Ool ) wrote:
: "Eric Chomko" wrote in message ...
: Hansel ) wrote:

: : Yes, one could propose to scrap the shuttle and even the ISS, because they
: : aren't awefully cheap or effective to run but NOT until something better has
: : been put in place, otherwise you'll probably end up with nothing to fly in
: : the current climate of half baked ideas and unfinished concepts.

: Well said. Much of motivation (or should be!) is not to remove or
: otherwise not stop using old technology until the newer technology is in
: place and functioning.

: "Here I have this new computer that you can have in three months. In the
: mean time I'll take that unit you're using there."

: Yeah, right!


: Yeah, but the problem with the Shuttle was that it ate up so many re-
: sources that they never could afford to develop something better.

Not with the budget that they have. It is enough to operate the shuttle
and build ISS as well as the existing other programs. To try and
build something new to replace the old, in this case, shuttle; given the
current budget gives you EXACTLY what you have now.


: Sometimes phasing out of something old and into something new works
: and sometimes it doesn't. In the case of the Shuttle it obviously
: didn't, or otherwise we'd have something new by now.

Same can be said of a great many of programs.

: Come on, twenty-five years of using the same old jalopies until the
: oldest of them all eventually breaks apart means there must be *some*
: roadblock to progress somewhere...!

Agreed, NASA needs more money to run efficiently.

Eric


: --
: __ “A good leader knows when it’s best to ignore the __
: ('__` screams for help and focus on the bigger picture.” '__`)
: //6(6; ©OOL mmiv :^)^\\
: `\_-/ http://home.t-online.de/home/ulrich....lmann/redbaron \-_/'