ULA’s Atlas 5 successfully launches surveillance satellite

Capitalism in space: ULA today successfully launched a reconnaissance satellite using its Atlas 5 rocket.

This was ULA’s seventh launch for the year, putting them behind the launch rate since the company’s formation of about a dozen launches per year. At the moment the seven launches matches 2008, the year with the fewest launches. With only two launches listed for the rest of the year, 2017 could be the first time since 2010 that ULA has not reached double digits in launches.

Whether this drop represents a long term drop in business is unclear. The company is definitely under price pressure from SpaceX and others, but that pressure had not significantly reduced their launch rate in the past four years. It will take a few more years to see.

0 comments

Morgan Stanley analysts see SpaceX value growing to $50 billion

Capitalism in space: A report from Morgan Stanley on Friday said that the value of SpaceX could grow to $50 billion, more than doubling its present value, if it successfully launches its proposed broadband satellite constellation.

I like this quote from the article:

Reducing the cost to launch a satellite to about $60 million, from the $200 million that United Launch Alliance charged through most of the last decade, was a monumental breakthrough. SpaceX is trying to reduce its cost to $5 million per mission, and Morgan Stanley says the launch business “generates limited operating income.”

As they say, the proof is in the pudding, and you might say that SpaceX in the past five years has launched a lot of pudding.

9 comments

Pro-Trump hecklers shout down California attorney general

Fascism: A Q&A at Whittier College with California’s attorney general was shouted down and cut off prematurely by pro-Trump demonstrators.

The event ended early after pro-Trump hecklers, upset about Becerra’s lawsuit against the Trump administration over DACA, continuously shouted slogans and insults at Becerra and Calderon. A group affiliated with the hecklers later boasted that the speakers were “SHOUTED DOWN BY FED-UP CALIFORNIANS” and that the “meeting became so raucous that it ended about a half hour early.”

The event, held in Whittier College’s Shannon Center theater, was free and open to members of the community, and featured introductions from both Whittier’s president and student body president. Becerra and Calderon were to have an hour-long question-and-answer session using audience questions randomly selected from a basket. As soon as they began the discussion, however, hecklers decked in “Make America Great Again” hats began a continuous and persistent chorus of boos, slogans, and insults.

I am not surprised that we are now seeing people on the right doing this sort of thing, having seen leftists do it repeatedly during the past year and getting away with it, every single time. They are angry and frustrated, and want to return the favor.

Having said that, however, I also firmly consider this terribly wrong and an example of fascist behavior. If the only way we are going to behave is screaming at each other, we will soon see that screaming descend into utter violence, a process that will do no one any good, and solve nothing.

These hecklers should have been escorted out of the room, and arrested if they resisted in the slightest. That they weren’t speaks poorly of the security at Whittier College.

17 comments

Blue Origin considering military certification for New Glenn

Capitlism in space: Blue Origin is in discussions with military and national security officials in order to find out what the company must do to get its New Glenn rocket, presently under development, certified to bid on military launches.

Only a few days ago I speculated that Blue Origin might have a chance to bid on the Air Force’s new request for proposals for launches after 2022. This story confirms that they are thinking the same thing.

0 comments

United States to pull out from UNESCO

The United States has announced that it is exiting entirely from UNESCO due to its anti-Israel bias and the lack of any reform within the organization.

The U.S. stopped funding UNESCO after it voted to include Palestine as a member in 2011, but the State Department has maintained a UNESCO office and sought to weigh on policy behind the scenes. The U.S. now owes about $550 million in back payments.

In a statement, the State Department said the decision will take effect Dec. 31, 2018, and that the U.S. will seek a “permanent observer” status instead. It cited U.S. belief in “the need for fundamental reform in the organization.”

…U.S. officials said Secretary of State Rex Tillerson made the decision and that it was not discussed with other countries but was the result of an internal U.S. government deliberation. The officials, who were not authorized to be publicly named discussing the issue, said the U.S. is notably angry over UNESCO resolutions denying Jewish connections to holy sites and references to Israel as an occupying power.

The article notes that this happened back in the 1980s, but fails to mention that it was President Reagan who did it, and faced harsh criticism from the usual liberal suspects in the mainstream press and academia. In the end, however, the 1980s pull out worked. UNESCO made reforms, and the U.S. rejoined in 2003.

3 comments

Trump appoints private sector businessman to head NOAA

President Trump today nominated Barry Myers, the head of the private company AccuWeather, to be chief of NOAA.

This pick will likely accelerate the shift at NOAA from government-built weather satellites to buying the product from the private sector, a shift that NOAA has strongly resisted so far. The article above illustrates that resistance, as it immediately gives space to the naysayers.

But some scientists worry that Myers’ ties to AccuWeather could present conflicts of interest, and note that Myers has no direct experience with the agency’s broader research portfolio, which includes the climate, oceans and fisheries. “I think the science community has real cause for concern,” says Andrew Rosenberg, head of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Rosenberg notes that Myers was an early proponent of carving out a larger role for the private sector in providing weather services. And in 2005, while Myers served as executive vice president and general counsel, AccuWeather lobbied for legislation to prevent the National Weather Service from competing with private firms in providing products including basic weather forecasting. “Is he going to recuse himself from decisions which might potentially be of interest to his company down the road?” asks Rosenberg.

I am not surprised that the Union of Concerned Scientists opposes this shift. They have been a big government, centralized-control advocate for decades. The simple fact is, however, that a lot of money is made predicting the weather. There is no reason the government should be paying for these satellites and providing this service free. If the government didn’t do it, the private weather companies like AccuWeather and the Weather Channel would quickly take over, because — like television networks and communications companies — they need the satellites for their businesses.

Would the data be as available for scientists doing climate research? Maybe in the beginning the private companies would be reluctant to release what to them is proprietary data. As more competing companies got their satellites launched, however, the competition would force them all to make their data available for research, and researchers would end up with more data, not less.

4 comments

SpaceX launches another satellite, recovers 1st stage

Capitalism in space: SpaceX today has just successfully launched a commercial satellite, using a previously flown first stage, which it was able to successfully land and recover for the second time. I can’t wait for the first time they fly one of these first stages for the third time.

This was SpaceX’s 15th launch for the year, which ties them with the Russians for most launches so far in 2017. It also puts them one short of doubling their previous yearly launch record of 8, and also puts them only one behind the record for most launches by a U.S. company since 1986 (ULA launched 16 times in 2009).

10 comments

The FDA and its regulation of genetic data purchased by Americans

Link here. The article is a detailed history of the company 23andMe, which offers individuals a way to get their personal genetic data. The company was growing and flourishing, providing data to its customers, until the FDA stepped in.

In 2009, the FDA started asking 23andme for evidence that the company’s products worked as advertised and wouldn’t harm customers. The agency was worried that people might take drastic medical measures on the basis of their test results, such as deciding to change the dosage of their medications without consulting a doctor or undergoing unnecessary surgery, such as a mastectomy, or treatment based on false positives. Regulators demanded evidence that the tests were accurate, and that customers were well informed what the results meant.

The next years were difficult ones for 23andme. It communicated with the agency on a few occasions and promised in January 2013 that data would be forthcoming. According to the FDA, it then ceased communicating with regulators entirely in May, even as it started a new advertising campaign. Fed up, the agency sent [Anne] Wojcicki [company CEO] a strongly worded warning letter on 22 November 2013 ordering her company to stop marketing its product.

It was a self-inflicted wound for the company. “There was a bit of arrogance,” says Richard Scheller, who was an executive at Genentech at the time. As a result, 23andme was forced to drastically cut its customer offerings, threatening its viability.

Wojcicki was stunned. “It became clear that we had pissed them off,” she says. “I really didn’t know that we had done so many things that angered them.”

Soon after the letter arrived, Wojcicki called Kathy Hibbs, a lawyer then working for Genomic Health, a gene-testing company in nearby Redwood City, California. “Can I get my whole company back in one year?” Wojcicki asked Hibbs.

“You can get it back, but it will take years,” Hibbs replied. And to get there, she counselled, Wojcicki would have to cooperate with regulators.

It was a tough adjustment for Wojcicki; she didn’t think that the FDA should be able to stop customers from learning their own genetic information. But Hibbs and others convinced her that capitulating to the FDA’s demands was the fastest way to rescue her company. [emphasis mine]

The FDA’s high and mighty attitude here really offends me. It appears that before and after their demands, nothing really changed. All that had happened was that a government agency took control of a private company’s operation, coming between it and its customers. Right now it limits the data that the company can release to its customers, the people that pay for the service in order to obtain their own genetic data.

In other words, the FDA doesn’t think ordinary people are smart enough to see their own data. If that doesn’t capture the arrogance of government, I don’t know what does.

2 comments

McConnell, the Senate, and the approval of Trump’s judge picks

Link here. While there is more than enough reasons for conservatives to dislike Mitch McConnell, this detailed article shows that when it comes to Trump’s judicial appointments, McConnell’s track record is mostly good, if a bit slow.

Also, make sure you check out the poll numbers for Senator Bob Casey (D-Pennsylvania) provided at the link. It seems it will be very hard for Casey to win come 2018.

Update: The office of Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) now contradicts McConnell, saying Grassley will decide on whether to kill the blue slip rule that allows one Democratic senator to filibuster any judicial nominee. And he hasn’t decided on whether he’ll do it.

Furthermore, this story says that the first link above is wrong, and that McConnell’s office says he still supports the blue slip veto rule.

It appears that the skepticism of some of my readers is justified.

4 comments

Air Force shifting to commercial space products

In order to save money and speed development, the Air Force is shifting its policy from building all its own space products to buying them from commercial companies.

The desire to leverage more commercial technology came after the Army concluded that a pre-planned modernization path would have taken until 2032 to complete, and ultimately would have cost more than desired, James Mingus, director of the Army’s Mission Command Center of Excellence, said Oct. 10 at the Association of the United States Army conference here. “We are going to halt programs that are not sufficiently, or cannot be sufficiently remedied; we are going to fix those programs we need to be able to “fight tonight,” and then we are going to pivot to an ‘adapt and buy’ approach,” he said.

Being able to “fight tonight” means maintaining the necessary telecommunications infrastructure to engage in combat at a moment’s notice. Beyond keeping that capability steady, the Army wants to apply commercial solutions, which Mingus said “probably meet the majority” of the Army’s needs.

This process began when SpaceX forced the Air Force to open up its launch bids to competition. It has continued as commercial space has shown itself to be fast and innovative and capable of meeting the Air Force’s needs quickly and cheaply. It has probably been accelerated again by the Trump administration itself. In the end, by trusting private enterprise to provide the Air Force what it needs, the country’s economy will grow, and it will do so efficiently, while the government will save money and get what it needs, sooner.

9 comments

NanoRacks and Moon Express team up for lunar missions

Capitalism in space: The private space company Moon Express has signed an agreement with NanoRacks to help manage its planned lunar commercial missions.

Under the agreement, NanoRacks, a company best known for transporting satellites and other payloads to the International Space Station, will handle sales, marketing and technical support for payloads that will fly on Moon Express’ series of lunar lander missions, starting in early 2018. “The primary goal of our alliance with NanoRacks is to ensure a great customer experience,” said Bob Richards, founder and chief executive of Moon Express, in a statement. “Our companies share a culture of customer focus, and together we will be able to provide end to end support from payload concept to mission operations.”

NanoRacks does similar work for researchers and cubesat manufacturers who want access to ISS. They act as the go-between, bundling the different projects and arranging them with NASA.

2 comments
1 454 455 456 457 458 684