NASA Panel Says ISS Cuts Hurt Science

medcalf writes: "The AP reports that the International Space Station, as proposed, is incapable of doing much meaningful scientific research, and that NASA should thus stop characterizing the program as 'science-driven.' Factors listed in support of the recommendation are insufficient crew, lack of certain vital equipment and insufficient resupply missions. Makes me proud of spending $30 billion in tax money -- hey, isn't that about enough for a manned Mars mission? Perhaps a reevaluation of our goals in space, and what we are prepared to risk for the money, would be in order?" The AP article is summarizing the conclusions of a 23-member panel, which finds the current aim of a "core-complete" station too slender a justification of the past and current expenditures in the name of science.

Comments

Re:The public

[Tablizer]

(* ...vote on whether or not we want NASA to goto Mars *)

"Go to" is two seperate words outside of the programming world. Have you been programming in FORTRAN or 1960's BASIC recently, by chance? :-)

Re:Public never gets to choose anything

[Jeremi]

If everyone in America wanted a radical change they could have voted for Nader. But most people like the status quo and the way things are.

No, most people realized that Nader had no chance of winning, and so a vote for Nader was really a vote for Bush. Such "strategic voting" doesn't reflect what the American people want, only what they had to settle for.

And when you live in a democracy what most people want is what you get.

More American voters voted for Al Gore than for any other candidate. That is an undisputed fact. And yet, Mr. Gore is not in office. So let's correct that sentence to read, "in a flawed, unrepresentative faux democracy, what most people want may or may not be what you get".

I again recommend this book for more info on how our elections have been essentially "r00ted" by political interests, to the degree that they can no longer be said to represent the will of the American people.