eugene@ames.UUCP (02/06/86)
First of all, let me say that I read every one of the 400+ messages posted to net.space, net.columbia, (briefly) net.challenger, and net.astro and their ARPA equivalents. I am certain the powers that be would be touched by many of your sentiments. I have responded to some of you or referred information when appropriate. I could not respond to some ARPAnet posted message as the writers did not include a signature line with return addresses (the Usenet only shows ucbvax!space). Permit me to make a couple of comments with respect to the events of the past week. I do this for the benefit of the people on the net. The first is on the emergence of charitable causes for the shuttle and the children of the chew. We, NASA, just cannot solicit funds. We cannot earmark funds for specific programs. We cannot endorse any of the foundation being formed for the "benefit" of the children of the Challenger chew, nor the "building" of another shuttle. Please use good judgment if you so desire to send money to any of these private foundations. I have seen at least two posting regarding the sending of funding to Code BF, NASA Headquarters. I have checked out Code BF and this is the Computroller of Funds for the Agency. This is not an endorsement to send funds, merely a reporting of who BF is. Another private group for the children, headed by a lawyer, does have some indirect connection to NASA. We cannot guarantee that collected funds from this organization or any others will go to the funding of a new shuttle, any development, or the children of the chew. Again please use care. This is the primary reason I post this message. On the matter of "speculation:" has C. Wingate pointed out, and I agree, I am not here to lecture to the net. But, I must point out that speculation can become dangerous rumor (numerous, see the evolution of ideas: terrorism, green boxes, etc.). Theories are advanced by many unofficial and former NASA people and contractors. My division chief, who supports my following the net points out my words, even with a disclaimer, come from a representative of the US Government. As such, I am to use care with what I say. Others may speak before analysing our problems. I must air caution. I am certain that various people on this net and others have been called by news agencies to provide commentary: this can be a problem with the numerous theories flying around. It ceases to become harmless speculation at a certain point. People from several local papers have attempted to call me (because of various computer industry friends ("I have a friend in NASA....")) and I have to give the stock answer: I have to refer people to the Public Information Office for official commentary: I am not associated with the Shuttle program, and that it is most appropriate for people to contact those Centers involved in the program for obtaining information or passing ideas. I know little more than many of you do because I am not on a flight project currently. CLEARLY, many people on the net rehash what they learned from the media (no mention of the types of "reports," we see some different reports, but this is not a coverup [e.g., a special announcement for the "teacher in space" went out, and I told one of our secretaries to keep it: ironic history). I do not think the media are entirely to blame for the coverage: it is our thrist for knowledge. P.S. I am aware that several news agencies read this net. It was interesting to read about people's conceptions of the color of hydrogen flames, or naming future shuttles (we lost a plane recently, the Galileo II, named after the Galileo I, both Convair 990 transports [the first lost with all hands] after a mid air collision for the I, and a landing gear failure for the II). I would trust that NASA tastefully names a next ship, if one gets built. You are all intelligent people and will figure many of these things out for yourself. I recommend council with friends, neighbors and others (professional), if you find yourself still in a state of shock. It is a hard thing to watch and listen to people die. TV covered few instance when tragedies took place. It's typically off-line. A commentary on the Gramm-Rudman bill. Someone asked how NASA was affected. It appears questionable whether we will have summer openings at our Center (50-50). Also, we have informed CDC that we must give up our 4-pipe Cyber 205 as the level of funding for it has dropped to $0. I am certain other Centers will be similarly affected. So yes, we will be affected. This is not a call for funding but a point of information. I want to give this because this is an example of something which can be misconstrued. Please excuse the length of this. Hope this did not sound "too" bureaucratic. I know I did. --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene eugene@ames-nas.ARPA
woods@hao.UUCP (02/07/86)
> A commentary on the Gramm-Rudman bill. Someone asked how NASA was > affected. It appears questionable whether we will have summer > openings at our Center (50-50). Another commentary: Gramm-Rudman was declared unconstitutional this morning. Unfortunately, this will NOT have any effect on the funding crisis for government agencies in fiscal 1986, including NASA and HAO. --Greg -- {ucbvax!hplabs | decvax!noao | mcvax!seismo | ihnp4!seismo} !hao!woods CSNET: woods@ncar.csnet ARPA: woods%ncar@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA "If the game is lost, we're all the same; No one left to place or take the blame"
john@gcc-milo.ARPA (John Allred) (02/08/86)
In article <1948@hao.UUCP> woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) writes: > Another commentary: Gramm-Rudman was declared unconstitutional this morning. >Unfortunately, this will NOT have any effect on the funding crisis for >government agencies in fiscal 1986, including NASA and HAO. Not quite. The provision of Gramm-Rudman that called for the comptroller general to cut the budget was ruled unconstitutional. However, the Appeals court stayed their ruling, pending an appeal to the Supreme Court. -- John Allred General Computer Company uucp: seismo!harvard!gcc-milo!john