From: phoenix.Princeton.EDU!carlosn (Carlos G. Niederstrasser)
Subject: Re: Automated space station construction
Originator: news@nimaster
Organization: Princeton University
Distribution: sci
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 22:18:03 GMT

In article <schumach.721095267@convex.convex.com> schumach@convex.com (Richard  
A. Schumacher) writes:
> In <Bx732s.IzB.1@cs.cmu.edu> ssi!lfa@uunet.UU.NET ("Louis F. Adornato")  
writes:
> 
> >communities in this country have, IMHO, paid for those programs.  If
> >you want to think that the NASA bias toward crewed programs is based on
> >funding, I'm certainly not going to change your mind.  However, there
> >are an awful lot of people who just don't think that firing toys into
> >the solar system is as awe inspiring as having _people_ out there,
> >regardless of the volume of raw data rerturned.
> 
> Well, NASA's current (shuttle) and planned (Fred) manned programs manage
> to spend awe-inspiring amounts of money and keep awe-inspiring numbers
> of people employed in proportion to the amount of work done and 
> data returned, but I can't seem to find these particulars in NASA's 
> charter. I thought that exploring space was the whole idea? Yet Fred
> has consumed eight billion dollars so far without one piece of flight
> hardware being bolted to another, while Magellan is about to be turned
> off in the middle of collecting new and unique data on the structure of
> Venus for want of a miserable $20 million.
> 
> If NASA can't get out of the astronaut, aerospace worker and bureaucrat 
> welfare business it's liable to find its plug unceremoniously pulled one 
> day.

The only problem, unfortunately, is that if NASA _does_ pull out of the  
"welfare business" its plug will most definitely get pulled out.  In the past  
election a Clinton basically stated that Freedom was a good idea mainly because  
it creates jobs.  I'm not giving this example to agree with or criticize  
Clinton, but rather to show that this is the general feeling in DC.  NASA has  
found out, like many other government agencies, that the only way to get money  
is to be spectacular, and to employ tons of people.

Because of this I think that by and large it is not NASA that needs to be  
changed, but rather the whole pork-barrelling congress/administration as well.

Two other examples: Advanced Solid Rocket Motors: NASA does not wanted Congress  
gave them.  Super Conductor Super Collider: Bush pushed so much for it because  
it is in Texas, a critical election state (which indeed he won)

I've purposely tried to avoid being partisan here, both Congress and the  
administration are guilty.  NASA is only guilty of following the awful system  
it is subjected to.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
|                                 |   and the reality of tomorrow   |
| carlosn@phoenix.princeton.edu   |---------------------------------|
| space@phoenix.princeton.edu     |    Ad Astra per Ardua Nostra    |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
| Carlos G. Niederstrasser        |   It is difficult to say what   |
| Princeton Planetary Society     | is impossible; for the dream of |
|                                 | yesterday, is the hope of today |
Newsgroups: sci.space,alt.conspiracy