Friday, May 14, 2004
Good Job Burt! Now Let's Scrap NASA...
It's reported by the GAO (Government Accounting Office) that every time we launch a space shuttle, it costs roughly $500 million. Remember, the space shuttle was supposed to drastically cut the costs of getting into space, but of course it didn't. It did however, allow us to send Senator Glenn into orbit to study the effects of weightlessness on the aged. (In case Florida loses gravity I guess). Anyway after spending untold billions on the shuttle, aerospace engineer Burt Rutan gets to the edge of space on his own dime. Good for him! Now may we please get rid of NASA?
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/13/private.space.ship/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/TECH/space/05/13/private.space.ship/index.html
Comments:
<< Home
Ahh, Branson...
What can I say without this debate sounding like a star trek convention. Your precious Dish Network sattelite wasn't launched by the shuttle. After the 1986 Challenger accident, all commerical and military satillite launches were banned from the space shuttle. In fact most commercial sattilites are lauched by one of the many private lauch services (SeaLauch is one) or by ESA or Russia or China. The sole purpose of the Shuttle is to study human space flight and conduct experiments of dubious worth. In fact one of the vital parts of the mission the Columbia was on, at the cost of her crew, was to see how effective the extraction of rose oil for perfume is in zero gravity. Is that worth seven lives and $500 million? I think not.
Beyond that, the space station will cost upwards of $100 billion before it is complete. Most scientists agree that this is a colosal waste of money. In fact, the station requires at least two full time crew to keep it running (The final capacity will be 3). So we'll have one person up there doing god knows what that in 15 years might lead to such consumer products as mylar balloons.
How much is $100 Billion? Rather than spending it on an orbiting Ice Shanty, that money could have been used to fully pay for the kindergarten through PhD education on 1,000,000 new scientists. I kid you not.
Maybe there's a role for NASA in robot exploration of other planets, but it is increasingly just another bloated, self perpetuating buracracy from where I'm sitting.
Post a Comment
What can I say without this debate sounding like a star trek convention. Your precious Dish Network sattelite wasn't launched by the shuttle. After the 1986 Challenger accident, all commerical and military satillite launches were banned from the space shuttle. In fact most commercial sattilites are lauched by one of the many private lauch services (SeaLauch is one) or by ESA or Russia or China. The sole purpose of the Shuttle is to study human space flight and conduct experiments of dubious worth. In fact one of the vital parts of the mission the Columbia was on, at the cost of her crew, was to see how effective the extraction of rose oil for perfume is in zero gravity. Is that worth seven lives and $500 million? I think not.
Beyond that, the space station will cost upwards of $100 billion before it is complete. Most scientists agree that this is a colosal waste of money. In fact, the station requires at least two full time crew to keep it running (The final capacity will be 3). So we'll have one person up there doing god knows what that in 15 years might lead to such consumer products as mylar balloons.
How much is $100 Billion? Rather than spending it on an orbiting Ice Shanty, that money could have been used to fully pay for the kindergarten through PhD education on 1,000,000 new scientists. I kid you not.
Maybe there's a role for NASA in robot exploration of other planets, but it is increasingly just another bloated, self perpetuating buracracy from where I'm sitting.
<< Home
