"Rand Simberg" wrote in message
...
On 17 Feb 2006 12:13:21 -0800, in a place far, far away, "Ed Kyle"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a
way as to indicate that:

In my opinion, the only "leadership" that the U.S. currently
provides in space is in the unmanned science and exploration
efforts that Griffin is proposing to gut. The U.S. long ago lost
its leadership position in manned spaceflight to Russia, which
for the past several years has provided the only seat-rides to
orbit. The International Space Station itself is built around a
Russian core.

Well, that may be your opinion, but it's obviously not the opinion of
Griffin's audience on the Hill. Most people in Washington apparently
consider a fancy hangar queen to be superior to less-capable vehicles
that are actually being flown, and that having such hangar queens
demonstrates "leadership."


Guys, the problem with leadership is the goal they've set.
Or better, the lack of one. This 'vision' of returning to
the Moon lacks all the basic elements needed for
success. As a goal, it fails to inspire because it
isn't about discovery as we've 'done that'.
So all that's left to inspire are the tangible benefits
from such a long term goal as to
the Moon and Mars.

And guess what, there are NONE.
To speak of.

As a goal this vision fails in every respect.
So of course it will not succeed. Everyone
in Congress is sitting around waiting for
Bush to leave office.

Waiting for a new goal. And until one is found
that has discovery ...AND... tangible benefits
we will continue to drift in space.

Pity, a real pity, because Nasa could be doing
something like solving the world's energy crisis
of the future. Which would have the kicker of
solving the world's warming problem at the
same time.

The magnificent tangible benefits of such a logical
and obvious goal would immediately inspire
legions of supporters and money.

Such a goal cannot fail. The one we have
cannot succeed.

Why doesn't anyone see the obvious?
Setting goals is not rocket science ya know.


Jonathan

s






What I don't understand is why we aren't rushing an unmanned mission
to the lunar poles to resolve the water issue ASAP. It seems to me
that exploration architecture plans would be strongly driven by the
answer to that question.