International Space Station Crews Mark Three Years Aboard

(Tom Merkle) writes:

I think the new flight restrictions and the imperative to develop a
different method of launching people has reclassified it de facto to
an experiemental vehicle, regardless of what anyone says. Operational
vehicles are supposed to be used more than once a year.

If it's an experimental vehicle now, does that mean that usage
is going to be restricted to flight test?

They're probably going to still use it to haul cargo and crew to
orbit as if it were an operational vehicle.

So slapping the "experimental" label on it is useless, if it
just means it's a more expensive-and-liable-to-blow-up operational
vehicle instead of an X-plane.


--
Phil Fraering "Oh, so now Mike's the nut, Roger's the good
one, and I'm the bad guy?"

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
It's kind of disingenuous to redefine the Shuttle as "an experimental
vehicle" after the fact, when it was declared "operational" almost twenty
years ago (I remember, because I was there when President Reagan did it).

The CAIB report has that very quote, on page 23:

Beginning with the next flight, the Columbia and her sister ships
will be fully operational, ready to provide economical and routine
access to space for scientific exploration, commercial ventures,
and for tasks related to the national security.

Wow, it was supposed to be "economical and routine" as soon as "the
next flight". And that's not the only delusion in that speech. A minute
later Reagan said:

The space shuttle will open up even more impressive possibilities,
permitting us to use the near weightlessness and near-perfect vacuum
of space to produce special alloys, metals, glasses, crystals,
and biological materials impossible to manufacture on Earth.

(See http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resourc...982/70482a.htm )

Evidently, Reagan didn't know what he was talking about. He took in
NASA's propaganda hook, line, and sinker. As Reagan went, so went
the public.

If the Gehman commision wants to recommend that it be so reclassified
now, fine, but everyone wanted to pretend otherwise through the end of
January of this year.

The Gehman commission is doing more than recommending it. Its real
point is that Reagan and NASA were both wrong.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message . ..
On 5 Nov 2003 15:01:42 -0800, in a place far, far away,
(Tom Merkle) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

"James Oberg" wrote in message .. .
Your point has merit, but should not be a blank check for incompetence,
which is what
the circle-the-wagons culture at NASA has so so often resorted to.

I think your definition of 'incompetence' is a wee bit stringent. It
takes an extreme amount of competence to get even halfway to a
successful orbital flight. If members of Congress were half as
competent at their job, government would be a half of the size it is
now and we'd still have a better space program.

That depends on what you think "their job" is. They obviously don't
believe that it's their job to shrink government, even if some of us
would like them to. Not even when they're supposedly the party of
small government.
Rand,
Couldn't agree with you more WRT the Republican party. Bush and Delay
have pulled them way left--or maybe the whole country's moved left,
just not as far as the democratic party, so now the Republicans of the
'00s have become the Democrats of the 60's. Prescription drugs for
everyone! world, meet your new nanny, Uncle Sam!

In this day an age it is impossible to remove any spending program
once in place. This was not always the case in the US.

Fareed Zakaria places the blame for lack of leadership on misguided
efforts at democratizing the inner workings of Congress, which has
placed both parties at the mercy of Loppyists and PACs.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...glance&s=books
This book why I've been on a 'the US is a republic, not a democracy'
tear lately. I highly recommend it as food for thought.

In article ,
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

In article ,
Rand Simberg wrote:
It's kind of disingenuous to redefine the Shuttle as "an experimental
vehicle" after the fact, when it was declared "operational" almost twenty
years ago (I remember, because I was there when President Reagan did it).

The CAIB report has that very quote, on page 23:

Beginning with the next flight, the Columbia and her sister ships
will be fully operational, ready to provide economical and routine
access to space for scientific exploration, commercial ventures,
and for tasks related to the national security.

Wow, it was supposed to be "economical and routine" as soon as "the
next flight". And that's not the only delusion in that speech. A minute
later Reagan said:

The space shuttle will open up even more impressive possibilities,
permitting us to use the near weightlessness and near-perfect vacuum
of space to produce special alloys, metals, glasses, crystals,
and biological materials impossible to manufacture on Earth.

(See http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resourc...982/70482a.htm )

Evidently, Reagan didn't know what he was talking about. He took in
NASA's propaganda hook, line, and sinker. As Reagan went, so went
the public.

And why not? Who was say it would not be more economical & routine,
especially compared to previous programs like Apollo & Gemini, when each
flight required a new launch vehicle & a new capsule.

You're viewing that speech (& the shuttle's performance) with the
benefit of 20 years worth of hindsight and cynicism.

--
Stephen Souter

http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:
You're viewing that speech (& the shuttle's performance) with the
benefit of 20 years worth of hindsight and cynicism.

Reagan did not say that the shuttle would be routine and economical in
20 years. What he said was that Columbia and her sister ships were ready
to provide economical and routine access to space *beginning with the next
flight*. This was just wrong, right then and there. The next flight,
indeed the next two flights, were already in late planning stages. They
were not remotely economical, nor in any sense ready to be economical.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people in the audience knew just how far
from economical they were. Nor were the flights routine. For instance,
STS-6 had serious cracks in the main engine.

So Reagan was either fooled, or he was lying. And I don't think that
he was lying, because he was generally a sincere man. In fact I suspect
that he never fully realized that he was wrong.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

In article ,
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:
You're viewing that speech (& the shuttle's performance) with the
benefit of 20 years worth of hindsight and cynicism.

Reagan did not say that the shuttle would be routine and economical in
20 years. What he said was that Columbia and her sister ships were ready
to provide economical and routine access to space *beginning with the next
flight*. This was just wrong, right then and there. The next flight,
indeed the next two flights, were already in late planning stages. They
were not remotely economical, nor in any sense ready to be economical.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people in the audience knew just how far
from economical they were.

Leaving aside those who think that manned space travel will never be
economical, perhaps you could cite a few examples of those who knew (and
stood steps then to draw Congressional and/or public attention to it).


Nor were the flights routine. For instance,
STS-6 had serious cracks in the main engine.

You seem to be defining "routine" to equate with "problem free".

A few weeks ago large cracks were found in a particular model of
aircraft among the (IIRC) Qantas fleet. Should we to conclude from this
that airline travel is not yet "routine"?

So Reagan was either fooled, or he was lying. And I don't think that
he was lying, because he was generally a sincere man. In fact I suspect
that he never fully realized that he was wrong.

"Lying" implies he knew the truth but tell anybody. "Fooled" implies
that other knew but nobody told the president, which in turn implies
deception.

How does that square with "[h]undreds, perhaps thousands, of people in
the audience" knowing "just how far from economical they were". If
Reagan was "fooled" than can only have been if these thousands
deliberately set out to deceive the president--not to mention everybody
else.

Is that you're suggesting?

--
Stephen Souter

http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

In article ,
(Greg Kuperberg) wrote:

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:
You're viewing that speech (& the shuttle's performance) with the
benefit of 20 years worth of hindsight and cynicism.

Reagan did not say that the shuttle would be routine and economical in
20 years. What he said was that Columbia and her sister ships were ready
to provide economical and routine access to space *beginning with the next
flight*. This was just wrong, right then and there. The next flight,
indeed the next two flights, were already in late planning stages. They
were not remotely economical, nor in any sense ready to be economical.
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people in the audience knew just how far
from economical they were.

Leaving aside those who think that manned space travel will never be
economical, perhaps you could cite a few examples of those who knew
(and, presumably, took steps then to draw Congressional and/or public
and/or presidential attention to it).


Nor were the flights routine. For instance,
STS-6 had serious cracks in the main engine.

You seem to be defining "routine" to equate with "problem free".

A few weeks ago large cracks were found in a particular model of
aircraft among the (IIRC) Qantas fleet. Should we to conclude from this
that airline travel is not yet "routine"?

So Reagan was either fooled, or he was lying. And I don't think that
he was lying, because he was generally a sincere man. In fact I suspect
that he never fully realized that he was wrong.

"Lying" implies Reagan knew the truth but didn't tell anybody. "Fooled"
implies that *others* knew but nobody told the president, which in turn
implies deliberate deception. (Presumably they deceived Congress and its
committees too.)

How does that square with "[h]undreds, perhaps thousands, of people in
the audience" knowing "just how far from economical they were"? If
Reagan was "fooled" that can only have been if these thousands of people
deliberately set out to deceive the president--not to mention everybody
else.

Is that what you're suggesting?

--
Stephen Souter

http://www.edfac.usyd.edu.au/staff/souters/

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:44:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Greg "The Mathemaidiot" Kuperberg)
babbled:

Evidently, Reagan didn't know what he was talking about.

....And *you* do?

[Insert Hysterical Laughter Here]

[And again, just for good measure]


OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

In article ,
Stephen Souter wrote:
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people in the audience knew just how far
from economical [shuttle flights were].
Leaving aside those who think that manned space travel will never be
economical, perhaps you could cite a few examples of those who knew
(and, presumably, took steps then to draw Congressional and/or public
and/or presidential attention to it).

In the 1970s NASA promised that the space shuttle would be a vastly
cheaper launch vehicle than expendable rockets. But by the time that
Reagan made his speech, the government had used subsidies to bribe
companies to use the shuttle, and law to force the Pentagon to use it.
So it was anything but economical on the day that Reagan said it was.

In fact, only two years later, when Reagan was still in his first term
and no shuttle had yet crashed, the Pentagon backed out:



You seem to be defining "routine" to equate with "problem free".

As the above old message to net.space says, two years later, in 1984,
the quarrel between the Pentagon and NASA centered on the meaning of
"routine". The Pentagon claimed that NASA had promised a 7-day turnaround
time, while NASA said that it was working towards 28 days. But after
Reagan's speech, no shuttle flew again for 4 months. So when Reagan said
in 1982 that the shuttles were "ready to provide economical and routine"
access to space "beginning with the next flight", NASA immediately proved
him wrong. In fact, the shuttle was never as routine as private-sector
expendable launch.

So Reagan was either fooled, or he was lying. And I don't think that
he was lying, because he was generally a sincere man. In fact I suspect
that he never fully realized that he was wrong.
"Lying" implies Reagan knew the truth but didn't tell anybody. "Fooled"
implies that *others* knew but nobody told the president, which in turn
implies deliberate deception.

No, Reagan fooled himself. The shuttle's high cost and low launch rate
of the shuttle were no secret, neither to Reagan nor to the general
public. But Reagan always cared more about sales pitch than substance.
The shuttle's sales pitch sounded good to him, and I think that he
honestly believed it, details be damned.

It is a sad irony of American politics: Politicians who conceal even
the most trivial information are inviting major scandal. But if the
government lays all the facts on the table, the politicians are free
to bury them with ludicrous interpretations. The easiest place to hide
the truth is in plain sight.
--
/\ Greg Kuperberg (UC Davis)
/ \
\ / Visit the Math ArXiv Front at http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/
\/ * All the math that's fit to e-print *

On Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:44:14 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Greg Kuperberg) made the phosphor on
my monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

Evidently, Reagan didn't know what he was talking about. He took in
NASA's propaganda hook, line, and sinker. As Reagan went, so went
the public.

So, it's Reagan's fault (those damned Republicans)?

Is he supposed to be a space expert? Whose "propaganda" should he
have believed?

--
simberg.interglobal.org * 310 372-7963 (CA) 307 739-1296 (Jackson Hole)
interglobal space lines * 307 733-1715 (Fax) http://www.interglobal.org

"Extraordinary launch vehicles require extraordinary markets..."
Swap the first . and @ and throw out the ".trash" to email me.
Here's my email address for autospammers: