> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Robert Seeberger > Sent: Sunday, February 25, 2007 4:48 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: NASA Goes Deep > > > IMO, the shuttle era space program (and actually the era immediately > preceeding it) is an example of what happens when a science program > becomes a political football.
I'm sure you know my take on this...from what I've written above and what I've written before. But, let me state it explicitly: the manned space program was never a scientific exercise. If it had to compete for dollars with other scientific research and the criterion "what gives us the best chance of enhancing our knowledge of how the universe works (be it cosmology, star physics, planetary science, ecology, biology, chemistry, or basic physics), then we still would not have sent a human into space. > There *were* plans for human occupation of space and the moon before > the shuttle program. Much of what was planned then and now could be > done by brute force methods. (Like the Saturn V) Sure, but once we showed that our technology would always be better than the USSR, what was the point? It certainly wasn't scientific advancement. > The Shuttle was an attempt to employ a bit of finesse and bring down > costs. It would have been a good idea if it had been designed *in > addition* to the existing Saturn V program and what you would have > gotten was a smaller shuttle with lower haulage requirements that > would have likely been safer as it could have been launched atop a > SatV. Why would that have been safer? There were not enough SatV launches to properly compare zero blown up with the shuttle safety record. They were also hideously expensive. Our moon program cost 0.5% of GDP in '66...its peak year. Once we beat the Russians to the moon, the need to spend this type of money on a program with a minimal remaining return on investment just wasn't there. > Political decisions deemed that "there could only be one" method of > getting people and equipment into space, and this "one size fits all" > mentality is what wasted 30 years and billions of dollars. Well, if there were multiple ways of doing it, then there would have to be a much larger budget....which wasn't going to happen. > If the remaining shuttles do not end up permanently in space serving > minor duty I will be a bit pissed over the waste of resources. Well, IMHO, the manned space program is a waste of resources. I'd guess that the bang for the buck of this program is somewhere between 1% and 10% of that for spending on science. Dan M. _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
