Hubble Marching orders

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
"Preeminence" is not the same thing as humanity expanding into the
cosmos.
That is exactly how it was interpreted at the time.

By whom?

Notably, Senator Anderson -- one of the small clique that then totally
dominated the Senate and had rather a large effect on government policy.
Not to mention James Webb.

What's your basis for that statement, Henry? Do you have a cite?

The fairly detailed examination of 1960s space politics in Dewar's "To The
End Of The Solar System".
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 16:12:12 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Henry Spencer) made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Uh, Rand, study a bit more history. :-) The first such policy was JFK's;
the buzzword to look for is "preeminence".

"Preeminence" is not the same thing as humanity expanding into the
cosmos.

That is exactly how it was interpreted at the time.

By whom?

What's your basis for that statement, Henry? Do you have a cite?

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:


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...?

Kuperberg claimed Raphael was an American president? (reading
upthread...) Nope. Your implication is either dishonest or you lack
comprehension.

Either damages your credibility.

I wish you wouldn't do that as some of your efforts and views I
wholeheartedly support.

--
Hop David
http://clowder.net/hop/index.html

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 20:07:15 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:
"Preeminence" is not the same thing as humanity expanding into the
cosmos.
That is exactly how it was interpreted at the time.

By whom?

Notably, Senator Anderson -- one of the small clique that then totally
dominated the Senate and had rather a large effect on government policy.
Not to mention James Webb.

What's your basis for that statement, Henry? Do you have a cite?

The fairly detailed examination of 1960s space politics in Dewar's "To The
End Of The Solar System".

Not a book I own. I don't suppose excerpts are available on line?

[looking]

Nope. It's pricy, too. Minimum of over fifty bucks at Amazon.

On Thu, 03 Feb 2005 15:13:42 -0700, in a place far, far away, Hop
David made the phosphor
on my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:



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:


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...?

Kuperberg claimed Raphael was an American president? (reading
upthread...) Nope. Your implication is either dishonest or you lack
comprehension.

Or it points out the foolishness of his comparison (i.e., it was
sarcasm--sorry you didn't get it).

Eric Chomko wrote:

Michael Kent ) wrote:

: Christopher M. Jones wrote:

: Fair enough. Though, strictly speaking, he's not entirely
: responsible for Hubble being 15 years old.

: Please note that 15 years was always the nominal mission lifetime of the
: Hubble Space Telescope. That HST is now expected to be de-orbited after
: 17 or 18 years respresents a mission extension, not a contraction.

Fine, IUE was only to last 5 years but they managed to get 20 out of it.
If Hubble can be repaired, actually it is really maintenance was we aren't
fixing anything that is broken per se; shouldn't we keep it going?

I've already stated that I think we should.

: (Don't take that to mean I approve of the recent Hubble nonsense, because
: I don't.)

Now I'm confused.

I've noticed.

You see, most of us can often see the point of the other side of a debate
even if we don't agree with it.

P.S. I'll trade you 100 Apple IIs for one Apple I. Deal?

Only if those 100 Apple II's are all Mark Twains.

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

"Jorge R. Frank" jrfrank wrote:

As for the remainder of the Bush term, we'll see. NASA's 5-year plan called
for another 5% increase this year, to about $17 billion. That will be very
difficult for Bush to follow through on, in the current environment.

Didn't NASA Watch quote Sean O'Keefe as saying NASA got the 5%?

Mike

-----
Michael Kent Apple II Forever!!
St. Peters, MO

(Michael Kent) wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" jrfrank wrote:

As for the remainder of the Bush term, we'll see. NASA's 5-year plan
called for another 5% increase this year, to about $17 billion. That
will be very difficult for Bush to follow through on, in the current
environment.

Didn't NASA Watch quote Sean O'Keefe as saying NASA got the 5%?

O'Keefe said NASA would get an increase, but no specific figure was quoted:

http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2005/01/

"Update: Sean O'Keefe told the audience this morning that the President's
FY 2006 budget, to be released on 7 February, would contain a budget
increase, rare among agencies funded under discretionary spending, that
would continue the Adminstration's[sic] committment[sic] to providing the
resources required to implement the President's Vision for Space
Exploration."

(See, Eric? Now you know the significance of February 7...)

--
JRF

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

Michael Kent wrote:
"Jorge R. Frank" jrfrank wrote:


As for the remainder of the Bush term, we'll see. NASA's 5-year plan called
for another 5% increase this year, to about $17 billion. That will be very
difficult for Bush to follow through on, in the current environment.


Didn't NASA Watch quote Sean O'Keefe as saying NASA got the 5%?



They quoted him as saying there would be a budget request for an
increase. No numbers, nor does it mean they will actually get it.
The President is throwing everything into his Social Security
reform push and has made zero mention of anything space related.
The funds for NASA are vulnerable. Congress is in one of it's periods
of focussing on finance and getting this increase will actually require
a bit of a fight. Push come to shove, this is really on the bubble.

On Fri, 04 Feb 2005 04:10:40 GMT, in a place far, far away,
(Michael Kent) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Jorge R. Frank" jrfrank wrote:

As for the remainder of the Bush term, we'll see. NASA's 5-year plan called
for another 5% increase this year, to about $17 billion. That will be very
difficult for Bush to follow through on, in the current environment.

Didn't NASA Watch quote Sean O'Keefe as saying NASA got the 5%?

In the submittal. It remains to be seen whether Congress will
actually appropriate it.