December 16th 08, 06:36 PM
posted to sci.space.policy,sci.space.history,sci.space.station,sci.military.naval
|
|
|
...Military Space Plane (X-37b) to Launch February 26
On Dec 16, 1:10*pm, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
wrote:
"Stefan Diekmann" wrote in message
...
I still believe they didn't send more because they were so cheap. NASA
always seems to look for the most expensive means to do something, and
after they failed try something even more expensive and less likely to
succeed.
They're cheap because they're limited in what they can do.
They've accomplished their goals.
Besides taking more pretty pictures, what valuable science would additional
copies bring?
It's like arguing we fly copies of Explorer I because it was so cheap.
I'm a firm believer in space technology, but I also believe that the NASA
driven approach should be abandoned. The most important thing at the
moment is reducing the cost to orbit, and that's where the money should go
(but I don't believe NASA has spend any money on that in decades). Once
NASA was a good thing, nowadays it does little for lots of money.
wrote:
On Dec 16, 3:55?am, "Brian Gaff" wrote:
You lot are more cynical than I am.
Brian
supringsly nasa did build spirit and opportunity, which are fantastic.
in typical *nasa fashion they abandoned the successful model which
could of been duplicated easily on a production line basis, and many
more sent to explore.
they are compartively so cheap is a shame we havent sent more
--
Greg Moore
Ask me about lily, an RPI based CMC.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/LR...er_search.html
|