Things are looking good for a launch at the Cape tonight. We may drive up.

He may have written a dumber article in the past than this one, on how unsafe rocket planes will be, but I can’t recall it. I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but in what I’ve read so far, almost every single sentence in it is wrong. I almost have to fisk it line by line, but I don’t have the time right now.

I’ll note, though, that attempting to extrapolate the safety record of 1960s research aircraft to twenty-first century operational tourism vehicles is…nutty.

The whole purpose of those programs was to learn how such vehicles operated, and about supersonic flight and spaceflight in general. We have much more knowledge now than we did then, and much better materials. The new aircraft will have much better margins. More importantly, it was a research program. Of course there were crashes–they were pushing the envelope. Tourist vehicles will be designed and operated with an entirely different philosophy.

When he notes that the X-15 broke in an aborted landing when it couldn’t do a full fuel dump, he seems to assume that the designers of modern spaceplanes are stupid, and that that their structure won’t be designed to handle fueled landing loads. His comment about the safety of SS1 verges on libelous, and his speculation that it wasn’t flown again for safety reasons is just that. SS1 was designed for one thing, and one thing only–to win the X-Prize. It was never intended to be a commercial operational vehicle.

When he claims that rocket planes will cost more to test than airliners, he provides zero data to support such a claim. When he writes:

The fatal crash rate will be at least 1-in-200 and probably more like 1-in-50.

…this is a number pulled out of his own exhaust nozzle.

I’ll leave the rest to the commenters, for now.

An interesting discussion on the subject, involving Jim Benson, at Space Transport News.

My opinion? I think that the danger of liquids is overrated, but may the best concept win. The ultimate answer is competition, on both safety and cost.

Apparently the Atlas launch I mentioned earlier is Thursday night, not Friday. Makes it a little tougher to go up and see it, but probably worth it anyway, even if we lose a little sleep.

Mark Whittington has a useful set of recommendations on space policy for the next president. I could nitpick some of it, but there’s actually little with which I disagree. But I think he missed one: reform ITAR.

Mark Whittington has a useful set of recommendations on space policy for the next president. I could nitpick some of it, but there’s actually little with which I disagree. But I think he missed one: reform ITAR.

Mark Whittington has a useful set of recommendations on space policy for the next president. I could nitpick some of it, but there’s actually little with which I disagree. But I think he missed one: reform ITAR.

This might be worth a drive up to the Cape for on Friday night.

[Update on Tuesday morning]

Sorry, that’s Thursday night.

There’s a lot of lively discussion over at Space Politics over NASA’s budget crunch and its implications for ESAS. I would note that it’s getting harder and harder to find defenders of Ares 1.

[Update at 11:30 AM EST]

Here’s another lively thread:

If NASA was somehow developing the technologies to enable very-low-cost human spaceflight, with advanced life support systems, in-situ resource utilization, and advanced propulsion systems, then maybe I could get behind the idea of a gov

No link yet, but Florida prosecutors have apparently reduced charges against Nowak from attempted murder to attempted kidnapping. They may have decided that they couldn’t get twelve to agree to the guilt of the murder rap. I also suspect that it may be plea bargained to probation and a lot of therapy and observation.

That of course raises the question of what the purpose of such a kidnapping would be. Hard to imagine it was for ransom.

[Evening update]

OK, I know that this is deplorable, but you shouldn’t judge a woman until you’ve driven 950 miles in her diaper…