A reader at Eugene Volokh’s site asks a good question. For all those people who think that Saddam is rational and cunning, and can be dealt with on that basis, explain the stupidity of the 100% vote.

As Eugene points out, an 85-15 vote (or one similar to Bush’s current approval ratings) would look more realistic (though still hard to credit) and would have given him a propaganda advantage, because the the idiotarians in the press would have surely treated it as credible. What he actually did was meaningless from the standpoint of someone in the West, and is indeed a symptom of megalomania.

A reader at Eugene Volokh’s site asks a good question. For all those people who think that Saddam is rational and cunning, and can be dealt with on that basis, explain the stupidity of the 100% vote.

As Eugene points out, an 85-15 vote (or one similar to Bush’s current approval ratings) would look more realistic (though still hard to credit) and would have given him a propaganda advantage, because the the idiotarians in the press would have surely treated it as credible. What he actually did was meaningless from the standpoint of someone in the West, and is indeed a symptom of megalomania.

A reader at Eugene Volokh’s site asks a good question. For all those people who think that Saddam is rational and cunning, and can be dealt with on that basis, explain the stupidity of the 100% vote.

As Eugene points out, an 85-15 vote (or one similar to Bush’s current approval ratings) would look more realistic (though still hard to credit) and would have given him a propaganda advantage, because the the idiotarians in the press would have surely treated it as credible. What he actually did was meaningless from the standpoint of someone in the West, and is indeed a symptom of megalomania.

Apparently the investigators are saying that the witness who claimed to see a Russian assault rifle “misled” them (i.e., he lied).

So much for that theory.

Mark Steyn doesn’t think much of the idiotarian argument that Bali was bombed because of anger about the Palestinians.

While we?re singing the old favourites, here?s Bruce Haigh with a timeless classic. Mr Haigh was an Australian diplomat in Indonesia, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, and he?s in no doubt as to why hundreds of his compatriots were blown up in Bali. As he told Australia?s Nine Network, ?The root cause of this issue has been America?s backing of Israel on Palestine.? You don?t say. It may well be true that, for certain Muslims ?frustrated? by Washington?s support for Israeli ?intransigence?, blowing up Australians in Bali makes perfect sense. But, if even this most elastic of root causes can be stretched halfway around the globe to a place conspicuously lacking either Jews or Americans, then clearly it can apply to anyone or anything: my advice to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness is to put down the Omagh bombing as an understandable reaction to decades of frustration at Washington?s indulgence of the Zionist oppression of the Palestinian people. As the likes of Mr Haigh demonstrate every day, the more you insist the Islamist psychosis is a rational phenomenon to be accommodated, the more you risk sounding just as nutty as the terrorists.

As always, the whole thing can’t be done justice with a single quote. Go read and enjoy.

George Will is still optimistic about Bill Simon’s chances in California.

And Matt Welch will love (or hate?) the tagline:

…Simon resembles the Anaheim Angels: He can?t be where he is ? but he is.

George Will is still optimistic about Bill Simon’s chances in California.

And Matt Welch will love (or hate?) the tagline:

…Simon resembles the Anaheim Angels: He can?t be where he is ? but he is.

George Will is still optimistic about Bill Simon’s chances in California.

And Matt Welch will love (or hate?) the tagline:

…Simon resembles the Anaheim Angels: He can?t be where he is ? but he is.

Today’s Fox News column is up. It’s basically the post about expendables a couple posts down. I’ve already gotten an email from a Dave in Bellevue, NE, chock full of conventional (and mistaken) wisdom. An amazing number of people actually believe the flawed arguments that Dave presents, even in the industry. That’s why I try to spread the gospel as much as I can.

Hello. I read your article and on the surface it appears to make sense.

It appears to for the simple reason that it actually does make sense.

However, a Russian Soyuz (or Proton or Cosmos) SLV is not the same as a Boeing 757. So the argument of cost related to re-useability is not
relevant. The fact is that ‘disposable’ boosters are the most cost efficient method in existance for routinely putting payloads into space.

Yes, this is true, and has nothing to do with my argument. I’m not talking about existing methods–I’m talking about better ones.

The fact that one blows up every now and then is just a reflection of how out of the ordinary space flight is (accelerating several hundred metric
tons to speeds of 19,000 mph isn’t the same as taking a commuter flight from Philly to DC). After all, some of these systems have reliability rates in the high 90’s (such as the Delta).

Note, he says that as though high 90s is a reliability to be proud of. If aircraft had that poor a reliability, there would be many crashes every day. If cars had that kind of trip reliability, no one would use them except for short distances and unimportant errands–their chances of getting to their destination would simply be too small.

The reliability problem isn’t because of physics–it’s for the reason I stated. Every flight is a first flight, and infant mortality can kill on a mission like that, in which there are no opportunities for a gentle “shake down” cruise.

Also, comparing space vehicles to beer cans!?!?!? Try something with at least more than one moving part next time.

I didn’t compare space vehicles to beer cans. I was simply making the point that it is in both theory and practice possible to build disposable devices that were cheap and reliable. If I were truly making the comparison of which you accuse me, it would weaken my argument, since I’m arguing against expendables.

Simply having a reusable booster will not ensure safety. After all, airplanes crash all the time, and even the ridiculously expensive shuttle has exploded on launch. And after you put all your cash into a reuseable vehicle, you will not build hundreds or even dozens of them, so the reliability won’t necesarily be any better than a disposable system.

This is an amazing paragraph. Yes, there is an occasional airplane crash (though I think that “all the time” is an overstatement). That’s because we have thousands of aircraft flights every day. That airplane crashes are rare enough events to be newsworthy, considering how much they fly, is a testament to their reliability (many nines).

And, WHEN one does explode, the replacement cost will be staggering.

This is making presumptions about replacement costs that are not backed up by any data. Shuttle is useless as a benchmark, because it was built in such small quantities, and it was done on a cost-plus constract, with ancient technology. There’s no reason that space transports should cost much more than air transports (on the order of a hundred million or so) in quantity. And they will rarely “explode.” Most expendable rocket failures are not caused by an explosion, except when range safety blows them up. There will be no range safety device on a piloted space transport, any more than there is on a piloted aircraft. Most failures will be simple mission aborts.

Single Stage to Orbit reusable systems may eventually be developed at staggering cost, but in the meantime, reusable systems are a pretty good deal.

I said nothing about SSTO. No one knows how much a space transport will cost, but if it’s “staggering” it won’t happen. Most studies I’ve seen show that it’s less than staggering.

I suspect that he means that “expendable systems are a pretty good deal.” Expendable systems are a lousy deal, and we will not be able to afford space for anything except government programs and commercial communications and remote sensing satellites, which can afford the high costs, until we develop real space transports for large markets.

There’s a good article today over at CNN about Armadillo Aerospace and other X-Prize contestants. And after six years, the prize finally seems to be fully funded.

[Update at 10:26 AM PDT]

I notice that it also talks about a Romanian team going after the X-Prize. Who woulda thunk it a decade or so ago?

It reminds me, though, of the Romanian pavilion at the World’s Fair in Vancouver, that I attended in 1986. In it, they claimed that the airplane was invented in Romania. In 1906.

Most countries that claim to have beaten the Wrights claim to have, you know, done it first. This display didn’t even acknowledge their existence.