You are not logged in.
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.
Feed back from the members. This is very positive
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 "
Lets consider this statement, an offense against sciece? Maybe, I am not convinced. An officne against civilization? Now this is a stretch. What is an offince against civilization? It must obviously be different then a crime against humanity. Shurly the distruction of the hubble cannot be compared to a mass geneside on earth. I think someone representing the mars society should be a little more carefull with the words the choose. A departure from the pioneering spirt? More rettoric.
"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
Now it is a crime against science? I doubt the cancellation of the Hubble is anywhere?s comparable to the cancellation of some of the big particle accelerators that have been planed in the past. We have already learned much from the Hubble and there are newer better telescopes coming. I don?t here the mars society lobbying for particle accelerators. I have also not been adequately convinced that the grounds for deserting the Hubble are irrational. Also to accuse people of moral cowardice is nothing more then mudslinging.
"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
Now this seems like a needless attack on the only leaders? scenes the Apollo days to show some vision towards space. How do these attacks further our objective of getting to mars.
"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
This is quite an accusation. I hope Zubrin has some good evidence to support these accusations. Otherwise he is creating enemies and perhaps risking a liable suite.
Dig into the [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/2006/12/political-grab-bag.html]political grab bag[/url] at [url=http://child-civilization.blogspot.com/]Child Civilization[/url]
Offline