From people attempting to leave it:

While these ventures have a futuristic outlook, what no one questions is whether the planet, already inundated with harmful emissions, needs yet more of them from space vehicles that serve no other purpose that to give rides for people with money to burn for a brief personal adventure.

Planes provide needed transportation and scientific rockets hopefully will benefit humankind. But do we really need to unload more fuel emissions into the skies with tourist rockets while we haven

Instapundit and John Miller remember Robert Heinlein, whose centennial celebration will be held tomorrow in Kansas City, the town of his birth. I wish I could attend.

I should note, though, that Glenn omits probably the most influential book on space entrepreneurs: The Man Who Sold The Moon.

Henry Cate, who originated the Carnival of Space a couple months ago, is hosting the tenth one this week.

Leonard David has a useful report on Esther Dyson’s recent conference on personal spaceflight and personal jet flight.

I have to say that she certainly has jumped into this with both feet.

And this was an interesting comment from Virgin Galactic COO Alex Tai:

Tai said he’s looking for that “Netscape moment” when the public space travel business rockets to stardom – just like the internet browser did when it kicked-started the dotcom boom of the mid-1990s.

“We have taken in $25 million from an interest of 80,000 people…with our tiny sales force,” Tai told SPACE.com. “There’s a huge appetite for this offering once we get out there…once we prove that it’s something that’s going to be safe, really fun to do, and is repeatable. What will happen then is that, suddenly, everyone will see Virgin Galactic making an awful lot of money. And that is the next ‘go’ moment.”

Tai speculated that when Richard Branson decides to fund his next big venture, and he sells 10 percent of Virgin Galactic for $100 million, people will hunger to be part of the public space travel business.

“But at the moment, these guys don’t want to invest because there hasn’t been that Netscape moment,” Tai continued. “It is being held up because Virgin Galactic is the gorilla in the room. Who is going to take Virgin on? That’s a shame because I believe it’s a massive market. I would much rather there’s competition getting ready now,” Tai concluded.

Yes, a smart businessman recognizes that competition is necessary for a healthy industry, particularly when it’s first getting off the ground (in this case, literally).

Leonard David has a useful report on Esther Dyson’s recent conference on personal spaceflight and personal jet flight.

I have to say that she certainly has jumped into this with both feet.

And this was an interesting comment from Virgin Galactic COO Alex Tai:

Tai said he’s looking for that “Netscape moment” when the public space travel business rockets to stardom – just like the internet browser did when it kicked-started the dotcom boom of the mid-1990s.

“We have taken in $25 million from an interest of 80,000 people…with our tiny sales force,” Tai told SPACE.com. “There’s a huge appetite for this offering once we get out there…once we prove that it’s something that’s going to be safe, really fun to do, and is repeatable. What will happen then is that, suddenly, everyone will see Virgin Galactic making an awful lot of money. And that is the next ‘go’ moment.”

Tai speculated that when Richard Branson decides to fund his next big venture, and he sells 10 percent of Virgin Galactic for $100 million, people will hunger to be part of the public space travel business.

“But at the moment, these guys don’t want to invest because there hasn’t been that Netscape moment,” Tai continued. “It is being held up because Virgin Galactic is the gorilla in the room. Who is going to take Virgin on? That’s a shame because I believe it’s a massive market. I would much rather there’s competition getting ready now,” Tai concluded.

Yes, a smart businessman recognizes that competition is necessary for a healthy industry, particularly when it’s first getting off the ground (in this case, literally).

Leonard David has a useful report on Esther Dyson’s recent conference on personal spaceflight and personal jet flight.

I have to say that she certainly has jumped into this with both feet.

And this was an interesting comment from Virgin Galactic COO Alex Tai:

Tai said he’s looking for that “Netscape moment” when the public space travel business rockets to stardom – just like the internet browser did when it kicked-started the dotcom boom of the mid-1990s.

“We have taken in $25 million from an interest of 80,000 people…with our tiny sales force,” Tai told SPACE.com. “There’s a huge appetite for this offering once we get out there…once we prove that it’s something that’s going to be safe, really fun to do, and is repeatable. What will happen then is that, suddenly, everyone will see Virgin Galactic making an awful lot of money. And that is the next ‘go’ moment.”

Tai speculated that when Richard Branson decides to fund his next big venture, and he sells 10 percent of Virgin Galactic for $100 million, people will hunger to be part of the public space travel business.

“But at the moment, these guys don’t want to invest because there hasn’t been that Netscape moment,” Tai continued. “It is being held up because Virgin Galactic is the gorilla in the room. Who is going to take Virgin on? That’s a shame because I believe it’s a massive market. I would much rather there’s competition getting ready now,” Tai concluded.

Yes, a smart businessman recognizes that competition is necessary for a healthy industry, particularly when it’s first getting off the ground (in this case, literally).

Another government-funded overpriced manned launch system. And one from a system that has institutionalized pork-barrel spending, since it’s an explicit requirement that each country in ESA get work commensurate with its contribution. Sure, that’ll work.

Jeff Brooks reprises the old arguments about relative cost and value of government programs, and whether we can afford funding for NASA, and proposes that we increase it. Well, of course we could easily afford to spend twice, or three times, or ten times as much money on NASA. We’re a very wealthy country.

But the real point is not whether the money we spend on NASA is worth it relative to other agencies, but whether or not we’re getting good value for the money. I’d argue that, if the goal is to have a robust, space-faring society, that we’ve gotten very poor value for the money to date, and simply spending more money doing the wrong things (usually because of porkified pressure from the Congress) would make matters worse, not better.

Until space actually becomes important as a goal in itself, it doesn’t matter how much money gets thrown at it. And if it were, then we could probably achieve most of what we want with the available funding, as long as it were spent more intelligently toward that goal.

TGV doesn’t get as much attention as some of the other NewSpace firms, but here’s an article about a recent successful engine test, from Norman, Oklahoma, where it’s based.

“Anonymous” over at Space Politics thinks so (see sixth comment):

You