Hubble Marching orders

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 *

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

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 *

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.

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 *

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.

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 *

(Greg Kuperberg) wrote in
:

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.

You're focusing too strongly on the 2010 retirement date. NASA is not. ISS
assembly will be driven by a certain number of flights (currently 28), not
a certain calendar date.

There are myriad ways Bush could make the shuttle retirement decision
irreversible by his successor. The easiest would be to procure all 28
required external tanks in advance (perhaps with some more for reserve if
you insist...), then inform Lockheed Martin that the government will not
reimburse the cost of storage of the ET production tooling (extra bonus
points if the government issues a CEV contract that requires them to clear
out Michoud to make way for it...). Lockheed will of course immediately
destroy the ET production tooling, since it's cost-prohibitive to store
tooling for a product the sole customer doesn't want any more. That would
make continued shuttle flights a *very* expensive proposition.

The above scenario is not unprecedented. Replace "Bush" with "LBJ", "his
successor" with "Nixon", "external tanks" with "S-IC stages", "Lockheed
Martin" with "Boeing", and you've basically got the story of the end of the
Saturn V. You don't even have to change "Michoud"... :-)

The above scenario may not in fact happen, since NASA may want to keep the
option of using a shuttle-derived vehicle for CEV on the table (if they are
serious about controlling costs, they will not).

--
JRF

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

In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
The above scenario is not unprecedented. Replace "Bush" with "LBJ", "his
successor" with "Nixon", "external tanks" with "S-IC stages", "Lockheed
Martin" with "Boeing", and you've basically got the story of the end of the
Saturn V. You don't even have to change "Michoud"... :-)

Unfortunately for a nice analogy, NASA hoped to resume Saturn V production
(although it was increasingly a forlorn hope) until summer 1970, and
retained tooling etc. for a 2/year production rate until summer 1972.

The NASA History Series book "Exploring the Unknown", vol. 4, reprints the
3 Aug 1972 memo from Myers to Fletcher requesting approval (which was
granted) to abandon the 2/year production capability.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: 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.

Available for exactly what? That is another point, Bush's vision isn't
clear.

: rolling eyes at someone who takes Alex Roland seriously

Same could be said for you. Actually, you make a case FOR Roland to be
listened to.

Eric