AC@20:38
"The fundamental problem is that manned space travel with our current technology makes no sense. "
Assertion without explanation.
"NASA is saddled with the legacy of a cold war era when spending 4.5% of national spending on a pointless proganda exercise seemed sensible. Romantically I would love space travel to be common place and (relatively) cheap, safe and practical but we are a long way from that at the moment and there is no prospect of changes to that on the horizon."
You seem to think the problem is technology. It is not.
"The reailty is that manned space flight has contributed almost nothing to the state of technology arguably it has hindered development with research money spent very inefficently."
Assertion without explanation.
"NASA could prioritise spending on practical scientific work but this would mean rapid decrease in budget and waning of public support, or it could prioritise very long term reseacrh in lower cost safer launching which would mean even more rapid decrease in budget with no visible results or it could continue it's proganda heritage with the illusion of the shuttle project which promised lower costs and routine space flight but could never deliver."
You're on on *slightly* firmer ground here. Do you know that part of NASA's priorities are set in the Legislatures *Appropriations* act and NASA cannot change them?
"It chose the illusion. The power of the original proganda is shown in that almost no one in this debate seems to recognise that cheap practical space flight is well beyond our current technological capabilities. "
Both an assertion without explanation and is flat out wrong. It is not *technology* that keeps flight costs high.
"The reality is that he US is wasting lots of money on NASA and the budgets sholul be cut."
Again the *whole* NASA budget is less than is spent in the USA on pizza and loess than half the cost of the aircon on US army bases in the middle east.
" It should refocus on genuine science based priorities and perhaps long term research on new launch technologies and simply buy launchers from ESA or Russia."
It's priorities are set by Congress.
You have no idea of NASA's scale relative to the *big* parts of the US govt, no idea of real reasons why launch costs are high or how to lower them and no idea of why NASA does some of the things it does.
Posting AC would seem to be the *most* knowledgeable thing about your post.
For such diligent work please accept my award.