Unhappy Birthday

....is the title of this week's Fox News column, in which I reflect on
NASA's forty-fifth anniversary.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99508,00.html

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99508,00.html

Good job in bringing the Paine report back into people's
consciousness. I guess it was overshadowed, since I don't really even
remember it from the time.

One additional problem with the Paine report: it seems not to have an
executive summary, set of concise recommendations, or anything of the
kind (at least, not easily findable from
http://history.nasa.gov/painerep/begin.html ). If they just took the
same ideas, and put them in a nicer package, it might have made a
difference.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
...is the title of this week's Fox News column, in which I reflect on
NASA's forty-fifth anniversary.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99508,00.html

Oh, cool. More "Bash NASA" drivel that really serves no purpose.

How about a solution, rather than bitch about the problem?

Arthur Hansen

On Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:06:54 CST, in a place far, far away,
(Arthur Hansen) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
...is the title of this week's Fox News column, in which I reflect on
NASA's forty-fifth anniversary.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,99508,00.html

Oh, cool. More "Bash NASA" drivel that really serves no purpose.

It serves no purpose to point out that there's a problem?

How about a solution, rather than bitch about the problem?

Go back and read my Fox columns for the past couple years...

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

On or about Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:41:10 CST, Rand Simberg
made the sensational claim that:
It serves no purpose to point out that there's a problem?

The first few thousand times, maybe. The umpteenth time, no.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | This space is for rent
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | Inquire within if you
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | Would like your ad here

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 08:39:24 CST, in a place far, far away, LooseChanj
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

On or about Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:41:10 CST, Rand Simberg
made the sensational claim that:
It serves no purpose to point out that there's a problem?

The first few thousand times, maybe. The umpteenth time, no.

Sometimes one must continue to do it until the message gets across to
a sufficient number of people who can do something to fix it. Just
because you're aware of it, doesn't mean that Fox News readers are.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
Oh, cool. More "Bash NASA" drivel that really serves no purpose.

It serves no purpose to point out that there's a problem?

It is not constructive criticism, it is merely destructive.

All you've recently done is say how bad NASA is. And an biased view.

Biased? Yes. You pointed to the NASA problems on planetary
exploration, yet fail to mention that *everyone* and their dog has had
problems with their Mars probes. But you make it seem that NASA in
particular is having a problem there, when the oposite is generally
true.

If you continue blathering (and I meant that not against you, but the
article) you are going to marginilize your opinion and dilute what you
are trying to say.

Does NASA have problems? Hell, yes.

Is this the way to fix it? No, not really.

How about a solution, rather than bitch about the problem?

Go back and read my Fox columns for the past couple years...

I did not notice anything that attempted to be a rational discussion
on fixing NASA in there, but I was turned off by the rehtoric in very
short order and didn't finish the article.

And of importance, all you are doing is feeding to the public is that
NASA can't do anything correct, they are totally innefectual which is
actually *making* NASA more innefectual. NASA may have problems, but
that is not accurate to the level implied.

Journalism is a potent device for social change, used incuatiously (or
deliberately) it can cause as many problems as it creates solutions.

Arthur Hansen

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 12:51:45 CST, in a place far, far away,
(Arthur Hansen) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
Oh, cool. More "Bash NASA" drivel that really serves no purpose.

It serves no purpose to point out that there's a problem?

It is not constructive criticism, it is merely destructive.

In what way?

All you've recently done is say how bad NASA is. And an biased view.

Of course it's a biased view. Who doesn't have a biased view?

Biased? Yes. You pointed to the NASA problems on planetary
exploration, yet fail to mention that *everyone* and their dog has had
problems with their Mars probes.

I didn't know that "everyone and their dog" had attempted planetary
exploration.

But you make it seem that NASA in
particular is having a problem there, when the oposite is generally
true.

I discuss NASA because, well, that's the subject of the article. I
didn't defend ESA or the Russians.

If you continue blathering (and I meant that not against you, but the
article) you are going to marginilize your opinion and dilute what you
are trying to say.

In your opinion.

Does NASA have problems? Hell, yes.

Is this the way to fix it? No, not really.

Is what the way to fix it? I didn't recommend any particular fix. I
simply point out that one is required.

How about a solution, rather than bitch about the problem?

Go back and read my Fox columns for the past couple years...

I did not notice anything that attempted to be a rational discussion
on fixing NASA in there, but I was turned off by the rehtoric in very
short order and didn't finish the article.

I've no idea what article you're talking about.

Talk about non-constructive criticism...

And of importance, all you are doing is feeding to the public is that
NASA can't do anything correct, they are totally innefectual which is
actually *making* NASA more innefectual. NASA may have problems, but
that is not accurate to the level implied.

What I implied is not necessarily what you chose to infer.

Journalism is a potent device for social change, used incuatiously (or
deliberately) it can cause as many problems as it creates solutions.

It can, but you've certainly made no case that it does in this
instance.

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers:

LooseChanj wrote:

On or about Wed, 8 Oct 2003 23:41:10 CST, Rand Simberg
made the sensational claim that:
It serves no purpose to point out that there's a problem?

The first few thousand times, maybe. The umpteenth time, no.


Some people are new to the debate (or at least new to this NG).


--

You know what to remove, to reply....

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
It is not constructive criticism, it is merely destructive.

In what way?

It provides no fix, no plan or even a kernel of an idea on how to
stimulate change, other than to say "NASA is broken, please put it out
of our misery."

And without forethought into what would replace NASA, that could be an
even bigger disaster than incremental changes in the institution.
Maybe it does need a sledge-hammer to fix it, but I'd listen more to
the guy who's got an idea for after the dismantling.

All you've recently done is say how bad NASA is. And an biased view.

Of course it's a biased view. Who doesn't have a biased view?

Blatant bias that keeps coming across like this is not instigating
change, it is just making NASA become even more defensive, injecting
the wrong sort of attitude into it. Even worse, it gives ammunition to
them to keep it this way without any changes.

When we (as in all interested citizens) should be encouraging NASA to
forment positive changes. I think NASA (or whatever it may eventually
become) can change, once a new concept or direction finds the light of
day.

But just yelling to tear down the old bridge that has problems isn't
going to help anyone build a better bridge.

(Whew, I finally figured out a reasonable analogy that works!)

Biased? Yes. You pointed to the NASA problems on planetary
exploration, yet fail to mention that *everyone* and their dog has had
problems with their Mars probes.

I didn't know that "everyone and their dog" had attempted planetary
exploration.

But of that crowd that does and has tried, the Red Planet has been a
tough nut to crack. With a very high failure ratio from *everyone.*
Not just NASA.

Should we ignore that space is indeed, hard? No. But that just means
we set our expectations correctly. There isn't going to be any magic
bullet, other than hard work and determination.

But you make it seem that NASA in
particular is having a problem there, when the oposite is generally
true.

I discuss NASA because, well, that's the subject of the article. I
didn't defend ESA or the Russians.

No, you were specifically trying to put NASA in as bad a light as
possible. If it were *just* NASA that was the problem, then ESA, Japan
and Russia wouldn't have lost any rockets recently.

But they all have. The margin for failure in the incredibly energetic
systems of rockets is infinitesimal.

But we can't wait around for some Ford to pop out of the woodwork.
Otherwise, we will never see that innovator appear at any point.

If you continue blathering (and I meant that not against you, but the
article) you are going to marginilize your opinion and dilute what you
are trying to say.

In your opinion.

Yes, of course. I am just trying to help you out.

Does NASA have problems? Hell, yes.

Is this the way to fix it? No, not really.

Is what the way to fix it? I didn't recommend any particular fix. I
simply point out that one is required.

I could point out that the government needs fixing and point to failed
studies, too. There are lots of failed studies.

We need good plans, innovative ideas and a different view for the
problem. I remember hearing somewhere that 90% of all innovative
thoughts that really change a field of technology come from outside of
that field.

Someone looks at that with his or her "seemingly" unrelated skills and
wonders why anyone would do it the hard way.

How about a solution, rather than bitch about the problem?

Go back and read my Fox columns for the past couple years...

I did not notice anything that attempted to be a rational discussion
on fixing NASA in there, but I was turned off by the rehtoric in very
short order and didn't finish the article.

I've no idea what article you're talking about.

I went back and finished reading your latest article, now that I've
had a chance to calm down about it. The article talked a lot about
supposed missed opportunities and failed studies, it didn't mention a
single thing to actually foment useful change within NASA except to
say it needed to be destroyed.

If I started saying the exact same thing about the IRS, FBI or other
large government agency I'd be laughed off the block.

And I'd deserve it too, as I'm doing nothing to actually help in
process.

It is empty wind, full of little meaning other than hot air.

Talk about non-constructive criticism...

I'll take that as a challenge.

What would I start to change about NASA?

I'd probably aim for change to more simple, robust concepts that use
mostly understood or require less "hinging" technologies that must be
developed.

I'd also see about seeing if faster proto-typing processes on limited
budgets. A lot of these processes require going from step A to B to C.
But that doesn't require large steps, all the time. It would give
greater opportunity to test multiple paths or competing designs

I'm not a scientist, engineer or manager, so my ideas are of course
limited. But I try to push myself into being more. I know I'm bright
enough.

For your articles in the future? I'd suggest actually going through
those studies and finding the best points, the great ideas that may be
and see about conveying that in terms not only to the general public,
but NASA too.

And of importance, all you are doing is feeding to the public is that
NASA can't do anything correct, they are totally innefectual which is
actually *making* NASA more innefectual. NASA may have problems, but
that is not accurate to the level implied.

What I implied is not necessarily what you chose to infer.

Ah, but I am one of the people being written to. If it failed to
convey what you were aiming for, is that a problem in the reader or
the writer?

Journalism is a potent device for social change, used incuatiously (or
deliberately) it can cause as many problems as it creates solutions.

It can, but you've certainly made no case that it does in this
instance.

Hmm.

Arthur Hansen