The decision made by some in the 70's to pursue a space shuttle instead of deep space exploration vehicle signalled an inward looking NASA and a NASA that failed to capture the imagination. Now we have the wierdness that is upon us now. We have a Democrat president that believes in big government for everything except the military and space travel, basically handing space travel over to private business.
Somehow, I really believe that he thought they would fail.
Big business wouldn't have that and won the day.
So now we won't have the embarrassing spectacle of US astronauts riding on Russian spacecraft. But the future isn't any brighter...soon we'll have US astronauts riding on Google, IBM or Ford sponsored spacecraft. This would be so funny if I wasn't seeing it with my own two eyes.
May 27, 2012. The day that NASA died.
Read about Space X here.
Died way before then. When Zero mandated NASA "reach out to the Muslim world" that was the headshot IMO.
ReplyDeleteStep one has always been getting to orbit. The Shuttle conceptually as a bus to get to orbit was an important development. It never really was cost effective and they went with the cheap and less safe version to boot. The next step was a more cost effective vehicle to orbit with the eventual goal of single stage to orbit. Sadly the X-30 was too ambitious; however, the program got scaled way back in the X-43 and X-51. We're simply not doing enough basic research.
ReplyDeleteThe X-33 was also canceled. The problem wasn't the Shuttle per se but rather retiring it without a replacement. Certainly what looks like we're going to get is various private companies going to orbit cheaply, at least far cheaper than NASA can manage. I think there's half a dozen US companies going to orbit right now.
Exploration isn't dead, hell the Mars Rover is still going after 3,0000 days, and NASA was never going to remain the lead agency for getting into orbit. The biggest problem with NASA is decades of too little funding. There's just very little vision for the future in this country and a whole lot of lets not wasted money in space when we need new schools or whatever idiot mantra gets thrown around.
Frankly losing the lead in orbit and the rest of the solar system is entirely about US President's not being able to sell why it's critically important and letting Congress continually decrease NASA funding till it's basically a total joke. There's no vision in this country for almost any long term project from bridges and rails to space.
you're wrong there. NASA had a choice to make. they could have gone with BIG APOLLO to do the shuttle type missions to the space station and still had a vehicle capable of going to the moon and beyond or they could pick the SHUTTLE.
ReplyDeletethey chose the shuttle and everything else...well at least up to the constellation was an effort to correct that horrendous mistake. missions to the moon were cheaper than the shuttle.
so yeah. its funny but the future of manned space flight lies with the USAF and private business. NASA will soon be mothballed because it won't be able to justify its existence when private business can do it better and cheaper.
NASA can survive a whole crew of astronauts going up in flames. I wonder if a private company can?
ReplyDeleteprobably alot easier than NASA ever could. think about this. NASA has such a strong, we don't lose anyone attitude, that being a test pilot in the 1950's was more dangerous than being a NASA astronaut.
ReplyDeletethink about military aviation. its alot more dangerous than being a pilot. if a civilian coroporation can survive airplane crashes filled with civilian mothers and children then it can surely survive astronauts dying.
I consider this to be an exciting time for human spaceflight. It's not just SpaceX running a space taxi service. There is Bigelow Aerospace with their realistic space station plans. And only in the last month or so Planetary Resources has announced its plans to mine asteroids in ten years.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I find the current crop of commercial spaceflight outfits to be far more viable than ones in the past. These guys are have big ideas and the cash on hand to make it happen. Before, I get the impression it was more the odd aerospace or military type without the resources to get their experimental designs off the ground.
Honestly, I find the opinion that a state-sponsored space program has to be leading the way to be limited. Its not like the UK's Royal Navy explored and colonized North America. It was the people with the money and the will to make it happen.
uh if you're talking about Columbus discovering America then yeah that was state sponsored. if you're talkiing Vikings then the chief on that expedition acted as the government.
ReplyDeletewe have a proud tradition of state sponsored space travel. because you're not American you might not understand it but because i am, i cringe at the thought of a multi-national company suddenly weidling power in space.
so we agree to disagree.
i think taking the "LEO" business out of the hands of nasa, making it cheaper too boot, can only be a good thing. It allows NASA to focus on "blue sky" frontier expanding science & exploration.
ReplyDeleteflawed thinking. if they can't do low earth right then why should i believe they can do deep space.
ReplyDeletethis is another liberal fuck up that's going to bite a great nation and make us more like Europe. leading from behind indeed.
hay solomon, they can do "leo" right, but not cheap, after 50 years i think they've proofed that. Better let private enterprise take over, allowingt them to focus where their best, on the frontiers.
DeleteIs there anything that those damned "liberals" can't be blamed for ?
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry. Was Barry not the one who cancelled NASA's manned follow on effort to the Shuttle? Was Barry not the one who mandated NASA (fucking NASA of all people) to "reach out to the Muslim world? If liberals want to stop being blamed for stupid things liberal should stop doing stupid things.
Deleteif you agree with there policies then no, they can't be blamed for a thing. if you disagree then yes.
ReplyDeletewhich side do you come down on Huron.
No, I find unfortunately that each individual circumstance is a lot more nuanced. Rarely black and white, almost always shades of grey. I'm not entirely sure what "Liberal" ideas are (I think we actually mean "progressive") but I wouldn't reject any idea out of hand if it works.
ReplyDeleteFrom your past postings I would have assumed that you welcome government stepping back, providing seed money (the COTS program) and private enterprise getting involved.
interesting. when the government used private contractors to supplement the war effort, liberals had a problem with it. i'm talking about cooking and cleaning. liberals still had a problem with that. when private contractors were used in a military role liberals had a problem with that (me too) but that's besides the point.
ReplyDeletethe point is this. conservatives believe that the government is suppose to perform a few limited things.
national defense being one of them and i consider space exploration national defense just done much higher off the ground.
instead of government performing one of the few roles spelled out in the constitution, i'm watching my government ignore its basic responsibilities and attempting to interject itself into issues best left to the individual or the states.
that's my problem with civilian space travel. question. are you ready to privatize the military? let lockheed martin be in charge of the Marines, boeing in charge of the air force, general dynamics the army and bath ironworks in charge of the navy?
if you say no then you really do understand my issue with this civilian leadership in space.
if you can't do low earth orbit cheap AND right then how the hell are we going to do deep space?
ReplyDeleteit won't fly. failure at the simple indicates failure at the complicated. the NASA culture is broken, its administration silly, and its future in doubt.
That's the rather the point isn't it? The first step is always going to be getting to orbit. We as a nation chose to not fund a follow on to the Shuttle although we still have funding X-43 and X-51 so eventually we might get single stage to orbit.
ReplyDeleteIf NASA buys a rocket from a private company or buys the slot from a US company on their rocket it's not really a large difference. The US still has the launching capacity. It's when they buy slots on Russian, Chinese, or other rockets I personally lose my mind.
We took away NASA's central role in launching off the earth when we didn't fund the follow on to the Shuttle. We had two different concepts in the X-30 and X-33 and instead of putting the money into either or something else for a Shuttle replacement we cancelled everything and that was under both Clinton and Bush.
That aside at some point we'll have single stage to orbit and it will never be limited to just NASA. The problem is national lack of vision as expressed in the NASA budget. In the 1960's the NASA budget was around 4% of federal spending, in the 1980's and 90's it was around 1% and now it's .5%. This nation seems to have other priorities.
NASA actually has a fairly reasonable list of exploration missions in the pipeline. If they're going to do any big projects they first need to get to orbit in a cost effective manner. Since we as a nation are not funding it what we're getting is what private enterprise can come up with instead.
This isn't a new trend. Private companies have been going to orbit for decades now. Hell Pegasus is 22 years old and it's what NASA uses to test the X-43/51.
I don't think NASA dying in favor of private buisness is necessarily a bad thing. Having a government monopoly on anything, be it healthcare, railroads or space launch, stifles competition, limits ideas, and drives costs up. Could you imagine what air travel would be like if it was the FAA's responsibility to not only regulate air travel but also design and build all the airplanes we buy? Private business will be able to do LEO access more efficiently and cheaply than NASA ever could, and eventually they will be able to do deep space better as well. NASA is too encumbered with bureaucratic paralysis to be relevant any more.
ReplyDeleteCase in point: look at the video feeds of NASA and SPACEX mission control rooms during the Dragon docking. Spacex's mission control rooms is filled with new computers and looks very modern. NASA's control room, however, is filled with ancient, 80's looking equipment. That's what happens when bureaucracy becomes so large that it inhibits you from accomplishing your primary mission.
Don't worry Sol. You Yanks can pinch this off us like you did with the jet engine, computer, Harrier, etc. etc. or anything else a bit complicated.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.bis.gov.uk/ukspaceagency/news-and-events/2011/May/confidence-in-skylon
that's just the shuttle 2.0....you can redesign, use new fuel to power it but it is what it is. low earth orbit isn't the holy grail. the moon and getting a base is. going to mars is. but low earth orbit is so 1960ish.
ReplyDeleteShuttle? Just a shuttle? Really?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYos3J_8D5Q
When somebody points you in a new direction explore a bit. At the moment you are talking out of your backside. The bit between here and space is the difficult bit. Rather like getting the landing force across the beach. Sea simple. Land simple. The interface is difficult.
you're being a dumbass. sorry cowboy but i'm not impressed by European bullshit. kiss my ass with that trash.
ReplyDeletewe have several other projects that were started and abandonded that were far more exotic and showed far more promise than that British piece of shit.
fuck you and get off my page dumbass.
NASA killed itself. The space shuttle was supposed to be dramatically reduce the cost of getting in to space by being launched up to 55 times a year and that's what it was sold to congress to do. Instead it was a money pit that peaked at 9 launches a year and cost more than single use rockets. It was NASA's catastrophic failure to manage this program that killed them.
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase Bastiat, what is seen is the shuttle putting things into space but what is not seen is all the projects that were eliminated to free up funding for the shuttle and all the other projects that were not feasible to fund because the cost per pound into orbit was too high and all of the other projects that didn't even come up since all the 'talent' was absorbed with making the shuttle work. NASA didn't do cool things because all their time and effort was put into making their dog of a shuttle work which of course led to NASA putting all their time and effort into explaining why their shuttle killed people.
All of the innovation in getting into space is either in the private sector or the USAF. A real space policy would dynamite NASA and recreate it, not be an attempt to relive the past with "moon" crossed out and "mars" written in.
EXTREMELY WELL SAID! the only thing left out is the importance of space and national defense but you covered that by talking about the USAF's role in space.
ReplyDeleteyeah. we need to take NASA down to the river. hold it underwater till it stops kicking and start all over.
NASAs problem is its obsession with putting people into space.
ReplyDeleteThe armed forces need low orbit for communications and spying.
Science needs deep deep space for research.
NASA built a manned but unarmed station for "research" of deeply dubious value.