Jeff Foust has a transcript of an interview with him, on the subject of Blue Origin. It’s good that he has a passion for the project, given his skepticism about the market.
Arbiters Of Morality?
Jonah Goldberg writes:
It is, for example, absurd that we’ve decided the Supreme Court should be the final arbiter of morality in this country and it is even more cockeyed that, having arrived at this absurd place, we continue to appoint lawyers to the court on the assumption they are the experts best qualified to adjudicate not merely the law (which is fine, of course) but right and wrong and all of the mysteries of metaphysics and meaning. Why lawyers? Why not priests, doctors and philosophers too
Obama’s Space “Policy”
Well, we now have a second space policy statement from a Democrat candidate for president, this from Barack Obama, with further elaboration here.
As Jeff Foust notes, it doesn’t seem to be very well thought out, and he may indeed not recognize just how radical a proposal it is.
I certainly don’t support it, not because I would be broken hearted at a “delay” (which might effectively become a cancellation, once it becomes clear a few years down the road that private alternatives are going to beat it to orbit) of Constellation at this point, given what a pigs breakfast it seems to have become in the form of ESAS, but rather because I see little (and in fact negative) value in pouring another ten billion dollars into the rathole called federal education spending.
From a political standpoint, I don’t think that it would affect his electoral prospects, other than in the swing state of Florida (and perhaps Ohio, with Glenn). As others comment there, I do find it a little disappointing that the Senator views NASA simply as cash source for social spending. NASA’s money is not well spent, but I’d rather see a policy debate on how it could be spent to get better results in terms of NASA’s charter, than whether or not they should have it. But such a debate (and associated analysis) is surely far beyond whoever is advising Obama on such things.
There’s a lot of discussion in comments, and I agree with “anonymous” that had NASA stuck with the original Steidle plan, and had the CEV flyoff by now, the program would be a lot harder to kill in 2009. As it is, given all the technical issues and delays it’s facing, and potential loss of momentum, the program is in danger of cancellation almost regardless of who the next president is.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Clark Lindsey has similar thoughts:
I would prefer that a President Obama offer a smarter manned program rather a minimized manned program.
Don’t hold your breath on that, though, from Obama (or really, any other candidate, including the Republican ones, unless by some miracle Gingrich were to get into the race).
Also Democrat Ferris Valyn has further thoughts.
Obama’s Space “Policy”
Well, we now have a second space policy statement from a Democrat candidate for president, this from Barack Obama, with further elaboration here.
As Jeff Foust notes, it doesn’t seem to be very well thought out, and he may indeed not recognize just how radical a proposal it is.
I certainly don’t support it, not because I would be broken hearted at a “delay” (which might effectively become a cancellation, once it becomes clear a few years down the road that private alternatives are going to beat it to orbit) of Constellation at this point, given what a pigs breakfast it seems to have become in the form of ESAS, but rather because I see little (and in fact negative) value in pouring another ten billion dollars into the rathole called federal education spending.
From a political standpoint, I don’t think that it would affect his electoral prospects, other than in the swing state of Florida (and perhaps Ohio, with Glenn). As others comment there, I do find it a little disappointing that the Senator views NASA simply as cash source for social spending. NASA’s money is not well spent, but I’d rather see a policy debate on how it could be spent to get better results in terms of NASA’s charter, than whether or not they should have it. But such a debate (and associated analysis) is surely far beyond whoever is advising Obama on such things.
There’s a lot of discussion in comments, and I agree with “anonymous” that had NASA stuck with the original Steidle plan, and had the CEV flyoff by now, the program would be a lot harder to kill in 2009. As it is, given all the technical issues and delays it’s facing, and potential loss of momentum, the program is in danger of cancellation almost regardless of who the next president is.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Clark Lindsey has similar thoughts:
I would prefer that a President Obama offer a smarter manned program rather a minimized manned program.
Don’t hold your breath on that, though, from Obama (or really, any other candidate, including the Republican ones, unless by some miracle Gingrich were to get into the race).
Also Democrat Ferris Valyn has further thoughts.
Obama’s Space “Policy”
Well, we now have a second space policy statement from a Democrat candidate for president, this from Barack Obama, with further elaboration here.
As Jeff Foust notes, it doesn’t seem to be very well thought out, and he may indeed not recognize just how radical a proposal it is.
I certainly don’t support it, not because I would be broken hearted at a “delay” (which might effectively become a cancellation, once it becomes clear a few years down the road that private alternatives are going to beat it to orbit) of Constellation at this point, given what a pigs breakfast it seems to have become in the form of ESAS, but rather because I see little (and in fact negative) value in pouring another ten billion dollars into the rathole called federal education spending.
From a political standpoint, I don’t think that it would affect his electoral prospects, other than in the swing state of Florida (and perhaps Ohio, with Glenn). As others comment there, I do find it a little disappointing that the Senator views NASA simply as cash source for social spending. NASA’s money is not well spent, but I’d rather see a policy debate on how it could be spent to get better results in terms of NASA’s charter, than whether or not they should have it. But such a debate (and associated analysis) is surely far beyond whoever is advising Obama on such things.
There’s a lot of discussion in comments, and I agree with “anonymous” that had NASA stuck with the original Steidle plan, and had the CEV flyoff by now, the program would be a lot harder to kill in 2009. As it is, given all the technical issues and delays it’s facing, and potential loss of momentum, the program is in danger of cancellation almost regardless of who the next president is.
[Update a couple minutes later]
Clark Lindsey has similar thoughts:
I would prefer that a President Obama offer a smarter manned program rather a minimized manned program.
Don’t hold your breath on that, though, from Obama (or really, any other candidate, including the Republican ones, unless by some miracle Gingrich were to get into the race).
Also Democrat Ferris Valyn has further thoughts.
More Stem Cell Stuff
Alan Boyle has an interview with one of the key researchers. As he notes, this isn’t yet the end of the line for embryonic stem cell research–they need to continue, at least for a while, in order to provide a comparison baseline with the new techniques.
More Second Amendment Links
Coming Home
Iraqis are returning to Iraq from their exile.
What do they know that Harry Reid doesn’t? He must be very disappointed.
[Update a little later]
This isn’t exactly hot off the press (it was posted at the end of August) but David Kilcullen, one of General Petraeus’ advisors, provides a good (but long) description of what was going on in Iraq at that time, that explains much of what we’re seeing today.
[Update later morning]
Ralph Peters: What went right in Iraq.
Why Ron Paul Is Bad For Libertarianism
Ilya Somin explains.
Stop Building Houses? Huh?
In today’s Wall Street Journal I find this gem:
Maybe home builders should knock off work until spring.
Pillory OPEC for not raising oil production and pillory home builders for producing too much?! And another:
“If people stop cutting prices, that’s actually good [for builders],” says David Goldberg, an analyst with UBS Investment Bank. “If everybody does it, it works. If one builder does it, it doesn’t.”
If OPEC conspires to raise oil prices, it’s evil, but it’s OK to conspire to keep housing prices up? This is bad reporting.
It’s in each builder’s interest to keep building as long as their cost to build is lower than the expected sale price and the cost of capital for keeping the house on the market for longer than historical averages (and at higher interest rates than before the credit crisis). They will continue to build and prices will continue to fall. It probably won’t be a sellers’ market in housing in many parts of the country until 2009 or 2010. While builders continue to build, the 10-month supply of houses will only slowly drop and prices will also only drop slowly. If it made sense to build houses at 50% of current prices in some markets, there will be building for a while especially with labor and materials less scarce given that the peak of the housing boom is over.
Lower housing prices will make houses more affordable and stoke demand. That is what media should anticipate: a smoothly functioning market because the market price isn’t too high to sell anything. Not a way to repeal the Law of Supply and Demand.