J
JonClarke
Guest
<i>criticizing NASA does not equal NASA bashing.</i><br /><br />Of course. And no organisation should be immune from well informed criticism. I do not class as well informed criticism that:<br /><br />Does not distinguish between decisions imposed from above from those made within the organisation.<br /><br />Does not allow for the the learning curve. It is easy to criticise the decision to commit to the space shuttle. But that is 20/20 hindsight. In context it is hard to see what else could have been done.<br /><br />Does not recognise how complex and naunced technical decisions often are. Deciding not use Transhab is a case in point.<br /><br />Fails to recongise that NASA cannot do everything on a limited budget.<br /><br />Does not recognise that the role of NASA is not to develop commerically viable industries, but to enable others to do so.<br /><br />Dismisses colossal achievements such as landing a man on the moon as being merely "1-2 days for 2 people in a tin foil can".<br /><br />Is driven by an ideological fixation that somehow private industry (despite all evidence to the contrary) will be able to do everything that NASA does faster cheaper better.<br /><br />Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em>Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars</em> Arthur Clarke</p> </div>