The New York Times has an article on SpaceShipOne today. It’s a good piece, though it doesn’t talk much about the potential for the suborbital flight industry. My biggest issue with it is a subtle one–it appears in the Science section. There’s nothing in the article about science, but it just shows how inextricable the perceived relationship is between space and science in the public mind (including New York Times reporters). Now that we’re starting to get accurate stories about this, the next step is to get them where they belong–in the Business sections.

A meteorite hit a home in New Zealand. Nobody hurt.

Brian Berger has a preview of the Aldridge Commission report. This is the part that (obviously) piqued my interest:

Specifically, the commission will recommend that:

…NASA allow the private industry “to assume the primary role of providing services to NASA, and most immediately in accessing low-Earth orbit…”

I’ll be interested in seeing the elaboration on this topic. As usual, the devil will be in the details.

Alan Boyle asked for commentary on Ronald Reagan’s legacy for space. My thoughts on that subject are over at National Review Online today.

[Update a few minutes later]

And there was tribute to him today, from space.

[Update at 8 AM PDT]

Here’s a more NASA-centric tribute to him from Sean O’Keefe.

Here’s another good story about the upcoming flight, the X-Prize, and its implications, with an LA angle.

[Via Clark Lindsey]

Many X Prize competitors plan on making their millions in space tourism, even if they don

Here’s another good story about the upcoming flight, the X-Prize, and its implications, with an LA angle.

[Via Clark Lindsey]

Many X Prize competitors plan on making their millions in space tourism, even if they don

Here’s another good story about the upcoming flight, the X-Prize, and its implications, with an LA angle.

[Via Clark Lindsey]

Many X Prize competitors plan on making their millions in space tourism, even if they don

Michael Mealing has some interesting commentary (similar to what I might say if I had the time) to a conventional-wisdom article from James Burk. Yes, it is a fisking, but a gentle one, and a needed one.

I don’t know if I’ve mentioned this previously. I’ve been thinking it, but may have been too busy to post.

Here’s my theory on why they picked the solstice. It has nothing to do with the fact that it’s the solstice. I think that it’s because thirty days later is the thirty-fifth anniversary of the first moon landing. Burt (and perhaps Paul Allen) seem to be big on anniversaries.

[Update at 3:30 PM PDT]

Andrew Gray has an even better theory in comments:

Unless I’m miscounting, thirty days *less one*; isn’t Apollo 11 generally taken as being July 20th? (which is also the anniversary, I note, of the eventual recovery of Liberty Bell 7…)

But on that note, July 21, 1961 – Liberty Bell 7’s flight, being the second suborbital flight, might be considered not inappropriate as a date?

That aside, this does beg the question… what is in the two weeks after that, if he’s so keen on anniversaries? It’d be unusual to not have one for the second flight, if this is his plan as you suggest…

He’s right on the arithmetic–I forgot about the old “thirty days has September, April, June, and November.” And it would be an appropriate anniversary.

But as for the fourteen-day one, they would be foolish to wait fourteen days for the second attempt. They’ll do it as quickly as they can, so they have some margin in case they have weather or other problems. The first time you have the luxury of choosing an anniversary date, but the second one has to be driven solely by winning the prize.

Clark Lindsey has some details of an Aviation Week (subscription required, so no link) article on the planned SpaceShip One flight in the latest RLV News. Well worth a read.