You know, watching events at the UN, you realize that, at some point, it just gets futile. There are some people that are never going to be interested in evidence, or logic, and cannot accept it, because if they do, their own agendas will be put at risk. It’s really a waste of time to try to convince them.

But enough reminiscing about the OJ Simpson and Clinton impeachment trials…

If you get Fox News, you might want to turn it on. Neil Cavuto just announced that he’s going to talk to couple of “honchos” of space companies that want to privatize it.

I’ll listen, report, and you can decide.

[Update, at 2 PM PST]

It was with Mike Gallo of Kelly Space and Technology, and Earl Renaud, from TGV Rockets.

The focus of the interview was whether or not people would be willing to fly on their vehicles after what happened Saturday. The answer, of course, was “of course.”

NASA is considering the possibility that Columbia was hit on orbit.

Could be. There’s a lot of junk floating around up there, though we’re doing better at keeping things clean, and most of the older stuff has deorbited. Of course, it could have been a natural object, a small meteoroid, in which case, it really was an act of God.

This all complicates life even more, because it’s no longer a matter of just watching launch films to see if there were any problems on ascent. It means that to really insure against this happening again, they have to have a way to do a tile inspection just prior to deorbit, and make it part of the deorbit procedure. Not a problem at station, but it’s more of a challenge for a mission like Columbia’s, which was on its own. And of course, they also would have to have a contingency plan if they can’t come back. More on that later.

On the other hand, one might simply be philosophical, and say that it’s not reasonable to design against every possible hazard. After all, my car could also be hit by a metorite, but that doesn’t mean that I armor my roof against such an eventuality.

I found this bit interesting.

After the report was issued, Fischbeck said NASA took steps to sharply reduce foam debris. The experts also urged NASA to find ways to improve tile safety, despite budget cuts.

“NASA must find ways of being cost-effective, because it simply cannot afford financially or politically to lose another orbiter,” the report cautioned.

Yes. NASA cannot afford to lose another orbiter. Note that it doesn’t say they can’t afford to lose another crew. Whether deliberately or inadvertently, they get it right. It’s the orbiter that has the value, not the astronauts, and reusable vehicles have to be reliable, or they’re unaffordable, regardless of their contents. That’s why talk of “man rating” a space transport, or that this will add cost to it, is utter nonsense.

[Update at 3:11 PM PST]

Jay Manifold has run the numbers on this.

[Another update at 3:38 PM PST]

Here’s a couple-year-old article about the subject, by Leonard David. I found this interesting, because I used to work on debris characterization over twenty years ago, at Aerospace, with Val Chobotov. It was my first job out of college. I worked with Bill Ailor, too, but he wasn’t doing debris analysis then.

The headline is wrong, but he says that Colin Powell is undermining the UN.

Yeah, that racist Powell. Why can’t he show solidarity with Kofi Annan? He must be Bush’s house nigra.

I wonder if ol’ Nelson’s become senile?

What a shocker. France wants to “strengthen and expand” arms inspections.

What a shocker. France wants to “strengthen and expand” arms inspections.

What a shocker. France wants to “strengthen and expand” arms inspections.

Over in the comments section of this post by Dan over at Happy Fun Pundit, Porphyrogenitus writes:

I do think that there will be a viable private space industry eventually. But the costs will have to go down first.

This is one of the many bits of conventional wisdom about space that is wrong, and continues to hold us back. It confuses cause and effect, and betrays a misunderstanding of why the cost of launch is high.

For many fundamental, institutional reasons, costs will never go down as long as the government is in charge. Low cost will only result from the entry of private enterprise.

This kind of thinking assumes that launch costs are high because we don’t have the right “technology.” This is a mistaken belief. They’re high because the market is too small, and there’s no competition. There’s only one solution for that, and it’s not development of another launch system by NASA.

February 5, 2003

HOUSTON, Texas, USA (APUPI)

A number of progressive, liberal, and socialist organizations have banded together to protest the latest slanderous attack on them, and their noble unquestionable principles, this time by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Some of the more prominent groups include Postmodernists for Peace, the World People’s Liberation Front, the Liberation Front Of The People of the World, Socialists International, the American Communist Party, International ANSWER, Stalinists for Trotsky, Trotskyites for Chomsky, the NAALPOC (National Association for the Advancement of Liberal People Of Color), the ACLU, and the Green and Democratic parties.

In a press conference in Clear Lake City, outside the front gates of the NASA Johnson Space Center, Emilio Litella, the spokesman for the newly formed “Coalition For Social Justice And Leftist Anti-Defamation” complained that even before the investigation into the Columbia disaster was completed, they were being blamed for it.

“NASA has already started to leak rumors that it was caused by the left wing,” he said. “Once again, we’re being unfairly libeled by reactionary conservatives with an anti-human, anti-peace agenda. It’s obvious that this is part of an ongoing effort by right-wing baby-killing pencil-necked geeks to demonize all progressive forces, just as our pro-peace, no-war-for-oil message is starting to resonate with the American people, on the eve of a brutal and unjust war on the people of Iraq and Palestine.”

In Washington, Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a noted expert on demonization of progressive forces by the conservative media, was asked if the Democrats agreed with this complaint.

In a soft, pained, reasonable-sounding-yet-whiny voice, he replied, “Well, I have to say that I’m very disappointed at this rush to judgement on the part of the space agency. They claim to be objective, and that they aren’t going to say anything definitive until the investigation is complete, but anyone who reads the papers knows the direction that the investigation has been going.”

“Then shrill voices on talk radio and the internet pick it up, and make it sound as though those of us who are for truly compassionate policies, and are against tax cuts for the rich, are responsible for the destruction of the space shuttle. It’s just a continuation of the politics of personal destruction.”

“I and my family have received several death threats about this in the past hour alone, and that’s not even considering the normal daily ones from Bob Torricelli and Jim Jeffords. That was most disappointing.”

Senator Hillary Clinton, who happened to be in Mr. Daschle’s office measuring the draperies, added, “It’s just part of the ongoing vast, right-wing conspiracy against me and my husband, that I still wish that some enterprising reporter would go and dig up the real story on, instead of tarring voices for fairness with innuendo about blowing up space shuttles.”

When asked if she had ever had any involvement with the nation’s space program, she replied, “Well, I did want to be an astronaut, before I went through the period when I wanted to be a Marine, but the reactionary neanderthal rat-bastards at the space agency told me that girls need not apply. But other than that, I’m afraid I don’t recall.”

Back in Clear Lake, following the press conference, in response to queries, Kent Lovebreed, a crewcut spokesman from NASA’s Public Affairs Office, responded, “We regret that anyone feels that they’re under personal attack by our critical investigation into the cause of Saturday’s tragedy. We wouldn’t want to imply that there is anything sinister here. We are simply objective scientists and engineers, gathering the evidence, and following the trail wherever it leads. Right now, unfortunately, the left wing has to be considered the leading cause of that catastrophe.”

Asked if, as a result of the preliminary results of the investigation, NASA was considering laying down a design requirement that all future space vehicles have only right wings, he said, “It’s premature to make any kind of recommendation like that, but in light of our experience now, it certainly has to be one of the options on the table.”

[Copyright 2003 by Rand Simberg]

The logical conclusion of inane anti-war tactics can be found here. [Warning, more than slightly risque, particularly some of the links on the page]

My own bumper sticker suggestions:

“Save An Iraqi By Getting All Whacky”

“Bag Balm–not Baghdad Bomb”

“War is Funky, Slap the Monkey”

It’s pretty damned funny.

[Via Volokh]