"bob" wrote:
The whole argument about faster better cheaper and moore's law touches on a
space history point that should be noted.

In the 1960's computer and space science were very much linked, and the new
and demanding needs of the space program (and military) were a large part of
the cutting edge/driving force of computers and many other technologies
(robotics, imaging, etc)

Um, no. The space program drove such technologies little if at all.

But even then, we all remember wishing when a deep space probe reached its
target it could have the camera or computer technologies that had developed
since its launch.

Um, no. Except for the long cruisers like the Pioneers and Voyagers,
essentially no space probe had computer technology change across it's
life.

I think the argument could be made that the equiment needed to make a credible
space probe could be assembled from components purchased at radio shack.

Um, no. There is no evidence in support of such a notion.

What NASA has left that no one else has is the expertise of assembling robust
systems that can handle the extremes of space. They no longer have a monopoly
on the cutting edge hardware.

Um, no. NASA never had a monopoly on cutting edge hardware.
Generally they stayed right behind the leading edge.

When I say space age technology to my son, he looks blank. When I say
hottest new product, he gets excited....

Which suggests more than anything that your son watches little to no
TV, as the marketing term 'space age technology' is as prevalent, and
as meaningless, as it has been for thirty years and more.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.