Replies

The problem is that NASA is dead. Bush appointed the Grim Reaper to run the thing. O'Keefe has zero technical knowledge; he is a bean-counter. His mission is clear; chop and slash. Lay off thousands--both at NASA and in the contractor community.

NASA's budget of roughly 13 billion is now seen as a ripe plum for the picking. My guess is that the circling vultures will get $8 billion. NASA will be reduced to Huntsville, Houston, Kennedy and HQ. All other centers have no choice and no future. The $5 billion left will be used to run the station and keep patching the shuttles until the next one fails (and it will eventually fail). Then the entire shuttle fleet will be mothballed.

The money will go towards 'fighting terrorism'; space is not on Bush's radar.

The U.S. has launched its last planetary probe. Existing programs will probably be allowed--selectively--to proceed. But I forsee zero new starts.

I read an hilarious short piece in Space News that said that the horrible gnome from Maryland--Mikulski-- wants to up the NASA budget to $18 billion. Yeah. That's really gonna happen.

--Boris

Yes, I agree with much of your assessment, but the Chinese manned launch is an element I am hoping will change the equation.

It is tragic the cost benefit ratio of the space program is not visible to those myopic people who would as soon salt the birds tail to keep it grounded, then eat it.

We should have a manned post on the Moon right now, growing and mining water at the poles to prepare to move to gravity wells and asteroids in solar orbit.

We need to get the observatory up and running in the sweet spot on the Moon's dark side that will revolutionize astronomy. We need to explore those fascinating moons of Jupiter and get better information of every planet from Mercury to Pluto and her moon.

I am frustrated. Life is ferociously short, and I know I will die not seeing that which I am most curious about. The 'out there.'*SIGH*