NASA Admin Says Shuttle and ISS are Mistakes

Teancum writes "NASA Administrator Michael Griffin was recently interviewed by the USA Today Editorial Board regarding the current direction of the U.S. Space Program, and in the interview he suggested that the past three decades have been a huge mistake and a waste of resources. As a total cost for both programs that has exceeded $250 Billion, you have to wonder what other useful things could have been developed using the same resources. Griffin quoted in the interview regarding if the shuttle had been a mistake "My opinion is that it was... It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible." Regarding the ISS: "Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in.""

Comments

Next time NASA, wear a condom.

[blankoboy]

I think I may have misinterpreted something along the way. =)

Re:$250 billion.

[ifwm]

So, why is it that every time someone brings up the government spending money, it is inevitably followed by someone else with a supposedly "insightful" comment about the war, or the Bush administration?

What is insightful about repating the mantra "war BAD!, Bush BAD!" in as many different forums, about as many different unrelated topics as possible?

WE GET IT. You think the war is a hughe mistake, Bush is the anti-christ blah blah blah. Could we PLEASE try to stay on the subject?

What happened to the "offtopic" mod? (Watch as I get one)

Re:This sort of war doesn't require technical R&am

[PlacidPundit]

I can understand wanting to finish the Gulf War. The Gulf War wasn't over--we merely had a cease-fire, contingent upon Saddam continuing to abide by what he said he would do (which he notably broke left and right without real repercussion). But none of that is what Bush claimed.

Huh? That's exactly the argument that was made. Go back and read all the speeches made before the war. 90% of it was about Saddam not complying with U.N. resolutions.

He claimed there were still more WMDs and didn't give the inspectors time to check it out (and ignored what they were saying).

Er, no. There were claims about continued interest in developing weapons which are still reliable. There were claims about a desire to boost his image in the Arab world by supporting terror, which is still valid. There was evidence presented about Saddam's dodgy behavior which is still valid. But at no point did the President jump up and down and scream "He's got millions of ICBMs! Let's go get 'em!" This is what everybody seems to think he said, however.

As for the inspectors, their phones were bugged, they were followed around, and they worked for the U.N. Combined, that makes them about as trustworthy as a carnival barker. Quite frankly, if you don't trust a regime to control dangerous weapons, why would you trust them to be honest with weapons "inspectors"?