Re: Space Shuttle Grounding....depressing....

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:48:47 +0000 (UTC), kruegerb76@xxxxxxxxxxx
wrote:

>What I'd like to know is: how many people think a manned mission to
>Mars is where NASA's time and effort should be going?

Me! Me! Me!

>If you get right down to it, what do you think should be NASA's
>priority right now?

NASA has about the same budget, adjusted for inflation, as it did
during the Apollo years. In 1961, we launched our first suborbital
flight; the following eight years saw pioneering unmanned missions,
our first orbital flight, our first flight with multiple astronauts,
our first spacewalk, our first docking, and the landing on the moon.

NASA has done some good stuff in the 35 years since the first moonwalk
-- the space shuttle, Skylab (really the last gasp of the Apollo era),
the Hubble, a variety of successful unmanned missions, some of which
have made fundamental discoveries. Still, there's a great gulf between
NASA's accomplishments in the first decade of manned flight and those
of the last 35.

Some say, and I suspect they're right, that the problem with NASA is
that after the moon landings it was no longer goal-directed. It
answers now to constituencies; its priorities are bureaucratic and,
frequently, unimaginative -- let's build another space station bigger
than the last two, let's make another expensive fix to keep the
shuttle, essentially an experimental craft that was never an
economical means to get material into orbit, flying long after it
should have been replaced by the next generation of manned spacecraft.

NASA's primary job should be exploration and experimentation, the big
stuff and the pioneering stuff that require the full resources of the
country. Let's let private enterprise handle the by-now routine tasks
of launching satellites and the like. NASA needs big goals if it's to
avoid squandering energy on unimaginative, unproductive, essentially
bureaucratic programs. It's like a dog chasing its tail.

That big goal -- it fairly screams "I'm the goal" -- is a manned
mission to Mars. More moon missions at this point would be
International Space Station redux -- a great effort, a great risk, a
great achievement to do something that's already been done.

And let's spend some of the money that would go to programs that don't
really require or benefit from human participation, such as lifting
large objects into orbit or performing experiments that could just as
well be done by machine, on scientifically productive unmanned probes.
In other words, let's stop being timid and re-create the highly
productive, highly focused mix of activities we had in the 60's
instead of frittering the budget away on the likes of the space
station and the shuttle.

And while we're at it, why did they stop work on the SSTO, which could
slash the cost of lifting payload into orbit? It seems like a logical
step, one that could bring us closer to the day when space travel
becomes as safe, practical, and economical as air travel. We should
also proceed with the long-overdue restoration of the Apollo-style
crew and cargo capabilities that's already in the works, and nuclear
engines for long-haul trips such as the journey to Mars. Then, once
we've perfected the structural materials, on to the space elevator!





--
Josh

"You know I could run for governor but I'm basically
a media creation. I've never done anything. I've
worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But
that's not the kind of profile you have to have
to get elected to public office." - George W. Bush

.

Relevant Pages