Eric Chomko wrote:
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.

At only $400 million each, with a short 34 month
development timeline, and using techniques devised
during the Mars Pathfinder mission, with was a
Faster-Better-Cheaper (FBC) mission, the MERs are a
lot closer to FBC than to the traditional Battlestar
missions.

: I agree with Paul, some of the best innovations come
: on shoestring budgets.

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.

Huh? Who said that I hate government funding? Did
I? I'm sure we can find interesting, successful
government projects that were run on a shoestring,
like Pathfinder for example.

- Ed Kyle