Cathy Booth Thomas has a fairly comprehensive overview of the space tourism industry at Time Magazine. I didn’t see any mistakes in it, except I’m not sure what she means about Dreamchaser being Russian derived. I thought that it was based on the HL-20. That vehicle was inspired by a Russian design, but she probably should have mentioned the Langley heritage.

Alan Boyle has a fascinating exclusive interview with Bob Bigelow, who seems to be planning to homestead EML-1 privately. I’m glad that someone’s going to do it, since NASA seems determined to ignore it, despite its many potential advantages. He seems primarily interested in it as an assembly point for building a lunar base that can then be dropped to the surface in one piece, avoiding lunar surface assembly issues. But I suspect that once he starts doing it, there will probably be permanent infrastructure there as well.

[Update at 10:30 AM EST]

In the face of continuing progress in the private sector such as described above, Clark Lindsey once again questions NASA’s priorities.

The answer, of course, comes down to pork. Bigelow won’t provide/maintain jobs in the right congressional districts.

In response to a post about John Glenn’s vague boostering of the ISS, there’s an interesting discussion in comments over at Space Politics about its utility.

I agree with “anonymous” that orbital assembly techniques are crucial skills, and disagree with Donald Robertson that the ISS was a good or cost-effective (or even necessary) way to get them. Like Shuttle, to the degree we’ve learned things from ISS, it was much more how not to do things, and the cost of the education was far too high.

Matt Bowes writes not to give the environmentalists an inch on space tourism, or they will take a mile. I agree. We should consider the environment in our designs, but sensibly, with rational analyses, and not allow the class-warfare luddites to dictate the shape of the industry.

Is NASA starting to sprout a little fur?

NASA’s news release said a memorandum of understanding called for the agency’s Ames Research Center to work together with Virgin Galactic, the space tourism company founded by British billionaire Richard Branson, to “explore possible collaborations in several technical areas, including hybrid rocket motors and hypersonic vehicles capable of traveling five or more times the speed of sound, employing NASA Ames’ unique capabilities and world-class facilities.”

NASA said the agreement was negotiated through NASA

In an article at PopMech about Orion, Scott Horowitz sets up a classic strawman:

By relying on existing technology, the design would allow for more efficient construction, narrowing the gap between the shuttle’s retirement in 2010 and the next manned flight. But it also stirred a hot debate within the aerospace community. “NASA’s attitude seems to be that Apollo worked, so let’s just redo Apollo,” says Charles Lurio, a Boston space consultant. Burt Rutan, the mastermind behind the rocket SpaceShipOne, likened the new CEV to an archeological dig. “To get to Mars and the moons of Saturn, we need breakthroughs. But the way NASA’s doing it, we won’t be learning anything new.”

Scott Horowitz, NASA’s associate administrator for Exploration Systems, defends the agency’s approach. “Sure, we’d love to have antimatter warp drive,” he says. “But I suspect that would be kind of expensive. Unfortunately, we just don’t have the money for huge technological breakthroughs. We’ve got to do the best we can within our constraints of performance, cost and schedule.”

Emphasis mine. Note that neither Lurio or Rutan were calling for “antimatter warp drive.” Neither were they calling for unaffordable “huge technical breakthroughs,” as far as I’ve ever heard. They were simply asking for something that would be worth the many billions being invested in it. Instead, NASA sets up the false choice that it’s either Apollo or Star Trek, and continues, in its attitude, to keep us mired in a world of high cost and low productivity in space.

For some reason, Popular Mechanics has reposted the interview they did with me last fall. For those new readers who missed it, here it is, and there’s nothing changed since then that would cause revision to my remarks.

Clark Lindsey has posted Henry Vanderbilt’s latest announcement for Space Access, which is a month earlier this year than it’s traditionally been, occurring in March instead of April. As Henry notes, if you plan to attend, you’d better hurry and make your hotel reservation.

It’s one of the best conferences, if not the best, of the year to find out what’s happening with the “other space program” (the one for the rest of us). Don’t let the fact that I’ll be there, and on a panel, dissuade you from attending.

Also, the National Space Society has moved ISDC back to Memorial Day (a big mistake, I think–one of the reasons that they had such good attendance last year in LA was, in addition to the fact that it was in LA, because it wasn’t on a holiday weekend). Here’s the press announcement:

National Space Society to Host 26th Annual Conference in Dallas, Convening Pioneers from Government and Private Space Programs
2007 International Space Development Conference Set for Memorial Day Weekend.

WASHINGTON, Feb. 21, 2007

A group of scientists are complaining because NASA isn’t spending enough money to study the earth.

This is another symptom of how screwed up our space policy is. Why should it be NASA’s job to study the earth? I thought that was what NOAA was for? Why not put more money into their budget? Yeah, I know, they don’t have the internal R&D capability to do build and launch satellites, but there’s no reason they couldn’t develop it, or even do something innovative, like managing the overall program while farming out some of the work to Goddard or JPL. Or even, heaven forbid, Ames.

For that matter, this seems like a great application for data purchase. Stipulate what kind of data you want, how much coverage in what lighting conditions, in what spectra, and then purchase it on the market.

The fewer things that NASA has on its plate, the more effective it might be in actually executing them, and not getting into all these pitched battles on the Hill over its budgeting priorities. For that matter, I suspect that both space and aviation would be better off if a separate agency were set up for the latter. The Japanese actually used to have the right idea of separate agencies for science and development (unfortunately, they recently combined them).

[Update a few minutes later]

I hadn’t looked at the Space Act lately, but looky here:

(e) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence in scientific and engineering systems of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration also be directed toward ground propulsion systems research and development. Such development shall be conducted so as to contribute to the objectives of developing energy- and petroleum-conserving ground propulsion systems, and of minimizing the environmental degradation caused by such systems.

(f) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in science and engineering systems be directed to assisting in bioengineering research, development, and demonstration programs designed to alleviate and minimize the effects of disability.

Noble goals, to be sure. But again, why NASA?

Jon Goff says that first impressions matter. A lot.

This is exactly the kind of mindset that we have to break out of. Unfortunately, in its choice of vehicle designs, NASA remains part of the problem, instead of part of the solution.