They sure are out of whack. It has been clear the shuttle has been a clunker since the 1970's. That 65 feet of man-rated cargo bay has been a disaster all along. I worked for NASA in the 1970's and it has always been a problem. It has cost too much, it has killed two crews so far, and it costs $500M + per launch to do nothing.
We get at least 10 times the bang per dollar with well defined robotic missions as with manned missions that have been useless tourism. Those are NASA's figures. I think the economic advantage to robots is more, having been there when this shuttle mess was conceived.
If you want manned missions, define a coherent mission for them. Going and being a tourist is not the answer. We have to define missions that involve people going into space to *stay*. They are not going to be visitors; they are going to be colonists. Otherwise stay on the ground and and use robots.
I worked for NASA in the late 1970's. In that period they raped science for the manned program, and accomplished nothing but killing two crews. It is happening again. We get about 10 times the bang for the buck with robots as with manned probes. That is not an opinion - that's a fact! I live in Houston, but JPL is the most effective organization in NASA. Unless NASA can define a coherent manned mission, they should keep the folks on the ground and use robots.
Don't look now but there is a fossil fuel shortage looming. We will have a net natural gas shortage within two years as it is a local market. Oil will take a little longer - about 2008 - 2010. This is especially true if East Asia goes back into a boom as it seems to be doing. Oil demand is projected to increase 50% over the next 20 years for what that is worth. I suggest we get cracking on fusion ASAP. BFM
Slashdot Mirror
They sure are out of whack. It has been clear the shuttle has been a clunker since the 1970's. That 65 feet of man-rated cargo bay has been a disaster all along. I worked for NASA in the 1970's and it has always been a problem. It has cost too much, it has killed two crews so far, and it costs $500M + per launch to do nothing.
We get at least 10 times the bang per dollar with well defined robotic missions as with manned missions that have been useless tourism. Those are NASA's figures. I think the economic advantage to robots is more, having been there when this shuttle mess was conceived.
If you want manned missions, define a coherent mission for them. Going and being a tourist is not the answer. We have to define missions that involve people going into space to *stay*. They are not going to be visitors; they are going to be colonists. Otherwise stay on the ground and and use robots.
I worked for NASA in the late 1970's. In that period they raped science for the manned program, and accomplished nothing but killing two crews. It is happening again. We get about 10 times the bang for the buck with robots as with manned probes. That is not an opinion - that's a fact!
I live in Houston, but JPL is the most effective organization in NASA. Unless NASA can define a coherent manned mission, they should keep the folks on the ground and use robots.
Don't look now but there is a fossil fuel shortage looming. We will have a net natural gas shortage within two years as it is a local market. Oil will take a little longer - about 2008 - 2010. This is especially true if East Asia goes back into a boom as it seems to be doing. Oil demand is projected to increase 50% over the next 20 years for what that is worth. I suggest we get cracking on fusion ASAP. BFM