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.

Michael Belfiore updates his previous post, to indicate that Rocketplane (as I was quite confident was the case) has in fact been in discussions with the FAA. But he persists in his misguided (in my opinion) fear of liquid propulsion:

I say a good healthy dose of skepticism never hurt anyone about to climb into a commercial spaceship fueled with explosive liquids.

While not denying that skepticism is always appropriate to some degree, he still seems to think that hybrids cannot explode. That would come as a shock to many (including me) who watched an Amroc 250,000-lb-thrust motor launch itself down the mountain up at the rocket lab in the early 90s, as a chunk of rubber got caught in the throat, blocking the flow and causing the internal pressure to build up to the point that it blew the bolts on the aft bulkhead, with spectacular results. Hell, even steam boilers can explode (this killed many people in the early days of river transportation).

It’s true that a hybrid can’t achieve total combustion in the same way that mixing liquids can, but it’s a big mistake to think of them as intrinsically “safe” (a term that is always relative, and never absolute). I would personally feel just as comfortable on a vehicle powered by one of (for example) XCOR’s rocket engines as by any hybrid, because I’d be confident that they would build adequate margins and safeguards into it to make it as safe as reasonably possible.