This looks like an interesting event, but at almost fifteen hundred dollars to attend, it’s way out of my price range.

And this is simply false:

Flight School is new for us – and new for space and aviation, which doesn’t yet have a single gathering where pioneers and entrepreneurs can talk strategy, tactics…and experience, whether in space and aviation or in the Internet computing industry.

Actually, there has been an annual event (and arguably two, if you count the Space Frontier Foundation meeting) that does exactly that for years, and it only costs a hundred dollars to attend.

In fact, it’s just a couple months from now, and I’ll be planning to attend. I’d encourage anyone else interested in alt-space to do so as well. If I had unlimited time and funds, I’d love to attend Esther Dyson’s event, but I suspect that Space Access will continue to be the best such conference, and certainly the best value, for some time to come.

Thomas James has a brief post that describes what’s really holding us back from space settlement.

He also joyfully points out that moonbat extraordinaire Bruce Gagnon now has a blog. I expect that Thomas will be a regular visitor, and commentator.

Eric Soskin writes about a sighting of some interesting public outreach for the new space exploration activities.

Clark Lindsey points out another boneheaded move by Congress in the name of “national security”:

Congress, in its collective ham-fisted oafishness, dictated after 9/11 that the government place restrictions on access to spacecraft tracking information. Apparently, this will keep terrorists from shooting down comsats with RPGs…

… Congress once again shows that it is incapable of making sensible policies with respect to space that carefully and effectively targets the particular problem without causing devastating collateral damage to nearby legitimate activity.

If you haven’t been paying attention to the current state of play in the regulation of suborbital vehicles over the past few months, Jeff Foust has a good, up-to-date summary today.

And yes, I am very busy, with some consulting on the Vision for Space Exploration. And I don’t get President’s Day (which I think is an atrocity to the memory of Lincoln and Washington) off.

Sam Dinkin is promoting better space journalism.

Chairman Boehlert had a very interesting opening to today’s hearing on the NASA budget. Some highlights:

I am for returning humans to the moon by 2020. I am for moving ahead prudently but swiftly with the development of a Crew Exploration Vehicle (CEV) for that purpose. I am for retiring the Space Shuttle as soon as possible, but under absolutely no circumstances later than December 31, 2010. I am for a NASA that sees itself as a science agency, with all of Space Science, Earth Science and Aeronautics receiving theattention and funding accorded to priority areas. I am for a NASA that is open to outside ideas from academia and the private sector…

…We understand that the Administration could send up in the next month or so proposed language to amend the Iran Nonproliferation Act. That

Is that “very soon,” as in perhaps tomorrow, Keith?

I guess. Ariane V (ESA’s version of the Space Shuttle, in that it’s an overpriced white elephant) had its first successful launch yesterday. A previous attempt a couple years ago was a failure.

[Update in the evening]

A commenter points out that I was too inspecific in describing the vehicle that failed:

Hehe, talk about misleading news postings. Even though you might hate the french, you could stick to facts.

The Ariane 5 G version has launched succesfully 19 times and failed once.
Ariane 5 EC-A, which is an upgraded version, was now launched succesfully for the first time, having failed once before.

So your post would be correct if you said “Ariane 5 ECA had it’s first successful launch”.

While I stand second to none in my dislike of the French, my snark was more aimed at stasist government space programs, and unjustified Arianespace triumphalism.

I think that the incoming chairman of the House space subcommittee is going to be a worthy successor to Dana Rohrabacher, and very good for the commercial space industry:

We need affordable, reliable and responsive ways to get people and hardware into orbit. NASA took the lead in proving we could get there. Now it is the private sector’s duty to make it efficient and affordable.

The job of Congress is to pass legislation and exercise its oversight functions in such a way that will enable this industry to succeed. We must keep a watchful eye on our government agencies to ensure they are operating and cooperating with the commercial Space industry and not implementing unnecessary or overly burdensome regulations. In the American tradition, government opens frontiers but people settle them. This was true in the west, with medical research and with cyberspace. If we follow that model we will succeed.

Read the whole thing. Rep. Calvert gets it.