MSNBC (JimO) - Hubble debate -- a lot of sound and fury

JazzMan wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

It was -Algore- who tried to steal the election.

The same Al Gore that "invented" the internet?

The one and same! :-]

John Doe wrote in :

"Greg D. Moore (Strider)" wrote:
Now, with a HST flight you have:
Success - Get to station no problem.
Foam Strike - No repair capability. Result LOV

Hasn't CAIB recommented stand-alone repair capability ?

Yes, R6.4-1. The second paragraph recommends such capability be ready prior
to the first non-ISS flight. That implies that NASA doesn't need the
capability if they cancel all non-ISS flights, which is evidently O'Keefe's
interpretation.

My understanding was that they would temporarily "waive" this
requirement for flights to ISS since ISS would be able to help with
inspections and repairs. But eventually, the shuttle should have its
own repair ability. Is that correct ?

Essentially, yes. The fourth paragraph of R6.4-1 states that the ultimate
objective of standalone repair capability is for all flights, including ISS
flights that, for whatever reason, cannot reach ISS (either pre-docking or
post-undocking).

It's pretty clear to me that the CAIB would not have added that fourth
paragraph if they really intended for NASA to be able to evade the second
by cancelling all non-ISS flights.

If the Shuttle is to travel only to ISS, why is Nasa bothering with a
special boom addition to the shuttle's arm ?

The boom is required for RCC inspections. The resolution and depth
measurement requirements for RCC inspection are so tight that the
cameras/sensors must be placed very close to the RCC. Neither the SRMS nor
the SSRMS alone can get close enough to reach all the RCC panels on both
wings. The only alternative is EVA inspection, which NASA is pretty
desperate to avoid due to severe timeline impacts.

--
JRF

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

Bush's space plan as proposed to the public was so sorely lacking in
understanding of space science that even an amateur like me could dispute
his sci-fi fantasies.


and i'm sure many can dispute your insane leftist idiocy.

You must have been pretty ****ed off to type so well ;-P

Back to lurking...

Accidents do happen
Hey this is my opinion

"starman" wrote in message
...
You certainly have a knack for hyperbole. Like it or not, public opinion
is part of the equation which determines NASA's funding. The public has
seen the results of Hubble and they (finally) like what they've seen.
That's more than can be said for the ISS so far. Most people don't know
it exists. It would be foolish to squander public support for a proven
space research tool, just to save the cost of one service mission.
Hubble has many years of good science left in it. It could be a long
time before we build another optical (visible light) research scope in
space.

I completely agree with you. The public dismay/outcry over the decision to
scrap Hubble should be seen as an opportunity for scientists, mission
planners, administrators and politicians. When was the last time we saw such
interest in any component of the space program?

Yes, as some have said, people like the pretty pictures. But what people
really crave is inspiration. The pretty pictures of our incredible universe
provide that. The space shuttle, in itself, does not. ISS does not. Like the
Hubble, journeys to other planets (with cameras to send back those pretty
pictures) do.

If I were the decision maker, I'd get my people started tomorrow designing
and building an advanced, optical space telescope and a mission (shuttle or
expendable launch vehicle) to get it into orbit as quickly as possible. And
I'd phase out as quickly as possible the ISS and shuttles. I'd have teams at
work designing a new, powerful, expendable launch vehicle to handle
requirements for future missions for the next decade or so -- or buy the
capacity from the Russians (or partner with them). I'd expand our solar
system exploratory robotic probes and get a serious program on the drawing
board for humans to return to the moon to establish a base for an
astronomical observatory and related research.

Maybe for the public: "It's the pretty pictures, stupid."

But coincidentally, there's some pretty science that piggybacks thereon.

LewBob

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

JazzMan wrote:

Scott M. Kozel wrote:

It was -Algore- who tried to steal the election.

The same Al Gore that "invented" the internet?

The one and same! :-]

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.htm

You should stop spouting the mindless drivel of the
extremists and do your own research sometime. You made
yourself look like an idiot. It's not that hard to use
your own mind instead of loaning it out to other idiots.

JazzMan
--
************************************************** ********
Please reply to jsavage"at"airmail.net.
Curse those darned bulk e-mailers!
************************************************** ********
"Rats and roaches live by competition under the laws of
supply and demand. It is the privilege of human beings to
live under the laws of justice and mercy." - Wendell Berry
************************************************** ********

LewBob wrote:
Yes, as some have said, people like the pretty pictures. But what people
really crave is inspiration. The pretty pictures of our incredible universe
provide that. The space shuttle, in itself, does not. ISS does not.

NASA really really really blew it when it decided to "ignore" Tito's visit to
ISS. That was the perfect PR opportunity to provide inspiration and show that
there was indeed big progress being made since, a "tourist" with little
training could make it up. Although NASA didn't shun Shuttleworth, it also
failed to capitalise on his visit. I can see a lot of conflicts where the
astronaut office wants to maintain the illusion that space is very dangerous
and requires 10 years worth of training. (no differentiation between tourist,
mission specialist and pilot from a public perception point of view).


The shuttle is also underestimated. Look at the data generated by the SRTM
mission. While the fear-mungering regime has made much of the data unavailable
after 9-11, it is progressively being made available again. Hopefully, the
public will come to realise the value of this before the Shuttle is dead. What
would be needed is some clause whereby any media outlet that uses SRTM derived
data for 3d animations etc would be required to mention on air that this data
came from the space shuttle.

When you ask people what the space programme gave us, they are likely to
respond "microwave ovens". (Or Tang simulated orange juice). The fact is that
there are real benefits that the shuttle has provided, but NASA hasn't taken
the steps to ensure that these are attributed to the shuttle.

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

B A L O N E Y !

The local election boards in Florida in 2000 were dominated by Democrat
local control, and the state supreme court was dominated by Democrats.

And they still couldn't get enough to win.

John Doe wrote:

When you ask people what the space programme gave us, they are likely to
respond "microwave ovens". (Or Tang simulated orange juice).

I thought it was 'Velcro'. :-)


-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----

In article , says...
LewBob wrote:
Yes, as some have said, people like the pretty pictures. But what people
really crave is inspiration. The pretty pictures of our incredible universe
provide that. The space shuttle, in itself, does not. ISS does not.

NASA really really really blew it when it decided to "ignore" Tito's visit to
ISS. That was the perfect PR opportunity to provide inspiration and show that
there was indeed big progress being made since, a "tourist" with little
training could make it up. Although NASA didn't shun Shuttleworth, it also
failed to capitalise on his visit. I can see a lot of conflicts where the
astronaut office wants to maintain the illusion that space is very dangerous
and requires 10 years worth of training. (no differentiation between tourist,
mission specialist and pilot from a public perception point of view).


The shuttle is also underestimated. Look at the data generated by the SRTM
mission. While the fear-mungering regime has made much of the data unavailable
after 9-11, it is progressively being made available again. Hopefully, the
public will come to realise the value of this before the Shuttle is dead. What
would be needed is some clause whereby any media outlet that uses SRTM derived
data for 3d animations etc would be required to mention on air that this data
came from the space shuttle.

When you ask people what the space programme gave us, they are likely to
respond "microwave ovens". (Or Tang simulated orange juice). The fact is that
there are real benefits that the shuttle has provided, but NASA hasn't taken
the steps to ensure that these are attributed to the shuttle.


In general, this is a good point -- one that was addressed on a number
of levels at the public hearings held yesterday by the President's
Commission on the Implementation of the Space Exploration Initiative (or
whatever the hell the actual name of that commission is). They
televised public hearings yesterday on NASA TV, and for the final round
of this set of hearings, they invited a number of people who are either
members of the media or who work with the media to give their
perspectives on what NASA needs to do to maintain public support for a
multi-administration, 20-plus-year project.

One of the suggestions made by person after person was that NASA needs
to hire professional marketing people to inform the public of the things
NASA has done, to create support for what they plan to do, and to
attract good people to work for them. One guy pointed out that the
armed forces have retained marketing firms to recruit new people -- if
the Army can run TV ads telling young people that working for the Army
is important and builds character, why can't NASA run ads telling young
people that working for NASA is fun and important?

In the 60's, the media was so enchanted with the idea of traveling to
the Moon that they did NASA's marketing for them. Nowadays, puttering
around the solar system just isn't that big a deal to generations that
have been raised watching Luke Skywalker flit from one star system to
another, or the Enterprise (in one of its many incarnations) powering
around the galaxy at Warp 5. Good marketing could make the distinction
between watching fantasies and actually being a part of making them
realities -- if only NASA would "lower itself" to using marketing
services.

Four different people offered testimony that NASA will *never* be able
to create or maintain the kind of public support needed to mount a 20-
year program of solar system exploration unless they decide to market
themselves and the program to the public. One guy, who has worked with
NASA in the past, pointed out that this will take a change in culture at
NASA, where the very idea of marketing is treated with disdain, as
something that is "beneath" there pure engineers' souls.

So, yes. NASA needs an intelligent and comprehensive marketing campaign
if it has any hope of mounting this space exploration initiative. I've
done some marketing work in my time -- I'd love to help... *grin*...

Doug