…over four decades later. Via Jim Oberg, here’s an interesting article about the first woman in space.

This part I found a little puzzling, though:

Astronaut Mary Ellen Weber , who went up twice on the space shuttle, was also in attendance at the dinner, as was Lori Garver, whose plans to go into space were shelved in 2003 after the Columbia tragedy.

Huh?

What did Columbia have to do with Lori shelving her plans to go into space? She was going to go on Soyuz. I thought she shelved her plans because she couldn’t find a sponsor to pay for it. Of course, it doesn’t say she did it because of Columbia, but that’s certainly the obvious inference to me, else why mention it?

Joe Betcher, Lake Superior State, email interviews Sam Dinkin (reprinted with permission):

Betcher: In what areas has current space program failed to live up to expectations?

Dinkin: Settlement. Cheap access.

Betcher: What aspects of human spaceflight have been successful?

Dinkin: Dead end jobs. Glory among non space cognoscenti.

Betcher: What changes to human spaceflight can we expect in the future?

Dinkin: Business-like led by Russia.

Betcher: Do you believe the Vision for Space Exploration will be successful and if any changes are necessary to make it better?

Dinkin: Yes. Yes.

Betcher:What are some of the benefits of a trip to the moon or Mars?

Dinkin: Make it one-way and we are a bi-planet species.

Betcher: Do you believe the risks of sending people into space are worth it? Is there any way to make it safer?

Dinkin: Are the risks of pregnancy worth it? Practice makes perfect.

Betcher: In what ways can robots replace humans in space?

Dinkin: We can send a 77-year old robot around the planet a few times to do geriatrics research.

Betcher: What do you believe is in store for the future of human spaceflight?

Dinkin: Going to a store and buying a human spaceflight.

…of the SpaceX launch, over at Out of the Cradle. Just a little over three hours to go, if all goes well.

Or, at least a missile engineer gap:

Not only are fewer American engineers and scientists choosing to work on missile technology, there are fewer of them altogether, the report says. Each year, about 70,000 Americans receive undergraduate and graduate science and engineering degrees that are defense related, compared with a combined 200,000 in China and India, the report says.

The government should pay higher salaries and offer other incentives to attract more experts into the strategic missile field, the report says.

As always, I find it irritating that reporters think that it takes “scientists” to design and operate missiles. I guess they think that someone with a physics degree is a “scientist,” even if they’re actually doing engineering (perhaps because they think that getting a journalism degree makes one a journalist, regardless of how much journalistic malpractice is committed).

The SpaceX launch attempt has reportedly been delayed until tomorrow, same time.

Maybe. If all goes well, SpaceX may finally get off their first launch to orbit, at 4 PM EST. Clark Lindsey has a roundup of links with which to follow proceedings.

Maybe. If all goes well, SpaceX may finally get off their first launch to orbit, at 4 PM EST. Clark Lindsey has a roundup of links with which to follow proceedings.

Maybe. If all goes well, SpaceX may finally get off their first launch to orbit, at 4 PM EST. Clark Lindsey has a roundup of links with which to follow proceedings.

Fabio Sau, UND says:

I count on all of you to provide me with your input and insight for my master thesis. Please, visit this quick online survey on the Political Feasibility of a Human Mission to Mars.

–Update–
New link.

John Marburger made a speech at the Goddard Symposium, in which, as Paul Dietz notes, he clearly gets it:

The Moon has unique significance for all space applications for a reason that to my amazement is hardly ever discussed in popular accounts of space policy. The Moon is the closest source of material that lies far up Earth’s gravity well. Anything that can be made from Lunar material at costs comparable to Earth manufacture has an enormous overall cost advantage compared with objects lifted from Earth’s surface. The greatest value of the Moon lies neither in science nor in exploration, but in its material. And I am not talking about mining helium-3 as fusion reactor fuel. I doubt that will ever be economically feasible. I am talking about the possibility of extracting elements and minerals that can be processed into fuel or massive components of space apparatus. The production of oxygen in particular, the major component (by mass) of chemical rocket fuel, is potentially an important Lunar industry.

What are the preconditions for such an industry? That, it seems to me, must be a primary consideration of the long range planning for the Lunar agenda. Science studies provide the foundation for a materials production roadmap. Clever ideas have been advanced for the phased construction of electrical power sources