"gregg" wrote in message
...

Kyle,

While much of what you say is true, it seems to me that there's no
urgency
to the program: no great goal, no pressure.

so therefore there's no tendency to accept risks and press on.

As an example, we accepted the deaths of the apollo 1 fire becasue we, a
majority of the nation - were still serious about winning the Race to the
Moon. So we were willing to take risks and did.

But it seems to me that most of the nation ignores the Space program and
therefore sees no reason to accpet risks - there' sno Big Goal that
inflames people's minds.

And, therefore, no one sees a need to hurry or risk.

Gregg

I tend to agree. NASA's mission in the 60's was to put man in space, then
put an American on the moon. A glorious undertaking. Since then, their
mission has been to keep man in space (and to create a stream of projects
that make man in space "necessary"). There is a circular argument in there
somewhere around the fact that NASA puts people in space, and without a need
for people in space, there wouldn't be a need for NASA. Therefore, one of
NASA's prime goals is to make sure there are ongoing projects which are
built around keeping man in space.

I've never met a bureacracy that didn't fight tooth and nail for its
continued existance, and I'm sure NASA is no different... After all, nobody
wants to lose his/her job, and no politician wants jobs killed in his/her
district.

KB