

Panel Wants Deep Space, Not Landings as U.S. Goal  - edw519
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/31/science/space/31nasa.html?_r=1&hpw

======
DanielBMarkham
_But it would also eliminate the possibility of astronauts leaving new iconic
footprints on the Moon or Mars for a couple of decades._

Translated: manned extraterrestrial landings probably aren't happening in your
lifetime (unless private industry gets in and reduces LEO cost by a thousand-
fold somehow)

I've given up on NASA. I love those guys, really I do. But you can't keep
changing missions every time a president takes office, you can't spread the
pork out to every state you'd like to, and you can't run a serious manned
spaceflight program on a shoestring budget. They're totally dependent on
public opinion and don't have a clue in the world as to how to capitalize on
it.

In short, NASA is a political animal masquerading as a science agency. As
such, it's not much use for controlling/promoting spaceflight. If JFK were
alive today he'd be dismayed.

Remember his words? We choose to do these things not because they are easy but
because they are difficult. Big missions, big drama, big heroes, big goals for
the nation. Now the article talks about sending astronauts to Langrange
points! That's going to be as exciting as watching cars rust.

NASA needs to get out of spaceflight implementation altogether and become a
spaceflight promoter.Write the checks (which it seems to be very good at) and
let somebody else worry about breakthrough propulsion techniques. Farm out
funding of the International Space Station to the State Department.

Time to hang it up guys. You were great back in the day, but back in the day
you had a clear, steady,long-term mission. Those days are not going to return.

~~~
idlewords
Your comment only seems to apply to the manned space program, which is a very
small piece of what NASA does.

~~~
DanielBMarkham
NASA today is involved in all kinds of things. Dozens, if not hundreds of
projects and programs.

As opposed to NASA in its heyday, which had only a few major items in it's
queue.

Which validates my point: mission creep is what is killing NASA.

~~~
maximilian
I think NASA is no longer in the business of rocketing people around the solar
system. It now actively does and funds science projects to better understand
our universe. Almost every project revolves around sending a probe into orbit
or deep space with some sort of new sensor to detect some sort of particle or
whatever. Should NASA create heroes or science? (or both..)

~~~
DanielBMarkham
The problem is that we can't ask questions that begin with "Should NASA", even
though we keep pretending that we can.

NASA is political, and is deeply entangled with dozens of key politicians.
There is no _one_ mission, and there won't be one any time soon.

NASA's only problem now should be reducing cost-to-orbit through the use of
progressive prizes that keep increasing in value each year until a solution is
found. This would be a much better use of taxpayer dollars because as cost to
LEO is decreased, everything else gets easier too. Trying to push science
first is getting the cart in front of the horse.

