I think you are both right that they are symbiotic parasites. But playing the devil's advocate - I think that having the shuttle really did help with the HST. The ISS still has the potential to help with future mission staging and "might" actually produce some real science. But, mangling an old saying: a wounded bird in the hand may be better than two proposed by Pres. Bush. In other words, I wouldn't cancel anything while this is still a paper only project. You never know what can happen to these things when congress-critters and NASA bureaucrats get their hands on them. [I think the aforementioned groups are what screwed up ISS]. However - I am excited that there is finally a plan.
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy- bounces+dale.hooper=sdl.usu.edu@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Michael Carnes Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2005 5:15 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] NASA's plan to return to the moon
You're right in the money in both your posts, Kim. The shuttle and the ISS form one of those unhealthy co-dependent relationships the psychologists talk about. They both need each other, and none of the rest of us need either one. The standard excuse is that we have "international obligations" with the ISS. Seems liked we've managed to ditch most of our other international obligations over the last half-dozen years. Why does this one matter?
One more thing. (OK, so I had too much caffeine before trying to get to bed.) Don't you love the reasoning of the people who keep these boondoggles alive? "We can't get rid of the shuttle yet - we need it to keep the ISS alive. Of course, we can't get rid of the ISS yet, either. We need it to justify the shuttle." Go figure.