Clark Lindsey notes (probably correctly):

Certainly one way to help insure that the exploration program continues past this administration would be to tie it closely with international partners as was done with the ISS in the early 1990s.

Based on history, it would also be a good way to insure that the program is delayed, over cost, and doesn’t achieve its objectives. Back in 1993 NASA made a Faustian bargain. It would accept the need to make the station more “international” in exchange for keeping Congressional (and in that case, more importantly, administration) support. It won its appropriation by a single vote.

We went to the moon alone, and it was vastly successful, at least in terms of getting to the moon. There’s no reason to think that bringing in other nations increases the probability of success, or reduce costs, even if it increases the probability of keeping the program alive politically. This is not a dig at other nations–it’s simply a recognition of the degree to which bringing in other entities, with their own inscrutable politics (that, like ours, largely have nothing to do with space), can complicate and confound our own efforts. For recent (in the last four years) readers of this blog, I discoursed on this subject back in 2002.

Clark Lindsey has some thoughts on John Kavanagh’s thoughts about NASA’s potential conflict of interest in COTS/Constellation (at least as currently formulated). I might have some thoughts, too, but not today. Perhaps this weekend or next week, after I get home to Florida (where it now looks unlikely that we’ll get any severe weather soon).

Here’s a link to the show at Utube.

Clark Lindsey has dropped in on the Mars Society conference, which is in DC this year, and has some first-hand reports, on Mike Griffin’s speech and the latest from Elon Musk and SpaceX.

I haven’t spent much time reading them myself, being too busy, but when I do later, I may have some thoughts.

One question I do have, though. Just how big does Mike think is big enough for a heavy lifter for a Mars mission? How many decades does he plan to put off developing the critical technologies of orbital storage and handling of propellants, and vehicle assembly?

Popular Mechanics has a new podcast up with interviews with Bob Bigelow (presumably on space hotels) and Tom Jones about spacewalking (among other non-space topics).

The latest roundup of links at New Space News is up.

Clark Lindsey has scored an interview with Glenn Reynolds on the subject of space.

He also has an interesting update on plans for Kistler.

Someone was asking last week about pictures from the NewSpace Conference, other than the one of Misuzu and her space fashions. Jeff Foust has put some up on Flikr.

Clark Lindsey notes an interesting (and useful) shift in the conventional wisdom, in the wake of the Rocketplane Kistler/OSC joint venture.

SpaceX has moved to “version 1.1” which expresses Elon Musk’s confidence that the next launch will not have the same problems as the first. (In software culture, which Musk earned one of his fortunes in, an initial version of 0.9 or no version augmentation from previous expresses scepticism. 1.1 or augmentation of the major or minor version expresses confidence.) To fix the specific failure from the last launch “…any exposed aluminum B-nuts are being replaced with either an orbital welded joint or a stainless steel B-nut that won’t corrode.” To fix many other sources of potential failure, the electronic monitoring, automatic launch procedures, remote monitoring, exterior redesign and better climate control for payload are all excellent improvements. Bravo!

The oversight by managers they implemented needs more details released before I would recognize it as a new improved way of doing business. (Finally, while I have seen another company launch with the engine compartment on fire, a technical coup may be a PR mistake.)

In other news, Musk’s electric car company is making headlines.