Station to be abandoned?

I see a parellel between the calls to privatize NASA and the shutting down of
the pure research labs previously funded by large corporations and
universities, I'm thinking stuff like Bell labs and the like. The problem I
have with all that is that corporations are money-grubbing swine that are only
interested in immediate financial gratification: if it can't instantly be
turned into a marketable product, then the basic research is of no worth to
them. Uncountable numbers of discoveries that DID lead eventually to very
lucrative products and technologies came from noodling around in basic research
labs, especially in the areas of materials science, chemistry, and applied
physics. The funded research labs, following their noses into the unknown, gave
us these things perhaps 50 years earlier than if they were left to single
entrpeneurs, toining away in their garages and basements... if at all. Same
with NASA. they do a hell of a lot of great work in many fields, they give
exceptional value for money. The fact that we don't like how they manage space
flight missions is but one facet of a much larger issue. We can try to change
the things we don't like, but a "baby out with the bath water" approach to the
agency and it's challenges is ridiculous and wasteful. What we should try to
figure out is how to disconnect the politics from the process, to put the
planning and execution back into the hands of experts instead of elected
politicians.

(MSu1049321) wrote:
The problem I have with all that is that corporations are money-grubbing swine
that are only interested in immediate financial gratification: if it can't instantly be
turned into a marketable product, then the basic research is of no worth to
them.

There is two major problems with your statement above;

1) The pure research and basic research done by Bell Labs or 3M are
exceptions, not the rule.

2) Corporations are money grubbing *by law*. They are required to
provide value for their shareholders. (Formerly by paying dividends,
lately by generating enough buzz and hype to keep analysts happy and
stock prices inflated.)

The fact that we don't like how they manage space
flight missions is but one facet of a much larger issue. We can try to change
the things we don't like, but a "baby out with the bath water" approach to the
agency and it's challenges is ridiculous and wasteful. What we should try to
figure out is how to disconnect the politics from the process, to put the
planning and execution back into the hands of experts instead of elected
politicians.

The planning and execution of NASA programs *never has been* in the
hands of experts. NASA is a Federal agency, and thus by default in
the hands of elected politicians.

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.