NASA Watch doesn't like Rand's columns...

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 08:43:42 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
"Dave" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 22:09:46 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Dave
O'Neill" dave @ NOSPAM atomicrazor . com made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

I don't think that it's that he thinks that only NASA *should* so
much
as only NASA realistically *can*.

He is hardly alone in that perspective Rand.

So? Did I say he was?

You often give the impressive that anybody who doesn't agree with your
perspective must be wrong.

Again, so? Many people can be wrong.

Yes they can. It works both ways.

Again, you make a banal, and trivial, even pointless observation.
Should I think that people who don't agree with me are right? If I
thought that, I'd change my opinion.

Just warning you against arrogance and hubris.

On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:16:42 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
"Dave" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

You often give the impressive that anybody who doesn't agree with your
perspective must be wrong.

Again, so? Many people can be wrong.

Yes they can. It works both ways.

Again, so? Another trivial, banal and pointless point.

Again, you make a banal, and trivial, even pointless observation.
Should I think that people who don't agree with me are right? If I
thought that, I'd change my opinion.

Just warning you against arrogance and hubris.

Gee, thanks.

--
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:

"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 15:16:42 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
"Dave" made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

You often give the impressive that anybody who doesn't agree with your
perspective must be wrong.

Again, so? Many people can be wrong.

Yes they can. It works both ways.

Again, so? Another trivial, banal and pointless point.

I don't think so myself.

Again, you make a banal, and trivial, even pointless observation.
Should I think that people who don't agree with me are right? If I
thought that, I'd change my opinion.

Just warning you against arrogance and hubris.

Gee, thanks.

You are welcome.

h (Rand Simberg) wrote in message

Well, actually, the column did offer one potential solution (though I
didn't necessarily advocate it)--euthanizing NASA... ;-)

Rand you have got the solution to one problem!
If Nasa just dis-banded , everyone went home and sat in a soft chair,
then there would be no risk to human life in the US manned space program!

"Those who strive make mistakes, those who do not stive make no mistakes."

On 14 Oct 2003 09:02:39 -0700, in a place far, far away,
(Al Jackson) made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

(Rand Simberg) wrote in message

Well, actually, the column did offer one potential solution (though I
didn't necessarily advocate it)--euthanizing NASA... ;-)

Rand you have got the solution to one problem!
If Nasa just dis-banded , everyone went home and sat in a soft chair,
then there would be no risk to human life in the US manned space program!

Risk to human life in the US manned space program isn't a problem.

Your "soft chair" seems to be stuffed with straw...

--
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:

(Henry Spencer) wrote in message ...
In article ,
jeff findley wrote:
I find it amusing that NASA Watch doesn't like Rand's columns...
"...These pundits complain about
how bad NASA is - but never, ever offer a cogent solution to the
problems they cite."

There is, of course, a hidden assumption he that NASA's problems
are solvable.

And your's is that NASA can never be fixed. Having tried ineptly or
half away to fix something isn't the same as going in and seriously
rebuilding and fixing.

Almost any government agency can be remade better. It just takes the
right person at the right time. It doesn't help to say something is
broken and offer no repair plan other than killing it off without a
replacement or a plan.

--Chris Vancil

In article ,
CL Vancil wrote:
There is, of course, a hidden assumption he that NASA's problems
are solvable.

And your's is that NASA can never be fixed.

Not an assumption, a conclusion. Note carefully that I don't say fixing
NASA is physically impossible, only that it is politically impossible.

The only way to "fix NASA" that would actually *work* would be to start a
new organization as a rigorously-separate offshoot, build it up and have
it gradually take over NASA's responsibilities, and eventually pry the
nameplate off the remains of the old agency and move it to the new one.
(There are companies which have done exactly that.) You just can't get
a mammal by putting a brontosaurus on a diet.

Almost any government agency can be remade better. It just takes the
right person at the right time.

But he needs enough political capital to make sweeping changes that will
offend many people. The chances of a NASA Administrator having the
backing needed to do that are nil. In principle it can be done; in
practice I would bet heavily against it ever happening. NASA is not
important enough to the government to rate that kind of skilled, well-
backed reformer.

It doesn't help to say something is
broken and offer no repair plan other than killing it off without a
replacement or a plan.

If we're talking about NASA in the sense of the agency that controls US
civilian spaceflight almost completely, I hate to say it, but we really
are better off *without* a replacement and *without* a plan. We don't
*want* such an agency, any more than we want a single government-run
airline. And any "plan" presumes a central agency to carry it out.

Personally, I don't favor killing NASA off. It does do some desirable
things. But the most important thing it can do for spaceflight is to stay
out of the way, and it's not good at doing that. It needs to be firmly
sidelined, told to get out of certain areas and stay out, that not only
will it not control them but it will not be allowed to play at all. If
that can be done, there is some hope of redirecting it to put more effort
into useful activities, and less into obstructing progress.
--
MOST launched 1015 EDT 30 June, separated 1046, | Henry Spencer
first ground-station pass 1651, all nominal! |

CL Vancil wrote:

Almost any government agency can be remade better. It just takes the
right person at the right time.

This is deeply naive. NASA is the way it is because of inherent dynamics
of bureaucracies, not because they've lacked the Great Leader Who Can
Solve All The Problems.

Paul

jeff findley wrote:

I've had no personal contact with Keith (outside of a few, brief,
email exchanges), so I can't guess as to why he would hold this view.
Perhaps he is of the belief that only NASA ought to be exploring
space? I've talked to many ex-NASA employees who hold this view,
despite their other misgivings about the agency.

Justa buncha dirty Commie monopolists. Where's that checkoff box to stop
sending my tax dollars to these parasites?

Re-reading that it sounds harsh, but it seems by now that the best way to
fix NASA is to shut it down.

Responding to Rand Simberg, "Dave" wrote:

You often give the impressive that anybody who doesn't agree with your
perspective must be wrong.

You think Rand implies that those who disagree with him are wrong? I
think it's remarkably reasonable for someone to consider those who
disagree to be wrong. Would you prefer that he give the impression that
people who don't agree with him are *right*? That would be silly; it
would imply that he thought he was *wrong*.

If I thought people who disagreed with me were right, I'd probably change
my mind and agree with them. In this case, I think Rand's position is
quite tenable. NASA is an entrenched government suckocracy, and is not
obviously well suited to doing the kinds of things that will open up space
access to just plain folks.