Teapot Tempest Warning

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1463_1.asp

I wonder who the media will excoriate over this. It could make a nice
diversionary story from all the hard news that's too scary for them to
cover.
Interesting to note deputy project scientist Charles Lawrence's candor
when he said
"The decision to set our spec as we did was driven by considerations of
cost and schedule that were determined by the state-of-the-art of
beryllium optics technology at the time that the design and budget were
frozen."
Sounds like he understands "Faster, Cheaper, Higher Quality. Pick two."
Results from Spitzer suggest they chose well.

Shawn

Possible NASA responses:

1)"The assembly torque wrench was out for calibration - an ISO-9000
requirement"
2)"Those triangular stars sure are pretty!"
3)"Don't worry, we'll fix it in post processing."
4)"Get Ball Aerospace on the phone..."
5)"Can we get a two-fer on that robotic repair mission?"

Shawn wrote:

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1463_1.asp

I wonder who the media will excoriate over this. It could make a nice
diversionary story from all the hard news that's too scary for them to
cover.
Interesting to note deputy project scientist Charles Lawrence's candor
when he said
"The decision to set our spec as we did was driven by considerations of
cost and schedule that were determined by the state-of-the-art of
beryllium optics technology at the time that the design and budget were
frozen."
Sounds like he understands "Faster, Cheaper, Higher Quality. Pick two."
Results from Spitzer suggest they chose well.

Shawn

Tim Killian wrote:

Possible NASA responses:

1)"The assembly torque wrench was out for calibration - an ISO-9000
requirement"
2)"Those triangular stars sure are pretty!"
3)"Don't worry, we'll fix it in post processing."
4)"Get Ball Aerospace on the phone..."
5)"Can we get a two-fer on that robotic repair mission?"

6) It's within spec, nobody cares.


Tim
--
This is not my signature.

Tim Auton wrote:
6) It's within spec, nobody cares.

Killjoy.

Brian Tung
The Astronomy Corner at http://astro.isi.edu/
Unofficial C5+ Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/c5plus/
The PleiadAtlas Home Page at http://astro.isi.edu/pleiadatlas/
My Own Personal FAQ (SAA) at http://astro.isi.edu/reference/faq.txt

Tim Auton wrote:

Tim Killian wrote:


Possible NASA responses:

1)"The assembly torque wrench was out for calibration - an ISO-9000
requirement"
2)"Those triangular stars sure are pretty!"
3)"Don't worry, we'll fix it in post processing."
4)"Get Ball Aerospace on the phone..."
5)"Can we get a two-fer on that robotic repair mission?"


6) It's within spec, nobody cares.


Tim

Spec? What spec? We don't need no stink'n Spec.

Dave N

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:14:21 -0700, Shawn
sdotherecurry@bresnananotherdotnet wrote:

http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1463_1.asp

I wonder who the media will excoriate over this. It could make a nice
diversionary story from all the hard news that's too scary for them to
cover.
Interesting to note deputy project scientist Charles Lawrence's candor
when he said
"The decision to set our spec as we did was driven by considerations of
cost and schedule that were determined by the state-of-the-art of
beryllium optics technology at the time that the design and budget were
frozen."
Sounds like he understands "Faster, Cheaper, Higher Quality. Pick two."
Results from Spitzer suggest they chose well.

Shawn

"trefoil aberration?" I've never seen that term. Why not call it
astigmatism?
-Rich

RichA wrote:
On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 16:14:21 -0700, Shawn
sdotherecurry@bresnananotherdotnet wrote:


http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1463_1.asp

I wonder who the media will excoriate over this. It could make a nice
diversionary story from all the hard news that's too scary for them to
cover.
Interesting to note deputy project scientist Charles Lawrence's candor
when he said
"The decision to set our spec as we did was driven by considerations of
cost and schedule that were determined by the state-of-the-art of
beryllium optics technology at the time that the design and budget were
frozen."
Sounds like he understands "Faster, Cheaper, Higher Quality. Pick two."
Results from Spitzer suggest they chose well.

Shawn


"trefoil aberration?" I've never seen that term. Why not call it
astigmatism?
-Rich

Sounds fancy. Plus, if you tell people it's got 'stigmatiz, they'll say
"Why hell, ma eye doctor fix-ed mine fine, wuts yer problum".

Shawn

"Shawn" sdotherecurry@bresnananotherdotnet wrote in message
...
http://skyandtelescope.com/news/article_1463_1.asp

I wonder who the media will excoriate over this. It could make a nice
diversionary story from all the hard news that's too scary for them to
cover.
Interesting to note deputy project scientist Charles Lawrence's candor
when he said
"The decision to set our spec as we did was driven by considerations of
cost and schedule that were determined by the state-of-the-art of
beryllium optics technology at the time that the design and budget were
frozen."
Sounds like he understands "Faster, Cheaper, Higher Quality. Pick two."
Results from Spitzer suggest they chose well.

So far there hasn't been any fuss. It's amazing what being honest will do to
kill media excitement (as opposed to trying to hide it). Hopefully that will
continue.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Are you interested in understanding optics?
Try http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ATM_Optics_Software/

************************************

It would sem that they think that sending these things up into space
would hide the most basic lack of telescope-making skills imaginable.
Apparently Hubble could easily have been checked by a tyro with only a
6" under his belt. But rigid professional career heirarchy got in the
way. Now they do it all over again?
Next time they should ask the Chinese to do the work.Think how much
they could save on repeat visits to fix the problems. ;-)

Chris.B

wrote:

It would sem that they think that sending these things up into space
would hide the most basic lack of telescope-making skills imaginable.
Apparently Hubble could easily have been checked by a tyro with only a
6" under his belt. But rigid professional career heirarchy got in the
way. Now they do it all over again?

Do what again? The Spitzer meets spec. Hubble didn't. There is no
comparison.


Tim
--
This is not my signature.