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

"Dick Morris" wrote in message

Typical right-wing lie. People who have deluded themselves into
believing that Bush won the election fair and square, and that it was
*Al Gore* who tried to steal the election, should not throw stones.

Even though I didn't vote for Al, I admire him, and think he's actually got
his head and heart in the right place; he was very noble in his concession.
One can certainly argue that it doesn't seem right that a guy who got more
votes lost the election. I don't think either one tried to "steal" the
election. I think they both wanted to make sure that the right outcome was
arrived at. I do think that within the election rules we have set up -
albeit now seen as a leaky and imprecise system when the vote is especially
close - that Bush probably barely won the election the way the rules are
laid out.

Jon

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 20:12:46 +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:

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.

Are you saying that the purpose of the lunar/Mars announcement was to
*save* the ISS? Do you have any idea how ludicrous that is?

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
Are you saying that the purpose of the lunar/Mars announcement was to
*save* the ISS?

I quote William Gerstenmaier, space station program manager:

We don't see hardly any changes to our program based on the new
initiative - we're pretty well aligned with it to begin with.

( http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1030986.htm )

And I quote Alex Roland, space historian:

The real purpose of the President's moon-Mars initiative is to
reprogram existing NASA funds over the next five years to keep the
space station from collapsing.

( http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia...201WROLAND.htm )

And I already quoted James Oberg: The space station is "NASA's priority
project".

It's a consistent picture from all sides.
--
/\ 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 Mon, 29 Mar 2004 20:54:06 +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:
Are you saying that the purpose of the lunar/Mars announcement was to
*save* the ISS?

I quote William Gerstenmaier, space station program manager:

We don't see hardly any changes to our program based on the new
initiative - we're pretty well aligned with it to begin with.

( http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s1030986.htm )

Of course, but that doesn't in any way imply that the station would
have died without the new initiative. In fact, it implies the
opposite.

And I quote Alex Roland, space historian:

The real purpose of the President's moon-Mars initiative is to
reprogram existing NASA funds over the next five years to keep the
space station from collapsing.

( http://www.floridatoday.com/columbia...201WROLAND.htm )

That piece has been shredded numerous places as partisan demogoguery
(e.g. The Space Review by Dwayne Day).

And I already quoted James Oberg: The space station is "NASA's priority
project".

It's a consistent picture from all sides.

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

Instead of arguing about whether the shuttle can/cannot do the job, or
whether Bush is/isn't to blaim, has anyone stopped to think if there could
be a better way? Not just to fix the problem of this service visit, but all
the others too? If the shuttle can only go to the ISS then why not take
hubble there as well?

Deep Space One has proven the effectiveness and capacity of ion-propulsion.
The required deltaV of 3kmps is well within the capacity of such a system,
at which point the hubble can be serviced in perfect safety. Afterwards the
ion-drive system can move it away if required, and then come back to the
station for service, refueling and storage. Such a reusable OTV would have
many uses, not the least of which would be further hubble missions.

John

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:01:53 +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:
The point is: Bush is in charge of the space station, not the other
way around. Bush is president, Bush appointed O'Keefe, Bush's party
controls Congress, and Bush came into office promising less government.
In what universe did he do that?

More precisely he promised limited government. Bush said this:

Throughout the campaign and in my Budget, I have called for "active,
but limited" Government: one that empowers States, cities, and
citizens to make decisions; ensures results through accountability;
and promotes innovation through competition. Thus, if reform is
to help the Federal Government adapt to a rapidly changing world,
its primary objectives must be a Government that is:

Citizen-centered -- not bureaucracy centered;
Results-oriented -- not process-oriented; and
Market-based -- actively promoting, not stifling, innovation and
competition.

( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010711-5.html )

In other words, he promised the complete opposite of 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 *

On Mon, 29 Mar 2004 23:19:56 +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:

Bush came into office promising less government.
In what universe did he do that?

More precisely he promised limited government. Bush said this:

Throughout the campaign and in my Budget, I have called for "active,
but limited" Government: one that empowers States, cities, and
citizens to make decisions; ensures results through accountability;
and promotes innovation through competition. Thus, if reform is
to help the Federal Government adapt to a rapidly changing world,
its primary objectives must be a Government that is:

Citizen-centered -- not bureaucracy centered;
Results-oriented -- not process-oriented; and
Market-based -- actively promoting, not stifling, innovation and
competition.

"limited" != "less"

( http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0010711-5.html )

In other words, he promised the complete opposite of the space station.

So, he got your vote, and now you're disappointed?

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

Instead of arguing about whether the shuttle can/cannot do the job, or
whether Bush is/isn't to blaim, has anyone stopped to think if there could
be a better way? Not just to fix the problem of this service visit, but all
the others too? If the shuttle can only go to the ISS then why not take
hubble there as well?

Because Hubble would not work well, or at all, at or
near ISS.

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

Instead of arguing about whether the shuttle can/cannot do the job, or
whether Bush is/isn't to blaim, has anyone stopped to think if there
could
be a better way? Not just to fix the problem of this service visit, but
all
the others too? If the shuttle can only go to the ISS then why not take
hubble there as well?

Because Hubble would not work well, or at all, at or
near ISS.

Hence I said Hubble could be moved away afterwards. Return the OTV to the
station, replace the worn out ion drive grids and either send it off to do
something else or dock it to part of the station. Repeat five years later.
Keeping such a 'spaceship' at the station could be good practice for keeping
the mars and moon ships there whilst they're being assembled at a later
date.

John

(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.