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

Derek Lyons wrote:

Richard Lamb wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

"JimO" wrote:

MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

The amusing part in the whole debate is the public's changed attitude
towards Hubble. A decade ago Hubble was post-Challenger proof that
NASA couldn't do anything right (Along with the floundering
SSF/SSA/ISS program).

Not taking exception with this, but....

Public Opinion seems to be what ever the media says it is.

Media reports seem to match the opinions of my non-space enthusiast
aquaintences. Maybe chicken-and-egg though.

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

Touche'

I just finished slogging through this opinion piece. In it, Mr Oberg
attempts to take the "broad view", and touches on a dizzying array of
important topics, including adjustments to NASA's attitude toward safety,
automated service missions, pressure on engineers due to time constraints,
the relative merit of Hubble vs. other missions, and partisan politics.

Whew.

So anyway here is the real deal. We have three shuttles left. If we lose
one (not loose one, dammit) in the first five flights, the Shuttle program
will either be cancelled or kept going.

I think the intelligent view is to level with chattering classes and tell
them that space flight is inherently dangerous. If you fly, you lose
vehicles. "We are going to fly the last three shuttles until they are
replaced by a newer model or until they are all destroyed" should be the
clear policy, stated in advance.

If you want some irony, here it is: No amount of effort put into making
Shuttle safer will have a marked effect on the overall reliability of the
system. If you think that the current efforts are intended to make the
shuttle safe, then you don't get it. Space flight is dangerous. We will
lose a few OSPs. The Russians will lose some Clippers.

I would even go farther and say that flying or not flying a Hubble mission
will not have a significant impact on the number of flights left in the
shuttle inventory. If we look at each mission and ask "Can we afford the
risk?" then I really have to wonder what is meant by "afford". I haven't
figured that out yet.

"Is a Hubble service mission worth the risk?" I don't think it is really a
valid question. If the science return is significant, then fly the mission.
The risk and danger part is a constant and applies equally to each mission,
and to me is not a separate factor that applies to a particular mission,
exempli gratia, is a truck load of canned corn worth a car wreck? The only
thing that matters is whether each flight is prepared as well as the techs
and engineers can do it. The astronauts know this and it would be well for
the rest of us to recognize it as well.

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.

Derek Lyons wrote:

"JimO" wrote:

MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

The amusing part in the whole debate is the public's changed attitude
towards Hubble. A decade ago Hubble was post-Challenger proof that
NASA couldn't do anything right (Along with the floundering
SSF/SSA/ISS program).

With public support for NASA being rather sparse these days, it might be
a good idea to not trash an existing project that clearly has the
public's support, even if it doesn't make complete sense to those who
are better informed.


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

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 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

"Kent Betts" writes:
I would even go farther and say that flying or not flying a Hubble mission
will not have a significant impact on the number of flights left in the
shuttle inventory. If we look at each mission and ask "Can we afford the
risk?" then I really have to wonder what is meant by "afford". I haven't
figured that out yet.

"Is a Hubble service mission worth the risk?" I don't think it is really a
valid question. If the science return is significant, then fly the mission.
The risk and danger part is a constant and applies equally to each mission,
and to me is not a separate factor that applies to a particular mission,
exempli gratia, is a truck load of canned corn worth a car wreck? The only
thing that matters is whether each flight is prepared as well as the techs
and engineers can do it. The astronauts know this and it would be well for
the rest of us to recognize it as well.

I liked the article. Unfortunately it mentions some trends without
trying to project along them at all. But the trends are important.

First, NASA should be able to say no because of risk reasons. It is
terrible that NASA has gotten pressured over the years to launch on
time whether or not it was safe. That was cited as a major underlying
reason for the Challenger crash: engineers were reporting problems but
the administration thought there was too much PR pressure to delay the
launch over it. Whether or not we agree with NASA, we certainly need
to let it use its own judgement on a technical matter.

Second, there needs to be more broad risk-reward analysis of this kind
Kent is talking about. Don't focus so much on an individual mission
that we forget about the overall cost of *periodic* missions to
Hubble. And of course, on the flip side, don't focus so much on risk
as a whole that we give up on space activity entirely! All in all the
issue is complicated and requires some careful analysis.

Does anyone know if NASA has published any of its own risk-reword
analysis? That would help clear up a lot of the discussions I see
happening.


-Lex

starman wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:

"JimO" wrote:
MSNBC - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4580820/

The amusing part in the whole debate is the public's changed attitude
towards Hubble. A decade ago Hubble was post-Challenger proof that
NASA couldn't do anything right (Along with the floundering
SSF/SSA/ISS program).

With public support for NASA being rather sparse these days, it might be
a good idea to not trash an existing project that clearly has the
public's support, even if it doesn't make complete sense to those who
are better informed.

Right. So we turn the space program over to the masses as a bread and
circuses progam.

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

"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.

"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"?