Well, considering we have to share *this* planet with the Russians and the mainland Chinese, I don't see anything "wrong".Originally Posted by Grey
Just unfortunate necessity.
Order of Kilopi
Well, considering we have to share *this* planet with the Russians and the mainland Chinese, I don't see anything "wrong".
Just unfortunate necessity.
Order of Kilopi
I don't think it says it well at all. They are misusing the word "better".
I don't think that the body of a mercedes with only an engine block and no wheels, interior or electronics is anywhere close to being better than my Chevy.
The rest is political and I won't comment on whether or not I share the overall emotion. But; presenting it in that way is completely distorting the facts.
Order of Kilopi
I disagree. I think the article makes it clear that it's just the optics, and that to do anything with them, NASA would have to spend a bunch of money on instrumentation, cameras, and launch and support costs. Indeed, that's part of the point of the article.
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.
Order of Kilopi
It's the explicit message of the article - it's well stated, well phrased, and very much deserves to be out there - highlighting the utterly crazy situation.
Order of Kilopi
That's ok with me, I respect opinions but I'm talking about tones of an article, how they portray it and what they emphasize.
They do explain it but in only one sentence as far as the hardware and one sentence about operating them. They do not give any clue as to just how big that effort is. But; they do keep repeating several times that it's a "better telescope".
And they top it off with a concluding paragraph that concludes the view of the military, and view of NASA management.
I also wonder about the use of "Cape Canaveral". Either the reporter is not aware of the structure of NASA, or he has some kind of motive to mis-represent it.
They never said anything to elude to "a bunch".
Let us agree to disagree as to how big of a part that is. I don't consider two sentences in an article to indicate its point.
Order of Kilopi
What do you consider to be the explicit message of the article?
We may all be reading it with a different point of view, but I keep seeing a lot of references to military spending. I will not discuss that aspect of it here. I will only say that because of the reasons I already pointed out I don't think that the article is appropriate for discussion on this board.
Order of Kilopi
You've actually just said, in essence, we can't talk about what that article is talking about....what do you think that article's talking about.
A little contrary don't you think.
"I don't think that the article is appropriate for discussion on this board."
and yet
"What do you consider to be the explicit message of the article?"
You can't actually have it both ways.
Suffice to say - I agree with Grey.
"They never said anything to alude to a bunch"
They do - twice...
"NASA also has to come up with the money to pay the scientists to run them. To get that done could take until 2020, the Post says."
and they repeat it
"NASA will need eight years to find enough change in the couches at Cape Canaveral to turn these gifts into something they can use. "
That clearly shows that NASA will struggle to find the money to do anything with these.
Order of Kilopi
No I didn't. I clearly specified that we can't talk about it if it is primarily about military spending, and that it is how "I" view the article. It is reinforced by Grey's introduction of the article by stating the conclusion which contains many military references.
The subject of what NASA is saddled with that is well within the bounds of what I think is acceptable here. It's my impression of this article that I don't think is appropriate.
That's why I asked for your opinion on what the explicit message is. If you don't think it's about military spending, then that leaves room for discussion and I am fine with that. So; no, I don't think its a little contrary.
As I have said before. That is only a small portion of the article.
How do you interpret the use of "couches"? I take it as a negative connotation of the abilities of NASA management not an indication that the effort truly is because a lot of work needs to be done.
Established Member
I for one don't read it like that at all. More like NASA is so strapped for cash (their budget is so tight) that they have to resort to scrounging for every penny they can find.
Order of Kilopi
Fair enough, but I would like to understand how you get to that usage. It's one of the issues that I am having a hard time trying to find common ground with in the discussion. I usually hear "couch" in a negative context as to be somewhat analogious with "lazy".
Order of Kilopi
Setting aside that particular article and going back to the subject itself...
At the end of Apollo, NASA had 2 complete Sat-Vs (SA-514 and SA-515) and an additional SIVB.
What if NASA had said "We are gifting our spare Saturn hardware to the Air Force because they launch things into orbit"?
Do people here see a difference?
Order of Kilopi
Fair enough. The article is pretty brief (it only has five paragraphs total, plus a quote from the Washington Post). My read of it is that it's mostly referencing the military budget being too high in the sense that they could build two very nice telescopes that it turns out it didn't actually need. At the very least, even if you think there's nothing wrong with the overall size of the military budget, I'd hope you'd agree that in hindsight the money would have better been spent on other things.* My read on the line about couches is definitely not one of implied laziness or lack of organization on NASA's part, but just a humorous way of saying that NASA's budget is so tight that to find extra money for an unexpected project, they'd have to go looking for loose change. I've heard that expression before, but presumably you haven't.
* With the important caveat that in any endeavor, you'll unavoidably end up spending money on things that you were pretty sure you would need, and finding out only later that you did not. I work in software development, and I'd have a really hard time counting the number of occasions on which we spent a few months building something, only to throw most of it away when we were done, because the situation had changed. Some of that may have been lack of planning or foresight on our part, but some of it is just because the world is unpredictable. There's far too little information to know which is the case here.
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.
Order of Kilopi
Interesting comparison. In that case, I know a little more about why NASA ended up with extra hardware (funding was cut for the missions that would have used them), so I can't really fault NASA for having them left over. It could be that the reason the DOD ended up with extra hardware was similarly beyond their control. I do actually think it's commendable to try to find a use for an expensive piece of hardware that you can't use yourself. The real question would be whether the Air Force would have been able to do anything with them. My assumption is that it would not have been cost-effective to do so, which is why they ended up in museums instead. If I were in charge in this case, I'd have conflicted feelings. On the one hand, I'd be happy for some nice hardware, but on the other hand, I'd be extremely frustrated at not having any available budget to do do anything with it, without giving up something else.
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.
Order of Kilopi
From your post, it sounds like we are mostly in agreement afterall. I just didn't like the overall tone of the article.
Order of Kilopi
It's quite clear to me that the context of the quote is that NASA is strapped for cash and figuratively hunting down the back of the sofa, you seem to somehow have conflated that with 'couch potato', how you made that leap I can't imagine but you've clearly come to a false conclusion.
Order of Kilopi
@giving satV's to the Air Force: one difference is that you'd give a finished product, ie a complete launcher. Agreed, without a useful payload it's still nothing, but at least it's far less half-a-present than telescope optics are.
As I don't know the reason why they ended up with spare optics, I can't judge any possible differences with why NASA ended up with some surplus huge launchers. And in any case, I too sometimes buy half a bread too much.
Order of Kilopi
Massively different.
We know why those two Saturn V's exist because of transparency in the NASA budget
We do not know why these two scopes exist, how much they cost, why they're being gifted away.
In the Saturn V case, I would expect NASA to say "Hey - DoD- are these useful?"
If not - Museum
If so - hand them over.
Moreover - Saturn V's being handed over is something useful that with minimal testing would have been good to go - the infrastructure to use them was in situ, etc etc.
These two scopes require massive investment (that NASA doesn't have) to turn them from flight ready optics into a flight ready spacecraft.
Plus, ironically given your analogy...we need to buy rockets to launch them.
D
Order of Kilopi
There's some very large ones waiting in museums.Plus, ironically given your analogy...we need to buy rockets to launch them.
Order of Kilopi
Ah, thanks for the explaination. Your view of its usage makes sense to me now.
Yes, that is a big one.
I guess I'm not one to be so critical of military spending because I feel that the need for at least some secrecy to exist. Of course, I don't approve of blank checks either. For me it's a tricky balance.
For this particular case, I think spy sats are pretty well known and that there have been quite a few made. I also see other possible (speculation) technologies that may render the spy sats less effective. So; It seemed natural to me that there would be spare parts.
I would expect that too, but my analogy was assuming they didn't.
Was it? The infrastructure was being dismantled and/or reconfigured for the shuttle.
Ok; bad analogy. It was something that popped into my head and I was just hoping to spark some thoughts to draw it away from a military point of view.
Order of Kilopi
No it wasn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancele...#Cancellations
Apollo 18 and 19 were cancelled on Sept 2nd 1970
Apollo's 14, 15, 16, and 17 were, on that date, yet to fly. The infrastructure was in place until at least May 14th 1973 (the launch of Skylab) - 2yrs 8 mths after those two rocket would have become available. The Wiki entry for LC39 tells us...
" The original structure of the pads was remodeled for the needs of the Space Shuttle, starting with LC-39A after the last Saturn V launch, which carried Skylab in 1973, and in 1977 for LC-39B after the Apollo-Soyuz Test Project in 1975."
PLENTY of time for an alternate use to have been found for those rockets had such a deal been possible/useful/etc
Order of Kilopi
I'll accept that, but it does introduce a time limit even if it was very liberal.
Order of Kilopi
Yes - 7 years. Plenty of time.
If NASA ever finds use for this DoD hardware - you can bet it'll be longer than 7 years before it flies.
Order of Kilopi
I have no doubt of that.
I like that NASA got the telescopes. But what I don't like is the perception that they are usable. It seems to me that the media is not willing to accept that these are merely spare parts for now and do not define a project.
Established Member
I'm sure the media will make it seem like NASA is the bad guy if they don't end up using them.
Order of Kilopi
If they explicitly throw them away, probably. But if they just stick them in a warehouse somewhere and never get around to using them, I don't expect that would make the news.
Conserve energy. Commute with the Hamiltonian.
Administrator
Actually, other than this discussion on BAUT (and I assume repeated on similar forums) I have seen nothing in the news about this story since the initial story. I suspect that most of the media and most of the public have completely forgotten about it.
Established Member
Fair enough. The public has probably already forgotten about them.
Order of Kilopi
I'm not sure about that, but I hope you're right. I've seen plenty of so-called "government waste" stories that start of with "$X of equipment gathering dust" for various government agencies.
Established Member
It seems to me that the idea of NASA selling them - liberating themselves from the costs associated with these 'gifts' and possibly generating some much-needed revenue - is a good one. The problem with that idea is finding a buyer. However, I believe there is a very suitable buyer, and one which would through the use of these telescopes contribute to the overall good...that being Planetary Resources.
Now my understanding of their intended methodology suggest these scopes may not have an obvious use, but I have no doubt that a suitable use could be found, given the value of the hardware involved and the broad range of operational needs their mission will entail over the course of the entire program. If I were NASA, I would seriously consider this option and way of turning a problem into an opportunity.
Order of Kilopi
Large monolithic old school optics like this would be of no interest to Plan Resources.
They're talking about projects that start to finish are <$10M. Just getting these DoD things into space are >$100M projects.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote