MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury

"William Elliot" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, JimO wrote:

MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/
Hubble debate
a lot of sound and fury
Politics and posturing aside,
NASA's actually right this time

Hubble telescope's mission is dismaying, even heart-breaking. But even
more
appalling has been the aftermath of the decision. While NASA made
ghastly
blunders in announcing and explaining the decision to cancel a needed
repair
mission, the public furor that has ensued is based on fundamental
misunderstandings and misconception mixed with posturing and politics.

Experience has loudly demonstrated major misunderstandings and
misconceptions pour forth from the Bushwhacky in a flood of corruption.

Add the Hubble scuddle to the huge list of Budget Busting Bush's Blunders.

Oh can it. Bush didn't make this decision. NASA is under fire for the safety
of the shuttle. They know they can only make "so" safe, so they are taking
the politically safe path, and not launching to the Hubble. The nation cried
foul when the second shuttle was lost, and NASA is responding in CYA
fashion. Who can blame them? We can't have it both ways. We either need to
except the risks as they are or let NASA make the decisions as they see fit.

Bush has nothing to do with this.

BV.

BenignVanilla wrote:
the politically safe path, and not launching to the Hubble. The nation cried
foul when the second shuttle was lost, and NASA is responding in CYA
fashion

Did the nation really cry foul ?

If NASA can't fly the shuttle to Hubble for safety reasons, that it shouldn't
be flying it at all. Shuttle was designed for that type of mission, it isn't
as if you're asking it to be outfitted with additional SRBs that could send it
to the moon.

While I can understand a Hubble mission can't be flown until they have the
right self-contained repair procedures, I think it is important for NASA to
get those. That expertise isn't required just for Shuttle, but for all
subsequent vehicles. Being able to fix stuff in space is very important,
especially if you're going beyond LEO for long durations.

And yes, this means that NASA needs to widen the envelope of EVA procedures to
find safe ways for Crew members to go to places they are currently prohibited
from going.

In fact, NASA's refusal to go to Hubble means that NASA isn't confortable for
the Shuttle's safety. The day NASA re-instantes the HUbble flights is the day
I will trust that NASA has truly ficed the foam problems and implemented CAIB recommendations.

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, John Doe wrote:

BenignVanilla wrote:
the politically safe path, and not launching to the Hubble. The nation cried
foul when the second shuttle was lost, and NASA is responding in CYA
fashion

Did the nation really cry foul ?

Indeed. Foul NASA, listen to your engineers!!!!!
Twice now you didn't and twice now you've made a fool of yourselves.

At least you did admit to the loss of two Mars missions because (oh
blush) you overlooked contractor and NASA were using different units of
measurement.

If NASA can't fly the shuttle to Hubble for safety reasons, that it shouldn't
be flying it at all. Shuttle was designed for that type of mission, it isn't
as if you're asking it to be outfitted with additional SRBs that could send it
to the moon.

Safety is just an excuse to do what they want. For example it's against
the law to purchase prescription drugs from Canada, not because (as they
proclaim) USA made drugs in Canada are unsafe, but because the
prescription drug cartel demands US to pay their excessive price fixed
costs.

"William Elliot" wrote
At least you did admit to the loss of two Mars missions because (oh
blush) you overlooked contractor and NASA were using different units of
measurement.

It's amazing to me to see the inverse relation between sincerity/certitude
and actual factual reality. Thanks for giving another fine example
about how reality-challenged people view the Hubble decision.

One -- not two -- Mars missions were lost because NASA management
cut too many corners and 'assumed it was good unless proved otherwise',
then cut out the personnel whose job it would have been to do that.

The probe wasn't lost because of a human error in units. It was lost
because the Goldin-style faster-better-cheaper mantra required
a process in which humans were perfect, and didn't need
checking. THAT was the cause of the disaster, not the fact
that the project was implemented by normal human beings.

The probe wasn't lost because of a human error in units. It was lost
because the Goldin-style faster-better-cheaper mantra required
a process in which humans were perfect, and didn't need
checking. THAT was the cause of the disaster, not the fact
that the project was implemented by normal human beings.

Good points here but still I think it should not have happened at all. Orbit
insertion has been accomplished so many times that the logic surrounding
the parameters should be COTS. I could realy imagine someone make a
sourceforge project surrounding it. I guess many students would love the
promise of real implementation.

Sincerely
Bjørn Ove

"William Elliot" wrote
Safety is just an excuse to do what they want. For example it's against
the law to purchase prescription drugs from Canada, not because (as they
proclaim) USA made drugs in Canada are unsafe, but because the
prescription drug cartel demands US to pay their excessive price fixed
costs.

Somebody has to pay for the research that makes these new drugs possible
in the first place, but a recent opinion poll shows that in the US at least,
two thirds of the public wrongly think the US government is paying the drug
research
(90% is by the companies themselves, actually). Who gave them that erroneous
impression, do you think?

Now, let me get this straight. Evil Wall Street fatcats are destroying
American jobs
by 'outsourcing' overseas to use cheaper foreign labor and production costs,
and that's
very very bad. So to solve the health crisis, good-intentioned federal
bureaucrats will
save money by 'outsourcing' medical purchases overseas to use cheaper
foreign labor
and production costs, and that's very very good.

Wasn't there an Orwellian word for that -- "doublethink"?

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004 17:39:36 -0400, John Doe wrote:

BenignVanilla wrote:
the politically safe path, and not launching to the Hubble. The nation cried
foul when the second shuttle was lost, and NASA is responding in CYA
fashion

Did the nation really cry foul ?

If NASA can't fly the shuttle to Hubble for safety reasons, that it shouldn't
be flying it at all. Shuttle was designed for that type of mission, it isn't
as if you're asking it to be outfitted with additional SRBs that could send it
to the moon.

While I can understand a Hubble mission can't be flown until they have the
right self-contained repair procedures, I think it is important for NASA to
get those. That expertise isn't required just for Shuttle, but for all
subsequent vehicles. Being able to fix stuff in space is very important,
especially if you're going beyond LEO for long durations.

And yes, this means that NASA needs to widen the envelope of EVA procedures to
find safe ways for Crew members to go to places they are currently prohibited
from going.

In fact, NASA's refusal to go to Hubble means that NASA isn't confortable for
the Shuttle's safety. The day NASA re-instantes the HUbble flights is the day
I will trust that NASA has truly ficed the foam problems and implemented CAIB recommendations.


excellent points!

On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, BenignVanilla wrote:
"William Elliot" wrote in message
On Tue, 23 Mar 2004, JimO wrote:

Add the Hubble scuddle to the huge list of Budget Busting Bush's Blunders.

Oh can it. Bush didn't make this decision. NASA is under fire for the safety
of the shuttle. They know they can only make "so" safe, so they are taking
the politically safe path, and not launching to the Hubble. The nation cried
foul when the second shuttle was lost, and NASA is responding in CYA
fashion. Who can blame them? We can't have it both ways. We either need to
except the risks as they are or let NASA make the decisions as they see fit.

Bush has nothing to do with this.

Both Bush and NASA have bad habit of refusing to listen skilled
professionals, preferring instead to go with their half bakes.

Bush's space plan as proposed to the public was so sorely lacking in
understanding of space science that even an amateur like me could dispute
his sci-fi fantasies.

"William Elliot" wrote in message

Bush's space plan as proposed to the public was so sorely lacking in
understanding of space science that even an amateur like me could dispute
his sci-fi fantasies.

Not likely. Your distaste for Bush is superceded only by your ignorance. Do
you realize who is on the growing list of supporters of the program? Neil
Armstrong is the most recent one I can think of who has publicly supported
the Vision. In any case, Bush may have presented the plan, but as you
apparently do not know there was a long process with many experts
participaring that resulted in the new plan. Try reading a little bit.

BTW, you might get farther here if you leave your acidic political bias "at
home". Bush won the 2000 election legally (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_2000)

Get over it.

Jon

"Jon Berndt" wrote:

"William Elliot" wrote:

Bush's space plan as proposed to the public was so sorely lacking in
understanding of space science that even an amateur like me could dispute
his sci-fi fantasies.

Not likely. Your distaste for Bush is superceded only by your ignorance. Do
you realize who is on the growing list of supporters of the program? Neil
Armstrong is the most recent one I can think of who has publicly supported
the Vision. In any case, Bush may have presented the plan, but as you
apparently do not know there was a long process with many experts
participaring that resulted in the new plan. Try reading a little bit.

BTW, you might get farther here if you leave your acidic political bias "at
home". Bush won the 2000 election legally (see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._pr...election,_2000)

Get over it.

The libs probably -won't- get over it.

It was -Algore- who tried to steal the election.