It's an expensive rock.


"kT" wrote
I agree entirely, it's a poor design, and I was opposed to building it
at all in that form, and I indeed predicted after Challenger it would
never be built. But they went ahead and built it, and now we're stuck
with it, so with a little creativity it should be much cheaper to
maintain now that it is built. What I am advocating is creativity in
the launch and life support markets, something thus far Americans are
unwilling to do.

Creativity apparently means going back to Apollo.


It can be salvaged of course, and can still do useful work. All that
needs be done is to get AmeriKKKa out of the picutre.


"kT" wrote
I agree entirely, but I would prefer America to become more rational.

That only has the potential of being realized several decades after the
Collapse of the AmeriKKKan state.

The U.S. population is still too deeply disconnected from the reality of
thier ongoing rapid decline.



I blame AmeriKKKan RepubliKKKans for the perpetual stream of U.S. white
elephants in manned space flight.


"kT" wrote
So do I, but there is no time like the present to change that.

Not possible. There is way too much KKKonservative poison flowing through
AmeriKKKa.


I see little value in manned space flight to these orbiting piles of
rubble.

"kT" wrote
Except to keep the mammals from fighting among themselves by giving
them something to do.

Appolo didn't stop Vietnam.



Sell NASA to China. AmeriKKKa could use the cash.


"kT" wrote
NASA is a problem, but that's an entirely different salvage operation.

I don't see how NASA is a problem. Mission constraints are set by the
budget, it's charter, and congressional mandate.