Hi Ecto,

My Favorite Berkely Breathed Cartoon has Bill the Cat, Opus and Co. Receiving their bales of cash from the defense department and shouting something to the effect "Physicists need Porsche 911's too!"

Your friend should be happy to have had to do so little for a steady paycheck. I don't think any scientific effort can be wasted. The challenging goals set by SDI were considered "impossible" by some scientists. The politicians too dubbed it "star wars" and were gunning for it from the get go - just as the land-based system is gunned for today.

This sort of second guessing did not occur during Apollo - because ostensibly Apollo was a non-military endeavor. (which is a farce since the moon was considered a prime missile launching base and potential threat in the hands of the USSR)

So ALL our major space projects are military related. The space shuttle was sold in part as a military satellite launcher and repair vehicle, a role it performed for a significant period of time.

The Mars probes and other pure science probes - were launched in part to see if any of these worlds were inhabited and posed a threat.

The Nasa administrator has so little clout in DC that he now reports to the Vice President's science advisor. It's very sad. This is because NASA was formed in 1958 simply to window dress military space activities in a civilian guise.

Everyone would like to argue this issue - but if you follow the course of events it is undeniable. Almost no one in DC gave a tinkers dam about scientific space exploration when NASA was formed.

This has always put NASA in a weird position. JPL became the real science center, while GSFC received its agenda and orders from Pennsylvania Avenue and the Pentagon.

People who love space and exploration are drawn to the agency - yet the agency has always really been just a trumped up public relations tool to cover DOD space activities.

Think how few astronauts we have. Think how fewer folks really go up. Think how we are 'limited' to LEO.
Think of how all pure exploration projects get pulled or tanked so that 1 in 20 sanctioned projects ever see space at all.

So dealing with NASA is almost pointless. If you want something done you really have to deal with the DOD. I wish more folks knew this but I know it would cause a moral dilemma for many.

Naturally presenting scientific or exploration proposals to the DOD seems almost ridiculous - but if a valid and vital military purpose can be pursued simultaneously or you can present a valid case for testing technologies which the enemy may develop and use to their benefit - your odds of success are much better than dealing with NASA where your chances hover between zilch and zip.

This is why I wish the space community had embraced SDI and the latest incarnation of missile defense. It seems illogical at first glance - but if SDI had been launched we would have seen a more robust launch capacity, more shuttle missions which would bring down costs for ALL launches.

Aerospace companies have great lobbyists, their plants and HQs are positioned in key states with political clout and leverage or are a staple of employment in a remote region. Of course some projects seem to pork-out after the contract is awarded - thats the way the aerospace companies play the game.

I'm sure some folks wish the government had a production capability and did not have to rely on poor oversight and contract managers on the take, etc. - I know I do. The next best thing would have been keeping the competition viable - which it really no longer is - and again where corruption in our govt. caused that ball to be dropped.

Well I've rambled on about as long as I want to...

Oh...and SDAI now stands for Science Development And Integration*

You can visit SDAI LABS site Here

The site is getting a makeover very soon and so some links are dead.

Best wishes,

SDAI-Tech1

*It did stand for something else before 1992 - but I ain't tellin'! ;-)