| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Erik Olson wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.geek, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
All those new initiatives were a neat idea, but as you can see Shuttle has
eaten them alive. Congress voted $4.3 billion for a shuttle that won’t fly
before that money is all gone. It has always done this because our lawmakers
are addicted to voting money for their home states, and Shuttle has been pork
since Nixon. New initiatives are a risk, because they threaten some of the
largest Shuttle handouts. No matter how irrational Shuttle might be.
|
Shuttle = great idea in 1972, ridiculous albatross in 2004. You’re undoubtedly
right about the $4.3B being spent before a single SRB is lit. What really bugs
me is the systematic way they’re trying to kill all manned spaceflight by
unfunding development of next-generation man-rated lift vehicles.
| |
The bill is also supposed to pay for the completion of our obligations to the
ISS. This too is a boondoggle.
|
ISS = great idea, poor implementation. At first the US carried the Russians, now
it’s Russia’s turn to carry the US. Ironic.
| |
Arguing about what this means - somebody has it in for manned spaceflight for
instance - involves a fatal assumption. That is that NASA offers any hope of
furthering that goal. If you think the answer is no, as I have been
convinced, then shutting down NASA’s manned flight operations and privatizing
its assets would a good thing for space. Some of the hearings under way are
leading to cracking it apart, but I’m not holding my breath.
|
I understand what you’re saying about manned spaceflight and NASA, but there’s
currently no other viable alternative, at least in the western hemisphere. Not
in the short term. SpaceShipOne is a quantum leap, but it’s one made by NASA
more than 40 years ago. I don’t want to wait another half century just to catch
up to where we were just before the Columbia was destroyed, by relying on
private enterprise to get us into orbit and beyond.
And to give up on manned spaceflight is absolutely not acceptable to me.
For my money, the way to go was the DC-X program, which was incredibly successful until the final (simple)
mechanical failure that caused it to tip over and explode on landing. Funding
was cut and a pet project from another company was chosen to get future funding.
Typical. “Hey, let’s build this cool ship using off-the-shelf technology.” “OK.
It works, yay!” “Good work. Your funding’s been eliminated.”
| |
http://appropriations.house.gov/
Subcommittee on Veterans etc. made this vote
If one of your congresscritters is on this subcommittee, write them a letter.
Bite the hand that feeds your neighborhood a $7.3 million NASA supercomputer
facility. (ranking member Mollohan, Fairmont WV.)
|
Dang, none of the
Subcommittee Members are from my state. Doesn’t mean I can’t write to them
anyway, of course, but it has less weight.
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Bad news for NASA
|
| (...) All those new initiatives were a neat idea, but as you can see Shuttle has eaten them alive. Congress voted $4.3 billion for a shuttle that won't fly before that money is all gone. It has always done this because our lawmakers are addicted to (...) (20 years ago, 22-Jul-04, to lugnet.off-topic.geek, FTX)
|
5 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
