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.
-Rich