Pres. Kerry's NASA

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...

I'm not talking about killing the CEV, but about killing Moon/Mars plans.
Note the words "more ambitious things" -- that is, more ambitious than
replacing the shuttle with the CEV. The CEV generally makes sense and I'm
expecting it to be continued, regardless of who's in the White House.


If NASA has no deep space exploration goals, CEV only makes
sense as a space station crew/cargo carrier - implying that
NASA's human spaceflight future is indefinitely wed to a
low earth orbiting space station. Why bother?

- Ed Kyle

Michael Walsh wrote in
:

Did you really expect Kerry to come out in support of a Bush
initiative?

I expected him to evaluate the proposal on its own merits/demerits.

In 1993, when Clinton cancelled SSF, replaced it with ISS, and invited the
Russians in, Republicans continued to support it in greater percentages
than Democrats, even though Clinton had definitely put his own stamp on the
project. Indeed, at least the first couple of years, Clinton completely
depended on Republican votes to save the program.


--
JRF

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

I've resisted posting on this newsgroup for nearly five
months now, but I couldn't resist the opportunity to finally
win an "I corrected Henry" T-shirt. :-)

Henry Spencer wrote:
Alexander Sheppard wrote:
Hint: After Japan and Germany were defeated in WWII, who rebuilt their
countries?

My knolwedge of their reconstruction is pretty slight, but primarily
it must have been themselves...

There was massive US aid for the reconstruction of both Europe and Japan.
Read up on, most notably, the Marshall Plan sometime.

Actually, Henry I think you're wrong on this count. The $13B of Marshall
aid was actually mostly spent in countries other than Japan and Germany.
In the countries where the spending was the highest (Greece, UK, Sweden),
the recovery was actually the slowest. In fact they didn't even really
start rebounding until *after* the welfare stopped flowing. West Germany
and Japan made most of their biggest rebound before they saw any of the
funds from the Marshall plan, and in fact the reparations West Germany
was forced to pay was actually greater than the amount of Marshall Plan
aid they received.

They rebounded because in both cases reformers in the government like
the Economic Minister in Germany, Ludwig Ehrard, implimented free-market
reforms that greatly stimulated the growth of the nation. In Japan,
similar free-market reforms coupled with their naturally higher internal
rate of savings helped drive the rebuilding process far faster than any
Marshall Aid the US gave them. If you look at their GDP numbers, in both
nations the amount of aid they received was a very tiny percentage of
their respective GDPs.

Sure, down the road they both benefitted from the Cold War and the
desire of the US to have them serve as buffer zones against the USSR,
but the whole Marshall Plan saving Germany and Japan is just a plain
old myth that's been perpetuated for decades by mushy-headed Keynsians
and socialists. Look up the numbers yourself and you'll see it pretty
clearly.

It was seen as a farsighted long-term investment that would help produce
stable, prosperous, friendly countries (and, not incidentally, open up new
markets for US goods and help contain Communism)... as opposed to what
happened in Europe after WWI, when instability, poverty, and misery played
into the hands of the Communists, the Fascists, and the Nazis.

As it is, the original plans that would have gone into effect had not the
USSR turned on us would have involved de-industrialization of both Germany
and Japan in an attept to make sure that they never became great powers
again. So, by not implementing that plan, we could take some sort of credit
for Japan and Germany's rebound.

But is that really the kind of credit the US wants to take?

~Jon

PS Henry, if you feel that this counts as worthy of an I Corrected Henry
T-shirt, I'll get you my address.

Sander Vesik writes:

jeff findley wrote:
there are long term things:

Once the economic level of the rest of the world rises to the First
World nations, or even second, then US workers become more
competitive.

Increased productivity can keep manufacturing here, but that's
usually accomplished without increases in payroll.

For jobs that don't produce a product that's solid (i.e. any job who's
product is some sort of computer file), increased productivity doesn't
mean much. Management has a hard time measuring the productivity of
many of these tasks. How can they tell if the CAD drawings they
receive in electronic form are any good or not? How do you tell if
the thousands of lines of code someone writes is any good once it's
merged into an executable that has hundreds of people working on it?

By counting the number of defects. Any realistic project will be doing
this (and there is no doubt that those who don't go under quite fast)
as well as seeing what amount of designs need to be redesigned.

That's one trivial measure that all pointy haired managers measure.
Defects are identified and tracked on a regular basis in software and
engineering houses.

You've also got to measure the functionality of what's produced.
That's a lot harder because not all pieces of functionality require
the same amount of effort to design/implement/test. It's easier to
stick an automatic dimming feature on the interior of a car than it is
to stick a speech feedback feature onto the navigation system on a
car. Similar examples exist in software, but are harder to put into
words that a layman, or pointy haired manager, would understand.

These jobs are going overseas with very little in the way of
cost/benefit analysis because the productivity and quality that comes
from these jobs is so hard to measure.

I don't think so. Either they were in a really bad situation already
before outsourcing or they will have pretty good idea of the quality
they are getting (or not getting) within a couple of months.

You're wrong. Read the articles on outsourcing of these jobs.
They're being sent overseas largely because all of their competitors
are doing the same. It's certainly considered "the thing to do to
remain competitive", but from what I can tell, little real cost
benefit analysis is being done.

What is being done is companies say "I can hire three people in India
for the same cost of one here". This neglects many factors including
communications (time zone differences, dialects, cultural factors),
import/export issues (computers in India have to be bought in India
and are subject to far higher prices than if you could just import a
computer yourself), high turnover rates, and loss of intellectual
capitol by downsizing highly experienced workers at home.

Jeff
--
Remove "no" and "spam" from email address to reply.
If it says "This is not spam!", it's surely a lie.

In article ,
ed kyle wrote:
replacing the shuttle with the CEV. The CEV generally makes sense and I'm
expecting it to be continued, regardless of who's in the White House.

If NASA has no deep space exploration goals, CEV only makes
sense as a space station crew/cargo carrier - implying that
NASA's human spaceflight future is indefinitely wed to a
low earth orbiting space station. Why bother?

Because there are commitments to be met, and expectations to be
maintained, and the shuttle is a poor tool for the job. Replacing the
shuttle with something cheaper and more robust simply makes sense,
regardless of exact future plans.
--
MOST launched 30 June; science observations running | Henry Spencer
since Oct; first surprises seen; papers pending. |

Replacing the shuttle with the CEV is clearly a reasonable thing to do and
will probably continue, but CEV's beyond-LEO role will be firmly shelved,
as will any significant funding for return-to-the-Moon preparations. The
emphasis will be on ISS and meeting prior commitments, and on some modest
reductions in NASA's budget.


And what about the ISS? Once the ISS is done, we will have proved we can build
it, then what? There is nothing really to do on the ISS. No place to explore.
Kerry has a choice, either to cancel the manned space program or do something
productive, like send people to the Moon, that is clearly the next step. You
can hold Kerry's feet to the fire on this one, it makes little sense to do
anything else. Why is the Moon forbidden territory anyway?

Bear in mind that even assuming Kerry wins and goes two terms,

A two term Jimmy Carter? I'm sure he'll make a point about staying up late at
night to show how hard he can work on the Nation's problems and crises. He'll
think long and hard about the Nation's terrorist problems, but he will not act
because to do so would be "unconscionable". He'll spend hours and hours working
on solutions that do not risk innocent civilians or put our armed forces in
harms way. He'll look for 'Other means' and other means most likely won't
present themselves so he work and work, grind his teeth and appear haggard with
dark circles under his eyes, and the American people will feel sorry for him
and all the troubles this Nation faces that he can't deal with, but this is the
thing John Kerry would rather do. He'll work and work to build an international
coalition to get as many Nations involved as possible. Meanwhile terrorist
bombs will go off here and there and Kerry will impose sercurity restrictions
and precautions that will further restrict our lives while being careful not to
discriminate. I think the World will have to be very nice to John Kerry if he
is ever to be a two term President.

Tom

I'm not talking about killing the CEV, but about killing Moon/Mars plans.
Note the words "more ambitious things" -- that is, more ambitious than
replacing the shuttle with the CEV. The CEV generally makes sense and I'm
expecting it to be continued, regardless of who's in the White House.


And why are they afraid to go to the Moon? Is there a terrible Moon monster
there that's going to gobble them up? This is the 21st century for God's sake,
how much longer can we continue to follow the 'Munchkin' agenda before becoming
the laughingstock of the World. It like someone walking down a corridor toward
the door at the end, saying they want to go through the door all the while
taking smaller and smaller steps. Sooner or later that person is going to be
inches from that door walking in place because he really doesn't want to go
through the door, but can't explain why.

Tom

Bush, on the other hand, would find it completely reasonable to ban private
launchers in the name of Homeland Security. And under
Bush II there soon wouldn't be any government launches: with a
borrow-and-spend Republican Congress the US would soon be bankrupt.


Yep, some terrorist is going to launch a liquid-fueled satellite launcher so as
to knock down a 747 passenger liner. The fact is, if terrorists have something
like this, they won't need to be in the United States.

Tom

On the other hand, think of how America acquired California, Florida,
and Texas. Or how Commodore Perry opened up trade with Japan.

Proud addition to the American Empire Japan is, now if only you could explain
why we needed to develop atomic weapondry to put down that rebellious province.

Tom

To think otherwise is laughable. Where is the big constituency for
going to the moon and Mars whose votes Bush is seeking?


Precisely, if there was a constituency, George Bush would make the speech, if
not, he would not or else he has motivations beyond that of a politician to get
reelected.

Tom