RichA wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 18:46:44 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>David Schierholz wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:06:24 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>David Schierholz wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 23:28:09 -0400, pawn > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Ok- Probably not the group that cares about such things, but-
>>>>>
>>>>>You are citing as an example of intelligence and work ethic an
>>>>>organization that put a man on the moon in 1969 and hasn't put one
>>>>>farther than low earth orbit since?
>>>>
>>>>This isn't due to lack of intelligence or work ethic. Its due to lack
>>>>of funding.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hmmm... Hummer/ Mustang
>>>Hummer/ Mustang
>>>$100,000/$2,000 (OK, conceed inflation)
>>>Ugly/ classic
>>
>>Depends on your needs. Try taking a Mustang down a rut infested, muddy
>>road or across a creek where the water is over the hood. In those
>>circumstances the extra $80,000 for the Hummer might be a bargain, even
>> at twice the price.
>>
>>
>>>Shuttle/ Spaceship One,
>>>Billions/ 10 Million
>>
>>Not much of a comparison. Space Ship One just barely gets into space
>>for a few seconds and doesn't even circle the planet once. Tell them to
>>take a 60,000lb payload into orbit and their cost will also go into orbit.
>>
>>
>>>Now I have nothing against 1960's technology, but I don't plan to
>>>commute in it in 2005. NASA does.
>>
>>There are probably better technologies available but planning a reusable
>> ship that achieves low and high earth orbit takes time and you have to
>>use the best available technology when you start designing. Trying
>>integrate new technology after the fact, many times, is just not
>>practical or nothing would ever be accomplished. For an example, look
>>at the space probes that are sent out. They have much lower technology
>>when they reach their destination than the present day but when they
>>were designed and built it was much more current.
>>
>>The shuttle was built on technology that has been tried and tested. The
>>trouble is that NASA hasn't had the funds to continue operating the
>>shuttles and at the same time develop newer and improved technologies
>>for the next generation space ships. We are expecting an awful lot from
>>them for the money they are budgeted.
>
>
> If NASA in it's infinite political stupidity had gone with the Orion
> project instead of Apollo, we'd have had manned visits to all the
> planets by now and we'd be on our way to the nearest STARS. Instead,
> we have a Shuttle that is impressive but vastly expensive to fly and
> limited to Earth orbit, and a disgusting
> waste of money called the ISS, which was designed to give Russian
> nuclear scientists jobs (after the fall of the Soviet Union) so they
> wouldn't run off an build atom bombs for Arabs. That dog-s--- $180b
> ISS is the WORST boondoggle NASA ever came up with.

Well, hind sight is always 20-20 but I seriously doubt we would be
visiting the planets under any scenario by now. We don't have the
technology to sustain human life in space for years on end with much
reliability. I believe we will make interplanetary trips but not until
30-50 more years have passed. Any manned deep space mission will need
to be launched from earth orbit so freight ships like the shuttle is the
first line of technology we will need in order to accomplish the second.

As for the ISS being a waste I really don't think so. Having humans in
space increases our understanding of the challenges involved in such
endeavors and allows us to design and test solutions to problems. If we
assume you are right about keeping the Russians busy, then I think $180
billion is cheap compared to the cost of a terrorist getting a nuke from
a Russian scientist and detonating it in the middle of Manhattan or
Washington, DC.

I agree that NASA has made mistakes but they also have had many, many
more successes than failures. There are very, very few of us could who
could have done any better than they have and my guess is that if you,
or I, were in charge of things they would be a hell of a lot worse.