The maddening rhetoric versus reality.
V’ger And Nazis
Thoughts on the cosmos and other stuff from Lileks.
Yesterday’s FAA/NASA Press Conference
I only crudely stenographed it yesterday, and didn’t really comment, though others did. But Alan Boyle has the story. It’s a good description of the current state of play, but I don’t necessarily agree with this:
Theoretically, NASA would not have any formal say over the flight of a Boeing CST-100 space capsule that’s launched on an Atlas 5, heading for a Bigelow Aerospace orbital module. But because NASA is expected to be the biggest customer by far for orbital spaceflight services, the space agency would probably play a key role in the development of any private-sector orbital spacecraft developed in the U.S., even if that craft ended up occasionally going someplace other than the International Space Station. Pragmatically speaking, it’s likely that NASA would be to spaceflight standards what California is to auto emission standards, or Texas is to school textbook standards.
“Expected” by whom? I don’t expect that beyond the next five years or so, though I’m sure it’s an accurate reflection of the conventional wisdom. I think that Bigelow-induced traffic will be far greater than NASA’s needs. I also think that if SpaceX does get to full reusability it will both drop launch costs in itself, but that SpaceX’s success will draw competitors into the market to further reduce costs. At that point, NASA’s standards will become largely irrelevant, because one of the ways that people will compete on cost (and safety and availability) will be to ignore them when they don’t make sense.
Light And Scattered Blogging
Iowahawk is invading southern California once again. We’re heading up to Mojave for the day shortly.
NASA/FAA Press Conference
NASA and FAA administrators are having a joint press conference. Announcing that FAA will license all flights to ISS, that NASA will be responsible for crew safety for flights with NASA crew, NASA will not be involved in non-NASA flights. Irene Klotz asking why two separate sets of requirements. Bolden says that Phil McAlister may elaborate, but he anticipates that there will be human flights not NASA flights, and NASA would have no involvement. Huerta noting that requirements will be same for both NASA and non-NASA flights (not clear if he’s referring to safety or protecting public). Bolden trying to clarify in response to question from Keith Cowing, McAlister says that non-NASA missions will have no NASA involvement, and FAA will regulate only for public safety until 2015. Alan Boyle: is the MOA going to be published so we can see? How will it work for non-crew flights? New role for FAA for cargo resupply? Answer: MOU link is in press release. Nield: MOU oriented toward commercial spaceflight, cargo already licensed by FAA. For non-NASA missions, will it be like Everest, or will FAA have safety standards? Huerta reiterating all of the FAA responsibility, that do not include crew safety. FAA participation in crew selection? Current regulatory authority only over launch and entry at least until 2015. How many companies selected in CC down select (Bolden said earlier announcement in mid-July)? Two and a half, per recent agreement with Congress. Take them through 21-month process, full funders all the way, half funded as best they could. Following that, an RFP under the FAR under which any company can bid.
The Scandal Of Our Age
Victor Davis Hanson on the White House leaks. This is the biggest breach of national security since the Rosenbergs gave Stalin the bomb. And it was done deliberately for no reason other than to burnish a president’s reputation in an election year. It should have exactly the opposite effect, except the media remains complicit in it.
Speaking of which, did David Plouffe lie yesterday when Chris Wallace almost had to water board him to get a “yes or no” answer as to whether the president declassified this material so it could be fed to the press?
His answers on the administration’s handling of leaks of national security information were so rehearsed, clumsy and full of forced distractions and faux frustration that if this interview at the Fox studio had been conducted by law enforcement instead of Chris Wallace, Plouffe would have been told he was going for a ride downtown to the police station for further questioning. The administration has something to hide. Plouffe could not have been more parsed, poorly prepared or unconvincing.
So maybe some of the media will cover this properly.
Watergate
On the fortieth anniversary, five media myths.
If The Young Knew What Was Good For Them
…they’d join the Tea Party. It doesn’t help that the kleptocratic collectivists have taken over both higher and lower education.
Space Anniversary Coincidence
One day after the first Chinese woman in space is the 49th anniversary of the first woman in space, period.
The President Ignoring Immigration Law
Why conservatives should be happy with it:
…if I were offering advice to the Romney campaign (I’m on active duty so I can’t do that) I would tell them to respond to this presidential move by listing the laws that he intends to ignore as soon as he becomes president. Commenter Smart Dude says: “Call this ‘The Obama Rule’ and shove this right in the[ir] face. . . There have to be a thousand insane regulations that need not to be enforced. Start with the War on Coal and the shutting down of irrigation water to Western agriculture.” I’m sure that Romney could score many political points with this approach, particularly in the realms of spending and environmental restrictions. Additionally, there is much entertainment value in this approach, as American voters would have the fun of watching David Axelrod contort himself explaining why ignoring one set of laws is good while ignoring another set of laws is wrong.
I like it. I can certainly think of a project or two at NASA that I’d ignore congressional directives on.