Author Archive: Glenn Reynolds

OH.

UPDATE: John Lucas on Biden’s Transgender Day of Visibility.

And from the Prez himself:

It just went out under his name. I believe him, since that’s how everything else works. More here: ‘Didn’t Do That’: Biden Denies He Proclaimed Easter Sunday ‘Transgender Day of Visibility’ (He Did).

IT’S THE LOW GRAVITY AND THIN ATMOSPHERE:

Or maybe it’s something else.

OPEN THREAD: Monday, Monday.

JAMES PETHOKOUKIS: Moore’s Law meet Musk’s Law: the underappreciated story of SpaceX and the stunning decline in launch costs.

Many reporters, as well as the general public, fail to grasp that SpaceX’s approach to rocket development differs fundamentally from NASA’s. Instead of extensive ground testing and a cautious pace to minimize launch failures — which can lead to longer development timelines and higher costs — SpaceX embraces rapid iteration and learning from failure. Elon Musk’s company views each launch, whether completely successful or not, as an opportunity to gather valuable data and improve future designs. Starship is no different. Its “failures” are stepping stones to success, at least so far.

That iterative approach, combined with their vertical integration and in-house manufacturing capabilities, allows SpaceX to move more quickly and cost-effectively than traditional aerospace players — with amazing results. . . .

Berger’s key phrase: “a world in which launch is cheap and abundant.” It’s worth spending a moment on the revolutionary decline in launch costs, the key enabler of the emerging new space age. As Citigroup outlined in a 2022 research note, NASA Launch costs dropped significantly from over $100,000/kg in the mid-1960s to around $5,400/kg for the Saturn V used in the Apollo launches starting in 1967. After the Apollo 11 lunar landing, the average launch cost remained relatively stable for decades, averaging about $16,000/kg for medium/heavy payloads and about $30,000/kg for light payloads. This was due to factors such as the use of existing launch systems, reduced number of launches, high reliability requirements for human spaceflight, and a government-funded spending culture. Bottom line: There simply wasn’t much innovation or financial motivation to be innovative.

Then came SpaceX, which pioneered lower launch costs with the Falcon 9 in 2010 ($2,500/kg) and Falcon Heavy in 2018 ($1,500/kg) that are 30 times lower than NASA’s Space Shuttle in 1981 and 11 times lower than the average launch costs from 1970 to 2010, according to Citi.

I discussed this change and its implications a few years back in my America’s New Destiny in Space.

TO BE HONEST, I’M GRATEFUL FOR THE HYPOCRISY HERE: Biden Suddenly Uninterested in Environment When Uranium is Involved.

The largest uranium producer in the United States is ramping up work just south of Grand Canyon National Park on a long-contested project that largely has sat dormant since the 1980s.

The work is unfolding as global instability and growing demand drive uranium prices higher.

The Biden administration and dozens of other countries have pledged to triple the capacity of nuclear power worldwide in their battle against climate change, ensuring uranium will remain a key commodity for decades as the government offers incentives for developing the next generation of nuclear reactors and new policies take aim at Russia’s influence over the supply chain. . . .

The biggest change is the fact that the Biden administration is suddenly going all-in on nuclear power. That may come as a surprise to parts of his base who have continued to oppose nuclear power ever since Three Mile Island. In fact, I won’t be shocked if some of them start showing up and protesting Biden over this as soon as they finish their pro-Hamas protests. Then again, he’ll probably convince at least some of them by reminding them that nuclear reactors produce no carbon and are thus blessed by the Climate Goddess.

The other factor is the fact that Russia controls a significant amount of the world’s current uranium supplies. They’re not exactly fans of ours at the moment and the price of Russian uranium is continuing to rise. Much the same way that China is capable of cutting off the global supply of rare metals needed to make batteries for electric vehicles, Russia could choke off much of the uranium supply. We have plenty of uranium in the United States, but we haven’t mined much of it since the early days of our nuclear weapons program.

Personally, I don’t have a problem with the current progress that’s being made. I’ve been saying here for years that I’m in favor of an “all of the above” energy plan, and that includes nuclear. The problem is that it takes forever to get a new nuclear plant approved because of endless government regulations, so few energy companies want to invest in it. What bothers me here is all of the blatant hypocrisy on display, not that this is anything new. Nuclear power was evil and bad until somebody realized that it might fit in the climate cult model. Then, almost overnight, it became popular. Fine. Do whatever it takes. Just make sure you look into those new small modular reactors that are in development. They really make nuclear power a lot more flexible and usable in more areas. They’re also a bit cheaper.

I agree entirely.

WATCH WHAT THEY DO, NOT WHAT THEY SAY:

HOPE FOR TURKEY: