I’d like to add my name to the list of luminaries at the bottom of this letter. Jim Muncy has been an unsung (or at least not sufficiently sung) hero of commercial space for decades.

Well, that depends on what you mean. NASA has always been politicized–it is a government agency, after all. Anyone who thinks that the agency has ever made decisions, from what part of the country in which to award a contract, to whether or not to ship money off to Russia, that weren’t driven strongly by politics has no understanding of how government agencies work. The question here is, has the science that NASA purports to do and report become more politicized?

Troublingly, the answer may indeed by yes, but again, it’s still nothing new. On the other hand, the Sentinel damages its credibility when it writes:

Former Administrator Sean O’Keefe made an unprecedented decision that fall to campaign on behalf of Republicans. In the final days before the election, he visited Huntsville, Ala., home of NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, to endorse U.S. Rep. Bob Riley, R-Ala., for governor. A similar visit to Cocoa Beach to stump for U.S. Rep. Tom Feeney, R-Oviedo, was canceled only after O’Keefe’s flight was delayed.

There’s nothing unprecedented about this. Where were they when Dan Goldin was doing the same thing with Barbara Mikulski in the nineties?

Setting that aside, though, certainly hiring an unqualified political hack and college dropout for a powerful position at the Public Affairs Office (PAO) was shameful, but just as much of that thing went on in general during the Clinton years (anyone remember Craig Livingstone, the former bar bouncer made head of White House security?). And it’s not like PAO has ever been a bastion of competence, either. Certainly, though, it’s troubling when you have people with very little understanding of science (at least based on the quotes) telling scientists how they have to present their data (the young idiot insisted on prefixing the phrase “Big Bang” with the word “theory,” as though this was somehow pejorative–ah, well, just one more blow to the reputation of journalism degrees).

But there is also this myth that science is science, and that scientists never let their own personal political viewpoints color their interpretation of the data, and that scientists can be, and are above the fray of political debates. Unfortunately, particularly when it comes to environmental issues, many scientists have allowed themselves to become political pawns in issues for which many of them have sympathy, and they often attribute too much certainty to their conclusions than is justified by the data, because they find them personally appealing from a policy perspective.

In fact, it seems to me that claims of scientific objectivity are similar (though perhaps slightly better founded, given the nature of the scientific method and peer review) to those of journalistic objectivity–the notion that somehow, despite one’s personal prejudices, it’s still possible to play it straight down the center. We know that in journalism, that’s a nonsensical conceit, and we should be wary of the same argument made by people with science degrees.

The lesson here, I think, is that rather than have an unrealistic expectation of pure scientific objectivity coming from a government agency, we should instead expect politics to intrude, both from without and within, and always maintain a realistic and skeptical view of the process with as much transparency as possible, and keep the debate flowing freely with no assumptions of nobility on either side. Blogs can help with this.

[Update at 9 AM EST]

Thomas James has a Carnival of Space Moonbattery. It really is related, honest.

As NASA continues to chop everything in its budget other than the least cost-effective things–Shuttle, ISS and ESAS–Lou Friedman of the Planetary Society is starting to whine about the loss of space science. But Clark Lindsey points out the irony:

[Dr. Griffin’s plan to delay planetary science programs] would make perfect sense if the CEV program promised to significantly lower the cost of space access and of its utilization. Lower transport costs would make all of those science projects much cheaper to build and operate and would allow for many more science missions than can be flown now.

However, as has been argued often here and in many other sites, flying capsules on Shuttle derived expendables and building a hugely expensive and seldom launched heavy lifter just isn’t going to lower the cost of space very much over what it is now. While halting the Shuttle program now would help to fund a handful of space science missions, it would not help overcome the long term limitations to space exploration and development caused by the extremely high costs of getting to space…

…I’ll note that much of the basic CEV architecture using Shuttle components was born via a Planetary Society sponsored study (pdf) by Griffin and several collaborators before he came to NASA.

Clark Lindsey has some good news on the model rocketry front–a legal victory over ATFE (a situation about which I’ve written previously). I love this quote from the ruling judge:

The problem in this case is that ATFE’s explanation for its determination that APCP deflagrates lacks any coherence. We therefore owe no deference to ATFE’s purported expertise because we cannot discern it. ATFE has neither laid out a concrete standard for classifying materials along the burn-deflagrate-detonate continuum, nor offered data specific to the burn speed of APCP when used for its ‘common or primary purpose.’ On this record, the agency’s decision cannot withstand judicial review.

Elon Musk’s wife, Justine, is a horror-fiction writer with a blog, and a new book out.

Probably doesn’t hurt to be married to a multi-millionaire.

Unfortunately, I haven’t been to the FAA Commercial Space Transportation conference (held every February) in a few years. The years that I have the time, I don’t have the money, and the years that I have the money, I can’t find the time (the latter, which was the case this year, is a better situation). Funny how that works.

Anyway, while I didn’t go, Clark Lindsey did, and he’s got a report from yesterday’s festivities.

The count is back on (if you can believe the blog–he says not to, probably to cover his keister). If there were no problems, the test should have occurred by now.

[Update at 4:05 PM EST]

Close, but no cigar:

A few seconds before the engine ingited [sic], the count was held.
They are now safing the vehicle and we will find out soon if they will restart the count and take it all the way to ignition.

It’s sounding like a good thing that they did this test before launch. I think they’re finding out how hard building and flying rockets is.

[Update about 4:30 PM EST]

They’ve recycled the count to T-15 minutes.

I find the fact that they can take the engine all the way to ignition and recycle to a fifteen-minute count a testament to the simplicity of the system (none of this having to empty tanks and recycle to the next day stuff). I’m not sure what it says about reliability at this point, though.

[Update at 4:50 PM EST]

They’ve stopped the count again, but this latest post expands on my comments above about repeated launch cycles, and how far the technology has allowed us to come in that regard. It also provides some explanation of the issues they’ve been encountering today.

Once again, though, it points out that they weren’t ready for prime time when it came to launching (and that these test firing rehearsals were a good idea). That’s what test flights are for, and so far, while they haven’t launched, they haven’t lost anything, either, except some time. Hopefully, this “shakedown cruise” will reveal a lot of things that will give them better schedule reliability in the future.

[Another update a couple minutes later]

It really is a family affair. Note the last name of the commenter to this latest post.

[Update a few minutes later, for those not following the Kwajrocket blog]

They’ve emptied the propellant tanks and are analyzing data, but it doesn’t sound like they’ve yet given up on an engine firing today.

[Late night update]

Two to four weeks (sorry, no permalink–just click on the link to “New Launch Date Update.”)

They were supposed to have their engine test a few minutes ago, but they’re on a hold at T-1.

[Update a few minutes later]

They haven’t restarted the count, yet, but Kimbal has some pictures up. Keep checking the main page of the blog for updates.

[Update at 4:05 PM EST[

Close, but no cigar:

A few seconds before the engine ingited, the count was held.
They are now safing the vehicle and we will find out soon if they will restart the count and take it all the way to ignition.

It’s sounding like a good thing that they did this test before launch. I think they’re finding out how hard building and flying rockets is.

Today SpaceX is going to have a test firing on the pad. If it’s successful, they’ll launch tomorrow (and there will supposedly be a webcast–go to the site for details). Kimbal Musk (Elon’s brother?) is blogging from Kwajalein.

Bill Whittle’s been working on a movie script:

(spoiler alert!)

* Men travelling through space WITHOUT THE AID OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES!
* People facing extreme risks and DECIDING TO TAKE THEM ANYWAY!
* Puny Earthlings using THEIR OWN MONEY ANY DAMN WAY THEY CHOOSE TO!
* Nuclear Energy being portrayed in a NON-EVIL FASHION!
* BUSINESSMEN and ENGINEERS as HEROES!
* PROTESTORS and CELEBRITIES as JOKES!

Full disclosure: I’ve been kicking ideas around with him over beers and comestibles over the past few months.