Ed Kyle ) wrote:
: 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?

Seems that the MERs success has righted that ship. You won't mention that
part due to bias.

: 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.

Yes, your hatred of government funding of any kind has you thinking like
that. Don't want a grant, then don't apply for one. And stop acting like
others shouldn't get one either.

I can site the early computers in Aberdeen, the Internet as well as a
multitude of other government funded operations to counter your argument.
The difference is that I like BOTH private sector and public sector
breakthroughs in science and technology, whereas you only want to
acknowledge the private sector side.

Eric

: - Ed Kyle