Found at: http://www.flatoday.com/space/today/051697gt.htm
"All of this funding [to get the space station back on track] could
have come out of Mission to Planet Earth,"
said Weldon, "with little or no impact on the program, and there are
no risks to humans in MTPE. I don’t like to see Congress
micromanaging an agency like NASA, but it’s just not smart for Dan
Goldin and the White House to ask the Space Shuttle program to take
the full force of these cuts."
"I’ve said before that this is wrong and that it sets a bad
precedent,"
said Weldon, "and I still believe that to be true. It will now be very
difficult for me to prevent other lawmakers from using the Space
Shuttle as their personal checkbook for pet projects, now that NASA
claims to have hundreds of millions in surplus funds. I think we’ll
see
a run on the bank."
"In fact," concluded Weldon, "that has already started. A California
Congressman proposed today to cut this year’s NASA budget by $38
million to pay for additional programs in the Agriculture Department.
I think this trend will only continue."
Dan Goldin should have protected against this scenario happening AT
ALL COSTS and could have done so had he had contingency plans to cover
the failure of any one piece of space station hardware. He was
repeatedly warned about this by Congress, and his boss, Clinton,
stated for the record that all bases would be covered. Yet Goldin
took no action until circumstances forced him to, in the last few
months.
The first job of an agency manager is to make his project a success.
That way the manager makes himself successful and also makes his boss
(Clinton and the American people) a success. Dan Goldin could have
covered ALL his bases by spending about $200 million on backup
hardware. He has ten times this much money laying around NASA in
various "slush funds" yet he chose not to buy insurance for the most
important project NASA has. Because of Goldin’s failure to protect
United States’ interests by gambling with this most important of
projects, we now have the situation Rep. Weldon describes above, where
other Congresspersons are going to say, "Well, if Goldin has all this
money laying around going unused, I can use some of that money for my
constituents.
I suggest anyone who wants their new launch vehicle funded better
put their bid in now because if they don’t, the money will be going to
agriculture.
Good planning Dan Goldin. You’re doing a bang-up job. Thanks a
lot.
Tom Abbott
External Tank space station Web page:
http://www1.primenet.com/multimedia/space
http://www.sandiego.sisna.com/fitch/text/et_orbit.htm
Space Studies Institute Web page:
http://www.astro.nwu.edu/lentz/space/ssi/
e-mail s…@ssi.org
National Space Society: http://www.nss.org
External Tank pictures: http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/et/et.htm
http://www-sn.jsc.nasa.gov/explore/Data/Lib/docs/eic032.html
Synthesis Group recommendation (1992):
Relatively large heavy lift launch vehicles (HLLV)
The Synthesis Group unequivocally stated that a heavy lift launch
capability of 150 mt for lunar missions with designed growth to 250 mt
for martian missions enabled all of the architectures.
The Synthesis Group finds that America’s ability to return to the Moon
and begin the exploration of Mars depends on two fundamental
technologies: the restoration of a heavy lift launch capability and
the redevelopment of a nuclear propulsion capability."
In 1990, the Presidential Augustine Committee recommended NASA build
heavy-lift to allieviate NASA’s future launch requirements. In 1992,
the Synthesis Group recommends, as they say "unequivocally" the
building of heavy-lift vehicles for the space program’s future. Dan
Goldin takes over NASA on April Fool’s Day 1992, and completely
ignores the recommendations of all the experts and starts building
untried, unproven, poorly understood, aluminum/lithium External Tanks,
instead. In 1995, the Kraft Report specifically called on Goldin to
use any alternative available before resorting to radically modifying
the proven space shuttle launch system. Goldin continues to ignore
the experts, to our space program’s detriment.
The document at the url above is excellent reading, highly
recommended. Too bad Dan Goldin didn’t read it and follow it, at the
time he took over NASA.
Tom Abbott
External Tank space station Web page:
http://www1.primenet.com/multimedia/space
http://www.sandiego.sisna.com/fitch/text/et_orbit.htm
Space Studies Institute Web page:
http://www.astro.nwu.edu/lentz/space/ssi/
e-mail s…@ssi.org
National Space Society: http://www.nss.org
External Tank pictures: http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/et/et.htm
In <5lk6md$…@usenet78.supernews.com>,
tabb…@intellex.com (Tom Abbott) writes:
>Found at: http://www.flatoday.com/space/today/051697gt.htm
>[Space Shuttle budget takes the brunt of NASA cuts]
>[NASA has hundreds of millions in Space Shuttle surplus funds]
>[Congressman proposes to cut NASA's budget to pay for other stuff]
> Dan Goldin should have protected against this scenario happening AT
>ALL COSTS and could have done so had he had contingency plans to cover
>the failure of any one piece of space station hardware…
Gee, Tom, this is the second time you’ve used the phrase "at all costs"
recently, and you’ve even emphasized it in all capital letters. This
time, you want Goldin to have spent a whopping big chunk of money in
order to protect against having his budget cut?! You’re apparently
proposing an oxymoronic "keep the money no matter how much it costs."
> The first job of an agency manager is to make his project a success.
>That way the manager makes himself successful and also makes his boss
>(Clinton and the American people) a success.
Success in a government project should not be measured by how big that
project’s budget is. Success should be measured by how well the project
meets its requirements, and unless you believe that an agency’s top
requirement is to spend money, budget cuts are not obviously bad.
> I suggest anyone who wants their new launch vehicle funded better
>put their bid in now because if they don’t, the money will be going to
>agriculture.
I suggest that people who want a launch vehicle funded…should help
fund a launch vehicle instead of lobbying Congress to do it for them.
> Good planning Dan Goldin. You’re doing a bang-up job. Thanks a
>lot.
What are you complaining about, really? That NASA hasn’t spent all the
money in the budget? That NASA hasn’t spent its money on your Shuttle-C
obsession? (The term "obsession" seems quite appropriate in this case.)
That you and Goldin don’t agree about the need for a strong and strictly
*American* space program? What is it that irks you so much, Tom?
= === === === = = = === === === === = = === = = = === = = === =
# Alan Anderson # Ignorance can be fixed, but stupidity is permanent. #
(I do not speak for Delco Electronics, and DE does not speak for me.)
arand…@kosepc01.delcoelect.com (Alan Anderson) wrote:
>In <5lk6md$…@usenet78.supernews.com>,
>tabb…@intellex.com (Tom Abbott) writes:
>>Found at: http://www.flatoday.com/space/today/051697gt.htm
>>[Space Shuttle budget takes the brunt of NASA cuts]
>>[NASA has hundreds of millions in Space Shuttle surplus funds]
>>[Congressman proposes to cut NASA's budget to pay for other stuff]
>> Dan Goldin should have protected against this scenario happening AT
>>ALL COSTS and could have done so had he had contingency plans to cover
>>the failure of any one piece of space station hardware…
>Gee, Tom, this is the second time you’ve used the phrase "at all costs"
>recently, and you’ve even emphasized it in all capital letters.
Alan, I thought it was appropriate on both occasions.
> This
>time, you want Goldin to have spent a whopping big chunk of money in
>order to protect against having his budget cut?!
Out of a $40 billion dollar space station budget, I wouldn’t call
$30 million to enhance the FGB, a "whopping big chunk." If the
success of the whole project depends on spending $30 million, then you
spend it, if you’re smart. Goldin didn’t spend it, and took the
chance that Congress might kill the project. Bad! Bad! Bad!
> You’re apparently
>proposing an oxymoronic "keep the money no matter how much it costs."
Your interpretation is faulty.
>> The first job of an agency manager is to make his project a success.
>>That way the manager makes himself successful and also makes his boss
>>(Clinton and the American people) a success.
>Success in a government project should not be measured by how big that
>project’s budget is.
Are you contending I said it was?
> Success should be measured by how well the project
>meets its requirements,
The "requirements" in this case would be a working crewed space
station. Goldin’s policies are working at cross purposes to this.
> and unless you believe that an agency’s top
>requirement is to spend money, budget cuts are not obviously bad.
Are you contending that is what I believe?
>> I suggest anyone who wants their new launch vehicle funded better
>>put their bid in now because if they don’t, the money will be going to
>>agriculture.
>I suggest that people who want a launch vehicle funded…should help
>fund a launch vehicle instead of lobbying Congress to do it for them.
Good luck. I prefer to do something in this century, and Congress
has the money.
>> Good planning Dan Goldin. You’re doing a bang-up job. Thanks a
>>lot.
>What are you complaining about, really?
You must be kidding!
> That NASA hasn’t spent all the
>money in the budget?
I think you have missed the entire point.
> That NASA hasn’t spent its money on your Shuttle-C
>obsession?
I think NASA should build heavy-lift.
> (The term "obsession" seems quite appropriate in this case.)
You can characterized it any way you please, but I’m just echoing
what all the experts are saying: that NASA should build heavy-lift to
alleviate its launch problems.
>That you and Goldin don’t agree about the need for a strong and strictly
>*American* space program? What is it that irks you so much, Tom?
What irks me is Dan Goldin’s decisions have placed the American
space program in jeopardy. At every crucial decision point, he has
taken the worst possible path, and now the chickens are slowly coming
home to roost. We’re just lucky we have a benevolent Congress
presently or this Russian Service Module fiasco might have killed the
space station program outright, all by itself. And that’s just the
beginning of our troubles with this space station plan because of the
way Goldin has structured it. His decisions have set this program up
for failure from the very start.
Tom Abbott
External Tank space station Web page:
http://www1.primenet.com/multimedia/space
http://www.sandiego.sisna.com/fitch/text/et_orbit.htm
Space Studies Institute Web page:
http://www.astro.nwu.edu/lentz/space/ssi/
e-mail s…@ssi.org
National Space Society: http://www.nss.org
External Tank pictures: http://willitech.msfc.nasa.gov/et/et.htm