On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Thomas Green wrote:
Yeesh! and I thought I was a pessimist :-)
As far as can NASA do anything useful for $1B and innovate? Get a grip!!
NEAR: total mission cost of $200m
Pathfinder: total mission cost of $260m
Is this unreasonable costs? Inefficient? Seems
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-nasa17jan17001432,0,689
1652.story?coll=la%2Dheadlines%2Dnation
Starting this program at this particular time strikes me as absolutely
harebrained; but then this administration seems to specialize in the
harebrained, particularly in recent
On Fri, 17 Jan 2003, Bruce Moomaw wrote:
Starting this program at this particular time strikes me as absolutely
harebrained; but then this administration seems to specialize in the
harebrained, particularly in recent months.
You will get no argument from me with respect to our harebrained
Greetings,
My only fear is that the technology will work (and work quite well) only
to be killed of in the great management fiasco called NASA. I know they
mean well, but you cannot innovate when you need to show progress
reports every week.
Joe L.
On Fri, 2003-01-17 at 10:45, Robert J.
Title: RE: 'NASA Sets its Sights on Nuclear Rocket to Mars
Yeesh! and I thought I was a pessimist :-)
As far as can NASA do anything useful for $1B and innovate? Get a grip!!
NEAR: total mission cost of $200m
Pathfinder: total mission cost of $260m
Is this unreasonable costs
