| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 5/18 |
| 2006/7/3-6 [Science/Space] UID:43558 Activity:low |
7/3 NASA Administrator Michael Griffin demonstrates Dubya-Style Leadership
by maintaining launch schedule for July 4 weekend, barring 40% chance
of inclement weather. Lessee ... 1% chance of shuttle loss ... 16 more
launches before 2010 ... only a 1/6 chance and yer gonna retire the
orbiters anyway, and you can always put the astronauts on the space
station in case there's a hole!
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/03/D8IKT4V00.html
\_ No, this is the same sort of "must launch leadership" NASA had
when the first one blew up. And the second. And now the third.
The problem is NASA, not whoever is in the WH. When you slap
GWB for every little thing, especially falsely like this, you
reduce the value of slapping him for the things he should be.
\_ Actually, the problem is GWB. Why? Because he is the one
pushing NASA to do more manned spaceflight. He is the one pushing
an accelerated schedule of launches and retiring the shuttle
in favor of a new vehicle, while not really giving NASA much
more money than before. Without GWB's Vision for Space
Exploration, NASA would have more time and money. Because of him,
there is neither. The "must launch leadership" starts with GWB.
\_ I agree. Weren't they talking about more unmanned probes
recently, or is this really supposed to contribute to a manned
mission to Mars?
\_ No, NASA is giving up most of its research, science,
and unmanned work in favor of the ISS, Shuttle, and
CEV (replacement for the Shuttle).
\_ Have you ever worked in government? It doesn't work like
that. Also, how do you explain all the other NASA deaths
going back to the very beginning of space flight for both
the US and Soviets? Oh, I know! It's all GWB's fault!
\_ Yes, I have. In fact, I work for NASA. It works exactly
like that. The President sets the agenda, whether the
President is GWB or Kennedy.
\_ Setting the agenda is not the same as "launch no matter
wut soz I kin make mah daddy proud!". So you work for
NASA? Did your pet project get defunded? You sound
bitter.
\_ Every project other than the Shuttle, ISS, and
CEV lost funding. Even portions of the ISS were
cut. We are talking about gutting a large part
of NASA, not about "pet projects". The reasons
(as given by Bush): 1) We have to finish the ISS
by 2010, 2) We have to go back to the Moon. Setting
the agenda means that there isn't time (or money) to
eff around with the foam on the Shuttle to make
it safer. If the fix isn't easy (or possible)
then it does become "launch despite risks",
because of Bush's 2010 deadline.
\_ NASA funding was cut every under Clinton.
\_ Clinton didn't push for pipe dreams at the
same time.
\_ NASA is there to pipe dreams come real. If
you're not doing pipe dream work you're
wasting tax payer dollars.
\_ Pipe dream work requires pipe dream
dollars. Without them, nothing will
get done. Also, without technology
research all we can do is duplicate
Apollo again.
\_ Or just some will and imagination
instead of tons of layers of mgnt
waiting around to pension out. How
many layers are there between you
and the head of NASA?
\_ This sounds like typical
Republican speak. The reason
we can't launch payloads into
orbit for $100/ton is because
of a lack of will and imagination.
\_ Yup, billions of dollars in the
current budget and no one at
NASA can think of anything to
do with it. The reason we
can't launch payloads for free
has to do with physics and the
price of energy but you knew
that.
\_ I think we're just not
determined or inventive
enough!
\_ Yes, the President sets the agenda. It is the
Congress who decides how much money they get.
You work for the government and don't know this?
It is not the President who says "launch even
though it is going to blow up". The ISS is a joke
and should've been completely defunded. The
broken Shuttle should've been replace 10 years
ago. What are there other pet projects you're so
bitter about? The people I know at JPL are bitter
that the "must put people into space, not probes"
plan has left them out in the cold because all
the money went to NASA's manned missions. What
are you so bitter about again? I still don't
see how the President setting a manned-space
mission agenda is the same as him forcing someone
to launch the shuttle yesterday. Did he call
someone and say "launch that thang! mah daddy
wants ta see it goin up durin' da firewerks!"?
\_ When Congress decides not to up the $$$,
then the President needs to adjust his agenda
accordingly. Else, risks will be taken. It's
that simple. You admit that the ISS is a joke
and yet it is sucking NASA dry. A better
President might realize that and not push
to finish it. Griffin is forced to rob
SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY, and RESEARCH in favor
of Shuttle and ISS. What part of this are
you missing? This is not good for NASA and
not good for the US. GWB's agenda is
screwing everything up. This includes the
safety of the Shuttle. No one is retarded
enough to claim the effect is *directly* on
yesterday's launch. However, without GWB I
don't think the Shuttle would've launched
yesterday. He needs to keep those jobs in
Texas and Florida.
\_ No, if Congress doesn't provide enough
funding then it is up to NASA management
to do the best they can with what they've
got. You have yet to provide an example of
what has been dropped in favor of the 3 big
projects. The rest of your post is just
spew. I'm not going to respond to the
bitter filled emotional spewing.
\_ NASA *is* doing the best they can with
what they got. End result: Shuttle
launching despite major concerns. If you
want a list of what's been dropped
across NASA, look it up. It's easy
enough to find:
http://tinyurl.com/oy7qf
You haven't said anything useful in
this thread so far and I'm not holding
my breath.
\_ Finally you managed to write something
that wasn't a whiney emotional Bush
bash. Ok then so there's *only*
$5.33 *B*illion for science. Another
$724 million for aeronatics research
and a penny under $4 *B*illion for
exploration systems incldungi the
CEV. I'm trying to find out what I
should be crying over here: Delay or
cancelled: the TPF, the SIM, better
Keck telescopes, SOFIA, LISA, CW, and
what's this? Mars research. Except
for the Mars research all of this is
passive, go-nowhere science that only
serves to slightly improve upon what
we already know and can see. There
is no big stuff here that will be
missed by anyone outside the cut
programs. I'm actually quite pleased
to see the light weight stuff set
aside so we can do something more than
masturbate over stars in other
galaxies from Keck.
\_ "Light weight stuff" like
science in favor of the Shuttle
and ISS which do *WHAT* exactly?
2/3 of the budget ($10 BB) is
going to Shuttle/ISS/CEV and almost
nothing (not mentioned in the
article) to technology research.
If you are a researcher or
technologist then forget it
unless you're researching the
foam on the Shuttle. This is
not the way to obtain the
breakthroughs you seem to want.
\_ I think the shuttle and ISS
should have been scrapped 10+
years ago or not even started
in the case of the ISS, that
does not mean these other
projects are worth a damn. I
want to see research into
materials and propulsion
systems, not better telescopes
for getting prettier pictures
to put in Time magazine (which
are all retouched anyway). The
bulk of the cancelled projects
are telescope related which yes
I do think are a waste of money.
\_ You are off topic here,
which is the Shuttle and
the leadership at NASA. If
you think the Shuttle and
ISS are wastes of money
then you need to blame
GWB for putting more
money into those programs
instead of putting it
into research and tech
dev (including propulsion
and materials). Putting it
into the ISS and a lunar
base while killing science
and technology isn't smart no
matter your personal opinions
regarding astronomy - and
if a telescope should be
killed maybe it should be
the $5 billion JWST. In
short, NASA's priorities
are now out of whack
because GWB's priorities
are out of whack. |
| 5/18 |
|
| www.breitbart.com/news/2006/07/03/D8IKT4V00.html By MIKE SCHNEIDER Associated Press Writer CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. NASA signed off Monday night on a Fourth of July shuttle liftoff despite worries about a piece of foam that popped off Discovery's external fuel tank while the spacecraft sat on the launch pad. "We're go to continue with the launch countdown," said Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator, at a nighttime briefing. The decision for the 2:38 pm EDT Tuesday liftoff was sure to stir more debate about whether the space agency was putting its flight schedule ahead of safety even though Gerstenmaier said "there were no dissenters ... He said the astronauts and NASA administrator Michael Griffin were in on the discussion. Griffin "didn't raise any question or comments but he listened intently," Gerstenmaier said. The 3-inch triangular piece of foam that appeared to come from a 5- inch-long crack late Sunday or early Monday is far smaller than the foam chunk that brought down Columbia, killing seven astronauts in Gerstenmaier showed reporters the piece of foam, which looked like a wedge of toast. "I don't think we're taking any additional risk than we did in our original assessment" in going ahead with a launch, he said. Managers had spent most of Monday pondering the problem. NASA has spent millions of dollars trying to prevent foam from breaking off at liftoff, threatening the kind of damage it did to Columbia. Engineers were startled when it broke off Discovery during last year's mission, but it didn't harm the shuttle. The loss of foam from that area of the tank while on the launch pad is a rare occurrence, happening only once before, Gerstenmaier said. Some outside experts familiar with shuttle foam loss problems were concerned about plans to launch Tuesday. Carnegie Mellon University engineering and risk analysis professor Paul Fischbeck, who had been worried earlier in the day by the falling chunk of foam, said NASA's rationale in going ahead made sense and he is slightly more comfortable with a launch try Tuesday. Fischbeck, who has consulted with NASA on the shuttle's delicate heat protection system, wondered why foam had broken off on the launch pad. "It's something you might want to understand before you launch," he said. The patch of foam fell off an area that covers an expandable bracket holding a liquid oxygen feed line against the huge external tank. NASA engineers believe ice built up in that area from condensation caused by rain Sunday. The tank expanded when the super-cold fuel was drained after Sunday's launch was canceled because of the weather. The ice that formed "pinched" some of that foam, causing the quarter-inch-wide crack and the piece of foam to drop off, officials said. The size of the fallen foam was less than half the size of one that could cause damage, NASA officials said. NASA managers decided to go ahead with the launch attempt because of three criteria: They are confident enough foam still is on the bracket to prevent a large piece of ice from forming; that the area of foam where the piece dropped was still intact; and they don't believe the area will be exposed to extreme heat during ascent. Inspectors spotted the crack in the foam insulation during an overnight check of the shuttle. NASA had scrubbed launch plans Saturday and Sunday because of weather problems. The forecast for a Tuesday liftoff was better than previous days, with just a 40 percent chance that storm clouds would prevent liftoff. Griffin decided last week that the shuttle should go into orbit as planned, despite the concerns of two top agency managers _ including the top safety officer _ who wanted additional repairs to the foam insulation. But the two agency officials said the foam loss will not threaten the crew because NASA has a plan for the astronauts to move into the international space station if in-orbit inspections find is serious damage to the spacecraft. The crew would await rescue 81 days later by second space shuttle. The mission for Discovery's crew this time is to test shuttle- inspection techniques, deliver supplies to the international space station and drop off European Space Agency astronaut Thomas Reiter for a six-month stay. |
| tinyurl.com/oy7qf -> www.newscientistspace.com/article/dn8689-nasa-to-divert-cash-from-science-into-shuttle.html Advertising NASA wants to divert money from its science programme to help pay for billions of dollars of projected space shuttle cost overruns, says the agency's chief, Mike Griffin. The cuts mean several key science missions will be delayed indefinitely and have sparked criticism from space enthusiasts and law makers. Griffin and other NASA officials announced the cuts on Monday during a press briefing on US president George Bush's 2007 budget request to Congress. Furthermore, science will receive annual increases of just 10% from 2008 to 2011, according to the budget request. overruns of $3 billion to $5 billion to fly the shuttles safely until they are retired in 2010. Redistributing NASA's budget this way represents a turnaround for Griffin, who in September 2005 specifically vowed not to take "one thin dime" from the science budget to pay for human spaceflight. When asked about his earlier statement, Griffin stunned reporters by admitting he had to go back on his word. "One plain fact is NASA can simply not afford to do everything our many constituencies would like us to do." The science programmes affected include: Delayed indefinitely the Terrestrial Planet Finder (TPF), a mission to detect and study Earth-like planets Delayed by about three years the Space Interferometry Mission (SIM), designed to map stars with unprecedented accuracy and search for planets slightly larger than Earth will now launch no earlier than 2015 Cancelled four to six 18-metre "outrigger" telescopes designed to bolster the twin 10-metre Keck telescopes in Hawaii. The outriggers would have searched for planets and imaged newborn stars Delayed indefinitely the Stratospheric Observatory for Infrared Astronomy (SOFIA), a 25-metre infrared telescope built into a Boeing 747 plane, will be put under "review" because it is behind schedule. It has been given no funding for the foreseeable future Delayed indefinitely NASA's cosmology programme, "Beyond Einstein", is under review. "I would almost describe it as 'anti-science NASA' now, with these kinds of deep cuts," he told New Scientist. "The whole aspect of taking solar system exploration and making it pay for the shuttle, a vehicle we've already committed to retire, is exactly the opposite of what we should be doing," he says. Sherwood Boehlert, chairman of the House Committee on Science and a Republican Congressman from New York, also said he was "greatly concerned" over NASA's science budget. "Science funding should not be taking a back seat to operational programmes that have much less impact," he said in a statement. "We have to be sure that we are not demonstrating that science is a 'crown jewel' of NASA by seeing how much we can get for it at the pawnshop." Hubble boost But not all areas of the budget are growing as slowly as science. Griffin says this amount of funding will allow the CEV to be ready by the president's stated deadline of 2014 and humans to return to the Moon no later than 2020. Under the budget, the International Space Station will also be completed, with an estimated 17 more shuttle flights. If the next flight, currently scheduled for May, flies safely, one of those future shuttles would be sent to service the Hubble Space Telescope. The US House Science Committee will hold a hearing with Griffin on the 2007 budget on 16 February. |