simonbp - 26/3/2008 10:46 AMa lot of the science community
Stowbridge - 26/3/2008 12:27 PMIf he had become the NASA head, it would have been an unmitigating disaster for manned space flight.
Jim - 26/3/2008 11:48 AMThis will hurt
Stowbridge - 26/3/2008 6:27 PMQuotesimonbp - 26/3/2008 10:46 AMa lot of the science community1) Which means he is not in a strong position. There's a major transition for manned space flight. This is rightly where the concentration is going to be.2) Stock has reduced greatly in rock samples and various unmanned what-evers.3) If he had become the NASA head, it would have been an unmitigating disaster for manned space flight.
general - 26/3/2008 6:31 PMApparently Griffin didn't like the Press about shutting down the Mars Rovers due to budget pressures. Sounds like Griffin wasn't in the loop on the decision, and Stern took the fall.
space.anonymous - 26/3/2008 6:51 PMDo you think we're losing a good AA or gaining a bad one?
Analyst - 26/3/2008 1:49 PMWell, this is a surprise. After less than a year. QuoteStowbridge - 26/3/2008 6:27 PM1) Which means he is not in a strong position. There's a major transition for manned space flight. This is rightly where the concentration is going to be.2) Stock has reduced greatly in rock samples and various unmanned what-evers.3) If he had become the NASA head, it would have been an unmitigating disaster for manned space flight. 1) No, there are (still) alternatives. Science is the reason for all NASA does in space. Going to the moon is (or should be) about science.2) Maybe its because I am not a native English speaker. But I don't understand your point.3) More disaster than right now? Where do you base your opinion?
Stowbridge - 26/3/2008 6:27 PM1) Which means he is not in a strong position. There's a major transition for manned space flight. This is rightly where the concentration is going to be.2) Stock has reduced greatly in rock samples and various unmanned what-evers.3) If he had become the NASA head, it would have been an unmitigating disaster for manned space flight.
psloss - 26/3/2008 8:44 PMIs science NASA's reason to be, should science be that reason, or are there more, competing priorities?
psloss - 26/3/2008 12:44 PMIs science NASA's reason to be, should science be that reason, or are there more, competing priorities? (My reading of NASA's charter is that it's more broad than science.)The other points about "stock" in unmanned science and "disaster" for manned spaceflight are based on the stated opinion (so probably not objective) that human spaceflight should currently have a higher priority and appropriations emphasis than science.
Analyst - 26/3/2008 12:49 PMWell, this is a surprise. After less than a year. QuoteStowbridge - 26/3/2008 6:27 PM1) Which means he is not in a strong position. There's a major transition for manned space flight. This is rightly where the concentration is going to be.1) No, there are (still) alternatives. Science is the reason for all NASA does in space.
Stowbridge - 26/3/2008 6:27 PM1) Which means he is not in a strong position. There's a major transition for manned space flight. This is rightly where the concentration is going to be.
Jorge - 26/3/2008 8:26 PMI would go so far as to argue that those priorities apply not just to the manned program, but "spill over" into the unmanned program as well. Clearly there is some reflection of that in the direction the unmanned program has followed over the last 15 years; we have sent more spacecraft to Mars than all other solar system destinations combined over that period. That cannot possibly be a reflection of the intrinsic scientific merit of Mars; it is scientifically interesting but not so interesting that it should get more than 50% of the spacecraft. No, Mars, gets the interest because it is the next destination for manned spacecraft that humans have not already visited - and, it follows, if there were no interest in sending manned spacecraft to Mars, we'd be doing quite a bit less unmanned Mars exploration as well.
Jorge - 26/3/2008 9:26 PMUmm, wrong. That's not even a matter for opinion; NASA's charter enumerates a whole list of reasons for what NASA does in space, and science is only one of them. ....Obviously there's quite a bit of science that needs to be done to enable those goals, but it is properly a means to those ends rather than an end in itself.
The NASA Charter:(1) plan, direct, and conduct aeronautical and space activities;(2) arrange for participation by the scientific community in planning scientific measurements and observations to be made through use of aeronautical and space vehicles, and conduct or arrange for the conduct of such measurements and observations;(3) provide for the widest practicable and appropriate dissemination of information concerning its activities and the results thereof;(4) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space; and(5) encourage and provide for Federal Government use of commercially provided space services and hardware, consistent with the requirements of the Federal Government.
Jorge - 26/3/2008 9:26 PMClearly there is some reflection of that in the direction the unmanned program has followed over the last 15 years; we have sent more spacecraft to Mars than all other solar system destinations combined over that period. That cannot possibly be a reflection of the intrinsic scientific merit of Mars; it is scientifically interesting but not so interesting that it should get more than 50% of the spacecraft. No, Mars, gets the interest because it is the next destination for manned spacecraft that humans have not already visited...
George CA - 27/3/2008 4:20 PMIt's just the science element that are jumping. No loss. NASA needs to get back to full concentration on manned space flight.Take your choice. Manned mission to the moon and Mars, or more Rovers? It's the easiest decision ever and if Griffin is causing the deadwood to jump, good.
George CA - 27/3/2008 8:20 PMIt's just the science element that are jumping. No loss. NASA needs to get back to full concentration on manned space flight.Take your choice. Manned mission to the moon and Mars, or more Rovers? It's the easiest decision ever and if Griffin is causing the deadwood to jump, good.
George CA - 27/3/2008 9:20 PM It's just the science element that are jumping. No loss. NASA needs to get back to full concentration on manned space flight. Take your choice. Manned mission to the moon and Mars, or more Rovers? It's the easiest decision ever and if Griffin is causing the deadwood to jump, good.
Wow... talking about fine-balancing and wisely managing, here we have a counter-example... that simplistic one-or-the-other view is so deeply short-sighted that it manages to annoy.
I'd like to know what all those rockets would do without science... in fact, I wonder if your dreamnt spaceship would ever leave LEO or even the good, old ground in one piece and with living people inside, were it not for the efforts of that boring and grim deadwood.
Talking about more interesting matters, what's Weiler's background, specifically in his new assignment, science?
George CA - 27/3/2008 3:20 PMIt's just the science element that are jumping. No loss. NASA needs to get back to full concentration on manned space flight.Take your choice. Manned mission to the moon and Mars, or more Rovers? It's the easiest decision ever and if Griffin is causing the deadwood to jump, good.
eeergo - 28/3/2008 12:22 AMTalking about more interesting matters, what's Weiler's background, specifically in his new assignment, science?
eeergo - 27/3/2008 4:22 PMTalking about more interesting matters, what's Weiler's background, specifically in his new assignment, science?
eeergo - 27/3/2008 6:48 PMAlan was young an enthusiastic, maybe a bit overly so sometimes, although not for my taste. Let's hope Brian has not lost that enthusiasm just because he's older and has worked on this before.
psloss - 28/3/2008 12:21 AM Quoteeeergo - 27/3/2008 6:48 PM Alan was young an enthusiastic, maybe a bit overly so sometimes, although not for my taste. Let's hope Brian has not lost that enthusiasm just because he's older and has worked on this before. You mean Ed? Damn I'm old -- alright, everyone stop being younger than me...I remember seeing Mr. Weiler in press briefings quite a lot before the Hubble launch and then during the tumultuous periods between then and the first servicing mission.
eeergo - 27/3/2008 6:48 PM Alan was young an enthusiastic, maybe a bit overly so sometimes, although not for my taste. Let's hope Brian has not lost that enthusiasm just because he's older and has worked on this before.
Yes of course, sorry, I glanced at the article and saw the reporter's name... I guess I'm not old but sometimes behave worse than if I was