Griffin: Shuttle-CEV Gap Unacceptable

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
.. .
That's not really a useful comparison.

Geez, Rand. I could say the night sky is black and you'd disagree.

It's a lot easer to shut
something down (ignoring the politics, of course) than to create
something.

Politics can't be ignored, particularly when the projects under discussion
are politically driven. It is much more difficult to shut something down
when political interests are involved - base closures, for example, are very
hard fought. The fight will be no easier when the time comes to shut down
STS.

And there's also the reality that the shuttle flight schedule *will* slip,
pushing retirement out who knows how many years? It's inevitable.

-Kim-

In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote in
:
[Changing the shuttle retirement date] would require the courage,
or maybe the cowardice, to contradict a direct and explicit promise
from the President of the United States to the American people.
That was not a promise by any reasonable definition.

I think that Bush may well have intended it as one.

And it doesn't change the fact that the date was, in fact, arbitrary.

That's true! Except in that it comes after Bush leaves office.
So I admit that even if he did mean it as a promise, he is hedging.

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

(Greg Kuperberg) wrote in
:

In article ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote in
:
[Changing the shuttle retirement date] would require the courage,
or maybe the cowardice, to contradict a direct and explicit promise
from the President of the United States to the American people.
That was not a promise by any reasonable definition.

I think that Bush may well have intended it as one.

I'll give that opinion all the weight it deserves. I think it's just
wishful thinking on your part. Consider the differences in wording between
Bush's speech and NASA's document describing the Vision:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf

"Retire the Space Shuttle as soon as assembly of the International Space
Station is completed, *planned* for the end of this decade;" (emphasis
mine)

And it doesn't change the fact that the date was, in fact, arbitrary.

That's true! Except in that it comes after Bush leaves office.

That was driven by compliance with CAIB recommendation R9.2-1, which called
for the shuttle to be re-certified if NASA intended to fly it past 2010. So
Bush's selection of the date *wasn't* arbitrary. However, the *CAIB's*
recommendation of 2010 *was* arbitrary - they simply didn't want NASA
flying the shuttle all the way to 2020 without a re-cert, and picked 2010
as a nice round number in between. Presidential politics played no part in
their thinking.

--
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 . com,
Tom Cuddihy wrote:
Look, it may very well be that 'policy' is not worth the paper it's
printed on.

George Washington, redux 2005:

"It is my policy not to chop down cherry trees."

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

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
Of course, this is probably a moot issue, because I suspect that Mike
is going to try to figure out a way [restire the shuttle] sooner, not
later, than 2010

I think that Griffin might well do that. If so, Bush's so-called
non-promise will turn out to be true.

(as well as accelerating CEV to close the gap).

On the other hand, I don't think that Griffin can walk on water.

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

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 02:42:55 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Kim
Keller" made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
That's not really a useful comparison.

Geez, Rand. I could say the night sky is black and you'd disagree.

Really? Why would you think that?

It's a lot easer to shut
something down (ignoring the politics, of course) than to create
something.

Politics can't be ignored, particularly when the projects under discussion
are politically driven.

I didn't say it can be. I'm just pointing out that it's much more
difficult to accomplish a technical project (which also involves
politics and political interests) than it is to shut it down.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:20:32 +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 ,
Jorge R. Frank wrote:
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote in
:
[Changing the shuttle retirement date] would require the courage,
or maybe the cowardice, to contradict a direct and explicit promise
from the President of the United States to the American people.
That was not a promise by any reasonable definition.

I think that Bush may well have intended it as one.

Well, like many subjects, it doesn't matter what you think about that.
The notion remains nutty regardless of the fact that you think it.

On Sat, 16 Apr 2005 11:37:04 +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 . com,
Tom Cuddihy wrote:
Look, it may very well be that 'policy' is not worth the paper it's
printed on.

George Washington, redux 2005:

"It is my policy not to chop down cherry trees."

Was this supposed to make some kind of sense?

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

I'll give that opinion all the weight it deserves. I think it's just
wishful thinking on your part. Consider the differences in wording between
Bush's speech and NASA's document describing the Vision:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf

"Retire the Space Shuttle as soon as assembly of the International Space
Station is completed, *planned* for the end of this decade;" (emphasis
mine)

I hardly find it surprising that the wording of a speech and the
wording of a document intended to outline and translate that speech
into action items diverge somewhat.

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

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL

(Derek Lyons) wrote in
:

"Jorge R. Frank" wrote:

I'll give that opinion all the weight it deserves. I think it's just
wishful thinking on your part. Consider the differences in wording
between Bush's speech and NASA's document describing the Vision:

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/55583main_vision_space_exploration2.pdf

"Retire the Space Shuttle as soon as assembly of the International
Space Station is completed, *planned* for the end of this decade;"
(emphasis mine)

I hardly find it surprising that the wording of a speech and the
wording of a document intended to outline and translate that speech
into action items diverge somewhat.

I agree. It therefore seriously calls into question anyone who claims a
"promise" based on the specific wording of the speech.


--
JRF

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