As discussed at the start of this thread, NASA doesn't want to risk sending humans to repair the Hubble because the orbit is incompatible with the ISS. If they aren't willing to accept that level of risk, how could it ever accept the risk of sending humans to the moon or Mars? Over the years, NASA launched dozens of Shuttle missions into orbits incompatible with the ISS. Now, suddenly, they deem that as being too risky? A moon mission will be many times more risky, and a Mars mission even more so.
This risk aversion is by no means unique to NASA. As you pointed out, it resides in the media and the populus. However, it seems NASA is not immune to excessive risk aversion. This doesn't bode well for an organization charged with operations that are, by definition, risky. If they now think launching into a 28 degree inclination orbit is too risky, then we could make the argument that the Shuttle should be permanently grounded.
Space/Science » in reply to I think you guys are blaming the wrong party.
NASA is also afflicted
The whole thread (25 posts)
- A robot to the HST, not simple...
- It shows a troubling mindset at NASA
- We need to fix this!
- It has been developing for a long time
- re: Liftoff-Landing
- Human beings are capable of enormous courage
- It has been developing for a long time
- We need to fix this!
- re: For $2.2 Billion you could go a long way toward designing a new space based telescope
- A poor idea
- It shows a troubling mindset at NASA