Michael, even though you are highly political and rub some folks on the other end of the political spectrum the wrong way, we do appreciate your unabashed enthusiasm for our country.
You might be surprised to know that there are a considerable number of us who have kind thoughts and feelings toward Americans and America, even when we differ on some the policies coming out of Washington.
We wanted to elect people to national office who reflect that view and not the American-bashing one that the Liberals have spewing out for 13 years. That is why we sent the Conservatives to Ottawa.
Brian Anderson has a long, but frightening essay in today’s Journal about the steady deterioration of our First Amendment rights to free speech under the steady pressure of campaign finance “reformers,” spending millions of their own money to ensure that we won’t be able to express our political opinions on line.
If we don’t do something to arrest this, the political blogosphere will be shut down by the election season of 2008. I, for one, say that they’ll take away my keyboard from my cold, dead fingers.
I’ll be on The Space Show tomorrow morning (Thursday, January 26th) from 9:30 to 11 AM Pacific, if anyone is possessed of sufficient masochism and fortitude to listen to my latest blather.
Rick Tumlinson has some space policy advice for the White House. As one of the people in attendance at the meeting last fall that Rick mentioned (and who has signed off on the consensus document that resulted), I encourage you to read the whole thing.
I doubt if they’ll pay any attention, though. I think that this administration’s space policy is pretty firmly fixed now, absent some new unexpected event (e.g., another Shuttle loss, assuming that it ever flies again), and there are many more critical issues to them at this point, both from the standpoint of the national interest and electorally. I suspect that they think that space policy is currently one of those things that ain’t broke, so there’s no need to fix it, relative to more pressing concerns. I think that the best we can hope for, at this point, is that the policy is sufficiently non-hostile to private enterprise that current NASA activities and expenditures won’t hold things back too much. This is not to say that NASA isn’t doing useful things for the private sector, but the amount of resources being expended in that direction, relative to those being spent on centralized (and ultimately unaffordable and unsustainable) fifteen-year plans, remain tragic.
As Clark Lindsey (and Keith Cowing) notes, NASA hasn’t formally dropped methane propulsion from Constellation, or CEV. The final CFI doesn’t, after all, forbid methane, or specify hypergolics. They simply appear to have dropped it in the final version because the earlier draft version of the CFI so emphatically required it.
However, given the risk aversion of industry, it’s almost a foregone conclusion that neither bidder on CEV will propose methane propulsion, absent a strong sense of a desire to have it on NASA’s part. The driving requirement at this point seems to be cost and schedule (including schedule risk), which means avoiding any unnecessary technology development programs on the critical path. So despite the fact that methane propulsion isn’t intrinsically risky, the fact that it’s currently non-existent in terms of the technology-readiness level that NASA will want at the Preliminary Design Review probably assures that it won’t be incorporated into the CEV, at least for the initial version. It could, however, be an upgrade later, assuming that the program gets to the point at which upgrades will occur.