34LMLFQ@CMUVM.BITNET (Chris Curtis) (02/09/90)
>NASA needs changes far greater than after Challenger. >Any suggestions? >Ken Wilcox Interesting post. I agree completely that NASA has been essentially at a stand still since the Challenger incident. NASA was just starting to get a bit of the visionary ideals it had during the 1960's when the explosion occurred, and it never really regained its goals. True, unmanned space probes can accomplish incredible feats - ala Viking, Pioneer, Voyager (or V-Ger :-)... Unfortunately these are not being developed at any great rate. Many of the private companies and organizations that helped fund that have pulled out (JPL is independent of NASA, right?). Investment in this area needs to increase dramatically; which I think will happen shortly with the recovery of that long term exposure satellite (I forgot its name). But what NASA really needs is a new generation of managment and leaders that are bold enough to set long term goals - and generate enough excitement to follow through on these goals. During the 60's, virtually all the top people were kids who had grown up with the space race, and wacko science fiction about space technology. Today's workers have become woefully apathetic (kinda like the rest of the country), and the leaders are lackluster - following in the image of our illustrious president! Maybe the renewal of the manned Mars mission will be the necessary kick in the butt for the space program. Anyway, I've waxed philosophical and utopian about this long enough. You asked for some suggestions, and there they are. Chris "HAL, open the pod bay doors. HAL? HAL!"
KWILCOX@AUVM.BITNET (ken wilcox) (02/10/90)
On Thu, 8 Feb 90 22:16:10 EST Chris Curtis said: >Interesting post.Thanks... >But what NASA really needs is a new generation of managment and leaders that >are bold enough to set long term goals - and generate enough excitement to >follow through on these goals. During the 60's, virtually all the top people >space technology. There is one other element, the cold war. The us did not want the russians to win the space race. In america, the competive spirit is a great motativator..especially against the commies!!!!! >Maybe the renewal of the manned Mars >mission will be the necessary kick in the butt for the space program. > The goal should not be Mars for now, it would be an expensive one shot deal. The goal should be permanent stations in orbit or on the moon. The moonbase is the best because the private sector could get a decent return on the moons resources or in low- gravitation manufacturing. > Chris > "HAL, open the pod bay doors. HAL? HAL!" Ken wilcox Danger will robinson, danger will robinson...