Space & Astronomy/Space and Astronomy (October 1993).iso/mac/TEXT_ZIP/spacedig/V12_1/V12_106.ZIP/V12_106

Internet Message Format | 1991-07-08 | 7KB

Return-path: <[e-mail]>
X-Andrew-Authenticated-as: 7997;andrew.cmu.edu;Ted Anderson
Received: from beak.andrew.cmu.edu via trymail for +dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/[e-mail] (->+dist+/afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr11/tm2b/space/space.dl) (->ota+space.digests)
          ID </afs/andrew.cmu.edu/usr1/ota/Mailbox/sadzWV200VcJI5rE5q>;
          Sat, 21 Jul 1990 02:39:30 -0400 (EDT)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Precedence: junk
Reply-To: [e-mail]
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Date: Sat, 21 Jul 1990 02:39:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: SPACE Digest V12 #106

SPACE Digest                                     Volume 12 : Issue 106

Today's Topics:
              Re: Hubble Trouble
              Re: Hubble Trouble

Administrivia:

    Submissions to the SPACE Digest/sci.space should be mailed to
  [e-mail].  Other mail, esp. [un]subscription notices,
  should be sent to [e-mail], or, if urgent, to
             [e-mail]

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 90 04:02:03 GMT
From: munnari.oz.au!uhccux![e-mail]  (David Tholen)
Subject: Re: Hubble Trouble

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Ray Frank) writes:

> I'm ashamed of NASA and I'm ashamed of our entire space program.
> Especially in light of the fact that while we were wasting money on the
> Hubble fiasco, the Europeans have developed a ground based telescope that
> is said to be able to be as good OR BETTER than a perfectly working space
> based Hubble type of telescope.

Really!  And how do you suppose those Europeans managed to eliminate our
atmosphere's absorption of ultraviolet light?  Come on!  There's more to
space-based astronomy than high-resolution imaging.

[Sorry, this is the closest I've come to a flame.  But the notion that we
shouldn't be "wasting" money on space-based telescopes must be stopped.
There never will be a way to do everything from the ground.]

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 90 16:09:13 GMT
From: rochester![e-mail]  (Ray Frank)
Subject: Re: Hubble Trouble

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Dan Sullivan) writes:
>
>>Perhaps forcing NASA to make do with a much smaller ALLOWANCE
>
>   The key word is allowance.  I watched Al Gore (D-Oz) interrogate
>NASAs head man on the Hubble (I forgot his name, sorry).  It was like
>watching a strict parent scold an errant child. "Why didn't you test it?",
>"Why did you ...?", "Why didn't you ...?", "How do you expect me to ...?"
>
>   I am glad he lost the presidential primary!

I would have interrogated NASA's head more than Gore.  In fact, I think
heads should roll and those who made key decisions that wasted billions
of our dollars should be in the unemployment lines as soon as possible.
NASA has proved over and over again that they've become a company that
can't do anything right anymore.  This has to be the fault of management
and greed and incompetence.  If the average guy on the job cost his
company even hundreds of dollars because of incompetence, he would be
fired very quickly.  NASA heads are costing this nation untold billions
of dollars.  It's time to start over with new leaders at the helm of
NASA or maybe it's time that NASA was dismantled and a whole new
approach taken.
Kodak ground a backup mirror and claimed that the whole telescope could
have been tested for only 10 million dollars instead of NASA's claim of
hundreds of millions of dollars.  Kodak says that there exists a military
jig that could have been converted to test the Hubble but that NASA
rejected this idea, even though Kodak claimed the jig would work and that the
telescope must and should be tested before launching it.  Only the most
inept of persons would have approved sending a divice as complex as the Hubble
into space without first testing it as a whole unit.  I wouldn't even by
a 5 dollar radio without first testing it to see that it 'really' works.
Would any of you accept a car that had never been turned on just because
a computer and a few experts claim that the engine was flawless and
must work perfectly and that after you paid for it and it didn't work
you couldn't get your money back.
I'm ashamed of NASA and I'm ashamed of our entire space program.
Especially in light of the fact that while we were wasting money on the
Hubble fiasco, the Europeans have developed a ground based telescope that
is said to be able to be as good OR BETTER than a perfectly working space
based Hubble type of telescope.  We are falling behind and we are wasting
taxpayers money at the same time and the people who are responsible are
still getting fat pay checks.
Stanley G. Rosen, vice president for public policy of the American Institute
of Aeronautics and Astronautics had an editorial in today's paper.  His
attitude best describes why our nation's space program is plagued with woes.
It is exactly his type of attitude that must be eliminated from the space
program or any other complicated endeavor.  To quote a few of his lines:
"But have we not made such a grievous error this time that we are guilty
of wasting millions of taxpayers dollars?  By reading the press accounts
of the Hubble situation, one could surely come to this conclusion.  But the
truth lies elsewhere.  The Hubble program was planned with just such unforseen
happenings in mind.  Hubble was designed and built to be served and maintained
by Space Shuttle crews and its intruments were designed to be replaced as new
technology evolved.  In planning for use of this new capability to maintain
and upgrade the Hubble telescope, NASA managers were able to save
considerable tax dollars by making the system simpler that it would need to
be if on-orbit maintenance were not available."

And now here comes the cruncher:

"Because of NASA's careful planning we will be able to fix the Hubble
telescope and during its intended 15 year lifetime it will achieve almost
all its objectives."  and later:  "That's precisely what good engineering is,
and that's what NASA's job is."
"Our engineering talent, as demonstrated by the Hubble situation, is clearly
up to the job."

I like the line "almost achieve all its objectives".
This guy sounds like someone running for political office.  He is full of
double talk.

As long as his kind of 'la di da' attitude pervades our scientific endeavers
our entire scientific future is in danger.  And doubtless there are countless
bureaucratic types festering in and around NASA these days making a mess of
everything they touch.

ray

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V12 #106
*******************