Re: Space funding (was Re: Hillary needs to quit)

Zombie Elvis <DELETEMETOREPLYrobertocastillo@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>>When Nasa EXPLORES it will inspire. The Mars rovers did inspire--natch
they 
>>are on the chopping block.
>
>Not to mention that the Mars rovers are a lot cheaper than the shuttle
>program.

And the mars rovers aren't on the chopping block, where did you hear that?
The probe missions have perennial troubles and always have, because they
require thinking further ahead than NASA is good at anymore. Thank the
gods
for JPL, who still know what they're doing when allowed to.

>A big part of the constellation was that it recycles a lot of old
>shuttle technology which itself is something like thirty years old.
>The shuttle was a huge money pit which is why much of our space
>exploration technology is "current" instead of current.

Yep. On the other hand, they've been scouring junkyards looking for all
the
specialized plumbing and other works of engineering genius that went into
the saturn V engine, so they *do* seem to have some ideas what's good to
steal from. It was bar none, the best rocket engine of all time. And NASA
forgot how to make some of it. Bastards.

>I've heard a number of bloggers and podcasters (some of whom are
>actual scientists) make the same argument. That NASA should work on
>pu****ng the boundaries of research and development with planetary
>science and leave the manned space flight to the private companies
>which are just beginning to come into their own.

I don't disagree. But nobody in the aerospace industry is exactly thinking

for the long term either. I'd love to think that Scaled Composites has a
plan for true orbital vehicles, but I think they're a long way away from
that. *
-- 
* PV   something like badgers--something like lizards--and something
       like corkscrews.