From: Russell David Hoffman, Concerned Citizen
Re: You need a strong stomach for this stuff: STOP CASSINI #198
Date: September 28th, 1999
Dear Mr. President, others:
Jim Spellman of NSS asked me why I didn't show up in Los Angeles to confront Dan Goldin last Friday. It's a fair question. I would love to confront my detractors, my accusers, and your apologists (often one in the same) but I did not happen to pick that battle. Perhaps I should have.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Founder and Editor
STOP CASSINI newsletter
"There can be no democracy without truth, no justice without mercy, and no nuclear dispersals without ill consequences."
This issue's subjects:
From: WSpaceport@aol.com
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 07:03:38 EDT
Subject: A "Goldin" Opportunity missed (WAS: Excuses, Excuses)
To: rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
In a message dated 9/24/99 12:29:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com writes:
Jim Spellman of the National Space Society has very kindly forwarded to the editor of this newsletter a collection of answers he has received which he describes as "valid" and "credible". They are in fact unscientific bunk, and I debunk them following the email from Jim. But I like Jim's phrase about it being neither "Signs from God" or "pure chance" but rather NASA's own goof-up of an as-yet unidentified sort (or maybe it hit a piece of space debris, too! We don't know for sure yet!).
Like there is some great difference, Jim. It all just proves what anyone with common sense already knew -- accidents DO happen!
Before we play fast and loose with our comments (you did originally use the references to "act of God" and "pure chance"), let's agree that everything and anything can be open to interpretation and reinterpretation -- whether it's one person's opinion, or six billion. To date, I haven't seen a majority consensus for or against Cassini -- which is now a (almost) moot point. . .and I doubt you or I will ever get a clear cut consensus for or against space future missions that may require nuclear power.
But like marathon runners, we keep going and should be respected and honor for the accomplishments.
On a side note, I'm surprised -- almost to the point of disappointment that you were not in attendance to hear (and personally challenge) NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin in a public gathering.
Given your dedication to this issue, I would have expected you to move Heaven and Earth to be there last Friday and practically run over the competition to get to the microphone first during the brief Q & A session (about eight people in all were able to get their 2 cents worth with the man on various subjects not entirely related to Mr. Goldin's comments).
This was a "Goldin" opportunity for you -- and you missed it by being a no-show. I hope there wasn't a serious family related matter that prevented you from coming. I know it couldn't be a financial one, since you *could* have attended as a member of the media for free, given your title as editor of the Stop Cassini newsletter. I know you had as much lead time as I did in knowing Mr. Goldin would be the keynoter for the conference near LAX, since I immediately forwarded the info to you as soon as I received it.
As for me, I took a "personal" day, getting up at 3 am, leaving my place by 4 am to drive a greater distance than you would have -- and arriving amid backed up traffic on the partially shut down I-5 and typically clogged 405 to make it by 8 am. I then had to turn around and return to work an evening shift, which made for a long and tiring day (especially since I turned around again to attend the rest of the conference over the remainder of the weekend).
I really looked forward to seeing you there challenging the man in public, but you didn't make it.
Why?
Second Side Note: I transcribed Mr. Goldin's opening off the cuff remarks before he launched into his official comments (I'll try to get an official copy so I can save myself time of shuttling my videotape back and forth).
Bearing in mind what I said earlier in my comments above about "everything and anything can be open to interpretation and reinterpretation". . . :
+ + + + +
". . .We like it too easy in America today; everything has to be successful -- and if it's not successful, we search for the guilty, we find them, we hold them up to ridicule, and we so beat them up that people behind them are afraid to take risks.
This is NOT what the space program is about, and if you don't have a strong stomach, and if you can't handle the technical or financial failure, this is a very bad place to be. I like to think in America people have the right to succeed -- but we need to give people the right to fail. And if they fail, we've got to let them fail and not keep saving them. . .
. . .As you know, we have had many amazing accomplishments in the space program recently -- and failures, too -- and that's good. Because if you don't fail, you don't learn. And if you don't fail, you take it too easy in pushing the boundaries. . ."
-- NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin
Keynote address, Sept 24, 1999 - Los Angeles, CA
(Day after loss of Mars Climate Observer mission)
Some other comments that appeared in USA Today:
"We're trying to hit a very small object 416 million miles from Earth and trying to push the state of the art to do it. Sometimes when you try to do that, you can have problems."
-- Richard Cook, MCO project manager
NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
"It's like if you're on a moving train from New York to Washington, and you have to throw a baseball out the window 2,000 miles and have it hit a basketball on another train that's traveling between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Now remember, both trains are moving because Earth and Mars are moving. Sound kind of impossible, but we usually do it routinely, and that's why everybody's perplexed. In life, even the best baseball players or scientists make human errors. You can be Sammy Sosa and still strike out."
-- Ed Weiler, NASA's space science chief
"Failures are bound to happen if for no other reason than NASA is launching far more spacecraft than it ever has. In the entire 1980's, the space agency launched just two planetary missions: Galileo to Jupiter and Magellan to Venus. In the past year, eight planetary missions have been launched. There are going to be some failures and losses. It's an inevitable part of pushing the envelope. But failures have been the exception, not the rule."
-- Carl Pilcher, NASA's chief of solar system exploration
+ + + + +
Of course, since this doesn't include the "nuclear question," it's not considered a valid poll in your eyes -- but at least it's a good starting point for discussion:
CNN Poll
http://www.cnn.com/POLL/results/213491.content.html
After the failure of the Mars Climate Observer, should NASA continue its planned Mars missions?
Yes, the successes are worth the failures 46831 votes (70%)
Not without major staff changes 13952 votes (21%)
No, it's a big waste 6329 votes ( 9%)
Total: 67,112 votes
*******************************************************
As I've said before Russ, the only way you can be assured something is 100% safe is not to do it at all -- which can invite a certain amount of risk as well, depending on the circumstances (and interpretations).
Regards,
~JS~
To: Jim Spellman, National Space Society (NSS) (WSpaceport@aol.com)
From: Russell Hoffman, concerned citizen
Re: Cassini/MCO debacle
Date: September 26th, 1999
Dear Jim,
Thank you for your letter. What can I say? Why wasn't I trying to be in Daniel Goldin's face last week? To tell the truth, I hadn't thought about what sort of media opportunity that might be for me, but you do make a very good point. In fact, one of my neighbors asked me, "Is this your 15 minutes of fame?"
I responded "Yes. For this week."
I hate to make Daniel Goldin feel small, but less than 100 days before Y2K, he's loose change. The STOP CASSINI newsletter really is soon to be renamed, and at least until 2000-something, I'm planning to get out of the space business, unless something exciting happens, like Cassini disappears (it could happen at any time), or Woody Smith draws me back in with his threatened (but as yet undelivered, and wisely so I might add) lawsuit.
My newsletters are usually proof-read about seven times before they go out (and even that isn't always enough!). I consider it vital that they be as complete a description of the problem as possible, as accurate as possible, and as frequent and timely as possible. All this, and good fun reading, too.
I'm sure many people are watching this like a soap opera now, but it's so much more exciting because it's REAL. This is really happening to the world, to me, to you, to the space industry. They are making fools of themselves and being exposed. High drama indeed.
Sure, I could have wasted the day trying to challenge Goldin on his home turf, NOT under oath, during a very brief one-question session (if I was one of the lucky eight, or else nothing) or I could have stayed home and tried to set the record straight in writing, creating a useful and permanent record, telling the public what is going on, answering YOUR important email and so on. September 24th was an incredibly busy day for me, and even had I already spent the $300.00 to go to the space conference, I probably would have stayed home. Perhaps if SPACE NEWS had invited me to be on a panel to discuss NASA's failures, so I had a more equal chance to respond as Goldin would have gotten to spew his lies, it would have been worth it to go up there. But as things stood I had a job to do here, and I like to think I did it well (personally, I think the newsletters numbered in the 190s are among my very best), and there were two large newsletters on September 24th specifically -- it was a busy day for sending out the truth to counteract the lies, and I had much work to do. Besides, I'm not in the publicity stunt business -- that's NASA's line. And lastly, don't forget the Golden News Rule: Bad News on a Friday, Good News on a Monday. NASA's bad news needed explaining, and so I had very real if self-imposed deadlines on Thursday and Friday of last week (both days saw two STOP CASSINI newsletters each, probably some kind of record). My staff (me, myself, and I) were not excused to go listen to the Goldin Fool. I couldn't send a cub reporter -- none were handy. Maybe you're right; I should have gone, but I can't see the logic in it, especially in light of the quality product I was able to push out instead. When Daniel Goldin lies, it's not news anyway! When he apologizes, which he obviously has no idea he should be doing, that will be news. My Monday newsletter took many hours over the weekend. I think very carefully about what I say, Jim. These newsletters are designed to be works of art (non-fiction variety) and they are designed to withstand the tests of time. They are numbered in sequence because each one matters. They are the very best I can do.
Now, that's not to say I would not have loved to be there. But to do what? Gloat over the MCO team's misfortune? From Oberg's and Goldin's (and yours, and others') comments, it's clear that even with this unbelievably good evidence to show that the risks NASA was taking with Cassini were nowhere near "one in one million" I would still be denied, just as, indeed I am still being denied.
I'm even being told now (by you, for example) that I can't accept ANY failures. That's a lot of bunk!
Because the truth is -- and I honestly believe in your hearts, you and all the others know this -- MCO proved me right. In every way, shape and form it proved me right. For it not to be so, Cassini's better navigation system and the fact that it was flying by Earth has to be not just one million times better than MCOs (ridiculous to believe without any proof) but perhaps hundreds of millions of times better. Why so much? Because the "one in one million" figure we were offered included ALL errors, not just whatever the exact error that MCO had (do we know for sure what it was yet?). Navigation is navigation; it's something people have been doing for millennia already, and NASA got it very wrong and it could have been Cassini they goofed with, not MCO. Those are facts. Oberg's excuses just aren't worth diddly, let alone the million-times plus margin they would need to make complete sense. But perhaps David Doody is responding to the questions I posed in my letter to him to explain as best he can (and he ought to know) what the glorious differences are in terms that make sense to an unbiased observer (and think what you may, I and my readers are the unbiased observers here, not you. I certainly didn't spend my life in the space industry and in fact, what I've been doing for the past 20 years is pretty well documented and unrelated either to nuclear energy or space, or even Y2K (my own software is not date-sensitive and I have never lost a wink of sleep worrying about Y2K's impact on my software business).
From your notes, it's obvious that Goldin rambled on about the price of failure. I've never had a problem with there being a price of failure for space exploration. Any reasonable person watching the space industry knows that failures are a regular part of the process. But Goldin said "technical or financial failure" and not "medical catastrophe". He did not speak to the unspeakable horror of 400,000 Curies of plutonium 238 vapor spread into an environment with 6,000,000,000 people in it. He only spoke of "technical or financial failure", as if the loss of Cassini in a flyby accident (had it happened) would have been no worse (except about 50 times more expensive) than the loss of MCO was. That is NOT a balanced view of Cassini's potential. It's not just a "technical or financial failure" we were (and are) worried about. In reality, the loss of Cassini would have been many millions of times worse because of the medical consequences all around the world -- and not just to volunteer space cadets. And Daniel Goldin obviously forgets that NASA wasn't going to pay for a Cassini accident anyway -- Cassini's radiological payload was under-insured by the notorious Price-Anderson Act, as unconstitutional a piece of handiwork as has ever come out of Washington, which limits payments to just $100,000,000 (one hundred million dollars) for overseas accidents, and about $13,000,000,000 (thirteen billion dollars) in America -- still nowhere near enough. So if he wants to talk about taking financial responsibility, let's see NASA take some!
I have absolutely no problem with the occasional lost mission (unless I'm on it!), as I have said over and over and over. Even loss of life I recognize as inevitable, as does everyone interested in space exploration. But with Cassini we are not talking about the actual volunteers for the mission losing their lives (it was unmanned, of course) but about strangers and passers-by who just happen to be on Spaceship Earth at the time, being randomly given cancers, leukemias and birth defects by the millions. But according to NASA, only by the dozens (ten dozen, to be exact). And we obviously (now, after MCO, it's obvious, anyway) are not talking about "one in one million" odds of that accident at all, but something much worse! One in 10? One in 100? Odds of one in 1000 would still be 1000 times WORSE than the odds NASA gave for a Cassini flyby reentry.
If we were talking about errors in the range of 100%, then NASA's 120 deaths estimated from a Cassini flyby accident would be 240 deaths -- twice as bad -- as NASA suggested. But our side's contention is not that NASA estimates of the potential death toll is off by 100%, (double the deaths NASA predicts), or 200%, (triple the deaths), but that they are off by perhaps 100,000 -- five orders of magnitude (10,000,000%). And on top fo that, our second contention is that Cassini was more likely to impact Earth than "one in one million" as NASA proclaimed. For that contention, MCO is a very good indication that we are right. How right? Was Cassini's chances of failure perhaps one in 100,000? one in 10,000? These are the questions I'm supposed to believe there are reasonable answers to, but of course, no one will supply them.
I can accept failure, but I cannot accept a denial of the facts. I cannot accept twisted logic based on false assumptions. I cannot accept gross exaggerations or absurd denials of evidence. I cannot accept the same old statements in support of a dangerous technology even in the face of new evidence which STRONGLY SUGGESTS the numbers NASA had been feeding us regarding Cassini's dangers were totally bogus.
Yes, I would love to have a chat with Daniel Goldin. An outgoing interview as he is booted from office would be very nice. Not for MCO. I see no reason anyone should be fired for an honest mistake. But for Cassini and all the dishonesty that went -- and goes -- with it.
I have interspersed comments for the various statements you have presented, below. Thank you again for your letter and I'm very sorry I missed you in Los Angeles last week.
Sincerely,
Russell Hoffman
Founder and Editor
STOP CASSINI newsletter
P.S. I wish you had suggested I could have got in for free sooner! Last I heard, NASA was still saying there were "no credible opponents" to Cassini. Perhaps SPACE NEWS sees it differently and would have granted me a press pass as a "credible opponent" and editor of the STOP CASSINI newsletter (a very credible source of information, if you ask me!). I'll test that theory (that I would be granted press credentials) next time I get a chance -- probably after Y2K (unless Cassini goes dead for any reason before then). (Last I heard Keith Cowing of NASA WATCH still couldn't get the credentials he is looking for, but then, his web site really ISN'T credible as far as I know! Maybe he's got them by now, anyway. If not, I say: Hang in their, Keith! If I can do it, anyone can do it!)
At 07:03 AM 9/28/99 -0400, Jim Spellman wrote:
Re: A "Goldin" Opportunity missed (WAS: Excuses, Excuses)
In a message dated 9/24/99 12:29:45 AM Pacific Daylight Time, rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com writes:
Jim Spellman of the National Space Society has very kindly forwarded to the editor of this newsletter a collection of answers he has received which he describes as "valid" and "credible". They are in fact unscientific bunk, and I debunk them following the email from Jim. But I like Jim's phrase about it being neither "Signs from God" or "pure chance" but rather NASA's own goof-up of an as-yet unidentified sort (or maybe it hit a piece of space debris, too! We don't know for sure yet!).
Like there is some great difference, Jim. It all just proves what anyone with common sense already knew -- accidents DO happen!
Before we play fast and loose with our comments (you did originally use the references to "act of God" and "pure chance"), let's agree that everything and anything can be open to interpretation and reinterpretation -- whether it's one person's opinion, or six billion. To date, I haven't seen a majority consensus for or against Cassini -- which is now a (almost) moot point. . .and I doubt you or I will ever get a clear cut consensus for or against space future missions that may require nuclear power.
[[[ I disagree. I think once the public is better educated to the sham NASA calls space exploration, and the dangers of Low Level Radiation, they will come out strongly against the use of nuclear power sources for space exploration, and especially they will oppose the military space operations such as that Titan IVA that blew up in August, 1998 and which I assume (for technical considerations) was plutonium-powered. I think once NASA and its friends can no longer censor all the honest activists' efforts, we will win. That's all it will take. -- rdh ]]]
But like marathon runners, we keep going and should be respected and [honored] for the accomplishments.
[[[ Here is what this "marathon runner" would really be saying (if he were honest): "Hi. I'm a marathon runner. I will be running by your house soon. If I fall down near you, I will disperse a toxin that will kill you, your children, my children, and people all around the world, randomly, without warning, in a cruel way, and I will take no responsibility for any death anywhere even as I get up and brush myself off and prepare to run again." No Jim, that's not how the game is played. Gentlemen drop their ashes in their hands and pocket their butts. They do not spoil the environment. They do not lie. -- rdh ]]]
On a side note, I'm surprised -- almost to the point of disappointment that you were not in attendance to hear (and personally challenge) NASA Administrator Daniel Goldin in a public gathering.
[[[ Perhaps it was a mistake. See above (and below) for my excuses, however cheap they may be. -- rdh ]]]
Given your dedication to this issue, I would have expected you to move Heaven and Earth to be there last Friday and practically run over the competition to get to the microphone first during the brief Q & A session (about eight people in all were able to get their 2 cents worth with the man on various subjects not entirely related to Mr. Goldin's comments).
[[[ I have more than 2 cents' worth to say to him. -- rdh ]]]
This was a "Goldin" opportunity for you -- and you missed it by being a no-show. I hope there wasn't a serious family related matter that prevented you from coming.
[[[ There was. In my mind, the family of humanity, with less than 100 days left to get it's act seriously together, needed me to write these newsletters! (I also went to a Chargers game, on Sunday, then finished newsletter #196 so it would be on people's desks Monday morning (note time of sending; about the same as now: 4:am.) -- rdh ]]]
I know it couldn't be a financial one, since you *could* have attended as a member of the media for free, given your title as editor of the Stop Cassini newsletter. I know you had as much lead time as I did in knowing Mr. Goldin would be the keynoter for the conference near LAX, since I immediately forwarded the info to you as soon as I received it.
As for me, I took a "personal" day, getting up at 3 am, leaving my place by 4 am to drive a greater distance than you would have -- and arriving amid backed up traffic on the partially shut down I-5 and typically clogged 405 to make it by 8 am. I then had to turn around and return to work an evening shift, which made for a long and tiring day (especially since I turned around again to attend the rest of the conference over the remainder of the weekend).
[[[ I thought in your email to me, you said you probably weren't going to make it at all. In any event, I missed seeing you more than I missed the opportunity to deride Daniel Goldin in person, whom I deride every day anyway. I've been demanding his resignation for nearly three years now, so what is there to say to him? He has misled the nation about the purpose of NASA, as well as about the nature of NASA's mistakes. He is unscientific; his quests for knowledge are bogus. He can lie with a straight face. He has never acknowledged my complaints, or even my existence. Why would I travel 90 miles to experience this in person? -- rdh ]]]
I really looked forward to seeing you there challenging the man in public, but you didn't make it.
Why?
[[[ If NASA built the technology for public transportation systems like their mandate says they should, like we need, like we have the money for, and like I've been calling for for years, it would have been a cinch to get there, while preparing the next newsletter on my $50.00 laptop, sitting on the reliable, swift, inexpensive, quiet, mag-lev train with full Internet hookup. Instead Goldin jets in to Los Angeles on public funds and remains as inaccessible as President Clinton, to a common peasant like myself. Oh sure, maybe I could have gotten one brief statement in, one question, maybe even an even briefer follow-up. But how about a panel? A press conference? A hearing? Sworn testimony? These would not have happened. Meanwhile how many other reporters, who will tow the party line, get to spend hours one-on-one with him, and get all the beautiful flyby videos by NASA artists they could possibly want? And one of THEM will be picked (by Buzz Aldrin?) to be the next American civilian/reporter in space (hopefully this one will come back in one piece, unlike the last one) even though I write as colorfully (and certainly as frequently) about space as anyone, and would love to go, even knowing the risks. Just show me to my seat, and I'm off on the next mission, faulty wiring (I mean in the rocket) and all. But because I am in opposition to certain of NASA's policies, I'll be passed over for sure. The last thing NASA would want is to actually give me free publicity! But what does NASA provide me with instead? I get a key part in The Woody-Doody show!
Besides, I honestly thought at least one major network would call me up and want to interview me. (Always the optimist!) I mean, aren't they supposed to try to get both sides of an issue, and present all the players, all the points of view, and all the facts? But none had the guts, brains, nerve or whatever, or wanted to risk ruining their career looking to see what dirt NASA has swept under the rug.
Besides, I have very reliable first-hand reports of people on my side "bouncing off the walls", as one happy couple put it, because of MCO -- I was very happy, I must admit. I felt sorry for the scientists that lost MCO, but that could have happened for 10,000 different reasons, and is expected. But for this reason, right when it happened? What emotion would anyone with "two or more synapses to rub together" -- as "Flatworm" put it -- be expected to feel? Friends stopped by all day long -- it was great. Why ruin a victory celebration like that by going and hanging out in the loser's camp? What would I find there? A friend in James Oberg, as he spouts trivial technicalities and splits hairs (without actually giving any real numbers)? Dan Goldin lying as dreamily as ever? Techno-apologists who never, ever EVER can make a SEA CHANGE in their technology?
As we approach Y2K at a perilous rate, we need to kill the entire nuclear dragon (not just the power plants some people say they oppose in principle but live their lives doing nothing about). What uses survive should be carefully thought out -- I haven't seen any careful thinking in the pro-nuclear camp yet. No caution. No sense of balance, of scale, and no accepting of responsibilities either.
Just as Cassini came and went, and subsequent events proved (IMHO) who was wrong and who was right, so too is coming a point of confluence known as Y2K. (Though technically, "Y2K" is actually the year 2048, as any programmer can tell you.) But 1/1/2000 is cause for alarm. The Y2K-nuclear accidental war issue is the #1 issue in the world today. The nuclear waste situation, and the lies that support so many facets of the nuclear mafia are destroying this world, and time is truly a-wastin'.
If instead of the Mars Climate Observer, it had been a probe EXACTLY like Cassini except the name was different, then I'm sure these same people who have been explaining the differences between MCO and Cassini would be explaining that the difference in the name caused the problem. -- rdh ]]]
Second Side Note: I transcribed Mr. Goldin's opening off the cuff remarks before he launched into his official comments (I'll try to get an official copy so I can save myself time of shuttling my videotape back and forth).
Bearing in mind what I said earlier in my comments above about "everything and anything can be open to interpretation and reinterpretation". . . :
+ + + + +
". . .We like it too easy in America today; everything has to be successful -- and if it's not successful, we search for the guilty, we find them, we hold them up to ridicule, and we so beat them up that people behind them are afraid to take risks.
[[[ This is NOT like anything I have been saying or doing. Yes, I would like Woody Smith and others to resign -- but not for not being successful. For lying. Whoever goofed on the MCO team, if it was an honest mistake, should get more training. That's no big deal. The ridicule is inevitable -- it is the price of failure. But the price of lying is much, much higher. -- rdh ]]]
This is NOT what the space program is about, and if you don't have a strong stomach, and if you can't handle the technical or financial failure, this is a very bad place to be. I like to think in America people have the right to succeed -- but we need to give people the right to fail. And if they fail, we've got to let them fail and not keep saving them. . .
[[[ He's actually now managed to say both things -- punish, seek out, don't punish, don't seek out. Fail to learn. Learn to fail. Whatever. He's saying nothing. As to the strong stomachs, let him see a chemotherapy patient if he wants to see a strong stomach -- those folks have to have the strongest stomachs around because of the nausea it causes. (Plus, in the cancer ward, you get to watch all your new-found friends die.) -- rdh ]]]
. . .As you know, we have had many amazing accomplishments in the space program recently -- and failures, too -- and that's good. Because if you don't fail, you don't learn. And if you don't fail, you take it too easy in pushing the boundaries. . ."
-- NASA Administrator Daniel S. Goldin
Keynote address, Sept 24, 1999 - Los Angeles, CA
(Day after loss of Mars Climate Observer mission)
[[[ MCO had a mission to do, but because of the manner in which it failed and the timing, the price of failure was not just the loss of the mission science return, it was also a loss of face. We (the public) deserve to know EXACTLY what went wrong with MCO, and whether it is something generic in the way NASA does things or someone goofed because they did something they should be ridiculed for, or whatever. But as for learning from failures, there is no law that says that is the only way to learn, and that it is necessarily a good way to learn. Yes, it works, and having made a few mistakes now and then, I am well aware of what good training it can be. But a little foresight makes sense too.
Imagine for a moment what NASA's publicity problem would be today if, instead of MCO following Cassini, it had preceded Cassini by a month. That would have been much harder for NASA! And I know you can't imagine it, and nor can Oberg or any of the others, but imagine that a month after MCO failed, Cassini also failed, and reentered Earth's atmosphere! NASA would have hopefully learned a great lesson, but the media price of failure would have been incredible. And perhaps 120 people would have been condemned to a horrible death. But perhaps six orders of magnitude MORE would have been condemned to death -- deaths that NASA is unwilling to admit to -- 10s of millions, as at least one learned Doctor has claimed (Dr. Ernest Sternglass). Giving a little means something like 20%, or maybe 100%. But six orders of magnitude? (And that's only considering the health effects should an accident occur, not the risk of one occurring in the first place, which of course NASA gave as one in one million but that is very hard to believe now for most people who are capable of learning from past experience (and have more than two synapses to rub together).)
Believe me, Jim -- there are better ways to learn. We might learn, after Y2K, the global thermonuclear war is a really bad thing. But by then it might be too late -- it might already have happened. We can learn not just from our mistakes, but from a level-headed consideration of the facts.
NASA, I don't think, can do this by themselves. MCO has proven that they are incapable of changing their opinions to fit the newest data that comes in. The Titan explosion last August proved that too. Stop space exploration because of the occasional (or even frequent) failure? No one is saying that. We are just demanding that every consideration be put in it's proper perspective, and the proper order of magnitude be applied at each step. This NASA is utterly incapable of doing. They lie with statistics, they lie with statements, they lie in every way imaginable (and probably several other ways as well). It should have been Daniel S. Goldin's resignation speech you were transcribing. He should have apologized to the nation for lying, and for running a corrupt organization, and headed for the door. Besides, the #1 reason for my not going? This way, to learn what I think (and many people do want to know) people are forced to come to the web site (including reporters). Reading is contagious because it makes people think. T.V. is poison because it makes people stop thinking. I think perhaps I played the cards I was dealt properly. I hope so. -- rdh ]]]
Some other comments that appeared in USA Today:
"We're trying to hit a very small object 416 million miles from Earth and trying to push the state of the art to do it. Sometimes when you try to do that, you can have problems."
-- Richard Cook, MCO project manager
NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory
[[[ Mars is very small? Goodness, when did it shrink? Richard Cook should be able to answer for me the question of exactly how Cassini's navigation system is different from MCO's navigation system in terms of risk assessment, and give NASA's "one in whatever" estimates for each stage. Furthermore, what are the EXACT odds NASA was using for this exact type of error, or for any error? Why didn't they slow down a little more (burning a little more fuel) so they could come in a little higher up, since they obviously didn't allow for a great enough margin of error? -- rdh ]]]
"It's like if you're on a moving train from New York to Washington, and you have to throw a baseball out the window 2,000 miles and have it hit a basketball on another train that's traveling between Los Angeles and San Francisco. Now remember, both trains are moving because Earth and Mars are moving. Sound kind of impossible, but we usually do it routinely, and that's why everybody's perplexed. In life, even the best baseball players or scientists make human errors. You can be Sammy Sosa and still strike out."
-- Ed Weiler, NASA's space science chief
[[[ "Usually" is good enough for MCO, but not nearly good enough for Cassini because of the added health risks to Earthings which Cassini presented. Ed Weiler is in the "mistakes will happen" crowd. It's the same noise we heard when that comet chaser mis-aimed it's camera a couple of months ago. But that was one of our contentions all along (that mistakes WILL happen) so we are actually in that crowd as well! He is also in the "two bullets have to nearly collide" crowd. Such people have probably never been to the museum at Gettysburg, where they have musket balls which collided with other musket balls while in flight during the battle. I even recall one threesome. Mistakes are no big deal, if you aren't carrying 72.3 pounds of plutonium dioxide (or 7.23 pounds, for that matter, or .723 pounds (etc., for several orders of magnitude)). Lead bullets are bad enough, but D.U. is a whole lot worse (many orders of magnitude, not just 100% or 200% or something like that). -- RDH ]]]
"Failures are bound to happen if for no other reason than NASA is launching far more spacecraft than it ever has. In the entire 1980's, the space agency launched just two planetary missions: Galileo to Jupiter and Magellan to Venus. In the past year, eight planetary missions have been launched. There are going to be some failures and losses. It's an inevitable part of pushing the envelope. But failures have been the exception, not the rule."
-- Carl Pilcher, NASA's chief of solar system exploration
[[[ This points out that although NASA might have a SLIGHTLY more efficient RTG in the works, it will probably be used VASTLY more often, making a serious accident inevitable over time. -- rdh ]]]
+ + + + +
Of course, since this doesn't include the "nuclear question," it's not considered a valid poll in your eyes -- but at least it's a good starting point for discussion:
CNN Poll
http://www.cnn.com/POLL/results/213491.content.html
After the failure of the Mars Climate Observer, should NASA continue its planned Mars missions?
Yes, the successes are worth the failures 46831 votes (70%)
Not without major staff changes 13952 votes (21%)
No, it's a big waste 6329 votes ( 9%)
Total: 67,112 votes
*******************************************************
[[[ CNN polls do nothing for me. They are trivial, unscientific, and the space community loads the votes by passing emails around telling people to go vote. Big deal. Oh yeah, and it doesn't mention the word "nuclear" either! Remember, I'm NOT calling for staff changes because of MCO -- at least, not in the Mars Orbiter department! -- RDH ]]]
As I've said before Russ, the only way you can be assured something is 100% safe is not to do it at all -- which can invite a certain amount of risk as well, depending on the circumstances (and interpretations).
Regards,
~JS~
[[[ We are not talking "100%" assurance, we are discussing "odds". My contention is that NASA's stated "one in one million" odds was A) not nearly long enough and B) even if it was long enough, it wasn't accurate or at least, NASA had no proof it was accurate.
My guess is that in the public's eyes, and they are correct here, my case has been made at least 1000 times stronger by the loss of MCO. Maybe a million times stronger. That's not a 20% or 100% difference! (If James Oberg or someone else can put a finer number on it, let them try, but so far he's been too busy trying to call me "silly".) But I'm going with that value, based on the evidence I have been able to gather, including the techno-apologist's best efforts which you have kindly sent me. Then I mixed all the information around in my head and pulled a number out of somewhere. That's how I got my number. Not very scientific? Well, it's no worse than where NASA get's their numbers from -- but mine is just a trivial matter (whether MCO was good for me, and if so, how good?) while NASA's lies support a deadly habit of launching plutonium which in an accident can end up in vaporized form, and doing this for little or no science return. -- Russell David Hoffman ]]]
MCO certainly was good for me, and coming at such a perfect time after my "sign from God needed" newsletter, what can I say? It was "way cool". All my friends have been laughing their heads off. It sure made for front-page coverage all around the world, of red-faced NASA trying to explain away the obvious. And why was there no one, no reporter anywhere that I know of, asking the hard questions? And none contacting me? And none quoting anything NASA's #1 protagonist had to say in his hour of victory (if someone else wants that title, I dare them to try to wrestle it from me!), however fleeting that moment might have been? I don't know. It's bizarre. I thought for sure the phone would ring off the hook now, but... nothing. I'd say I would never trust the media again to give the whole story, but I already knew that and have been saying it for years.
I call all these nuclear proponents a Mafia now. A cult. A religion. They call themselves "scientists" but that is only because they have absconded with the term. They should release it back to its proper owners! You want proof -- absolute, crystal-clear proof? How about this: To the best of my knowledge (and one would think I would know!) NOT ONE PROPONENT -- not one out of supposedly millions -- has changed their mind because of MCO. None have apologized, none have conceded a thing. None have said "I'm at least with you that there should be no more Earth flybys". Nothing! That's the behavior of a cult. Were it real science, this incident would have turned somebody. Someone who was on the fence would have fell to my side over this. But it's a cult and if you support one thing nuclear, especially space-nuclear, you invariably support virtually everything else, I guess because you think no one on the outside understands the issues (when really, it is the other way around). I have noticed a few who like to say they oppose nuclear electricity production, but since Y2K needs their voice and they don't give it, their claim is hollow. They just do it for show. Besides, nuclear power plants are such financial duds that being against them doesn't prove anything anyway, except you're a better capitalist than you are a nuclear proponent!
Thank God for the Internet (although I understand it is probably the CIA we really have to thank).
Here is the latest information on who works for who at NASA for three important individuals there:
commonName: Glennwood Smith
commonName: Woody Smith
woody@mail.hq.nasa.gov
telephoneNumber: +1 202 358-1486
Fax Number: +1 202 358-3411
Organization: CI-1
Employer: SAICIS/RMS (Science Applications International Corp.)
Building: HQ, Room: CZ35
NASA Headquarters, Washington DC 20546-0001
commonName: Glenn E Bugos
historian@mail.arc.nasa.gov
telephoneNumber: +1 650-604-2992
Organization: DX (External Affairs Office)
Employer: QUANTUM SERVICES, INC.
Building: 19, Room: 1090
NASA Ames Research Center
Mail Stop 19-1
Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
commonName: Dan Goldin
commonName: Daniel S Goldin
title: Administrator
dgoldin@mail.hq.nasa.gov
telephoneNumber: +1 202 358-1010
Fax Number: +1 202 358-2810
Organization: A
Employer: NASA
Building: HQ, Room: 9F44
NASA Headquarters
Washington DC 20546-0001
So Woody Smith no longer works for Boeing and now works for SAICIS/RMS (Science Applications International Corporation, (SAIC)), a contractor of dubious honesty, but I'm sure they have good lawyers and knew what "baggage" he carried when they hired him (and it must have been pretty recently).
Here's what SAIC's own web site has to say about themselves:
From:
http://www-losaltos.saic.com/html/electric_power.html
"Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) provides information, consulting, and other services to fossil-fired and nuclear electric power generating plants."
Obviously, they are no friend of the environment and nor is Woody Smith, no matter what he may claim to the contrary. And to think, this man went from being Historian of the Internet at NASA to being something else (we're not sure what) at NASA HQ, but employed by SAIC, who do little more than promote the "demon hot atom" for a living (and a dying)? He rewrote history for NASA as their historian, and is rewarded by going to work for SAIC.
Another SAIC web page tells the whole story, although I don't think they meant it to sound so stupid:
From:
http://www-losaltos.saic.com/html/fuel_cycle.html
"Highly experienced SAIC engineers support all aspects of the nuclear fuel cycle area."
In other words, they don't know when to quit. They support all aspects, regardless of whether any reasonable limit has been found by more reasonable people who only support what has been proven right and safe (very little).
These are the sorts of people I am up against. Dishonest, threatening, covert.
On this page are two pictures of spent fuel storage facilities:
http://www-losaltos.saic.com/html/fuel_cycle.html
That is probably the real reason SAIC hired Woody Smith -- because they wish to use him in the coming battle against me. For, unless Cassini disappears or something like MCO happens again, that battle is over. Everyone knows it, even the editor of the STOP CASSINI newsletter, at issue #198 (this issue) knows it.
But the next target in my sights, and SAIC knows it, is the nuclear waste cycle. They know it because anyone reading my newsletters knows it. Why would they hire Woody Smith, whose credibility is ZERO, who has lied to the public as if it were a form of poetry, who has threatened a free citizen of the United States (maybe it was a joke when he said "if I told you, I'd have to kill you" but maybe not), and clearly doesn't have a civilized clue about what's going on in the world. Why would they hire him? Because, as outlined in his letters to me as Dr. Planarian, they wish to undermine my credibility, precisely because they make a product they know I don't like. It's imperfect, it's liable to terrorist acts, acts of God, acts of stupid science and bumbling technicians, and it pretends to be a solution to a problem that has yet to be properly faced by society.
SAIC and Woody Smith. What a combo! -- rdh
This sequence shows the power of the atom as well as the power of the Internet. Which would you rather support: The Internet that helped this unfortunate woman find Andy and I and hopefully some more people, or the "hot demon atom" which may have caused her disease?
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1999 04:26:20 +0100
From: savage savage@easynet.co.uk
Organization:
http://www.eco-action.org/
To: "Russell D. Hoffman"
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
Subject: [Fwd: three mile island]
Hi, can you let me know if you can put this lady in touch with the people she needs, and the other thing she asks? I told her you might be a good contact specially on the side of helping to prevent this happening to others.
Thanks
Andy
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: three mile island
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 1999 15:38:51 EDT
From:
Ljb317537@aol.com
To:
savage@easynet.co.uk
CC:
tintmeister@blazenet.net
Hello...I am a 28 year old female, who grew up in York, PA just minutes away from Three Mile Island. Last week, I was devastated to learn that I have thyroid cancer. After much research, I found that thyroid cancers are typically linked to an overexposure of radiation. I find it very likely that my cancer diagnosis has a direct link to the explosion of 1979 when I was a kid. Do you have any sources that could help me connect to others like myself who are in this same dilemma? What advice can you give me to help prevent this from happening to others? Any and all advice you can give will be greatly appreciated.
Thank You!
Leslie Brown
Can anyone please help? Woody Smith? Daniel Goldin? Bill Richardson? Al Gore? Bill Clinton? Can any of you help this woman? Or did you simply not read this far into the newsletter to learn about her condition?
NASA needs to be told in no uncertain terms NEVER to launch nuclear rockets of any type ever again!
To learn about the absurd excuses NASA used to launch Cassini and its 72.3 pounds of plutonium in 1997, ask them for the 1995 Environmental Impact Statement for the Cassini mission, and all subsequent documentation. At the same time, be sure to ask them for ANY and ALL documentation available on future uses of plutonium in space, including MILITARY, CIVILIAN, or "OTHER" (just in case they make a new category somehow!). To get this information, contact:
Cassini Public Information
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
4800 Oak Grove Drive
Pasadena CA 91109
(818) 354-5011 or
(818) 354-6478
Here's NASA's "comments" email address:
comments@www.hq.nasa.gov
Daniel Goldin is the head of NASA. Here's his email address:
daniel.goldin@hq.nasa.gov
or
dgoldin@mail.hq.nasa.gov
Here's the NASA URL to find additional addresses to submit written questions to:
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/pao/facts/HTML/FS-002-HQ.html
YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO KNOW WHAT NASA IS DOING TO YOUR HEALTH.
Be sure to "cc" the president and VP and your senators and congresspeople, too.
President Bill Clinton
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20500; Ph. (202) 456-1111, Fax (202) 456-2461;
e-mail -- president@whitehouse.gov
Vice President Albert Gore
White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
N.W.,Washington, D.C. 20500;Ph. (202) 456-1414, Fax (202)
456-2461; e-mail -- vicepresident@whitehouse.gov
Secretary William Cohen
1000 Defense
The Pentagon
Washington D.C. 20301
703-695-6352
Secretary Bill Richardson
Department of Energy (DoE)
1000 Independence Avenue SW
Washington D.C. 20585
202-586-6210
fax: 202-586-4403
Always include your full name and postal address in all correspondence to any Government official of any country.
Thanks for reading! Welcome new subscribers!
Home page of our STOP CASSINI movement:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/cassini/cassini.htm
(Accept NO imitations!)
To subscribe, simply email the editor at
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com
and state:
SUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
Please include a personal message of any
length and subject matter. Thank you!
To unsubscribe email me and say
UNSUBSCRIBE STOP CASSINI NEWSLETTER
Published by Russell D. Hoffman electronically.
Written in U.S.A.
This newsletter is free and is not distributed for profit.
Please distribute these newsletters EVERYWHERE!
**************************************************************
Many of the issues presented by Russell Hoffman in this letter are based on conversations with Dr. John W. Gofman (who isolated the first working quantities of plutonium), the late Dr. Karl Z. Morgan (who was known as the "father of health physics"), Dr. Ernest Sternglass (who has done statistical studies about LLR), Dr. Jay Gould (ditto), Dr. Horst Poehler, Dr. Helen Caldicott, Dr. Ross Wilcock and dozens of activists, as well as many others on both sides of the nuclear debates, including ex military nuke expert Jack Shannon (responsible for the design of the D2G Navy reactor, the most widely used reactor in the U. S. navy), award-winning investigative reporter Karl Grossman, ecologist and human rights advocate Pamela Blockey-O'Brien, etc. Also, I've read a few dozen books on the various subjects. And scads of government documents purporting to explain how something so dangerous can be safe. Professionally, my pump training software is used throughout the pump industry and even in some nuclear power plants around the world to train their staff about mechanical pumps. Any errors herein are regrettably my own, but I believe it would take an extremely unlikely preponderance of errors to invalidate my basic position on these issues.
*************************************************************
Russell D. Hoffman, Carlsbad, California, Peace Activist, Environmentalist, High Tech Guru:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/whoisrdh.htm
Hoffman's Y2K Preparedness Information:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/y2k/index.htm
Learn about The Effects of Nuclear War here:
http://www.animatedsoftware.com/environm/no_nukes/tenw/nuke_war.htm
************************************************************
** THE ANIMATED SOFTWARE COMPANY
** Russell D. Hoffman, Owner and Chief Programmer
** Carlsbad CA
** Visit the world's most eclectic web site:
** http://www.animatedsoftware.com
************************************************************
rhoffman@animatedsoftware.com