There’s a guy out there who thinks he has one. He claims that it wasn’t tile damage that destroyed the vehicle, but what he thinks is proof that it entered sideways.

Without even bothering to examine his fuzzy pictures that supposedly constitute his “proof,” I have to say, sorry, it doesn’t hold any water. Even ignoring his implausible theories about sensor failures and software glitches, the entry g-loads are such that a sideways entry would be immediately noticed by the crew, as would the direction of the earth motion, particularly for an experienced crew (there were several veterans on this flight). The seats aren’t designed to take loads in that direction at those levels. But the cockpit chatter indicates nothing abnormal until just shortly before breakup.

Professor Reynolds is optimistic about NASA, and particularly about the prospects for space elevators and solar power satellites. I certainly agree with him that prizes are much more promising than NASA’s past approaches, but it’s discouraging to see the huge ratio between funds expended for traditional ways of doing business and those used for prizes. Still, at least the ratio is no longer infinite, as it has been in the past. If the prizes are successful, it should (at least in theory, though bureaucracies and politics can be perverse) make it easier for their proponents, like Brant Sponberg, to expand them in the future, and carve out a bigger budget for them.

As for the prospects for space elevators and SPS, I’m a little less sanguine. Successful prizes will move us closer, but it’s still not clear that SPS will ever make sense compared to terrestrial alternatives (e.g., fusion, or nano-assembled solar-powered roads and clothes, or even nuclear if we can come up with more sensible reactor designs and attitudes toward waste). The inefficiency issues with power beaming are never going to go away, though advancing technology may mitigate them. I think that this will be a technology race, and it’s not at all obvious to me what will ultimately win.

But because we can’t know that, it also isn’t to say that it’s not an avenue that should be pursued, and perhaps even more vigorously than it has been. It’s certainly been underfunded relative to those more conventional solutions. And if it is going to be pursued, as Glenn says, it’s certainly better to do it via a technology prize route.

I’ve added a blogger who’s an employee at Johnson Space Center to the “Space” links to the left, who runs the “Mazoo” blog. I’m keeping this person anonymous, because I don’t know if (s)he wants the notoriety–if a self outing is desired, I have a comments section. As a content sample, there are some thoughts there on Hubble, the role of aeronautics in NASA (the first “A” and a subject to which I’ve been giving some recent thought) and the new administrator.

I’ve also moved Spaceship Summer, Rocketman, and The New Space Age blogs to the “AWOL” list, in the interest of weeking my garden, since I’ve seen no posting there for quite a while. They can inform me if they start posting regularly again.

By the way, if there are other space bloggers out there of whom I’m not aware, let me know, either in a trackback/comment here or via email.

[Update a couple hours later]

Here, via Instapundit, is another space blog previously unknown to me–Space Law Probe

Jeff Foust has a good rundown today on the state of the commercial launch market and industry. It’s a subject of limited interest, though, to those of us who want to go ourselves. On the other hand, Sam Dinkin has an interview with Dave Urie that offers much more promise in that direction.

My take on the incoming NASA administrator is up at TechCentralStation.

I wish I could get a sweet gig like this. I could have given NASA much better advice than this study, for a lot less than three hundred thousand:

The study by George Washington University researchers urged the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to cut down on shuttle flights by limiting construction on the space station and to reinvest extra funds in developing a new manned vehicle. NASA could use shuttles as remote-controlled cargo ships to finish the station, the report said.

No matter how many times people make that recommendation, it remains fundamentally wrong, and displays an ignorance of economics, and the purpose of the Shuttle. There’s no point in flying it at all if you’re going to fly it without crew, and no way to justify the expense of maintaining the infrastructure for it. The astronauts, who are paid and willing to risk their lives, are the least valuable element of the system, and NASA has an oversupply of them. NASA only has three orbiters left, and if it loses one more, it will almost be out of the Shuttle business anyway, regardless of whether or not more astronauts are lost.

But I can’t get my head around this bizarre notion that some seem to have that sending people into space is supposed to be risk free. What is it about that environment, unlike the sea, coal mines, construction, or any other activity in which people die all the time, that make some people check their brains at the door?

NASA at least had an appropriately diplomatic response:

Erica Hupp, a spokeswoman for NASA, said the organization “appreciates all the work that George Washington University put into its study. We are working toward the same goal to make human space flight more reliable and less hazardous.”

Translation: thanks for the clueless advice, but no thanks. What a waste of money.

[Update on Saturday morning]

Keith Cowing isn’t very impressed, either.

Johnson Space Center in Houston is having an open house in April, for the first time since September 11th.

X-Prize judge Rick Searfoss informs me via email that tonight’s episode of “The Apprentice” will have a very interesting prize for the winning team.

Mark Whittington describes an innovative concept for developing the moon and near-earth space. I hope it’s under serious consideration. I haven’t seen much evidence of it so far, other than keeping their options open by granting contracts to a couple of the unusual suspects.

Mark Whittington describes an innovative concept for developing the moon and near-earth space. I hope it’s under serious consideration. I haven’t seen much evidence of it so far, other than keeping their options open by granting contracts to a couple of the unusual suspects.