NORAD didn’t see the Iranians launch anything.
It’s possible that they managed to launch something without our detecting it (though if so, as Allen Thompson notes over at sci.space.policy, I want a tax refund), but I think it’s more likely that they just said they launched, but didn’t, for propaganda purposes. Did they actually provide any time-stamped evidence of an actual launch?
NORAD didn’t see the Iranians launch anything.
It’s possible that they managed to launch something without our detecting it (though if so, as Allen Thompson notes over at sci.space.policy, I want a tax refund), but I think it’s more likely that they just said they launched, but didn’t, for propaganda purposes. Did they actually provide any time-stamped evidence of an actual launch?
Anyone who watched the video of the Zenit explosion will be surprised to see how little damage was actually done to the SeaLaunch platform.
Not me this time, but it looks like an interesting lineup this week:
1.Monday, Feb. 26, 2007, 7-8:30 PM Pacific: Dr. Lee Valentine returns to discuss the upcoming Planetary Space Conference, commercial space investments and much more.
2. Tuesday, Feb. 27, 2007, 7-8:30 PM Pacific. Stephen Metschan, President & CEO of TeamVision Corporation comes on board to discuss the comprehensive TeamVision plan for returning to the Moon and going to Mars.
3. Wednesday, Feb. 28, 9:30-11AM Pacific: Dallas Bienhoff, an engineer with Boeing, joins us to discuss on orbit fuel depots and much more.
I worked with Dallas on the CE&R studies a couple years ago, in which we fleshed out a lot of the features and advantages of propellant depots, in LEO and elsewhere. NASA continues to prefer a return to Apollo.
Gregory Anderson repeats a long-time theme of this web site–that we have to broaden our discussion of space far beyond science, which is actually one of the poorest justifications for it. Jeff Foust reviews the Astronaut Farmer, and Taylor Dinerman rightfully mocks the recent call by some well meaning but naive former astronauts to make the UN responsible for asteroid protection. I was going to do one of these myself, because it just begs for ridicule, but I’ve been busy.
While the Dem takeover of Congress will have many bad effects, Jeff Foust points out that there’s at least one silver lining for space enthusiasts:
…there appears to be a chance to make a serious attempt at some form of export control reform. The change in control of Congress after the 2006 elections has put new people into leadership positions of key committees, including some representatives who may be more amenable to reform. However, getting that reform passed through Congress is no easy task, and is fraught with political peril for those who do support it. The odds of getting meaningful reform passed during this Congress may be higher now than they have been for years, but that doesn
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.