Re: Taylor Dinerman nails it

"Tom Cuddihy" <tom.cuddihy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>Derek Lyons wrote:
>> "Tom Cuddihy" <tom.cuddihy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>> >I think every congressman who sits on the Armed Services Commitee and
>> >every General and Admiral who sits on the JROC should be forced to read
>> >this article.
>> >
>> >http://www.thespacereview.com/article/505/1
>>
>> Why? The article is dithering, blathering nonsense that avoids
>> casting any stones, coming to any conclusions, or actually
>> accomplishing much beyond taking a couple of minutes away from the
>> lives of anyone who happens to read it.
>>
>> His only point seems to be the same as the same mistaken viewpoint so
>> often espoused here: 'we could build crude prototypes in a few years
>> forty years ago - so modern operational craft that are vastly more
>> capable and complex with much longer lifespans shouldn't take much
>> more than a week or two'.
>
>Then you haven't been paying attention to DOD space for the last ten
>years. Every major space system that has been designed in that time,
>including several classified and several unclassified systems, Space
>Radar, SBIRS Low and High, FIA electro-optical and 'other', has seen
>massive tripling cost overrruns and enormous schedule slippage or in
>some cases complete cancellation. Now a (mostly) non-DOD system,
>NPOESS, has joined that unglorious list of national systems originally
>intended to merely replace existing capability, then stuffed to the
>gills with new requirements to the point where now the first satellite
>is going to be so late we may have gaps in our existing polar weather
>coverage.

Ok, so what? The idea is to replace that which is acceptable with
something better - which is hard.

The gaps are caused not by the development of new technology, but
because of a failure to properly schedule it's deployment - I.E. the
older programs were shut down too soon. But the folks who made those
decisions never seem to get any blame.

>These are satellites that were designed and built and
>launched by both NOAA and the USAF in the 80s, not the 60s, and they
>are already long lived and extremely capable. That's what you see on
>the weather forecast every night. (if you're not looking at GOES)

TIROS was extremely capable for it's day too. I supposed we should be
flying them.

>He mentioned TIROS, true, but far from making that the basis of his
>argument, he correctly notes that todays new satellites are to be much
>more capable, in fact, so capable that it's pushing the edges of the
>technology. Wideband Radiometers are something that NASA just got
>working a few years ago (late 90s) from a finicky aircraft, but in the
>Net Bubble atmosphere of the 90s, it seemed reasonable to apply that
>uncertain technology to a new satellite. Dinerman is correct in his
>diagnosis of what is causing the delays, far from proffering a slogan
>that imply is the basis of his article.

Except he never gets around to actually diagnosing the cause of the
delays. He hems, and haws, and blathers - but never gets to a point.

>In this case, you're the one oversimplifying, not Taylor Dinerman.

ROTFLMAO. My simplification is a precise description of his article -
your much shorter summation above is as well, but without the hemming
and hawing and spacefiller.

Which is why I have so little respect for journalists of any stripe
nowadays. Column inches and circumspection rate more respect than
clarity.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

-Resolved: To be more temperate in my postings.
Oct 5th, 2004 JDL
.

Relevant Pages