I haven’t commented on the story about the missing flags at the French museum in Normandy, because everyone else was, but I do think it’s important to point out that there may be much less here than, literally, meets the eye. And in fact, one of Charles Johnson’s readers says that seems to be the case.
I’m second to none in my irritation, even anger with the French government, but there’s no need to be making hasty accusations on scant evidence.
I haven’t commented on the story about the missing flags at the French museum in Normandy, because everyone else was, but I do think it’s important to point out that there may be much less here than, literally, meets the eye. And in fact, one of Charles Johnson’s readers says that seems to be the case.
I’m second to none in my irritation, even anger with the French government, but there’s no need to be making hasty accusations on scant evidence.
You know, the amazing thing to me about the web, and blogs, is that you can go through the throngs, the batterings and unpredictabilities of life, with a great writer, in real time.
By the way, I could use a little, too, though it’s probably beyond the ability of my meager, but well-heeled readership to really support the cause right now.
Ex-General Clark, the “perfumed prince” in Colonel Hackworth’s estimation, was on Hannity and Colmes just now parroting the Democrat party line on Iraq, all the while refusing to declare a party affiliation, or political ambitions. Just how stupid does he think we are?
And how dumb is Hannity, to not call him on his comment a couple weeks ago that “progressive taxation was one of the founding principles of our nation”?
The mullahs must be getting worried as July 9 approaches–they are cracking down on the internet. The blogosphere should kick around some ideas for work arounds.
Anticipating multiple attempts in the next few months, the X-Prize Foundation has named a former astronaut as head of the judging panel.
Ralph Peters says the media (and the Democrats) continue to get it wrong on Iraq.
Kathy Sawyer has an article in the WaPo today about the fundamental problem with the shuttle (though one would think from the title of the piece–“Panel Decries View of Spaceflight as Routine”–that it’s one intrinsic to spaceflight itself).
The Shuttle has always been a development program, and many of us thought it absurd back in 1982 when it was declared “operational” by President Reagan in a ceremony at Edwards (which I attended). As the article points out, the Shuttle has had fewer total flights than an aircraft undergoing certification.
While I agree that as long as NASA continues to fly the Shuttle, they should do it in much more of an R&D mode, I fear that such criticism will make it harder to persuade people that space transports don’t have to be like the Shuttle.
The Shuttle was doomed to remain a vehicle forever in development back when it was being…well…developed, back in the 1970s. Once the fatal compromises of SRBs and non-flyback boosters, and aluminum skin and tiles, among others, were made, there was little hope of getting the low costs and fast turnaround necessary to get the high flight rates needed not only to prove out the concept, but to reduce per-flight costs.
To save a few billion dollars in that decade, we have since spent many billions in increased operations costs and lost vehicles, not to mention the tragedy of our myopically limited space program, relative to the much more vibrant one we might have had with a more robust low-cost design.
That’s the attitude of this reporter from the Orlando Sentinel, who reports that Columbia’s last flight was (gasp!) driven by politics rather than science.
Find any aspect of manned spaceflight that’s not driven by politics, then get back to me.
Of course, he quotes our usual suspect.
“One can certainly use this mission as a way of understanding how the shuttle and NASA have as much to do with politics as science,” said John Pike, director of the policy-analysis group GlobalSecurity.org. “Anyone who thinks this is mainly about science hasn’t spent much time looking at the space program.”
Well, he’s right, this time. He’s much more reliable when talking about the politics of the space program, rather than the technology.
Alex Roland weighs in as well.
Critics are urging that human lives and the $3 billion spaceships not be put at risk unless there are clear and compelling reasons for doing so. However, an investigative board chaired by retired Navy Adm. Harold Gehman is not expected to address the issue in its final report expected next month.
“What is most disturbing about Admiral Gehman’s investigation is that it isn’t looking at questions like this — just what it takes to get the shuttle flying again as soon as possible,” said Alex Roland, a history professor at Duke University, former NASA historian and vocal critic of the agency. “Neither the shuttle program or the [international] space station are providing any payoff that justifies the risk of human life or the huge expense.”
While I agree that the Shuttle and station aren’t worth the money (though I continue to believe that the loss of human life is essentially irrelevant, as long as no one is forced to go at gunpoint), I don’t agree that it’s Admiral Gehman’s job to critique space policy.
He was given a mandate to determine the cause of the disaster, and provide recommendations to prevent future such occurrences. I suppose that an effective recommendation could be to simply shut down the manned spaceflight program, but that’s the trivial solution, and it’s one far above his pay grade, even for an admiral.
I would love to have a serious national debate on the purposes and means of our civil space policy (it really hasn’t happened since Sputnik), but it’s not Gehman’s job to resolve that for us. Perhaps, however, his report may serve as a catalyst for one.
That’s the attitude of this reporter from the Orlando Sentinel, who reports that Columbia’s last flight was (gasp!) driven by politics rather than science.
Find any aspect of manned spaceflight that’s not driven by politics, then get back to me.
Of course, he quotes our usual suspect.
“One can certainly use this mission as a way of understanding how the shuttle and NASA have as much to do with politics as science,” said John Pike, director of the policy-analysis group GlobalSecurity.org. “Anyone who thinks this is mainly about science hasn’t spent much time looking at the space program.”
Well, he’s right, this time. He’s much more reliable when talking about the politics of the space program, rather than the technology.
Alex Roland weighs in as well.
Critics are urging that human lives and the $3 billion spaceships not be put at risk unless there are clear and compelling reasons for doing so. However, an investigative board chaired by retired Navy Adm. Harold Gehman is not expected to address the issue in its final report expected next month.
“What is most disturbing about Admiral Gehman’s investigation is that it isn’t looking at questions like this — just what it takes to get the shuttle flying again as soon as possible,” said Alex Roland, a history professor at Duke University, former NASA historian and vocal critic of the agency. “Neither the shuttle program or the [international] space station are providing any payoff that justifies the risk of human life or the huge expense.”
While I agree that the Shuttle and station aren’t worth the money (though I continue to believe that the loss of human life is essentially irrelevant, as long as no one is forced to go at gunpoint), I don’t agree that it’s Admiral Gehman’s job to critique space policy.
He was given a mandate to determine the cause of the disaster, and provide recommendations to prevent future such occurrences. I suppose that an effective recommendation could be to simply shut down the manned spaceflight program, but that’s the trivial solution, and it’s one far above his pay grade, even for an admiral.
I would love to have a serious national debate on the purposes and means of our civil space policy (it really hasn’t happened since Sputnik), but it’s not Gehman’s job to resolve that for us. Perhaps, however, his report may serve as a catalyst for one.