🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ewright.727553712@convex.convex.com>, ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright) writes...
>In <rabjab.31.727504007@golem.ucsd.edu> rabjab@golem.ucsd.edu (rabjab) writes:
> 
>>>        B. Support completion of the space station Freedom.
> 
>>Looks like Clinton is going to make some rather severe cuts in space
>>projects.  And "supporting completion" doesn't mean actual completion.
> 
>You don't understand.  NASA doesn't *want* Space Station Freedom
>completed.  Completing a project means you no longer have job
>security, which is why these things go on forever.  This is also
>why no one comes right out and opposes a project anymore.  Instead, 
>they "support it as a research program" (as in Les Aspin's "I support
>SDI as a research program" or Gary Coffman's "I support SSTO...").
>That way, you not only ensure that nothing useful will ever get built,
>you also establish a permanent aerospace jobs program, and ultimately
>discredit anyone who supported the original project as anything more
>than a jobs program.
> 
> 

No you don't understand and your statement is a prime reason people like
you are not listened to at NASA. Even looking at the proposition from a
pragmatical political perspective, this statment of yours is false. Why?

If NASA drags their feet and does not finish the station costs soar and
nothing gets done. In this era of deficts and budget cuts at the drop a 
political hat this path is suicide. NASA from the beginning has wanted to
finish the station for many reasons. Look at your congress critters for
the blame for the delays in station and the increased cost that has brought
due to maintaining the standing army that station design and ad infinitum
redesign has caused.

Using your twisted logic I can argue that NASA would WANT to complete the
station because it will be much harder to kill it when it is in orbit and
the operational budget for the thing will help keep the fires warm there for
thirty years to come. This also leaves the door open for the continuation
of the shuttle program for all of the reasons that have been enumerated on
this net as well as many others that could be posed in your same faulty
reasoning.

I am insulted at your characterization of NASA, based upon years of work with
dedicated engineers and managers from Marshall, Langley, KSC, Lewis, JSC and
JPL. Ames is the only center that I have not worked with. Yours is a denegration
of the lives of those people who took lower wages to work in a job that they
love, in a societal realm that they love. Most could work at commercial 
firms for more money. I don't think I have ever hear of anyone leaving NASA
for a lower paid postion.

I do agree that at NASA, as well as at any commercial company or university has
its share of duds. That is life. Lets see you do a good job with all of the
congressionally mandated procurement and other rules that they have to live 
with. I have heard of stories like the one where an expansion board was ordered
for a Silicon Graphics workstation that was obsolete (9 months) before it
was delivered. This is a small part of the hell that the good people at NASA
have to live with. 

At least they are there in the fight and trying do do something about it.
You and those like you who sit on the sidelines and rant and rave do nothing
for anyone or anything other than your own ego. This is one of the primary 
reasons people like you are ignored by engineers and scientist at NASA who are
doing their best to help and lower the cost of the Exploration and Development
of Space.

A little bit of advice. If you see something wrong with NASA quit your whining
and do something about it. If you see a way to do it faster, cheaper, and or
better, then start designing it or implementing your plan in some way. 
People that know will then see that you are doing something good and will help
you. This then will lead to you being recognized and if you then TALK to NASA
people as human beings instead of the enemy, THEN you might find that you have
a receptive ear that will not only help you, but will champion your cause 
within NASA. These people are not stupid, if what you have actually makes
good sense and does a good job faster, cheaper or better, then you might
just find that NASA may adopt it.

There are pitfalls and there are managers and politicians that are more 
concerned with their little 'ol empires and their way of doing things, but these
are simple obsticals to be overcome. Builds character, you ought to try it
sometime. So quit saying stupid things like you said in your post and 
either do something or support those of us who are doing things that are
supporting doing things better or get out of the way.

By the way it is less than 60 days to the launch of the Small Expendable 
Deployer System (SEDS 1) on a McDonnell Douglas Delta II. This is just one
of NASA's smaller, cheaper, better missions. It is a secondary payload on
a Delta which lowers the cost dramatically, and also it employs a 
tether deployer based wonderfully on the KISS principle of deploying tethers.
It is the branchild of Preliminary Design (PD) at NASA Marshall, with the
end mass being built by Langley. The total cost of the development, 
construction, launch, operations, and data reduction will be less than 8 million
dollars.

This tether mission is the result of a lot of hard work by a small group within
NASA. There will be two more similar missions, one with a conducting tether
in Calendar year 93 and early 94. 

Everywhere I have been in NASA people have wanted to help us with our
satellite becauce it was "real hardware that will fly". There are many people
who have worked many hours at NASA on their own time to help us. Mayber you
ought to look at the subject and the people that you so easily dismiss

Dennis, University of Alabama In Huntsville