henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (08/26/88)
In article <8808241814.AA03643@angband.s1.gov> "ASUIPF::MC" <mc%asuipf.decnet@spacvax.rice.edu> writes: >> [NASA is being politically naive here: what they ought to do is punt the >> decision to the scientists, which would probably have the same result but >> without the uproar being directed at NASA.] > >Henry, you have a touching faith in the ability of the scientific community >to make non-political decisions... Ah, but when I said "same result", I meant the same result including the howls of outrage, accusations of malice, etc etc. I never suggested that it would be arrived at calmly and rationally! My point was that giving the hot potato to the scientific community would reduce the extent to which dem nasty ole bureaucrats would be blamed for it. Evidently they saw things the same way I did, since this is what they did (although AW&ST reported it poorly). >... AvWeek has been doing a really terrible job of covering >the mission. Based on your comments, I have to agree. >By the way, it's funny how nobody on the net seems to *know* anything >about Mars Observer: too busy whining about how the Soviets are doing >everything on Mars these days :-( Well, AvLeak doesn't print anything about it, so it can't be significant. :-) Also of importance is the fact that Mars Observer is basically a pretty boring mission except to those directly involved. The idea behind the Planetary Observer series is that they are *supposed* to be boring, of course, with the flashy (and expensive) missions deliberately excluded for the sake of stable funding. (Note, we have some small differences between theory and reality here, sigh...) Yet Another Mars Orbiter, yawn... :-) -- Intel CPUs are not defective, | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology they just act that way. | uunet!attcan!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu