Moving to <general> where this belongs... On Tue, 4 Feb 2003, dep wrote: > begin Keith Antoine's quote: > > | From what we are seing on the news here they seem to be admitting > | to somewhat lax proceedures. Cost cutting having an effect? > > to some extent, but that goes back to the early 1970s. from day one, > the shuttle program has been both pointless and inefficient (which > hasn't prevented corruption; for instance, rockwell used shuttle > money to develop the landing gear for the b-1 bomber, which it kind > of wedged onto the shuttle, causing some problems early on). > > the body of knowledge of space and things that happen there, as well > as the number of satellites in orbit, would not have been reduced one > iota if the shuttle had never existed; indeed, the argument can be > made that with the same money put into expendibles we would have more > space science and more satellites.
There's also the argument that 'space science' has been largely a waste of money in of itself, and that we already have more satellites than we're capable of maintaining. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Linux Step-by-step & TyGeMo http://netllama.ipfox.com _______________________________________________ General mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linux-sxs.org/mailman/listinfo/general
