This isn’t really a surprise to anyone familiar with him and his history, but Newt Gingrich is continuing to promote prizes for space achievements. I agree with commenters that his proposal of twenty billion for a human Mars mission is a prize too far, not just for all the reasons stated (too much money to raise privately, too long-term a proposition, too little faith in the government to keep its word) but also because I’m not sure that there would be adequate public support for the goal itself. A more incremental approach is indeed required–going from a ten million dollar prize to a twenty billion dollar prize is just too much of a leap.

I also agree with this comment, with a caveat:

IMO, we should start with smaller prizes. I would create three (3) prizes, in the following order: 1) orbital RLVs, 2) LEO propellant depots, and then 3) Processing oxygen on the Moon, and 4) Delivering the oxygen from the lunar surface to a LEO prop depot.

I suspect that it will be a long time before it’s economically viable to deliver lunar LOX to LEO, at least directly. What I would envision happening is a LEO depot, an EML1 depot, and a continuous parade of low-thrust tankers (which might also serve as the depots themselves while in place) moving back and forth between the two locations, delivering propellant to wherever the price dictates. If the tankers could deliver lunar LOX to LEO at a lower cost than delivery from earth, then they would do so. If it only made sense to use lunar LOX one-way as propellant to leave the moon, and it was cheaper to refuel at EML1 for the return using LOX delivered from earth, then that’s what should happen. The important thing is to establish the propellant supply infrastructure, regardless of the source of propellants. Building roads and a gasoline-delivery infrastructure was critical to making reusable cars (as opposed to the one-way Conestoga wagons) practical, and we need to do something similar in space.

Over at The New Scientist. And contrary to commenters who think that few indulge in it, the current top posting repeats the fallacy of high launch costs.

We watched it from the causeway west of Cocoa Beach. It was a beautiful evening for it–all of the clouds had cleared. I may put up some pictures tomorrow, if they look worth it. Off to bed now, a little after 1 AM.

In the non-space publication PC Gamer in the July issue, we find that video game celebrity and fellow Austinite Richard Garriott will have a regular column where we will find out about his PC Games from NC Soft like Tabula Rasa and also “what one says to Stephen Hawking while riding the ‘vomit comet.'”

While technically he rode ZEROG non-vomit comet with only 12 parabolas (which doesn’t give me much hope for the space editing in the magazine), Garriott’s space persona includes being Vice Chairman of Space Adventures, the company that has the most space tourism cost of goods sold. He is also the son of astronaut Owen Garriott.

So welcome, Lord British! And keep up the good work bringing science fiction to digital–and analog–life.

Mark Whittington reads a prognosticative puff piece by various NASA officials, and thinks that it’s somehow a rebuttal to all the critics of the program.

What do you expect, Mark? That they’re going to say it’s not going to survive? It’s not like any of them are going to be around and accountable six years from now. Is there anything they could tell you that you wouldn’t believe? Did you know that the word “gullible” isn’t in the dictionary?

Well, at least he admits his confusion.

Despite the Bahamian low that’s supposed to bring showers to south Florida today, there’s an eighty percent chance of good weather for the launch tonight, so I think we’ll be driving up. Too bad it’s not an hour or so later–then it would be a night launch.

It looks like XCOR has the funding they need to build Xerus. Alan Boyle has the story of the changing, and maturing, nature of space startup funding. No more giggling.

Out Of The Cradle has the most comprehensive set of ISDC links so far.

And justified criticism of the Dallas Morning News, which doesn’t seem to think that this is important, even when it takes place in its own city.

Jeff Foust has a report on three of the talks at this weekends ISDC, on the importance of being willing to rethink plans, improvise, and make rapid changes to them. This is something that small private companies are a lot better at than large ones, or government bureaucracies, which is one of the reasons that they’re likely to beat NASA back to orbit post Shuttle, or on to the moon.

An interesting interview with George Whitesides, Executive Director of the National Space Society. I would point out, though, that NASA had nothing to do with GPS.