On TechRepublic: 10 lame phrases to cut from your resume
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 22 of 29:
Next »
« Previous
NASA lost its mission and now its just another government agency
There's a saying, it goes like this:

"Close enough for government work!"

But you do have a point about NASA being inefficient.
First problem is the lack of funds. NASA doesn't make a profit, and it's as true in the space program as anywhere else: having resources is better.


NASA lost its focus and became just another competing government agency. Nothing demonstrates this better than their killing of Saturn V (best heavy lift vehicle ever built) to insure there was no competition to the Shuttle, and their willingness to let Hubble fall out of the sky to insure the funds for its replacement are guarenteed.

Hubble is worth saving even if it is replaced with a better tool for the bleeding edge of science. Dedicate Hubble to teaching kids Astronmy and Science and we won't need to worry about kids being left behind.

Every dollar invested in NASA has paid back multiple times leading to technology like freeze dried food and integrated circuits.

But, rather than let the scientists run the show its controlled by bureaucrats and politicians. Challanger went up when the Engineers objected due to icing conditions, and Columbia went down also due to icing damage. And we have politicians and bureaucrats hiding the facts in both cases, quite simply, bith failures were documented flaws in the design which could lead to system failure. The program is on target with 2% failure, unfortunately 2% failure over 100 missions led to the loss of two Shuttles. Something like 60% of the missions could have been done cheaper and better with unmanned vehicles but its not sexy enough to please the "system" so the Engineers and Scientists are ignored!
Posted by: oldskool   Posted on: 06/17/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

Second Source  poocow666 | 06/16/04
Open source not so open  Anton Philidor | 06/16/04
This wasn't about lock in  NemesisNL | 06/18/04
Single vendor efficiency  poocow666 | 06/16/04
Yes, efficient.  Anton Philidor | 06/16/04
No such thing as Linux Lock-in  poocow666 | 06/16/04
So then...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/16/04
Or...  Martin Marvinski | 06/24/04
Would you prefer Red Hat lock-in?  Anton Philidor | 06/17/04
Wrong again...  poocow666 | 06/17/04
Who heads Fedora?  Anton Philidor | 06/17/04
JetBlue  jjworleyeoe | 06/16/04
JetBlue said the goal is to be sole sourced ....  oldskool | 06/17/04
That's Not What I've Heard JetBlue Say . .  jjworleyeoe | 06/18/04
Not always true, there are many issues to consider.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/16/04
No problems for Nasa???  poocow666 | 06/16/04
Dear ranter...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 06/16/04
Your ignorance is astounding  poocow666 | 06/17/04
It's "just fine" that there are no Shuttles running?  mlindl | 06/16/04
umm, perhaps your definition of successful is "biased"  oldskool | 06/16/04
Single source evolution  Anton Philidor | 06/17/04
NASA lost its mission and now its just another government agency  oldskool | 06/17/04
Ax has a point, but not a good example...  Judas I. | 06/17/04
these FBI/CIA intel shotages are trumped up  oldskool | 06/17/04
Um, I think you may have missed my point...  Judas I. | 06/18/04
How To ?  pj-xmesh | 06/16/04
One of Linux's biggest strengths  zijiang | 06/17/04
I used the iTunes Music Store yesterday  mlindl | 06/16/04
Open Source Is Multiple Source  rtb | 06/23/04

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

advertisement
advertisement