Mark Whittington continues to make false and unsupportable claims about my writings and beliefs:

Rand Simberg thinks that the idea that the Chinese might behave badly in space is–well–delusional. He doesn’t say why, which tells me quite a bit.

I don’t say why I “think” that for a very simple reason–because I don’t think that, except in Mark’s bizarre imagination, and as I’ve said in the past, Mark is unable to actually provide any evidence that I do. Apparently Mark is unable to get his mind around the (what should be) simple concept that I might find his fantasy a fantasy for some reason other than some misguided view of the benignity of Chinese intentions.

Jon Goff offers just one reason (there are others, involving basic logistics, economics and physics) that Mark’s scenario is so hilariously illogical and implausible, that has nothing to do with the intent or goals of the Chinese government.

[Update in the afternoon]

Oh, this is too much:

Rand Simberg, in essence, calls me a liar without, as far as I can tell, proving it. It’s sad when some people can’t engage in debate without engaging in that kind of behavior.

As I note in comments, Mark is apparently as clueless about the meaning of the word “lie” and “liar” as those who foolishly continue to claim that “Bush lied, people died.” So once, again, he accuses me of saying something that I didn’t. Anyone can see above that I accused him of making a false statement. It is possible to make false statements without lying–all it requires is a belief (no matter how mistaken, or deluded) that the statement is true. So, since I haven’t called him a “liar,” I rationally felt no need to “prove” that he was one.

As for proving that his statement is false, that’s kind of problematic, since that would involve proving a negative–that is, I would have to somehow prove that I have never, anywhere, made the statement that he accuses me of making. More specifically, I would have to prove that I have never attributed non-malign intent to the Chinese government, either in space, or on earth. (I should note that anyone familiar with my writings would know that I don’t trust the Chinese government any farther than I can toss Tiananmen Square, but perhaps Mark has been too busy making up things that I supposedly write to pay attention to things that I actually do write).

Anyone familiar with logic (unlike, apparently, for example, Mark) knows that it’s impossible to prove a negative (though it’s possible to develop a high level of confidence about the falsity if sufficient effort is undertaken to search for affirmative evidence, with no results).

But there’s a solution to this problem, accepted in science and courtrooms for centuries. Mark has made a positive claim about me, which I contend is false. Positive claims, however, can be substantiated. Thus, the burden of proof is on him. Since he continues to filibuster, and ignore my demand that he prove his multiple false statements about my statements and beliefs, of which this is just the most recent, I guess we’ll just have to let the audience decide.

It would be delightful to have a war on the Moon. It would be a good way to spark development and settle on a sensible property rights regime. I don’t see, however, the Chinese spending $80 billion on the Moon much less $10 trillion or so to plant a base with 5000 km anti-spacecraft range and the techs to operate it. Unless there is an alternative way to get to the Moon than big dumb government programs, I see the Chinese as less likely to lift a finger to take the Moon than Quimoy or Matsu off their coast.

Mark Whittington manages to conflate both a strawman and a feverish delusion in a single post:

Allow me to present a scenario. The United States follows the suggestions of Jon, Rand, and others and stops the NASA return to the Moon.

This should have been “Allow me to present a strawman,” (Mark’s debate tactic of first resort).

Neither Jon, nor I (I can’t speak for Mark’s favorite bogeymen, those “others”) have suggested that NASA not return to the moon. We have merely pointed out that the means by which they’ve chosen to do so will result in tears, just as it did the last time.

For the delusion, one can go read the rest of the post. It’s hilarious.

I’m busy, so I’ll leave it to the wolves in my comments section to tear it to pieces.

I can’t figure out from this space.com article on the new commercial ISS procurements why it’s characterized as NASA ‘subsidizing” commercial space development. Why is it a subsidy to provide money for services, but not to issue a cost-plus contract?

[Update a few minutes later]

Clark Lindsey asks the same question:

So when the Air Force contracts with airlines to deliver people and cargo to foreign miltary bases, is it “subsidizing” the airline companies? More likely it is doing so because outsourcing the deliveries is a lot cheaper and quicker than using its own vehicles to do the job.

One of my partners in blogging crime has announced a new space-related venture.

Dwayne Day debunks sensationalistic misreporting about the Chinese space program.

Despite Western media

I missed Pete Worden’s talk on the use of lunar resources to alleviate global warming, on the first day of the Space Frontier Conference, because I was splitting time between it and work in El Segundo. But it was quite interesting, and Jeff Foust has a report on it in today’s The Space Review.

It has this curious exchange, though:

…someone asked Worden after his speech, if this system is privately developed, what

Blue Origin is moving and expanding its facilities in Seattle:

Blue Origin’s mission, according to a brief description on the company’s Web site, is developing reusable launch vehicles and technologies “that, over time, will help enable an enduring human presence in space…”

…During an interview that lasted a little over a half-hour, Bezos discussed his plans to develop reusable suborbital launch vehicles that could carry passengers nearly into space, the couple said.

Simpson said Bezos hoped to be able to begin offering commercial passenger flights within three to five years of the initial test launches, with the ultimate goal of helping humankind achieve space colonization “in his lifetime.”

Well, I’m glad to see that someone is working on this, since NASA obviously isn’t.

“Rusty” over at sci.space.history says:

The Chinese space program is similar to the early American space
program.

Except, Tang is one of the astronauts.

In another dispatch from Planet Strawman, Mark Whittington writes, among other nonsense:

Settling the Moon or any place else in space without a government presence is a fantasy.

I haven’t seen anyone propose that space will or should be settled without a government presence. Mark confuses legitimate concerns about the architecture that NASA has chosen to return to the moon with proposals for anarchy. He’s apparently impervious to irony when, in his indefatigable NASA worship, he accuses others of being kool-aid drinkers.

[Update at 10:18 AM PST]

Jon Goff has a much longer response.

[Afternoon update]

Robot Guy has further thoughts.