The first case is canonical and often pointed to, but I find it problematic in many cases. Mentoring is always a good goal but I think that for real development work, if there is a large disparity between the skillsets it can lead to the more experienced engineer becoming frustrated and essentially feeling less productive (as the mentoree is not contributing much in the way of actual implementation). Similarly, it can be like drinking from a fire hose or the less experienced person. So while it is an effective technique in some cases, it is (in my experience) quite domain and problem specific, and if the gap in skills is too large, it simply does not work well. The second example you give is where it really can stand out though, in the spirit of the first example as well; bringing a second experienced dev up to speed in the first dev's domain.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/store/imgs/science_square_2.jpg

How is this abuse, exactly?

Why not let (extraorbital) US Manned Spaceflight die for now?

Before you reply, consider for a moment the relative gains we have gotten from things like Hubble, Cassini, the mars rovers, Japan's Hinode solar satellite, etc, to what we have achieved with the ISS and the projected goals of Orion, versus the costs of the programs.

I have a strong knee-jerk reaction against letting manned spaceflight die too; dammit, I *want* people to walk on Mars. But the fact is, we are learning a hell of a lot from unmanned missions at a tiny fraction of the cost.

We can resurrect the idea of extraorbital manned missions at any time; would it make sense to shelve them for now though?

Also, I wouldn't frame the argument for manned spaceflight as "will of the people" if I were you; what you and I want in this respect is likely quite different than the (general) "will of the people".

Actually the budget deficits were not manageable; they were simply pushed back.

This is not a partisan issue at all; increases in the national debt are public record and there for anyone to see, be it on wikipedia or .gov websites.

The Reagan administration borrowed more money than all the presidents before him, combined. Basically, it was the same idea as living "well" by maxing out credit cards and getting new ones when you fill up the old ones. Fun while it lasts, but someone has to pay for it eventually.

So, we get to where we are today, with the interest on the national debt being more than 20 times NASA's annual budget. Granted, a lot of that came from both presidents Bush too, especially the latter. GHWB kind of inherited a problem there from Reagan.

Anyway, remember that when you look back to the Reagan years as some kind of boon for the space industry. Short term, definitely; long term, not so much.

Might not be so bad. The thrust required to get it into a transfer orbit might not be so large, and it is not too difficult to think of ways to mitigate the modular asymmetry. For example, put the thruster on one side of the station CG, and on the other side, build out a boom that then supports all the individual modules via guy wires or cables. Not trivial, but probably easier than building a second station in the location you would want to move the ISS to.

I was just about to post this. Putting the ISS into a transfer orbit to move it to the moon has been discussed before and actually seems like an excellent idea to explore if we are planning for prolonged lunar missions in the future.

MOD PARENT UP