Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

clark · 2004-02-27 13:34:01

Keith Cowing has posted an open letter to members of the Steering Committe in regards to comments made by Robert Zubrin, President of Mars Society on NASA's decision to cancel servicing missions to Hubble.

[http://www.nasawatch.com/misc/mshst.html]An Open Letter and Request for Comments to the Mars Society Steering Committee

Appendix: From the Mars Society Bylaws: (http://www.marssociety.org/about/bylaws.asp)
"VII Steering Committee
The Steering Committee of the Mars Society is charged with the duty of determining the policy, campaigns, and projects of the Mars Society.
The Steering Committee will meet in person twice a year. One meeting will take place at the annual convention, and the other roughly 6 months later. In addition, it will meet by electronic mail, as necessary, to assess its consensus on major issues facing the Society.
The Steering Committee, or relevant subsections of it shall be consulted by the Board whenever possible on beginning all major Society initiatives, campaigns, or projects.
The Steering Committee will consist of between 24 and 30 people. Its membership shall be selected as follows; At the time of the annual convention in odd-numbered years, the Board will present a recommended slate of 24 people for the Steering Committee. Any member not nominated may then place his or her name in nomination by presenting a petition within 90 days that includes the signatures of 50 Mars Society members, with at least 5 members included from each of four separate chapters. A ballot will then be sent out to the entire membership. The 24 candidates with the highest number of votes will be deemed the winners and be made members of the Steering Committee for the following two years.
In addition to the 24 elected members of the Steering Committee, up to 6 Steering Committee members may be appointed by the Board, to serve for such terms as the Board sees fit."

Current Members:

Dr. Buzz Aldrin - Astronaut
Lorraine Bell - Rocky Mountain Mars Society
Prof. Greg Benford - Astrophysicist
Prof. Dr. Michael Bosch - President, Mars Society (Germany)
Dr. Penelope Boston - Complex Systems
Dr. William Clancey - NASA Ames Research Center
Patt Czarnik, Gary Fisher - Pennsylvania Mars Society
Dr. Mike Griffin - Former NASA Associate Administrator for Exploration
Richard Heidmann - President, Association Plan te Mars (France)
Lt. Col. Scott Horowitz - NASA Astronaut
Mark Klosowski - Northern California Mars Society
Dr. Larry Lemke - NASA Ames Research Center
Darlene Lim - University of Toronto (Canada)
Dr. Bruce Lusignian - Stanford University
Bo Maxwell - Mars Society UK President (United Kingdom)
Bruce Mackenzie - Massachussets Mars Society
Dr. Chris McKay - NASA Ames Research Center
Harold Miller - Solid Solutions
Guy Murphy - President Austrailian Mars Society
Tony Muscatello - Rocky Mountain Mars Society
Declan O'Donell - Attorney
Meghann Ribbens
Gabriel Rshaid - President Mars Society Argentina
Frank Shubert - President Mars Bas Inc.
Dr. Peter Smith - University of Arizona
Dr. Carol Stoker - NASA Ames Research Center
Richard Wagner - Co-author, The Case for Mars
Maggie Zubrin - Pioneer Astronautics
Dr. Robert Zubrin - Pioneer Astronautics

I [Keith Cowing] am doing research for an article on how the Mars Society views NASA's decision not to send a Shuttle Servicing mission to the Hubble Space Telescope. As publicly identified members of the Mars Society's Steering Committee I would like to solicit your comments and thoughts regarding positions taken and statements made on behalf of the Mars Society by the Society's President Robert Zubrin and how they were arrived at.

Keith Cowing points to the following statements made by Zubrin:

"The desertion of Hubble is an offense against science and civilization. It represents a departure from the pioneer spirit, and its ratification as policy would preclude any possibility of a human future in space. It is an inexcusable decision, and it needs to be reversed."
-- From a 9 February 2004 Space News OpEd "

"The answer to this is straightforward. We must defend Hubble because the abortion of the Hubble program is a crime against science. Furthermore, the grounds given for deserting Hubble are irrational, and constitute a form of moral cowardice that if accepted as the basis of space policy, would absolutely prevent any human missions to the Moon, Mars, or anywhere else."
-- From a 1 February 2004 Mars Society Statement

"What's happening is that a bunch of bureaucrats are wanting to feel decisive, to show they can make the tough calls to support the president's moon and Mars program. They'll say: 'Much as it might rend our hearts, we're willing to give this up.' That's all a crock," Zubrin said. "If the first thing this new space policy does is murder Hubble, then it's born with the mark of Cain on it."
-- From a 31 January 2004 Wired article

"It is unfortunate that Mr. O'Keefe has decided that it within his purview as a manager to insist that NASA engineers withhold analysis that does not support his opinions. It was precisely such managerial insistence on dictating technical reality to engineers that prevented any effective action to avert the Shuttle Columbia tragedy. This illegitimate exercise of management authority was harshly condemned afterwards by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board. In response, Mr. O'Keefe pledged to discontinue the practice. Apparently, that has not occurred."
-- From a 24 February 2004 Mars Society Newsletter

Bill White · 2004-02-27 14:01:20

Can you say circular firing squad? Lets circle up, guys, then "Fire!"

clark · 2004-02-27 14:04:12

LOL!

Circular firing squad!? The gentle troll strikes again.

Bill White · 2004-02-27 14:20:26

LOL!
Circular firing squad!? The gentle troll strikes again.

Actually, I am now very nervous. Cowing has not hidden his personal dislike of Zubrin and a nasty flamewar may be brewing.

= NOT = a good thing for space advocates.

clark · 2004-02-27 14:26:11

Neither is Zubrin's grand standing for air time.

As is often pointed out to me, this is the Mars Society, an organization dedicated to getting people to Mars as soon as possible. This isn't "SaveTheHubble" dot org. Yet the President of the Mars Society is being very vocal, with very caustic language, on a subject that has absolutely no bearing on the goals and objectives of the Mars Society.

Bill White · 2004-02-27 14:49:49

Neither is Zubrin's grand standing for air time.
As is often pointed out to me, this is the Mars Society, an organization dedicated to getting people to Mars as soon as possible. This isn't "SaveTheHubble" dot org. Yet the President of the Mars Society is being very vocal, with very caustic language, on a subject that has absolutely no bearing on the goals and objectives of the Mars Society.

Zubrin is seeking attention on a hot button issue. True. Yet like Fox filing suit over Al Franken's use of "fair and balanced" Cowing may end up giving Zubrin more exposure, not less.

clark · 2004-02-27 14:56:16

True. However, I see Cowing's actions as trying to cut Zubrin off at the knees by going directly to the Steering Committee and getting their perspective on this issue. He refrences the by-laws for a reason, and a reason I have encountered before, "nail em on a technicallity".

I think this will be more damaging to the Mars Society becuase, I'm sorry, Zubrin is being rather belligerent in his statements.

The Mark of Cain?!
An offense against science and civilization?!
An abortion of Hubble is a crime against science?!

He's being made to look like a rabid loon not wedded to reality. What kind of impression does that make on those considering the Mars Society?

Palomar · 2004-02-27 15:30:28

*Apparently LOTS of people are using the Hubble issue to grandstand and get attention. Not just Zubrin.

My 2 cents' worth.

--Cindy

Bill White · 2004-02-27 15:39:01

*Apparently LOTS of people are using the Hubble issue to grandstand and get attention. Not just Zubrin.
My 2 cents' worth.
--Cindy

Cindy, as clark points out, Zubrin's language is so very barbed, I wonder if he was hoping to provoke something like Cowing's challenge in order to create a forum for debate.

Rxke · 2004-02-29 05:17:14

FWIW...

The first answers on his open letter are in...
"Replies

Frank Shubert replied: "I usually don't have too many comments about what anyone says. I mean so many people in the space biz take themselves so damn seriously. And it is all so petty. Not saying that your article will be that way.?I am not sure what your focus will be. The Mars Society or Bob. Anyway, as a card caring Mars Society Member I don't agree with everything Bob says. But I sure do back his right to say it. And I agree with a lot of it too. Scrapping the Hubble is just plain stupid. We all know that. I mean, you too, right. So I would say he gets my support as a member. I would vote to keep him talking."

Gregory Benford replied "Bob Z & I, with the Board, have discussed in depth the change in focus and resolve necessary to get us into space, especially Mars, and his statement evolved directly from that. Indeed, I wrote an entire novel, THE MARTIAN RACE (1999) about these ideas. Unless we acknowledge risk, we will never attempt anything significant." When I asked Benford "So you would then endorse and/or support the words Dr. Zubrin used - as cited in the quotes?" Benford replied "Yes".

Richard Wagner replied "the Mars Society apparently hasn't gotten around to stripping my name from the management list. I indeed resigned from the Mars Society two years ago."
"

(Source: Clark's initial link.)

RobertDyck · 2004-03-01 13:17:36

I read several email "flame" exchanges between Keith Cowing and various Mars Society members on the Washington, DC, e-list. I've tried to ignore it, but this attempt to create dissent within the Steering Committee can only be destructive; I am now forced to view Keith as hostile to space advocacy in general.

On the issue of Hubble: I agree completely with Frank Shubert.

Josh Cryer · 2004-03-01 15:27:56

I'm shocked, how can support for the Hubble not follow with the plans of the Mars society or space societies in general? If there are members of the Mars society who disagree with the overall sentiment, by all means, please speak up, but generalizing that this is detrimental to the overall means of the Mars Society is just silly. The Mars Soceity isn't going to benefit by not supporting the Hubble, that much is certain, but at least the overall goals of the Mars Society (that is, extending our knowledge of the universe, and furthering exploration, etc) would be met to a degree by supporting the Hubble.

I agree with the others about this fellow, he's just trying to start a flame. It's rather quite ridiculous.

Rxke · 2004-03-01 16:00:01

He's just trying to make Zubrin look like a dictator; saying things above the heads of his co-workers and all that nonsense.
What's wrong with having an opinion? He must have real issues with Bob for resorting to such an obviously going-to-backfire act...

People, i'll never understand their actions. Makes one feel good to be a Martian, for once... :laugh:

Palomar · 2004-03-01 19:31:35

He's just trying to make Zubrin look like a dictator; saying things above the heads of his co-workers and all that nonsense.
What's wrong with having an opinion? He must have real issues with Bob for resorting to such an obviously going-to-backfire act...
People, i'll never understand their actions. Makes one feel good to be a Martian, for once... :laugh:

*Who the hell is Keith Cowing anyway? Seriously; I've not heard of him before.

But then I'm always scanning the astronomy news, Mars-related coverage, etc. Read: I'm not much into "personalities" (and never have been) -- except if they come from the 18th century of course :laugh:

--Cindy

Josh Cryer · 2004-03-02 02:34:07

He's one of the head NASA Watch guys. I personally don't keep tabs on him (or anyone else, really), but I have noticed that NASA Watch has been quite politically charged since its inception.

Brian Hanley · 2004-03-02 16:51:05

Hmmm. Maybe Bob really feels that way? The Mars Society is not the NSS, wedded to pedantic, terminal mealy-mouthism.

Besides that, Bob needs to keep his friends in the sciences.

Now - for the price of a war, we could be doing mars for real.

clark · 2004-03-05 11:42:07

From the Mars Society:
[http://www.marssociety.org/about/purpose.asp]The Purpose of the Mars Society

To further the goal of the exploration and settlement of the Red Planet. This will be done by:
Broad public outreach to instill the vision of pioneering Mars.
Support of ever more aggressive government funded Mars exploration programs around the world.
Conducting Mars exploration on a private basis.
Starting small, with hitchhiker payloads on government funded missions, we intend to use the credibility that such activity will engender to mobilize larger resources that will enable stand-alone private robotic missions and ultimately human exploration.

Now, where does it mention Hubble?

The Mars Society very well may gain more by becoming less vocally caustic, and trying to work within the existing framework of space policy to meet their own specific agenda.

Hubble is not part of this agenda folks.

There is talk of war in this thread, so let me misappropriate the term, in war, you accept certain casualties because it is inevitable. You accept these losses as long as the loss does not offset the overall gain.

The Mars Society, and space advocates in general, have been given an opportunity with the current Space Policy, humans beyond LEO within our lifetimes. Hubble can either quietly die, or it can be used as a stick to beat the Bush Space policy to death for political gain.

Say what you will, but the current space policy has a fair chance of bi-partisan support simply because there isn't enough there to use against Bush in a political manner. Now, this dynamic changes if the "StopTheEnivitableDotOrgOfTheWeek" makes enough headway where some enterprising politician looks to capitalize on the headlines and the 5 second soundbite.

Farfetched? This is exactly what Zubrin is trying to do now. He is playing with the hopes of all those who want to see the exploration of space, or Mars, by man for some quick media and political traction.

If he wins, then the space policy, and our chances to go to Mars diminish. If he fails, which is likely, then he makes unnecessary enemies, and it becomes that much more difficult to be heard.

DanielCook · 2004-03-05 13:29:16

Just my two cents.

I have to agree with clark on this matter - for SEI to attain the goals that all of us wants it reach (I hope) some difficult and hard decisions will be made. Hubble and the eventual abandonment of the ISS are some of these. Its just pragmatic.

Heck - there are still mounds of data from Hubble that have not been analysed, and 2007 (at the earliest) is still a while away. Chandra is still out there, James Webb is on its way. Astronomers have their hands full as it is - none of them will be getting laid off or anything like that.

Let's get back to constructive discussion on how to get to Mars, instead of pointless mudslinging.

Bill White · 2004-03-05 14:20:07

As for Hubble itself, I pretty much agree with clark, except as it relates to credibility.

If it is unsafe for the orbiter to go get Hubble (and Sean O'Keefe says so) then the idea that orbiter can complete ISS by 2010 strikes me as very far fetched.

If we lose an orbiter doing ISS construction then ISS dies immediately whether or not the crew is rescued from the ISS safe haven. And, if we need BOTH remaining orbiters to be flight ready before sending up any ISS component the operational tempo will be terribly slow.

Aside from the ISS "safe haven" is there any other reason why Hubble missions are more unsafe that ISS missions? Zubrin seems to make good points that except for the safe haven of ISS, Hubble missions are safer.

= IF = the orbiter is so likely to fail that the added protection of the ISS safe haven is the crucial tipping point on the fly/no fly decision algorithm, then I am horrified at how unsafe NASA must believe the orbiter to be.

Therefore, I am tempted by Jeffrey Bell's argument that we will see a post election surprise and an end to shuttle flights and ISS announced in January/February 2005.

Which is OKAY with me. ISS is stupid and ISS/orbiter are conjoined twins.

Palomar · 2004-03-05 14:20:15

*Are you implying that Robert Zubrin should refrain from expressing his personal opinions -- as a private citizen -- relative to other space-related issues which may concern him?
And that any publically expressed opinions must somehow be exclusively devoted to Mars?

If your answer is "yes," isn't that an attempt to -censor- him?

--Cindy

clark · 2004-03-05 14:29:54

No, no need to censor the man. However, he does represent the Mars Society, and he is the President of the Mars Society. He is the personality that holds the boat together. In essence, he is no longer a private citizen, but a public figure.

His words are not his own becuase he is a public figure. This is more true when he speaks on matters related to space exploration since he is a Public figure representing those itnerested in the exploration of space and Mars.

He should shut up about the Hubble. My 2 cents, and it seems a few others agree at least with the final conclusion, if not the details.

Wrap your head around that.

Bill White · 2004-03-05 14:32:50

*Are you implying that Robert Zubrin should refrain from expressing his personal opinions -- as a private citizen -- relative to other space-related issues which may concern him?
And that any publically expressed opinions must somehow be exclusively devoted to Mars?
If your answer is "yes," isn't that an attempt to -censor- him?
--Cindy

Well, I agree with clark about Hubble decision = IF = O'Keefe is correct about the safety issues. Being a history major I must rely on the engineers concerning safety.

= IF = O'Keefe is suppressing engineering reports to fulfill political agendas (a very dangerous accusation I am not qualified to make or judge) = THEN = there can be very little real working within the system.

= = =

I do see a strong contradiction between saying Hubble mission is too unsafe yet we can finish ISS by 2010.

Palomar · 2004-03-05 14:52:52

No, no need to censor the man...
He should shut up about the Hubble.
Wrap your head around that.

*Easy enough; you want him censored -- obviously, since you contradict yourself.

---

As for your other comment: "My 2 cents, and it seems a few others agree at least with the final conclusion, if not the details."

*How nice. As for myself, I don't mind standing alone in an argument.

--Cindy

clark · 2004-03-05 14:57:27

Well, here's the reality of the situation, at least as I see it:

A mission to Hubble can be made to be safer. NASA, when push comes to shove, can do it.

Now, the question (see, questions...) is, is it worth the extra time, resources, and risk (to everything else) to use the Shuttle for a non-ISS mission?

Bottom line folks, we are retiring the Shuttle. The only thing holding that up is completion of the ISS. We need to complete the ISS on a schedule that would have been difficult with the entire Shuttle fleet (Challenger & Columbia), it's going to be harder as is.

One Shuttle flight to Hubble means one less Shuttle flight to ISS, which also means another Shuttle is preped and ready to go for a rescue mission. That means two Shuttles (of 3) are being utilized for something not related to their MAIN mission objective (which is ISS completion by 2010 to prepare for retirement).

Every Shuttle flight is a risk. Shuttle flights to ISS are a neccessary risk becuase it's the onyl way we can finish the ISS and retire the Shuttle (what's the saying... defeat with honor in describing withdrawl from Vietnam by US forces...same thing). The Hubble is an unfortunate victim, but a neccessary one.

Space is a dream, getting there ain't. Be practical, and we'll all get there sooner.

clark · 2004-03-05 14:58:28

Argument? Where?

I see whining. Lots and lots of whining. :laugh:

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2004-02-27 13:34:01

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#2 2004-02-27 14:01:20

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#3 2004-02-27 14:04:12

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#4 2004-02-27 14:20:26

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#5 2004-02-27 14:26:11

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#6 2004-02-27 14:49:49

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#7 2004-02-27 14:56:16

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#8 2004-02-27 15:30:28

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#9 2004-02-27 15:39:01

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#10 2004-02-29 05:17:14

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#11 2004-03-01 13:17:36

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#12 2004-03-01 15:27:56

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#13 2004-03-01 16:00:01

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#14 2004-03-01 19:31:35

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#15 2004-03-02 02:34:07

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#16 2004-03-02 16:51:05

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#17 2004-03-05 11:42:07

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#18 2004-03-05 13:29:16

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#19 2004-03-05 14:20:07

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#20 2004-03-05 14:20:15

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#21 2004-03-05 14:29:54

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#22 2004-03-05 14:32:50

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#23 2004-03-05 14:52:52

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#24 2004-03-05 14:57:27

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

#25 2004-03-05 14:58:28

Re: Open Letter to Steering Committee for Mars Society - Your thoughts....

Board footer