Griffin: Shuttle-CEV Gap Unacceptable

On 13 Apr 2005 07:42:03 -0700, wrote:

Well, I don't think Congress will do either (most likely the shuttle
will stop flying in 2010 and CEV will never happen), but if they did
decide to bring CEV forward and gave NASA the money to do so, they
could blame NASA if they lost one. If they ignored Bush and told NASA
to keep the shuttle flying after 2010, they'd be the ones blamed,
instead... after all, having lost two, 'everyone' knows the shuttle is
a death-trap now.

Bush won't be around in 2010, no matter what he said in his first
term. Blaming him would actually work quite well, since he's the one
who didn't press Congress to fund a replacement in time.

Mary

--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
or

On 13 Apr 2005 12:29:22 -0700, in a place far, far away, "Tom Cuddihy"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

I'm not "backpedaling" either. I'm simply explaining how policy
works
to someone who apparently knows absolutely nothing about it.

sea lawyer.

You're wrong dude, admit it. Changing the argument to one of semantics
about 'policy' is arguing what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

A policy is not a "promise," sorry.

The fact is, the agreed upon, intitiated, and momentum of the policy is
solidly for shuttle retirement in EXACTLY 2010. So just shut up and
admit that Greg *might* have been correct when you were wrong.

He's wrong, and being politically foolish. As Jorge said, the date
was arbitrary, and just part of a general strategy to achieve the
objective. There would be no political penalty to shifting the date
out if circumstances turned out to require it, and it wouldn't require
"courage" on anyone's part. That's simply silly.

In article ,
Reunite Gondwanaland (Mary Shafer) wrote:
}On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 13:35:01 +0000 (UTC), (Greg
}Kuperberg) wrote:
} In article ,
} Jorge R. Frank wrote:
} The "fixed" date is in fact completely arbitrary, so stretching it will not
} require much bravery.
} It would require the courage, or maybe the cowardice, to contradict a
} direct and explicit promise from the President of the United States to
} the American people.
}Like "Read my lips; no new taxes" did?

For sure. When George H. Bush promised that he wouldn't raise taxes,
and then later broke his promise, one act was courage and the other
was cowardice. Which was which depends on which policy you favor.

George W. Bush has timed his promises more carefully.

--
/\ 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 *

Ed Kyle wrote:

I think everyone knows the reality of the risk now.
And, during a time when U.S. soldiers are dying in
combat for national goals authorized by Congress,
I think there is an acceptance of spaceflight risk
for national purposes if the missions are deemed
worthwhile and if reasonable efforts are made to
minimize the risk as much as possible.


I'm not sure this is true - soldiers dieing is not really
seen as a failure (and even so, look at all the fuss around
images of planefuls of coffins) while astronaut deaths are.
For it to change, spacelight needs to stop being a national
honour thing and become a practical thing.


- Ed Kyle


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote:
Ed Kyle wrote:

I think everyone knows the reality of the risk now.
And, during a time when U.S. soldiers are dying in
combat for national goals authorized by Congress,
I think there is an acceptance of spaceflight risk
for national purposes if the missions are deemed
worthwhile and if reasonable efforts are made to
minimize the risk as much as possible.


I'm not sure this is true - soldiers dieing is not really
seen as a failure (and even so, look at all the fuss around
images of planefuls of coffins) while astronaut deaths are.

I don't mean to equate the specific risks of combat
with those of spaceflight. What I'm attempting to
say is that 9/11 and war has changed public perception
of risk. I suspect that the public reaction to the
loss of Columbia might have been different if it had
happened before 9/11/01. After we watched thousands
of our fellow citizens die at their workstations in
office buildings, the site of astronauts dying in a
horrible reentry accident was not such a shock.
Before 9/11 NASA might have been forced to shut down
the program, but a post-9/11 NASA is preparing to
launch more astronauts on what is essentially the
same machine. The risk has been mitigated somewhat,
but even NASA is feeling free to admit that another
Really Bad Day could happen.

For it to change, spacelight needs to stop being a national
honour thing and become a practical thing.

I would like to see that happen during my lifetime,
but the reality of the present is that human
spaceflight is conducted for reasons of national
prestige.

- Ed Kyle

On Wed, 13 Apr 2005 23:49:06 +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:

}Like "Read my lips; no new taxes" did?

For sure. When George H. Bush promised that he wouldn't raise taxes,
and then later broke his promise, one act was courage and the other
was cowardice. Which was which depends on which policy you favor.

George W. Bush has timed his promises more carefully.

This is a stupid analogy, since one pledge actually was a (idiotic)
promise, made at a political convention to garner votes from gullible
conservatives, and the other was simply a space policy speech, with no
discernable political benefit. You continue to demonstrate your
cluelessness about how the world works inside the Beltway.

(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

For sure. When George H. Bush promised that he wouldn't raise taxes,
and then later broke his promise, one act was courage and the other
was cowardice. Which was which depends on which policy you favor

Of course either your bias or your ignorance prevents you from telling
the *whole* story... To wit; Congress attached a bill creating the
new taxes to a package of bills which Bush also supported, and which
had major political mojo attached to them. (IIRC education funding
and Medicare funding.) He was screwed no matter what he did.

Choosing between two incompatible principles is never an easy thing.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

Ed Kyle wrote:
For it to change, spacelight needs to stop being a national
honour thing and become a practical thing.

I would like to see that happen during my lifetime,
but the reality of the present is that human
spaceflight is conducted for reasons of national
prestige.

Seeing or not seeing it is pretty much a question of how long you live -
it probably will be a reality in about 40. Seeing that it will in fact
certainly be so should be possible about 15 years in advance.


- Ed Kyle


--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In article ,
Derek Lyons wrote:
...When George H. Bush promised that he wouldn't raise taxes,
and then later broke his promise...

Of course either your bias or your ignorance prevents you from telling
the *whole* story... To wit; Congress attached a bill creating the
new taxes to a package of bills which Bush also supported, and which
had major political mojo attached to them. (IIRC education funding
and Medicare funding.) He was screwed no matter what he did.

However, it wasn't a hard choice, since he clearly *was* going to have to
raise taxes somehow soon. The promise was a really stupid mistake. This
way he at least had an excuse.

(I recall a pre-election analysis of what the new president would face,
and the "Bush wins" half of it said roughly: "He's going to have to raise
taxes no matter what; there's no other way to keep the government solvent.
His smart move would be to wait just long enough to look plausible, tell
the world the mess is much worse than he thought and it's all Reagan's
fault, and ram the increase through right away. If he delays until he
can't plausibly blame Reagan any more, he's in big trouble. But that's
probably what will happen, because he has too much respect for Reagan to
quickly and decisively throw him to the wolves.")
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

"Greg Kuperberg" wrote in message
...
That is just such lame backpedalling. The man was on national television,
alone on camera with a prepared, vetted manuscript. He looked straight
into the camera and told the American people, "In 2010, the space shuttle,
after nearly 30 years of duty, will be retired from service." Not only
was it a direct national address, it was Bush's last direct national
address on space policy. So it both a direct and unqualified statement
about NASA's future. And anyone who missed it is free to download this
direct national address from the White House web site:

I seem to recall a televised statement by a certain president directing NASA
to build a space station "and do it within a decade". That timetable
certainly slipped all to hell.

If you actually think STS *will* retire in 2010 you have no idea how the
gummint works.

-Kim-