Is “the Stick” alive and well?

Who knows?

They’ve started the rollback from the pad. Probably the best decision, since the consensus of the tracks is to put the storm right over the Cape when it exits the state, between Cocoa Beach and Daytona.

Well, at least I won’t have to be distracted by taking any trips up to the Cape to watch a launch for the next few weeks.

[Update at 10:30 AM EDT]

It’s starting to look like the storm is going to be a little further west than even the early morning predictions were:

Speaking of RECON, it good to have them back in the storm this morning. The Cuban Government did allow the Air Force reserve plane to fly into Cuban airspace this morning to get a good fix on the storm’s center. We thank them a great deal. Hopefully in the not-too-distant future, Cuban overflights can be acomplished to better warn their citizens as well as ours. The RECON data is so important, a few hours without it can mean big changes! Ok, back to the storm…The latest guidance is again tightly clustered thanks to the valuable data that the NOAA Gulfstream IV jet was able to add to the model suites. This has landfall in extreme southwest Florida and the upper Keys mid-morning on Wednesday as a moderate to strong tropical storm or minimal hurricane, although the odds of Ernesto topping 74mph is very small. The storm should then begin to re-curve to the north and northeast east of Tampa, over Orlando to just southeast of Jacksonville by late in the day on Wednesday into the overnight hours.

We’ll still get a lot of rain over here, but probably the winds will be barely tropical force. If that prediction is true, it also means that they probably didn’t need to roll back. Wonder if they’re thinking about putting the crawler in reverse?

[Update at 3:37 PM EDT]

From my mouth (so to speak) to NASA’s ears. As Mark Whittington notes in comments, they’ve decided to do exactly that.

Good crisis management by NASA. Everything they’ve done so far is exactly what I would have done (well, in the context of this particular mission), for what little it’s worth. The emphasis needs to be on flying this vehicle, early and often, despite the hand wringers.

Keith Cowing writes about the inflexibility and fragility of the Shuttle (a subject near and dear to my own heart).

NASA’s current launch dilemma began to develop much along the lines of the 70’s movie – based on the 60s novel “Marooned” where a hurricane threatened the launching of a rescue mission to an orbiting space station. When things got tough – the Russians helped out – at the last minute. Things are not as dire this time around, but the confluence of various facts would make for a good book someday.

Weather has always been an issue for launched from Florida – and it always will be. Russians will be as obstinate as they can get away with so long as they are in the equation for American human spaceflight aboard the ISS.

Given that NASA seeks to used “shuttle derived” architecture and hardware – and launch it from KSC – it has more or less guaranteed that such uncertainties will remain part of human spaceflight for decades to come.

I disagree with him though, that the lessons to be learned are from the Russians, who have developed only a slightly less expensive, and slightly more robust system.

Until we develop a truly robust and low-cost space transportation infrastructure (with full redundancy in vehicles and vehicle types), spaceflight will remain expensive, and rare.

NASA needs to get on with the program and get rid of the daylight restriction:

NASA could reconsider restricting this flight to times when the shuttle and external tank, upon separation, are lit by the sun. That was a post-Columbia rule intended to provide good pictures of the tank and its insulating foam to make sure safety changes worked to eliminate dangerous debris. It was supposed to be in place for the first two post-Columbia launches. After the 2005 return to flight mission saw a large piece of foam debris, NASA decided this third post-Columbia flight also would be limited to daylit launch opportunities. If NASA sticks to the rule, there could be just three days the rest of 2006 meeting all safety requirements. Indeed, it could be February before another viable launch window exists that meets the daylight and other flight rules. NASA officials on Sunday were given the opportunity to rule out the possibility of simply eliminating the daylight launch restriction for this flight, the agency did not rule it out. That could open many more days in the latter half of the year to avoid a potential five-month delay in the resumption of space station construction.

Emphasis mine.

They know they have the capability to inspect at ISS now, and most of the major foam fears should be laid to rest. They need to fly as often as possible, particularly given that it’s hurricane season.

I’ve seen a number of references to Anousheh Ansari being the first Muslim woman in space, including this piece on space tourism in today’s issue of The Space Review, by Taylor Dinerman. I know that she’s Iranian, but this is the first time that I’ve heard that she’s a practicing Muslim. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, of course, but I was doing a search on “Anousheh Ansari Muslim” and I can’t find any primary source to that effect.

For instance, in this roundup at Muslim World News, all the story says is:

Moscow, May 8 (DPA) An Iranian-born US businesswoman is tipped to become the first woman “space tourist” to fly to the International Space Station (ISS), Russian media reported Monday.

Telecommunications manager Anousheh Ansari, who was born in 1967, may make a short flight to the orbiter next spring as part of a Russian crew, space officials told the Itar-Tass news agency.

Nothing about her religion. Looking at her web site, there’s no mention of her religion. She talks about wanting to inspire Iranians, but says nothing about Muslims. One would think that one’s religion would be described in an “about” section, unless she’s concerned about negative perceptions arising from it. That doesn’t mean, of course, that she’s not Muslim, but I can find no actual evidence that she is.

So is it true, or is this just an assumption that many are making because of her birth nationality?

I would also note, per this statement by Dinerman:

The industry has a long way to go to get there. The problem is still the cost of access to orbit. Some in the space industry believe that NASA

I’ve seen a number of references to Anousheh Ansari being the first Muslim woman in space, including this piece on space tourism in today’s issue of The Space Review, by Taylor Dinerman. I know that she’s Iranian, but this is the first time that I’ve heard that she’s a practicing Muslim. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, of course, but I was doing a search on “Anousheh Ansari Muslim” and I can’t find any primary source to that effect.

For instance, in this roundup at Muslim World News, all the story says is:

Moscow, May 8 (DPA) An Iranian-born US businesswoman is tipped to become the first woman “space tourist” to fly to the International Space Station (ISS), Russian media reported Monday.

Telecommunications manager Anousheh Ansari, who was born in 1967, may make a short flight to the orbiter next spring as part of a Russian crew, space officials told the Itar-Tass news agency.

Nothing about her religion. Looking at her web site, there’s no mention of her religion. She talks about wanting to inspire Iranians, but says nothing about Muslims. One would think that one’s religion would be described in an “about” section, unless she’s concerned about negative perceptions arising from it. That doesn’t mean, of course, that she’s not Muslim, but I can find no actual evidence that she is.

So is it true, or is this just an assumption that many are making because of her birth nationality?

I would also note, per this statement by Dinerman:

The industry has a long way to go to get there. The problem is still the cost of access to orbit. Some in the space industry believe that NASA

I’ve seen a number of references to Anousheh Ansari being the first Muslim woman in space, including this piece on space tourism in today’s issue of The Space Review, by Taylor Dinerman. I know that she’s Iranian, but this is the first time that I’ve heard that she’s a practicing Muslim. Not that there’s anything wrong with it, of course, but I was doing a search on “Anousheh Ansari Muslim” and I can’t find any primary source to that effect.

For instance, in this roundup at Muslim World News, all the story says is:

Moscow, May 8 (DPA) An Iranian-born US businesswoman is tipped to become the first woman “space tourist” to fly to the International Space Station (ISS), Russian media reported Monday.

Telecommunications manager Anousheh Ansari, who was born in 1967, may make a short flight to the orbiter next spring as part of a Russian crew, space officials told the Itar-Tass news agency.

Nothing about her religion. Looking at her web site, there’s no mention of her religion. She talks about wanting to inspire Iranians, but says nothing about Muslims. One would think that one’s religion would be described in an “about” section, unless she’s concerned about negative perceptions arising from it. That doesn’t mean, of course, that she’s not Muslim, but I can find no actual evidence that she is.

So is it true, or is this just an assumption that many are making because of her birth nationality?

I would also note, per this statement by Dinerman:

The industry has a long way to go to get there. The problem is still the cost of access to orbit. Some in the space industry believe that NASA

Eric Hedman has concerns about the VSE (really, ESAS–I wish that people would be more careful to make the distinction). This is a new one that I hadn’t previously considered:

Michael Griffin recently said two things that significantly bother me about the Ares architecture. He said that the Ares 5 is being designed with the requirements of a Mars mission in mind. He also said that he didn

There’s a very friendly article toward NewSpace in today’s Wall Street Journal (subscription required, sorry) based on the reporter’s interview with Clark Lindsey. It notes the disconnect between the science-fiction reality in which we live in many respects, and the woefully slower pace of space development, relative to what we thought we’d have:

…the Pluto debate was another unhappy reminder that except for a few astronauts, we’re stuck down here on Earth long after sci-fi paperbacks predicted we would have been occupying moon bases or exploring Mars or mining asteroids. It’s not as if we haven’t seen an enormous amount of technological progress in recent decades. In some ways, we live in a science-fiction world: We carry massive music collections in our pockets, conduct real-time conversations with people across the globe for fractions of a cent and can spend hours playing (and even making money) in hypnotically detailed virtual worlds. Pure cyberpunk, down to the jihadis exchanging deadly tips on hidden message boards.

But at the same time, the science fiction of “out there” seems stillborn — 25 years after the first space shuttle took off, it’s news if it returns with all aboard safe and sound. Space elevators and moon bases? C’mon, kid: Your square-jawed rocket engineers of future histories past are now tattooed, pierced software engineers coding social-networking sites. Pluto’s a faraway place in more ways than one.

Or is that too pessimistic? Is there another way into space, one that isn’t dependent on the fitful attention of big government and the iffy performance of big bureaucracies?

Clark S. Lindsey, for one, is optimistic. Mr. Lindsey is a Java programmer and space enthusiast who runs the blog www.spacetransportnews.com. Last summer, a Real Time column being decidedly mopey about the future prompted a letter from him, contending that we’re at the start of a private-industry-led era in space development, one that would develop more quickly than many disappointed sci-fi fans like me thought. (His letter, and other reflections on space exploration, are available here.)

…As sketched out by Mr. Lindsey, it sounds convincing — aided, perhaps, by the fact that I desperately want to believe it. Once thing that does seem certain is this: If we’re to shed our disappointment, we have to let go of space exploration as it was, and accept how it will be. Don’t think of the race to the moon as a first step to Mars and beyond — that’s a perspective best left to history books that will be written centuries from now, if we’re lucky. Instead, consider the space race of the 1960s a mutation of cold-war competition, a peaceful contest that caught the imagination of a more-uniform society that united behind it. Put that big-government model from your mind, and the relatively small scale of private-sector efforts to get into orbit may catch your imagination, instead of just arousing cynicism and disappointment.

Jon Goff’s musings on essential spacefaring technologies was very useful, inasmuch as it seems to have kicked off a substantial discussion in the blogosphere. One wonders how many at NASA are reading.

[Friday morning update]

Jon has some further thoughts. I would add one technology to his list: routine EVA equipment and orbital assembly techniques.