Death Sentence for the Hubble?

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
If you read between the lines of Chairman Boehlert's opening statement
at the hearing today, it's pretty clear that ISS takes second priority
to ending the Shuttle program in 2010.

It might have in Boehlert's mind, at least at that moment. What happened
to the international treaty that supposedly requires the US to complete
the space station? That is Bush's main excuse for not cancelling
the space station while he is president. Apparently Boehlert wasn't
thinking about that side of it yesterday. Or maybe the idea is that
if Washington bounces back and forth between contradictory promises,
it will almost look like they can keep all of them.

Meanwhile Boehlert did address another contradiction in government
policy: The space station now depends critically on Russian help, but
that dependence undermines the Iran Non-Proliferation Act. So what's
the solution? Piously proclaim that non-proliferation is more important
than the space station, but also predict that the Act will be amended.

Boehlert also observes that "they can't tell us what research will
be done on the Station." But that's "not a criticism of the Agency"
because "they can't provide answers that they don't yet have". Great.
Even though NASA has spent 20 years and tens of billions of dollars
building the station, they can't yet explain what it's for. But hey,
Boehlert doesn't mean that as a criticism.

Basically Boehlert's whole speech is a crude half-summary of a fiasco.
It's another reminder that pro is to con as progress is to Congress.

--
/\ 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 *

kert ) wrote:
: Charles Buckley wrote:
: 2005: 3 flights
: 2006: 6 flights
: 2007: 6 flights
: 2008: 6 flights
: 2009: 6 flights
:
: 27 flights. And, even those won't do everything, IIRC.
:
: And, looking at the manifest, they are thinking only 5 a
: year.. which effectively means *zero* room for slippage.

: Which effectively means that the effort is screwed from the get-go. Ask
: any project manager that has led a project longer than couple of weeks.
: *zero* error margin projects never have a snowballs chance in hell.

And when ISS is done what do we have? Right now it looks like the best
thing to do aside of the "humans in space" guinea pig medical analysis, is
the telerobotics testbed for exactly what Hubble needs!

The irony!

Eric

: -kert

Distribution:

Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : : : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : : : David M. Palmer wrote:
: : : : : In article , Max Beerbohm
:

: snip

:
: : No. A true leader will actually weigh consequences and act. Not every
: : task needs to be done. And "it would be nice to" is a horrible decision
: : process. As is "hey, as long as this is flying, let's do one thing with
: : this that has zero bearing on anything else we are doing".
:
: Still you make no case where ISS is inherently more valuable than Hubble.
: None! Further, given the number of shuttle missions left (27), the
: numbers 27-0 vs. 26-1, against and for Hubble, respectively; one can
: conclude is ISS really worth that much more than Hubble?
:


: ISS is inherently more valuable than Hubble in that a) it is the
: non-negotiable cornerstone of a large number of international agreements

The international community relies on Hubble as well.

: b) It tests a large number of space qualified hardware which can be
: leveraged into the CEV and other manned programs c) it can function
: as a platform to test more equipment and test equipment in an in situ
: environment.

: I sure hope that once ISS is done and regardring Hubble, when it dies, we
: don't hear, "we should have fixed Hubble", because ISS was a waste.
:


: You're going to have people second guessing every decision, no matter
: what. Fact of life. The point here is to set priorities and focus.

: : : It's a *PROJECT MANAGEMENT* decision. If you take 2 shuttles (of the
: : : 2 in operation in 2007, IIRC) out of shuttle processing for 2 months,
: : : then you have a 3-6 month break in ISS construction as they will
: : : have to prep two shuttles for non-ISS flights, then send the rescue
: : : shuttle back through processing to load the payload and refly. It
: : : simply does not make sense to divert resources to an ancillary task.
: :
: : Sure it does. It makes as musch sense as what they are doing on ISS. What
: : are they doing on ISS? The Hubble produced loads of astronomical science.
: :
:
: : Key word "produced"
:
: Can you say WRT ISS the word "producing"?
:

: Testing construction. Identifying issues related to automated resupply
: flights. test of remote piloting. Any of a hundred operations related
: studies. Any number of studies related to equipment lifecycles in an in
: situ environment.

: : It is well past the end of its life. It makes *no sense* to
: : redirect limitted assets towards an ancillary goal when they have
: : a very hard firm committment to meet their non-negotiable agreements.
: : ISS is going to be completed to meet our international goals. Shuttle
: : is going to be put back into production for that sole purpose.
:
: Yes, I know and I question that descision.


: I personally question putting shuttle back into service. If you have
: qualms about Shuttle, now is the time to kill it.

Realistically, how far are we away from a working CEV?

:
: : 2 mission actually.. you have to count the rescue shuttle as that is
: : also one taken out of production and has all the ancillary tasks also
: : assigned..
:
: : It says a) fly through through to a given date and b) meet these
: : criteria on flying. Guess what.. one of those criteria is seriously
: : compromised when you throw shuttle flights to Hubble in addition to
: : those already backlogged to ISS. 27 flights. Flight rate of 6 per
: : year, plus a slippage of a 2 flight cycle to allow for repair and
: : other supply issues will hit that 2010 date.
:
: We're looking for one mission to Hubble! Just one! Not missions. One!
:

: 2 shuttles offline.. that is equiv to 2 mission because you have to
: delay processing the rescue shuttle for any other mission. And, flying
: hubble without a rescue shuttle is even more of a political dead-end.

Is that such a great price?

: : Eric, do the math..
:
: : 2005: 3 flights
: : 2006: 6 flights
: : 2007: 6 flights
: : 2008: 6 flights
: : 2009: 6 flights
:
: Right, so 2006 should be 5 ISS flights and one HST flight. The rest of
: your table is correct. Is or is not the payload for an HST repair ready to
: go? Do we have a trained crew? Yes and yes!
:

: We also have those for ISS. So what?

Do both!

JFK said regarding space: "...we do these things because they are hard not
because they are easy."

What the hell has happened to us?!

: : 27 flights. And, even those won't do everything, IIRC.
:
: Everything on ISS is not even know! THAT is part of the problem.
:
: : And, looking at the manifest, they are thinking only 5 a
: : year.. which effectively means *zero* room for slippage.
: : None. There is no 2 month gap in the ISS construction, much
: : less room for a 3-4 month gap for Hubble.
:
: The one thing I have learned about manifests over the past 24 years is
: that they change and sometimes drastically.
:

: They get extended. They generally don't get massively retasked.

Yes, some missions get rejuggled and the dates get pushed out into the
future.

: : : ISS is political. It is also politically the *only* reason Shuttle
: : : is even considered worth flying. Hubble is, at best, a side issue
: : : to anyone paying the bills. No matter what party they belong to.
: :
: : You obviously don't live in Maryland or anywhere near it. I wonder what
: : would be said in Texas if ISS was to be canned in lieu of the Hubble? Care
: : to guess?
:
: : There is no "in lieu of" even possible. If they fly shuttle, at all, it
: : will be to ISS. No ISS, no Shuttle. That is as pointless as charge as I
: : have ever heard of. Hubble never even entered into the equation of
: : whether to refly shuttle.
:
: Yes, yes, I am aware of the JSC-centric point-of-view. One NASA means JSC
: first, and it is becoming overly obvious.


: JSC is dying. This is the equivalent to the sabretook tiger in the tar
: pits. All of its energies going into one function. In a lot of ways,
: it is useful to keep ISS and Shuttle going until 2010 just to keep
: large portions of management tied up while you essentially create
: new institutions with a new philosphical outlook.

Well dying or not THEY have become equivalent with ISS. It used to be
split with MSFC. And when JSC took ALL of ISS, MSFC took Spacelab from
GSFC. That was my project! I know how the possession dominos work with
One-NASA.

Also, JSC doesn't look like its going to get any cuts anytime soon with
Tom DeLay in Houston and W in the White House. So they appear to be
getting rewarded no matter WHAT they do. If I were sitting at LaRC, I sure
as hell wouldn't be happy about that!

Eric

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 22:15:52 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: : IOW, ISS doesn't have a lot of support from the chairman. Of course,
: : neither does Shuttle. And he didn't mention Hubble...
:
: I see Star Wars and SDI are on these people's minds more so than actual
: spaceflight.

: No, idiot. What's on the chairman's mind is CEV, and getting back to
: the moon.

Okay, smart-ass, when is CEV going to be ready? Or are you commercial
space weenies trying to kill that project as well?

Eric

Eric Chomko wrote:
Distribution:

Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : : : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : : : David M. Palmer wrote:
: : : : : In article , Max Beerbohm
:

: snip

:
: : No. A true leader will actually weigh consequences and act. Not every
: : task needs to be done. And "it would be nice to" is a horrible decision
: : process. As is "hey, as long as this is flying, let's do one thing with
: : this that has zero bearing on anything else we are doing".
:
: Still you make no case where ISS is inherently more valuable than Hubble.
: None! Further, given the number of shuttle missions left (27), the
: numbers 27-0 vs. 26-1, against and for Hubble, respectively; one can
: conclude is ISS really worth that much more than Hubble?
:


: ISS is inherently more valuable than Hubble in that a) it is the
: non-negotiable cornerstone of a large number of international agreements

The international community relies on Hubble as well.


Has the international community invested billions on building hardware
for Hubble on the understanding that the US would launch said hardware
and allow access to said hardware and the scientific results?

A number of countries and international organizations spent very
sizable portions of their budget on exactly that understanding.
The US is bound to honor its committments. There is nothing even
close to that with Hubble. That is a straight data purchase.

snip


: I personally question putting shuttle back into service. If you have
: qualms about Shuttle, now is the time to kill it.

Realistically, how far are we away from a working CEV?

At the current pace, about 10 years for production. There will
be a period with no US manned presence from NASA sponsered
vehicles.


:
: : 2 mission actually.. you have to count the rescue shuttle as that is
: : also one taken out of production and has all the ancillary tasks also
: : assigned..
:
: : It says a) fly through through to a given date and b) meet these
: : criteria on flying. Guess what.. one of those criteria is seriously
: : compromised when you throw shuttle flights to Hubble in addition to
: : those already backlogged to ISS. 27 flights. Flight rate of 6 per
: : year, plus a slippage of a 2 flight cycle to allow for repair and
: : other supply issues will hit that 2010 date.
:
: We're looking for one mission to Hubble! Just one! Not missions. One!
:

: 2 shuttles offline.. that is equiv to 2 mission because you have to
: delay processing the rescue shuttle for any other mission. And, flying
: hubble without a rescue shuttle is even more of a political dead-end.

Is that such a great price?



In the overall picture, yes. We have committments with ISS that must
be met. We do not have that with Hubble. That is entirely an internal
matter.

: : Eric, do the math..
:
: : 2005: 3 flights
: : 2006: 6 flights
: : 2007: 6 flights
: : 2008: 6 flights
: : 2009: 6 flights
:
: Right, so 2006 should be 5 ISS flights and one HST flight. The rest of
: your table is correct. Is or is not the payload for an HST repair ready to
: go? Do we have a trained crew? Yes and yes!
:

: We also have those for ISS. So what?

Do both!

JFK said regarding space: "...we do these things because they are hard not
because they are easy."

What the hell has happened to us?!


Why did we never launch 6 lunar missions per year?

Because there are certain increments - certain pacing - that
are endemic to the system. The safety of the shuttle is very
much impacted negatively by compressing timelines and increasing
the pressure to launch.

Hubble is simply not worth the diversion of resources at the
time that they need it to be available.

: : 27 flights. And, even those won't do everything, IIRC.
:
: Everything on ISS is not even know! THAT is part of the problem.
:
: : And, looking at the manifest, they are thinking only 5 a
: : year.. which effectively means *zero* room for slippage.
: : None. There is no 2 month gap in the ISS construction, much
: : less room for a 3-4 month gap for Hubble.
:
: The one thing I have learned about manifests over the past 24 years is
: that they change and sometimes drastically.
:

: They get extended. They generally don't get massively retasked.

Yes, some missions get rejuggled and the dates get pushed out into the
future.


Except that here, there is no extension of those dates. It is a
finite window.

: : : ISS is political. It is also politically the *only* reason Shuttle
: : : is even considered worth flying. Hubble is, at best, a side issue
: : : to anyone paying the bills. No matter what party they belong to.
: :
: : You obviously don't live in Maryland or anywhere near it. I wonder what
: : would be said in Texas if ISS was to be canned in lieu of the Hubble? Care
: : to guess?
:
: : There is no "in lieu of" even possible. If they fly shuttle, at all, it
: : will be to ISS. No ISS, no Shuttle. That is as pointless as charge as I
: : have ever heard of. Hubble never even entered into the equation of
: : whether to refly shuttle.
:
: Yes, yes, I am aware of the JSC-centric point-of-view. One NASA means JSC
: first, and it is becoming overly obvious.


: JSC is dying. This is the equivalent to the sabretook tiger in the tar
: pits. All of its energies going into one function. In a lot of ways,
: it is useful to keep ISS and Shuttle going until 2010 just to keep
: large portions of management tied up while you essentially create
: new institutions with a new philosphical outlook.

Well dying or not THEY have become equivalent with ISS. It used to be
split with MSFC. And when JSC took ALL of ISS, MSFC took Spacelab from
GSFC. That was my project! I know how the possession dominos work with
One-NASA.


Think very, very long and hard about that first sentence. Being
identified with ISS is very, very bad for long term prospects.
They are getting bypassed in the new strategic focus. They will
not be available for reassignment until after other programs are
already underway and into the development phase leaving them
with nothing.

Being identified with ISS is bad as only a fraction of that program
is translatable to the newer items coming out and very little
of that is on the parts that will be still working on ISS
in 2010. Specifically, the management side working ISS in
2010 is a dead-end. And, that is the biggest problem child in
NASA today.


Also, JSC doesn't look like its going to get any cuts anytime soon with
Tom DeLay in Houston and W in the White House. So they appear to be
getting rewarded no matter WHAT they do. If I were sitting at LaRC, I sure
as hell wouldn't be happy about that!



W will be long gone by the time ISS is completed. Honestly, it is not
a red vs blue issue here. Arguably, democratic administrations were
in control when 2 of the 3 major programs sent to JSC were created.
(ISS, Apollo, with Shuttle being republican. ISS would have died
in 1993 had Clinton not brought in the Russians as partners).

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
If you read between the lines of Chairman Boehlert's opening statement
at the hearing today, it's pretty clear that ISS takes second priority
to ending the Shuttle program in 2010.
It might have in Boehlert's mind, at least at that moment. What happened
to the international treaty that supposedly requires the US to complete
the space station? That is Bush's main excuse for not cancelling
the space station while he is president. Apparently Boehlert wasn't
thinking about that side of it yesterday.
Or he doesn't care.

I suspect that Boehlert does care and that his specch is a feeble denial,
but fine, maybe Boehlert doesn't even care. Until they -- Boehlert, Bush,
and the rest of them -- acknowledge that these two promises contradict
each other, neither promise will be credible.
--
/\ 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 ,
Charles Buckley wrote:
The international community relies on Hubble as well.

Has the international community invested billions on building hardware
for Hubble on the understanding that the US would launch said hardware
and allow access to said hardware and the scientific results?

Actually, yes. Hubble too was an international project, although less
visibly so. I'm not sure whether there's any major international content
in the replacement hardware grounded by the O'Keefe decision, but there
have been international instruments in the past, and a slice of Hubble
observing time is/was reserved as a result.

All this was on a smaller scale than for ISS. But then, a Hubble repair
mission will cost a whole lot less than completing ISS.
--
"Think outside the box -- the box isn't our friend." | Henry Spencer
-- George Herbert |

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 16:54:11 +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:
If you read between the lines of Chairman Boehlert's opening statement
at the hearing today, it's pretty clear that ISS takes second priority
to ending the Shuttle program in 2010.

It might have in Boehlert's mind, at least at that moment. What happened
to the international treaty that supposedly requires the US to complete
the space station? That is Bush's main excuse for not cancelling
the space station while he is president. Apparently Boehlert wasn't
thinking about that side of it yesterday.

Or he doesn't care.

rest of pathetic whining snipped

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 17:54:35 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: I see Star Wars and SDI are on these people's minds more so than actual
: spaceflight.

: No, idiot. What's on the chairman's mind is CEV, and getting back to
: the moon.

Okay, smart-ass, when is CEV going to be ready?

I don't know. It's scheduled for 2014, but if I had to bet, I'd say
never.

Or are you commercial
space weenies trying to kill that project as well?

CEV is irrelevant to commercial space.

Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:
: Distribution:
:
: Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : : : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : : : Eric Chomko wrote:
: : : : : Charles Buckley ) wrote:
: : : : : : David M. Palmer wrote:
: : : : : : In article , Max Beerbohm
: :
:
: : snip
:
: :
: : : No. A true leader will actually weigh consequences and act. Not every
: : : task needs to be done. And "it would be nice to" is a horrible decision
: : : process. As is "hey, as long as this is flying, let's do one thing with
: : : this that has zero bearing on anything else we are doing".
: :
: : Still you make no case where ISS is inherently more valuable than Hubble.
: : None! Further, given the number of shuttle missions left (27), the
: : numbers 27-0 vs. 26-1, against and for Hubble, respectively; one can
: : conclude is ISS really worth that much more than Hubble?
: :
:
:
: : ISS is inherently more valuable than Hubble in that a) it is the
: : non-negotiable cornerstone of a large number of international agreements
:
: The international community relies on Hubble as well.


: Has the international community invested billions on building hardware
: for Hubble on the understanding that the US would launch said hardware
: and allow access to said hardware and the scientific results?

No, but Hubble has a critical timeline before failure.

: A number of countries and international organizations spent very
: sizable portions of their budget on exactly that understanding.

That hasn't stopped us before. Your case is weak.

: The US is bound to honor its committments. There is nothing even
: close to that with Hubble. That is a straight data purchase.

"Honor commitments"? We could easily renegotiate the commitments to save
Hubble. Who do you expect not to understand?

: snip
:
:
: : I personally question putting shuttle back into service. If you have
: : qualms about Shuttle, now is the time to kill it.
:
: Realistically, how far are we away from a working CEV?

: At the current pace, about 10 years for production. There will
: be a period with no US manned presence from NASA sponsered
: vehicles.

Which is crappy, IMO, and shows poor leadership.

: : : 2 mission actually.. you have to count the rescue shuttle as that is
: : : also one taken out of production and has all the ancillary tasks also
: : : assigned..
: :
: : : It says a) fly through through to a given date and b) meet these
: : : criteria on flying. Guess what.. one of those criteria is seriously
: : : compromised when you throw shuttle flights to Hubble in addition to
: : : those already backlogged to ISS. 27 flights. Flight rate of 6 per
: : : year, plus a slippage of a 2 flight cycle to allow for repair and
: : : other supply issues will hit that 2010 date.
: :
: : We're looking for one mission to Hubble! Just one! Not missions. One!
: :
:
: : 2 shuttles offline.. that is equiv to 2 mission because you have to
: : delay processing the rescue shuttle for any other mission. And, flying
: : hubble without a rescue shuttle is even more of a political dead-end.
:
: Is that such a great price?
:


: In the overall picture, yes. We have committments with ISS that must
: be met. We do not have that with Hubble. That is entirely an internal
: matter.

That could be changed. There is nothing but a political decision in the
way.

: : : Eric, do the math..
: :
: : : 2005: 3 flights
: : : 2006: 6 flights
: : : 2007: 6 flights
: : : 2008: 6 flights
: : : 2009: 6 flights
: :
: : Right, so 2006 should be 5 ISS flights and one HST flight. The rest of
: : your table is correct. Is or is not the payload for an HST repair ready to
: : go? Do we have a trained crew? Yes and yes!
: :
:
: : We also have those for ISS. So what?
:
: Do both!
:
: JFK said regarding space: "...we do these things because they are hard not
: because they are easy."
:
: What the hell has happened to us?!
:

: Why did we never launch 6 lunar missions per year?

: Because there are certain increments - certain pacing - that
: are endemic to the system. The safety of the shuttle is very
: much impacted negatively by compressing timelines and increasing
: the pressure to launch.

: Hubble is simply not worth the diversion of resources at the
: time that they need it to be available.

Says you!

: : : 27 flights. And, even those won't do everything, IIRC.
: :
: : Everything on ISS is not even know! THAT is part of the problem.
: :
: : : And, looking at the manifest, they are thinking only 5 a
: : : year.. which effectively means *zero* room for slippage.
: : : None. There is no 2 month gap in the ISS construction, much
: : : less room for a 3-4 month gap for Hubble.
: :
: : The one thing I have learned about manifests over the past 24 years is
: : that they change and sometimes drastically.
: :
:
: : They get extended. They generally don't get massively retasked.
:
: Yes, some missions get rejuggled and the dates get pushed out into the
: future.

: Except that here, there is no extension of those dates. It is a
: finite window.

: : : : ISS is political. It is also politically the *only* reason Shuttle
: : : : is even considered worth flying. Hubble is, at best, a side issue
: : : : to anyone paying the bills. No matter what party they belong to.
: : :
: : : You obviously don't live in Maryland or anywhere near it. I wonder what
: : : would be said in Texas if ISS was to be canned in lieu of the Hubble? Care
: : : to guess?
: :
: : : There is no "in lieu of" even possible. If they fly shuttle, at all, it
: : : will be to ISS. No ISS, no Shuttle. That is as pointless as charge as I
: : : have ever heard of. Hubble never even entered into the equation of
: : : whether to refly shuttle.
: :
: : Yes, yes, I am aware of the JSC-centric point-of-view. One NASA means JSC
: : first, and it is becoming overly obvious.
:
:
: : JSC is dying. This is the equivalent to the sabretook tiger in the tar
: : pits. All of its energies going into one function. In a lot of ways,
: : it is useful to keep ISS and Shuttle going until 2010 just to keep
: : large portions of management tied up while you essentially create
: : new institutions with a new philosphical outlook.
:
: Well dying or not THEY have become equivalent with ISS. It used to be
: split with MSFC. And when JSC took ALL of ISS, MSFC took Spacelab from
: GSFC. That was my project! I know how the possession dominos work with
: One-NASA.
:

: Think very, very long and hard about that first sentence. Being
: identified with ISS is very, very bad for long term prospects.

Not when it comes to funding. And what makes you think that JSC won't
benefit from the long-term point-of-view?

: They are getting bypassed in the new strategic focus. They will
: not be available for reassignment until after other programs are
: already underway and into the development phase leaving them
: with nothing.

I seriously doubt that. Where is it going to go, then?

: Being identified with ISS is bad as only a fraction of that program
: is translatable to the newer items coming out and very little
: of that is on the parts that will be still working on ISS
: in 2010. Specifically, the management side working ISS in
: 2010 is a dead-end. And, that is the biggest problem child in
: NASA today.

Yes, startup work vs. operational and the pressures between the two to
retire the old in lieu of the new, and not kill off the old do to the new
not being here. I know the situation well and lived and worked through two
and half decades of it. We know that we don't need two startups of the
same things and we know that we don't need to maintain two of the same
things as well. But, there is no reason not to have an operational system
working in tandem with the startup of the next generation of the same
thing. You speak of gaps between STS and CEV and gaps between HST and
JWST. All that is poor planning and should be avoided.

: Also, JSC doesn't look like its going to get any cuts anytime soon with
: Tom DeLay in Houston and W in the White House. So they appear to be
: getting rewarded no matter WHAT they do. If I were sitting at LaRC, I sure
: as hell wouldn't be happy about that!


: W will be long gone by the time ISS is completed. Honestly, it is not
: a red vs blue issue here. Arguably, democratic administrations were
: in control when 2 of the 3 major programs sent to JSC were created.
: (ISS, Apollo, with Shuttle being republican. ISS would have died
: in 1993 had Clinton not brought in the Russians as partners).

Freedom did die back then and ISS was born. At least it is something. If
JSC sees it as a deadend, rest assured it will be turned over to someone
else to maintain.

Why is Apollo Republican? JFK and LBJ? Does Nixon get credit for Apollo,
somehow? I credit Nixon with Skylab.

Eric