WASHINGTON, D.C.—Senator John D. (Jay) Rockefeller IV, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, today announced a Science and Space Subcommittee hearing on the contributions of space to national imperatives.
Witness Panel 1 Mr. Elliot Holokauahi Pulham Chief Executive Officer Space Foundation Mr. Frank Slazer Vice President of Space Systems Aerospace Industries Association Dr. Christopher F. Chyba Professor of Astrophysics and International Affairs Director, Program on Science and Global Security, Princeton University Capt. Frank L. Culbertson Jr. (U.S. Navy, ret.) Commander International Space Station Expedition 3, Astronaut (ret.)
Nelson asked Chyba about the "Rocket to Nowhere" headlines.Chyba's response:Apolo vision is not working for nasa.What is needed1. LEO ecosystem/infrustructure-comercial / station as destination2. HLV capability
Listening to the replay.00:35 GAH! Sen. Hutchison goes on yet again about AMS (particle spectrometer carried to ISS by STS-134) as research into energy sources; in fact it is fundamental particle astrophysics research, as far removed from practical energy production as anything done at CERN or FermiLab. She seems determined not to be confused by the facts.
Quote from: Proponent on 05/19/2011 04:35 amListening to the replay.00:35 GAH! Sen. Hutchison goes on yet again about AMS (particle spectrometer carried to ISS by STS-134) as research into energy sources; in fact it is fundamental particle astrophysics research, as far removed from practical energy production as anything done at CERN or FermiLab. She seems determined not to be confused by the facts.And you seem determined to forget that the purpose of AMS is to identify the existence of and attempt to characterize the UNKNOWN phenomena of Dark Matter and dark Energy; things that have only been largely theorized about to date.
So I suggest you stop foaming at the mouth with the kind of "contempt prior to investigation" that seems to characterize so much of what you have to say.
We'll want to ensure that funding to maintain this core capability [the government HLV] does not prevent the development of a commercial ecosystem in LEO, that may be our best longer-term hope for a robust human future in space. If there's one place where new resources should be targeted to mitigate NASA's budget dilemma, it may be here.
How are these guests picked? Is it Senator Nelson's final choice?
I believe AMS is very worthwhile as pure science, and I appreciate Sen. Hutchison's important efforts on its behalf. If she supported it principally in the belief that it is a promising avenue leading toward better energy sources in the foreseeable future, then, as others have just point out, she supported it for the wrong reasons. That said, I'm sure that many of the good things that happen happen for the wrong reasons; they're still good things.Quote from: 51D Mascot on 05/19/2011 04:57 amSo I suggest you stop foaming at the mouth with the kind of "contempt prior to investigation" that seems to characterize so much of what you have to say.May I suggest that a constructive path would be to explain to Sen. Hutchison or her staff how nebulous AMS's connection to energy production is. Given your privileged role in the corridors of power, perhaps you or your colleagues would even be in a position to do so. I'm glad Sen. Hutchison has supported AMS, but her continuing apparent misunderstanding of it serves none of herself, the Committee, the State of Texas nor the country well.You characterize my behavior as "foaming at the mouth." My post above certainly reflects frustration, but I think that's hardly an unreasonable reaction when an one of the country's key policy makers in science and technology repeatedly demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the subject. I'd also note that to hold public office in a free country is to be subject to criticism.EDIT: Grammar.
00:35 GAH! Sen. Hutchison goes on yet again about AMS (particle spectrometer carried to ISS by STS-134) as research into energy sources; in fact it is ... as far removed from practical energy production as anything done at CERN or FermiLab. She seems determined not to be confused by the facts.
Quote from: Proponent on 05/19/2011 04:35 am00:35 GAH! Sen. Hutchison goes on yet again about AMS (particle spectrometer carried to ISS by STS-134) as research into energy sources; in fact it is ... as far removed from practical energy production as anything done at CERN or FermiLab. She seems determined not to be confused by the facts.KBH has mentioned "energy" several times in the context of AMS. I haven't heard every last word she has said on the subject, but each time I have heard her, it sounded like she spoke of a source for energy in the sense that coal is a source for energy, rather than in the sense that matter/anti-matter annihilation is a source of energy.This is why I don't have a problem with Proponent's "GAH!". Spin to the contrary notwithstanding.In general, all of these congress critters should become more educated regarding science. Overlooking all the political insider stuff for the moment, they are not well informed on, or else they do not choose to demonstrate their compentence in, these subjects in general, and therefore their decisions tend to be faulty.
Quote from: Proponent on 05/19/2011 06:13 amI believe AMS is very worthwhile as pure science, and I appreciate Sen. Hutchison's important efforts on its behalf. If she supported it principally in the belief that it is a promising avenue leading toward better energy sources in the foreseeable future, then, as others have just point out, she supported it for the wrong reasons. That said, I'm sure that many of the good things that happen happen for the wrong reasons; they're still good things.She's a politician! Postulating nebulous connections in order to justify spending huge gobs of money is what they do.
I believe AMS is very worthwhile as pure science, and I appreciate Sen. Hutchison's important efforts on its behalf. If she supported it principally in the belief that it is a promising avenue leading toward better energy sources in the foreseeable future, then, as others have just point out, she supported it for the wrong reasons. That said, I'm sure that many of the good things that happen happen for the wrong reasons; they're still good things.
Even when they believe a thing is justified in and of itself, they still have to spin it to counter arguments from those who don't subscribe to the same world view.