Hubble Marching orders

(Greg Kuperberg) wrote in
:

In other words, the argument that the 4% budget increase was a
Superbowl victory is so qualified that it is really pretty lame.

Strawman. I never claimed the last two years' budget increases were
"Superbowl victories". They do, however, demonstrate a level of commitment
to the new program.

But what is Bush actually doing in the direction of this sales pitch?
He is committing $30 to $40 billion from his own budget requests to
the space shuttle and the space station, and only a few billion for a
CEV. And the CEV doesn't have to be any more than a warmed over Apollo
Command Module. And the FY 2006 budget will only pay for a credible
blueprint of it, not any actual hardware. The gap between substance
and sales pitch is extreme, and extremely lame.

It may appear so to some people because they are stuck in the Apollo "crash
program" mentality, and do not comprehend that this new program is about
executing a long-term change in direction and focus for the agency, within
the rough "moldlines" of the existing budget, and maintaining existing
commitments to ISS.


--
JRF

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

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in
:

On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 16:40:39 +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:

So do you think Bush will mention his space initiave tonight, or do
you think that since Tom DeLay got his budget increase for his center,
that that will be enough so as to not have to mention space?

I have no idea whether he will or not. If I were going to bet, I'd
say not. And whether he does or not isn't relevant to how committed
he is to it. When it comes to actually implementing policy, actions
carry far more weight than words.

Agreed. What the Bush administration *does* on the morning of February 7
will show its commitment (or lack of same) to the program much more than
what he *says* on the night of February 2.

Here's betting that Eric doesn't even know the significance of February 7
unless someone tells him first.

--
JRF

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

On 2 Feb 2005 13:31:14 -0800, in a place far, far away, "kert"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such
a way as to indicate that:

Rand Simberg wrote:
snippage, i dont care about political arguments
e) Shuttle/Station are no longer viewed as part of either the vision,
or the future of human spaceflight.
Shuttle is OLD. VSE or not, its retirement would have come this way or
another. Construction of ISS is intimately tied to shuttle (
unfortunately ), so death of it simply follows.

Yes, but the fact remains that it's a significant difference between
2004 and 1989.

f) he has already made much more progress than his father ever did,
in
terms of groundwork and plans.
Plans do not spawn new industries, revolutionize transportation methods
or fly people to the moon.

Well, actually, they often do. Do you think that Apollo had no plans?

How about some tangible results instead ?

That's an unreasonable expection only one year after the announcement.
How much "tangible results" did we have toward going to the moon in
June of 1962 (that weren't a result of activities that had already
been underway when Kennedy announced the program)?

Studies have been let to several contractors, and a Lead Systems
Integrator for the CEV is expected to be selected this year. If they
actually fly hardware in '08, as planned, that will be amazing
progress. Given modern government procurement procedures in general,
NASA is actually moving at lightning speed.

In any event, my point remains that it's stupid to compare Kennedy's
announcement or commitment to Bush's at this point in time. And
because it's stupid, we can of course count on Eric to continue to do
it.

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Wed, 2 Feb 2005 23:05:20 +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:
Studies have been let to several contractors, and a Lead Systems
Integrator for the CEV is expected to be selected this year. If they
actually fly hardware in '08, as planned, that will be amazing progress.
Which is why they have already lowered the bar for it:

The first, "boilerplate" flight tests of the Crew Exploration Vehicle
are scheduled for 2008. They will be followed by more capable,
uncrewed, flight tests in 2011, leading to the operational, crewed
capability in 2014.

http://exploration.nasa.gov/constellation/

A "boilerplate" flight test doesn't really have to prove anything.
It has to prove you can fly prototype hardware. How was the bar
"lowered"?

A quote from the amazing space vision:

Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew
Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission
no later than 2014.

Meanwhile here is a space glossary definition of "boilerplate":

Boilerplate - Test article built to the exact dimension as an original
capsule or spacecraft. Originally built of thick steel (boilerplate),
these were used in parachute test drops, water flotation tests, impact
tests, launch vehicle tests and recovery practice. Usually have
little interior detail.

http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/acronyms/

So it seems that "develop and test a new spacecraft by 2008" might not
mean any more than dropping a metal frame which is the same weight and
shape as a new spacecraft. This version of the "spacecraft", moreover,
will only provide crew habitation, and no propulsion, according to
this document:

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_da...FT-001-012.doc

There is nothing "amazing" about any of this. Actually it looks lame.

--
/\ 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 ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
It may appear so to some people because they are stuck in the Apollo "crash
program" mentality, and do not comprehend that this new program is about
executing a long-term change in direction and focus for the agency, within
the rough "moldlines" of the existing budget, and maintaining existing
commitments to ISS.

I tell you what. For a reasonable contract price, I will direct my
*successor* in home construction to build you this by 2020:

http://www.picturesfree.org/al/taj/123456-r1-30a.jpg

Meanwhile by 2008 you will get this from me personally:

http://www.oznet.ksu.edu/edtech/imag...ntry/shack.jpg

I'm sorry that I cannot offer you a crash program. It's because I must
also maintain my existing commitment to this:

http://www.bybee.com/image/sisy.jpg

Think of the first picture as the long-term focus. :-)

--
/\ 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:
[F]or the first time in decades...no, make that in history, we have a
formal space policy that says that humanity is expanding into the cosmos.

I agree that Bush's space vision is splendrous. But no more so than
the celestial vision of another great leader long ago:

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/gaddi...elHocSigno.jpg

--
/\ 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 Wed, 2 Feb 2005 23:05:20 +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:

Studies have been let to several contractors, and a Lead Systems
Integrator for the CEV is expected to be selected this year. If they
actually fly hardware in '08, as planned, that will be amazing progress.

Which is why they have already lowered the bar for it:

The first, "boilerplate" flight tests of the Crew Exploration Vehicle
are scheduled for 2008. They will be followed by more capable,
uncrewed, flight tests in 2011, leading to the operational, crewed
capability in 2014.

http://exploration.nasa.gov/constellation/

A "boilerplate" flight test doesn't really have to prove anything.

It has to prove you can fly prototype hardware. How was the bar
"lowered"? When did they say that the 2008 flight would ever do
anything else? What fantasies did you have?

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 01:40:43 +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:
I agree that Bush's space vision is splendrous. But no more so than
the celestial vision of another great leader long ago:
http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/gaddi...elHocSigno.jpg

Gee. I must have missed the American histoy class where they talked
about President Raphael. Which one was he, again...?

Raphael was not the great leader in question (who BTW was not a US
president). Rather, he is *in* the painting, receiving his famous vision.

--
/\ 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 Thu, 3 Feb 2005 01:01:33 +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 first, "boilerplate" flight tests of the Crew Exploration Vehicle
are scheduled for 2008. They will be followed by more capable,
uncrewed, flight tests in 2011, leading to the operational, crewed
capability in 2014.

http://exploration.nasa.gov/constellation/

A "boilerplate" flight test doesn't really have to prove anything.
It has to prove you can fly prototype hardware. How was the bar
"lowered"?

A quote from the amazing space vision:

Our second goal is to develop and test a new spacecraft, the Crew
Exploration Vehicle, by 2008, and to conduct the first manned mission
no later than 2014.

Meanwhile here is a space glossary definition of "boilerplate":

Boilerplate - Test article built to the exact dimension as an original
capsule or spacecraft. Originally built of thick steel (boilerplate),
these were used in parachute test drops, water flotation tests, impact
tests, launch vehicle tests and recovery practice. Usually have
little interior detail.

http://aesp.nasa.okstate.edu/fieldguide/pages/acronyms/

So it seems that "develop and test a new spacecraft by 2008" might not
mean any more than dropping a metal frame which is the same weight and
shape as a new spacecraft. This version of the "spacecraft", moreover,
will only provide crew habitation, and no propulsion, according to
this document:

And there was nothing in the statement that would contradict that, no
matter how wild your fantasy life.

http://prod.nais.nasa.gov/eps/eps_da...FT-001-012.doc
There is nothing "amazing" about any of this. Actually it looks lame.

No, what looks lame is your continuous attempts to denigrate the fact
that for the first time in decades...no, make that in history, we have
a formal space policy that says that humanity is expanding into the
cosmos.

On 03 Feb 2005 00:52:50 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Jorge R.
Frank" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

So do you think Bush will mention his space initiave tonight, or do
you think that since Tom DeLay got his budget increase for his center,
that that will be enough so as to not have to mention space?

I have no idea whether he will or not. If I were going to bet, I'd
say not. And whether he does or not isn't relevant to how committed
he is to it. When it comes to actually implementing policy, actions
carry far more weight than words.

Agreed. What the Bush administration *does* on the morning of February 7
will show its commitment (or lack of same) to the program much more than
what he *says* on the night of February 2.

Here's betting that Eric doesn't even know the significance of February 7
unless someone tells him first.

A safe bet, since Eric rarely knows the actual significance of
anything.