|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
The Wrong Kind Of Partisan
This week's Fox News column, which has a link to last week's as well.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109127,00.html |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The Wrong Kind Of Partisan
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109127,00.html
I'm intrigued by your statement that phasing out the shuttle is a good thing. What makes you think that CEV will be any better? In favor: * Better technical design (that's assuming a capsule, which I take to be a consequence of it needing to go to the moon). I won't try to rehash all the arguments here, but one possibly unfair thought I had while browsing the latest return-to-flight summary at http://returntoflight.org/assets/pdf...01-20-2004.pdf is how many of the issues in the CAIB report largely (if not completely) go away if the payload is on top of the rocket rather than the side. * Assuming it launches on EELV, and NASA resists the temptation to make a lot of CEV-mission-specific "enhancements" to the underlying booster, you have a slightly larger flight rate over which to spread the fixed costs. * Assuming that it launches on EELV, and both Atlas and Delta compete for the launch contracts, you get a bit more competition than in shuttle. Against: * Absent any direction to the contrary, it is pretty safe to assume that all the existing NASA bureaucracy from both shuttle and OSP carries over to CEV. * In doing something new, there are more ways to screw up than in operating an existing design. * What will it cost? Will NASA be able to afford whatever that number ends up being? We may very well see the descope-redesign cycle that we saw for shuttle and station. * The above advantages which relate to EELV are pure fantasy. By the time the astronauts can escape from the launch pad (including the sliding wires, tanks, bunkers, etc), the entire launcher program pushes a ton of crew-rating paperwork, and any number of additional requirements, the thing will barely be recognized as whatever launcher it originally derived from. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
The Wrong Kind Of Partisan
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 19:59:17 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Jim Kingdon made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109127,00.html I'm intrigued by your statement that phasing out the shuttle is a good thing. What makes you think that CEV will be any better? Nothing. I don't think that, other than that it will probably be (slightly) cheaper. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
The Wrong Kind Of Partisan
I'm intrigued by your statement that phasing out the shuttle is a good
thing. What makes you think that CEV will be any better? Nothing. I don't think that, other than that it will probably be (slightly) cheaper. Ah, so the statement the new groove that the second President Bush has carved for it, which does mean, among other things, the end of the shuttle program (a good thing). is a statement that CEV-only is better than OSP+shuttle? If so, that makes sense. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
The Wrong Kind Of Partisan
On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 22:20:33 -0800 (PST), in a place far, far away,
Jim Kingdon made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that: I'm intrigued by your statement that phasing out the shuttle is a good thing. What makes you think that CEV will be any better? Nothing. I don't think that, other than that it will probably be (slightly) cheaper. Ah, so the statement the new groove that the second President Bush has carved for it, which does mean, among other things, the end of the shuttle program (a good thing). is a statement that CEV-only is better than OSP+shuttle? Yes, though only in the sense that it will be lower cost, for an equally useless capability... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
The Wrong Kind Of Partisan
Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: This week's Fox News column, which has a link to last week's as well. I'm glad you acknowledged that W mentioned nothing about space in his SOU address. The thing you did not mention is that given this partisan divide, what exactly has W done to try and merge it? I would agree that a non-partisan space plan is best for all. JFK was able to sell that by inspiring the liberals with dreams and quelling the conservatives with cold war rhetoric. W doesn't appeal to the left. It's simple. Even his going back to the moon doesn't inspire dreams of human expansion. It is more at what can I do to assist my business cronies while I'm still here as president. Eric : http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,109127,00.html |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
The Wrong Kind Of Partisan
"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
Rand Simberg ) wrote: : This week's Fox News column, which has a link to last week's as well. I'm glad you acknowledged that W mentioned nothing about space in his SOU address. I thought I had read or been told that JFK did not mention space activities in *his* SOU address. That's wrong. From his 1962 address: "With the approval of this Congress, we have undertaken in the past year a great new effort in outer space. Our aim is not simply to be first on the moon, any more than Charles Lindbergh's real aim was to be the first to Paris. His aim was to develop the techniques of our own country and other countries in the field of air and the atmosphere, and our objective in making this effort, which we hope will place one of our citizens on the moon, is to develop in a new frontier of science, commerce and cooperation, the position of the United States and the Free World." From his 1961 speech: "Finally, this Administration intends to explore promptly all possible areas of cooperation with the Soviet Union and other nations "to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors." Specifically, I now invite all nations - including the Soviet Union - to join with us in developing a weather prediction program, in a new communications satellite program and in preparation for probing the distant planets of Mars and Venus, probes which may someday unlock the deepest secrets of the universe. Today this country is ahead in the science and technology of space, while the Soviet Union is ahead in the capacity to lift large vehicles into orbit. Both nations would help themselves as well as other nations by removing these endeavors from the bitter and wasteful competition of the Cold War. The United States would be willing to join with the Soviet Union and the scientists of all nations in a greater effort to make the fruits of this new knowledge available to all - and, beyond that, in an effort to extend farm technology to hungry nations - to wipe out disease - to increase the exchanges of scientists and their knowledge - and to make our own laboratories available to technicians of other lands who lack the facilities to pursue their own work. Where nature makes natural allies of us all, we can demonstrate that beneficial relations are possible even with those with whom we most deeply disagree - and this must someday be the basis of world peace and world law." These quotes were found at: http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/jk35/ Jon |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
The Wrong Kind Of Partisan
I would agree that a non-partisan space plan is best for all. JFK was
able to sell that by inspiring the liberals with dreams and quelling the conservatives with cold war rhetoric. That worked for 1961-1962 (the conservatives which he most needed to win over were conservative Democrats in the Senate - people of that ideology would now be Republicans). Later in the decade, getting Apollo through Congress was very hard. JFK gave a number of public speeches about cooperating with the Soviets in space, which lost him the Cold War angle. But then JFK was shot, and that is perhaps what saved it. The main source I could quickly find for this was the radio program http://www.wamu.org/special/moon.html which might not be the best one but which does seem to cover the basic material. The web site does have transcripts. Anyway, I was looking for answers about what saved Apollo from cancellation. I didn't really find a particularly complete picture. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
The Wrong Kind Of Partisan
If a Democrat wins the White House, the Bush Space Plan is toast.
I suppose. Although to the extent that it doesn't involve budget increases, it might not really be something the White House cares about. Except, I bet, such a result would oddly mean more money for NASA I doubt it. The Democrats have always (in recent times, anyway) opposed more money for NASA. During the Clinton years, NASA funding was flat (slightly declining, I think). the Dems say they want to complete, and continue to support, the Bill Clinton International Space Station. Do you mean the Ronald Reagan Space Station? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|