Science-Fiction Newt

It’s interesting that even some of the folks at Think Progress like some of Newt’s SF policy. I don’t think this is as wonderful a weapon against him as Romney seems to. Speaking of which, he doubled down yesterday:

That article also includes a clip of a video interview with Romney on Monday where the former Massachusetts governor again raised the issue when asked about differences between himself and Gingrich. “The idea of a lunar colony? I think that’s going to be a problem in the general election,” Romney said about two and a half minutes into the clip. “So you’re suggesting he’s a little nutty?” asked POLITICO’s Mike Allen. “I’m suggesting he has differing views than I do on very important issues,” Romney responded, but later added, “I’m not going to characterize the Speaker’s views on science.”

Emphasis mine. That Romney thinks that this discussion is about science just demonstrates how completely out to sea he is on the topic. One of his advisers really needs to explain things to him. He’s going to turn off a lot of people needlessly, and probably already has.

“Why,” Not “Where”

How to reduce churn in space activities:

Establishing these goals is critical because, as the Augustine committee rightly noted, “Planning a human spaceflight program should start with … the goals to be accomplished by the program … its raison d’être, not … which object in space to visit. Too often … planning … has begun with ‘where’ rather than ‘why’.” And one might add that on occasion planning has begun with “what.” Our community has been so energetic in advocating destinations and vehicles that we appear to think that they are the “why,” which defeats sustainability.

These goals, a fundamental expression of “why,” serve several critical functions. Most importantly, they are the basis for setting priorities to determine the most relevant path through the destination-capability trade space. Having a path makes human space exploration coherent and provides the basis for measuring progress. “Why” makes human space exploration an intelligible and, one hopes, compelling whole that promotes stakeholder understanding and support. “Why” also differentiates human space exploration from its competitors in creating value, such as other ways to inspire young people or support competitiveness. There is a fundamental difference between “why” NASA should have a human space exploration program and its value.

Until people understand this, we’ll continue to spin our metaphorical wheels, and waste billions with little progress.

Today’s Paul Allen Announcement

The press conference starts in less than two hours, but I have some reason to believe that it has something to do with this. Whatever it is.

[Update a few minutes later]

Less than an hour before the press conference, Alan Boyle seems to have the scoop. And the web cast is live now. Here’s the low-res version for the bandwidth challenged.

[Update a few minutes before the presser]

They’re playing Elton John’s “Rocket Man” on the webcast, waiting for the event to begin.

[Update during presser]

The wingspan of that aircraft is over three times the distance of the Wright Brothers first flight.

[Update during questions]

An order of magnitude more money than SpaceShipOne. In other words, less than a billion.

[Update a few minutes later]

They’re going to have to certify that aircraft under Part 127. That will triple its cost at least. On the other hand, it might find other markets.

[Update a couple minutes later]

They just asked my question about schedule (though others probably emailed that as well). First aircraft flight 2015, first space flight in the next year. I asked whether they fuel on the ground or in the air, but the question has been asked of the panel yet. It may not be.

[Update a few minutes later]

About an hour into the conference now, and Clark Lindsey has been taking notes.

Biting Commentary about Infinity…and Beyond!