I’ve taken on a new project, and unless and until I come up with a dedicated web site for it, I’ll be hosting it here at Competitive Space for now. I want to provide a focal point to discuss how to properly interpret the Outer Space Treaty to be friendly to property rights and commerce […]

So there was a leak of an internal NASA document a few weeks ago which showed that space transportation architectures that employed the use of orbital storage of propellants, rather than lifting them all at once on a heavy-lift vehicle (such as the Senate Launch System), would save the taxpayer tens […]

…who are writing open letters to the NASA administrator.

Dear Senators Shelby, Boxer, Feinstein, Warner, Chambliss, and Murray:

Why are you only calling for competition on one particular component of the SenateSpace Launch System? It is a huge project, estimated to cost many […]

At least partly (presumably) as a result of a letter sent by California Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein, I am pleased to report that senior senator of Alabama Richard Shelby’s office has released a letter to the NASA administrator, dated this past Friday, in which he states his […]

Both the Space Access Society and the Space Frontier Foundation have put out political action alerts. From SAS:

Over at Tea in Space web site, the Senate Launch System earmark is explained:

Do the senators who authored this language have more knowledge about systems engineering than NASA employees and contractors? Do the senators who authored this language have more knowledge about acoustical flight dynamics of SRBs than NASA employees and […]

I have a piece over at the Washington Examiner today on the wasteful earmark in the NASA budget for the Senate Launch System.

Lou Friedman, a founder of the Planetary Society, has an open letter to Senator Mikulski, which which CSTF agrees. Let’s hope she listens.

I have a new page up on the web site describing the anti-competitive nature of some aspects of last year’s NASA authorization bill. Briefly, we urge that Congress stick to defining broad goals, and let NASA make the technical and economical transportation procurement decisions to achieve them.

I have several posts at my blog, Transterrestrial Musings, on the current mess on the Hill, here and here.

That’s the headline of an op-ed I have at the Washington Times (it should be in print on Monday).

Unfortunately, at least for now, or at least in the eyes of Congress, it’s not true.

[Crossposted at Transterrestrial Musings]

…and the ongoing policy insanity of completely ignoring it. A great essay by Stewart Money.

[Cross-posted at Transterrestrial Musings]

Congress needs to recognize the potential of this new industry, and stop maintaining the status quo, if we’re going to lead the world in space.

…and immigration policy. This is probably an issue that the CSTF should take up.

[Cross posted]

Henry Vanderbilt has a summary of what’s going on with the NASA budget, though it’s a fast-moving topic. For instance, this sort of nonsense occurred after he got the mailing out:

On Wednesday the full House, debating the full-year continuing resolution HR 1, voted 228-203 to approve an amendment […]