XPost: sci.space.history, sci.space.shuttle   
   From: andrew.gray@dunelm.org.uk   
      
   In article <6ZIwb.19342$Rk5.11556@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net>,   
   Craig Fink wrote:   
   >   
   >   
   >   
   > NASA (or better yet Congress) should pull the plug on some NASA managers,   
   > instead of the Hubble Space Telescope. The Hubble Space Telescope has   
   > contributed so much to our the knowledge of the Universe it would be   
   > criminal not to put it in a museum for display along with all it's   
   > achievements.   
      
   This part is, although strongly worded, possibly a decent argument. I   
   point out the notable absence of museum-bound space scientific hardware,   
   otherwise, though...   
      
   > NASA management, definitely the "Wrong Stuff". Not a care in the world   
   > about spreading Columbia all across East Texas, but worried about Hubble   
   > debris.   
      
   *blink*   
      
   Craig, you really are being even more of a duplicitous little idiot than   
   you've managed with a hobbyhorse before. Are you actually suggesting, or   
   just somewhat unsubtly implying, that NASA managers *chose* to break   
   Columbia up over East Texas? That they had some way of stopping and   
   routing her over Central America instead, when it looked like there was   
   a prospect of bits falling off? I mean, *really*.   
      
   No, don't give me some shit about "well, if they'd seen to the   
   problem...", because that's not what you're saying; you're saying they   
   knew Columbia was going to break up, and were unconcerned about this.   
   The second cannot possibly follow if the first is a fiction, and you   
   know damn well it is.   
      
   > Not a creative or innovative thought about how to repair Columbia   
   > on-orbit with the stuff they had on-board. No wonder they can't figure out   
   > how to make a repair kit for the heat shield so they can service or bring   
   > Hubble down safely.   
      
   Uh... there's one in development. Not designed by NASA management,   
   because it's generally considered traditional that when you pay   
   engineers you get some of them to do the engineering.   
      
   One of the major reasons that a Hubble return flight is considered "off   
   the cards" is because they feel there are safety implications they don't   
   want to push. So, because they respond to a tragedy you flame them for   
   by adding safety restrictions to try and prevent it, you flame them for   
   not flying PR missions.   
      
      
      
   I may be missing something here. The fact that you appear to have turned   
   into a literate Bob Haller, for example, is reasonably confusing.   
      
   > Save the Hubble, from a disgraceful death,   
      
   Save an attempt to run a space program, from people like you.   
      
   --   
   -Andrew Gray   
    shimgray@bigfoot.com   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)