LA Times calls for cancellation of space station

Hat tip to NASA WATCH site:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...oast_take.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...l=la-home-oped

Down-to-Earth choices, editorial, LA Times

"Human exploration of space is such an epic notion, conjuring images of both
a science-fiction future and a real-life history of giant steps for mankind,
that it's hard not to be swept up in the romance. President Bush certainly
seemed to have been having "Star Trek" fantasies when he delivered his
vision for returning astronauts to the moon, and eventually sending them to
Mars, during the run-up to the 2004 presidential election. Afterward, Bush
dropped his proposal like a sizzling meteorite, having scarcely mentioned it
since."


Reply letter-to-the-editor from:
James Oberg, Houston, Texas
Oberg is a retired 'rocket scientist', and author,
and consultant to the national news media on
spaceflight. In the 1970's he often contributed
to the LA Times opinion page.



When confronted by contrary arguments, it's always a relief to see the
arguer display appalling factual ignorance as part of his thesis.
"Down-to-Earth Choices" is a fine example: the editorial writers, feigning
an expertise that supposedly gives them the credentials to have something
intelligent to say about national space policy, blow their cover by
referring to 'sizzling meteorites', thus demonstrating that their concepts
spring more from Hollywood disaster movies than from real science.
Meteorites are the space rocks that fall to Earth, and they as a rule do not
'sizzle' - normally they are at first cold to the touch, then soon attain
the temperature of their new environment. But to add 'sizzle' to the
editorial, the writers threw in a bogus 'factoid' with no apparent concern
over its truth or falsehood.

The recommendation to abandon the space station (a project that in its
present form dates back to the Clinton-Gore Administration) is a reasonable
thesis for debate, but honest consideration of the question should include
the consequence of betrayal of international partnerships that include
Russia, Canada, Japan, and most of Europe. If the LA Times wants the US to
return to unilateralism in space and squash the chances for significant
international cooperation for decades to come, they at least should say so
honestly.

Similarly, the phrase "when probes can do more for less," is not a fact but
an assertion of the consequent, a conclusion that must be demonstrated, not
assumed. Missions with astronauts have one set of tasks, missions without
them, another. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

It's also worth noting the editorial's use of the archaic and blatantly
sexist term "manned" for what progressive people have long been calling
"human space flight". Get a clue and consult your stylebook, folks. And
apologize to Sally Ride and Eileen Collins and Christa McAuliffe and dozens
of other women who
have flown in space.

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 05:54:49 GMT, "Jim Oberg"
wrote:

Hat tip to NASA WATCH site:
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...oast_take.html

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...l=la-home-oped

Down-to-Earth choices, editorial, LA Times

"Human exploration of space is such an epic notion, conjuring images of both
a science-fiction future and a real-life history of giant steps for mankind,
that it's hard not to be swept up in the romance. President Bush certainly
seemed to have been having "Star Trek" fantasies when he delivered his
vision for returning astronauts to the moon, and eventually sending them to
Mars, during the run-up to the 2004 presidential election.

That is not true. Although Bush may not be on my Xmas card list but
his speech back then was very carefully planned and efficient to move
NASA in the right direction.

There was no science-fiction, romance, or "star trek" fantasies, which
means whoever said that is a complete moron.

Afterward, Bush dropped his proposal like a sizzling meteorite, having
scarcely mentioned it since."

I guess they missed the time when Bush "ordered" Congress to approve
his NASA funding plan... or else.

And I do not see why he should need to comment on it since, when NASA
is doing what is expected of them.

Reply letter-to-the-editor from:
James Oberg, Houston, Texas
Oberg is a retired 'rocket scientist', and author,
and consultant to the national news media on
spaceflight. In the 1970's he often contributed
to the LA Times opinion page.

When confronted by contrary arguments, it's always a relief to see the
arguer display appalling factual ignorance as part of his thesis.
"Down-to-Earth Choices" is a fine example: the editorial writers, feigning
an expertise that supposedly gives them the credentials to have something
intelligent to say about national space policy, blow their cover by
referring to 'sizzling meteorites', thus demonstrating that their concepts
spring more from Hollywood disaster movies than from real science.
Meteorites are the space rocks that fall to Earth, and they as a rule do not
'sizzle' - normally they are at first cold to the touch, then soon attain
the temperature of their new environment. But to add 'sizzle' to the
editorial, the writers threw in a bogus 'factoid' with no apparent concern
over its truth or falsehood.

Sounds like a nit picking to me. Obviously they meant that meteorites
can get hot.

The recommendation to abandon the space station (a project that in its
present form dates back to the Clinton-Gore Administration) is a reasonable
thesis for debate, but honest consideration of the question should include
the consequence of betrayal of international partnerships that include
Russia, Canada, Japan, and most of Europe. If the LA Times wants the US to
return to unilateralism in space and squash the chances for significant
international cooperation for decades to come, they at least should say so
honestly.

Now there is something that is true. And lets not forget that the
President ordered that NASA should use the ISS as training for their
trip to Mars.

Similarly, the phrase "when probes can do more for less," is not a fact but
an assertion of the consequent, a conclusion that must be demonstrated, not
assumed. Missions with astronauts have one set of tasks, missions without
them, another. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

It's also worth noting the editorial's use of the archaic and blatantly
sexist term "manned" for what progressive people have long been calling
"human space flight".

I do not see that "manned" is sexiest. After all you can shorten human
to man in terms like manned and manhours. So it would be like
"humanned". In fact the dictionary agrees with me, when the definition
means "a person".

This reminds me that when I was at college one of my lecturers was a
hard core lesbian femlib fascist. And one time when I wrote "manhours"
on one of my tests she crossed it off and wrote "personhours". Sorry
honey, but "personhours" is not even in the dictionary!

I should mention that all my fellow college friends, male and female,
all agreed in my "human hours" definition. So just because women now
have equal rights does not mean that they have to go and corrupt the
language.

And if you really want to get politically correct and remove male
terms from all female words then you cannot use words like "wo(man)"
and "fe(male)". I guess we have call them all "girls" instead. ;-]

So anyone complaining over such terms is simply trying to make a
problem where one does not exist, when modern society adjusted to
include women in all things long ago.

Get a clue and consult your stylebook, folks. And apologize to Sally Ride
and Eileen Collins and Christa McAuliffe and dozens of other women who
have flown in space.

Apologize from nothing. Gender relations is a War you know. So fire
your shots and then take cover. :-]

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Cardman wrote:

"Human exploration of space is such an epic notion, conjuring images of both
a science-fiction future and a real-life history of giant steps for mankind,
that it's hard not to be swept up in the romance. President Bush certainly
seemed to have been having "Star Trek" fantasies when he delivered his
vision for returning astronauts to the moon, and eventually sending them to
Mars, during the run-up to the 2004 presidential election.

That is not true. Although Bush may not be on my Xmas card list but
his speech back then was very carefully planned and efficient to move
NASA in the right direction.

There was no science-fiction, romance, or "star trek" fantasies, which
means whoever said that is a complete moron.

Bull****, someone in the Bush Administration UNILATERALLY decided
that the ISS and Shuttle should be killed (along with life sciences)
and that NASA should go back to the moon, using Mars as the excuse,
so that an election could be won, the space program could be killed,
and Bush could be remembered as being a bigger man than his daddy.

Then O'Keefe the bureaucrat fudged with all the numbers to make it
seem like it could work, and Griffin came in with his SCHTICK fantasy,
and Marshall came up with an idiot idea for expendable SSMEs and J2s.

The entire VSE ESAS scam is moronic from day one. A child's fantasy.

------

What we need are reusable launch vehicles (SSTOs and RLVs)
and sustainable CELSS on practical equatorial, inclined
and geosychronous orbits, using solar power and fuel cells,
constructed out of cryogenic tankage and upper stages.

We could start right away with the Delta IV Medium and the
STS/ISS combination to service and retrieve SSTO test vehicles.

Above all, we need new engines. Guess what, we already have IPD.

NASA is a completely lost cause. It's only salvation now would
have to come from an internal revolution by employees fed up
with the complete and utter nonsense occurring at the top level.

Boycott! Protest! DISSENT! Stand Up FOR YOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS!

Bring the *******s down. Vote the mother****ers out of office.
They are wasting your money, trampling down the environment and
burning the constitution in a frenzy of greed and corruption.

But by all means, do it peacefully and well within the law.
Don't stoop to the level of the neocon fascists in America.
The revolution started noon Friday in the basement with Conyers.

George Bush and Michael Griffin have demonstrated their incompetence.

TERMINATE VSE and ESAS NOW!

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 04:21:08 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote:

Cardman wrote:
There was no science-fiction, romance, or "star trek" fantasies, which
means whoever said that is a complete moron.

Bull****, someone in the Bush Administration UNILATERALLY decided
that the ISS and Shuttle should be killed

Well the President back in 2004 very clearly commanded NASA to make
use of the ISS to prepare for long voyages to Mars. After all NASA has
been looping that speech on NASA TV for all the past week.

Although NASA's plan to stop using the ISS in 2016 can be seen to be
somewhat incompatible with this idea.

(along with life sciences)

I am not quite sure what you mean by this. NASA during the past couple
of years gave up on all the usual zero-G experiments and focused on
more human related research, both to save the cost, and because the
Shuttle not flying meant that they could not move about all their
usual equipment.

I don't see why this would change before 2016 when NASA cuts ISS
funding to puts it into their planned Moon base instead.

and that NASA should go back to the moon, using Mars as the excuse,
so that an election could be won,

It was a speech designed to provide most people with what they would
like to hear, but that was worked into NASA's current plans.

the space program could be killed,

I highly doubt that they would try to kill of human space exploration,
when it has received strong support in both the Whitehouse and
Congress.

Having the future funding available to pay for it is a different
matter.

and Bush could be remembered as being a bigger man than his daddy.

Just two more years to go now before it is bye-bye Bush.You just have
to wonder if he can squeeze in another War in that time.

Flip a coin to decide between Iran and North Korea. And if the coin
lands on its edge then they can invade France. ;-]

Then O'Keefe the bureaucrat fudged with all the numbers to make it
seem like it could work, and Griffin came in with his SCHTICK fantasy,
and Marshall came up with an idiot idea for expendable SSMEs and J2s.

One thing to keep in mind with NASA's plan is that they are only
giving it to you a piece at a time. So even though many of us knew
that NASA would need a HLV early on then they were all for plugging
their simple CEV on an EELV plan.

So if you look at it now you have the Stick and HLV, which is
certainly two brand new rockets, and where their "reused" SSMEs have
now turned into the J2Ss.

Hell I am even quite doubtful that this new rocket engine that they
plan to build will be very J2-like. I have did think about the RS-84
for a second, but that reusable version should not be the answer,
which makes me wonder what is.

In any case the one thing that I am sure of is that NASA have not told
us their complete purchase list yet, even if I am quite sure that they
had all this worked out long before they tried to fool us.

The entire VSE ESAS scam is moronic from day one. A child's fantasy.

------

What we need are reusable launch vehicles (SSTOs

Now there is a waste of good funding. You may recall their previous
SSTO projects that crashed and burned, simply due to the one aspect
that you have a very restricted launch mass once the fuel has been
accounted for. Even to the point of strapping the cargo to the outside
of the vehicle.

and RLVs)

NASA is doing some reusable, but lets not forget that their upper
stages won't be coming back.

We could hope that they could reuse those on the Moon, but I will
presume for now that it will be a case of more killer debris floating
around our solar system.

and sustainable CELSS on practical equatorial, inclined
and geosychronous orbits, using solar power and fuel cells,
constructed out of cryogenic tankage and upper stages.

We could start right away with the Delta IV Medium and the
STS/ISS combination to service and retrieve SSTO test vehicles.

A waste of time trying to plug SSTO. NASA would not do it even if they
were not working on their Apollo on Steroids plan.

Above all, we need new engines. Guess what, we already have IPD.

Kind of a shame that the RS-84 was canned, but I guess a reusable
Moon-class RP1 engine was not part of their current plans.

NASA is a completely lost cause.

It seems to me that for the first time ever they may actually be on a
long term exploration path, which is good news in my view.

It's only salvation now would
have to come from an internal revolution by employees fed up
with the complete and utter nonsense occurring at the top level.

NASA's extreme workforce is always a problem. I just hope they did
implement making their centers independent with now having to work on
a making profit idea.

And if NASA were not a jobs agency then I would soon find someone
nicknamed "the butcher" to make efficient their workforce.

Boycott! Protest! DISSENT! Stand Up FOR YOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS!

Stand up and get fired. Helping NASA to streamline their workforce.

Bring the *******s down. Vote the mother****ers out of office.
They are wasting your money, trampling down the environment and
burning the constitution in a frenzy of greed and corruption.

But by all means, do it peacefully and well within the law.
Don't stoop to the level of the neocon fascists in America.
The revolution started noon Friday in the basement with Conyers.

I take it that you want to bring down NASA. I guess that explains your
SSTO plan.

George Bush and Michael Griffin have demonstrated their incompetence.

Incompetence no. Bush is a lying warmonger, but Griffin seems to be
doing well enough to get the job done.

My only current upset is concerning the suspension of Dawn, when now
having a close look at Ceres will be either delayed or killed. That is
the fault of this project though, when due to technical problems it
overran it's budget, where more funding could not be allocated without
harming other projects.

Damned solar powered xenon based ion engines.

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Cardman, lighten up -- can't you see it's ME doing the teasing
of a leftwing editorial page, who would darned sure take
somebody ELSE to task for 'insensitive terminology' to please
its own political agenda? Criminy, guy, didn't the 'irony mode' light
come on over your PC screen?


"Cardman" wrote On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 05:54:49 GMT,
"Jim Oberg"
wrote:
It's also worth noting the editorial's use of the archaic and blatantly
sexist term "manned" for what progressive people have long been calling
"human space flight".

I do not see that "manned" is sexiest. After all you can shorten human
to man in terms like manned and manhours. So it would be like
"humanned". In fact the dictionary agrees with me, when the definition
means "a person".

This reminds me that when I was at college one of my lecturers was a
hard core lesbian femlib fascist. And one time when I wrote "manhours"
on one of my tests she crossed it off and wrote "personhours". Sorry
honey, but "personhours" is not even in the dictionary!

I should mention that all my fellow college friends, male and female,
all agreed in my "human hours" definition. So just because women now
have equal rights does not mean that they have to go and corrupt the
language.

And if you really want to get politically correct and remove male
terms from all female words then you cannot use words like "wo(man)"
and "fe(male)". I guess we have call them all "girls" instead. ;-]

So anyone complaining over such terms is simply trying to make a
problem where one does not exist, when modern society adjusted to
include women in all things long ago.

Get a clue and consult your stylebook, folks. And apologize to Sally Ride
and Eileen Collins and Christa McAuliffe and dozens of other women who
have flown in space.

Apologize from nothing. Gender relations is a War you know. So fire
your shots and then take cover. :-]

Cardman
http://www.cardman.org
http://www.cardman.com
http://www.cardman.co.uk

Cardman wrote:
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 04:21:08 -0500, Thomas Lee Elifritz
wrote:

Cardman wrote:
There was no science-fiction, romance, or "star trek" fantasies, which
means whoever said that is a complete moron.
Bull****, someone in the Bush Administration UNILATERALLY decided
that the ISS and Shuttle should be killed

Well the President back in 2004 very clearly commanded NASA to make
use of the ISS to prepare for long voyages to Mars. After all NASA has
been looping that speech on NASA TV for all the past week.

And O'theif and Griffin immediately perverted that destination,
the wrong destination anyways, into a simple return to the moon.
Like the man says : the destinations are Phobos and Deimos, and
the asteroids.

Although NASA's plan to stop using the ISS in 2016 can be seen to be
somewhat incompatible with this idea.

(along with life sciences)

I am not quite sure what you mean by this. NASA during the past couple
of years gave up on all the usual zero-G experiments and focused on
more human related research, both to save the cost, and because the
Shuttle not flying meant that they could not move about all their
usual equipment.

Thus giving up the primary mission of long duration life support.

I don't see why this would change before 2016 when NASA cuts ISS
funding to puts it into their planned Moon base instead.

Moon Base? Without Basic Life Support? Dream on.

and that NASA should go back to the moon, using Mars as the excuse,
so that an election could be won,

It was a speech designed to provide most people with what they would
like to hear, but that was worked into NASA's current plans.

Which is to kill what we need the most, launch and life support.

the space program could be killed,

I highly doubt that they would try to kill of human space exploration,
when it has received strong support in both the Whitehouse and
Congress.

It will die it's own horrible death all on its own with ESAS.

Having the future funding available to pay for it is a different
matter.

http://www.toptips.com/debtclock.html



and Bush could be remembered as being a bigger man than his daddy.

Just two more years to go now before it is bye-bye Bush.You just have
to wonder if he can squeeze in another War in that time.

And good riddens to VSE and ESAS.

Flip a coin to decide between Iran and North Korea. And if the coin
lands on its edge then they can invade France. ;-]

Right, and then you can take Saudi Arabia and Kuwait.
It's all about oil right? Space is about hydrogen and solar.

Then O'Keefe the bureaucrat fudged with all the numbers to make it
seem like it could work, and Griffin came in with his SCHTICK fantasy,
and Marshall came up with an idiot idea for expendable SSMEs and J2s.

One thing to keep in mind with NASA's plan is that they are only
giving it to you a piece at a time. So even though many of us knew
that NASA would need a HLV early on then they were all for plugging
their simple CEV on an EELV plan.

We have ELVs now, in search of a mission.

So if you look at it now you have the Stick and HLV, which is
certainly two brand new rockets, and where their "reused" SSMEs have
now turned into the J2Ss.

Wow, that's so ... sixties.

Hell I am even quite doubtful that this new rocket engine that they
plan to build will be very J2-like. I have did think about the RS-84
for a second, but that reusable version should not be the answer,
which makes me wonder what is.

The SSME the IPD on SSTOs and RLVs. I've already said that.

In any case the one thing that I am sure of is that NASA have not told
us their complete purchase list yet, even if I am quite sure that they
had all this worked out long before they tried to fool us.

Why should they tell us anything. We're only citizens.

Now there is a waste of good funding. You may recall their previous
SSTO projects that crashed and burned, simply due to the one aspect
that you have a very restricted launch mass once the fuel has been
accounted for. Even to the point of strapping the cargo to the outside
of the vehicle.

X-33 and VentureStar were idiotic designs.

If they had gone with Rockwell, and continued DC-X
we would be colonizing space by now. Your memory
of history and technical details if faulty,
or perhaps nonexistant.

and RLVs)

NASA is doing some reusable, but lets not forget that their upper
stages won't be coming back.

Which is precisely why we should NOT be throwing them away,
and retrofitting them into hotel rooms, habitats and fuel depots.

We could hope that they could reuse those on the Moon, but I will
presume for now that it will be a case of more killer debris floating
around our solar system.

The debris problem is restricted to near earth orbit you idiot.

and sustainable CELSS on practical equatorial, inclined
and geosychronous orbits, using solar power and fuel cells,
constructed out of cryogenic tankage and upper stages.

We could start right away with the Delta IV Medium and the
STS/ISS combination to service and retrieve SSTO test vehicles.

A waste of time trying to plug SSTO. NASA would not do it even if they
were not working on their Apollo on Steroids plan.

Then who needs NASA then, they have demonstrated their worthlessness.

Above all, we need new engines. Guess what, we already have IPD.

Kind of a shame that the RS-84 was canned, but I guess a reusable
Moon-class RP1 engine was not part of their current plans.

NASA is a completely lost cause.

It seems to me that for the first time ever they may actually be on a
long term exploration path, which is good news in my view.

Four guys are going to explore the moon? Wow!

It's only salvation now would
have to come from an internal revolution by employees fed up
with the complete and utter nonsense occurring at the top level.

NASA's extreme workforce is always a problem. I just hope they did
implement making their centers independent with now having to work on
a making profit idea.

And if NASA were not a jobs agency then I would soon find someone
nicknamed "the butcher" to make efficient their workforce.

Boycott! Protest! DISSENT! Stand Up FOR YOUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS!

Stand up and get fired. Helping NASA to streamline their workforce.

Bring the *******s down. Vote the mother****ers out of office.
They are wasting your money, trampling down the environment and
burning the constitution in a frenzy of greed and corruption.

But by all means, do it peacefully and well within the law.
Don't stoop to the level of the neocon fascists in America.
The revolution started noon Friday in the basement with Conyers.

I take it that you want to bring down NASA. I guess that explains your
SSTO plan.

They will destroy themselves, and take US with them.

George Bush and Michael Griffin have demonstrated their incompetence.

Incompetence no. Bush is a lying warmonger, but Griffin seems to be
doing well enough to get the job done.

What JOB? The JOB description is meaningless in the greater scheme
of things.

plonk

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

Cardman wrote:
That is not true. Although Bush may not be on my Xmas card list but
his speech back then was very carefully planned and efficient to move
NASA in the right direction.

Bush' policy as ok, but implementation was premature.

What was correct about his speech is lifting the embargo on NASA
research for a manned mission to mars. 200% correct. And using the
station for that is also 100% correct.

The CEV thingy and cancelling shuttle at a fixed 2010 date was 300%
wrong. Lets face it: we are nowhere near ready to go to Mars. And the
CEV thing isn't going to get us to Mars. It might tag along as dead
weight but isn't going to get us there.

I guess they missed the time when Bush "ordered" Congress to approve
his NASA funding plan... or else.

OK, let me ask this: how much in NEW/ADDITIONAL funding is NASA getting
for the CEV thing ?

It is my understanding that the CEV thing would be self funded from cuts
in other programmes.

And I do not see why he should need to comment on it since, when NASA
is doing what is expected of them.

I get the impression that Griffin is slightly more pragmatic and
realistic than his predecessor and has tried to put a bit more realism
into the projects he is forced to do.

Lets not kid ourselves: the Bush project was the result of suggestions
from within NASA, folks who managed to influence politicians's opinions,
convinced the right people that the shuttle was fatally flawed and had
to be retired ASAP, than an apollo capsule could get man to Mars and
back etc etc.

Going to the moon was purely political. Mars is a very long term
endeavour, and politicians need shorter term paybacks. So a side trip to
the moon will show that NASA can deliver something, even though that
something is totally useless to go to Mars.

Now there is something that is true. And lets not forget that the
President ordered that NASA should use the ISS as training for their
trip to Mars.

Which is the correct mission of the station. Lerning how to live AND
work in space. Use the station as a testbed for the technologies for the
ship to mars. Watching crystals grow can still be permitted. But getting
Elektron to work reliably, develop debugging tools/techniques for
Elektron, develop field maintenance for Elektron is far more important.
Because in a mars mission, you won't have progress ships bringing you
supplies and spare parts every couple of months. So when you leave
earth, you need to have all the tools and spare parts to fix that device
for the duration of the whole trip. (samer applies to the US CDRA)

And testing close loop water systems is also important so that humans
know exactly how much water would be required for such a mission. What
is not yet clear is what to do with solid waste. On the station, except
for a few demostrations, they throw away clothes for instance.


And lets face it, a mars expedition ship is more likely to be an
international effort too. Continued development of not only the station,
but of working relationship with station partners will help make such an
international prohect run much more smoothly because each partner will
know how to deal with the others, what can and cannot be trusted from
each partner etc etc.

Cardman wrote:
It seems to me that for the first time ever they may actually be on a
long term exploration path, which is good news in my view.

While Bush's policy authorizes NASA to look into a manned mission to
Mars, all the money will be spend on the wrong thing: the CEV thing
which will essentially be a glorified Soyuz to the station so that the
USA can maintains some US cremembers (and control) on the station once
the Shuttle is retired.

The little camping trips to the moon won't last and don't expect a
station to be built there. Mars will require some mother-ship to drop a
mini station that will land on Mars, probably need to be assembled and
provide survival for the crew while they not only explore Mars, but also
prepare for return to earth.

Such an endeavour can be tested with much greater realism by test
landing the stuff on earth in the arctic toundra for instance and seeing
if they can work it all and fuel up the return capsule that can meet
back with the mother ship in orbit. The only drawback from testing on
earth is that you'll need more fuel to take off from earth to meet back
with the mothership than you would on Mars.

The moon is really not a testbed for this because the lack of atmosphere
makes landing totally different.

It's only salvation now would
have to come from an internal revolution by employees fed up
with the complete and utter nonsense occurring at the top level.

I get the feeling that the "shuttle is extremely dangerous and should be
killed ASAP" feelings came from within NASA.

Jim Oberg ) wrote:


: Hat tip to NASA WATCH site:
: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...oast_take.html

: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...l=la-home-oped

: Down-to-Earth choices, editorial, LA Times

: "Human exploration of space is such an epic notion, conjuring images of both
: a science-fiction future and a real-life history of giant steps for mankind,
: that it's hard not to be swept up in the romance. President Bush certainly
: seemed to have been having "Star Trek" fantasies when he delivered his
: vision for returning astronauts to the moon, and eventually sending them to
: Mars, during the run-up to the 2004 presidential election. Afterward, Bush
: dropped his proposal like a sizzling meteorite, having scarcely mentioned it
: since."


: Reply letter-to-the-editor from:
: James Oberg, Houston, Texas
: Oberg is a retired 'rocket scientist', and author,
: and consultant to the national news media on
: spaceflight. In the 1970's he often contributed
: to the LA Times opinion page.



: When confronted by contrary arguments, it's always a relief to see the
: arguer display appalling factual ignorance as part of his thesis.
: "Down-to-Earth Choices" is a fine example: the editorial writers, feigning
: an expertise that supposedly gives them the credentials to have something
: intelligent to say about national space policy, blow their cover by
: referring to 'sizzling meteorites', thus demonstrating that their concepts
: spring more from Hollywood disaster movies than from real science.
: Meteorites are the space rocks that fall to Earth, and they as a rule do not
: 'sizzle' - normally they are at first cold to the touch, then soon attain
: the temperature of their new environment. But to add 'sizzle' to the
: editorial, the writers threw in a bogus 'factoid' with no apparent concern
: over its truth or falsehood.

: The recommendation to abandon the space station (a project that in its
: present form dates back to the Clinton-Gore Administration) is a reasonable
: thesis for debate, but honest consideration of the question should include
: the consequence of betrayal of international partnerships that include
: Russia, Canada, Japan, and most of Europe. If the LA Times wants the US to
: return to unilateralism in space and squash the chances for significant
: international cooperation for decades to come, they at least should say so
: honestly.

: Similarly, the phrase "when probes can do more for less," is not a fact but
: an assertion of the consequent, a conclusion that must be demonstrated, not
: assumed. Missions with astronauts have one set of tasks, missions without
: them, another. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive.

: It's also worth noting the editorial's use of the archaic and blatantly
: sexist term "manned" for what progressive people have long been calling
: "human space flight". Get a clue and consult your stylebook, folks. And
: apologize to Sally Ride and Eileen Collins and Christa McAuliffe and dozens
: of other women who
: have flown in space.


I thought only liberals used PC labels which were gender non-specific? How
convenient.

And though you mention that ISS went back to Clinton/Gore, didn't the
"space station" get going during Reagan's administration, and prior? Also,
correct me if I'm wrong here, but when ISS became a hot potato within NASA
itself in the mid-90s when it was a joint MSFC/JSC mission, wasn't it JSC
that kicked MSFC out? Being an old JSC hand yourself, exactly what do you
have to say about that move? Perhaps it isn't clear to you as it might
be like trying to find the forest while being within the trees. Do tell,
since ISS is such a sensitive subject now.

Eric

Cardman ) wrote:
: On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 05:54:49 GMT, "Jim Oberg"
: wrote:

: Hat tip to NASA WATCH site:
: http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/20...oast_take.html
:
: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...l=la-home-oped
:
: Down-to-Earth choices, editorial, LA Times
:
: "Human exploration of space is such an epic notion, conjuring images of both
: a science-fiction future and a real-life history of giant steps for mankind,
: that it's hard not to be swept up in the romance. President Bush certainly
: seemed to have been having "Star Trek" fantasies when he delivered his
: vision for returning astronauts to the moon, and eventually sending them to
: Mars, during the run-up to the 2004 presidential election.

: That is not true. Although Bush may not be on my Xmas card list but
: his speech back then was very carefully planned and efficient to move
: NASA in the right direction.

: There was no science-fiction, romance, or "star trek" fantasies, which
: means whoever said that is a complete moron.

: Afterward, Bush dropped his proposal like a sizzling meteorite, having
: scarcely mentioned it since."

: I guess they missed the time when Bush "ordered" Congress to approve
: his NASA funding plan... or else.

What you're neglecting here is that Bush's NASA plan appears to be very
Texas-centric. Surely, the news report is California-centric, but Bush
does nothing to dispell the notion of red-state and blue-state NASA. Under
him the division is clear as night and day as seen from a remote sensing
EOS satellite in near polar orbit!

: And I do not see why he should need to comment on it since, when NASA
: is doing what is expected of them.

Is that so?

: Reply letter-to-the-editor from:
: James Oberg, Houston, Texas
: Oberg is a retired 'rocket scientist', and author,
: and consultant to the national news media on
: spaceflight. In the 1970's he often contributed
: to the LA Times opinion page.
:
: When confronted by contrary arguments, it's always a relief to see the
: arguer display appalling factual ignorance as part of his thesis.
: "Down-to-Earth Choices" is a fine example: the editorial writers, feigning
: an expertise that supposedly gives them the credentials to have something
: intelligent to say about national space policy, blow their cover by
: referring to 'sizzling meteorites', thus demonstrating that their concepts
: spring more from Hollywood disaster movies than from real science.
: Meteorites are the space rocks that fall to Earth, and they as a rule do not
: 'sizzle' - normally they are at first cold to the touch, then soon attain
: the temperature of their new environment. But to add 'sizzle' to the
: editorial, the writers threw in a bogus 'factoid' with no apparent concern
: over its truth or falsehood.

: Sounds like a nit picking to me. Obviously they meant that meteorites
: can get hot.

: The recommendation to abandon the space station (a project that in its
: present form dates back to the Clinton-Gore Administration) is a reasonable
: thesis for debate, but honest consideration of the question should include
: the consequence of betrayal of international partnerships that include
: Russia, Canada, Japan, and most of Europe. If the LA Times wants the US to
: return to unilateralism in space and squash the chances for significant
: international cooperation for decades to come, they at least should say so
: honestly.

: Now there is something that is true. And lets not forget that the
: President ordered that NASA should use the ISS as training for their
: trip to Mars.

As if one goes hand in hand.

The problem with President Bush telling us we need to go back to the moon
and build a permanent base is that his daddy said the same damn thing back
in 1989!!

: Similarly, the phrase "when probes can do more for less," is not a fact but
: an assertion of the consequent, a conclusion that must be demonstrated, not
: assumed. Missions with astronauts have one set of tasks, missions without
: them, another. They are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
:
: It's also worth noting the editorial's use of the archaic and blatantly
: sexist term "manned" for what progressive people have long been calling
: "human space flight".

: I do not see that "manned" is sexiest. After all you can shorten human
: to man in terms like manned and manhours. So it would be like
: "humanned". In fact the dictionary agrees with me, when the definition
: means "a person".

Yes, James Oberg, Mr. PC...

: This reminds me that when I was at college one of my lecturers was a
: hard core lesbian femlib fascist. And one time when I wrote "manhours"
: on one of my tests she crossed it off and wrote "personhours". Sorry
: honey, but "personhours" is not even in the dictionary!

: I should mention that all my fellow college friends, male and female,
: all agreed in my "human hours" definition. So just because women now
: have equal rights does not mean that they have to go and corrupt the
: language.

: And if you really want to get politically correct and remove male
: terms from all female words then you cannot use words like "wo(man)"
: and "fe(male)". I guess we have call them all "girls" instead. ;-]

: So anyone complaining over such terms is simply trying to make a
: problem where one does not exist, when modern society adjusted to
: include women in all things long ago.

Amen.

: Get a clue and consult your stylebook, folks. And apologize to Sally Ride
: and Eileen Collins and Christa McAuliffe and dozens of other women who
: have flown in space.

: Apologize from nothing. Gender relations is a War you know. So fire
: your shots and then take cover. :-]

A wise woman once said that men are better at being men then are women and
women are better at being women then are men, and that this is all by
default. When you think about it, there really isn't much more to say
about it. Any "war" in this regard is simply stupid, or should just be
done in fun for humor and nothing more.

Eric

: Cardman
: http://www.cardman.org
: http://www.cardman.com
: http://www.cardman.co.uk