Pres. Kerry's NASA

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
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.

Actually, there's another reason. It's something I've
been thinking about recently, especially when people
talk about how expensive a CEV capable of going to the
Moon or Mars would be. As if adding those "features"
automatically makes it more complex and expensive. But
that's not necessarily the way things work. Someone
pointed out that the CEV is a bad design in the same
way the Shuttle is because it tries to do a whole bunch
of stuff, so it ends up packed to the gills with
features that are unneeded most of the time. That's a
mostly fair interpretation of STS but not at all of the
CEV. But I can understand the misperception because it
does seem like trans-Earth missions for a crew capsule
represent a rather large feature-set expansion.

What I realized was the fundamental difference between
feature richness and versatility. If you add lots of
custom features (or missions), each as a separate and
individual entity and simply merge everything together
in a frankensteinian manner then you will end up with
all the complexity and difficulty associated with such
"do it all really well" designs. On the other hand, if
you shoot for across the board versatility you can hit
a lot of goals at the same time without the same kind
of compromises and complexity.

As a case in point: what's the most versatile tool in
a shop? Socket wrench? Screwdriver? Circular saw?
Nope, it's the table. How many projects in the shop
don't need the use of the table? Fewer than for any
other tool I'm certain, if any. Anyone who's worked
in a shop and takes time to think can come up with the
kajillion different ways that a table can be used (as
a part collection and sorting area, as a mount point
for a vice, as an assembly area, as a part of an
improvised jig, etc, etc, etc.) Despite the enormous
versatility of the table it is a tool with a very
simple design, far simpler than most other tools in
the shop. And that's precisely why it's so versatile.

I look at the CEV in somewhat the same way. You can't
take the Shuttle to the Moon (not reasonably anyway)
because of all the needless baggage you'd have to haul
with you. SSMEs that are useless in orbit. Wings
that are useless in orbit and rarely used to their
full potential during landing anyway. A robotic arm
which is only sometimes useful. A cargo bay of
enormously questionable usefulness in orbit. And so
much more. But a capsule is so much simpler, it
doesn't have the extra gazillion tonnes of dead weight
that's useless in orbit (or on the Moon). It's simple
enough to be versatile in orbiting the Earth or
travelling to the Moon. And in this case I don't
think making a versatile CEV will be nearly as costly
as making a multi-purpose multi-speciality vehicle
like the Shuttle.

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
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 ....

"We choose to go to Low Earth Orbit, not because it is easy,
but 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.

Clearly shuttle needs to be replaced. But please, give the
new spacecraft somewhere interesting to go. Rather than
a Foale chasing down an air leak, give us a Scott standing
on the rim of a Hadley Rille or a Schmitt at a Shorty Crater
or a Young at a Stone Mountain.

- Ed Kyle

On 12 Feb 2004 17:46:40 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

(Christopher M. Jones) wrote in message . com...

(Since we're talking about President Kerry I'm assuming
we're deep into fantasy land.)

The polls have Kerry even with Bush right now,

That's only temporary. Kerry had a good month, and Bush a bad one.
Today's polls bear zero information about what November's will.

(Eric Chomko) wrote in
:

Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote in
: :

: Jorge R. Frank ) wrote:
: : 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.
:
: Right, you mean until they turned on him and tried to get him
: thrown out of office for lying about a BJ.

: Nevertheless, they supported his programs when they agreed with them
: - NAFTA, ISS, welfare reform, etc.

Fine, I'm sure many Democrats did as well.

I can see you haven't bothered to go to thomas.loc.gov and look up the roll
call votes yourself, like I suggested. Why? Scared of the truth? Scared
to find out that a majority of Democrats voted against the station in the
first big roll-call vote of Clinton's presidency? Scared to find out that
even *after* Clinton renamed the project and brought in the Russians,
Republicans still supported the project in greater percentages than
Democrats?

You seem to forget NASA is
spread out over the US. Do you think CA, MD, and OH shot down ISS when
Clinton proposed it?

Irrelevant. I'm talking about the breakdown nationwide by party, not by
state.

I don't think any thinking person is against us going back to the moon
and then onto Mars. W's plan is in reaction to the CAIB recommendation
and not very well thought out.

A lot of Republicans didn't think Clinton's plan for ISS was well thought
out either, but they supported it anyway while sponsoring amendments to
tweak it. They didn't just dismiss it out of hand.

I understand that W has NEVER been to JSC, even to the visitors
center.

Nope, he spoke at the Columbia memorial service.
--
JRF

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

(Eric Chomko) wrote in
:

My point was that Clinton the original post was about Clinton's
dependence on Republican votes, until Monicagate.

Now, that I think of that I question it as well.

NASA is spread out over several states, one of them Maryland. Both
senators then and now are Demorcrats. I challange the original poster
to show where Maryland congressman did NOT vote in favor ISS while
Clinton was president.

Irrelevant. I was talking nationwide, not individual states.


--
JRF

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

Rand Simberg wrote:

On 12 Feb 2004 17:46:40 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(ed kyle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

(Christopher M. Jones) wrote in message . com...

(Since we're talking about President Kerry I'm assuming
we're deep into fantasy land.)

The polls have Kerry even with Bush right now,

That's only temporary. Kerry had a good month,


One wonders what Interngate will do to Kerry.

--
Scott Lowther, Engineer
Remove the obvious (capitalized) anti-spam
gibberish from the reply-to e-mail address

On 09 Feb 2004 15:13:19 GMT, ojunk (Dave Fowler)
wrote:

John F. Kennedy, anyone?

Kennedy wasn't a big supporter of NASA when he came in. He'd hit
Eisenhower over the head with what turned out to be a nonexistant
missile gap, but doing something with NASA didn't become a priority
until after (a) the Soviets orbited Yuri Gagarin, and (b) the Bay of
Pigs.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:01:52 GMT, "Mark R. Whittington"
wrote:


That's the assumption, though many people thought that Clinton would cancel
the space station in 1993 and he did not.


Well, it wasn't quite that simple. According to AVIATION WEEK, there
was a big fight in the White House between one group of advisors and
cabinet secretaries who wanted the station canceled, and another group
of cabinet secretaries and advisors who wanted it continued. IIRC,
Hilary was with the ones who wanted to cancel the station; I do not
know what side Slick Willy was on. But in the end, he did order the
redesign.


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Michael Gallagher wrote:

On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 00:01:52 GMT, "Mark R. Whittington"
wrote:


That's the assumption, though many people thought that Clinton would cancel
the space station in 1993 and he did not.



Well, it wasn't quite that simple. According to AVIATION WEEK, there
was a big fight in the White House between one group of advisors and
cabinet secretaries who wanted the station canceled, and another group
of cabinet secretaries and advisors who wanted it continued. IIRC,
Hilary was with the ones who wanted to cancel the station; I do not
know what side Slick Willy was on. But in the end, he did order the
redesign.



He was in the "It's not one of my major issues" school.

Does that article give the breakdown of the advisors?

John F. Kennedy, anyone?

Kennedy wasn't a big supporter of NASA when he came in. He'd hit
Eisenhower over the head with what turned out to be a nonexistant
missile gap, but doing something with NASA didn't become a priority
until after (a) the Soviets orbited Yuri Gagarin, and (b) the Bay of
Pigs.

And Kennedy goes down in history as the Space President despite all the
protestations of his brother. My, isn't history funny?

"Wait a minute, hes supposed to be a weak liberal soft on defense, and big on
social programs!" But Kennedy was assasinated before he could be anything other
that the Space President, that's life, and Ted Kennedy will never live this
down.

Tom