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.