Re: What is the simplest, cheapest CEV possible?
mdicenso_at_seds.lpl.arizona.edu
Date: 12/08/04
- Next message: thomsona_at_flash.net: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Previous message: Tom Kent: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- In reply to: Bill the Cat: "Re: What is the simplest, cheapest CEV possible?"
- Next in thread: Henk Boonsma: "Re: What is the simplest, cheapest CEV possible?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 8 Dec 2004 13:34:26 -0800
Bill the Cat wrote:
> mdicenso@seds.lpl.arizona.edu wrote in
> news:1102380047.224589.280280@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
> >
> > Bill the Cat wrote:
> >> mdicenso@seds.lpl.arizona.edu (Mike DiCenso) wrote in
> >> news:d01c847f.0412021924.addba8f@posting.google.com:
> >>
> >> > "Kim Keller" <kimekeller@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:<2RDrd.55112$Oc.19960@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>...
> >> >> "Mike DiCenso" <mdicenso@seds.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote in message
> >> >> news:d01c847f.0412011652.52e08d56@posting.google.com...
> >> >> > This is a mockup. The "real thing" will not be ready for at
> > least
> >> >> > another 6-8 years. Check out Rusty's images; you'll see that
the
> >> >> > Klipper lands horizontally, paracute assisted, not unlike
the
> > X-38
> >> >> > that NASA unfortunately chose to abandon more than 2 years
ago.
> >> >>
> >> >> NASA was *told* to abandon it by the White House; there was no
> >> >> choosing on its part.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Granted that NASA is generally "under orders" from whatever
> >> > administration happens to be in office, there is still nothing
that
> >> > prevents them from protesting such orders. I get too much of the
> >> > feeling that O'Keefe gave in way too quickly on this. Lots of
> > choices
> >> > here, Kim.
> >>
> >> X-38 was cancelled in 2001, while Goldin was still Administrator.
> > O'Keefe
> >> didn't replace Goldin until the following year.
> >
> >
> > According to most sources I've read, the offical cancellation of
X-38
> > was made around April, 2002. Goldin was retired, and O'Keefe was
very
> > much involved by this point.
>
> The key word is "official".
>
> Everyone at JSC knew X-38 was dead in 2001.
That's irrelevant. Even if everyone in the lower echelons thought that,
it still does not prevent O'Keefe from arguing the point that the
project should be saved BEFORE the decision becomes offical.
-Mike
- Next message: thomsona_at_flash.net: "Re: Airborne lasers"
- Previous message: Tom Kent: "Re: MSNBC - How a 'safe haven' could help save Hubble"
- In reply to: Bill the Cat: "Re: What is the simplest, cheapest CEV possible?"
- Next in thread: Henk Boonsma: "Re: What is the simplest, cheapest CEV possible?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|