E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
John Frassanito & Assoc. via NASA
An artist's conception shows a future Orion crew vehicle on a Red Planet mission.
Pessimists are bemoaning the end of U.S. human spaceflight, but optimists see the next few years as a transition to a new paradigm that will energize commercial ventures and get astronauts beyond Earth orbit for the first time since the Nixon administration. Which way do you see it?
There seems to be plenty of gloom to go around as the space shuttle program nears its end. Hayden Planetarium director Neil deGrasse Tyson, a former member of the NASA Advisory Council and other commissions sizing up the space effort, had this to say via Twitter: "Apollo in 1969. Shuttle in 1981. Nothing in 2011. Our space program would look awesome to anyone living backwards through time."
One of the astronauts on the first space shuttle flight in 1981, Bob Crippen, told me that he was disappointed that the shuttle program's end would leave NASA "without the capability to put our astronauts in orbit ourselves." And he questioned whether NASA had the right vision for future exploration. "I personally favored going to the moon," he said.
The frustration flared up today during a House committee hearing with NASA Administrator Charles Bolden as the sole witness, or sole target. "We have waited for answers that have not come," Science, Space and Technology Committee Chairman Ralph Hall, R-Texas, told Bolden. "We have run out of patience. ... I would like to point out today that the committee reserves the right to open an investigation into these continued delays and join the investigation initiated by the Senate."
Bolden, a retired Marine general, took the hostile fire. "You have the right guy here to criticize," he said. "I am the leader of America's space program."
He laid out the main points of the post-shuttle plan:
- Rely on the Russians and other partners for resupply of the International Space Station, at least until U.S. companies can finish work on the space vehicles they're developing with NASA's backing. The first commercial cargo craft could be flying to the station by the end of this year, and U.S.-made "space taxis" could be taking on astronauts by 2015.
- Continue work on the Orion crew vehicle, which should be capable of carrying four astronauts on more ambitious trips beyond Earth orbit. Orion had been canceled as part of the Constellation back-to-the-moon program, after $5 billion had been spent on the program, but it was essentially resurrected as NASA's "multipurpose crew vehicle," or MPCV.
- Build a new Space Launch System, or SLS, which will be based on shuttle-era and Apollo-era rocket technology. The design for the SLS has not yet been announced, which is why members of Congress are so frustrated. Bolden said it could take until the end of summer or even longer to get the SLS plan through its financial review. Congress passed a law calling for the MPCV spaceship and the SLS rocket to be ready by 2016, but Bolden said the 2017-2020 time frame was more realistic.
- NASA is aiming to send astronauts to a near-Earth asteroid by 2025, and to Mars and its moons by the mid-2030s. Other stopovers, ranging from the moon to gravitational balance points in outer space, may be added along the way.
"We are not abandoning human spaceflight," Bolden said. "American leadership in space will continue for at least the next half century because we have laid the foundation for success."
So there is an evolving plan for the future ... just as there was an evolving plan for the space shuttle system in the early to mid-1970s when the Apollo program came to an end. Under the best-case scenario, that plan will lead to actual flights within four to six years, which is less time than it took between the last Saturn 5 and the first shuttle launch. But there are lots of questions surrounding the post-shuttle plan:
-
How much money will NASA get? A draft report from the House Appropriations Committee calls for trimming the space agency's budget by roughly 10 percent. (For details, check Space Policy Online, Parabolic Arc and Space News.) NASA officials as well as commercial spaceship developers say that budget reductions will slow down the transition to post-shuttle spaceflight even more.
-
Will the commercial sector succeed? Right now, NASA is committed to paying the Russians $56 million for each seat on a station-bound Soyuz craft, and the price is due to go up in 2014. Commercial providers such as SpaceX, Sierra Nevada and the Boeing Co. say that they can beat that price, but that they need NASA's money to help cover development costs. Shuttle program veterans say the commercial providers still have to prove that their craft will be safe and reliable.
-
Will the commercial space taxis for low Earth orbit and the Orion MPCV/SLS system for going beyond Earth orbit complement each other the way NASA hopes? Larry Price, Lockheed Martin Space Systems' deputy manager for the Orion program, told me that the two-track system served as an insurance policy for the post-shuttle space effort. "There's a little bit of competitive pressure," he acknowledged. "If the commercial guys run into any problem or delay for any reason, then we could back them up. And similarly, if we don't meet our milestones, the commercial guys could evolve into our niche."
After 30 years of grand successes, tragic failures and unfulfilled promises, the era of the space shuttle is ending. We may not yet know exactly what kind of American spaceship will be the next to fly. And because of that, thousands of people will be laid off by NASA and its contractors in the weeks ahead. But we're not witnessing the death of the American space program. At least that's the way Elon Musk, the millionaire founder of SpaceX, sees it.
"As far as I'm concerned, it's not the death of anything," he told me. "What we're really facing is quite the opposite. I think we're at the dawn of a new era of spaceflight, one which is going to advance much faster than it ever has in the past."
Now why would he say that? Over the next few days, we'll be presenting a series of Q&A interviews with Musk and other folks involved in shaping the post-shuttle era. What they've told me runs counter to the gloom-and-doom talk, but you might well have a different opinion. Feel free to weigh in with your comments.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," Alan's book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
I had hoped that they could've eventually design the shuttle to the point where it could land on the moon and relaunch itself from there.
I call it the 'leap frog' effect if we truly want to travel to other planets, that would be one logical way to work towards that goal.
But with the total space program axed? Just consider it another outsourcing of American jobs and with it...
Our national pride :,(
If you guys honestly believe this is the end of NASA you're profoundly mistaken. It's just a small budget cut, there are plans set in motion and a team is currently training AND propulsion systems are being designed to send humans to land on Mars. So tell me, how on earth can you say this is the beginning of the end of NASA if they're preparing for what will be one of the greatest achievements known to man? They're also planning to colonize the moon too, these budget cuts may have an effect on the time frame in which NASA will complete these goals, but none the less they will be completed within our lifetime, believe it or not. NASA is just ending manned space shuttle missions and my uncle who is a Senior Scientist at NASA as well as my 2nd cousin who is a Lead Astronautical Engineer at NASA JPL, stated that NASA is basically doing this so they can prepare and focus on the larger missions that are going to be coming soon. Such as the Missions to Mars as I stated previously. And I'm an physics major, more specifically astrophysics and particle physics, I just received my masters and I'm going for my Phd, I applied for an internship too at NASA and asked them about this whole ordeal they said "it is most definitely not the end of NASA, if it was we wouldn't be accepting interns we just feel the need to have to focus on larger goals" so to say this is the beginning of the end of NASA is just very farcical and ignorant. The private sector also will not succeed in colonizing the moon or mars with out NASA, that is a garenteed fact obviously. NASA is already preparing to land on Mars without the aid of the private sector. But when it comes to the private sector, they will definitly need the aid of NASA to do anything beyond earth's orbit. I mean look at the man from Virgin Mobile, his private space program has hardly gone anywhere after the years have gone by. But yes this is currently the end of Space Shuttle flight, but that is because they're developing something better, Space Shuttles are actually really old and outdated Technology, it's taken us quite some time to build something else to replace it. But trust me, the new spacecraft is in the works. Elon Musk knows what I'm talking about, he is very much right and what he is saying.
Well said.
Agreed, well said indeed. This type of story/invitation to comment almost always leads to the uneducated bemoaning the ending/loss of something that is not the case. Its amazing to me how people will comment before doing any research, showing just how unthinking/reactionary they are. Also eveident is how 'american-centric' mosts people here are. "America's edge, America's lead in space"is the second most prevalent angle. HEY FOLKS!! wassamatta U? The rest of humanity can't have a go? provide leadership? What? There's no geniuses born anywhere else? I, for one, am proud of ALL humanities accomplishments. Be it russian, chinese american, indian, WHATEVER!!! Remember, when you look back on earth, its ONE planet.
I can't believe that we have yet to move beyond the controlled explosion means for propulsion. I know we theologed on some nuclear type means, but that was 35yrs ago and apparently we have either made no progress or abandoned the concept. Sig. increase in speed is the goal and that is where NASA needs to put all it's money and energy
IMHO: the space program is evolving, not dying. Constellation was poorly run and unsustainable; but I still rooted for it's success like many others. The SLS program makes little sense but if Congress is bound and determined to push it, let us hope it is better managed than Constellation was; so far, it's not off to a good start ("the worst mistakes are made on the first day of the program" - a committment to propulsion technologies based on Congressional districts is inappropriate). Both architectures suffer from unaffordable operational costs with no roadmap to significantly reduce over the life of the program.
Some (and I include myself) expect the problems and true life cycle costs of SLS will accelerate interest in more cost-effective space access approaches from commercial operators like SpaceX, Sierra Nevada, Boeing, etc. The key for them will be continued progress and attracting investment. I'm not as concerned with how much money Congress allots to commercial spaceflight through NASA (currently trying to reduce it), but by the message they are sending investors that it's a fundamental bad idea.
I also like what I see from the smaller, rapid development programs within NASA. These show great promise in keeping the technology pipeline primed. NASA also is continuing to improve their relationships / partnerships with commercial entities so these developments find a good home (e.g. Bigelow Aerospace, Ad Astra ) and reach operational maturity. NASA's robotic and observational programs continue their great track record; in spite of the problems with James Webb Telescope (which I believe needs to be finished - but not before some management changes are made).
The strategies for the US space program are as varied as the people you ask, but I think we're going to see some very exciting times in the next 20 years. The emphasis is going to shift from politics and patronage to physics and profit; that's a good thing in my opinion. The universe is a very big place and no matter money we spend on exploration, it will never be enough, but as long as we keep an open mind and allow the space industry to develop more self-sustaining commercial services, we will move forward.
node, at this time it is cognative. Mechanical cojunction/competion is very good with multiple people within NASA and private industry. However our need now is to exact significant increase in SPEED above contolled explosion.
@Kevin: you don't see VASMIR as a step in that direction?
I wish I could include myself with some here that are upbeat with NASAs future.
But REALITY is...thousands are getting pink slips once Atlantis lands.
Seems to me that we need to develope a world space program as to where we all share costs to veture into space. Multiple money coffers would make bigger programs and with the addition of more ideas, it may even turn out to reduce costs. it is only the military defense of space that may suffer. Space programs have become very expensive and would fair better with a cost sharing arrangement between more partners.
Jim, good idea. But advanced tech. is still one of profound competition btw. nations logically for power
We should send the Republicans to the Moon! It reminds me of that Kennedy LP that Vaughn Meader recorded when Kennedy was President. In a fake press conference, a reporter asks Kennedy, "sir, when will we send a man to the Moon?" Kennedy answers "whenever Senator Goldwater wants to go".....LOL!
Fine with me.
Even better, lets shoot Democrats out of a cannon.
It would be appropriate with the three ring circus thats going on in Washington right now.
Hey, sorry, but we spent all the money fighting wars, we can't have cool stuff anymore.
Oh, and we're still spending money fighting those wars.
Just another indication of a nation in decline.
k, you are right. If we do not keep our advanced tech. contained in secret (NASA) we are screwing ourselves
In the 1950s and 1960s, I was what one might call a "space brat", since my father was an aerospace engineer who worked on the various NASA manned space programs, and since we always lived in a "space town" where all the other children were "space brats" it appeared quite logical and natural to me that everyone on the planet understood science, space exploration, and perhaps most importantly the vast benefits of manned space exploration . . .
However, in the 1980s as I grew older my perspective on the general awareness of science, space exploration, and the vast benefits of space exploration changed, slowly but surely, as I realized that most of the people on this planet not only are clueless but also have no innate desire ever to have a clue, which of course is a very depressing thing to realize . . .
Most folk know that Teflon was a so-called "spin-off" of the space program, but I am not so certain that most folks know that emergency response systems also are a "spin-off" of the space program, where specifically I am referring to ambulances that have advanced medical telemetry and other capabilities, which most folks take for granted at the dawn of the early-21st century . . .
As late as the 1960s, even in a "space town", if one was involved in an accident that required being transported to the emergency room, the procedure involved someone calling the telephone operator on a landline telephone and requesting an ambulance. Then depending on the location and distance from the ambulance company, about 45 minutes or an hour later a station wagon with a siren and big red light on top appeared with two perhaps high school graduates wearing white suits, where at least one of them had a valid driver's license . . .
There were no electronic medical devices; only minimal radio contact with ER doctors; no intravenous fluids; and no prescription medications that could be administered with remotely transmitted ER doctor guidance . . .
The Vietnam War also had a great influence on emergency medicine, and it certainly gets full credit for the "life flight" medical helicopter concept, but all the advanced medical telemetry comes directly from the NASA space missions where it was developed specifically to provide a solution to the problem of astronaut medical events in space, where obviously there is no way to call 9-1-1 to get an emergency response vehicle and paramedics dispatched . . .
In fact, the concept of paramedics and emergency medical technicians originated in the combination of military medics in the VIetnam War and all the advanced medical science that NASA developed to support the medical needs of its astronauts . . .
For all practical purposes, the medical emergency response vehicle that arrives at the dawn of the early-21st century for medical emergencies is more advanced in its capabilities and personnel that some hospitals in third world countries, and this is more the case with "life flight" medical helicopters and their crews, since there is at least one medical doctor and nurse, as well as highly advanced life support equipment, where the doctor and nurse can do in-flight emergency surgery if necessary . . .
From my perspective, this is the most important reason to continue to do manned space exploration, where doing manned missions to Mars is vastly important, and the reason is that sending human beings to Mars and returning them safely requires at least one year of deep space travel in each direction, which is something that requires so much new knowledge, technology, and expertise that it is a bit mind-boggling (but nevertheless an achievable goal) . . .
Spending extended amounts of time in the International Space Station is one thing, and this is being done today, but traveling through deep space for several years is an entirely different matter, and it requires mastering a virtual festival of new and difficult sciences and technologies, since there needs to be a multiyear food, water, and air supply, all in a self-contained space vehicle, and there needs to be a complete medical hospital that is sufficient to deal with virtually any medical event that might occur . . .
And there is the matter of the effects of lengthy weightlessness or minimally simulated gravity on the human body and mind . . .
It is quite likely, if not virtually guaranteed, that solving some of the medical and general life support problems will lead to simply amazing discoveries and insights into the basic functioning of the human body and mind, and this is the true value of doing manned space exploration, since the benefits will affect everyone on this planet in real and tangible ways . . .
Designing and building the spaceships is great, and there certainly will be plenty of fascinating information and knowledge gleaned from traveling through our solar system and exploring Mars, but from my perspective those things are secondary, although they obviously are important . . .
The reality is that there is well documented historical information which strongly suggests that at one time several millennia ago people lived healthy and productive lives in the range of 500 to 1,000 years, and yet another reality which for example is obvious from studying Chinese, Mayan, and other calendars is that people were quite skilled in being able to count days and hours, as well as being able to make highly accurate measurements, which we know from studying the various pyramids and the Nazca Lines, so from this I think that the historical references to people living for 500 to 1,000 years and being healthy and productive are quite accurate . . .
But this is not the typical lifespan of most people at the dawn of the early-21st century, and my hypothesis is that something happened which ultimately created the most common disease affecting the people of this planet, which to be specific is the disease colloquially called "aging" . . .
I think that there is a way to cure this disease, and I think that some of the clues will come from solving all the problems that must be solved to make it possible and safe to do manned missions to Mars . . .
Yet another brutally ruthless reality is that the "aging clock" is ticking loudly for nearly every person who is alive on this planet, and while it might make a bit of goofy sense to an accountant or financial manager to postpone manned exploration of the solar system, the fact of the matter is that each day it is delayed is one less day remaining on the "aging clock", and the reality is that for someone who lives 100 years, there are only approximately 36,525 days, which in the grand scheme of everything is like having a debit card with $36,525 and understanding that when the last dollar is spent, there are no more dollars and it ends . . .
And to be clear on the philosophical, metaphysical, and religious aspects, I have no problems with the great value of getting right with Jesus, but the perspective of science and physics tends strongly to suggest that if your car has a flat tire, getting right with Jesus does not preclude the swift application of a can of Fix-A-Flat® or Slime® . . .
From yet another perspective, reading this post on a personal computer is made possible by NASA manned space exploration, where the reality is that the space available inside space capsules was so limited that having electrical devices that used vacuum tubes simply took too much space and weighed too much to be practical, which led directly to devising new technologies for doing everything with miniaturized circuits, which then led directly to a few bright entrepreneurs like Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak realizing that they could make personal computers with the various miniaturized computational processors and components developed for spaceships . . .
And in a practical way, none of these "spin-offs" has much of anything to do with the actual physical exploration of space by people, at least in the sense of coming directly from discovering that the moon is not made of green cheese . . .
This does not diminish the vast importance of exploring space and our solar system, but it does provide a different perspective on the way folks here on Earth benefit even though they never leave the planet, and the benefits for many people make the difference between life and death, literally and physically, for sure . . .
For sure! :)
What a cool way to grow up. I grew up dreaming of being an astronaught or working for NASA. I was always beaten whenever I tried to advance myself to live my dream. Rather instead being told that because of my circumstance of life that I had to live my life the way others wanted me to for their benefit. When they were done I was to be thrown away.
Even though I have been constantly beaten up, shunned, discriminated against, conspired against and always told that I do not listen because people assume that because I was born on the same day as General Douglas MacArthur that I would be the same type of person that he was and that I should be treated as he was. These are the types of people who continually interfer with intelligent people for the main fact that they know that everything that they have learned in their religious about creation, being born again etc. is still all one big lie without the chance of every being real other than in their mind.
But I continue forward advancing my knowledge and posting my ideas about how to make Mars new again by slammming ice chunks from Saturn's Rings into Mars, or how Einstein's theories are really mistaken and that light speed and faster velocties are possible, that life exists in the Universe and that there is a wealth of new knowledge out there in the Universe.
The main detractor's to space exploration are those who lucidicly think that they are everything that someone else needs, that there is no reason to look out there for something when all they have to do is look inside to find that something.
Science and math and engineering are truths of reality. Acting however is a lucid form of escapism from the reality of death. An escapism that was proven true after Alexander was killed by an arror when he thought that he could not be killed and was immortal.
A real human would look up and ask how do we get there and would not be worried about the cost involved. The lazy and stupid human would only say that such ideas and thoughts are not needed. We all know how the masses of the lazy and stupid want things. Emotionally distraught because they want to live like this person or that person just to receive riches beyond reason while sitting there at their pool doing nothing more than being a burden to humanity.
It's was overly exepsive 30 year old technology that is definitely time to retire.
We don't have a lot of money right now and NASA planning was schizophrenic for way to long and not convincing in leadership or ideas to map an understandable and convincing future.
Plus some bad luck-2 wars, unfunded major tax cuts and 2 recessions has refocused Americas attention to a long tie to come.
We are evolving to major unmanned airforce military component as the future - there is no reason space exploration shouldn't follow the same unmanned route for many of the same reasons.
You have to love Obama.
Take every chance to demonize big business unless it comes to space flight. Then big business is the best thing since sliced bread.
But hey at least we get to subsidize the Russian Space Program so that is a plus I guess.
""We are not abandoning human spaceflight," Bolden said. "American leadership in space will continue for at least the next half-century because we have laid the foundation for success.""
Awful hard to lead when you have to thumb a ride with a one-time arch enemy. NASA has failed our country, but only because our political leaders in the white house and congress lack any vision of a future beyond their next election.
Of course, squandering billions if not trillions of dollars on a couple of wars in the middle east which in the end will leave Iraq and Afghanistan in exactly almost the same place politically, socially and ideologically as when we started, hasn't helped NASA or the country at large at all.
MMR, the problem with NASA/gov.funding was that all of the cognitive skills of NASA stagnated excusiveiy on the Shuttle, instead of pushing the envelope
Kevin:
And that had more to do with the lack of budget given to NASA more than the shuttle itself. People blame the shuttle but the reality is, it is an expensive business. Plain and simple, and short changing it does nobody any favours. You either need to support it or let it go. The government doesn't really want to do either so it just plods along, making people question its value.
I believe that making the next generation of space vehicles corporate based is good. NASA has an important role now...being the library of information for those companys worth dealing with. Many will try some will be successful. Either way, commercial development of space was inevitable, and a big step forward. They do things for profit, not always the best idea, but NASA has wasted billions by refusing to negotiate with smaller companys and having their own 'Old Boys Club' they dealt with every time. Now is the time for new ideas, and NO in my opinion a capsule based ship for long range exploration is NOT the answer. The shuttle, with its large cargo/living area was barely big enough for serious space exploration, now we force our people into little capsules for months on end? ridiculous! They deserve better and we can make it better, now get out there and do it.
As someone who grew up and still lives 20 miles from the Kennedy Space Center, I have seen everything from Gemini to the Shuttle (was too young to remember Mercury!) After my Army service, I spent 12 years working as a Shuttle systems tech and witnessed the amazing dedication of all those who worked there, both for NASA, contractors and the USAF. I left the program to work 'on the road, traveling to many states and countries over the years. One thing that got my attention once leaving my pro-space environment in Central Florida, was discovering the general apathy that I found in my fellow Americans outside of areas that economically benefited from space. Aside from space buffs, engineers etc, in general Ive found that many could care less if they aren't making money from it. This is not politically oriented, or even based on education/income. If you don't believe me do your own asking. Its even more obvious with those younger than 30, Certainly many young people have an interest and support space exploration enthusiastically but many Ive encountered-and work with- dont believe Apollo went to the moon, and/or they don't believe we should spend money on space other than to insure all our satellite dependant gadgets work! Gonna be a great future USA!
On the flip side, while working and traveling overseas, as I am at present, Ive found a profound interest in US space endeavors, and many people in disbelief that the shuttle program is over. In fact Ive met quite a few people in so called 'third world' nations who know more about our space history than the average Patriotic American! They see NASA as something unique and positively American. Before some of you start blaming Obama, Boldin, Pelosi and other 'liberals' in general maybe you need to look at the next American you see, do they even care? Would they even be wiling to contribute even a penny in extra taxes to keep us first in Space? Did any of the Republican hopefuls in the recent group debate have anything but lip service when asked about Nasa's future? the answer-No. The reality is the reason our program has no direction, no set goal, and no funding isnt our leadership, its our own people. Casey Anthony commanded far more interest on national TV than Atlantis' final flight last week. Do you really believe that the US Govt is going to be calling for the real money required to get to the Moon or Mars when the voting public is perfectly content to do its space exploration via Transformers 3? Wake up and think about it. I truly hope Im wrong.....
I'm not sure we can justify the costs of our expensive space programs any longer. We need to provide for national defense (defense satellites, etc.) but beyond that, space is a "nice to have" and not a "must have". And when you run out of money, you have to start giving up "nice to have's". Most of the recent space missions have been to launch private satellites (communications, etc) or for commercial research, so I say we let the commercial sector figure out how to launch their own satellites or buy space on another country's rockets.
Commercial satellite operators do buy launches from commercial launch providers. The US has several companies providing launch services to geosync. Lockheed, Boeing, and others have grouped together as the United Launch Alliance to service commercial and government launch needs. Arianespace offers commercial launch services from their launch site on the coast of South America. Russian launch companies also have commercial launch vehicles and, partnered with US investors, have a sea launch facility in the Pacific. The Chinese are also trying to become commercial launch providers, as are the Indians.
But the commercial launch market is small. At peak, in 1997, there were 22 commercial satellite launches worldwide. About 50% of them were on Arianespace vehicles. There is currently a glut of transponder capacity in orbit, so the operators of communications satellites aren't in the market for many more launches. The value of commercial launch demand worldwide is less than $3 billion. Most of the demand for satellite launches is from military and civilian government agencies. ULA handles the bulk of those. With the end of the Shuttle program, NASA can't even launch its own payloads. It has to contract with ULA too.
In 1984 President Reagan signed the Commercial Space Launch Act which permitted private companies to contract with other private companies for launch services. Prior to that, space launches were a government monopoly in the US. In 1990 President Bush signed the Launch Services Purchase Act which requires the government to purchase launch services for its primary payloads from commercial providers whenever such services are required and suitable commercial launchers are available. This officially ended the practice of NASA competing with the private sector for launch business.
The problem is there are many forces tugging on the U.S. space program from many different directions, and it has literally become a contest of wills to see which of these forces is going to win out in the end. On the one hand there are those who are chomping at the bit to take the next step out into the great void of space "where no man has ever gone before". On the other hand there are those who believe our existence here on Earth is threatened like never before, and we need to devote our precious resources to saving our own existence right here on Earth before we try to venture out into the great cosmos. There are also those who believe that the privatization of space is the way to go, while there are those who think we need greater international cooperation if we are to succeed in taking that next great step out into vast emptiness of space. We are also faced with increasingly serious budgetary constraints due to serious economic challenges right here at home, while at the same time we have never had a greater economic interest in the future development of space. All of these differing forces, which in turn are acting from many different directions, are threatening to tear our national space program apart. And as a result we really have yet to achieve a national consensus on where our U.S. space program needs to go, if a national consensus is even possible at this increasingly precarious period in both our nation's and our world's history.
In the end, I believe I would have to side with those that believe we need to put our vaulting ambitions on temporary hold, when it comes to our quest to take that next great step out into the vast expanse of space, at least until we have fully secured mankind's foothold right here on our own precious planet known as Earth. As far as the privatization of space goes, I believe that is perfectly fine, as long as we don't put too great a load on the private sector too quickly, and risk serious and costly disasters and failures in the immediate future. At the same time I believe we need to strive for greater international cooperation in the exploration of space, if the challenging task is to be accomplished safely while at the same time not putting too great a fiscal strain on any one nation here on Earth. And as far as future colonization of space goes when it comes to ensuring mankind's future survival, I believe we would be far more advised to focus on colonizing our own oceans right here on planet Earth first, while we also focus on stabilizing our own Earth's climate and protecting the lives of billions of people and tens of millions of evolved species at the same time.
In order to do all of that, I believe we need to shrink our immediate interests in space down to an area no greater than the orbit of our Earth's Moon. I personally believe that anything more than that at this present time would be irresponsible and foolhardy, with the possible exception of some future international robotic space probes to places like Mars and some of the asteroids. If we don't recognize the need to rein in our vaulting ambitions in this kind of prudent way, then I believe it is even possible that our national space program could one day get completely cancelled.
Then the planes will be cancelled along with trains and vehicles where the only form of locomotion is walking around. Then computer and every single service that is modern technology will collapse with the closure of NASA just so some moneky retard can pretend that by wearing clothes from a different era that humanity has actually gone back in time.
As I have pointed out so many times before, it is impossible to reason with the American people. It is probably impossible for anyone here in this country to lead them anymore. I think the cynicism and distrust toward our failing political system here in the U.S. has burrowed too deeply into their souls, and it has fatally poisoned the collective psyche of the United States of America. Tragically, it was the American people themselves who allowed all of this to happen, by the corrupt politicians which they elected to national office. I personally put the ultimate blame for this collective failure of the American people on these ET installed terminal ("End Time") religious belief systems. - RC
if our "space program gets cancelled" it will be by/because of IDIOTS!
Just
That is a really old idea that would not work on the earth because of the density of the atmosphere at your point of launch. (Rockets, if you look at a launch, actually go up first, then start to accelerate horizontally, that is to get out of the thick atmosphere and make that horizontal acceleration more efficient, you have less to fight it).
It would work however, if we ever start mining the moon, a) because the gravity well is much lower and b) there is no atmosphere.
Nasa is toast and has never been that great to begin with. The technology used by NASA is old and outdated. Any new technology they develop always goes to the military and never gets used for public space flight. Example the most powerful rocket engine ever built is a nuclear engine created in the 1970's. Nasas developed the technology but it was taken over by the military nasa never used it. This engine could fly a ship from earth to mars in 6 Nasa basically is just burden to the tax payer. I mean the moon is only 1\3 the size of earth with no atmosphere and nasa still can't take close up pictures for the public to see. Although on earth the military can take a close up photo from space of individual people standing on the ground with the atmosphere in the way. Point is the best way for the public to get there moneys worth is to support private space companies. That is where true value and technology break throughs await us.
NASA was , and is still a shining example of what man can do when they put their mind to it. Anyone who doubt its need to go back a learn a little history on the aeronautical advancements achieved by NASA as well as the learn about the US space program.
tachyeon:
The saddest thing is that the Space Shuttle is retiring as still the most advanced flight vehicle ever constructed. Sad because after 30 years, to still be the most advanced flight vehicle says more about the nation's status than anything else.
Time is a man made concept and is flawed (i.e. if time is in CONSTANT motion; PRESENT cannot exist). NASA needs to push the cognitive envelope
You are correct Kevin there is not such thing as the PRESENT. The present only lasts a planck second of time. There is only the FUTURE and the PAST. History does not repeat itself nor is there a magical door to the future. The past must be looked towards in order to create new systems for the betterment of humanity which will create a better future.
What is the point? Seems like a silly question, but it isn't really. I saw the moon landing as a youngster and like most of my classmates dreamed of being an astronaut or passenger on a ship to the moon or another planet someday. I really have been a supporter most of my life. But at this point, given the current state of our technology and what we already know about the few possible destinations within our reach, I really don't see how the proposed manned space missions gain us anything, yet they cost significantly more than sending robotic probes. I get why the ISS is important; experiments can be done there in an environment that cannot be replicated on Earth and there are often tangible benefits resulting from those experiments. Pride is really the only motivation for sending people to Mars right now. Given the other pressing priorities and the economic woes we are creating for future generations, I just don't see it as a justifiable expense at this point.
A clarification - I am not for shutting down the space program. I am just against burning cash sending missions up with our pathetic (compared to what we need to do any meaningful space travel) current technology. Every launch into space costs enough to finance years of R&D into creating new propulsion technologies and life support systems. Another thing to consider is how risky a Mars trip is with current technology. There is a substantial risk of lost lives. If the odds of gaining new information were higher, it might be a reasonable trade off. But lets face it - the odds of people discovering something out about Mars that we don't already know or couldn't learn with another probe are quite low.