>From: "mark_hineline <hineline@...>" <hineline@...>
>Reply-To: Scipolicy-L@yahoogroups.com
>To: Scipolicy-L@yahoogroups.com
>Subject: [Scipolicy-L] Re: Discussion of the causes of the Columbia Space
>Shuttle and NASA
>Date: Mon, 03 Feb 2003 04:00:54 -0000
>
>--- In Scipolicy-L@yahoogroups.com, "Norman Levitt" <njlevitt@h...>
>wrote:
>
> > I'm sure that NASA will gamely attempt to salvage a manned space
>program
>as
> > its centerpiece, proably predicated on an even more expensive piece
>of
>junk
> > than the shuttle. I think they'll have a harder time of it this
>time round,
> > despite all the sentimental crap pouring out of the media at the
>moment.
> > The cost of the Space Station has been enormous, and replacing or
> > drastically modifying the shuttle will probably involve additional
>costs
> > that will bring the whole thing crashing down. Personally, I
>certainly hope
> > NASA will fail miserably. We'll see.
>
>I followed, and mostly agreed with, what Norman Levitt wrote up to
>this point
>in his original message. Here I think you got it wrong. NASA and
>manned
>spaceflight are two closely related but different entities. NASA is a
>technocratic culture; manned spaceflight has primarily been a
>paramilitary
>organization steeped in Southern culture. One is the dog, the other
>the tail of
>the dog. Which is which?
>
>(This is an unfortunate aspect of Lyndon Johnson's legacy.)
>
>Manned spaceflight is no longer essential to national prestige, but
>is essential
>to Southern prestige.
>
>To call the response to the loss of the Columbia "sentimental crap"
>really
>misses the point. Of course it is sentimental. It is Southern
>sentiment.
>
>And unless our government begins to speak with other than a
>hegemonically
>Southern accent sometime soon, you can bet the STSs will fly again,
>the
>space station will be completed, and there will be an expensive
>replacement.
>
>Mark Hineline
>

NASA made the devil's own bargain back in the early '70's when the shuttle
program became its main focus. One motive, obviously, was to win the
support of the macho types in the Air Force and Naval Aviation, which would
have been hard to do for a cheaper and more scientifically productive
program built largely around unmanned vehicles. These days, NASA and the
military are joined at the hip so far as the manned space program is
concerned. Still, completely replacing the shuttle by a system that wasn't
designed by Rube Goldberg will be an awfully expensive deal, and in the
interim, nothing much will be done with the space station, because in PR
terms you can't very well have American astronauts functioning purely as
supercargo in a Russian/European project. I think the whole thing will
quietly be allowed to slip down the drain--and a good thing, too.

NL

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail