Since watching the Discovery series "When We Left Earth" over the past few weeks, I have really had my interest in NASA rekindled. For those of you who did not watch, it chronicled the different stages of the space program. From the Gemini missions, to Apollo missions, to the shuttle missions of today. Well, in a couple of years NASA will be moving forward to a new stage and era in it's space exploration. The shuttle program is being left behind and NASA will be moving forward with the new Constellation Program. It's back to rockets and capsules, with a goal to return to the moon and beyond. There are many different viewpoints on this upcoming era of NASA, as there always have been about past and present NASA endeavors. While reading about the Constellation Program, I saw a few articles about Obama's thoughts on NASA. The gist (that's "just" for the escape goats and standard barriers here) of it is that Obama proposes delaying the Constellation program for five years and thus grounding NASA's manned space flights during that time. He proposes using the funding for education instead during that time period. I personally would rather see NASA push forward into this new era of space exploration. However, I do question NASA sometimes and wonder if they truly do things the best way, or if government should even be the primary funder of our space program. However, grounding our only official space program from making manned missions for five years seems extreme. A few years back, the "X-Prize" generated lots of private sector research in space exploration. It was a 10 million dollar prize for the first group to reach orbital altitude. The prize was awarded by a private foundation. Private industries competing spent more than 100 million dollars in efforts to win the prize. Studies show that since then, over 1.5 billion dollars has been spent by private industry on spaceflight development and research. A few things to consider.... Does NASA operate as efficiently as possible? Are there ways to get the private sector involved that would stimulate more progress in space exploration? Or should our space program remain government controlled? Lastly, do you feel it would be ok for NASA to delay manned space missions for five years?
Good write up. I agree there is much better good taken then not needed resulting from the space program. Taking 5 years to reshape should be a positive if in taking that time to perfect the goal and the logistics for implementing that goal. What we have taken from the program is only a scratch at how space exploration can contribute to our economic communities and how they grow with their own contributions to furthering our society. Categories outlining the consumer “Spinoffs” from space exploration. 1.Computer Technology 2.Consumer/Home/Recreation 3.Environmental and Resource Management 4.Health and Medicine 5.Industrial Productivity/Manufacturing Technology 6.Public Safety 7.Transportation http://www.thespaceplace.com/nasa/spinoffs.html#chr
I think considering serious cuts to space exploration makes sense at this time; our country really seems to be on the ropes. I also think cutting back on foreign affairs should be seriously considered. I'd really like to see a lot of changes in the way our government works.
In my job, we deal with some of the sub-groups inside NASA. Overall i think NASA is a valuable asset to the US. The the scientific potential is limitless. However, the civil servant program is killing the place. An example, for one of their non-satellite programs that we have encountered the have 2 NASA Engineers who's sole job function (which they get paid fulltime) is to walk into a room housing the experiment and record the humidity and temperature. That is it. They only have to do this during work hours.
Great thread and I agree, the series was eye opening. Brought back a lot of memories for me. I do think NASA should continue in their current missions and there is probably hundreds of scientific/medical benefits yet to be gained, not the least of which will be deep space exploration. However, the two things I see wrong have been alluded to already. For one, there is an inherent lack of efficiency in government, and the private sector is always more effective. However, for security/safety issues, it's probably best/safer for the government to be in charge of the program. The second problem is something that has creeped into the space program more than once already. An institutional attitude that caters to time tables, intellectual superiority, and funding($$), and causes accidents like Challenger, Columbia, and even the Hubble malfunctions to occur. It's almost like they fall asleep, and it takes a catastrophic event to shake them out of their complacency. It seems to me that being a one country race might be a factor. Who do we have to best except ourselves? I don't know how to make it run better, but it seems to be one government department that actually records success. Perhaps Joe Public needs more info about how it benefits him directly, because right now it just seems to be an expensive fireworks show. On that note, I hope to see a launch someday. Anybody seen one in person?
Government must pursue space exploration for the time being because there is not profit in it for industry, yet. That time will surely come. The new world was found and first explored by explorers traveling on governent funds. In time, it became a profitable enterprise to go to America as a business or an individual. Until then, the government must play its role. Accidents are inherent in a cutting-edge, dangerous business like space travel. To make it perfectly safe would render it ineffective in terms of time, money, and efficiency. There is a proper balance to be sought here. It's nothing new. A lot of test pilots died to make air travel as safe as it is today. A lot of europeans died to explore America.
I didn't even realize that we were scrapping the Space Shuttle (in two years, right?) and returning back to the system we used 30 years ago -- basically we are returning to the Apollo system we used during the late 60's and early 70's. My question is what do people think about this decision? Obviously, it kinda sucks that we aren't going to a next generation of spacecraft, and instead are returning to last generation spacecraft. However, we do know that the Apollo system worked when it came to putting a man on the moon, which it did six times (something the Space Shuttle never did), and with NASA's return to the Apollo-style system, we expect to put a man on the moon in ten years (it will be the first time man has been on the moon since 1972), and obviously that will be very inspiring to see man land on the moon again.
One small step backwards for NASA, one giant leap forward for mankind? The next big goal is to put a man on Mars, right? Wasn't this part of what the Space Shuttle was designed for? Isn't this a long-term goal of the new Apollo-style Constellation missions as well?
I don't believe space travel should be perfectly safe and didn't imply such. The disasters/mistakes I alluded to didn't come from unknown performance issues, they came from ignoring performance issues. NASA has admitted this attitude in their mistakes with the shuttle program. They seek to make it better each time, but the $$ involved seems to always bring pressure to ignore known safety issues. It is a possibility the complacency could creep in again, and I see that as something to be addressed.
I have and they are UNBELIEVABLE! Seen a ton of day ones but the night launch I saw was breath taking!! We were on the water right across the Indian River from the launch! It was a memory that I will never forget! The pictures don't do it justice but here ya geaux!
