautics R&D budget.

Leave aside the fact that aeronautics is not space (though it’s part of NASA).

Who decides what is “balanced”? Absent details, there is nothing here to critique or comment on. If there is a real policy (goals, schedules, budgets) behind the platitude, there’s no evidence of it.

And of course, it’s all about “exploration,” as usual. Same mindless pap we’ve seen in Congressional or presidential discussions of space for the past fifty years.

Oh, well, at least, unlike Kerry’s, it doesn’t mention George Bush.

That’s the title of today’s Dust-Up at the LA Times, between me and Homer Hickam, as we continue our Sputnik week debate.

[Late evening update]

Tomorrow’s Dust-Up, on whether NASA has been helping or hindering private enterprise in space, is up today. Transterrestrial, your personal time machine!

Here’s a good piece in the LA Times about Mojave, and the new rocket companies sprouting up there. My only quibble with it is the usual one–that it’s in the “science” section of the paper, when it should instead be in the “business” section. Just another example of the power that the disastrous “space = science” meme has on peoples’ minds.

[Update a few minutes later]

I just noticed that this is my 9800th post. Only two hundred more to hit five digits. Maybe I should have a party.

The LA Times has a feature on their editorial section called the “Dust-Up,” which is sort of a daily two-sided debate on a given issue, with each week having a theme. This week, in recognition of the half century since Sputnik, they’re hosting a dialogue between Homer Hickam and yours truly. Homer went first today, and I get the last word du jour. It will be the other way around tomorrow, when we talk about destinations.

And note, I did not lead off with “Homer, you ignorant slut.”

[Update in the evening]

I see that Keith is whining again, that I’m not sufficiently obsequious to the space agency to which I’m giving the best technical advice that I can, for pay.

Well, Keith, here’s the deal. I’m a (I like to think) competent space systems engineer, who can help NASA execute its goals, however misguided. I do that because I like to think that I have professional integrity, and (honestly) because doing such things is my job, and it’s how I pay my bills. They don’t (at least for now) pay me to tell them how to open the cosmos, so I don’t do that for pay from them. I do it in other venues. I just help them do what they’re trying to do, as mistaken as it is, as best I can.

I didn’t realize (as you seem to think) that part of my job is to praise their programs publicly, even though I think them not in the best interests of the nation, or our goals of opening space. If NASA thinks that’s part of my job, I guess I’ll hear about it. If they want to pay me to do that, I’ll consider it, but I doubt if I’d take the job.

But if they did, I think that would be a sad commentary on the federal space program, and NASA’s belief in what it’s doing. And I’m willing to stick my neck and mortgage out and continue to write what I think.

I’ll do you the courtesy of thinking that you do the same.

Dwayne “Dr. Evil” Day (foolishly, but then, as he admits himself, no one has ever credibly accused him of being a genius) describes his plans for world domination.

Seriously, Frontier Astronautics has actually done this (purchased an old ICBM silo, that is, not dominated the world–at least not yet). It’s actually a pretty neat example of swords to plowshares.

In other news (that’s not really news), Taylor Dinerman writes that the Outer Space Treaty has outlived its usefulness, to the degree that it ever had any.

Apparently, he was killed in Needham, Massachusetts (near the college he was attending, and coincidentally, the current home of one of my former college roommates), and no other vehicles were involved. Sadly, he had a passenger with him on the bike. She died of her own injuries a day later. My deepest condolences to both families.

Michael Belfiore reviews the EADS idea of building a suborbital business jet. At the $1.3 billion price tag and unit cost presumably in the high tens of millions, the business case is iffy. In particular, it would probably be a lot cheaper to spin out the Rocketplane XP project out of Rocketplane Kistler and end up with a product that could fly a few years sooner and more seats for the same money.

The Futron study Jeff implicitly cited saying 15,000 customers for suborbital space travel in 2015. If we get 4 providers, it’s hard to see how prices stay much above the marginal cost of the fourth provider. RpK and XCOR might have revised their cost estimates since they were estimated as south of $50,000 back when Space Adventures were selling suborbital seats for $100k each. But let’s be generous and say that EADS rivals are going to push the price down to $100k by 2015. This is lower than the implicit Futron estimate of $140k if flight starts in 2009, spends 3 years at $200k then works it’s way down to $50k in 2021.

At $100k, they could get perhaps $50k in debt payments per seat. They would need 6,500 customers per year to pay 25% interest and 9,400 customers per year to pay back the loan in 9 years. But they are unlikely to get 2/3 of the market if they are fourth to market with a higher price structure. If EADS is indeed the high cost provider, the estimate of how much each flight will contribute to debt repayment is $0. The capacity required to fly 9,400 customers per year at two flights per week per craft with four seats is 23 craft which would add another billion in debt if they are $45 million each.

Mark Steyn has some thoughts on Katie Couric’s less-than-royal “we.” And yes, I didn’t make a mistake in the categorization. It is a space post, though it’s also a politics post.

No, they weren’t an “airborne UN”. They were an airborne America. For a start, if there was such a thing as a UN rocket, the Israeli guy wouldn’t get anywhere near it, except on a one-way ticket to establish the viability of Ahmadinejad’s new designated homeland for the Jews on Planet Zongo. I doubt even an EU space shuttle would be eager to admit any astronauts from the Zionist Entity. As for the “Indian woman”, Kalpana Chawla was the American Dream writ large upon the stars: she emigrated to the US in the Eighties and was an astronaut within a decade. There’s no other country on earth where you can do that. And I’ll bet she had no qualms about using the dread “we” word.