🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Dec28.172953.26161@ke4zv.uucp> gary@ke4zv.uucp (Gary Coffman) writes:

>Shuttle's costs were all accounted for too. The customer, the US
>taxpayer, wanted R&D done to develop a reusable spacecraft. NASA
>did it, and that public domain database of technologies is what
>the taxpayer got for his money, not bent metal. 

Yeah.  That's the trouble with your approach, Gary.  All the
public ever gets for its money is databases, not "bent metal."
People like you always want to do research, but never want to
do development.  Listen to you, and 500 years from now, we'll 
have a lovely database on how to build a cheap, reliable, 
reuseable launch vehicle -- and we still won't have one flying!  
 
Furthermore, you are wrong in stating that the information is
in the public domain.  It is the property of the United States
Government.  Any taxpayer who wants to use this information has
to pay (again) for the privilege.

>NASA's prime mission is R&D. The customer wanted an operational vehicle, 
>and NASA contracted to have them built. 

Phui!  Stuff and nonsense!  NASA *was* and *is* the customer, as
well as the supplier.

>NASA is not supposed to be in the fabrication business.

You're right.  So why do you support NASA being in a business
that it is illegal for them to be in?