Bush to announce new missions to moon

On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 03:25:38 +0000, Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Eric Chomko wrote:
The naming of Cape Canaveral to Cape Kennedy and then back again; at
the change over from CC to CK, what was the name of the now KSC?

It was the NASA Launch Operations Center.

The decision to establish the LOC as a separate entity was announced by
NASA on March 7, 1962, before that the operations at the Cape were managed
by the Launch Operations Directorate.

The establishment of the LOC at the Cape was not a matter of selecting a
site, since the LOD had been there since the 1950s. Instead it was a
reorganization of NASA in order to make Kurt Debus's team autonomous.
Where they had previously reported to Von Braun at MSFC, they were now
co-equal. This allowed them to be equally "loyal" to MSFC and Houston.
Things were a little muddy, since Debus actually retained some MSFC
management responsibilities as head of the Launch Vehicle Operations
Division. This was positioned as a temporary organization to allow more
time to figure out how responsibilities would be divided between
Huntsville and the Cape, although Debus saw it as a way of making sure
that the Cape team had some skin in the game since many of the
Huntsville Saturn contractors were on incentive based contracts and
mistakes made at the Cape could cost them.

This had everything to do with internal NASA politics, and very little to
do with external "pork barrel" politics. The pigs had already been put in
their pens, the question was more of who in NASA would have control of
which pens.

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
: Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: : ...
: : Why NIH and DOD and not NASA?
:
: : More vocal constituents, and more money spent in more Congressional
: : districts.
:
: : Right, leave them as contractor employees and instead of building the
: war
: : machine bigger than it needs to be
:
: : Exactly how big, in terms of personnel (which are the real cost), should
: it
: : be? Please provide verifiable documentation for your number.
:
: Lets say we continue all space exploration and add the moon base? It could
: be donein 10 years if we double the NASA budget and reduce the DOD budget
: by the same numbers.

: *Once again* you are assuming that the value of services provided by the DOD
: are less than what NASA could provide for the same money.

I assume nothing here. I am passing judgement. And I stand behind it.

: You haven't shown
: that the DOD would still be able to perform its job just as well by cutting
: its budget,

EVERY other aspect of life that costs money is going through that right
now as per the GOP leadership, why does the DOD get a pass? Could it be
that it is their grand social program??

: and that the value produced by adding those funds to NASA would
: be at least as much as the value lost by cutting DOD.

Yes, I think you are catching on?

: Instead of cutting
: DOD, why not cut Medicare by that same amount?

Because the babyboomers are NOW becoming seniors. Cutting medicare will
effect they babyboomers getting older too much.

Why not actually become the kinder and gentler nation that Bush Sr.
claimed we should be?

: : let's expand the space exploration
: : initiative. Not political talk to appease moderates during an election
: : year, but actually do it!
:
: : When *you* write a big enough check, it will happen.

: Naw, when the Chinese write a big enough check it will happen.

: I don't see China paying for the US space program. They are better off
: building components and having us pay for them, which is in part what they
: do anyway.

China will develop their own space program. The reactionary right will
want to start another space race as a result.

Eric

Henry Spencer ) wrote:
: In article ,
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Wasn't KSC built on a wildlife refuge? Merrit Island or some such?

: Merritt Island is the geographical name of the area KSC was built on.

: The wildlife refuge actually came after KSC began. The NASA purchase of

Are you sure about the order of the wildlife reguge and KSC?

: land was much larger than the area actually used for LC-39: it included
: plenty of room for future expansion, and a big buffer zone to keep private
: development at a safe distance from both LC-39 and possible future pads.
: Once NASA figured out which areas it was going to use immediately, it made
: arrangements with the National Wildlife Service to have them run most of
: the unused lands as a wildlife refuge, subject to NASA reclaiming them
: when and if needed.

: The naming of Cape Canaveral to Cape Kennedy and then back again; at
: the change over from CC to CK, what was the name of the now KSC?

: It was the NASA Launch Operations Center. It was renamed KSC at the
: same time as the Cape was (temporarily) renamed Cape Kennedy.

Thanks.

Eric

: --
: MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
: since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Henry Spencer ) wrote:
: In article ,
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: : The three big manned-space centers were (and are) KSC, MSFC, and JSC.
:
: Yes, launch support, mission planning and mission control are their
: respective primary functions.

: Not quite right. Historically, KSC does test and launch, MSFC does rocket
: engineering, JSC does manned spacecraft engineering. The lines have
: blurred a bit over time, especially on the space station where everybody

Blurred. indeed, but wasn't their a big push about 10 years ago to go back
to traditional roles?

: wanted a share of the action, but those are still the main activities.
: Mission control is only an incidental function of JSC, although it's a
: highly visible one.

: Aren't these the ones that will most benefit
: from the current space policy set forth by W Bush?

: Unless drastic changes are made, yes.

The changes? That would be voting W out of office, right?

: And GSFC was built in 61 as well. But ii is near earth. Do explain how it
: fits into the picture.

: GSFC was conceived under Eisenhower, by NASA's first management. It was
: meant to be *the* NASA spaceflight center, doing space science, satellite
: operations, and manned spaceflight (the Mercury team was originally
: supposed to move there from Langley at some suitable time). Sites NASA
: acquired from the military -- notably JPL and MSFC -- would stay where
: they were, and of course there would be a small NASA presence at the Cape
: for launch activities, but otherwise Goddard would be it. Langley, Lewis,
: and Ames would stick to aviation, and would not get distracted by space.

: This all changed when the Apollo hit the fan :-), making it necessary to
: expand the manned-spaceflight empire much more rapidly. Now it needed its
: own launch base, and now the engineering group would be a NASA center in
: its own right, not just a department of Goddard.

: Also, having centers built in 61 surely has roots going back earlier than
: where they will go. Can you show me that the plans to have each built
: where they are now was done after Jan. 20, 1961, the day JFK took office?
: I am not looking for groundbreaking dates, but planned location dates.

: Neither KSC nor JSC was anything more than a vague "maybe someday" notion
: until JFK's "before this decade is out" speech in spring 1961 demanded a
: massive acceleration of Apollo. The relevant books in the NASA History
: series describe the hasty site-selection work for both in summer 1961.

I see. Thanks, again.

Wasn't there a decision to spread the NASA centers around the US so as not
to have one state be the only pro-NASA state and the others be anti or at
least not pro as they gained nothing by it?

Eric

: --
: MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
: since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: :

: Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: : (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: : :
:
: : Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: : : (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: : : :
: :
: : : You are right he is trying to reach conservatives as he is a
: : : partisan president, depite is rhetoric to the contrary. Manned
: : : spaceflight helps the southern states (Florida, Alabama and
: : : Texas).
: :
: : : And which administration put the major manned spaceflight centers
: : : in those states...?
: :
: : Eisenhower.
:
: : Suffice to say not everyone agrees with you. :-) At the very least,
: : you are wrong about MSC/JSC. Quite possibly KSC as well (KSC !=
: : CCAFS).
:
: If the centers were built in 1961 when were they planned?

: MSC/JSC wasn't built in 1961 - that's when the site selection occurred. KSC
: as well, I think - at the time JFK took office, NASA knew they needed a
: launch site for Apollo/Saturn but hadn't chosen a location yet. Mind you,
: Merritt Island had some strong advantages and probably would have been
: picked anyway.

: : I give Carter credit for allowing the shuttle to go forward, which
: : it did.
:
: : Whoop-te-do.
:
: Carter continues to do more than all ex-GOP presidents do combined.

: Concerning space? Just what are you smoking, man? Carter has done many
: things since leaving office, but not a damn thing about space. That's not
: much different from when he was *in* office, which was my point.

Not space, but many other things like habitat for the homeless projects
and the like. My point is that even though he wasn't the greatest
president, he's become quite a good ex-president. As for the others (GOP),
well I just bought Gerald Ford's joke book about the presidency, so I'll
refrain from judgement about him just yet. But I think his dogged stance
on the Warren Report is laughable on it face, or perhaps sad if one really
thinks about it.

: : : As much as he took away from
: : : the DOD he gave none of it to NASA.
: :
: : : You were expecting...?
: :
: : The GOP to make NASA another branch of the military, something on
: : the order of the way the Marines are connected with the Navy; have
: : NASA connected with the Air Force. Many right wingers want this.
:
: : Huh? We were discussing the Clinton administration here. What does he
: : have to do with the GOP?
:
: Maybe their continued hatred of the man?

: No, you're still trying to change the subject. We were discussing Clinton
: administration space policy. Or the lack of one, to be more precise.

Yes, I was not thrilled about Clinton's space policy. It could have been
better.

: Face it, Eric. A list of "post-JFK/LBJ Democratic space initiatives" is
: going to be about as long as a list of French military victories.

Two shuttles blew up and they happened on the wathes of the GOP. Where is
that conservative responsibility you all brag about having?

We've
: been going round and round with this and all you have is Clinton's half-
: baked shuttle replacement (X-33), his turning the space station program
: into foreign aid (ISS),

Christ, do you see working with the Russians in space as a liability?

and Carter *not* cancelling a Republican space
: initiative (STS) when he had the chance. That's pretty pathetic, if you ask
: me. On the other hand, I can certainly understand why you'd *want* to
: change the subject... :-)

Did W mention his space plan last night in the SOU at all?!?!

Eric

: --
: JRF

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

In article ,
Eric Chomko wrote:
: The wildlife refuge actually came after KSC began. The NASA purchase of

Are you sure about the order of the wildlife reguge and KSC?

Yes. "Moonport", NASA SP-4204, page 107.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: ...
: Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
:
: : "Eric Chomko" wrote in message
: : ...
: : Why NIH and DOD and not NASA?
:
: : More vocal constituents, and more money spent in more Congressional
: : districts.
:
: : Right, leave them as contractor employees and instead of building
the
: war
: : machine bigger than it needs to be
:
: : Exactly how big, in terms of personnel (which are the real cost),
should
: it
: : be? Please provide verifiable documentation for your number.
:
: Lets say we continue all space exploration and add the moon base? It
could
: be donein 10 years if we double the NASA budget and reduce the DOD
budget
: by the same numbers.

: *Once again* you are assuming that the value of services provided by the
DOD
: are less than what NASA could provide for the same money.

I assume nothing here. I am passing judgement. And I stand behind it.

Based on what?

: You haven't shown
: that the DOD would still be able to perform its job just as well by
cutting
: its budget,

EVERY other aspect of life that costs money is going through that right
now as per the GOP leadership, why does the DOD get a pass? Could it be
that it is their grand social program??

Why should the DOD get a pass? That doesn't answer my question. Why are
*you* concentrating so much on the DOD, as opposed to social programs?
What's *your* agenda?

: and that the value produced by adding those funds to NASA would
: be at least as much as the value lost by cutting DOD.

Yes, I think you are catching on?

No, since you didn't answer my question. I'd like to see your *evidence*.

: Instead of cutting
: DOD, why not cut Medicare by that same amount?

Because the babyboomers are NOW becoming seniors. Cutting medicare will
effect they babyboomers getting older too much.

If the mission is to add money to NASA, why should that matter?

Why not actually become the kinder and gentler nation that Bush Sr.
claimed we should be?

If *that* is your mission, then why not cut NASA and transfer that money to
social programs?

: : let's expand the space exploration
: : initiative. Not political talk to appease moderates during an
election
: : year, but actually do it!
:
: : When *you* write a big enough check, it will happen.

: Naw, when the Chinese write a big enough check it will happen.

: I don't see China paying for the US space program. They are better off
: building components and having us pay for them, which is in part what
they
: do anyway.

China will develop their own space program.

Then why would you expect China to write a check for the American program?

The reactionary right will
want to start another space race as a result.

I don't see any evidence that any part of the China political spectrum wants
to start a space race.

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
: Unless drastic changes are made, yes.

The changes? That would be voting W out of office, right?

Ah, this explains a lot of your answers in other posts. You're interested in
gutting the space program, as would be expected under a more liberal
administration. Welfare queens cast more votes than rockets.

Wasn't there a decision to spread the NASA centers around the US so as not
to have one state be the only pro-NASA state and the others be anti or at
least not pro as they gained nothing by it?

No, this was done to bring bacon home to the districts of influential
Congressmen.

Henry Spencer wrote:

In article ,
Eric Chomko wrote:
: The wildlife refuge actually came after KSC began. The NASA purchase of

Are you sure about the order of the wildlife reguge and KSC?

Yes. "Moonport", NASA SP-4204, page 107.
--
http://refuges.fws.gov/profiles/index.cfm?id=41570 :
"The Refuge, which is an overlay of the John F. Kennedy Space Center,
was established in August 1963 to provide a buffer zone for the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) in the quest for space
exploration."

MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Not space, but many other things like habitat for the homeless projects
and the like.

This is completely off-topic, but related to the above comment. There's a
real problem with insisting that "affordable housing" also comply with every
building code that anyone could possibly think of. Houses constructed
according to the building codes *are* "affordable housing"- they are simply
priced out of the range of most people. It isn't possible to continually
jack up the requirements and expect the price of the home to go down. If I
can't make a profit, I don't have any incentive to build. Most so-called
"affordable housing" projects aren't- the true cost is subsidized through
government programs, which only means that someone else other than the
purchaser is forced at the point of a gun (don't pay your taxes and see if
the people who come to take you away don't have guns) to pay part of the
cost of the house. Houses that are perfectly adequate and far better than
what most of the planet survives with are considered "substandard", and
often can't be sold without spending unjustifiable amounts of money to
rehab. Sorry, Eric, but Bush didn't cause this. It really began to crank up
in so-called liberal areas, such as California. There's a reason why people
can't afford housing. While the excuse is safety, the real reason for
restrictive building codes is to keep out the riff-raff, defined as anyone
who can't afford what the powers-that-be and their constituents think a
person should be able to afford.

I recently read an article on the Christian Science Monitor's website about
the use of shipping containers for low-cost housing. With the trade deficit,
they are just piling up at ports. They are sturdy and could be turned into
living quarters for a few thousand dollars. They would sure beat living
under a bridge, but they suffer from one problem: somewhere, someone would
cry about the "dignity" of the homeless, and how wrong it would be to
"force" someone to live in a home that is anything less than what Donald
Trump lives in. This will get enough media play that eventually the idea
would be dropped. Somehow it's more dignified to live in a cardboard box
than in a rehabbed former shipping crate with indoor plumbing and heaters.

My point is that even though he wasn't the greatest
president, he's become quite a good ex-president.

Yes, he has.

As for the others (GOP),
well I just bought Gerald Ford's joke book about the presidency, so I'll
refrain from judgement about him just yet.

He's busy whacking his balls these days. He's turned into an old duffer.

Two shuttles blew up and they happened on the wathes of the GOP.

But they were *built* under the Carter watch.

Christ, do you see working with the Russians in space as a liability?

The evidence clearly shows that it *is*. They don't have the money to keep
their promises, and many of the flaws of ISS comes directly from depending
on the Russians. One of the *first things* that needed to be done to the
Russian work was to install sound mufflers on fans because they were too
loud and out of spec. Don't the Russians have sound meters? Shouldn't they
have figured out that their module was too loud while it was on the ground?
If something so clearly obvious was missed, what other things were?

Did W mention his space plan last night in the SOU at all?!?!

Yes. It just wasn't- and rightfully so- the most important thing he had to
say last night, since he had already recently presented it.