Priorities in government and space

if it had been done as origianally planned it would have worked fine.
but the military insisted that anything the goverment used had to be
a military vehecle, then the bean counters insisted on cutting cost.

how is it better if it gets rid of 2/3 of its size in launch, how
about the saturn 5 that got rid of 90 + percent of its size in
launch. is that better? the orion will use two rockets to get
everything into space and then only thing that returns is a tiny
capsule. with everything else thrown away.

--- In spacesettlers@yahoogroups.com, "the_gunfighter_45acp"
wrote:
>
> 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