Death Sentence for the Hubble?

Greg Kuperberg wrote:

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.

this statement tips the old irony meter offsclae high when you consider
that NASA has repeatedly delivered specific, measurable designs for the
space station, which Congress and OMB repeatedly chopped and made NASA
go back and revise.

The fact is that NASA had a clear plan for the space station all along.
But they were forced by budgetary and political maneuvering to have to
go back and redesign the station, over and over again, with less budget
and less functionality and less of a program.

There are many, many things you can criticize NASA for. How ISS has
turned out is *not* one of them.

--
Terrell Miller


"Every gardener knows nature's random cruelty"
-Paul Simon George Harrison

Christopher M. Jones wrote:

That's a misrepresentation of what I said. And you'll note that
I specifically said that I prefer the US to hold to higher
standards than the rest of the world. What I meant was that I
don't value the opprobrium of "the world" as something the US
ought to be overly concerned about, as the correlation between
the ethics of "the world" and actual, true morality is rather
low (and sometimes even negative).

while I personally agree with you...please tell us what "actual, true
morality" is, Chris, and 'splain why that "actual, true morality" is any
more actual or more true than the "actual, true morality" as perceived
by people in the countries you are complaining about...

--
Terrell Miller


"Every gardener knows nature's random cruelty"
-Paul Simon George Harrison

Terrell Miller wrote:
Christopher M. Jones wrote:

That's a misrepresentation of what I said. And you'll note that
I specifically said that I prefer the US to hold to higher
standards than the rest of the world. What I meant was that I
don't value the opprobrium of "the world" as something the US
ought to be overly concerned about, as the correlation between
the ethics of "the world" and actual, true morality is rather
low (and sometimes even negative).

while I personally agree with you...please tell us what "actual, true
morality" is, Chris, and 'splain why that "actual, true morality" is any
more actual or more true than the "actual, true morality" as perceived
by people in the countries you are complaining about...

A complete explanation is unnecessary, all that needs to be
shown is that "the world" as a community entity lacks it.
Examples include: the "not quite officially genocide" in
Darfur; the "it's none of our business" genocide in North
Korea; the "slow down, there's genocide in the where with the
what now ... oh well, too late" in Rwanda; the "give Saddam
money for Benzes, palaces, and new weapons in exchange for
kickbacks under the guise of providing medicines and food for
the oppressed" oil-for-food program in Ba'athist Iraq; the "we
would do something about it but it's only Afghanistan" in
Afghanistan under the Taliban; the "every problem in the middle
east is always Israel's fault" history of resolutions in the UN
general assembly; the "terrorism only happens in the middle
east, so obviously the Tamil Tigers don't exist" in Sri Lanka;
the "despite their close ties to past and present terrorist
organizations we'll still give them hundreds of millions of
dollars and not take especial care to keep track of where it
goes" in the "Palestinian Authority"; the "give recognition to
communist China and not Taiwan because they're more powerful
and have a bigger economy" in the UN; the "unilateral military
actions are deplorable, even when they aren't unilateral,
except when done by France" in the Cote d'Ivoire; the "nothing
bad is being done by UN forces in the Congo so really, really
don't look there, really, honest" in the Congo; etc, etc, etc.

In sci.space.policy Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Charles Buckley wrote:

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.

Or what? They attack us?

Or they don't bother to co-operate with you in a manner where their
budgets might depend on US whims. Say finding that the launcher that
was otherwise going to launch JWST got assigned other duty [yes I know
this is not a good specific example].


Paul

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

In article , Terrell
Miller wrote:

The fact is that NASA had a clear plan for the space station all along.
But they were forced by budgetary and political maneuvering to have to
go back and redesign the station, over and over again, with less budget
and less functionality and less of a program.

There are many, many things you can criticize NASA for. How ISS has
turned out is *not* one of them.

Reagan told NASA, "we'll give you $8 billion for a space station".
Which NASA was going to build.

But that wicked stingy old congress has only given NASA--how much?--to
build it.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

Sander Vesik wrote:

Or they don't bother to co-operate with you in a manner where their
budgets might depend on US whims.

Excellent! If it's something that's truly beneficial to the US,
it can be funded by the US. If it's not, international entanglements
just make it harder to shut down.

Paul

Sander Vesik wrote:
Or they don't bother to co-operate with you in a manner where their
budgets might depend on US whims. Say finding that the launcher that
was otherwise going to launch JWST got assigned other duty [yes I know
this is not a good specific example].

Oh golly gosh, please, oh please, don't throw us into that briar
patch!

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 10:05:19 -0500, in a place far, far away, Terrell
Miller made the phosphor on my monitor glow
in such a way as to indicate that:

Greg Kuperberg wrote:

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.

this statement tips the old irony meter offsclae high when you consider
that NASA has repeatedly delivered specific, measurable designs for the
space station, which Congress and OMB repeatedly chopped and made NASA
go back and revise.

The fact is that NASA had a clear plan for the space station all along.

No, not really. At least not a realistic one. It always had too many
conflicting requirements, at least while it was SSF.

But they were forced by budgetary and political maneuvering to have to
go back and redesign the station, over and over again, with less budget
and less functionality and less of a program.

That, too.

There are many, many things you can criticize NASA for. How ISS has
turned out is *not* one of them.

No, NASA is as much at fault as anyone else. There's plenty of
disaster, and blame, to go around.

In sci.space.policy Paul F. Dietz wrote:
Sander Vesik wrote:

Or they don't bother to co-operate with you in a manner where their
budgets might depend on US whims.

Excellent! If it's something that's truly beneficial to the US,
it can be funded by the US. If it's not, international entanglements
just make it harder to shut down.

Except that no, your Congress has repeatedly in the past and will also
again and aginin teh future not actaully do that but fund teh building
of some part of it or not the launch - which will in a world where outside
co-operation doesn't work any more mean that US scientists will only get
about 20% done. Unlike the scientists and the talent, fund to failure
for most project is an option to them as the electorate doesn't care.


Paul

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

Sander Vesik wrote:

Except that no, your Congress has repeatedly in the past and will also
again and aginin teh future not actaully do that but fund teh building
of some part of it or not the launch - which will in a world where outside
co-operation doesn't work any more mean that US scientists will only get
about 20% done. Unlike the scientists and the talent, fund to failure
for most project is an option to them as the electorate doesn't care.

Well, I guess it sucks to be them, then.

BTW, you should avoid typing when you have rabies.

Paul