At the tail end of yesterday’s White House press briefing by press secretary Scott McClellan (dominated, as usual the last few days, by topics like Karl Rove), the issue of the shuttle’s return to flight and the status of the Vision for Space Exploration came up:
Q Scott, is the President going to watch the Shuttle launch? And has he shelved his Mars proposal?
MR. McCLELLAN: Yes, I do expect the President to watch the launch. We wish the crew of the Space Shuttle Discovery a safe and successful mission. The President looks forward to seeing the Space Shuttle Discovery launch and the return to flight.
In terms of the mission of NASA, yes, NASA has been moving forward on the vision that the President outlined. And this is a long-term vision that you bring up, one part of that. But today’s flight is an important step in advancing space exploration. I think all Americans are proud of our space program, and look forward to the launch of the Space Shuttle Discovery. It’s also a day to remember those who tragically lost their life on February 1, 2003, in — onboard the Space Shuttle Columbia. I know all of us in this room remember that day very well. And today’s flight is a way to honor their commitment and their dedication to space exploration.
As it turned out, less than a half-hour after the briefing ended the launch was scrubbed.
“But today’s flight is an important step in advancing space exploration.” That is such absolute garbage. Almost no one in the debate is still defending space shuttle flights as important advances in space exploration. One faction might believe that shuttle flights once were that, but certainly not any more. The shuttle is a relic from the days of the Apple II.
How did the supposedly hostile press respond to this blatant pro-NASA propaganda? With the two words, “Thank you”.
Kuperberg: “”But today’s flight is an important step in advancing space exploration.” That is such absolute garbage.”
No, it is a simple statement of truth. Your pathetic partisan attacks on everything Bush related, NASA related, Shuttle related is the only garbage I see here.
I don’t see any shuttle flight as much in the way of “space exploration”, but returning the shuttle to flight status IS an important “step” toward the goal of space exploration. It is quite simple, without returning the shuttle to flight US manned space flight will end. The steps to true space exploration begin with returning the shuttle to flight and completing the ISS in one form or another. All partisan nit-picking aside.
Kuperberg: “How did the supposedly hostile press respond to this blatant pro-NASA propaganda? With the two words, “Thank you”.”
Judging the reporters obvious ignorance on space related subject matter from her first question, I would assume that was all she could come up with at the moment. Maybe she should have done a Helen Thomas act and yelled “Liar, liar!!”?
Well, Cecil, you are right about one thing. Most reporters are ignorant about spaceflight, ignorant to the point of gullibility. And it plays to NASA’s advantage 99% of the time, just like in the above exchange with Scott McClellan. NASA can orchestrate any explanation that it pleases, for example the infamous claim that the space shuttle is “routine and economical”, and 99% of the reporters who hear it just feel educated and say “thank you”.
But it is absolutely not true that I am against everything Bush-related or NASA-related. Bush hired Griffin and that was a very reasonable move. And Griffin in turn is trying to retire the space shuttle as soon as possible. He is even trying to retire one of three orbiters before Bush leaves office. That takes political courage and I have to applaud Bush and Griffin for it.
As for NASA itself, most of what it does other than human spaceflight is very reasonable. Some of it, for example WMAP, is spectacular. But you are right that I really can’t think of anything nice to say about the space shuttle.
Another relevant point: Richard Blomberg, the former chair of the NASA safety advisory panel, pointed out yesterday that the space shuttle is caught between two masters: actual flight safety, and CAIB safety recommendations. This is a distinction that seemed lost on Sean O’Keefe. Romberg says that O’Keefe’s fundamentalist interpretation of the CAIB report has hobbled the shuttle program.
I personally don’t mind delays in shuttle flights. But I have wonder why human spaceflight advocates thought that O’Keefe was so great. The recent pattern is that the less a NASA administrator knows about rocketry, the more the Star Trek lobby likes him.
> It is quite simple, without returning the shuttle to flight US
> manned space flight will end.
No, it is not that simple at all. Do you think Burt Rutan and everyone else working on space flight will just give up if the Shuttle doesn’t return to flight? Or that it isn’t American unless it’s done by NASA?
> The steps to true space exploration begin with returning the shuttle to flight
> and completing the ISS in one form or another. All partisan nit-picking aside.
It’s only “true” exploration if it begins with the Shuttle and ISS? What happens if “true” exploration is surpassed by what other people are doing?
Sure Ed, you let us know when Rutan gets to Mars, or even the Moon, or how about just to orbit. You live in a dream world.
Cecil,
Rutan probably won’t beat NASA back to orbit (even they aren’t that incompetent), but I really wouldn’t be surprised if a private entity is the next to visit the Moon or the first to visit Mars. NASA’s several years out on that, and there’s still a good chance that something along the way could derail them. When was the last time NASA went to the Moon?
More importantly, if private entities don’t start going to the Moon or Mars, this whole VSE will be a bloody waste. If the entire point of all that NASA is doing is just to get a couple of their nerds back to the moon, they don’t deserve the money we give them. The only point in giving NASA money is if they’re actually doing something to open up space for the rest of us.
> Sure Ed, you let us know when Rutan gets to Mars, or even the Moon, or how about just to orbit. You live in a dream world.
You told your son NASA would get him to go into space — and you say I’m living in a dream world?
I’m sorry if you think no one but the government can do anything. I wonder what happened to make you so cynical about America?
Mr. Wright what I do or do not tell my child is none of your concern you stupid SOB.
Neither the private nor the public sector can do it alone in a timely manner.
> Mr. Wright what I do or do not tell my child is none of your concern you stupid SOB.
Then why did you post it on a public BBS?
You have called me stupid, unpatriotic, and illegitmate, all because I believe in American free enterprise rather than blindly “supporting the President’s vision.”
That’s pretty ironic, since I voted for George W. Bush twice, while the NASA employees’ union endorsed John F. Kerry. Keith Cowing, the public spokesman for NASA’s VSE, also campaigned for Kerry. So, your attempts to make this a partisan issue are way, way, WAY off base.
Ok Mister Ed:
“You have called me stupid, unpatriotic, and illegitimate, all because I believe in American free enterprise rather than blindly “supporting the President’s vision.””
Posted by Edward Wright at July 15, 2005 08:50 PM
No one called you “unpatriotic”; stupid, yes but not unpatriotic! Your sentence should start: “You have called me stupid, unpatriotic, and illegitimate, all because I blindly believe in American free enterprise…”.
Also I believe that you were called the son of a female dog not illegitimate.
If you know anything in about free enterprise you know that what drives that is profit. Right now there is no way to profit from space besides the satellite and launch business. I agree that NASA can allow private re-supply of the space station and I think they are quickly heading in that direction.
Also, the shuttle has some major flaws like expensive to launch and maintain, temperamental and not as robust as some launch vehicles and I agree that it is time for a new manned vehicle, but there is still no launch vehicle that has the capabilities that the shuttle has. It can carry 7 passengers, over 25 tons of equipment and perform as an excellent construction platform all at the same time. I think we over reached for the funds we had to work with.
OK everyone, have at it!
Let me apologize to everyone (everyone except for Mr. Wright) for my outburst above.
Several months ago I posted something on another board to the effect that my 13-year-old son was excited by the prospect of the US manned space program doing something other than orbit the Earth. My point being that others like my son could be inspired to study fields of science, technology etc. by such a program, I’m certainly not the first to point out this “spin-off” of an exciting space program.
Since then Mr. Wright has on several occasions made remarks about my son, going so far as to say that I have lied to my son.
Such behavior is beyond the pale of civil discourse, yet it is typical and all too common for Edward Wright.
> I posted something on another board to the effect that my 13-year-old son was excited by the prospect
> of the US manned space program doing something other than orbit the Earth. My point being that others
> like my son could be inspired to study fields of science, technology etc. by such a program
No, that is not what you posted. If you had said that, I would have found nothing to diagree with.
You posted that you told your son the NASA program would allow *him* to go into space. Given the number of NASA astronauts who will fly in that program, your statement is almost certainly false, and I’m sure you know that.
Now, you’re changing your story and accusing me of lying.
Gentlemen:
Since discussion regarding the topic has run its course, and the remaining participants no longer seem interested in civil discourse, I am closing the comments for this post.