Farewell to the Shuttle Program

[ichy]

LOL that is a bigger waste even than the shuttle :thumbsdown:

The ISS is not worth the money, BUT assembling it did teach us a huge amount about working and building things in space. We ought to be putting that knowledge to use sending manned expeditions further out into the solar system, but unfortunately it looks like that will not be the case.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I mourn the loss of a US manned space program primarily, however the shuttle will be mourned because it was "cool" and my childhood memories. As far as tangible benefits, it did teach us a lot about space and how realisitic reusable ships are. It's sad that the US government doesn't fund NASA enough though, because that is the reason that the shuttle kept us in LEO. They didn't have the money to do more, even though the shuttle was meant to ferry us to/from a station as a launching platform to the Moon, Mars, and further.

 

[JimmiG]

It really is the end of an era. The US is no longer the superpower it once was, able to support or justify such an expensive program. One can hope that Russia, China or even Brazil rises to the task, but it does seem that life down on earth is complex and expensive enough without space flight. After all, if you're going to study planets, Earth is as good as any other planet.

 

[Linflas]

It really is the end of an era. The US is no longer the superpower it once was, able to support or justify such an expensive program. One can hope that Russia, China or even Brazil rises to the task, but it does seem that life down on earth is complex and expensive enough without space flight. After all, if you're going to study planets, Earth is as good as any other planet.

That "expensive" program is .6% of the current US budget. At it's height in 1966 it took a whopping 4.41% of the budget. These are the percentages for NASA as a whole, not just for the manned space flight programs.

 

[ichy]

It really is the end of an era. The US is no longer the superpower it once was, able to support or justify such an expensive program.

We could EASILY fund such a program IF the political will was there. At the height of the Apollo program NASA consumed 4.5% of the federal budget for a couple of years. Right now it's under 1%. It's not that we don't have the money, it's that we lack the desire to do great things.

 

[ichy]

This column put it rather well IMO. Manned spaceflight has never been and shouldn't be just about science. If getting the most scientific bang for your buck is what you want then sending people into space is retarded.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/21/space-shuttle-programme

The real science done by Nasa has not involved humans. We have sent robots to places humans could never have survived and peered into the far depths of the cosmos, back to the early moments of the big bang, with instruments far more capable than our human senses, all for a fraction of what it costs to send a living, breathing person into Earth's orbit. The first rovers went to Mars for what it would cost to make a movie about sending Bruce Willis to Mars.

But science is not the real goal of human space travel. As I argued over a decade ago to the House Science Committee when Buzz Aldrin and I were asked to testify before their subcommittee on space exploration, we send humans into space for adventure. Astronauts inspire us by their courage and skill, and not least by the fact that they risk death every time they step into a spacecraft.

I personally have no problems with this fact. I believe the future of the human species will eventually be in space, and that we will one day colonise other planets. But we have to be honest about this goal.

 

[Linflas]

We choose to go to the moon

 

[Wag]

This makes me feel sad. I think science is going to take a big hit in US schools because of this.

I remember growing up and how I wanted to be an astronaut- now this won't happen for kids because astronauts don't exist.

 

[Kadarin]

It's not that we don't have the money, it's that we lack the desire to do great things.

Correct. The only things we as a nation care about are the next election, and short term profit/stock value. And if you're Republican, then you care about tax cuts for the very rich.

 

[OlafSicky]

The ISS is not worth the money, BUT assembling it did teach us a huge amount about working and building things in space. We ought to be putting that knowledge to use sending manned expeditions further out into the solar system, but unfortunately it looks like that will not be the case.

Yes it did teach us about space construction but the guys who learned by doing this stuff are around 50 years old and are unemployed. That knowledge will be lost, just like all the stuff NASA learned in the 60 's. So my point is still valid it was all a giant welfare project, and a waste of money. Imagine if NASA did nothing but work on renewable resources for 50 years, we would be living in a different world right now. Truly a futuristic world, instead we have tang and some cool pictures from space.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

This column put it rather well IMO. Manned spaceflight has never been and shouldn't be just about science. If getting the most scientific bang for your buck is what you want then sending people into space is retarded.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/jul/21/space-shuttle-programme

I see his point.

However, robots cannot adapt to changing situations (admittedly a lot of those are due to the complexities required to support human life, but none the less). Even more importantly, we need to establish an off world base/colony if we really care about humanity surviving the next extinction level event. Ideally 2 of them (moon and Mars). Hell, consider it a matter of national security and put it under the military's budget for all I care.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by ichy
It's not that we don't have the money, it's that we lack the desire to do great things.

Correct.

The only things we as a nation care about are the next election, and short term profit/stock value.

And if you're Republican, then you care about tax cuts for the very rich.

Great things =! Profit

 

[OverVolt]

it cost $10,000 per kg to launch something into space, mostly from the energy costs.

It's not really the end of an era in terms of technology. It marks the new age of conservationism. The new tech race for the superpowers will be not who can burn oil the fastest like it was in the 1950's, but who can get the most done while burning it.

This is a good thing, because it means we are heading in the right direction. Developing technology and science won't stop, it just has a different goal now: conservation.