>>I'm not so sure. After all, it been about 1/3 of a century since we landed on the moon and now all we are doing is a tinker-toy "space station" for publicity while we try to figure out how to get into space more efficiently.
>
>>If we can't get a way from impulse engines then we won't be going anywhere in the forseeable future.
>
>Jerry;
>
>I worked on the Apollo and LEM projects - all of them. We were happy to see the success of each project. At that time NASA paid cost plus 10% to manufacturers and quality was THE issue! It had to be correct as people’s lives were at stake.
>
>The recent (a few years ago) "Mars landing", made me sick. NASA has changes so much since the late 1960's - early 1970's. The dictate for the Mars Landing was the use of off the shelf hardware and software. One example of this was the little vehicle that landed had a $10 hobby motor as its principle source of locomotion. Life expectancy of the Mars Rover was seven days. Why spend millions to launch a $10 dollar motor that will last for seven days?
>
>With the present NASA funding and attitude, I would not want to be associated with putting anyone into space. Quality today is not the focus of NASA rather saving a buck takes top priority along with looking politically correct.
>
>Sorry - that is what I get for being “too old” and having a value system.
>
>Tom


I hear ya. By now I would have expected we would have built on our sucesses, not wanting to let knowledge and skill slip away, and would have several Lunar bases and, perhaps, even a Mars moon base, if not a Mars base itself.

Just thinking about NASA, and the 4.7 Trillion we blew on the Grate Society makes me sick.