Priorities in government and space

Well Im no fan of the shuttle. I can remember learning about it as a
kid and thinking hows this better than any other rocket if it sheds
2/3 it self on launch and cost far more than any rocket that has the
same lifet ability.. One can say that the shuttle was a failure in
management as a whole.. Responsibility? responsibility is shared by
all that has a hand in the space program. government, business and the
people alike. NASA has brought alot of this upon them selfs as far as
budget constraints. 30+ years after Apollo and billions spent and what
do they have to show for it. But all this is pointless really what has
been done is done. Real question is getting past it and finely moving
forward in space.. I believe we all can agree on this..

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, sraj wrote:
>
> gunfighter wrote:
>
> And it seems if NASA wants to keep ISS up and running, and get to
the moon with a new heavy lift rock They're going to have to get
little tougher with there contractors......
>
> A greater danger is confusion regarding responsibility. The poor
show of the space shuttle is more a management failure than a
technical one. Boing, who were the subcontractors for the main shuttle
would have thought that NASA was keeping tab on all the technological
issues, while NASA would have thought that Boing had full control of
the ball.
>
> There is also another related problem in such programs. A failure to
clearly enunciate goals. ( Both the Space Shuttle and the ISS have
been designed without any clear goals - without their being tied to
ambitious projects). President Kennedy's goal to put a man on the
moon was clear to every one (even the cook would have understood it
and come up with useful suggestions : - ) As of now it is still not
clear to anyone what NASA's plans are regarding the Moon and Mars. (
There should have been a publicly acknowledged flowchart by now: if we
find water on the Moon, this is what we will do.... if not ... ).
There is some vague assertion that ISS will be a stepping stone for
Moon and Mars. But what if ISS is not the right thing (any way
depending on just one critical hardware is dangerous).
>
> Planning is also 'hogtied' by the budget constraints. NASA is afraid
of opening it's mouth too wide. One way to get out of this rut is to
assume that you have all the budget available. Say three trillion $
over the next 25 years. What would NASA do with it? It is always
safer, design wise, to have an ambitious goal in the beginning. It
will be easier (and safer) to scale the project down than to scale it
up.