Requiem for America's space shuttle program

By | July 8, 2011, 8:00am PDT

Summary: Emotionally, I almost can’t accept that NASA is out of the airframe-lofting business for the next bunch of years.

Update: See the end of this article for a comment by a Shuttle worker.

I live in Brevard County, Florida, home of the Kennedy Space Center. I’m not from here. I grew up in New Jersey and lived in Massachusetts, New York, and California. Even though I’ve now lived in Brevard for six years, I’m still not fully “of” this place. I don’t like the heat, I don’t like the sand, and I’m not partial to the sun.

I do like the people, though. When we left New Jersey, the typical Wal-Mart greeter would say hello or goodbye with something along the lines of “What are you looking at?” When we moved to Florida, the contrasting “Have a blessed day” was quite nice. Now, I’m way, way far from being a religious man, but I’ll take the warmth of “Have a blessed day” any time over the implied threat of the typical New Jersey conversation. Religious-tinged greetings are weird, admittedly, but they’re also kind of sweet.

I’m telling you this because a lot (a lot) of my fellow Brevardians are about to lose their jobs. Brevard is not exactly a top-tier county when it comes to employment, but now that the last Space Shuttle mission is about to fly, another 1,900 or so hard-working Americans are going to be out of work.

I am of very mixed feelings here.

It bothers me deeply that once Atlantis roars off Pad 39A and executes Mission STS-135, America will no longer have a civilian lift capacity of any kind. The idea that we’ll have to rely on the Russians (of all nations) to bring us to the International Space Station rankles down to my ankles.

On the other hand, America’s space program has been mind-blowingly expensive and has had some very serious failures. NASA has been run into the ground with some astoundingly poor management practices, and — at the same time — civilian space flight has blossomed.

There is no doubt that the Space Shuttle fleet is old.

It’s 30 years old, this year. STS-1 with the Space Shuttle Columbia, was launched on April 12, 1981 off the very same pad, Pad 39A, that Atlantis will be leaving on later today. We all watched in horror after 27 missions, when Columbia’s final flight ended fatally, when it broke apart on re-entry in February 2003.

According to an article in the Washington Post, the shuttle airframes are certified for 100 flights, and most have logged less than half of that.

And yet, we all know what’s inside the shuttles: 1970s technology. The machines are old and obsolete and should have been replaced years ago. Of course, as we all know, the United States didn’t replace the shuttles. Programs were planned, and then cancelled. Budgets were requested, and then nerfed.

America’s space program has been the story of both the right stuff — and the wrong stuff. Of American heroes — and political failures.

So here we are. Atlantis is on the pad. America’s space-bound future is on hold. And, pretty soon, we’ll be dependent on the Russians to get back and forth to the space station we, here in America, pioneered.

Like many things in America, there is no black-and-white answer.

Emotionally, I almost can’t accept that NASA is out of the airframe-lofting business for the next bunch of years. But as a fiscally-conscious American, I also viscerally despise the waste and stupidity we’ve seen managing many of America’s projects.

We will never regain the idealism of the day when JFK challenged us to send a man to the moon and bring him safely back to Earth. Maybe that’s a good thing. For idealism can obscure inspection, introspection, and examination, and as we’ve seen — over and over — the American space program is exceptional, but flawed. It needs inspection and oversight.

It also needs a new vision, one for the next decade and, yes, for the next century.

This is an opportunity for President Obama and the Candidates 2012. I do believe America must have home-owned orbital lofting capability outside the military. I also know that many of the innovations we enjoy daily are here as a side-effect of the American space program.

Looking into the future, we need a vision, a strategy, and a commitment to space — efficient, effective, smart space travel. Perhaps one of our upcoming candidates will outline a plan. Perhaps President Obama will revisit some of his decisions. Or, perhaps we’ll bequeath the pride, excitement, and industrial and technological advancement that comes from having a space program to one of those other countries, like China or Russia.

Man, that’d be a shame, wouldn’t it?

Shortly after I moved down here to Brevard county, I was in my home office when the entire roof shook. I’d experienced that sort of shaking in California; it almost felt like an earthquake and it sounded like a roof beam had cracked. I didn’t realize it at the time, but that was what it felt like when a shuttle broke the sound barrier.

Since that day, I’ve had the opportunity to feel my roof shake, to hear the crack, and to experience the sonic boom of our shuttles breaking the sound barrier almost 20 times.

Later today, I hope to feel that shake one…last…time.

Update: The following was posted to the comments below by someone who says he works in the shuttle program. It’s a statement I thought worthy of having you all read:

I am a Shuttle Program employee. Today a room was set aside for Space Shuttle Program employees with video for last Space Shuttle launch ever. As people entered the room some laughed and joked but as the launch came near the room quieted. The final moments arrived and the Shuttle launched receiving applause. Then as the moments after liftoff stretched into minutes the silence remained. Several left with tears in their eyes. Most remained until external tank separation. As I left only silence was heard. Entering an packed elevator the doors closed behind me. There also only silence.

See also:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

David Gewirtz, Distinguished Lecturer at CBS Interactive, is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets.

Disclosure

David Gewirtz

At various times during his adult life, David has voted for both Democrats and Republicans, and has been disappointed by both. He is deeply disturbed by how partisanship has come before patriotism in America, which gives him the freedom to pick on both sides.

David is a frequent guest on TV and radio stations across America and can usually be heard or seen on-the-air at least once a week. He writes weekly commentary and analysis for CNN’s Anderson Cooper 360 and has been interviewed by Fox News, CNN, various ABC and NBC affiliates, and Canada’s Global TV. He has been a featured guest on National Public Radio and has also been featured on Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, and Radio Liberty where his commentaries on technology, industry, and emerging nations have been broadcast into 46 countries (all in their own unique translations).

David is the executive director of U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute, a nonprofit research and policy organization. He is the Cyberterrorism Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security and a special contributor to Frontline Security Magazine. He is a member of the FBI’s InfraGard program, the security partnership between the FBI and industry. David is also a member of the U.S. Naval Institute and the National Defense Industrial Association, the leading defense industry association promoting national security.

David is an advisory board member for the Technical Communications and Management Certificate program at the University of California, Berkeley extension. He is also a member of the instructional faculty at the University of California, Berkeley extension.

David’s “day job” is as publisher and editor-in-chief of ZATZ publishing, an online publisher of technical magazines. Other than than his ownership stake in Component Enterprises, Inc. (the parent company of ZATZ), David has no additional industry investments.

ZATZ has many advertisers who do, in part, provide for David’s lush income and extravagant lifestyle. Most of them are IBM and Lotus aftermarket suppliers, some of them make goodies for Microsoft Outlook, and a few make all sorts of strange mobile devices and add-on products. David has been a regular judge of the IBM Awards, but has no formal financial interest in or with IBM.

Because the ZATZ online magazines often review products, David and ZATZ are sent an overwhelming stream of unsolicited, silly, and often useless products to review. Because they’re such a pain to track and ship back, these products often wind up in a dumpster or fill up the corner of a large closet. Although David has no plans to review products in connection to his ZDNet blog, if he does do a product review, he will disclose any relationship completely in that posting.

Both through ZATZ and independently, David derives a small income through various advertising and sales relationships with Amazon.com and Google. These are minor relationships and they will not impede his willingness or ability to chastise either company should they deserve it.

David has many other business relationships, but none of them relate to anything he covers in his ZDNet blog. David does have a bit of the sales-guy bug and if he’s not doing a sales deal with someone at least once a month, he goes through withdrawal. He has a number of consulting clients, but none of them relate to anything he covers for ZDNet (and if they ever do, he will either disclose that fact, or decline to write about them).

Back in the 1980s, David held the unusual title of “Godfather” at Apple. He has written and published 40 incredibly simplistic applications for Apple’s iPhone.

Although David is forbidden to disclose the terms of his iPhone developer agreement, he isn’t drinking the Apple Kool Aid, will never be confused with a metrosexual, and feels free to mock Apple, and Apple users, any time the occasion permits, on alternate Tuesdays, or if he’s bored.

Biography

David Gewirtz

In addition to hosting the ZDNet Government and ZDNet DIY-IT blogs, CBS Interactive's Distinguished Lecturer David Gewirtz is an author, U.S. policy advisor, and computer scientist. He is featured in The History Channel special The President's Book of Secrets, is one of America's foremost cyber-security experts, and is a top expert on saving and creating jobs. He is also director of the U.S. Strategic Perspective Institute as well as the founder of ZATZ Publishing.

David is a member of FBI InfraGard, the Cyberwarfare Advisor for the International Association for Counterterrorism & Security Professionals, a columnist for The Journal of Counterterrorism and Homeland Security, and has been a regular CNN contributor, and a guest commentator for the Nieman Watchdog of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. He is the author of Where Have All the Emails Gone?, the definitive study of email in the White House, as well as How To Save Jobs and The Flexible Enterprise, the classic book that served as a foundation for today's agile business movement.

Related Discussions on TechRepublic

Did you know you can take part in these discussions with your ZDNet membership?
94
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: Requiem for America's space shuttle program
guywayne 17th Jul
Now, if we could have the final launch of the military into battle, we could get the economy back to rights...
0 Votes
+ -
"We will never regain the idealism of the day when JFK challenged us to send a man to the moon and bring him safely back to Earth"

... and that is why America will no longer be a great nation for a long time to come.

You stress that idealism should be replaced with "efficient, effective, smart" - terms that you use to frame a space program going forward.

Idealism isn't about NASA, or the moon, or any specific one thing. I would submit that idealism is about taking a chance precisely when you *don't* know the road ahead. Idealism is about taking a leap of faith.

"efficient, effective, smart" might get you a Pyramid constructed, but it won't get you Michelangelo's David.

I'm not suggesting that America throw money away at every idea or proposal, but if it's come to the point where America cowers in fear at the mere thought of spending money to pursue the unknown, it's a nation whose time is done.
@croberts
it is throwing money at people they know will get them re-elected.

Politicians do not need to inspire people into voting for them, today they just "pay" them to vote for them.
0 Votes
+ -
agree!
Linux Geek 8th Jul
@John Zern
just give some tax cuts to the people and they will figure out a way to advance the space program.
0 Votes
+ -
Good riddance
nomorebs 8th Jul
At last we got rid of that money-wasting, human-killing, unsafe vehicle built on old technology.

By now we should have been in Mars but wasting time on the space shuttles was simply preventing us from doing so.
0 Votes
+ -
Too true
wizardjr 9th Jul
@John Zern I was about to post the same thing. Our space program went south as soon as the welfare mob outnumbered the truly progressive folks in this country. The ruling class finds it much easier to directly bribe votes than to do what's advantageous but not blindingly obvious to obtuse voters. Welcome to Idiocracy.
0 Votes
+ -
BS
Linux Geek 8th Jul
@croberts
people need money in their pockets not some liberal ideas about 'redistributing the wealth' in the name of some outdated ideal. Let the free market decide!
Foolish as usual.
Well said.
0 Votes
+ -
@croberts : Space is no longer so "unknown". We've scoped out the places we can reach (moon, Mars, Venus) and there's little for us in any of those places. We should keep exploring them with robots, but stop the manned space program until we find something useful. http://billdietrich.byethost8.com/Reason/ReasonMannedSpaceProgram.html
0 Votes
+ -
@croberts "Never" is a long time..."efficient, effective, smart" might get you a Pyramid constructed, but it won't get you Michelangelo's David."...But it will get high resolution photos, soil, gas samples and every other type of data from distant places, which may save a lot of expense and wasted effort in the future...
And how exactly does Michelangelo's David help you get into outer Space?
0 Votes
+ -
Great launch. Godspeed Atlantis, see you in a few days.

Here's looking to FINALLY breaking away from flying around the planet and putting boots on alien turf.
0 Votes
+ -
Unlikely to happen
rbethell 8th Jul
@Cylon Centurion The Apollo program was 5% of GNP. NASA is currently funded at a tenth of that. There's simply not enough investment being made to even return to the moon, let alone breaking out of the local Lagrange points with astronauts on board.
0 Votes
+ -
Wait a Minute
Hal_9001 8th Jul
@rbethell - There was a person on NPR about 05July and said that if you looked at the "inflation adjusted" dollars, NASA had about the same $$$ as used during the Apollo missions in the 60's! He went on to say that it was enough budget to finance a mission to Mars and back.
Who Knew?
@Hal-9001 "There was a person on NPR "
Enough said.

NASA has been receiving in inflation adjusted dollars less every year for the last few years. A Mars budget would dwarf the Shuttle Program. Check it out. There are enough analysis out there.
0 Votes
+ -
@kdjkdj

Actually, if you examine the word of someone who actually knows what the hell he is talking about, you'd find that NASA could put men on Mars for 16% of it's current budget, yearly, and form a permanent human base there. It would cost the equivalent of 2 months in Iraq at most.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mm34Muv6Lsg

Or a summary if you don't have an hour:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJ4KIB4GqEA

This is using 1991 technology. We've had the capacity for decades, but there has been no drive, no strong mandate to do so.

And before you call the man's expertise into question, if you are an aerospace engineer with 30 years or more experience, you are allowed to argue. Otherwise, I'd suggest to you the same thing I suggest to all those laymen who believe they should have an equal opinion to knowledgeable experts in their own fields: Shut up and multiply.
0 Votes
+ -
And so...
Hallowed are the Ori 8th Jul
...the United States says "OK China, India.... it's all yours."

How unbelievably stupid.

But not unexpected... as the US bobsleds down the course toward becoming an also-ran country, little better than a side-line spectator.
0 Votes
+ -
@Hallowed are the Ori : Fine, let China and India waste their money burning fuel to send metal into space. The manned space program has turned into a jobs program, with no useful goal. We built ISS to have somewhere to fly the Shuttle to, and we built the Shuttle to have something to fly to the ISS. Madness !
0 Votes
+ -
RE: Requiem for America's space shuttle program
Little Midnight Updated - 8th Jul
Thank you, you've captured both my emotional and logical thoughts on this exactly. Very well written article.
0 Votes
+ -
We Should Fully Fund NASA...
rally2xs 8th Jul
...for manned space flight just as soon as we can do it with a balanced budget. Yes, there are ways - passing the Fair Tax would get rid of this recession and brighten the future of this country like few things ever have, but political corruption that comes with the income tax will not be given up by politicians that benefit from it until WE ALL demand it of them under pain of being voted out. But we're not yet that smart, either...
@rally2xs

I'd rather spend the (considerably less) money on UNMANNED space research. You know...actual science.

gary
of the shuttles and space flights that came before that.

There have been innumerable advances in space science and many of those were as a result of the need to sustain life aboard those space vehicles. Science is not simply about advancing knowledge; it's also about advancing the human race. Some day, we may have to figure out a way out of this planet and into other life-supporting space environments.
@adornoe

I understand all that. But when you quantify the scientific gains, robots are a much better deal.

gary
and a lot of the research that has created new medicines and new foods and new medical techniques and new survival gear and techniques and even clothing and shoes, came about because of the need to equip humans to survive in space. No robot would've served the same purposes. Don't get me wrong; I believe that unmanned research is just as vital, but, where humans are concerned, a lot of other tactics and techniques and research needed to be thought out. That has all been beneficial to all of humankind. We wouldn't be as advanced in a lot of technological and medical areas if all we had in space were robots to do all the work.
and a lot of the research that has created new medicines and new foods and new medical techniques and new survival gear and techniques and even clothing and shoes, came about because of the need to equip humans to survive in space. No robot would've served the same purposes. Don't get me wrong; I believe that unmanned research is just as vital, but, where humans are concerned, a lot of other tactics and techniques and research needed to be thought out. That has all been beneficial to all of humankind. We wouldn't be as advanced in a lot of technological and medical areas if all we had in space were robots to do all the work.
@adornoe

Those are common arguments, but the reality is that you DON'T need to go into space to invent new medicines and such. Those are false arguments. Ultimately it comes down to what you want your space program to research. For me I want to know if there is life on other planets, how did the universe form, and so on. And THOSE are missions much better handled with robots. If we had the luxury of lots of spare money lying around, sure, do the Star Trek thing. But that's just not the case.

gary
0 Votes
+ -
For space missions such as you described, robots or unmanned flights would be enough. Heck, for discovering other worlds, we don't even need satellites or robots. Many of those functions can be served with high-powered telescopes. Deep space probes are necessary for more detailed science which is unencumbered by our atmosphere or even any influences from the moon or planets.

What you don't seem to realize is that, space exploration should not be just about finding out how the universe began or how black holes or other cosmic objects shape our universe. The fact is that, without using exploration or research to benefit mankind, most research and science would probably not be undertaken. Without a goal, as an example, to land men of the moon, there likely would not have been the many thousands of products and medicines that were created as result. Without the goal to send men to Mars and beyond, space exploration will be limited to just a few space probes and land-based telescopes. Medicines and new products are mostly by-products of the type of research that results from a different type of goal. Earth-bound research would very likely not have contributed to the many products and medicines and techniques which have become part of our everyday lives.

It's is also very short-sighted to believe that, spending money in manned space exploration is a waste. The fact is that, many thousands of jobs were directly created by our moon project and the manned missions to conduct research in orbit. That's just the direct influence. In the periphery are the millions of other jobs that needed to be created in order to support that exploration. That is an economic impact that will be lost, along with many thousand of jobs that will have to be cut. I'm not a big government advocate, but, at least the government led the way to allow the private sector to attain the goals, and those goals weren't the only achievements. Like I said, a lot of other research led to many thousands of products that we use in our daily lives. When it comes to the amount of money being saved, it's a pittance in comparison to the many jobs and economic impact that will be lost; and it's also a pittance in comparison to the many other hugely wasteful government programs that should be cut. Space exploration, especially manned space exploration, is not a "shovel-ready" jobs program, and it's impact is long-lasting; shovel ready jobs are temporary and don't have any real economic impact and all that we'll have done at the end is wasted whatever money went to those "jobs". We pissed away close to a trillion dollars in the stupidity of the stimulus, and in comparison, our manned missions to space are just a few billion dollars a year; but the manned missions do have a long-lasting effect and long-lasting jobs and real positive economic results.
@adornoe,

Perhaps you can clarify your point. Of those "thousands" of products that resulted from manned space exploration, what would be an example of one that could NOT otherwise have been developed?

The reality is that we just have different visions of what space exploration should accomplish. Mine is strictly about, well, space exploration. Yours involves job creation and product development. And while those are fine things, I just don't believe they justify the drastically higher cost of manned exploration. I get MUCH more satisfaction from the photographs of the Mars surface taken by the rovers than I do watching humans bounce around in zero-G.

gary
since the costs are miniscule in comparison to the many benefits derived, and mostly in comparison to the other government waste that is immeasurably a lot higher than the space program (including the manned aspect).

Think about this: for every dollar we spend on the space program, the U.S. economy receives about $8 of economic benefit.

That would make it a self-paying exploration and research endeavor. To any thinking individual, doing the manned aspect of space exploration, is a no-brainer.

Now, take a look:

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19930072922_1993072922.pdf.

http://www.spaceexplorationday.us/benefits/technology.html

http://www.freakonomics.com/2008/01/11/is-space-exploration-worth-the-cost-a-freakonomics-quorum/

http://www.space.com/4187-commentary-human-spaceflight.html

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1040/1
@adornoe

So....no example?

gary
of research that was conducted and that brought many benefits to mankind.

Oftentimes, links are provided so that you can read from them and learn something. Posting all the contents from the links would've created a very long post.

It's apparent that you are not interested in a balanced view of the subject.

BTW, the unmanned aspect of space exploration, will also dwindle to a point of non-existence, once the manned aspect is killed. The justifications for killing the unmanned aspects will be the same as for the manned missions, with the major question being "Why", and the main justification for killing the program being "it's wasteful and of no benefit". The only things happening with space programs, is the shooting up of satellites to support ground communications and other services. Exploration will be kaput.
@adornoe

No, I have no interest in researching all the links you sent. I'd rather you simply share one of those examples. Just one. No details necessary. Remember...it needs to be an example that somehow REQUIRED manned space exploration, not a product that could and would have been developed otherwise.

So put up.

gary
0 Votes
+ -
but, before you go there, remember that...

Most of the research that was conducted in space, whether manned or unmanned, was mostly because of the manned aspect. Most of the "unmanned research", whether robotic or satellite based, would not have even been approved if it were not for the manned missions which required a lot of the unmanned missions. So, most of what you think could've happened "anyway", would not have even been funded.

Now, I know you're lazy about reading from a link, but, it's not too much to just pick one from the list and then speculate whether that research would've occurred anyway with just the robotic or unmanned space research; keep in mind that, the funding for unmanned research came as a by-product of the manned missions.

So, in the future, the unmanned aspect will also get defunded because, there won't really be any good purpose for the research. There was an interdependency between manned and unmanned research which too many people don't even bother to think about.

While looking at the list, it's very probable that some of those products or research would've happened anyway, but, not with the kind of urgency required to support manned space flights, and so, many of what you think would've happened anyway, would very likely not have.

So, take a look:

http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/spinoff.html

There's another list here:

http://theattackmachine.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/what-products-have-been-created-by-nasa-and-space-exploration/
@adornoe,

You keep dancing around the central point of my initial post...that unmanned missions are a better science investment.

First you attempt to argument that manned missions helped us develop important products. I ask you for one single example of a product that required manned flights...zip. You throw a bunch of links out, thinking that I should do your research for you. Forget it. I'm too lazy. It's *YOUR* point, not mine, so you need to back it up, nobody else.

Then you throw out the idea that manned flights create jobs. Of course they employ people. But that is NOT a scientific argument in favor of manned exploration. To the contrary, that is exactly WHY manned flights are a bad idea...too expensive. It proves my point, not yours.

And now you're claiming that unmanned missions wouldn't get funded without manned mission. Again, a totally unscientific argument. And totally false.

I can hardly wait to see what you come up with next. Manned missions increase real estate value? Prevent baldness? Enough with the silly responses. I care ONLY about science. My initial post ONLY concerned science. If you have a scientific counter argument in favor of manned missions, please make it. So far you have not.

gary
because, everything that I've pointed you to is being disregarded by you.

Those links are not hard to read, and it's very easy to pick any one of the products or services that have become fact because of the manned aspect of the space program.

That fact is that, even the products that you think would've been developed anyway with unmanned missions, would never have happened. The manned missions is what spurred most of the other unmanned missions, and whatever research occurred with those unmanned missions would never have occurred. In essence, most of what came about from the space programs was as a direct or indirect result of the manned aspects. So, most of the research for the products that came from "unmanned" missions, would still not have occurred without the manned aspect. It's the same conditions going forward after the manned missions come to a complete stop. Nothing will happen with the unmanned missions or robotic missions unless they're undertaken to support manned missions in the future. For example, rocket science would not be as advanced as it is now without the need to get men into space, and what you'd have is missile technology to get satellites into space or bombs being lobbed from one country to another.
0 Votes
+ -
summary
gdstark13 14th Jul
@adornoe,

The past involved manned missions. In those missions scientific discoveries were made. None of that is in question. But the question is not whether you can advance science by throwing money at a problem, but whether that's the best approach. I'm saying it's not. I'm saying that, especially when the country is bankrupt, we need to get the MOST scientific bang for our buck. And that means unmanned missions.

I have a friend who works for NASA and this discussion we're having is clearly not new. There are smart people who want to do manned missions, but there are just as many who feel that the technology is such that unmanned missions give us much more science for the same money. So we are unlikely to resolve this on the zdnet blog.

Your point that we need manned missions to support unmanned missions is the silliest one. I've never heard ANYONE make that claim. That's because it's not true. While the future of manned missions is murky at best, we continue to explore the universe through the robotic missions. As we post to zdnet the Opportunity rover continues to explore Mars. And the New Horizons probe is on its way to Pluto. So science continues to advance, despite the lack of manned missions. Frankly these are the ONLY missions we will be able to afford in the foreseeable future. And IMHO that's not such a bad thing.

gary
@gdstark13 - Any validity in argument you had was immediately lost when you made this comment: "No, I have no interest in researching all the links you sent."
@frizzllefry

Wow. So if I throw out a bunch of random links, I could have won the argument? If I had only known...

gary
0 Votes
+ -
Perhaps you guys have missed it but there is a fledgling US commercial space race (manned and unmanned) now in progress. And while I too will miss watching this incredible machine rise into space, it never came close to doing what we were told it could do. Which was provide a low cost "wagon train to low earth orbit" (sorry Gene).
@Hemlock Stones "fledgling US commercial space"

How commercial is it? Not much at all. Much of the funding is by government and it depends upon government contracts to provide services to the government. What do you think Boeing, Lockheed Martin, etc are? They are private companies with government contracts to provide services to the government.

Commercial space? No, just the same old thing with a new name and some added companies.
Right in the middle of the launch window, President Obama scheduled a news conference from the Rose Garden to talk about the unemployment numbers. Ironically, according to MSNBC, 7000 people lost their jobs with the demise of the Shuttle program, a program he no longer supports.
@mhoward@... yep....way to go big O for cancelling Constellation.
Space Shuttle program & Constellation program = Pork

Obama is on the right track here. Besides, those 7000 people can now go to work for the industry that we are told creates hundred of tjousands of jobs thanks to existing tax breaks
0 Votes
+ -
I think this is a temporary hiatus. We will not allow the Chinese and Russians to get too far ahead of us. Moreover, the dream of "Boldly going where no one has gone before" still exists and I am one of those dreamers. The attraction of space exploration is too strong. My only admonition is that we not take our baggage with us into space (our prejudices, political differences, waste of the natural environment, etc.)
0 Votes
+ -
@sjwilcher
they just care about helping out their friends.

It's better to buy your way in by building state of the art multi-million dollar airports that very few use, as opposed to sending people into space.

Space inspires only those interested in pushing beyond their everyday lives, free cash inspires only those interested in getting something for free.

Which one is cheaper?
0 Votes
+ -
It's about time, honestly
arodriguez@... 8th Jul
While I admit the loss of so many jobs is a tragedy, the truth of the matter is that we don't get that much out of the space program. Pride? Come on. Our money is much better spent on earth, finding out how to grow more food in less land and using less resources. When I hear people saying that we need to spend more money in "space travel" I always think to myself "that's somebody who has never been hungry in their life." Look at the amount of kids in the US that go hungry, day after day, or whose meals come from a gas station. And even those of us that have steady income are only a few weeks away from starvation if something happens to our transportation system. That is the kind of research truly worth investing in.
0 Votes
+ -
@arodriguez@... I was at Kennedy last week and attended one of the astronaut lunches (with Mike Mullane). One of the comments Mike made was "people seem to think that we fill a rocket full of cash and just shoot it into space - what they forget is that all of that money is spent here on earth, creating jobs and supporting an industry..." Add to that the fact that the entire budget of NASA is a tiny fraction what is ~already~ spent on things like "finding out how to grow more food in less land" (healthcare, agriculture, etc.), and the argument about not 'wasting' money on space travel is a pretty hollow one.
with less resources. It's called genetically modified foods.

No, the fundamental issue here is too many Americans think government is the solution.
0 Votes
+ -
@fr_gough

Sorry, in the case of space government has always been the solution. We will have a real commercial space program when a private company or consortium uses private money to produce a profit that doesn't depend upon government handouts.
0 Votes
+ -
@kdj
fr_gough 9th Jul
The original post was stating that money spent on the space program should be spent on other things. My point was that the other things he thinks government should solve have already been solved by the private sector. But in his mindset, the only solutions that can ever occur come from the state.
0 Votes
+ -
What we *NEED*...
wolf_z 8th Jul
...is a cheap reusable way to orbit.

Once we have that, the rest is gravy. We need a new type of engine, not dependent on chemical rockets. Something that can reach orbit, come home, and get turned around in a week, not 5 years.

That's what space flight research should be aimed at. Something with high-thrust, high delta-V and high reliability.

Ion drives are great for *space*, but they suck in a gravity well. Come on, we've done miracles everywhere else, it's time to quit jerking around with expensive dangerous rockets. Find something else--*anything* else that can get us to orbit.

If it can reach orbit, it can reach the planets in less than months.

It would be sweet irony if a private inventor finds it where NASA and it's huge expenditures failed, wouldn't it? happy
Now, if we could have the final launch of the military into battle, we could get the economy back to rights...

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix