Eric Chomko wrote:
Paul F. Dietz ) wrote:
: Henk Boonsma wrote:

: It all boils down to the fact that we're continuing where Apollo left off,
: only now NASA will have to do it on a shoestring budget.

: Sometimes a smaller budget is a good thing. It can be
: harder to make yourself efficient if you're wallowing
: in unlimited funds.

I guess you were spleeping when Goldin was stressing his "faster, better,
cheaper" approach in the 1990s?

As opposed to the Slower, Better, Costlier approach that
gave us the $1 billion Mars Observer fiasco, used up
the careers of an entire generation of space scientists
to get Galileo into space, and produced the space shuttle?

I agree with Paul, some of the best innovations come
on shoestring budgets. Stuff like the Wright Flyer, the
Travel Air Mystery Ship, the DC-3 (developed during the
darkest days of the Great Depression), the ElectroMotive
567 diesel engine (also a Depression baby - this was the
engine that made steam locomotives obsolete) and all
of those computer gadgets built in garages during the
1980s that led to the creation of outfits like Apple and
Microsoft and put a computer in every house, classroom,
library, car, and briefcase, etc.

- Ed Kyle