NASA Achievements?????

[Moonwalker]

Thank God NASA wasn't and isn't a commercial company especially in modern times

NASA is not just a blue logo with four letters on it. It's not like a commercial company with its $-eyes focused on profit maximization. NASA and the USA has enabled stuff no company and no other country in the World did before and after until today. There is a whole country and spirit behind it. Also, at the end NASA will have contributed about 100 billion dollars to the ISS program. I don't see any way such space exploration could be enabled by commercial companies. Without NASA and Roscosmos, even ESA just would be a small European space flight club.

 

[Andy44]

You either make money or you're wasting it. And not having to worry about a profit is why NASA and other .govs fail. But, I guess if Germany was going to waste lots of money on a rocket I thought would be fun to watch on TV, it wouldn't bother me, either.

 

[Moonwalker]

You either make money or you're wasting it.

That's how businessmen and shareholders think which is the reason why I don't like to see scientific manned space flight depending on commercial companies. It wouldn't come off the way NASA worked and works.

Spending money doesn't mean to waste it all along. The US space flight program and its outcomes, many countries and technological improvements profit from, by far is not a waste. NASA enables science, knowledge and technolgoical improvements although I don't agree to everything they do, espcially operating STS way too long. But all in all NASA does its part of the human progress very well.

And not having to worry about a profit is why NASA and other .govs fail. But, I guess if Germany was going to waste lots of money on a rocket I thought would be fun to watch on TV, it wouldn't bother me, either.

I'm willing to spend money, taxes, for manned space flight especially if it's about leaving low Earth orbit again finally. I don't think that the US government fails on manned space flight. Looking to commercial aviation industries it is for sure that they would fail without governmental funding. And NASA, ESA as well as Roscosmos would not even exist. Not even Concorde would have entered the sky.

 

[Belisarius]

As someone who had to deal with substandard education and health services in the UK in the 1970s, I don't see what we achieved by spending gazillions on Concorde, a machine that was designed to lose money from the word go. I would have preferred to have had a clinic in my town, or some teachers who were motivated to teach.

Looking at the history of aviation, it's notable that the pioneers never received a penny of government support in R&D until the run-up to WW2, when it became imperative to design better machines to kill people. I suppose that the objective of killing people gives your research project a clarity of focus than can be otherwise lacking.

With regard to NASA I think it should be all closed down with the exception of JPL, who have done a wonderful job in promoting the robotic exploration of the system with little fanfare and efficient use of budgets.

Let's leave manned spaceflight to those who want to risk it and pay for it themselves. The hour is nigh.

 

[GregBurch]

Some current commentary on the Consternation ... errh ... Constellation disaster:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/08/not_simple_not.html

 

[Moonwalker]

Some current commentary on the Consternation ... errh ... Constellation disaster:

http://www.transterrestrial.com/archives/2008/08/not_simple_not.html

I can't find any serious information about Rand Simberg and Jon Goff. Who are those persons?

Anyway, the commentary (as well the whole blog) isn't really something of importance if we start trying to find sources against Constellation.

 

[simonpro]

Haven't heard of this Goff person, but Simberg is a bit shady if you ask me, I wouldn't trust him.
(I heard a rumor he was making up information supposedly told to him by Buzz Aldrin, it's only a rumor though)

 

[Urwumpe]

I also don't know where they got their reliability numbers, but I also can't say, that I am surprised by them - the original optimistic numbers by ATK had already been in the region they quote and the new numbers are only slightly less reliable as initially estimated.

The numbers are still far safer as the space shuttle and a few numbers better as Apollo. People might not believe it, but Apollo was far from secure, it just went good with only one blue eye - more missions would have caused likely a catastrophic event sooner or later, but Apollo stopped after not even 25 missions, if I did count correctly.

 

[Andy44]

People might not believe it, but Apollo was far from secure, it just went good with only one blue eye - more missions would have caused likely a catastrophic event sooner or later, but Apollo stopped after not even 25 missions, if I did count correctly.

That's what I was saying earlier. And the risk involved in flying it got really high on lunar missions. Once you leave LEO, your single point failures are numerous. John Young himself said he thinks that besides for funding, one of the reasons the later lunar missions were canceled was because NASA wanted to stop before somebody got killed.

 

[ryan]

Theres been alot of development with Space Tourism and all, Shuttle been made safer by two accidents, i think Space exploration is bigger and better than ever before.