Fair enough.

But is it surprising when the media gets stuff wrong when the right answer is – – not decided yet?

I guess I had better write some letters to the Aldridge people. And then to the Congressional committees that will evaluate the Aldridge report.

No, the vision doesn’t allude to a lunar “Cape Canaveral”. No, the vision doesn’t say anything about shuttle derived, HLLV, or EELV.

“[…] how committed is the White House to this vision, anyways?” Committed enough to trust the implementation recommendations to the Aldridge Commission. Committed enough to give the Aldridge Commission the promised 120 days to draft its report. Committed enough to lead with a vision, and allow more qualified space professionals to make the implementation recommendations.

The White House is leading, not micro-managing. Let’s all wait for the Aldridge Commission report to be released before we start criticizing implementation policy that doesn’t yet exist.

Zubrin’s attack on this lunar tollbooth was rather more “colorful” than Glenn’s yet they basically said they same thing, IMHO. Now people are attacking Glenn (and Zubrin) saying no permanent lunar base is intended.

Does the Bush vision include using shuttle derived, or an entirely new HLLV, or everything goes up on EELV? Any clue, anyone?

If Sherwood Boehlert remains “on the fence” because he lacks sufficient details, how the heck can the media get it right? If Sherwood Boehlert remains “on the fence” how committed is the White House to this vision anyways?

“Any decision to cancel the SM4 servicing mission will be made primarily, if not totally, on the basis of safety, not cost. (One can argue whether how legitimate those safety issues are, but throughout the debate cost has not been an issue.)”

While correct, the safety ‘issue’, isn’t, really; since after all, no one is seriously talking of letting Hubble come in a la Skylab; which means there must be a mission to rendezvous, capture, dock…and return….which, frankly, is unquestionably more ‘dangerous’ than simply reservicing it and leaving it up there.

Dave Huntsman

“Lately”?

In what golden age was it good?

But I also think that NASA has not been doing a good job of getting its message out there. For some reason they appear to have decided that in the case of Hubble, they will only _respond_ to questions or editorials, but will not actually be proactive and provide information in the form of formal statements or fact sheets–so far, all the justifications for the Hubble decision have been delivered verbally and not in writing. The problem with this strategy is that it puts the agency constantly on the defensive.

There is a good article on the Hubble issue in the current Aviation Week. It is worth reading.