[cogitator]

We always like to say "Get real." This article really does. What NASA really needs is a few smart guys that can cut their losses (similar to DoD cutting programs for larger nuclear subs to fight a non-existent enemy) and concentrate on funding missions -- and extending funding for existing missions, like the Mars Rovers -- that might actually be USEFUL.

The sad thing is: some missions are really working well. The Mars Rovers, both of the working NASA Mars orbiters, Cassini, Stardust (if they can get the parachute to deploy when it gets back!) as space missions, and TRMM, Terra, Aqua, Aura in the earth-observing sector -- are all successful. Why waste money on boondoggles?

[Prime Choice]

As the old saying goes, money talks, bull**** walks.

Let's face it: It's easy to be an armchair rocket scientist. If doing it better than NASA was easy, people would be doing it already.

And considering that the private sector is only now doing what NASA was doing nearly 50 years ago, I won't hold my breath for hot dog stands on the moon.

[SteveMcKing]

Dan Goldin is the #1 responsible @-hole for NASA's problems. He wouldn't fight for NASA, but he would explode at his staff for using out-dated letterhead on memos.

He was recently lined up to be president of BU's School of Medicine. "Faster, better, cheaper" applied to healthcare.... The man should be in jail for the manslaughter of our astronaughts.

[rs79bm]

really working well. The Mars Rovers, both of the working NASA Mars orbiters, Cassini, Stardust (if they can get the parachute to deploy when it gets back!) as space missions, and TRMM, Terra, Aqua, Aura in the earth-observing sector

I think you said it best in your own reply. The successes that NASA has been able to accomplish far outweigh the negatives, or drawbacks. I don't know if you know it, but many of the things we take for granted in our daily lives were designed and developed by NASA.

[Carry_Okie]

Why waste money on boondoggles?

You know the answer to that question. It is inherent to the way government programs are allocated and operated.

I wonder what it would cost to interest Burt Rutan in servicing the ISS?

[Mr. Jeeves]

We're done in space. We've got trial lawyers to subsidize.

[RightWhale]

The ISS has been written off due to lack of international [that's what the I in ISS stands for] cooperation. Russia has continued to work for a few $$, everybody else is too busy elsewhere or nowhere. The rest of the disasters are non-events.

[asgardshill]

Nice rant, except for this:

... and the Chinese Shenzhou program is withering away with an apparent flight rate of less than 0.5/yr.

Huh? "Withering away"? Shenzhou hasn't even gotten started yet. It would be like saying "The American Mercury program is withering away because they haven't landed one on the Moon yet".

[tm22721]

I think NASA and the astroNOTS should be canned so that private space ventures can get a foothold without government bureaucratic interference.

BUMP

[ChadGore]

Wait a second . . isn't today MACH 10 Monday ?

When do we launch ? Who's going to start a live thread ?

[KellyAdmirer]

NASA needs better and more diverse launch launch vehicles. Why they are doing anything except focusing on that is a total mystery to me. Launch vehicles are the alpha and the omega of the whole deal, and NASA's are terrible and don't even measure up to the Russians'.

[newgeezer]

NASA ping.

Let Dick Rutan do it.

[NonValueAdded]

It just doesn't make any sense to develop a whole new space robot technology for this one repair job.

Sorry to take exception, but doesn't developing a whole new technology have benefits beyond the initial purpose? Sometimes having a tangible goal like the Hubble repair is a good thing. I sense some short-sightedness in the author's argument given the statement above.

[hedgetrimmer]

Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies

Article I
The exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be carried out for the benefit and in the interests of all countries, irrespective of their degree of economic or scientific development, and shall be the province of all mankind.

Article III
States Parties to the Treaty shall carry on activities in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, in accordance with international law, including the Charter of the United Nations, in the interest of maintaining international peace and security and promoting international co-operation and understanding.

Article V
States Parties to the Treaty shall immediately inform the other States Parties to the Treaty or the Secretary-General of the United Nations of any phenomena they discover in outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, which could constitute a danger to the life or health of astronauts.

Article XII
All stations, installations, equipment and space vehicles on the moon and other celestial bodies shall be open to representatives of other States Parties to the Treaty on a basis of reciprocity. Such representatives shall give reasonable advance notice of a projected visit, in order that appropriate consultations may be held and that maximum precautions may betaken to assure safety and to avoid interference with normal operations in the facility to be visited.

http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/SpaceLaw/outersptxt.htm

[hchutch]

Burt Rutan for NASA Administrator - time to transform NASA.

[Criminal Number 18F]

[King Prout]

sad space ping

[mikegi]

I don't think you can compare Rutan and NASA. Totally different requirements. I do like that there was a challenge issued and met by outsiders. Competition is a great thing and you never know where it will lead.

Here's a taboo thought: I believe that in exploration if you don't lose some people along the way, you're not reaching far enough. It is dangerous. The witchhunts following NASA failures are ridiculous. A sober engineering analysis is the proper thing to do.

Anyway, I think the shuttle should be retired. We tried the concept and it didn't work out in practice. Simple capsules should be used to ferry people back and forth from space.

[TalonDJ]

Allow me to refute and clarify:

ISS: Nasa and the administration are trying to pawn what is left of the ISS off on the EU and Russia. Which is good. That monstrosity has been a anvil around the neck of the US space program for to long. I could go into 'why' at length but don't have time and many articles have been written on the subject. The point about the plan not addressing buying space on Russia rockets pretty obvious. NASA does not write legislation and they certainly don't want to go around advertising that there are things the Russians do better than us. We honestly don't care that they EU and Russia are getting a space station they can't fully run. That falls under 'not our problem'. If they want to solve the problem Russia is more than capable of building larger crewed launchers. All they need is the EU to cough up the cash. And they will have to or China putting up a station in a few years will make them look like chumps. Meanwhile we will have a base on the moon and be laughing at all of them.

Hubble Robot Repair Mission: Yeah, Replacing it would be cheaper but not politically viable. Most people don't fully understand that it would be cheaper and better to build a new one. They only see getting rid of it as a NASA failure when it is not one. On the up side the robot mission will do a number of things that have never been done before and bring some great space robots technologies to fruition.

Jupiter Icy Moons Orbiter:: Of course the reactor is better to have for a manned mission. But we need it working first. The Jupiter Icy Moons mission is a great way to do that while piggy backing off the efforts of the space science types (who are in favor of unmanned missions over manned ones).

Mars Sample Return: Yeah, probably a big waste of money but it is doing something that had never been done so it is not all bad. Developing Space Technology and infrastructure should be the goal of NASA. Getting a rock back from Mars is just an excuse and a way to fund it.

[broadsword]

Years ago, NASA decided to change its image of "A bunch of white guys with crew-cuts and ties". Through affirmative action they changed that image and now have a dismal record of failure after failure after failure. Good people died for that diversity.

"Our diversity is our strength downfall."

[Gaffer]

The only legitimate NASA mission I see as sorely needed is the DemoRelocatio ARK of Salvation. NASA's boldly inspiring bid to build a space ark big enough to hold 55M Democrats who just have to get off Planet Earth.....