Mindstalker,
You seem to think there is some economic incentive for private industry to do space exploration. Can you explain what that might be?
I think NASA has completely lost its mojo since about 1975. So leaving Billions of dollars (and even increasing them as DubYa suggests) so that they can be squandered by an incompetent bunch of bureaucrats who pretend to be going to Mars or the Moon while they fatten their wallets at my expense seems stupid.
The dictionary defines stupid as 'doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.' Sort of like Challenger followed by Columbia. 'We have obviously experienced a Major mal-function'.
Wake up and smell the coffee!!!
I am not a naysayer. I just want value for my tax dollars. Manned exploration was (and is) largely a political stunt. That's why China and the USSR do it.
Please consider the cost in lives, and dollars of the Shuttle (a very incompetent manned exploration program). There is so much vested interest in continuing, that NASA and its subcontractors can't listen to the voice of reason. They ignored the Feynman minority report on Challenger, only to have it proved right by the Columbia.
Of course we needed manned exploration in the 1960's and 1970's. But the vast majority of the real exploration in the last 30 years has been done by robotic missions. A mistake on a robot (like MCO, or even NEAR/Shoemaker) can cost time, or money, but no human lives (and a lot less money than one shuttle orbiter).
What manned mission has produced the same scientific value for the dollar as Galileo, Cassini, MGS, NEAR, Deep Impact, Deep Space 1, Mars Pathfinder, Hubble (delivered and repaired by an inefficient launcher), Chandra, Spitzer, SOHO, etc. ?
If UAV's are the future of combat aircraft, why are they not the future of space exploration? Supporting a human brain is not economical in space. If it were, we would send men everywhere.
Sorry to disagree, but it IS my tax money.
GENE
This is a fundamental mistake.
1. Going to the moon has no valid purpose. We have been there, and done that, and have the t-shirt.
2. We are wasting billions on the ISS which has no clear purpose or economic benefit. Except maybe furthering the mis-guided notion of the benefit of manned exploration.
Meanwhile we neglect and under-fund worthwhile robotic missions. If UAV's are the future of combat aircraft, why aren't they the future of spacecraft?
In the last 20 years, what useful scientific results have come from manned missions on the Shuttle?
How does that compare to the wonders of Galileo, NEAR, Cassini-Huygens, SOHO, DeepSpace 1, Mars Pathfinder, Hubble, Chandra, Deep Impact, Mars Global Surveyor, etc., etc?
It is long past time that we looked at ROI for the investment in the politically popular manned exploration program and packed it in.
JMHO
Slashdot Mirror
Mindstalker, You seem to think there is some economic incentive for private industry to do space exploration. Can you explain what that might be? I think NASA has completely lost its mojo since about 1975. So leaving Billions of dollars (and even increasing them as DubYa suggests) so that they can be squandered by an incompetent bunch of bureaucrats who pretend to be going to Mars or the Moon while they fatten their wallets at my expense seems stupid. The dictionary defines stupid as 'doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.' Sort of like Challenger followed by Columbia. 'We have obviously experienced a Major mal-function'. Wake up and smell the coffee!!!
I am not a naysayer. I just want value for my tax dollars. Manned exploration was (and is) largely a political stunt. That's why China and the USSR do it. Please consider the cost in lives, and dollars of the Shuttle (a very incompetent manned exploration program). There is so much vested interest in continuing, that NASA and its subcontractors can't listen to the voice of reason. They ignored the Feynman minority report on Challenger, only to have it proved right by the Columbia. Of course we needed manned exploration in the 1960's and 1970's. But the vast majority of the real exploration in the last 30 years has been done by robotic missions. A mistake on a robot (like MCO, or even NEAR/Shoemaker) can cost time, or money, but no human lives (and a lot less money than one shuttle orbiter). What manned mission has produced the same scientific value for the dollar as Galileo, Cassini, MGS, NEAR, Deep Impact, Deep Space 1, Mars Pathfinder, Hubble (delivered and repaired by an inefficient launcher), Chandra, Spitzer, SOHO, etc. ? If UAV's are the future of combat aircraft, why are they not the future of space exploration? Supporting a human brain is not economical in space. If it were, we would send men everywhere. Sorry to disagree, but it IS my tax money. GENE
This is a fundamental mistake. 1. Going to the moon has no valid purpose. We have been there, and done that, and have the t-shirt. 2. We are wasting billions on the ISS which has no clear purpose or economic benefit. Except maybe furthering the mis-guided notion of the benefit of manned exploration. Meanwhile we neglect and under-fund worthwhile robotic missions. If UAV's are the future of combat aircraft, why aren't they the future of spacecraft? In the last 20 years, what useful scientific results have come from manned missions on the Shuttle? How does that compare to the wonders of Galileo, NEAR, Cassini-Huygens, SOHO, DeepSpace 1, Mars Pathfinder, Hubble, Chandra, Deep Impact, Mars Global Surveyor, etc., etc? It is long past time that we looked at ROI for the investment in the politically popular manned exploration program and packed it in. JMHO