...sigh.

>>Worse yet, since ISS is really SkyLab II, we're doing nothing new.<<

How many times have I read this comment from you? What you're saying is, in effect, all micro-g science - no, wait - ALL SCIENCE THAT CAN BE PERFORMED IN SPACE was exhausted by the Skylab folks. Do you really believe this? Do you honestly believe that the nature of the field has not expanded since 1973? Do you believe that ALL answers to ALL questions about living in space were answered by the Skylab data? Could it be that some new questions have arisen, perhaps *because* of the Skylab data?

>>So there is no sense of adventure or exploration.<<

Well, gosh, I'm so sorry. Science can be boring. If you want excitement, rent a sci-fi movie or watch WWF and NASCAR. Do you think the research at Merck is boring? Yeah, you bet it is - to the outsider. But the end results are of immediate benefit to you and me, in terms of better quality of life. It's possible, just possible, that something that improves the quality of our lives will be found during ISS research. I'd like to give the project a chance to do that.

I believe science done on ISS can do much, much more to enhance my quality of life here on Earth than people getting their boots dirty on Mars can.

>>If we believe NASA PR that it takes 3 people full time to "run" this flying turkey, how come SkyLab didn't have this "requirement'?<<

C'mon Phil, I know you're not that stupid. Comparing ISS to Skylab is like comparing a DC-3 to a 777. ISS is so much more advanced and complex than Skylab that *of course* it's going to take more effort to maintain. And that complexity is there for a reason - to expand its capability in supporting scientific investigation. That's why the baseline design calls for a crew of six people - so a lot of science will get done.

>>We have 30 freakin' years of automated computer control advancement since SkyLab and it takes 3 people full time to ride this thing in a fixed orbit?<<

You've done one of two things - either over-estimated our ability to automate things, or underestimated just how complex ISS is, even at this stage of its construction.

On second thought, maybe you did both.

>>As an alternative, humans exploring the lunar poles for ice or exploring a readily accessable NEO would be an adventurous and more scientifically rewarding goal.<<

To me, that would be a waste of our limited space spending. I believe we should make those dollars count toward improving life HERE, and I think orbital research can do that. Sure, it'd be nice to see people spreading out into the Solar System. But I'd prefer to enjoy a better life here on Earth, than to watch somebody digging holes on the Moon while suffering through some form of cancer.

The space program is not in existence for excitement - never was; that was a *by-product* of the early days. Right now, shuttle launches draw about ten minutes of coverage on CNN. Eventually, there won't be any coverage. Why? Because access to space will be so routine it won't be considered newsworthy unless something goes wrong. Imagine what news coverage would've been like if Shuttle really had hit the early program goals of 52 flights per year - it would be nonexistent.

The space program is about science, not entertainment. And I want that science to benefit me - and you - since we're paying for it.

-Kim-
Pad Rat, KSC
http://www.geocities.com/kimekeller