Space Station Mission Opposed
Despite Safety Concerns of Some Experts, NASA Decided to Send New Crew
It boils down to: the International Space Station hasn't been properly maintained since the grounding of the shuttles; a lot of the internal life support monitors aren't working, stuff is breaking down, and so on. Some mid-level analysts are basically saying, "this isn't safe, we should abort," and the people above them are replying, "pfft, everything will be fine, and if we don't keep sending people up, things will just get worse." The net result is that the teams that are going up are doing minimal amounts of science, and actually spending most of their time jury-rigging fixes.
Is it my imagination, or isn't "pfft, everything will be fine" the attitude that ended up grounding the shuttles in the first place? Instead of wasting time and money (not to mention risking lives) sending up half-@ssed science missions, wouldn't it be better to send up a couple of missions that have the sole objective of getting everything fixed?
C'mon, people, PLEASE don't screw this up!