Comment NASA's priorities are sure out of whack (Score 1) 258
They sure are out of whack. It has been clear the shuttle has been a clunker since the 1970's. That 65 feet of man-rated cargo bay has been a disaster all along. I worked for NASA in the 1970's and it has always been a problem. It has cost too much, it has killed two crews so far, and it costs $500M + per launch to do nothing.
We get at least 10 times the bang per dollar with well defined robotic missions as with manned missions that have been useless tourism. Those are NASA's figures. I think the economic advantage to robots is more, having been there when this shuttle mess was conceived.
If you want manned missions, define a coherent mission for them. Going and being a tourist is not the answer. We have to define missions that involve people going into space to *stay*. They are not going to be visitors; they are going to be colonists. Otherwise stay on the ground and and use robots.
We get at least 10 times the bang per dollar with well defined robotic missions as with manned missions that have been useless tourism. Those are NASA's figures. I think the economic advantage to robots is more, having been there when this shuttle mess was conceived.
If you want manned missions, define a coherent mission for them. Going and being a tourist is not the answer. We have to define missions that involve people going into space to *stay*. They are not going to be visitors; they are going to be colonists. Otherwise stay on the ground and and use robots.
