US Not Getting Money's Worth From ISS 217
greysky writes "On the 45th anniversary of his first trip into space, astronaut John Glenn says the U.S. is not getting it's money's worth out of the International Space Station. From the article: "Diverting money from the orbiting research outpost to President Bush's goal of sending astronauts back to the moon and eventually on to Mars is preventing some scientific experiments on the space station"."
Some things never change (Score:3, Interesting)
I just thought it was kind of funny that now we still haven't finished building the International Space Station and while the next President Bush has promised them a manned landing on Mars at some point in the distant future, it's looking less and less likely that even the new 'spam in a can' launcher will reach orbit by 2019, let alone that anyone will be going to Mars.
At this rate, I guess NASA astronauts will be landing on Mars in the year 2300. At least private companies will already have hotels and crazy golf courses set up there for them so they won't need to build huge rockets to get there.
I have plenty of fingers... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Indeed. (Score:4, Interesting)
"To not utilize that station the way [b]I think it ought to be utilized[/b] is just wrong," said Glenn. Thanks for clearing that up, Senator.
Another interesting article (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:John Glenn is Pro ISS (In Case It Wasn't Clear) (Score:3, Interesting)
ISS was built to funnel money to the Russians to discourage their rocket scientists from moving abroad to design missiles for people America doesn't like. I suspect that justification is a bit out of date now.
Re:Indeed. (Score:3, Interesting)
Agreed, but the fundamental problem is that the "purpose" of a project like ISS depends on who you ask.
For just about every politician (with the exception of John Glenn, who, as an astronaut, may be excused for having an interest in science :), the only "purpose" of a project ISS is to funnel tax dollars into local industries.
The more expensive it is and the longer it takes to build, the better. As soon as it's "built", however, the "cheap" (maintenance) phase of the project begins, and its usefulness as a vehicle for directing pork to campaign donors ends. Hence...
> It's this whole "lets get it up to full capacity so we can say we built it, then let it crash so that we can move onto our next disturbingly-similar project" attitude that bothers me.