EccentricAnomaly writes: The New York Times has a story about a leaked NASA study that showed it would cost $80 BIllion less and get astronauts to an asteroid sooner if NASA used fuel depots instead of developing a new rocket. According to the article, NASA's response to the leaked study is to start developing fuel depots in addition to continuing its new rocket program. Because, after all, who doesn't need more cool stuff.
EccentricAnomaly writes: A story over at Science News quotes Alan Stern (former head of NASA Science missions) as saying: "The three strongest candidates [for extraterrestrial life] are all in the outer solar system" He's referring to Europa, Titan, and Enceladus. So why is NASA spending $2.5B on the next Mars Rover and planning to spend over $6B more on a Mars sample return when it can't find the money for much cheaper missions to Europa or Enceladus?
EccentricAnomaly writes: Lou Friedman (former head of the Planetary Society) has written a provocative article over at Space Policy Review where he accuses the Obama administration of working on plans to gut the robotic Mars program in order to pay for NASA's exciting new rocket. This is after NASA's already killed the Europa mission that was to have been the next outer planet mission after Cassini.
EccentricAnomaly writes: Robert Zubrin (of Mars Direct fame) has written a new article attacking the "Hydrogen Hoax." Using basic chemistry, energy balance, and the experience of a rocketeer who's worked with Hydrogen he debunks the Hydrogen economy on points ranging from energy efficiency to economics to greenhouse gases to automobile safety. He proposes using ethanol/methanol as fuel instead. (And although this proposal can be debated — particularly the wisdom of using food as fuel — his points about the infeasibility of Hydrogen as auto fuel still stand.)
EccentricAnomaly writes: Steve Jobs has posted a response on the Apple homepage to the Greenpeace Green My Apple campaign in which he basically makes a case for the Greenepeace campaign being a heaping pile of FUD. On one hand, you could say that Greenpeace shouldn't expect a company that has spent years battling Microsoft to just roll over. On the other, it looks like Apple is agreeing to do most of what Greenpeace has been been demanding.