Hubble Marching orders

In article ,
Henry Spencer wrote:
[Bush] has quite visibly *not* sold Congress or the public on the idea,
and sooner or later that lack is going to be felt, especially since
all the real action in his plan happens after he leaves office.

Alex Roland said at the very beginning of this story that the real
purpose of the Bush space vision was to sustain the space station and
only pretend to move on. It's like saying, "I am absolutely resolved
to quit smoking --- six years to the day from today!" Your complaint
is exactly consistent with Roland's take on it.

--
/\ 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 *

Eric Chomko wrote:
[...]
Actually, Bush's father made a similar speech while he was president and
absolutely nothing became of it. I'm not convinced either Bush has a real
commitment space, and are only just committed to placating the NASA
folks in Houston. I really wish I am wrong on this but based upon results
thus far it doesn't look like it.

Oh, you just touched on a very sore point there.
And also showed that you aren't studying your space
policy history very closely.

Bush (41) kicked off the Space Exploration Initiative and
asked NASA for a series of studies on how they could
respond to the policy directive. First came the "90 Day Study",
then the "Synthesis Group".

Everybody got involved. Every project anyone had any desire
to do got included, without any regard for selecting technologies
and doing risk reduction studies up front, etc. The resulting
program was clearly dead on arrival. Nobody outside NASA could
believe what they had responded with.

Congress went up in arms over it. Bush (41) took one look
at the pile of manure that he was dealt by NASA and decided
that NASA was not capable of planning an exploration program
he could support, so he dropped it.

Nobody outside NASA who was following what was happening
was suprised when it died.

Fortunately, it appears clear that the people who did the
current exploration strategy sat down and looked at SEI
and took a long think about it before they moved forwards.

As for:
I'm not convinced either Bush has a real
commitment space, and are only just committed to placating the NASA
folks in Houston. I really wish I am wrong on this but based upon results
thus far it doesn't look like it.

Bush's committment to space is sufficient that NASA was the
*only* non-DOD non-Homeland Defense agency to see budget growth
last cycle. Period.

And as I said befo None of that extra money went to JSC, Eric.

You are acting like the last 18 months never happened.
Things have changed direction. This is blatantly
and unmistakably true, unless you chose to ignore the
last 18 months of current events.

The direction has changed, whether you agree with it or not.
And JSC is not the new direction, nor the new money recipient.
If you play the "follow the money" game, the power is all in
Steidle's hands, and sitting in his corner of HQ rather than
being ladled out to centers for more of the same.

Please pay attention to what's actually going on around you...


-george william herbert

Greg Kuperberg wrote:
Henry Spencer wrote:
[Bush] has quite visibly *not* sold Congress or the public on the idea,
and sooner or later that lack is going to be felt, especially since
all the real action in his plan happens after he leaves office.

Alex Roland said at the very beginning of this story that the real
purpose of the Bush space vision was to sustain the space station and
only pretend to move on. It's like saying, "I am absolutely resolved
to quit smoking --- six years to the day from today!" Your complaint
is exactly consistent with Roland's take on it.

Except that Station's growth has been solidly truncated for the
forseeable future, and Shuttle's lifespan has had its limit
defined.

I think that there's an implicit "we can't go on to Moon/Mars
until we have shown that we can actually finish this Station
project" in a lot of what O'Keefe and Bush have done.

But that's not the same as "sustaining it and only pretending to
move on". Station is clearly not the future direction of
anything right now. Long term budgets and plans have been set.

You seem to keep yourself in willful ignorance of developments
over the last 18-24 months. Why?


-george william herbert

In article ,
George William Herbert wrote:
Greg Kuperberg wrote:
Alex Roland said at the very beginning of this story that the real
purpose of the Bush space vision was to sustain the space station and
only pretend to move on. It's like saying, "I am absolutely resolved
to quit smoking --- six years to the day from today!" [Henry's] complaint
is exactly consistent with Roland's take on it.
Except that Station's growth has been solidly truncated for the
forseeable future,...

For about the fifth time. But, as Robert Park pointed out many years
ago, the space station is a hydra: no matter how much you cut off, it
will just grow back. One reason for this is that the space station was
a mountain of wild promises from day one, when Reagan first announced it.

They aren't really truncating the space station unless they lay off a
lot of people. That is exactly what Washington still doesn't want to do.

and Shuttle's lifespan has had its limit defined.

But not really. First, Bush is taking no responsibility to retire the
space shuttle himself; the next guy is supposed to do it. Second, in
the face of this supposed retirement, they were still planning 28 more
shuttle flights until recently, so Bush's date isn't even credible.
And third, even though the retirement date isn't politically credible,
the date is close to a truism of engineering. In other words, Bush
"limited" the shuttle to about when it will fall apart anyway.

Or, as I should say in all of this, Bush and O'Keefe. Frank
Seitzen reported in November that O'Keefe was promoting the then-fetal
space policy to the White House. I believe it.

I think that there's an implicit "we can't go on to Moon/Mars
until we have shown that we can actually finish this Station
project" in a lot of what O'Keefe and Bush have done.

And, you know, you can't climb Mount McKinley until you have
shown that you can smoke 10 more cartons of cigarettes.

--
/\ 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 *

Greg Kuperberg wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
Greg Kuperberg wrote:
Alex Roland said at the very beginning of this story that the real
purpose of the Bush space vision was to sustain the space station and
only pretend to move on. It's like saying, "I am absolutely resolved
to quit smoking --- six years to the day from today!" [Henry's] complaint
is exactly consistent with Roland's take on it.

Except that Station's growth has been solidly truncated for the
forseeable future,...

For about the fifth time. But, as Robert Park pointed out many years
ago, the space station is a hydra: no matter how much you cut off, it
will just grow back. One reason for this is that the space station was
a mountain of wild promises from day one, when Reagan first announced it.

They aren't really truncating the space station unless they lay off a
lot of people. That is exactly what Washington still doesn't want to do.

It's Dead, Greg. It's pushing up daisys.

The production lines for node hardware and components are shut down.

One could presumably recreate that capability from scratch, but there
isn't anyone employed in a position to be making new ones right now.

Hardware that doesn't already exist isn't going to get built without
significant new investment.

So, yes, everyone involved in manufacturing the basic components is
"laid off"; they still have the final assembly and checkout people
there because you don't completely abandon that capability until
it's up in orbit, but the whole back end of the process is all done.

and Shuttle's lifespan has had its limit defined.

But not really. First, Bush is taking no responsibility to retire the
space shuttle himself; the next guy is supposed to do it.

Because it won't be done with flying ISS components up until
the next President's term. Or do you think we should abandon
ISS and just shut down the program and Shuttle now?

Second, in
the face of this supposed retirement, they were still planning 28 more
shuttle flights until recently, so Bush's date isn't even credible.

They're planning to complete the ISS assembly. Shuttle upgrades
and such related to flights past that time have been terminated.
They aren't investing any more in new technology or lifetime extension
beyond what's needed for those flights. The budget for those
upgrades and extensions and capability adds other than those
needed in the next few years of ISS flights has been zeroed.

Again, that could get reversed, but as of right now, Shuttle's
lifetime will be Over a very few years from now.

And third, even though the retirement date isn't politically credible,
the date is close to a truism of engineering. In other words, Bush
"limited" the shuttle to about when it will fall apart anyway.

The Shuttles aren't all going to immediately fall apart at
that time: they needed major refurb and various systems to
be recertified or remanufactured. Endeavour at least has
quite a bit more lifespan left on her, as she's much newer.

To keep it flying past then, there needed to be money spent,
a lot of it now. Money on long term work on the engineering
and improvements and repairs.

That money now isn't going there, it's going other places.

Or, as I should say in all of this, Bush and O'Keefe. Frank
Seitzen reported in November that O'Keefe was promoting the then-fetal
space policy to the White House. I believe it.

I think that there's an implicit "we can't go on to Moon/Mars
until we have shown that we can actually finish this Station
project" in a lot of what O'Keefe and Bush have done.

And, you know, you can't climb Mount McKinley until you have
shown that you can smoke 10 more cartons of cigarettes.

Greg, I don't really care if you agree with it. But I think
that Congress *does* agree with it, and would look upon NASA's
inability to actually finish ISS as a sign of its inability to
execute on anything. That's the point. NASA doesn't get its
money from a giant dollar tree in the VAB. They have to keep
Congress and the President and OMB convinced that they're
worth it and can use it reasonably wisely. If those people
lose faith then NASA goes away, or withers.


-george william herbert

In article ,
George William Herbert wrote:
But I think that Congress *does* ... would look upon NASA's inability
to actually finish ISS as a sign of its inability to execute on anything.

Or rather, anything manned.

I agree that that is the prevailing sentiment in Washington --- not
just in Congress. If NASA can't move forward with the space station,
then it can't be trusted with an astronaut program. Corollary: Bush is
not drawing the curtain on the space shuttle and the space station; he
only outlined a "next act" for the 44th president and the 111th Congress.
He is not pulling the astronaut program out of its current fiasco.

--
/\ 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 *

George William Herbert ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: [...]
: Actually, Bush's father made a similar speech while he was president and
: absolutely nothing became of it. I'm not convinced either Bush has a real
: commitment space, and are only just committed to placating the NASA
: folks in Houston. I really wish I am wrong on this but based upon results
: thus far it doesn't look like it.

: Oh, you just touched on a very sore point there.
: And also showed that you aren't studying your space
: policy history very closely.

: Bush (41) kicked off the Space Exploration Initiative and
: asked NASA for a series of studies on how they could
: respond to the policy directive. First came the "90 Day Study",
: then the "Synthesis Group".

: Everybody got involved. Every project anyone had any desire
: to do got included, without any regard for selecting technologies
: and doing risk reduction studies up front, etc. The resulting
: program was clearly dead on arrival. Nobody outside NASA could
: believe what they had responded with.

: Congress went up in arms over it. Bush (41) took one look
: at the pile of manure that he was dealt by NASA and decided
: that NASA was not capable of planning an exploration program
: he could support, so he dropped it.

Leaving Dan Quayle to oversee it probably didn't help.

: Nobody outside NASA who was following what was happening
: was suprised when it died.

: Fortunately, it appears clear that the people who did the
: current exploration strategy sat down and looked at SEI
: and took a long think about it before they moved forwards.

: As for:
: I'm not convinced either Bush has a real
: commitment space, and are only just committed to placating the NASA
: folks in Houston. I really wish I am wrong on this but based upon results
: thus far it doesn't look like it.

: Bush's committment to space is sufficient that NASA was the
: *only* non-DOD non-Homeland Defense agency to see budget growth
: last cycle. Period.

Yes, which is easily explained as a "bone" to manned spaceflight and JSC,
KSC and MSFC, which was my orignal point!

: And as I said befo None of that extra money went to JSC, Eric.

None?! I find that hard to believe!

: You are acting like the last 18 months never happened.
: Things have changed direction. This is blatantly
: and unmistakably true, unless you chose to ignore the
: last 18 months of current events.

No, I was around when the Challeneger disaster hit. I know what goes on.
I understand for the need for a return to space, specifically manned
missions, etc. What I don't understand is why HST is getting teh axe in
lieu of the rest of the shuttle missions going to ISS. You calim it isn't
partisanship, but from where I sit, I cannot help thinks so, as it appears
quite obvious.

: The direction has changed, whether you agree with it or not.
: And JSC is not the new direction, nor the new money recipient.
: If you play the "follow the money" game, the power is all in
: Steidle's hands, and sitting in his corner of HQ rather than
: being ladled out to centers for more of the same.

: Please pay attention to what's actually going on around you...

Oh, I am! And what I see is that Fort Meade and NSA will get funds and
GSFC and STScI will not, that is the obvious call, given this
administration and this Congress.

Eric

: -george william herbert
:

Greg Kuperberg wrote:
George William Herbert wrote:
But I think that Congress *does* ... would look upon NASA's inability
to actually finish ISS as a sign of its inability to execute on anything.

Or rather, anything manned.

I agree that that is the prevailing sentiment in Washington --- not
just in Congress. If NASA can't move forward with the space station,
then it can't be trusted with an astronaut program. Corollary: Bush is
not drawing the curtain on the space shuttle and the space station; he
only outlined a "next act" for the 44th president and the 111th Congress.
He is not pulling the astronaut program out of its current fiasco.

So you agree that completing ISS - a process which will take longer
than Bush's remaining years in office - is a prerequisite for NASA
moving on to other manned space programs.

And you are not disputing that ISS fabrication funding is gone
and that the assembly lines are shut down, all the components are
built and waiting for launch (or, with minimal remaining work to
be ready for launch, plus on the ground maintenance while they wait).

And you are not disputing that long term funding for Shuttle upgrades
and maintenance past the 2010-ish Station Completion time has been
terminated, and that money is now only going to Return to Flight
activities and the next 30ish flights requird for ISS assembly.

In what way is this not drawing the curtain? In a program for which
long term planning and operations are key, having terminated the
long term operations and maintenance funding and terminated ISS
production lines is just about as much drawing the curtain as you
can get, on a program which you and everyone else acknowledges is
going to have to do a moderate fixed number more flights before
it's done with its acknowledged necessary next step before
moving on.

If the long lead time stuff isn't happening anymore, the program's
dead, Greg. Revival is still possible before Shuttle is shut down.
But absent a directed and intense maintenance and refurbishment
and upgrades budget, Shuttle's lifespan is *over* in something
like 5-7 years from now. And every NASA plan does not have
that directed and intense maintenance and refurb and upgrade
budget. Contractors have haad upgrade contracts terminated
and the workforces scattered to other jobs. NASA's internal
personel working on upgrades and such are reassigned.

It could practically only be more dead if NASA explicitly
abandoned its manned space program immediately, given the
assumption that ISS has to happen or else the next steps
won't be credible to Congress or others in Washington.


-george william herbert

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 17:19:48 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
So, explain to me again why Kennedy's speech was a commitment...
but that Bush's speech a year ago is not, when he's
moved forward with it, and got his budget for it passed with a veto
threat?

Kennedy gave far more attention to his commitment *after* that first
speech, mentioning it repeatedly and emphasizing its importance. He knew
that he had to sell it to Congress and the public, and keep it sold year
after year, if it was going to happen.

It's unclear whether he "knew" that or not. He sold it because he
perceived it to be important part of the Cold War. Recall that Apollo
was first and foremost a propaganda activity, in terms of its purpose.
It would make sense for Kennedy to continue to trumpet it.

Bush has been strangely silent on the subject, as if he was reluctantly
talked into it and doesn't want to push it except when its real backers
give him a "back it now or else" ultimatum. He has quite visibly *not*
sold Congress or the public on the idea, and sooner or later that lack is
going to be felt, especially since all the real action in his plan happens
after he leaves office.

He has clearly sold Congress on it well enough to get his full NASA
budget passed in an environment when everything else was being cut.
He didn't have to sell the public on it, because it's not a voting
issue, for the most part.

Bush is president, not god-emperor -- his wishes are not irrevocable law.

Nor was Kennedy. It's quite likely that absent his assassination,
Apollo might not have survived either.

Congress can and will find a way to deny funding if he doesn't do more of
a sales job.

That remains to be seen. So far, he's been selling it when needed.
Regardless of how vocally or publicly he sells it, it won't survive
his presidency unless it's showing progress (the reason for the 2008
flight demo).

On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 21:49:39 +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 ,
Henry Spencer wrote:
[Bush] has quite visibly *not* sold Congress or the public on the idea,
and sooner or later that lack is going to be felt, especially since
all the real action in his plan happens after he leaves office.

Alex Roland said at the very beginning of this story that the real
purpose of the Bush space vision was to sustain the space station and
only pretend to move on.

Alex Roland is clueless on this matter.