Despite the setback of a year ago at XCOR, there’s still hope for spaceflight. An inspiring interview with Jeff Greason.
[Thursday-morning update]
A little back story.
@rocketrepreneur @YouTube That interview was given about a week before what I knew was last chance effort to stay at XCOR. I stand by it.
— Jeff Greason (@JeffGreason) October 13, 2016
Don’t worry, they won’t ruin sex. I think that, like other technological advances, they will increase opportunities for more people.
The climate debate has an epistemological problem that proponents of policy to deal with it want to pretend doesn’t exist. I wrote about the flawed precautionary principle years ago.
I’d always wondered about this sort of thing.
Looks like Boeing is going to slip into 2019.
We remain dependent on the Russians because we remain unwilling to risk astronauts’ lives on something as hazardous as spaceflight.
Is Elon religious enough to do it?
I don’t know, but I think there will be room for plenty of religions off planet, including new ones.
[Update a while later]
A new paper from the White House called “Making Human Settlement of Space a Reality” that contains almost nothing that would actually enable human settlement of space.
[Afternoon update]
Adam Routh wants to do Apollo again.
A lot of what NASA is doing is going to undergo a rethinking in the next few years, I think.
I’m glad to see this technology being demonstrated and matured in space, but I think its terrestrial applications are overhyped.
Alaska just doubled its reserves.
Good news for our economy, bad news for petrotyrants, in Russan and the Middle East. And once again, my prediction of many years ago, that $100 oil was unsustainable, remains accurate.
What is the import of Lorenz? Literally ALL of our collective data on historic “global atmospheric temperature” are known to be inaccurate to at least +/- 0.1 degrees C. No matter what initial value the dedicated people at NCAR/UCAR enter into the CESM for global atmospheric temperature, it will differ from reality (from actuality – the number that would be correct if it were possible to produce such a number) by many, many orders of magnitude greater than the one/one-trillionth of a degree difference used to initialize these 30 runs in the CESM-Large Ensemble. Does this really matter? In my opinion, it does not matter. It is easy to see that the tiniest of differences, even in a just one single initial value, produce 50-year projections that are as different from one another as is possible(see endnote 1). I do not know how many initial conditions values have to be entered to initialize the CESM – but certainly it is more than one. How much more different would the projections be if each of the initial values were altered, even just slightly?
This has always been pretty obvious to me. What does it mean? That we cannot model it into the future with any confidence whatsoever.