Ah, so you were talking about yourself! Well, dreams can die, especially for elderly NASA engineers. That’s what you meant about the “limits of the engineer’s brain”. Thanks for the clarification.

Yep. Not sure how you can consider them not to be.

“Are they in themselves “good things”. Or are they just the mechanism for communicating good things?”

The only “good thing” is quality of life. These things pertain to quality of life in very different ways.

“Entertainment and media, led now by gaming and with Hollywood in second place, is one of the US’ leading exports and does make a lot of money.”

Absolutely. But what we were talking about was federal investments and making the taxpayer want to pay for something.

“You might also ask that if NASA is spending billions on space flight, but no one knows about it, is it of any value ?”

Yes, I suppose we might ask that, but it’s a pointless question. I would be shocked to learn that the American public didn’t know about space flight, and the billions that are being spent on it. In fact, surveys show that the American public think we are spending a lot more on it than we really are. The American public thinks it has value, but in kind of a wishy-washy way. Like “exploration”, one of the wishy-washiest words in modern space vernacular. As to whether the taxpayers are being entertained by space flight, as “Gravity” does for them, perhaps not. You seem to be presuming that NASA should be entertaining them.

But yes, if NASA can’t think of a compelling rationale for human space flight, then it comes down to doing it to entertain people.

What is the “mission” of the federal government and of NASA ? Education, invention, transportation, new experiences, new knowledge?

“If that were a successful marketing strategy, it would be used…”
Entertainment and media, led now by gaming and with Hollywood in second place, is one of the US’ leading exports and does make a lot of money. Its estimated that US entertainment and media brings in a hundred billion dollars a year and that world-wide its a multi-trillion dollar industry. All that money spent on marketing and advertising-its for a reason, it buys attention, good will, support, and it sells product.

You might ask if a tree falls in the forest but no one is there to hear it, did it really happen? You might also ask that if NASA is spending billions on space flight, but no one knows about it, is it of any value ?

If that were a successful marketing strategy, it would be used by the leaders of every federal endeavor. Let’s dream that everyone in this nation was well fed. OK, how about a movie showing everyone stuffing their faces with cheap food? That should bump the food stamp budget back up, no?

“Unfortunatly if NASA spends billions and the people get nothing to see, nothing to feel or that permits the audience to experience space, then pretty soon the taxpayer starts questioning what they are paying for.”

Wait. So you’re saying that the purpose of NASA is entertainment? An amusement park? Wow. First you’re demeaning engineers, by denying their dreams, and now you’re saying that what NASA is about is letting the taxpayer “experience space”. NASA is right up there with movie theaters and drugs in providing the public what it needs to dream, I guess.

Let me help you out. People pay good money to do good things. Those good things may be driven by their dreams about good things. In the same way that NIH doesn’t spend $30B/yr to permit people to experience laboratories, NASA has no obligation to “permit the audience to experience space”. NASA’s obligation is to make the case to taxpayers that it is doing a good thing.

“Gravity” is more than a “dream”. It’s a representation, with some degree of special effects accuracy, about what it’s like to be in space. That’s pretty cool. But it’s not an argument to spend billions of dollars. That’s my complaint about the movie. “Gravity” is about representation, but doesn’t touch rationale with a ten-foot pole. It tries to tell half the story.

Heh. Nope. All elements of the population are looking for value to their pocket or their way of life. There is just one goal that has to be satisfied. Is there something good here for me?

I’m having trouble understanding the text you wrote, but you seem to be saying that engineers are people who cannot dream and frequently cannot think for themselves. Is that really what you said? That’s pretty insulting to engineers. I take it you are not one, and you don’t have a clue about how engineers brains work. Engineers have the responsibility to design and develop tools, but they’re people too. That responsibility isn’t installed in place of their humanity. Do I take it from you that engineers can’t appreciate the arts, and can’t love their families? Preaching about failure to relate, are we?

The engineers can usually design and develop the tools -if someone specifies what is needed – but that is basically the limit of the engineer’s brain it seems-people who cannot dream and who frequently cannot think for themselves, let alone relate to what others need to hear or ought to hear (or see).

Nope. I was working on CEV then.

EELVs were ONLY considered for the CEV Phase 1 proposals. There were no designs, only proposals. There is a significant difference between a proposal and a design. When Griffin came on board there was indeed a request to change the size of the CEV, a last minute proposal change. At that time Constellation architecture was being implemented as the ESAS study and NASA was looking at an Apollo like shape for the CEV. Contractors had no say on the CEV nor on the LVs. Still it had already been decided by then that EELVs were out of the picture. Basically you don’t have your facts in order. That is all.

Here again:

– O’Keefe CEV Phase 1 Proposal: EELVs were suggested part of the Spiral Approach by Steidle. There was no work on any rocket being asked for by NASA at that time. Only the CEV which included the SM, CM and LAS.
– Griffin CEV Phase 2 Proposal: ESAS based study said we were going to develop an Apollo like capsule lofted by an SRB and have an HLV with 2 SRBs. During the proposal there was a request to change the size of the capsule, the CEV. However no RFP had been issued then to develop either Ares I or Ares V. Preliminary studies showed one 4 segment SRB could not loft any CEV. So NASA asked for a 5 segment SRB model to see if it worked. It didn’t and it had nothing to do with oscillation then…

It does not remove Griffin’s responsibility into the fiasco that Constellation became but at least you should have your facts right.

I hope this helps.

I am not at my home computer, so I can not provide you with a handy link, but Griffin did indeed re-size the CEV from the EELVs capacity to one that could only be handled by the Ares 1, which could not work from its inception, as it violated laws of physics.