Bush to announce new missions to moon

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...
Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: :
: : Better to have them with us in space rather than at odds in a cold
: : war, no?
:
: : Those aren't the only two choices.
:
: What other choices?

: There is a whole continuum of choices between "joined at the hip" and
"cold
: war". The inability to see that is a sign of a simple binary mind.

I didn't ask for the differnce between digital and analog, I asked for an
example

Which you are clearly too stupid to see.

"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
...


wlhaught wrote:


Huh?


Denial.... there shall be no progress toward _The Cure_ as long as you
are in the State Of Denial- nor in the State Of Delaware for that
matter..... :-)

There will be no progress towards _The Cure_ if he keeps listening to
_Madness_ and _UK Squeeze_ either.

Neil Gerace wrote:

There will be no progress towards _The Cure_ if he keeps listening to
_Madness_ and _UK Squeeze_ either.


True; for him....or the other 10,000 Maniacs.

Pat

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...

Not as much a delay and expense as relying on the Shuttle though.
Neither side met it's technical requirements.


Word to NASA: now that you have decades of experience in both budgeting and
executing projects, *make realistic budgets, even if it means being told
no*.

Word to Congress: if you are given a realistic budget (realistic defined as
enough to do the project, not an imaginary fairy tail designed to get the
project passed) and you approve the project, pony up the money in one year
and *leave it the hell alone*. When the budget has been approved, for better
or for worse, DO NOT fiddle with it! No forced redesigning because of budget
cuts, but no more money either.




That's a big "if" on that realistic budget. For both ISS
and Shuttle, the OMB (and it's predecessor) presented an
alternate budget estimate that turned out to be much more
accurate than the ones presented by NASA for those projects.
It was not even a question of NASA being mistaken then either.
NASA flat out lied to get Shuttle approved expecting the
money later.

Congress is actually pretty good at leaving NASA alone
with it's projects. They get pulled in when there are
substantial overruns. They also will ask some basic questions
(such as balance of science to engineering) that is part of their
oversight requirements. NASA, within it's budget, has usually
been allowed a good deal of discretion. It's when they try a
big political push or pull Congress into internal fights
that things turn bad. (See TransHab for an example of that).
Congress passed a budget cap on ISS. That was a rare event and
matches your "no more money either" requirement.

If NASA stays within it's budget, it'll be able to do the
things on it's table. If it doesn't, it is going to get axed.
The real big thing here is staying within budget. Congress is
probably going to go along with this program even after a
change in administrations if they stay in budget.

(Eric Chomko) wrote in
:

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

: Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: : (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: : :
:
: : Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: : : (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: : : :
: :
: : : Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: : :
: : : : 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?
: :
: : : No, the additional redundancy provided by the Russians has made
: : : the station more survivable. But that has nothing to do with
: : : the reasons why Clinton brought them in (ISS cost reduction,
: : : foreign aid to Russia, provide an incentive for Russia not to
: : : sell nuclear tech to Iran), all of which failed.
: :
: : Better to have them with us in space rather than at odds in a
: : cold war, no?
:
: : Those aren't the only two choices.
:
: What other choices?

: There is a whole continuum of choices between "joined at the hip" and
: "cold war". The inability to see that is a sign of a simple binary
: mind.

I didn't ask for the differnce between digital and analog, I asked for
an example, and you didn't answer.

I didn't answer because anyone with more than two bits in his brain ought
to be able to come up with some on his own. But very well, if you're the
type who insists on being spoon-fed the answers, here's two points on the
continuum between "joined at the hip" and "cold war":

1) Peaceful competition. Competition got us to the moon; cooperation got us
ISS.

2) Hiring Russian companies as contractors, rather than taking the Russian
government as a partner.


--
JRF

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

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...
NASA flat out lied to get Shuttle approved expecting the
money later.

I have to wonder how much NASA was encouraged to underestimate. That's how
the game is played. If a realistic budget is proposed, then almost certainly
the project gets shut down. On the other hand, it was clear that Reagan's $8
billion budget for Freedom was complete fantasy. What would have happened if
NASA had said "We're not interested, since the job clearly can't be done for
that amount"? The administrator would have been replaced with someone more
in line with the President's wishes.

Congress is actually pretty good at leaving NASA alone
with it's projects.

Can you say "Freedom"?

Congress passed a budget cap on ISS. That was a rare event and
matches your "no more money either" requirement.

While it doesn't apply to ISS, or at least it shouldn't, when it came to the
shuttle, it's hard to budget technical innovations. The decision was made to
build a race car, and that means new technology, which means it's impossible
to judge how much money will really be needed. In retrospect it was clearly
a bad decision, but that's part of the institutional culture. Nevertheless,
cost overruns are unavoidable when dealing with the unknown.

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Eric Chomko" wrote in message
...

After all *Clinton* produced 8 budgets, why didn't
: he provide more money?

Well, the shuttle didn't fall apart while he was president.


Well, shuttles were mutually cannibalized for parts under his watch.



Point of clarification here. This applies to all the presidents
in office since the Shuttle launched.

(Eric Chomko) wrote in
:

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: Gee- if we hadn't ****ed away so much money supporting our "partners"
: because Clinton insisted on it, we might have been able to spend more
: money on shuttle maintenance. After all *Clinton* produced 8 budgets,
: why didn't he provide more money?

Well, the shuttle didn't fall apart while he was president.

Of course not. But he did a good job of setting the stage for it. I take it
you haven't actually read the CAIB report. Sections 5.3 and 5.4 make clear
that Clinton/Goldin-era workforce and budget cuts were contributors.

--
JRF

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

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...
Well, shuttles were mutually cannibalized for parts under his watch.



Point of clarification here. This applies to all the presidents
in office since the Shuttle launched.

Of course- it *isn't* just something that happened under Bush.

Scott Hedrick wrote:

"Charles Buckley" wrote in message
...

NASA flat out lied to get Shuttle approved expecting the
money later.


I have to wonder how much NASA was encouraged to underestimate. That's how
the game is played. If a realistic budget is proposed, then almost certainly
the project gets shut down. On the other hand, it was clear that Reagan's $8
billion budget for Freedom was complete fantasy. What would have happened if
NASA had said "We're not interested, since the job clearly can't be done for
that amount"? The administrator would have been replaced with someone more
in line with the President's wishes.


According to the congressional testimony after Columbia,
that was all internal to NASA. They really did expect Congress
to kick in the money later and were shocked when it did not
happen.

There seriously has never been any indication from NASA until
some very recent statements from Goldin and O'Keefe that NASA
would never see the sorts of budgets as they had with Apollo.
Go back and look closer at the NASA of the 1970's and 1980's.
They *expanded* every single administration request into a virtual
wish list. Arguably that is the same as the current proposal, but
the key difference is that there looks like a pretty good chance that
there will be a spending cap and expectation of sliding milestones.
Which is actually a good thing overall. NASA can do a lot as long
as it stays in budget. (And, absolutely keep it's internal politics
internal. A fight between centers will kill this faster than anything).



Congress is actually pretty good at leaving NASA alone
with it's projects.


Can you say "Freedom"?


Can you say "incompatible scientific objectives".

Freedom came in several years after the initial proposal. There
was the initial 1984 proposal. Then, it modified radically in 1985
to the dual keel design as a result of feedback from their astronauts
and intended customers. Then, it was shot down by Fullerton in a
briefing to the astronaut office. Then, it was delayed by internal
fighting between FSC and Marshall. Then, Congress approved it anyway.
Then, NASA ran new numbers for the budget that said "Oops, could we
double our request". *Then* they scaled down to the Freedom design.

By this point, the project was 4 years down the road from the start
and no hardware had been built.

It got ugly after this. There was no agreement with international
partners. DoD tried to horn into the operation. Life sciences demanded
a far higher amount of power than was allocated in the design. And
pointed out that materials research was getting to much of the allocated
experiment space. It was at this point that Congress cut the budget.

The death blow came when the design settled to 23% overweight, 34%
underpowered, there were a projected 2500+ EVA manhours per year.
That is when the first congressional redesign was ordered and I
am having a little bit of trouble coming to the conclusion that it
was Congress' fault. By this point, it was 6 years form initial
proposal and they were barely into the hardware phase.

They moved into Fred at that point, but that was really just
a salvage operation for the departments involved.


Congress passed a budget cap on ISS. That was a rare event and
matches your "no more money either" requirement.


While it doesn't apply to ISS, or at least it shouldn't, when it came to the
shuttle, it's hard to budget technical innovations. The decision was made to
build a race car, and that means new technology, which means it's impossible
to judge how much money will really be needed. In retrospect it was clearly
a bad decision, but that's part of the institutional culture. Nevertheless,
cost overruns are unavoidable when dealing with the unknown.



They are avoidable because NASA *knew* Shuttle had a bogus
funded budget. They had other proposals (Saturn Shuttle, Faget
Shuttle, and a few others) that were much less expensive in R&D
than the proposal they took to Congress. Saturn Shuttle would
have required only R&D on the Orbiter and would have eliminated
the SSME R&D costs. Faget Shuttle would have been smaller and
not had the capability stated by the DoD as required for DoD use,
but it would have been functionally a fully reusable vehicle in the
class they needed to replace Apollo.