Griffin: Shuttle-CEV Gap Unacceptable

In article ,
Kim Keller wrote:
I seem to recall a televised statement by a certain president directing NASA
to build a space station "and do it within a decade". That timetable
certainly slipped all to hell.

Reagan's space station speech was completely unrealistic, and therefore
completely irresponsible. The fact that Reagan didn't know what he was
talking about is one big reason that the space station stinks today.
It wasn't just the "within a decade" part either; it was also all of the
nonsense about inventing miracle medicines and magical materials on the
space station.

It's the same basic principle. When the president declares flatly what
*is* true or what *will* happen in a direct, prepared, national address,
he should be taken at his word.

If you actually think STS *will* retire in 2010 you have no idea how the
gummint works.

I think that it might well be retired in 2010. That is exactly what
President Bush said in a national address, and exactly what he repeated in
a budget request a year later. Some people in this newsgroup are trying
to throw his words into the trash. (Apparently "policy statement" is
the euphemism of the day for "bull****".) But they don't speak for Bush.
I think that Bush might well mean what he says.

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \ Home page: http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~greg/
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
}Reagan's space station speech was completely unrealistic, and therefore
}completely irresponsible. The fact that Reagan didn't know what he was
}talking about is one big reason that the space station stinks today.
}Was Reagan supposed to be an expert on space policy and technology?
}He said what his advisors told him to say.

Reagan was supposed to listen to his space and science advisors, which
is exactly what he didn't do. He listened to only some of his advisors,
while blowing off other more honest, wiser advisors. I am not sure
that Reagan understood how badly he ignored some of his best advisors,
but that's what he did.

For example George Keyworth, who was Reagan's science advisor, told not
only Reagan but also the public that NASA lies all the time. Nonetheless
Reagan believed NASA that the space station was a great science project
and ignored Keyworth. Some sensible people at the Pentagon also told
Reagan that the shuttle was a setback to military space projects, but
Reagan ignored that too.

Everything he said was the conventional wisdom at the time,

No it wasn't "conventional" wisdom at the time. Maybe it was your wisdom,
and maybe it was lay public wisdom, but that was largely because of
Reagan, the "Great Communicator". But he was not communicating expert
wisdom. He promised on national television that the space station would
be a great science laboratory. But even as he said it, the nation's
scientific societies and his own science advisor said that it wasn't true.

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \ Home page: http://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~greg/
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 11:33:01 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

I seem to recall a televised statement by a certain president directing NASA
to build a space station "and do it within a decade". That timetable
certainly slipped all to hell.

That's not really a useful comparison. It's a lot easer to shut
something down (ignoring the politics, of course) than to create
something.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:05:39 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Kim Keller wrote:
I seem to recall a televised statement by a certain president directing NASA
to build a space station "and do it within a decade". That timetable
certainly slipped all to hell.

Reagan's space station speech was completely unrealistic, and therefore
completely irresponsible. The fact that Reagan didn't know what he was
talking about is one big reason that the space station stinks today.

Was Reagan supposed to be an expert on space policy and technology?
He said what his advisors told him to say. Everything he said was the
conventional wisdom at the time, and it's idiotic to expect him to
somehow know more about space stations than the people appointed to
know such things.

If you actually think STS *will* retire in 2010 you have no idea how the
gummint works.

I think that it might well be retired in 2010. That is exactly what
President Bush said in a national address, and exactly what he repeated in
a budget request a year later. Some people in this newsgroup are trying
to throw his words into the trash.

No, some people in this newsgroup are pointing out the ignorance and
naivety of your understanding of policy and politics.

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:41:44 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
}Reagan's space station speech was completely unrealistic, and therefore
}completely irresponsible. The fact that Reagan didn't know what he was
}talking about is one big reason that the space station stinks today.
}Was Reagan supposed to be an expert on space policy and technology?
}He said what his advisors told him to say.

Reagan was supposed to listen to his space and science advisors, which
is exactly what he didn't do.

Nonsense. Who else would he listen to?

He listened to only some of his advisors,
while blowing off other more honest, wiser advisors.

You're hilarious, Gregg.

Nonetheless
Reagan believed NASA that the space station was a great science project
and ignored Keyworth.

How would you know what Reagan believed? Keyworth was the science
advisor, but space policy isn't just about science.

Some sensible people at the Pentagon also told
Reagan that the shuttle was a setback to military space projects, but
Reagan ignored that too.

One can always find dissenters at the Pentagon (or any other
government agency) on almost any subject. Again, why would you
(absurdly) expect Reagan, or any president, to be an expert on space
technology and policy? He had a Secretary of Defense, and a NASA
adminstrator, and a Senior Interagency Group for space to decide these
things. His policy was ultimately based on their recommendations.

Everything he said was the conventional wisdom at the time,

No it wasn't "conventional" wisdom at the time. Maybe it was your wisdom,

No, it wasn't my wisdom. I've always thought that the station was a
policy disaster.

and maybe it was lay public wisdom, but that was largely because of
Reagan, the "Great Communicator". But he was not communicating expert
wisdom. He promised on national television that the space station would
be a great science laboratory. But even as he said it, the nation's
scientific societies and his own science advisor said that it wasn't true.

No, what they said was that it wouldn't do enough science to justify
it on that basis, but science was never the only reason to build a
space station, despite your fetish for it.

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:05:39 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on my
monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

If you actually think STS *will* retire in 2010 you have no idea
how the
gummint works.

I think that it might well be retired in 2010. That is exactly what
President Bush said in a national address, and exactly what he
repeated in
a budget request a year later. Some people in this newsgroup are
trying
to throw his words into the trash.

No, some people in this newsgroup are pointing out the ignorance and
naivety of your understanding of policy and politics.

Look, it may very well be that 'policy' is not worth the paper it's
printed on. The stated policy of the Italian government was 'no
negotiation with terrorists' and we know how far that went for the
commie reporter. 'Policy' may indeed mean everything or nothing.

But money is real, and institutional momentum has a role. The shuttle
program has been put on a free return trajectory ending in 2010, and if
a new administration in 2008 wants to change that, it's going to
require a huge policy--and money delta-v. Rocket quiz: is it easier to
change inclinations at high orbital speeds or low? ;-)

Tom Cuddihy

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .

Of course, this is probably a moot issue, because I suspect that Mike
is going to try to figure out a way to make it happen sooner, not
later, than 2010 (as well as accelerating CEV to close the gap).

If he can do both at once, he'll certainly have my undying admiration.

--


Regards,
Mike Combs
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Member of the National Non-sequitur Society. We may not make
much sense, but we do like pizza.

On 15 Apr 2005 10:52:50 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Tom Cuddihy"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

Look, it may very well be that 'policy' is not worth the paper it's
printed on.

Policy is what it is, and one of the things that it is is "subject to
change." The notion that it's some kind of solemn "promise" to the
American people, or that it would require "courage" to change it, is
literally laughable (I know this for a fact, because I laughed quite
heartily when I read Gregg's pompous pontification to that effect).

But money is real, and institutional momentum has a role. The shuttle
program has been put on a free return trajectory ending in 2010, and if
a new administration in 2008 wants to change that, it's going to
require a huge policy--and money delta-v.

Not really. They're on a trajectory to not fly more than a certain
number of times more, because they're only procuring enough hardware
for a fixed number of flights. But if those flights finish up in 2011
or 2012 instead of 2010, it's no big whoop, except for the need for
some additional budget to sustain the standing army for another couple
years.

Of course, this is probably a moot issue, because I suspect that Mike
is going to try to figure out a way to make it happen sooner, not
later, than 2010 (as well as accelerating CEV to close the gap).

On Fri, 15 Apr 2005 13:45:33 -0500, in a place far, far away, "Mike
Combs" made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..

Of course, this is probably a moot issue, because I suspect that Mike
is going to try to figure out a way to make it happen sooner, not
later, than 2010 (as well as accelerating CEV to close the gap).

If he can do both at once, he'll certainly have my undying admiration.

Well, doing one makes the other more possible. If I were him, I'd
figure out the minimum number of Shuttle flights actually necessary to
get to some politically acceptable (to the partners) definition of
station complete (offloading some flights onto EELVs if possible),
freeing up more budget, sooner, for an accelerated CEV program. In
fact, I suspect that he's already got (or is rapidly developing) a
plan to do exactly that.

(Greg Kuperberg) wrote in
:

In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
So who exactly do you think will be brave enough to take
responsibility for keeping the shuttle flying past 2010?
Currently we have a fixed date to stop flights,
The "fixed" date is in fact completely arbitrary, so stretching it
will not require much bravery.

It would require the courage, or maybe the cowardice, to contradict a
direct and explicit promise from the President of the United States to
the American people.

That was not a promise by any reasonable definition.

And it doesn't change the fact that the date was, in fact, arbitrary.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.