🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7199@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU> jmckerna@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (THE VIKING) writes:
> While the shuttle did fail to live up to the preconstruction PR,
>and the space station might do the same, I think it's short sighted to call
>them "disastrous failures" and "mass wastage". In terms of manned space R&D
>I think they both are (will be) extremely successful. The shuttle has taught
>us a vast amount about how to build (and not build) a reusable space vehicle,
>and I'm certain the station will do the same for human space habitats.

I think it is entirely fair to call the shuttle a disastrous failure.
The central reason for building it, reducing launch costs, was not
attained.  Calling the shuttle a success because it taught us how not
to build launchers is like calling Chernobyl a success because it
taught us how not to generate electricity.  The shuttle is also a
continuing obstruction: NASA has so much invested in it that it cannot
do the reasonable thing -- try to get a better set of launchers -- but
instead is building a space station to give the shuttle the appearance
of a mission.

> I think
>it's clear that manned space research is by its nature much more expensive
>than unmanned. ... Given this, unless you're part of the small minority that
>rejects one type of research, I think current spending priorities are close
>to what they should be.

What?!  We should support a form of research, reward it with lots of
money, because it is expensive?  I fail to understand this argument.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu