In sci.space.policy Rusty Barton wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 22:32:30 +0000 (UTC), Sander Vesik
wrote:



So what would you have NASA do? And how would it promote science, or
some other field of your choice?


I would like NASA to spend America's hard earned tax dollars for more
than the paper airplanes they have been buying last 15-years.
It remains to be seen if the OSP will result in hardware or just
another waste of money with no results like the X-33, X-38, HL-20,
NASP. Does that promote science?

Hard earned tax dollars? NASA's budget is an utterly insignificant
amount of the budget, which at any rate is prognosed to have a
$455 billion deficit this year. So instead of as 'hard earned tax
dollars' you should say 'a small amount of spare that dropped out
of the budget, both taxed and borrowed'.


It's time NASA started bending some metal instead of ending up with
another dead end paper study.

NASA screw-ups started with Skylab. Lack of proper testing on the
ground caused it to be crippled at launch. Did that promote science?

Then there was the screw-up with the Hubble. It has the "World's most
perfect mirror" that needed corrector lenses. Does that promote
science?

Hubble has done a huge amount for science - whetever it needed corrective
optics or not is irrelevant, you can just consider it as having part
of cost of it. The only case where you would consider it would be if
Hubble was a failure - which is nowhere near the same galaxy as correct.


Then there was the screw-up with Galileo and its high gain antenna.
How much science was lost because of this? Did this promote science?

Then we come to the Mars mission screw-up. Mars Observer - oh well,
what's a billion dollars. Mars Climate Observer. Well it observed the
climate of the Martian atmosphere at orbital speeds -oops. Measure
twice, cut once. Last but not least there was the Mars Polar Lander er
Crasher. A "Cheaper, Faster, Better" monument on the Martian surface.
Did any of these promote science?


No. But this was not all - not even close to all - that NASA did in the
period.

Two shuttles are destroyed and 14 people are dead because of NASA lack
of management or mis-management. Did this promote science?


Two shuttles and 14 people dead is hardly a major ctastrophy. hundreds
gie yearly in air crashes, and that is considerably more mature technology.
If you want to pick issue around this, pick it with decreasing ability
to get humans off teh planet - if things continue as they are, the
astronauts in any US mission to Mars will have to be lifted off (and
brought back to earth from orbit) in rented / bought Soyus modules.

I blame Congress, the Administrations over the years and NASA for a
lack of funding and a lack of vision.

The Shuttle should be replaced. The Space Station should be finished.
There should be serious studies on alternatives to chemical rockets.
There should be more planetary exploration and sample return missions
missions.
NASA should start planning for return to the moon and a manned landing
on Mars.


That would be the "field of my choice".


which is not a field - its a generic "NASA should be doing better",
which may or may not be possible given funding levels.


So much for the book, "Learning English on $ 5.00 a day". :-)

And this was so nice of you.


Just be glad I didn't translate your original message into "jive".


And I should have cared?


--
Rusty Barton - Antelope, California |"Every so often, I like to
| stick my head out the window,
| look up, and smile for the
| satellite picture."-Steven Wright

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++