Death Sentence for the Hubble?

In sci.space.policy Jeff Findley wrote:

Look at what NASA is doing with the CEV. They're setting requirements for
the CEV and will ultimately maintain control of the project from cradle to
grave. The chances that another organization would be allowed to buy their
own copy of the CEV is virtually nil.

Maybe, maybe not. The USAF has allowed Boeing and Lockheed to sell Delta II
and Atlas II launches, respectively, to commercial customers. It remains
to be seen whether NASA will be as generous and, if so, whether anyone
would be willing to pay the price.

If they weren't interested in maintaining control, they would buy manned
launches from US companies and let the companies who win the launch
contracts provide the manned space vehicles.

In an ideal world. In the current world we'll hopefully be able to keep
NASA control limited to the CEV itself, forcing them to buy launches from
commercial launch vehicles. That would get them out of the manned *launch*
business and into merely the manned *spaceflight* business -- a substan-
tial improvement.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

In sci.space.policy Eric Chomko wrote:

Is every NASA contract won by defense contractors?

No.

Isn't there an aerospace industry outside of defense?

Yes, but it operates under the same Federal Acquisistion Regulations as
the defense contractors do.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

In sci.space.policy Eric Chomko wrote:

Speaking of Spacelab, is it officially done now that Columbia
blew up?

Spacelab was done well before the Columbia disaster. The hardware on
Columbia was SpaceHab (with an "h"), not SpaceLab.

I sure as heck hope that ISS can support what Spacelab once was
on the shuttle. At least THAT would be progress, IMO.

ISS is already quite a bit beyond SpaceLab (and Mir) in most measurable
ways: orbital mass, internal volume, experiment rack space, electrical
power, data throughput, upmass, and downmass*.

If all goes as planned, ISS will quadruple its electrical power by the
end of next year and triple its rack space by the end of 2007. Also,
the upmass will increase quite a bit when the ATV and HTV come online.
And don't forget the JEF / robot arm combo and Centrifuge Accommodation
Module will permit types of research just not possible on Spacelab or
Mir, so it's not just in quantity that the ISS has the advantage but in
quality as well.

*Well, technically Spacelab beat ISS in downmass since it deorbited the
whole lab at the end of the 14-day mission. I'm talking about the ability
of the MPLM to carry up and down up to 20,000 lbs of experiment *samples*
at a time while the experiment apparatus stays in orbit.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

In sci.space.policy Eric Chomko wrote:

At one point I really pictured ISS as some sort of cheaper Spacelab
replacement, when completed. IOW, instead of a shuttle launch for each SL
misson, many missions could be condensed into a single launch and the
many (rather than a few as from shuttle) expeiremnts could be carried out
on ISS, as well as being able to be longer than 10-14 days.

That, plus as an engineering platform for space manufacturing and testing.

That's exactly what ISS was designed to be, and it would be, if not for
NASA's institutional culture. It seems that NASA really really wants to
go to Mars, so the tremendous advance in space science that ISS is making
possible will probably not happen. 'Tis a pity.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

Michael Kent ) wrote:
: In sci.space.policy Eric Chomko wrote:

: Speaking of Spacelab, is it officially done now that Columbia
: blew up?

: Spacelab was done well before the Columbia disaster. The hardware on
: Columbia was SpaceHab (with an "h"), not SpaceLab.

Yes, yes I know. But Hab has been around for awhile and Lab longer but is
no more. What are the subtle distinctions between the two?

: I sure as heck hope that ISS can support what Spacelab once was
: on the shuttle. At least THAT would be progress, IMO.

: ISS is already quite a bit beyond SpaceLab (and Mir) in most measurable
: ways: orbital mass, internal volume, experiment rack space, electrical
: power, data throughput, upmass, and downmass*.

But are there ongoing expirements on ISS worthy of note?

: If all goes as planned, ISS will quadruple its electrical power by the
: end of next year and triple its rack space by the end of 2007. Also,
: the upmass will increase quite a bit when the ATV and HTV come online.
: And don't forget the JEF / robot arm combo and Centrifuge Accommodation
: Module will permit types of research just not possible on Spacelab or
: Mir, so it's not just in quantity that the ISS has the advantage but in
: quality as well.

Well good, one would expect that ISS would be able to replace things like
Spacelab.

: *Well, technically Spacelab beat ISS in downmass since it deorbited the
: whole lab at the end of the 14-day mission. I'm talking about the ability
: of the MPLM to carry up and down up to 20,000 lbs of experiment *samples*
: at a time while the experiment apparatus stays in orbit.

Yes, understood.

Eric

: Mike

: -----
: Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
: St. Peters, MO
:

Michael Kent ) wrote:
: In sci.space.policy Eric Chomko wrote:

: At one point I really pictured ISS as some sort of cheaper Spacelab
: replacement, when completed. IOW, instead of a shuttle launch for each SL
: misson, many missions could be condensed into a single launch and the
: many (rather than a few as from shuttle) expeiremnts could be carried out
: on ISS, as well as being able to be longer than 10-14 days.

: That, plus as an engineering platform for space manufacturing and testing.

: That's exactly what ISS was designed to be, and it would be, if not for
: NASA's institutional culture. It seems that NASA really really wants to
: go to Mars, so the tremendous advance in space science that ISS is making
: possible will probably not happen. 'Tis a pity.

We should do both...not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
Bush should say as much!

Eric

: Mike

: -----
: Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
: St. Peters, MO
:

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:34:18 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: That's exactly what ISS was designed to be, and it would be, if not for
: NASA's institutional culture. It seems that NASA really really wants to
: go to Mars, so the tremendous advance in space science that ISS is making
: possible will probably not happen. 'Tis a pity.

We should do both...not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

That's a really dumb reason to do something.

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:34:18 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : That's exactly what ISS was designed to be, and it would be, if not for
: : NASA's institutional culture. It seems that NASA really really wants to
: : go to Mars, so the tremendous advance in space science that ISS is making
: : possible will probably not happen. 'Tis a pity.
:
: We should do both...not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

: That's a really dumb reason to do something.

Not really. Sounds like you like the easy way out. Are you lazy, too,
Rand?

Did I ever tell you how the West German army (at least this was true 25
years ago) picks their COs? Well, I'm going to anyway.

Each candidate is rated: smart or stupid, and, aggressive or lazy

The stupid, lazy ones are elminated from contention.
The smart, aggressive ones are given the type of job that is typically one
person or only a few to manage, as the smart, aggressive types tend to
drive people crazy.
The stupid, aggressive ones are given the type of job where butt-kicking
is needed, such as displinary action, dealing with raw recruits, etc.
That leaves the smart, lazy ones as COs, as they know the work and how
to delegate it.

I'm wondering if you're a CO-type or would not be in for contention. Now I
HOPE you don't ask me what all this is supposed to mean WRT you!

Eric

On Mon, 2 May 2005 17:08:31 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:34:18 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : That's exactly what ISS was designed to be, and it would be, if not for
: : NASA's institutional culture. It seems that NASA really really wants to
: : go to Mars, so the tremendous advance in space science that ISS is making
: : possible will probably not happen. 'Tis a pity.
:
: We should do both...not because they are easy, but because they are hard.

: That's a really dumb reason to do something.

Not really. Sounds like you like the easy way out. Are you lazy, too,
Rand?

It's stupid to work harder at something than necessary. That's not
lazy--it's just efficient. Are you stupid?

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Mon, 2 May 2005 17:08:31 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: : On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 16:34:18 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: : (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: : monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
:
: : : That's exactly what ISS was designed to be, and it would be, if not for
: : : NASA's institutional culture. It seems that NASA really really wants to
: : : go to Mars, so the tremendous advance in space science that ISS is making
: : : possible will probably not happen. 'Tis a pity.
: :
: : We should do both...not because they are easy, but because they are hard.
:
: : That's a really dumb reason to do something.
:
: Not really. Sounds like you like the easy way out. Are you lazy, too,
: Rand?

: It's stupid to work harder at something than necessary. That's not
: lazy--it's just efficient. Are you stupid?

No one said anything about working harder than you have to. YOU added that
part! Do you always read into things that aren't there? You don't
challenege your own beliefs enough.

Eric