Hubble Marching orders

In article ,
George William Herbert wrote:
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.

I agree that it is a prerequisite, but I don't agree that it has to be
one. If Bush had devoted some political capital to it (only a moderate
amount relative to the vast amount that he possesses), it would have
been different.

And you are not disputing that ISS fabrication funding is gone
and that the assembly lines are shut down, ...

It might well be that this particular ISS activity has come to a close.
But did Bush do it? Has the Bush vision actually led to the layoff of
a single employee connected to the astronaut program? I have seen no
evidence of it in the news feeds. Most people don't take pink slips
lying down.

What I did see was this quote from Bill Gerstenmaier, the space station
program manager:

We don't see hardly any changes to our program based on the new
initiative - we're pretty well aligned with it to begin with.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1030986.htm

Gerstenmaier's confident pronouncement is exactly consistent with
Alex Roland. Nobody has drawn any curtain on the space station.

And you are not disputing that long term funding for Shuttle upgrades
and maintenance past the 2010-ish Station Completion time has been
terminated, ...

Yes I do dispute that. George W. Bush cannot dictate funding for NASA
beyond FY 2009. Come FY 2010, NASA could be tripled or cancelled.
Everything to the right of the dotted line in budget sheet here is
negotiable:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_bu...rt_14jan04.pdf

This is the same George Bush, I might add, who has repeatedly requested
$80 billion at the eleventh hour for one of the main projects of
his administration, a project he cares about 100 times as much as he
cares about NASA. Long-term planning at the White House is typically
disingenuous.

--
/\ 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 *

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: 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.

Maybe if Bush actually had a political reason for his space initiative,
he'd actually be committed to it? It will be intertesting to see if during
his SOU address on Wednesday if he will mention his space initiative.

Regarding JFK and space, I suspect that along with the political angle
Kennedy actually believed that going to the moon was worth doing from a
purely humanitarian point of view. Face it Kennedy was well read and
obviously had a flair for the arts. Bush, OTHO, isn't well read and is a
tool of big business.

: 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.

With the remaining shuttle fleet grounded in the wake of the Columbia
disaster getting a minor budget increase at NASA isn't some great feat.
They plan on cutting the Hubble, remember? So that is an admission that
funds are still tight.

: 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.

Pure speculation. What is clear, assassination or not, Kennedy remains
more popular than both Bushes; something that I think will continue
throughout the ages.

: 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).

I hope W is more successful that his father was when it comes to space.

Eric

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:33:00 +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:
Maybe if Bush actually had a political reason for his space initiative,
he'd actually be committed to it?
You continue to provide zero evidence that he's not committed to it.

The budget chart makes clear that Bush is committing the 44th
president to a great deal and committing himself to very little:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_bu...rt_14jan04.pdf

All of the hard stuff begins in FY 2010 or FY 2011. By an amazing
coincidence, FY 2009 is the last budget that Bush himself will
propose or sign.

I do not think that Eric has it right, though. Bush does have strong
political reasons to jump over the low hurdle that he set for himself.

--
/\ 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:
The budget chart makes clear that Bush is committing the 44th
president to a great deal and committing himself to very little:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_bu...rt_14jan04.pdf

All of the hard stuff begins in FY 2010 or FY 2011. By an amazing
coincidence, FY 2009 is the last budget that Bush himself will
propose or sign.
By another amazing coincidence, that's about the time that Shuttle
gets phased out and the money becomes available.

That's exactly it: Retiring the shuttle is one of the politically
difficult things that Bush has decided the 44th president will do.
That doesn't contradict the point at all.

Well I suppose it will be easier if they just herd the shuttle corps
over to CEV. Somehow I doubt that that is what you are hoping for.
--
/\ 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:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:24:30 +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:
That's exactly it: Retiring the shuttle is one of the politically
difficult things that Bush has decided the 44th president will do.
No, Bush has made the decision. The 44th president will have no
ability to change it.

Of course the 44th president will be able to change it. All he will
have to do is point to the unfinished space station. In fact Congress
will be pointing for him.

Unless another space shuttle crashes or they do an emergency evacuation
of the space station. *That* really would be crossing the Rubicon.

To expect him to simply shut it down now is indeed politically
unrealistic, given the nature of the international agreements on ISS.

I completely understand that the Bush administration has deep respect
for international agreements, especially with lead ESA members states
France and Germany. Even so, I'm sure that Bush could find a way to
appease these important world partners.

--
/\ 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:
On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:41:32 +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:
Of course the 44th president will be able to change it. All he will
have to do is point to the unfinished space station.
In what way will the station be "unfinished" by then? There is
already an implicit agreement that the Shuttle won't be retired until
station is complete.

In the sense of Schubert's Unfinished Symphony. They won't be able to
do all of this by 2010:

http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/shuttle/future/

In other words, there is no way for the 44th president to meet both
Bush's promise to complete the space station, and Bush's promise to
retire the space shuttle by 2010. That is often the way it goes when
you promise things on behalf of other people.

--
/\ 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 Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:33:00 +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:

: 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.

Maybe if Bush actually had a political reason for his space initiative,
he'd actually be committed to it?

You continue to provide zero evidence that he's not committed to it.

Regarding JFK and space, I suspect that along with the political angle
Kennedy actually believed that going to the moon was worth doing from a
purely humanitarian point of view.

Another assertion for which there is zero evidence, and abundant
counterevidence.

: 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.

With the remaining shuttle fleet grounded in the wake of the Columbia
disaster getting a minor budget increase at NASA isn't some great feat.

It is when everything else in the federal budget is being cut.

They plan on cutting the Hubble, remember? So that is an admission that
funds are still tight.

Of course they are. But that only reinforces the fact that he
considers the exploration initiative to be high priority.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 18:07:43 +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:

The budget chart makes clear that Bush is committing the 44th
president to a great deal and committing himself to very little:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_bu...rt_14jan04.pdf

All of the hard stuff begins in FY 2010 or FY 2011. By an amazing
coincidence, FY 2009 is the last budget that Bush himself will
propose or sign.

By another amazing coincidence, that's about the time that Shuttle
gets phased out and the money becomes available.

rolling eyes at someone who takes Alex Roland seriously

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:24:30 +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:
The budget chart makes clear that Bush is committing the 44th
president to a great deal and committing himself to very little:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/54873main_bu...rt_14jan04.pdf

All of the hard stuff begins in FY 2010 or FY 2011. By an amazing
coincidence, FY 2009 is the last budget that Bush himself will
propose or sign.
By another amazing coincidence, that's about the time that Shuttle
gets phased out and the money becomes available.

That's exactly it: Retiring the shuttle is one of the politically
difficult things that Bush has decided the 44th president will do.

No, Bush has made the decision. The 44th president will have no
ability to change it. To expect him to simply shut it down now is
indeed politically unrealistic, given the nature of the international
agreements on ISS.

On Mon, 31 Jan 2005 19:41:32 +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:

That's exactly it: Retiring the shuttle is one of the politically
difficult things that Bush has decided the 44th president will do.
No, Bush has made the decision. The 44th president will have no
ability to change it.

Of course the 44th president will be able to change it. All he will
have to do is point to the unfinished space station.

In what way will the station be "unfinished" by then? There is
already an implicit agreement that the Shuttle won't be retired until
station is complete.

To expect him to simply shut it down now is indeed politically
unrealistic, given the nature of the international agreements on ISS.

I completely understand that the Bush administration has deep respect
for international agreements, especially with lead ESA members states
France and Germany.

It in fact does, for international agreements that *have already been
signed on to*. The international agreements with which the
administration has less sympathy are those that we have not yet
signed, because they believe (correctly, IMO) that they would be
detrimental to the nation. But to think that the administration
simply flaunts international agreements is something so ludicrous that
only people like you could believe it.