This post made me wonder–since so many people seem to prefer aisle seats, do they even care if window seats, or windows, exist? I’d be very uncomfortable sitting in a windowless aluminum tube going hundreds of miles per hour through the air, but I notice that many people in airplanes don’t look out the window at all.

I wouldn’t fly in an aircraft in which I couldn’t see out a window, at least somewhere (even if I had to walk forward in a cargo plane to find one). How many people out there are indifferent?

And on the subject of space, one of the costs of designing a passenger spacecraft is exactly this–the need to put in windows, which increase structural weight. This isn’t just because the view is a large part of the experience–I suspect that many space passengers would be just as psychologically uncomfortable in a windowless space transport as they would in a windowless aircraft.

Oh, one more thing. It’s very hard to get me into a glass elevator–there, I insist on not knowing what’s outside. The difference is that one is a vehicle, and the other is part of a structure (I’m acrophobic).

[Update on Wednesday evening]

Just to clarify, I’m not asking which seat people prefer. I’m asking how important it is that the airplane has windows, regardless of whether or not you sit next to them.

Phil Bowermaster is running an interesting poll. So far, my vote (for a private developer) is in the plurality. I’m kind of surprised that “Russia” isn’t an option.

And Stephen Gordon describes exciting advances in cancer therapy, improving the chances of many of us to visit or live on a lunar settlement, even if it takes longer than we hope.

It seems to me that if NASA was really listening well to the hardware, they’d get the real message–shut the thing down and put the money toward something useful to actually advancing us in space.

It seems to me that if NASA was really listening well to the hardware, they’d get the real message–shut the thing down and put the money toward something useful to actually advancing us in space.

It seems to me that if NASA was really listening well to the hardware, they’d get the real message–shut the thing down and put the money toward something useful to actually advancing us in space.

Hey, I like space elevators, but if James Miller thinks that this idea will win the 2006 election for Republicans, he’s…well…politically naive.

I can just imagine the Democrat commercials, were they to attempt such a thing. All they’d have to do is show the end of the Simpsons monorail episode, with the giant magnifying glass, the skyscraper made of popsickle sticks, and all of the people riding the escalator to nowhere and falling off the top.

“Millions go without health insurance, our soldiers are dying in Iraq, and the Republicans want to build an elevator to nowhere.”

Sadly, in many ways (as I’ve noted previously), the human spaceflight program has in fact been building a metaphorical elevator to nowhere.

I haven’t read the whole thing yet, but here’s a long piece from ABC News about the prospects for public space travel, and it seems to take it quite seriously.

This should make Mark Whittington happy, seeing as how he likes space races (real or not). The Swedes have plans to colonize space.

At least that’s what the headline says. Makes as much sense as saying that the Chinese have a program to be on the moon before us just because one of their bureaucrats say they have the technology.

Dwayne Day doesn’t believe in “Blackstar”:

it turns out that the atomic-powered bomber never existed, and the plane was never

Want to watch a rocket blow up on the pad, at night (warning: about a hundred-megabyte wmv file)? I’ve never heard so much cursing in such colorful European accents. It happened three and a half years ago at Plesetsk, in Russia. Here’s the story.

[Via Jim Oberg]