Say, this looks familiar...

(Allen Thomson) wrote:

(Derek Lyons) wrote

Yep, charging ahead on a feel good program, but this time *without* a
hard date, and *with* multiple extremely soft goals.

Good indeed.

Not.

What's wrong with a feel good and/or national prestige program?

It re-enforces the impression that space is only the domain of
steely-eyed missilemen who work for the government, and the impression
that 'exploration' is only worth doing when it generates headlines.
In other words, the same situation we've been in for over a
generation.

That's the only reason to have any manned spaceflight for the
foreseeable future, and I have no problem with that for a motive.

If stunts are the only reason to have a manned space program, then
frankly I see it as a tacit admission that was don't need a manned
space program. Imagine if the USAF were re-aligned to do nothing but
support the Thunderbirds?

Even ISS, objectively pointless though it is, would probably be
justifiable on that basis if it weren't joined at the hip to
the Shuttle.

It seems objectively pointless to many because it does not generate
headlines unless something is wrong. By that same standard, we should
stand down the dozens of oceanography vessels the US Government
operates, the Antarctic stations, the geological and geopyhsical
observatories, funding for astronomical observatories, and every other
science program that isn't designed to pander to the public thirst for
spectacle.

Anyway, I was speaking of the Boeing hardware ideas in the context
of returning to the moon by 2015 on a constrained budget.

Please share the figures on costs with the rest of us, as they
certainly were not on the page referenced, nor anywhere else for that
matter.

But what would you have preferred to see, both in terms of goals
and programmatics and initial hardware concepts?

I'd rather see NASA *out* of the operations business entirely. Earth
science should be turned over to NOAA, planetary science (JPL) spun
off into an independent center (a la the CDC). NASA should be reduced
to a technology and support organization like the NACA. If it must be
in the operations business, it should be able to buy spacecraft the
same way NOAA buys ships... From established builders who are also in
the business of building and maintaining civilian ships.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:34:17 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

(Allen Thomson) wrote:

What's wrong with a feel good and/or national prestige program?

It re-enforces the impression that space is only the domain of
steely-eyed missilemen who work for the government, and the impression
that 'exploration' is only worth doing when it generates headlines.
In other words, the same situation we've been in for over a
generation.


By that definition, Spirt and Opportunity are "stunts." They generate
healdines, and their operators work for the government. So it can't
possibly be worth doing. No more mars probes! They're JPL's stunts!
Right?


..... If stunts are the only reason to have a manned space program ....

I don't consider what Bush is proposing a "stunt." A Moon Base is
just that, a base, which is occupied long term; scientists can do
research on site. A Mars mission is a two-year round trip including
several weeks or months on Mars while you wait for the planets to be
in correct position to come back. You can't get out, plant the flag,
and immediately take off again unless you don't mind Earth being there
whe your ships course intersects its orbit around the sun.

Sounds more like the long haul instead of a sudden.

..... It seems objectively pointless to many because it does not generate
headlines unless something is wrong. By that same standard, we should
stand down the dozens of oceanography vessels the US Government
operates, the Antarctic stations, the geological and geopyhsical
observatories, funding for astronomical observatories, and every other
science program that isn't designed to pander to the public thirst for
spectacle.



Funny because lunar eploration has been compared to exploring
Antartica. The new base probably wouldn't grab a lot headlines after
it was founded, but its personel can still do science -- geological,
geophysical science on site on the Moon.




----== 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, 26 Jan 2004 00:34:17 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

(Allen Thomson) wrote:

What's wrong with a feel good and/or national prestige program?

It re-enforces the impression that space is only the domain of
steely-eyed missilemen who work for the government, and the impression
that 'exploration' is only worth doing when it generates headlines.
In other words, the same situation we've been in for over a
generation.


By that definition, Spirt and Opportunity are "stunts." They generate
healdines, and their operators work for the government. So it can't
possibly be worth doing. No more mars probes! They're JPL's stunts!
Right?

Consider the difference between MER and the proposed moon landing
program. In which program did the science come first, and in which
program did the press coverage come first?

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.

On Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:23:17 GMT, (Derek
Lyons) wrote:

Consider the difference between MER and the proposed moon landing
program. In which program did the science come first, and in which
program did the press coverage come first?


Good question.

IIRC, MER is part of NASA's status goal of sending (a) mission(s) to
Mars every two years; this is related to the Discovery program and the
Better Faster Cheaper Approach. There would have been some press
coverage when it was announced. It might have been confined to SPACE
NEWS and AVIATION WEEK, but there was coverage.

The scientists didn't do MER. Scientists wanted to return to Mars for
years after Viking, and god knows enough rovers were tested. But
there wasn't a serious chance of that until the '90s; even then, the
go-ahead came from above them, not from some guys in lab coats saying,
"Yes, let's go."

In fact, IIRC, the whole BFC approach got a shot in the arm not from a
NASA science mission but from MILITARY one -- the Clemintine vehicle
launched as part of SDI, out of Vandenberg on a recondtioned Titan 2.
It took photos of the Moon and was going to rendezvous with an
asteroid as part of a test of the targeting system, but that part of
the mission failed.

Sorry. Looks like press coverage predated the science by a lot of
years.





----== 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 =---

In article , Michael
Gallagher wrote:

The scientists didn't do MER. Scientists wanted to return to Mars for
years after Viking, and god knows enough rovers were tested. But
there wasn't a serious chance of that until the '90s; even then, the
go-ahead came from above them, not from some guys in lab coats saying,
"Yes, let's go."

MER was selected in 2000

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...jpl.nasa.go v

"Dr. Edward Weiler, Associate Administrator, Office of Space Science,
NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC., announced today [Jul 27] that the
Mars Rover was his choice from two mission options which had been under
study since March."

[The decision to send two was made shortly afterwards]

It does seem to have been designed as a scientific tool, put through the
usual proposal system, and then had someone realise how incredibly,
well, telemetregenic it was g

Sojourner, yes, you can argue science was a bolt-on, but MER does seem
to have had science being the a strong driver - at least, as much as it
ever is for Mars probes :-). At the time MER was decided on, by the way,
the Mars 2001 lander had only recently [late March] been cancelled - it
had been going to fly a spare MPF rover.

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...jpl.nasa.go v

--
-Andrew Gray

Michael Gallagher wrote:

The scientists didn't do MER. Scientists wanted to return to Mars for
years after Viking, and god knows enough rovers were tested.

Given the number of scientists doing science via MER, one wonders how
you can make this claim.

But there wasn't a serious chance of that until the '90s; even then, the
go-ahead came from above them, not from some guys in lab coats saying,
"Yes, let's go."

Here's a clue for you; approval for all birds comes from above the lab
coats.

In fact, IIRC, the whole BFC approach got a shot in the arm not from a
NASA science mission but from MILITARY one -- the Clemintine vehicle
launched as part of SDI, out of Vandenberg on a recondtioned Titan 2.
It took photos of the Moon and was going to rendezvous with an
asteroid as part of a test of the targeting system, but that part of
the mission failed.

Which has just about zero to do with the question at hand.

Sorry. Looks like press coverage predated the science by a lot of
years.

Interesting tactic, write unrelated fluff, then tack on a claim
without having added any support for the same.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.