More NASA Letters

It's sad to see a once trailblazing agency run by an accountant. Why is the Department of Defense, whose budget dwarfs NASA's, not run by a bean counter as well? For some reason space expenditures are scrutinized differently from other government expenses. People think that the space program is a waste of money, but they lose sight of the fact that money spent on space is also money spent on Earth in the way of salaries and products. What's more, work in this area promotes technological advancement that directly influences people's lives.


NASA is the only federal agency responsible for exploring the final frontier. It may never have the budget it enjoyed in the '60's, but in a country where defense approaches 50% of the national expenditure, we should be able to do more.


Finally, NASA needs a place to go. It needs a long-term plan that will help it develop technology that will ease our journey into space with minimal cost. Once the cost is brought down "the sky would (no longer) be the limit" and the true golden age of space can begin.


Greg Benham



I read your article "Go Somewhere" with interest, but I have a problem with a few of your recommendations.


First of all, NASA needs a more comprehensive plan regarding where they plan to go in the near and long term. I agree that we should go to Mars with the goal of extensive exploration and a permanent base. In order to do so, however, we need to think about what experiences we need to get us there. A good start would be to complete the space station and establish a permanent moon base.


There are other points in your article that need serious consideration, such as the need for an effective and cost efficient launch vehicle and a more comprehensive approach to national security. But if Mars is our ultimate goal, we need a step by step plan to get there.


Patrick McCaffrey
Rochester, MN




Returning to the Moon and building a giant radio telescope can be done much sooner and cheaper than going to Mars. The thousand or so tons of frozen water at the lunar pole where the temperature remains a constant and manageable -50F is another reason to get a program going. Mars is one thousand times as far away from Earth as the Moon. We certainly need to reconsider the benefits that a large astronomy facility on the protected lunar far-side could produce.


Ron Sirull



I believe that there are important steps to be taken by the space program that are currently being ignored. That is assuming, of course, that NASA's primary goal is to explore space and not to simply continue existing.


First, NASA should put a permanent station on the moon. With 1/10th the gravity of Earth, it would take far less energy to launch ships for deep space missions; a space station is basically worthless, since ships will be launched from Earth, regardless of where they are going. The moon must also have useful ores that could be mined from its crust and used to make ship parts directly from there.


It's foolish to continue to launch directly from Earth until we can have a device that takes off and lands like a plane which needs only the fuel it can carry on its own to get into orbit. Even then, it would still be less expensive to launch from the moon.


I see designs for the space station and other space vessels in Popular Science and in other resources. I also regularly read about the devastating effect of long term space missions on the human body. But never do I see designs for a station or for ships that have spinning modules to create artificial gravity. The space station should have been designed from the beginning as a spinning habitat to allow people to be stationed there long term without damage.


To choose to build things the way the space station was built gives the impression that NASA is only seeking to continue being budgeted for its own survival, with no serious thought whatsoever to our future in space.


Dave Andrews
Orlando, FL