And, while we’re on the subject two-timing entrepreneurs, I just belatedly read in AvWeek that the forthright defendent of multi-source contracting, SpaceX Corporation, has accepted a presumably sole-source contract for “flight text” of the Falcon-9. Isn’t this exactly the sort of contract he complained about Kistler getting, thereby helping to remove the latter company from competition?

— Donald

It’s tedious when people wander into a forum only to drip contempt onto it. The only way to encourage civility is to set a good example. (As in fact Jeff Foust has done. His blog is all the better for it.)

That said, I agree that Burt Rutan’s comparison is apples and oranges, and at any meaningful level, a wild exaggeration. My hat is off to Rutan and Scaled Composites for their achievements, which however are tainted by bragging. In this case, not only bragging, but also ingratitude, given how much praise and wisdom they got from NASA.

— Donald

I stand corrected.

I read somewhere that when the Space Frontier Foundation closed down its bulletin boards, some of the regulars migrated over here to engage in arguments that they have been conducting for years.

SFF still has operating bulletin boards, including the flamish Space Arena board.

Correct. I _didn’t_ say that. In fact, an upcoming issue of Spaceflight should contain some of my excellent (imho) photographs of SS1 in the Smithsonian (it’s amazing what you can do with an expensive camera, expensive film, and a quickie photography class). I viewed that earlier comment as simply another example of the poor state of discourse in this comments section. I’d enjoy a civil, spirited, engaging discussion of space issues, but we rarely find it on the web. Even when it stays relatively civil, it often becomes pointless. We all know where certain people stand on the issues and after observing them express their opinions for half a decade or more, I figure that I’m not going to learn anything from them just as I won’t learn anything by pulling the string on a talking doll. (I read somewhere that when the Space Frontier Foundation closed down its bulletin boards, some of the regulars migrated over here to engage in arguments that they have been conducting for years. If true, it hasn’t helped this place. All I can say is that I’ve encountered a lot of people in space discussion groups that I have no desire to meet in person–which is a real shame, because some of the more thoughtful people I know, such as Jonathan McDowell and Jeff Foust, were ones I first encountered via electrons.)

My colleague Mr. Smith wrote:
“I should point out that DoD is, in fact, going to take heavy cuts in its space budget due to Iraq and disaster relief.”

I would argue that this is not due to Iraq and disaster relief. Those might be contributors, but DoD space has put itself into this position of its own accord. Their problems with numerous big ticket spacecraft that have been under development for a decade or so (SBIRS, AEHF, etc.) has created much skepticism in Congress that they should be allowed to start new aggressive development programs (T-Sat, Space Radar, etc.). In addition, I think one could argue that it has not simply been the management, but also the way DoD treated its critics in Congress that hurt them. The infamous comment by a senior Air Force general about congressional criticism of the acquisition problem did not make them any friends.

Of course, none of this has anything to do with the space authorization bill that was the original topic here. Alas, such is the web…

I fully concur with your assessment of the posts on this otherwise excellent website provided by Jeff Foust. I find most blogs, particularly those dealing with politics, are generally useless because of a lack of civility or critical thought. This one often goes there, despite the very serious nature of the website and careful consideration of topics by Dr. Foust.

With that aside, I should point out that DoD is, in fact, going to take heavy cuts in its space budget due to Iraq and disaster relief. The programs in question cannot be discussed here, but the fact that the cuts will occur is public knowledge, thanks to the Congressional tendency to talk too much.

Dwayne, as usual I liked your comments and generally agreed with them.

The X-15 program was doing something entirely new and unproven. The SS1 program utilized the knowledge gained from the X-15 program, as well as other high speed and rocket research programs.

As I have consistantly argued, I think this points out the historic roles — and I would say the proper roles — of government and private development. Any commercial vehicles supplying the Space Station will be riding the coat tails of prior NASA and Air Force efforts, including the Shuttle.

— Donald

It needs an emergency escape system available during descent as well as ascent. A reserve parachute, ejection seats, ejectable escape pod within the capsule … something like that.

Haven’t heard that the proposed Steroid Capsule will have any such safety equipment.