Re: NASA's vision lost on Web generation
- From: John Doe <jdoe@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 00:18:02 -0500
Jim wrote:
dollars had been spent. Eventhough it fell short, it could meet some of the demands. It could acheive the building of the ISS. It fell short, but still fufilled
While many here focus on the Shuttle's flaws, few focus on the parts that do work. Consider the arm for instance and the incredible abilities it has given the US space programme compared to USSR/Russia. (abilities which will be lost on the CEV/Apollo V2.0)
Destroying the tooling for the Shuttle was a HUGE mistake. The plan should have been to build a new shuttle every 6-8 years or so, and include improvements based on experience in operating the previous shuttles.
The shuttle program was akin to running Windows 3.0 for 30 years with only patches. I am sure that if NASA has been in a "constant upgrade" mode, it would have been able to build new-and-improved shuttles in an evolutionalry fashion and come out with new shuttles that costed significantly less to maintain than the original batch.
By letting the shuttle stagnate through the 1980s and early 1990s, by the time NASA started to want money to have a shuttle upgrade programme, it was already stained with overspending and not delivering on promises and US government no longer had trust in NASA's abilities to deliver.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: NASA's vision lost on Web generation
- From: hallerb@xxxxxxx
- Re: NASA's vision lost on Web generation
- References:
- Re: NASA's vision lost on Web generation
- From: Jim
- Re: NASA's vision lost on Web generation
- From: Paul F. Dietz
- Re: NASA's vision lost on Web generation
- From: hallerb@xxxxxxx
- Re: NASA's vision lost on Web generation
- From: Jim
- Re: NASA's vision lost on Web generation
- Prev by Date: Re: NASA's vision lost on Web generation
- Next by Date: Re: Space Elevator
- Previous by thread: Re: NASA's vision lost on Web generation
- Next by thread: Re: NASA's vision lost on Web generation
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading