Peter Suderman reviews his review.
[Update a while later]
And here‘s John Nolte’s review.
[Sunday-morning update]
Five reasons why Interstellar is a conservative film.
I think that it helps to view it as allegorical, and not try to take the science too seriously.
[Bumped]
Doesn’t sound like he’s going to be able to tell NTSB much about what happened. I’d like to get his impression of the vibration environment with the new engine.
Google and others want a taxpayer bail out for their desert bird roaster.
That looks like a nice bill for the new Congress to make Obama have to sign.
More at (appropriately) Powerline:
The sheer temerity of the request is almost outweighed by the unintended humor of their explanation for the failure of their project: the Sun isn’t shining as much as they thought it would. But I think they’re barking up the wrong tree: rather than ask for your money so they don’t have to use their money, they should ask the guy who said he would make the oceans recede, to order the Sun to stop slacking — rudely continuing to shine as it has for five billion years — and brighten up for Google, NRG, and Obama’s legacy.
What fools these mortals who support this insanity be.
I’m pretty sure this is a first.
I should note, I really don’t “worship” Branson. I have a lot of problems with him. My piece was more of a reaction to Kluger’s bashing than a defense of him per se.
Thoughts from Holman Jenkins. I like the idea of naming errant asteroids after senators.
[Second link should get you through the paywall]
How well does the historical analogy work?
…with an “undercurrent of cheesiness.” It looks like, as with Gravity, it will be beautifully annoying.
I respond to Jeffrey Kluger’s Branson bashing, over at The New Atlantis.
[Update a few minutes later]
Meghan McArdle says that of course space tourism will continue. The notion that a fatality in a flight test would destroy an industry is pretty stupid.
Also, nothing has changed in the past decade: Alex Tabarrok still doesn’t understand the difference between orbital and suborbital flight, or between flight test and operations.
I’m sure that you’re as shocked as I am that Sir Richard’s statement on Saturday is at variance with reality. I think the technical business term for this is “fiasco.” And I’m angry that it has so tainted the industry, not to mention given the FAA an excuse to regulate, if they wish to.
[Update a couple minutes later]
The real problem is “bad business.”
That’s not a statement, but clearly is a legitimate question. If so, he paid with his life.
Also if so, it’s a pretty easy thing to fix. But it still doesn’t explain why they deployed without the command to do so. And we still don’t really know how well the engine performed, or what kind of vibration environment it will provide the vehicle and passengers. At least publicly.
[Update a few minutes later]
It strikes me as ironic, and a demonstration of one of the major points of my book, that the two main features of the vehicle implemented in the name of safety (hybrid motor, and feathering wings) may have actually made the vehicle more dangerous and less operable. Lynx will be a much simpler system.