NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe has decided that the Orbital Space Plane must be developed faster.

Somehow (as is often the case) this reminds me of a Simpsons episode. Specifically, the one in which Homer decides to change his name. The new nom de plume?

MAX POWER…

(He got it off a hair dryer…)

He says, “there are two ways to do something: the right way, the wrong way, and the Max Power way.”

When Bart asks what the latter means, the reply is, “It’s like the wrong way, except faster!”

He says that he would advise his children to resist homosexual “temptations.”

I’m sorry, but this just comes across to me as a statement appallingly ignorant of the nature of human sexuality.

“You try to point out to them what is the right thing to do. And we have many temptations to do things we shouldn’t do. That doesn’t mean we have to give in to those temptations. I have temptations, as we all do, all the time, to do things we shouldn’t do.

“Whether we have that disposition because of environmental factors, genetic factors, whatever, it doesn’t mean you have to submit. We are people of free will and free choices.”

So, is the senator saying that he’s had “homosexual temptations” that he’s overcome? In other words, is he bisexual? I know I’ve never had any. I occasionally have temptations to do things that are wrong, or illegal, and I generally overcome them, but I’ve never in my life been tempted to engage in sexual activity with a man.

Homosexuals have two problems. First, they’re attracted to the same sex. Second, they are unattracted to the opposite sex. So what the senator is proposing is that for his children, if they’re truly homosexual, and not bisexual, their only option is life-long celibacy. Is that really what he’s saying, and does he think it realistic advice?

[Update at 11:22 PM PDT on July 17]

I’ve started a new thread on this one, as a result of the extensive comments.

Researchers in Japan are going to attempt to clone a mammoth.

I got a chuckle out of this. Hurricane Claudette chased some tree huggers out of their trees.

The G8 is getting smarter about avoiding anti-globo whackos for their meetings. The next one is scheduled on Sea Island.

I wouldn’t make it illegal, but I think that men who would want to do this have some wiring problems, and I’d keep an eye on them.

[Update on Wednesday morning]

Snopes thinks it may be an elaborate hoax, but it’s still undetermined.

Jeff Faust has an interesting piece on what is, and isn’t the space industry:

When the space industry is defined in this manner, it becomes clear why it lacks influence in Washington: it?s very small. At just $37 billion in worldwide revenues in 2002, the space industry is smaller than many corporations. For example, US automaker General Motors records more revenue in a single quarter?an average of $47.5 billion per quarter in the last year?than the entire space industry made in all of 2002. Even if satellite service revenues are added into the space industry?s total, it still comes to less than half of GM?s total revenues for the year. In Washington, money talks, and the space industry is whispering. No amount of space industry organization consolidation can solve that problem.

There’s another point to be made here. In fact, though it’s small, it seems generally to get what it wants, by bribing powerful congresspeople with jobs in their districts. Unfortunately, for the most part, what it wants has little to do with space, and mostly to do with rent seeking from the taxpayer.

Consider one more point that Dr. Patrick Collins makes often. We have spent hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars on civil space over the past four decades. Yet we’ve only managed to create an industry valued in the tens of billions annually (and much of that is defense contracts). Is such poor leverage typical, or are we doing something wrong?

I think you know my opinion on that subject.

[Update at 1:35 PM PDT]

Another sign of the incredible shrinking space industry. Boeing is pulling Delta IV out of the commercial market, which has a glut of launchers. They’re going to stick to government contracts.

Jeff Faust has an interesting piece on what is, and isn’t the space industry:

When the space industry is defined in this manner, it becomes clear why it lacks influence in Washington: it?s very small. At just $37 billion in worldwide revenues in 2002, the space industry is smaller than many corporations. For example, US automaker General Motors records more revenue in a single quarter?an average of $47.5 billion per quarter in the last year?than the entire space industry made in all of 2002. Even if satellite service revenues are added into the space industry?s total, it still comes to less than half of GM?s total revenues for the year. In Washington, money talks, and the space industry is whispering. No amount of space industry organization consolidation can solve that problem.

There’s another point to be made here. In fact, though it’s small, it seems generally to get what it wants, by bribing powerful congresspeople with jobs in their districts. Unfortunately, for the most part, what it wants has little to do with space, and mostly to do with rent seeking from the taxpayer.

Consider one more point that Dr. Patrick Collins makes often. We have spent hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars on civil space over the past four decades. Yet we’ve only managed to create an industry valued in the tens of billions annually (and much of that is defense contracts). Is such poor leverage typical, or are we doing something wrong?

I think you know my opinion on that subject.

[Update at 1:35 PM PDT]

Another sign of the incredible shrinking space industry. Boeing is pulling Delta IV out of the commercial market, which has a glut of launchers. They’re going to stick to government contracts.

Jeff Faust has an interesting piece on what is, and isn’t the space industry:

When the space industry is defined in this manner, it becomes clear why it lacks influence in Washington: it?s very small. At just $37 billion in worldwide revenues in 2002, the space industry is smaller than many corporations. For example, US automaker General Motors records more revenue in a single quarter?an average of $47.5 billion per quarter in the last year?than the entire space industry made in all of 2002. Even if satellite service revenues are added into the space industry?s total, it still comes to less than half of GM?s total revenues for the year. In Washington, money talks, and the space industry is whispering. No amount of space industry organization consolidation can solve that problem.

There’s another point to be made here. In fact, though it’s small, it seems generally to get what it wants, by bribing powerful congresspeople with jobs in their districts. Unfortunately, for the most part, what it wants has little to do with space, and mostly to do with rent seeking from the taxpayer.

Consider one more point that Dr. Patrick Collins makes often. We have spent hundreds of billions of taxpayers’ dollars on civil space over the past four decades. Yet we’ve only managed to create an industry valued in the tens of billions annually (and much of that is defense contracts). Is such poor leverage typical, or are we doing something wrong?

I think you know my opinion on that subject.

[Update at 1:35 PM PDT]

Another sign of the incredible shrinking space industry. Boeing is pulling Delta IV out of the commercial market, which has a glut of launchers. They’re going to stick to government contracts.

Anticipating this coming Sunday’s anniversary, Mark Whittington has an editorial in the LA Times on space dreams deferred, if not lost altogether.