XCOR is going to set some precedents:

“We also plan to deliver some mail to California City

The defenders of the ESAS claim that this architecture is the only one that could get political support. This claim seems to be made in the absence of any actual analysis explaining why this is so, and what it is about this particular approach that makes it more (in fact, uniquely) politically palatable than any possible alternative. It implies that any NASA administrator, who knew what was politically viable, would have come to exactly the same conclusion as Mike Griffin did. It assumes that it was the politically inevitable result of any competent manager.

But this belief ignores the fact that Dr. Griffin has been promoting something very like this architecture for years. It’s possible, I suppose, that the sole reason that he’s favored it is because he was prescient in knowing to the nth degree what kind of plan he could get past the Congress, even in the absence of knowing who would be committee chairs ahead of time.

I think it more likely that the plan is simply what he’s always (well, since the eighties) planned to do if he ever was placed in a position to do it. I’m sure he’s quite sincere in his belief that this is the best plan, but that doesn’t make him correct.

Some have been demanding that I provide an alternative plan that would be equally politically viable. Ignoring the fact that it’s not clear that this plan is, over the long haul, if I don’t understand why people think that this one is, I don’t know how to formulate an argument why some other one would be in a way that they’d find convincing.

I’ve got lots of ideas of better ways to implement the president’s broad vision, but until I understand from the current architecture’s proponents why they think that this one uniquely threads the needle, I don’t know how to make a case for any other.

Discuss.

[Update on Wednesday evening]

I’m not going to write new stuff, but this subject reminded me on a piece I wrote right after the Columbia loss:

The lesson we must take from the most recent shuttle disaster is that we can no longer rely on a single vehicle for our access to the new frontier, and that we must start to build the needed orbital infrastructure in low earth orbit, and farther out, to the moon, so that, in the words of the late Congressman George Brown, “greater metropolitan earth” is no longer a wilderness in which a technical failure means death or destruction.

NASA’s problem hasn’t been too much vision, even for near-earth activities, but much too little. But it’s a job not just for NASA–to create that infrastructure, we will have to set new policies in place that harness private enterprise, just as we did with the railroads in the 19th Century. That is the policy challenge that will come out of the latest setback–to begin to tame the harsh wilderness only two hundred miles above our heads.

NASA has learned nothing.

[Update in the evening of November 9th]

Here’s another relevant piece that I’ve written in the last couple years. I continue to be amazed when I look at all of the pieces on space policy that I’ve written over the last few years, because I can find few words in any of them that I would change. I am simultaneously saddened that it all seems for naught.

I ought to gather up all the Fox News pieces, and build them into a book. Having to put together a thousand-word column every week does instill a certain level of discipline, and apparently results in great thoughts, at least occasionally.

Mark Whittington continues to make false and unsupportable claims about my writings and beliefs:

Rand Simberg thinks that the idea that the Chinese might behave badly in space is–well–delusional. He doesn’t say why, which tells me quite a bit.

I don’t say why I “think” that for a very simple reason–because I don’t think that, except in Mark’s bizarre imagination, and as I’ve said in the past, Mark is unable to actually provide any evidence that I do. Apparently Mark is unable to get his mind around the (what should be) simple concept that I might find his fantasy a fantasy for some reason other than some misguided view of the benignity of Chinese intentions.

Jon Goff offers just one reason (there are others, involving basic logistics, economics and physics) that Mark’s scenario is so hilariously illogical and implausible, that has nothing to do with the intent or goals of the Chinese government.

[Update in the afternoon]

Oh, this is too much:

Rand Simberg, in essence, calls me a liar without, as far as I can tell, proving it. It’s sad when some people can’t engage in debate without engaging in that kind of behavior.

As I note in comments, Mark is apparently as clueless about the meaning of the word “lie” and “liar” as those who foolishly continue to claim that “Bush lied, people died.” So once, again, he accuses me of saying something that I didn’t. Anyone can see above that I accused him of making a false statement. It is possible to make false statements without lying–all it requires is a belief (no matter how mistaken, or deluded) that the statement is true. So, since I haven’t called him a “liar,” I rationally felt no need to “prove” that he was one.

As for proving that his statement is false, that’s kind of problematic, since that would involve proving a negative–that is, I would have to somehow prove that I have never, anywhere, made the statement that he accuses me of making. More specifically, I would have to prove that I have never attributed non-malign intent to the Chinese government, either in space, or on earth. (I should note that anyone familiar with my writings would know that I don’t trust the Chinese government any farther than I can toss Tiananmen Square, but perhaps Mark has been too busy making up things that I supposedly write to pay attention to things that I actually do write).

Anyone familiar with logic (unlike, apparently, for example, Mark) knows that it’s impossible to prove a negative (though it’s possible to develop a high level of confidence about the falsity if sufficient effort is undertaken to search for affirmative evidence, with no results).

But there’s a solution to this problem, accepted in science and courtrooms for centuries. Mark has made a positive claim about me, which I contend is false. Positive claims, however, can be substantiated. Thus, the burden of proof is on him. Since he continues to filibuster, and ignore my demand that he prove his multiple false statements about my statements and beliefs, of which this is just the most recent, I guess we’ll just have to let the audience decide.