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

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.

"Derek Lyons" wrote in message
...
[snip]
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.

Who's paying the bills?

LB

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.

-----= 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! =-----

So far most of the "support" has been in the form of noise. If the folks
in Washington, the few noise makers that count, were serious about saving
the HST, cash would be on the table. As it is, most of the Washingtion
noise is just political cheap shots. One approach would be to set aside
funding for a given set of shuttle missions, enough to complete ISS
commitments, fix Hubble one more time, and, lets not forget, launch
Triana (assuming AG becomes the next NASA administrator (hack cough spit)).
Congress does not like to forward fund projects, since that reduces the
small amount of money they can fight over each year.

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

Yes there is a lot of sound and fury. The decision to cancel Hubble isn't
"heart-breaking" and it isn't just "disappointing". It's disgusting.
While most of this article shallowly nitpicks at the comments of this
or that critic, the heart of the matter is this passing rationalization:

As a result, after resuming assembly and servicing and resupplying
the International Space Station - NASA's priority project, involving
major foreign partnerships - O'Keefe writes that "the earliest NASA
could launch a servicing mission to the HST ... would be Spring 2007."

This is what it is really all about. The space station is NASA's
priority. Not a moonbase, not a manned mission to Mars, not the Mars
rovers, and certainly not Hubble. The space station is still eating
both NASA's budget and the shuttle's schedule. It isn't just because
the station has major foreign partnerships; as if Hubble doesn't?
Rather it's because the space station is NASA's big white elephant,
and it has to go in front.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:58:22 +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:

This is what it is really all about. The space station is NASA's
priority. Not a moonbase, not a manned mission to Mars, not the Mars
rovers, and certainly not Hubble. The space station is still eating
both NASA's budget and the shuttle's schedule. It isn't just because
the station has major foreign partnerships;

Yes, it is.

as if Hubble doesn't?

Hubble doesn't. Not any with whom we have treaty-level commitments.

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
as if Hubble doesn't [have international partnerships]?
Hubble doesn't. Not any with whom we have treaty-level commitments.

These so-called treaty-level commitments with the space station aren't
actual treaties. And even if they were treaties, the Bush administration,
for one, hasn't been shy to renegotiate treaties that it doesn't like,
or even pull out of them. This is really a lot of political glad-handing.
That it's international or even treaty level doesn't make it any better.
The fact that the space station is supported at the treaty level is part
of what makes it a white elephant.

At the genuine level - as opposed to the treaty level - the Hubble
Space Telescope is indeed an international project. Scientists from
all over the world use it. That includes many scientists in the very
countries that are entangled in the space station. While politicians
may still congratulate each other over space station cooperation,
O'Keefe's treatment of Hubble is an international setback in the view
of both scientists and ordinary people.

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 23:27:53 +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:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
as if Hubble doesn't [have international partnerships]?
Hubble doesn't. Not any with whom we have treaty-level commitments.

These so-called treaty-level commitments with the space station aren't
actual treaties.

I didn't say they were. But there would be hell to pay if they were
abrogated, and the likelihood of any future "international
cooperation" would approximate zero if that happened. I don't
necessarily think that's a bad thing, but I'm sure that the State
Department does.

And even if they were treaties, the Bush administration,
for one, hasn't been shy to renegotiate treaties that it doesn't like,
or even pull out of them.

We pull out of treaties for which there are provisions to do so, and
when we consider it important to the national interest to do so
(actually, the only one that I'm aware we've withdrawn from is the ABM
Treaty, despite all the hooting and hollering from the tranzis). I'm
not sure what would be involved in withdrawing from our formal station
commitments, but obviously the administration isn't prepared (yet) to
do it.

This is really a lot of political glad-handing.

Of course it is.

That it's international or even treaty level doesn't make it any better.
The fact that the space station is supported at the treaty level is part
of what makes it a white elephant.

Of course it is. But it is.

At the genuine level - as opposed to the treaty level - the Hubble
Space Telescope is indeed an international project. Scientists from
all over the world use it.

That's meaningless. We have no ongoing agreements with any other
nations to allow their scientists to indefinitely use Hubble. That's
like saying that American Airlines is an international project because
it flies people from all over the world.

O'Keefe's treatment of Hubble is an international setback in the view
of both scientists and ordinary people.

Even if that were true (I doubt it) their views don't matter. What
matters is the views of the governments.

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
But there would be hell to pay if they were abrogated, and the likelihood
of any future "international cooperation" would approximate zero if
that happened.

The space station agreement has already been revised and there are always
avenues to call the whole thing off and stay friends. In fact there is
a formal withdrawal clause in the space station agreement:

Article 28. Withdrawal

1. Any Partner State may withdraw from this Agreement at any time by
giving to the Depositary at least one year's prior written notice. ...

( http://www.nasda.go.jp/lib/space-law...-2-1628_e.html )

So pulling out of the space station wouldn't be like the South seceding
from the Union. It wouldn't even be like steel tariffs, which ****ed
off both governments and business groups around the world and in the
end were rescinded anyway.

But if the Bush administration were to withdraw from the space station,
it would first of all have to want to. The steel tariffs were a conflict
between international good will and domestic graft. The space station
presents no such conflict - domestic graft and international agreements
go in the same direction. The only loser in the arrangement is the
American taxpayer. The taxpayers have been told that the moon and Mars
are the new plan, and that promise gives the government some extra cover
to continue the space station.

--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

Rand Simberg wrote:
On Sun, 28 Mar 2004 21:58:22 +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:

This is what it is really all about. The space station is NASA's
priority. Not a moonbase, not a manned mission to Mars, not the Mars
rovers, and certainly not Hubble. The space station is still eating
both NASA's budget and the shuttle's schedule. It isn't just because
the station has major foreign partnerships;

Yes, it is.

as if Hubble doesn't?

Hubble doesn't. Not any with whom we have treaty-level commitments.

Although there are commitments with ESA. They funded nominally 15%
of the costs (in-kind, FOC and solar arrays for example) and are
entitled to 15% of observing time averaged over the mission. Although
the question does get raised at review meetings, so far proposers
from ESA member states have always seemed to come in ahead of the
15% anyway. Of course, an operational agreement like this is always
implicitly or explicitly subject to the "until it breaks" clause.o

ESA is in for at least this big a slice of JWST - including their
recent kind offer to keep it on-budget by prividing an Ariane 5.

Bill Keel

(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:
This is what it is really all about. The space station is NASA's
priority.

Which should surprise no one, as that is what the legislative and
executive branches have determined to be NASA's priority.

Not a moonbase, not a manned mission to Mars, not the Mars
rovers, and certainly not Hubble.

Why should NASA's priorities include these when the people who set the
policies and budget haven't?

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