OK, Sorry for my ignorance, but what's CYA mode? Also, while we are listing disastrous programs, let's not forget Alliant TechSystems and Dugway Proving Ground were heavily involved with the X-33 fiasco. Then there was Genesis. True, it was not a huge expense like the others listed in that article, but it was expensive and heart-breaking. And while we're at it, let's talk about Mars. When I was in high school in the early to mid-1960s, growing up on a Pacific Ocean missile base, the space program seemed so promising that a friend and I made a bet about which of us would reach Mars first. It really seemed inevitable that humans would go there soon. The moon by 1969, Mars 20 years later. We know what happened to the moon landings and the base that we expected would follow. And, while my high-school self would fume at this comment, maybe a Mars landing was never worthwhile. In light of what we're learning from the rovers, I have to wonder what humans can do on Mars that robots samplers can't. I don't really see Mars as a practical outpost for colonization. Its resources seem too sparse and the reasons for going there are not compelling. It doesn't equate to the exploration and settlement of the New World, for example, because obviously North and South American were brimming with treasures. Mars isn't. Even if its sands were gold, you would pay more to get them to Earth than they were worth. The idea that we need an outpost to provide insurance in case of a global catastrophe seems abstract, given that the outpost would cost many, many billions and that it would be likely to fail long before our civilization. If for no other reason, it would fail because it could not be self-sufficient and taxpayers quickly would grow tired of funding it. Meanwhile, fine programs are threatened with cancellation in order to shift funds into the Mars landing pipe-dream. NASA was on the verge of pulling the plug on an important weather satellite that was providing great coverage of hurricanes, apparently for no reason than to shift funds somewhere else -- like Mars. An outcry in the scientific community apparently saved it, at least for now, but you see how NASA is thinking. I was shocked to read the projections about the cost of a robot repair trip to service Hubble. Is the writer accurate on that? If his figures are correct, we really are better off scrapping the telescope and sending up a couple more via conventional launcher. Just musing -- Thanks for a thought-provoking link, Patrick, and thanks to the others for great comments. -- Joe
Here's a look at the other side of some NASA mission:
http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-04zh.html
Note that I'm not necessarily taking sides there. Just seemed look a good piece to start some interesting debate.
Patrick