Jeff Foust has a good summary of the current state of planetary defense.

Current schedule seems to be 4 PM Pacific (that means this evening for us (current) east coasters).

Alan Henderson has some thoughts about sunspots, climate change, and space colonization. I have to say, though, that I don’t think it’s an urgent issue.

Or so says Elon Musk.

Here’s hoping for a badly needed success.

Former Congressional space staffer David Goldston has a piece over at Nature about the grid-locked and paralytic state of space policy. He also describes the ongoing ignorance of much of the Congress, the media, and the public on the subject:

…the story one hears now from most members of Congress, and some in the media, is that the president made a speech about going to Mars in 2004, got nothing but grief for it, and the proposal went nowhere. This is, of course, almost entirely wrong.

Continue reading Thoughts On Mike’s Thoughts →

Former Congressional space staffer David Goldston has a piece over at Nature about the grid-locked and paralytic state of space policy. He also describes the ongoing ignorance of much of the Congress, the media, and the public on the subject:

…the story one hears now from most members of Congress, and some in the media, is that the president made a speech about going to Mars in 2004, got nothing but grief for it, and the proposal went nowhere. This is, of course, almost entirely wrong.

Continue reading Thoughts On Mike’s Thoughts →

Former Congressional space staffer David Goldston has a piece over at Nature about the grid-locked and paralytic state of space policy. He also describes the ongoing ignorance of much of the Congress, the media, and the public on the subject:

…the story one hears now from most members of Congress, and some in the media, is that the president made a speech about going to Mars in 2004, got nothing but grief for it, and the proposal went nowhere. This is, of course, almost entirely wrong.

Continue reading Thoughts On Mike’s Thoughts →

There’s a lot of interesting discussion over at Space Politics about NASA’s budget dilemma. Al Fansome makes a very interesting point, that needs to be turned into a policy paper:

There are other clear

Clark Lindsey has some thoughts:

NASA lost public support after Apollo 11 for many reasons but cost was the primary factor. It didn’t help that no one could see themselves ever traveling on such a stupendously expensive throwaway system like Apollo. Today NASA managers should not be surprised that few people, especially young people, are excited about seeing NASA build yet another totally impractical and stupendously expensive machine to carry another small elite group of astronauts to the Moon by some arbitrary date.

[Update in the evening of the thirteenth]

Dan Schrimpsher, who is “just an engineer,” has some further thoughts.

Jim Oberg has a dozen of them. But I’m sure that the fantasists will persist in their anti-US propaganda.

And while I think that a ban on destructive anti-satellite weapons is unrealistic and unverifiable, I agree that a ban on testing them, at least in orbit, is a good idea.