John Glenn Frustrated on 50th Anniversary of Friendship 7

[dmcowen674]

I am very disappointed with the sad state of the U.S. as far as space travel as well.

It was a huge mistake that Bush made killing off the Shuttle program.

If anything there should have been a next generation.

Instead we spend trillions on false wars in the Middle East.

So sad.


2-20-2012

http://gma.yahoo.com/john-glenn-marks-50th-anniversary-friendship-7-space-145103163--abc-news.html

For John Glenn, who 50 years ago became the first U.S. astronaut to orbit Earth in his Friendship 7 Mercury spacecraft, today is a bittersweet anniversary.

The United States, having retired its aging fleet of space shuttles last year, has no way at the moment to launch its own astronauts.

"It's unseemly to me that here we are, supposedly the world's greatest space-faring nation, and we don't even have a way to get back and forth to our own International Space Station," Glenn said during the celebrations marking the anniversary of Friendship 7.

John Glenn is 90 now, dividing his time between Washington and Ohio after a long career in the U.S. Senate. He and his wife Annie have been married for 69 years, slowed only by the inevitable maladies of age.

Glenn and Scott Carpenter, the two surviving members of the original Mercury 7 group, have been celebrated this weekend at events near Cape Canaveral, in Washington, and in Glenn's native Ohio. They have repeatedly said they hope the nation's space effort is only in a lull.


"John, thank you for your heroic effort and all of you for your heroic effort," said Carpenter in Florida. "But we stand here waiting to be outdone."

 

[Darwin333]

The shuttle program NEEDED to die in order to free up money for the next gen and frankly it was a great idea but ultimately a failure at its intended goals. Then they (as in both sides) decided they didn't want to seriously fund the next gen either.

NASA is controlled WAY to much by ever changing politics. Their mission and funding for that mission, as well as previous unfinished projects, change very rapidly.

Quick question for you, historically has science related funding been higher or lower under Republican presidencies?

 

[dmcowen674]

Quick question for you, historically has science related funding been higher or lower under Republican presidencies?

I don't know.

I guess you are going to say was historically higher under Republican rule but looks like that certainly changed under Bush.

Kennedy had goal to go the moon and we did.

Bush had goal to protect the oil in the Middle East for his rich oil buddies instead of continuing to fund space travel so that is what we got.

 

[monovillage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Glenn

Glenn was one of the five U. S. Senators caught up in the Lincoln Savings and Keating Five Scandal after accepting a $200,000 contribution from Charles Keating. Glenn and Republican Senator John McCain were the only Senators exonerated. The Senate Commission found that Glenn had exercised "poor judgment."

He exercised poor judgement ever since his bathtub incident.

 

[MovingTarget]

The shuttle program NEEDED to die in order to free up money for the next gen and frankly it was a great idea but ultimately a failure at its intended goals. Then they (as in both sides) decided they didn't want to seriously fund the next gen either.

NASA is controlled WAY to much by ever changing politics. Their mission and funding for that mission, as well as previous unfinished projects, change very rapidly.

Quick question for you, historically has science related funding been higher or lower under Republican presidencies?

This. As long as NASA's mission keeps changing between administrations, it isn't going anywhere. Considering what NASA is capable of doing, it is hugely underfunded. We held onto the shuttle for too long without developing a replacement - very shortsighted. We need to rely one more than one launch system for cargo/crew, because that lack of redundancy is what got us into this situation.

 

[Ausm]

The shuttle program NEEDED to die in order to free up money for the next gen and frankly it was a great idea but ultimately a failure at its intended goals. Then they (as in both sides) decided they didn't want to seriously fund the next gen either.

NASA is controlled WAY to much by ever changing politics. Their mission and funding for that mission, as well as previous unfinished projects, change very rapidly.

Quick question for you, historically has science related funding been higher or lower under Republican presidencies?

Ronnie Raygun spent cash like a drunk'in sailor on Military Technology.

 

[Darwin333]

Ronnie Raygun spent cash like a drunk'in sailor on Military Technology.

Neil DeGrasse Tyson explains it much better than I could:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7Q8UvJ1wvk

 

[Darwin333]

I don't know.

I guess you are going to say was historically higher under Republican rule but looks like that certainly changed under Bush.

Kennedy had goal to go the moon and we did.

Bush had goal to protect the oil in the Middle East for his rich oil buddies instead of continuing to fund space travel so that is what we got.

How did Clinton with NASA?

 

[Infohawk]

The decline of the US Space Program parallels the relative decline of the US.

 

[davmat787]

The decline of the US Space Program parallels the relative decline of the US.

As far as the pursuit of pure scientific knowledge in regards to the universe, I am not so sure the lack of a current space shuttle hampers that as much as it may seem. Doesn't the space telescopes like the Hubble, Keppler, Chandra X-Ray, etc that allow us to look into other galaxies and planets provide far more bang for the buck than the Shuttle? If you look at the Shuttle missions, it seemed like a lot of them were to ferry supplies and people to the ISS, or repair satellites, or what have you, but not necessarily the pure pursuit of science like the dedicated space telescopes.

Don't get me wrong, it would certainly be nice to have a new shuttle program in development, but right now with the current economic climate, is it best to devote funds to a new shuttle, or to continue developing new space telescopes, that greatly increase in capabilities every time one is launched?

The Shuttle is much more glamorous and thus had more media going for it than the telescopes I mention, but which really provides more value for science?

 

[MovingTarget]

As far as the pursuit of pure scientific knowledge in regards to the universe, I am not so sure the lack of a current space shuttle hampers that as much as it may seem. Doesn't the space telescopes like the Hubble, Keppler, Chandra X-Ray, etc that allow us to look into other galaxies and planets provide far more bang for the buck than the Shuttle? If you look at the Shuttle missions, it seemed like a lot of them were to ferry supplies and people to the ISS, or repair satellites, or what have you, but not necessarily the pure pursuit of science like the dedicated space telescopes.

Don't get me wrong, it would certainly be nice to have a new shuttle program in development, but right now with the current economic climate, is it best to devote funds to a new shuttle, or to continue developing new space telescopes, that greatly increase in capabilities every time one is launched?

The Shuttle is much more glamorous and thus had more media going for it than the telescopes I mention, but which really provides more value for science?

I don't want to put words in Infohawk's mouth, but I don't think that he is talking about the shuttle program specifically. If you look at things like the gutting of planetary science budgets, pulling out of the joint ExoMars mission, scaling down of the space station, the cost overruns of the JWST, the lack of certain Pu isotopes for RTG-powered missions to the outer Solar systems, lack of development into things like nuclear-electric propulsion, etc. etc......you begin to see a patturn. The space program of today is capable of so much more....

 

[davmat787]

I don't want to put words in Infohawk's mouth, but I don't think that he is talking about the shuttle program specifically. If you look at things like the gutting of planetary science budgets, pulling out of the joint ExoMars mission, scaling down of the space station, the cost overruns of the JWST, the lack of certain Pu isotopes for RTG-powered missions to the outer Solar systems, lack of development into things like nuclear-electric propulsion, etc. etc......you begin to see a patturn. The space program of today is capable of so much more....

True, after I made that post I wondered if I should have even quoted InfoHawk, his post just got me thinking really.

I agree with much of what you say, it is very true that the space program is capable of so much more. It must be very frustrating for them to plan any long term programs when their budget is consistently up in the air.

Do you think the Shuttle provides as much bang for the buck scientifically as the space telescopes? Might not be a fair question since the roles of each are so different. I just think a lot of people over look the value of these space telescopes, and sometimes put too much value on the Shuttle.

 

[RedChief]

In 1960, at what really was the start of the space program, when we put a man on the moon within 10 years, entitlement spending was ~25% of the federal budget. So 75% of the budget went to programs like NASA, or the military. Today entitlements account for 70% of the budget. We just don't have the money anymore...

quick edit: while I'm a big supporter of NASA, I believe the shuttle program was a failure overall. The idea of doing a passenger vehicle combined with a heavy lift vehicle was flawed. The shuttles were never able to have the quick turnaround they were envisioned to have. In the long run, we would have been better off having rockets dedicated to heavy lifting while having a separate vehicle for just astronaut work.

 

[MovingTarget]

True, after I made that post I wondered if I should have even quoted InfoHawk, his post just got me thinking really.

I agree with much of what you say, it is very true that the space program is capable of so much more. It must be very frustrating for them to plan any long term programs when their budget is consistently up in the air.

Do you think the Shuttle provides as much bang for the buck scientifically as the space telescopes? Might not be a fair question since the roles of each are so different. I just think a lot of people over look the value of these space telescopes, and sometimes put too much value on the Shuttle.

Fair enough. To answer your question though, I don't think that the shuttle provided the scientific bang for our buck as the Hubble did. It baffles me that the JWST almost got cancelled, again. That being said, I do think that manned transportation systems are essential to our space program. We should already be on shuttle v2 or v3 by now. It promised cheap, routine access to space along with a large cargo/crew capacity only to deliver on the latter. I don't want to poo-poo the shuttle's accomplishments...far from it. It was great for the 80s/90s, but it should have been retired in favor of an updated and more capable successor long ago.

 

[Wreckem]

In 1960, at what really was the start of the space program, when we put a man on the moon within 10 years, entitlement spending was ~25% of the federal budget. So 75% of the budget went to programs like NASA, or the military. Today entitlements account for 70% of the budget. We just don't have the money anymore...

Under Obamas new proposed budget which will never see a vote,

60% goes to social security, medicare, and military pensions.
27% goes to military spending(the single largest expenditure)
13% goes to everything else

 

[MovingTarget]

In 1960, at what really was the start of the space program, when we put a man on the moon within 10 years, entitlement spending was ~25% of the federal budget. So 75% of the budget went to programs like NASA, or the military. Today entitlements account for 70% of the budget. We just don't have the money anymore...

quick edit: while I'm a big supporter of NASA, I believe the shuttle program was a failure overall. The idea of doing a passenger vehicle combined with a heavy lift vehicle was flawed. The shuttles were never able to have the quick turnaround they were envisioned to have. In the long run, we would have been better off having rockets dedicated to heavy lifting while having a separate vehicle for just astronaut work.

I don't want to comment on the can of worms you opened with your first paragraph, but I will address the second. I can see why you thought the shuttle program was a failure. It simply did not deliver on turnaround time or cost. However, I see no problem combining crew capability with heavy lift. It is convenient to be able to do certain things with a single dedicated mission and not two. The problem arises, like it did with the shuttle, when that is your only system to access space. Heavy-lift systems simply don't launch very frequently. If you want continual access to space, you should have a complementary system designed to launch more frequently with a medium or lower class booster. Can you imagine what a modern Gemini system would look like?

 

[nyker96]

go glenn, what a hero!

 

[Darwin333]

In 1960, at what really was the start of the space program, when we put a man on the moon within 10 years, entitlement spending was ~25% of the federal budget. So 75% of the budget went to programs like NASA, or the military. Today entitlements account for 70% of the budget. We just don't have the money anymore...

quick edit: while I'm a big supporter of NASA, I believe the shuttle program was a failure overall. The idea of doing a passenger vehicle combined with a heavy lift vehicle was flawed. The shuttles were never able to have the quick turnaround they were envisioned to have. In the long run, we would have been better off having rockets dedicated to heavy lifting while having a separate vehicle for just astronaut work.

NASA's budget is currently 18.5 billion (FY2011) which amounts to one half of one percent of our budget. Indexed to inflation during the 60's there where 5 years that we spent roughly double what we are now (in dollars, not percentage of budget) and the rest where far below double.

I can think of a bunch of bullshit programs in just the last 5 years that cost billions of dollars, just think of what NASA could do with a measly (relatively speaking) extra 12 billion a year?

 

[dmcowen674]

NASA's budget is currently 18.5 billion

That's so sad

We don't deserve to be in space anymore.

That's reserved for first world countries.

The U.S. has fallen to 2nd world status by design mainly by Republicans but Dems didn't do anything to to rectify it.

 

[Vic Vega]

...

 

[Darwin333]

I don't want to comment on the can of worms you opened with your first paragraph, but I will address the second. I can see why you thought the shuttle program was a failure. It simply did not deliver on turnaround time or cost. However, I see no problem combining crew capability with heavy lift. It is convenient to be able to do certain things with a single dedicated mission and not two. The problem arises, like it did with the shuttle, when that is your only system to access space. Heavy-lift systems simply don't launch very frequently. If you want continual access to space, you should have a complementary system designed to launch more frequently with a medium or lower class booster. Can you imagine what a modern Gemini system would look like?

We should be able to easily make a launch system to get people into orbit. We send crap up there all the time, we got all the way to the freaking moon in the 60's when we didn't even know the effect of 0G on the body and knew dickall about rockets, and we have 50 years of experience doing it. Getting people into orbit should be a freaking cakewalk to us but for some reason it isn't.

However, imho, we should be pushing boundaries that we have yet to push. That is what science does after all, we should have a clear goal and clear funding in place and ideally it wouldn't change as politicians change. That to seams impossible, Obama said FU to Bush's plan for NASA and I believe the Republican frontrunner (this week at least) is saying he will say FU to Obama's plan for NASA. That is absolutely no way to run a scientific endeavor that can take as long and as many resources to achieve as the ones NASA pursues.

Sadly this is a general trend in the US when it comes to the "big" stuff in science. Remember the Superconducting Super Collider? It would have been 5 times as powerful as CERN but we decided to cancel it and let Europe take the lead in particle science.

 

[Darwin333]

That's so sad

We don't deserve to be in space anymore.

That's reserved for first world countries.

The U.S. has fallen to 2nd world status by design mainly by Republicans but Dems didn't do anything to to rectify it.

Republicans are actually pretty good on the science front (aside from the few subjects that have political issues like stem cells). As the video I posted stated so well:

Above all else there is a truth that no Republican wants to die poor. Being leaders in science is a huge part of what has made this nation what it is since the industrial revolution and they sort of understand that.

Bush actually increased NASA's budget while Clinton decreased it.

 

[Vic Vega]

...

 

[Darwin333]

Don't you dare bring logic and reason into this thread.

This thread is for bashing Bush and Republicans, didn't you know?

Shrug, they haven't funded it at anywhere near a level that I would think acceptable, I just prefer to use facts in my arguments.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

NASA is capable of a lot of things. However, we need to know what it is we want out of the space program. Many scientists have even said that robots can do the science cheaper and faster than manned missions can. If we honestly want "science" then not having manned missions is the way to go. Humans are costly to lift into orbit due to all the supplies they require (air, water, food, exercise equipment, etc). So do you want the science as cheaply and efficiently as possible, or do you want a costlier program to support the prestige and emotional benefits of having the ability to send men into space?

Personally, I would like us to retain the manned space flight ability. However I also realize it's not because it's more efficient or cheaper.