And Now A Word From The Lunatic Fringe

What a bunch of nutballs!

It's interesting and instructive that those who question or oppose the new direction are smeared with terms like, "lunatic fringe."

Does this derision extend to center directors?

[When asked if he thought the proposed new approach would work — whether the vision for space exploration without a timeline or even a rocket would eventually get humans out exploring the solar system — Coats was noncommittal.

“Maybe this will do it, I don't know,” he said.

Although there are funds for Marshall Spaceflight Center in Huntsville, Ala., to study heavy lift rockets in the proposed budget, Coats expressed concern about the lack of even a rocket blueprint to blast humans beyond low-Earth orbit. “In my experience it is awfully important to have some hardware flying in space,” he said.]

JSC leader fears tough transition

This Jane Orient? Or this one? If so, I can't imagine she is credible to speak on the subject in any way. And Fox seemed to also quote her in the health care debate...where she would probably be far more credible if it weren't for all her outrageous quotes.

Clear Lake residents largely would agree with this. It's just horriblle writing with vague conclusions that make the world is seemingly coming to end. Combined with constant Mockery of the president, how does anyone expect this Administration to help out the JSC community when they irrationally despise him from the start.

Jane M. Orient obtained her undergraduate degrees in chemistry and mathematics from the University of Arizona in Tucson, and her M.D. from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1974. She completed an internal medicine residency at Parkland Memorial Hospital and University of Arizona Affiliated Hospitals and then became an Instructor at the University of Arizona College of Medicine. She has been in solo private practice since 1981 and has served as Executive Director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) since 1989. She is the author of YOUR Doctor Is Not In: Healthy Skepticism about National Healthcare, Sutton's Law (a novel about where the money is in medicine today), and the second through fourth editions of Sapira's Art and Science of Bedside Diagnosis. She coauthored two novels published as e-books, Neomorts and Moonshine, and books for schoolchildren, Professor Klugimkopf’s Old-Fashioned English Grammar and Professor Klugimkopf’s Spellling Method, published by Robinson Books. More than 100 of her papers have been published in the scientific and popular literature on a variety of subjects including risk assessment, natural and technological hazards and nonhazards, and medical economics and ethics. She is the editor of AAPS News, the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness Newsletter, and Civil Defense Perspectives, and is the managing editor of The Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons.

What in particular do you think Clear Lake residents would agree with, NuclearRocketScientist? The article is all over the place -- irrational threats and Lord Monckton. . . . Clear Lake residents as a monolithic group? Your comment is as preposterous as the article and sounds like blatant unfounded JSC bashing. Did a JSC engineer reject your advances at a conference? Perhaps for capitalizing on "Mockery"?

Yea, "Lunatic Fringe". I heard someone from the lunatic fringe say that Russia would double the cost of sending our astronauts into space once the shuttle stopped flying. Ha ha, how silly.

I seem to recall the editor calling for a more civil discussion here regarding name calling and all. Oh well
do as I say not as I do.

The lunatic fringe manufactures fiction such as
"We are apparently leaving seven astronauts in space as hostages. Their loss would be a tragedy, but only a small part of the total disaster."

Keith never applied the term to [all of] "those who question or oppose the new direction".

The lunatic fringe also writes of improbable panic scenarios in which Russians somehow for some reason prevent astronauts from evacuating ISS. (I'd bet US astronaut training already includes how to operate the Soyuz for re-entry, if necessary without their Russian colleagues.)

Fox News also didn't see the point of explaining that it was George W Bush who got us to this point, by repeated deliberate decisions in 2004-8. It's a crisis now, because they can now disingenuously blame it on Obama:
"The Obama administration's decision to end the space shuttle program..."

They also didn't bother explaining that Constellation had been in trouble too, with their 1st crew launch dates in 2017. Instead they implied a ready-and-working STS replacement (must be on the launch pad!) is cancelled and replaced with fuzzy hope.
"Since no American firm currently has a vehicle capable of regular access to space, NASA does not really know when it will be master of its destiny again..."

Hmph. Fair and balanced my foot. This belongs in the propaganda section, not news.

Dr. Orient seems well educated, active and productive. But if she actually made the remarks attributed to her, such as: "We are apparently leaving seven astronauts in space as hostages..." and "The U.S. has surrendered its advantage in space, conceding the high ground to others who are probably our enemies," it shows a profound ignorance of the reality of what's going on. It also indicates she hasn't made even the small effort necessary to reach that understanding. Perhaps with all the irons she has in the fire she simply doesn't have time to check things out before she offers her opinion. Unfortunately she seems to be a good fit with Fox News, an organization which seems to prey on the baser emotions of people.

From the Telegraph (UK):

"Russian academic Yury Zaitsev told Interfax news agency that he thought the United States would be dependent on Russia to transport its astronauts until at least 2020. "In order to bring a craft to the standards of quality and safety for a piloted flight, you need years and years," he commented."

"The abandonment of the US manned-flight programme has led to a great disappointment, particularly in Russia. There was a sense that Constellation could have been another opportunity for international cooperation. Russia, too, must strategise its space agenda rather than burn with diffuse ambition."

Notice they speak of the "abandonment of the US manned-flight programme". They seem to also understand the obvious, there will be NO viable US transportation to LEO "until at least 2020".

Are they (The Telegraph) the "Lunatic Fringe" too?

The blogosphere is a great thing, but you either have to get yourself more educated to filter out all of the paid, over-the-top commentary; or just take it as amusement. I think NASAWatch is near the top in terms of a ratio of unbiased to biased commentary. We all need to work hard to keep it so, by posting meaningful, fact based comments.

We can probably take the pseudo-Onion statements of Fox in the same spirit that Fox's Glenn Beck talks about his politics:

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/04/08/beck-on-politics/

Quote from ThinkProgress, 'With a deadpan, Beck insists that he is not political: “I could give a flying crap about the political process.” Making money, on the other hand, is to be taken very seriously, and controversy is its own coinage. “We’re an entertainment company,” Beck says.'

It was said: "how does anyone expect this Administration to help out the JSC community when they irrationally despise him from the start?"

Despise? Yes. Irrational, maybe not.

Make no mistake, there is an agenda being played out here. It is my belief that our core HSF capability is being tossed in favor "green social activism" and I think that we will live to regret it.

But the pendulum has been swinging for a long time now - the move towards a kinder, gentler, more socially responsible (yuk) NASA has been underway for years,

All the current administration has done has accelerated the pace. Tremendously.

I mean, how many of you have seen NASA TV move more and more towards a schedule of Disney-like productions, cartoons, and missions that took place back in the "glory days"

The only difference now is that up until this point, "Tree-Hugger TV" and the rest of the "enlightened" outreach programs coexisted with HSF, so we tolerated them.

But the winds of change have been blowing at NASA, and the rest of the country, for a long long time.

I just wonder if they will consider opening a tent city for displaced rocket scientists the 4H farm project located at JSC's main gate?

It would be the compassionate thing to do.

Anne,

Dr. Orient seems like a really good commentator on health policy (just based on scanning her sites). But she's not a "science policy expert". She's also not a Professor at U of A; she's a clinical lecturer. FOX's mistake, not hers, of course.

I wonder if she knows that Constellation was going to leave U.S. astronauts "stranded" on ISS until at least, by the program's own reckoning, six years. And that those decisions were made under President Bush.

Anne, I want to go back to the recommendations of the Commission that Paul served on. I actually think the new direction is aligned much more with Aldridge and Steidle than Constellation(ESAS) was.

I have no problem with defenders of Constellation or defenders of Moon First or whatever criticizing the new strategy. But I do have a problem with hysterical fear-mongering based on falsehoods.

It simply is not true that not continuing Constellation will dramatically harm our national defense. This is the old FUD about needing to build SRBs to preserve our ability to make ICBMs. It's simply not true. ICBM modernization, assuming they remain solids, requires a few things:
1) a team of people who can continue practicing the art of making large diameter solids.
2) an ability to make enough ammonium perchlorate to do make a bunch of ICBMs.

Both Aerojet and ATK make narrower but longer solids for EELVs. The Air Force is continuing low-rate production of Minuteman motors by ATK.

Therefore, all you need to do is preserve the tooling for larger-scale production of motors, and pay enough extra to American Pacific (the perchlorate maker) to maintain more capacity than they need for the existing market.

But you don't need segmented solids any more. Nobody uses them except the Shuttle SRBs. And there's no reason ATK shouldn't right-size its THREE large solid manufacturing facilities, just as Aerojet did after the Cold War.

The Member of the House of Lords who declares that the new plan is horrible for DOD is repeating this old FUD. He's wrong, and he should either know better, or he should keep his opinion about the U.S. national security industrial base to himself.

In summary, there's simply too much nonsense in this article because some people just WANT to believe that somehow Constellation was going to work out but aren't willing to suspend 1/10 as much disbelief because the new plan is different, is authored by Democrats, or whatever.

It's probably not accurate to say they're on the fringe, since there are a lot of people who hold some of those views. But they are lunatics, in that they can't or won't give up their delusions; they can't be convinced by evidence.

To paraphrase Pat Moynihan, you have the right to interpret the data however you want, but you don't have the right to pretend the data is different.

- end of rant -

jski said, "They seem to also understand the obvious, there will be NO viable US transportation to LEO "until at least 2020"."

That isn't obvious at all. In fact, I'd say it's probably nonsense. Boeing, SpaceX and others all have proposed crew transport to LEO programs in place and well along. If I had to guess I'd say that manned LEO vehicles will come into operation in the 2015 - 2016 range and possibly sooner. It depends upon how congress handles the budget. If they fool around and pass a continuing resolution, thus keeping things the same for another year, it will slow the manned programs down because of uncertainty.

Hilarious and sad.

From Barry Popik.

"Every man has a right to his own opinion, but no man has a right to be wrong in his facts."
-- Bernard M. Baruch

That one probably came first (1940s). James Schlesinger and Pat Moynihan both reportedly used the pithier version:

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts"

...and variations thereof. Nice quote!

I will defend Keith on his choice of words. The claims made in this article are completely devoid of facts and are designed to inflame emotions and invoke fear in the uninformed public. The idiotic viewpoints expressed in this article definitely qualify as coming from the lunatic fringe. Not because these viewpoints are in contrast to the Obama administration or the Democrats but because they are based on intentional misrepresentation of facts and outright lies. You will be hard-pressed to find a single fact in this article.

First, I was quoting Yuri Zaitsev, a Russian engineer. Second, I have no doubt the Russians have a much better understanding than anyone in this administration about what's possible and how soon. Let's face it, when it comes to rocket engineers the Russians simply have better wetware!

BTW, how will SpaceX or Orbital ever be able to compete against Soyuz? Who in their right mind would ever ride either if they ride Soyuz which an incredible safety record? The damn thing goes up and returns home like clockwork - with all passengers in one piece.

Keith, comments such as this from inko.m3, "Did a JSC engineer reject your advances at a conference?" have no place in any rational discussion. It's purposely demeaning, insulting, and shows and absolute lack of any critical thought or interest in constructive conversation.

If such comments are allowed and if such comments are tolerated by the community in this blog, then this blog's purpose no longer exists.

jski said, "First, I was quoting Yuri Zaitsev, a Russian engineer."

I know. I was aware you were quoting someone else and my remarks were directed at the quote and not at you personally.

jksi also said, "BTW, how will SpaceX or Orbital ever be able to compete against Soyuz?"

I'm not sure what you mean. Certainly NASA would purchase rides from an American vendor rather than a foreign vendor if the American product was adequate. NASA is, after all, the agency that's pushing this commercial space thing. The very purpose of it is to free us from dependence on foreign providers as well as to boost commercial aerospace industry. The main reason NASA buys Soyuz seats now is because that's what is available. They hope to change that by promoting commercial launchers.

RSeibel, I was pointing out the inappropriateness of a previous comment by someone else. Perhaps I did go to far with the part you quoted, but I appreciate not being needlessly silenced.

Jski said something like:

"BTW, how will SpaceX or Orbital ever be able to compete against Soyuz? Who in their right mind would ever ride either if they ride Soyuz which an incredible safety record"

If my math is right the shuttle has had two fatal incidents in 130 flights. Soyuz checks in with two fatal incidents in 102 flights.

Additionally, over the years Soyuz has been plagued with a variety of reentry issues, ranging from difficulties doing deorbit burns to "ballistic reentries" to a number of hard landings. It is not uncommon for those riding in a Soyuz to suffer minor injuries due to hard landings.

Further, winds at the landing site often impart a horizontal velocity great enough that over 70% of the Soyuz capsules end up on their sides. Not good if you need to do an emergency egress. I suspect it is also not so good for any equipment or experiments you are bring back to earth.

I think that there was even one case where a Soyuz rolled down a hill on its side after landing and damn near ended up in a swamp or lake.

I know, you were comparing the track record of the Soyuz to the expected performance of the Dragon or other commercial capsules, but don't we have some sort of gold-plated guarantee that they are going to be designed to be much safer than the shuttle?

Fox sure has a lot of facts wrong.

But their main point, that we're pulling back from leadership in human space flight, may turn out to be true. If the new plan results in more than just R&D and we actually follow through and develop a new HLV and BEO HSF missions, then they're wrong, otherwise their main point will turn out to be correct.

The post just above this one, describing the president's "flyby summit" doesn't encourage me that there's going to be much political leadership to prove Fox's main point wrong.

I sure hope Fox is as wrong on the big picture as they are on the specifics. Time will tell.

J Nobles, I'm simply saying that given the choice - and yes Americans probably won't be given a choice - any sane person would choose the Soyuz, considering it's LONG history of reliability and safety. It's unmatched.

On another point, I noticed that one of the "projects" considered/proposed by this administration is to attempt to design and build an engine as good as the RD-180. And you could argue that that's NOT the best the Russian have to offer, the NK-33 is. Why bother simply buy the engines from the Russians. We do for the Atlas and the Japanese do for their GX rocket. Orbital is using an NK-33 derivative designed by the Russian for their would be LEO rocket.

Do the Russians simply have better wetware when it comes to rocketry?

Ah, I see the moderator left up inko.m3's chauvanistic comments. I guess we see, now, that the moderators are only paying lip service to appropriate forum behavior and comment. By doing nothing, Keith, you only empower and appear to support inko.m3's comments. I had thought you had character and spine. I guess such things aren't required in today's environment. The comments on this blog have devolved into the same sort of invective, angry, and attacking speech that we see from the political extremes in the public media.

That's too bad as this blog could have been an example of something that had risen above the fray.

Editor's note: you criticize others for language and then you use insults to try and get your way with me? I have been in meetings non-stop for two days and moderating comments - when I can - via an iphone. Not the most nimble method. I am sorry if moderation is not instantaneous enough for you. But if you think you are going to try and bully me like this then YOU will be banned - so knock it off. As for the comment in question: I am sorry but I simply do not see it the way that you do. I cannot fathom that the poster was trying to interject what you seem to think rather that he was suggesting that the original commenter tried to say something to someone at JSC and was rebuffed. Would I use those words? Probably not. But would I be sarcastic? Yes.

Fox News is by their own admission not a news channel as much as it is an entertainment channel.

I am surprised that they did not trot out an alien from "Zeta Reticuli" with Obama's 'true' birth certificate as 'proof' of his motivations for the change in policy in that article.

Sadly the Americans that love their 'Faux News' and defend it seem to think that if you don't support Fox News that you must be in the Keith Olbermann fan club. Yet they do not consider the fact that a person could recognize Fox as crap and not watch any of the alternatives, as they are all substandard means to gather and understand the news.

Even sadder, this position and perception is representative of the population by and large of the Clear Lake area. Spiteful talentless drones are the rule vs. the exception. Clear Lake is a cryo trap for mediocre slow witted twits. Maybe this policy will be a good way to clean out the ideological sewer called Clear Lake and make our space program more 'fair and balanced'.

Or is could be early and I am just a bit cranky. More likely the latter.

The last loss of life on the Soyuz: June 30, 1971. The total loss of life on the Soyuz: 4. Like I said, you'd have to be crazy to jump into a SpaceX or Orbital jury-rig if you could fly on Soyuz.

The last loss of life on the Soyuz: June 30, 1971. The total loss of life on the Soyuz: 4. Like I said, you'd have to be crazy to jump into a SpaceX or Orbital jury-rig if you could fly on Soyuz.

In other words, qualified but not in the aerospace field except in the most detailed and specialist fashion. Considering the level of education - and one would assume erudition - an incredibly irrational commentary: clearly dedicated to scaring the less well-educated and terminally ignorant.

I myself am not happy with the new plan as currently being fielded, but it is no less lacking in concrete terms of direction as Constellation was in funding. Ironically that is what brought us all here to begin with: back to where we were at the post-Apollo phase and in danger of repeating the mistakes made then!

Mike Coats is at the origin of a leaked memo to the WSJ that Charles Bolden had to go public doing damage control and saying there was no "plan B" and that he did not ask anyone for options for Congress.

So what is his credibility again? That he is a former LMT VP, right before he came to work at JSC on Constellation in 2005? Please.

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/johnson/about/people/orgs/bios/coats.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704541304575100000820591666.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=30348

"I know, you were comparing the track record of the Soyuz to the expected performance of the Dragon or other commercial capsules, but don't we have some sort of gold-plated guarantee that they are going to be designed to be much safer than the shuttle?"

We don't have any guarantee's about the reliability of these commercial capsules. And, to my knowledge, none of the companies have claimed any reliability numbers for their craft.

whyisthat1 - my comment on "guaranteed safety" was a lame attempt at sarcasm.

Everyone always touts the "golden" safety record of the of Soyuz when compared to that of the shuttle.

The fact is that the Soyuz record is one fatality for every 63 people taken to orbit. The shuttle's record is one fatality for every 56 people taken to orbit.

Given that first loss of a Soyuz occurred on a mission only one out of three seats occupied, while both shuttle incidents took place with a full crew of 7 tends to skew the record slightly.

These numbers do not take into account the frequency with which those returning to earth on a Soyuz are injured on landing.

The two prime arguments for retiring shuttle have been cost and safety. But my deluxe-sized gut tells me that these numbers have been optimized from time to time to fit an agenda.

The cost-per-seat for shuttle is often compared to Soyuz but when this is done the payload capacity is often left out of the comparison, or factored in "slyly" and the fact that the shuttle is a "self contained" platform while Soyuz is basic transportation is not given the weight I think it deserves.

You could compare it to going on a vacation in a motor home or a Vespa scooter. Both will get you from point A to point B.

Don't get me wrong, there is a place for both types of vehicles - for example, flying a shuttle to the ISS for the sole purpose of crew transport, with an empty payload bay would be stupid.

For example, what would be the cost of flying a Soyuz for a crew rotation and "x number" of Progress flights to get the same amount of supplies as a single shuttle flight with a MPLM packed to the gills?

I would argue that whilst the two fatal incidents involving the Soyuz, occured during its first iteration. The current TMA used today is a vastly superior craft! Conversely, despite monumentally hard work on behalf of Team NASA, the Shuttle has the same fatal flaws as it did when first launched: Fragile TPS; lack of LAS; SRBs...
In the final analysis the Soyuz will continue to fly whilst the Shuttle will not.

Trying to compare costs in terms of Soyuz Crew and Progress Cargo is an exercise in apples and kumquats. But I will address this analogy:

You could compare it to going on a vacation in a motor home or a Vespa scooter. Both will get you from point A to point B.

We're not going on vacation, we're going to work! And a Vespa will get you through traffic; be easier to park and consume less fuel. You also get a free Audrey Hepburn and a holiday in Rome:)
RKK Energia should be so lucky.

As an exercise in alternate reality I suggest
How the ISS could have been built without the shuttle.

Boy, one reason I still LOVE NASA Watch is I get to to laugh at the increasingly shrill - but nonetheless hilarious - political commentary from the true lunatic fringe - the loony left.

"Fox News is by their own admission not a news channel as much as it is an entertainment channel."

Cite your source, please. And no, ThinkProgress, DailyKos and Media Matters do not count as legitimate sources. This was never said by anyone at Fox News. It's a typical lefty tactic of making up quotes in order to say "They said it, I didn't!" As far as your "Faux News" comment, you are obviously mistaking Fox for MessNBC and CNN (The(Hugo)Chavez News Network.)

And what baser emotions would those be, Nobles? Love (of country)? Desire (to have the government of our way as opposed to having it as our nanny from cradle to grave, and even beyond)?

Just interested in knowing.

"Cite your source, please."

Fox themselves haven't directly said it, but during the appellate trial of New World Communs. of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre (which was a wrongful firing suit brought upon Fox), the court explicitly stated in its reasoning for overturning the decision in favor of Fox that they had not violated the whistleblower policy "Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute." (New World Communs. of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre, 866 So. 2d 1231(2003)).

So far as the U.S. legal system is concerned, Fox News is actively falsifying information- it's just not illegal to do so (First Amendment and all that).