More foam cracks on the PAL ramp.

At the current flight rate, if they get it off next fall, the cost per flight will be many billions. Either fly it, or retire it, but stop wasting all this time and money on trying (in futility) to make it safe.

The Space Frontier Society has put together a new feature at their site, called NewSpace News. It has a nice roundup of links to stories of interest to fans of the new (private) space program(s).

Also, Rick Tumlinson has an editorial with some advice for Mike Griffin. Like many of us, he’s underwhelmed by “Apollo on steroids”:

It’s dead Mike. That horse won’t run. That dog won’t hunt. The fat lady has sung. Or, to bring it closer to space, I’ll quote Bill Paxton in the film Aliens: “Game over man!”

The bloated, business as usual, cost-plus, pork-based, design-bureau use-it-and-throw-it-away approach to space is a failure. The excitement and momentum that might have existed when the president aimed us toward the Moon, Mars and beyond has been squandered. It has been worn down by the dumping of vision in favor of pork, and the jettisoning of the President and Aldridge Commission’s declarations that frontier infrastructure building based on commercial enterprise is a prime goal. Dumped in favor of getting a few folks on the Moon relatively quickly (for these timid times) and pretending that this will lead us on to Mars

…is to call for an end to controversial debate. I got more calls and letters on this article than I got in a year of previous writing. The responses were polarized. The most controversial item was my list of companies that could succeed if we stop space industry infighting. The list was a mistake–no list can be completely inclusive so better to describe broad categories. I did not intend to exclude companies. Many many companies can prosper in a boom. Not all will be around 25 years from now. IBM is not even in the PC business any more.

Setting aside the list, the correspondence was bi-modal. Half said it’s about time that someone said this. Some of these people had Washington return addresses. The other half said it is brutally repressive to cage the intellectual debate, and counterproductive.

I think there must be some kind of inverse square law that says if you have a political party that represents 50% of the people, it has one opinion, but a splinter interest group that represents 1% of the people has 2500 opinions.

There certainly can be a democratic process to arrive periodically at consensus. I favor a knockout auction where the proponents of a position pay those that disagree with it if they win.

Those who agreed with my article probably would think that just about any civility and unity in the space industry would be better than division and infighting regardless of the message disseminated.

Those who disagreed with my article challenged that there was any way to arrive at a consensus without free and open debate that wouldn’t fatally taint the ultimate message.

I guess I will have to go on being controversial and dividing people.

I haven’t written anything about the former Canadian defense minister’s recent descent into (literally) loonytunes madness, but Thomas James has a good roundup.

Via Mark Whittington, an article in which he (as usual) takes false hope, with a misleading title: “China Aims to Put Man on Moon by 2020.”

But if you read the article, it’s clear that “China” has no such “aims.” The only person with such “aims” is the “deputy commander of the Chinese manned spaceflight program.” He himself makes clear in the paragraph following that this is not (yet) a national goal:

But the goal is subject to getting enough funds from the government, Hu said, explaining that the space program must fit in the larger scheme of the country’s overall development.

If Mike Griffin’s deputy said, “I think that in about fifteen years, we could have the capability to send humans to Jupiter,” would Mark then agree with the headline “US Aims To Put Man On Jupiter By 2020”? Would he say that there are “indications” that this is a US goal?

Well, given his apparent gullibility, perhaps he would.

[Monday morning update]

Mark amusingly (as usual) misses the point:

Of course landing a man on Jupiter and landing one on the Moon are exactly analogous. At least it seems Rand thinks so.

First of all, I didn’t say “land a man on Jupiter.” But then, reading comprehension has never been Mark’s strong suit, either, at least when it comes to reading me. But ignoring that (non-trivial) distinction, for the purpose of this discussion, they are in fact analogous. The point is that a statement of technological capability (and we could in fact send a man to Jupiter if we so chose in that time period, not that it would be a sensible thing to do) is not a statement of intent, or a declaration of a national goal. Even Mark might realize this, if he actually read the article he cites with such misplaced hope, and thinks about it a little.

Via Mark Whittington, an article in which he (as usual) takes false hope, with a misleading title: “China Aims to Put Man on Moon by 2020.”

But if you read the article, it’s clear that “China” has no such “aims.” The only person with such “aims” is the “deputy commander of the Chinese manned spaceflight program.” He himself makes clear in the paragraph following that this is not (yet) a national goal:

But the goal is subject to getting enough funds from the government, Hu said, explaining that the space program must fit in the larger scheme of the country’s overall development.

If Mike Griffin’s deputy said, “I think that in about fifteen years, we could have the capability to send humans to Jupiter,” would Mark then agree with the headline “US Aims To Put Man On Jupiter By 2020”? Would he say that there are “indications” that this is a US goal?

Well, given his apparent gullibility, perhaps he would.

[Monday morning update]

Mark amusingly (as usual) misses the point:

Of course landing a man on Jupiter and landing one on the Moon are exactly analogous. At least it seems Rand thinks so.

First of all, I didn’t say “land a man on Jupiter.” But then, reading comprehension has never been Mark’s strong suit, either, at least when it comes to reading me. But ignoring that (non-trivial) distinction, for the purpose of this discussion, they are in fact analogous. The point is that a statement of technological capability (and we could in fact send a man to Jupiter if we so chose in that time period, not that it would be a sensible thing to do) is not a statement of intent, or a declaration of a national goal. Even Mark might realize this, if he actually read the article he cites with such misplaced hope, and thinks about it a little.

Via Mark Whittington, an article in which he (as usual) takes false hope, with a misleading title: “China Aims to Put Man on Moon by 2020.”

But if you read the article, it’s clear that “China” has no such “aims.” The only person with such “aims” is the “deputy commander of the Chinese manned spaceflight program.” He himself makes clear in the paragraph following that this is not (yet) a national goal:

But the goal is subject to getting enough funds from the government, Hu said, explaining that the space program must fit in the larger scheme of the country’s overall development.

If Mike Griffin’s deputy said, “I think that in about fifteen years, we could have the capability to send humans to Jupiter,” would Mark then agree with the headline “US Aims To Put Man On Jupiter By 2020”? Would he say that there are “indications” that this is a US goal?

Well, given his apparent gullibility, perhaps he would.

[Monday morning update]

Mark amusingly (as usual) misses the point:

Of course landing a man on Jupiter and landing one on the Moon are exactly analogous. At least it seems Rand thinks so.

First of all, I didn’t say “land a man on Jupiter.” But then, reading comprehension has never been Mark’s strong suit, either, at least when it comes to reading me. But ignoring that (non-trivial) distinction, for the purpose of this discussion, they are in fact analogous. The point is that a statement of technological capability (and we could in fact send a man to Jupiter if we so chose in that time period, not that it would be a sensible thing to do) is not a statement of intent, or a declaration of a national goal. Even Mark might realize this, if he actually read the article he cites with such misplaced hope, and thinks about it a little.

Out of the Cradle is live blogging it. They seem to be weather delayed right now.

[Update at about 3 PM Pacific (two hours before the launch window closes]

They need to check valves on the LOX fill tanks and then clear the area restarting the countdown in 1 and a half to two hours.
What been driving the delays? weather? equip?
Weather at one point – then lox – no other
Boiloff of mechanical – doesn

Today’s Falcon 1 launch has been delayed until tomorrow:

In order to facilitate preparations for a missile defense launch, the Army Space and Missile Defense Command (SMDC) has bumped the SpaceX Falcon 1 maiden flight from its officially scheduled launch date of 1 p.m. California time (9 p.m. GMT) on November 25. The new launch time is 1 p.m. California time (9 p.m. GMT) on November 26.

Here’s Tariq Malik’s story