Replies

Just saying a program was a mistake because it was aggressive and barely achievable is a rather poor choice of words. That says don't try anything risky. With that attitude, we'll never do or go anywhere.

I agree completely. Furthermore, I'd like to add that the Space Shuttle, like Apollo before it, is a flight test program. Much of NASA's "perception problem" is self-inflicted. The "Teacher in Space" program along with sending various congressmen & senators as payload gave the public the false impression that space travel was safe, if not exactly cheap.

BANG. You lose 2 shuttles and the public is snapped back to reality: Spaceflight is dangerous AND really expensive.

I'd like to add that the Space Shuttle, like Apollo before it, is a flight test program.

If you are testing the same vehicle system for 25 years, you need your @ss kicked.

BANG. You lose 2 shuttles and the public is snapped back to reality: Spaceflight is dangerous AND really expensive.

It is the way NASA does it. They solve technical problems by throwing personell at them. If a system is close to the edge, they just require more signatures for its inspection.

Not only is that expensive, it doesn't work. More than once the clanging of tools left in the orbiter has been heard when it was rotated to vertical. Every time, the required signatures stating that those tools were removed were in order. Once an entire scaffolding was left in place.

Space doesn't have to be expensive and dangerous, it is because NASA can't conceive of doing it in any way except as a test program. You can't sell cheap and reliable to them because they don't need it. They are spending someone else's money, and they like doing it.