Well, at the risk of being considered a "bottom line" man, here's my
read on the space station fiasco. In the early 1970s, Nixon wanted
the space shuttle because they thought it would be a great way to
launch err, spy satellites. So, we got it. Now, we have the space
station to give the shuttles someplace to go when they're not
launching satellites, fixing telescopes, bore-bore-bore, etc. The
science is marginal at best, contrived at worst. This would be a
great area for congress and NASA to cut costs. It's an expensive
albatross, if there ever was one.
Geez,
Gary
After all this time, I STILL say that the reason to be in space is not 'Dr. Science' projects or 'Chicken Little' asteroid doomsday scenarios, but money.
Who gives a rat's ass whether bean sprouts really grow well in low-G? If a 3 mile rock comes down from space and lands in Peoria, well, we probably should have prepared, but we have to live with risk.
Ah, but money... I still say, rent out the space station time to travelers and businesses. Use the station as a jumping off point for asteroid mining, solar energy gathering, low-G pharmaceuticals, etc.
Keeping the Space Station as it currently is intended would be like Queen Isabella hawking her jewels so that Colombus could sail three times around the Canaries, or work to prevent an Aztec invasion of Europe.
-- John Harlow Byrne
