Re: cost of probe to Pluto?

In article <s9ednWTk07lZ-0jeRVn-hw@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tim Killian <TJK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> So your solution is to give NASA more money so they can continue to
> rehash the 1960s? Space travel was once "science fiction", but
> fortunately there were a few people who "wished" new technologies into
> existence. NASA, for the most part, took advantage of their genius.

Nah - the main motivation behind the space activities in the 1960's
was the space race and the cold war. Before the Soviet Union launched
Sputnik 1, there was little US interest in going into space. Only
when it became obvious to the US that the Soviets were well ahead in
space did the US get eager to get into space too - it was then NASA
was created.

The cold was is now over -- instead we have the "war on terrorism",
against an enemy with far too little resources for, and also
apparently no interest in, going into space. So there's no need
to show any "technological muscle" there ....

So the question then becomes: "Is it worth the cost developing new
technologies for going into space?". The space enthusiasts will of
course answer "YES! YES! YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!" to this -- but
o.t.o.h. they're not the one's who pay most of the cost.


> As for NASA's budget, I have yet to see a coherent explanation of how
> spending for shuttle operations can remain constant even when there are
> no flights! WTF, over?
>
> Phil Wheeler wrote:
>> adm wrote:
>>
>>> "Tim Killian" <TJK@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:j_mdnVZj_-Ih10jenZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>>> NASA's budget is bigger than ever, but it spends the money on the
>>>> ISS, shuttle, and bureaucracy. The Iraq war is being financed by
>>>> loans mostly from Asian countries -- about $2.5 billion per day at
>>>> last count.
>>>>
>>>> I realize these missions require years of planning, but is that also
>>>> the result of bureaucratic inefficiencies? Sean O'Kiefe tried to move
>>>> NASA into advance propulsion systems and away from the stuff we've
>>>> used since the 1950's. The bureaucrats all nodded approvingly, and
>>>> then they ignored him. We should be flight testing engines that send
>>>> probes to Mars in weeks, and the outer planets in a few months - that
>>>> would be progress.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Agreed. But what technologies would be capable of that ?
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think Tim has been reading too much science fiction, and taking it as
>> fact. His "NASA's budget is bigger than ever" also does not account for
>> inflation
>>
>> Solving real problems in the real world is not so easy as wishing new
>> technologies into existence.
>>
>> Phil

--
----------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Schlyter, Grev Turegatan 40, SE-114 38 Stockholm, SWEDEN
e-mail: pausch at stockholm dot bostream dot se
WWW: http://stjarnhimlen.se/
.

Relevant Pages