We cannot abandon the space program...even with problems

Several sources in the last day or so, especially today (including hearing a rant by Tony Kornheiser on his radio show, saying we shouldn't be exploring space right now, especially with multiple wars on-going, etc.) with the news that the Shuttle (actually they are "orbiters", not "shuttles", but that is NASA's nit to pick) program is again on hold because of problems with the foam insulation that is believed to have been the cause of the last major NASA disaster in the "shuttle" program.

Unfortunately, even with a layoff of over 2 years, and even with much re-engineering, the shuttle team has been unable to eliminate the 'threat' of the foam insulation that surrounds the external fuel tank from potentially impacting the relatively fragile orbiter's wings or other important surfaces.

The ranting of people like Kornheiser, and the editorials of some (including, if memory serves, an editorial in the Washington Times, but I could be wrong on the source, so please don't hate on the Times if it wasn't their opinion) that complain that going to the moon, and then later onto Mars is a waste and should be abandoned.

These people are wrong. Period. End of sentence. Fact.

We must keep exploring space, though it will never be completely safe to do so, and it will also never be cheap enough for some that would rather spend money on cash give-aways here on Earth. Kornheiser is no fan of the Bush admin. He was 'in the tank' for John Kerry all the way baby. Tony K. still can't figure out how a complete moron like George W. Bush can be President. Tony K. is one who rants on the failings of others, complains because someone doesn't respect Mr. Tony and give him all of the hand-outs that a hollywood star and their entourage would expect, and then turns down heart felt requests to show up at a charity event, instead choosing to maybe toss a few dollars of disposable tax-deductable charitable contributions away instead. He'd much prefer to toss money into taxes to be used to handle all of the worlds needs so that the elites could feel like they've accomplished something without really having to do anything.

Tony K.'s a big fan of Dylan, the Stones, U-2, and many other preachy, folksy groups and artists, even though they don't particularly fit the "old guy radio" image of artists like the Drifters, the Byrds, and others that Tony K. can rant on about because he grew up hearing them.

Yet, even as Tony K. ranted on, he was reminded by his co-host that back in the days of the original space race that no less than John F. Kennedy told us:


We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

It is for these reasons that I regard the decision last year to shift our efforts in space from low to high gear as among the most important decisions that will be made during my incumbency in the office of the Presidency.


When reminded that we spent hundreds of millions, if not billions of dollars going to the moon in the middle of the Vietnam war, I suppose Tony K. paused slightly, but it's hard to tell as a radio listener.

He seemed to go back to his point quickly that we are -- in his opinion -- wasting money on a space station that is not really doing anything, and we are wasting money going into space at all and should instead spend money on other priorities, including armor for troops, and more.

Far be it from me to say that we shouldn't be spending money on armor for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. We can and should be doing that, but we also should be doing "these other things" of going to the moon, and beyond.

Like the editorial I read (which made me both angry and sick at the same time), there are those out there that think that money spent on space exploration is wasted, and that we can not afford to spend money on those things while other priorities exist.

Well to those people I say shut up. The amount of money we spend currently on NASA is a pittance. It's so ridiculously low it's pathetic. There've been charts comparing the spending on Iraq and Afghanistan against NASA's budget. NASA gets pennies while the wars get big dollars. Again, I don't wish to take away from the efforts in the war on terror, and the fighting to stablize Iraq and Afghanistan, but a few pennies on the dollar going to keeping our technical development at the top of it's game is not enough.

There are problems (unfortunately) with the space program, especially the shuttle program. We must devise better technology so we can get back on track, but at the same time, we have to build better rockets, and develop better means of exploring space. The shuttle never quite lived up to the plans of serving as a great mover of equipment and people into space and back. It was sadly undersized, and required external gadgetry such as the problematic fuel tank to be able to get it (and it's cargo) weight off the ground and into orbit. Many may not even remember what a Saturn V rocket looked like, with the tiny Apollo capsule on top. It was a huge beast. It took those massive lower stages to get the lift needed to get the rest of the beast into the sky.

As always, mass and fuel (which is part of the mass) and good old gravity continue to be our own worst enemies when it comes to space travel, but we can not give up. We have to keep going, and we must set goals -- such as going back to the moon, and on to Mars, so that we can accomplish them. So we will have an end game. So there will be an exit strategy (so that some will not be able to cry for one repeatedly). And we must meet those goals and go onto bigger and better challenges. It's our destiny and our duty.
2,902 views 10 replies
Reply #1 Top
But what is the point exactly? It'll be decades, probably even centuries before technology is sufficiently advanced and resources are sufficiently limited that we need to mine in the asteroid belt or start terraforming Mars. Going there now, without the means to do anything meaningful on arrival save collect a few rocks, is a pointless endeavour.

If you mean it should be done simply because it's there, then pennies are an appropriate funding option. It'll still be there in 200 years time when it'll be cheaper to go. And unless the US needs total domination of the solar system for some reason waiting won't cause any major issues. Satellite research is easily justifiable, but I don't see why sending manned missions to the moon and other planets is anything more than a waste of time.
Reply #2 Top
I agree 100% terp, We shouldn't mess with it now, its been proven that the program has helped advance related sciences, and created a greater interest in science over the years...Mr. K doesn't seem to realize this...

Also, time isn't a factor considering (I think, not sure exactly...will have to check it) it would take about 1 year (give or take) to get to...Jupiter...(not much there that would allow us to land...)

also,(cactoblasta)concerning mars...the only thing,from what i have read, that prevents us from starting to terra form it is a lack of an atmosphere....(quite a roadblock) if there was a way, perhaps drill into the core and re start it, or a "generator" or something similar that creates a large enough field to encompass the planet... though it wouldn't be comleted in my life time (or my childrens if i;m not mistaken) but just think of the possibilities...If we could get things going, we could easily be stationed on the moon and mars with a permanent base...by i'd say 2010...if not sooner...but again if we cannot find a safe way...a more reliable,efficient way...we're going to be 'the lone duck in the pond' figuratively speaking....just some thougts, insightful article terp
Reply #3 Top
But what is the point exactly? It'll be decades, probably even centuries before technology is sufficiently advanced and resources are sufficiently limited that we need to mine in the asteroid belt or start terraforming Mars. Going there now, without the means to do anything meaningful on arrival save collect a few rocks, is a pointless endeavour.


And you know this for a fact?
Reply #4 Top
And you know this for a fact?


--I agree.....

--who knows what will happen with science/technology...there could be many major breakthroughs soon...(Star Trek ships...ehh )
Reply #5 Top
So long as there are brave men and women who are willing to step up and accept the risk, I suppose space exploration will go on.

I am concerned about the funding of our wars, and I do feel that there are more practical things our tax money could be used for, but I also understand that our space programs are valuable and applicable in ways that the average person (me) isn't aware of, otherwise we wouldn't be spending the money and risking lives to bring them to fruition.

It's just not something I'm particularly passionate about.

PS - Ain't nothing wrong with U2.
Reply #6 Top
It's just not something I'm particularly passionate about


--For me, my first "love" (study/career wise) was Astronomy/Physics (combined), unfortunatley, I am horrible at math (and other things...) i just didn't/don't have the capability to master it...not sure why...

--back on topic...

I am concerned about the funding of our wars, and I do feel that there are more practical things our tax money could be used for, but I also understand that our space programs are valuable and applicable in ways that the average person (me) isn't aware of, otherwise we wouldn't be spending the money and risking lives to bring them to fruition


--True, that is also a concern, with the advancement of science, it could lead to a more cost efficient military...


So long as there are brave men and women who are willing to step up and accept the risk, I suppose space exploration will go on


--I think there is still a bit of the 'glory' left from the "good 'ol days" of NASA (as my HS physics teacher said to me) i think it needs a good kick in the butt to get it going...such as: Link
or the colonization of the moon: Link

-I think either one would both increase interest in science in general, and convince those opposed to giving NASA more money, to give in...i mean the thought of such things...wow....IMO
Reply #7 Top
Ain't nothing wrong with U2.


I actually like many of the bands I listed myself, though I normally wouldn't agree with their political mantras.


As to putting in pennies, and waiting for things to get cheaper, for the most part things will never get cheaper. The billions that we invested back in the 60's and 70's are now trillions. It's a fact of life that costs will continue to go up. Something we just can't seem to get used to, even as we watch athletes get ever increasing salaries, and even as we ourselves cry over getting more money in our own pockets.

We need to explore Mars so we can get first hand knowledge of whats there. Not just robotically retrieved information. We need to put the money and effort into developing propulsion systems that will get us to Mars and out of the Earths atmosphere in the best methods possible.

My point is it's something we must do, because we can, and because we should.
Reply #8 Top
No one is going to abandon the space program. If anything we are gearing up for a space race with China. It would be idiotic to allow any nation to gain more effectiveness in space, an 'angle of attack' from which there is little defense. Our military relies upon satellites that we cannot defend from a nation that can more effectively travel in space.

In a way the problems with the shuttle happened at a good time. Had this happened at the beginning of the Clinton years, we might well have abandoned them and not bothered to replace them. Modern-era Democrats would rather use the money to keep their ghettos stocked with their voting serfs.

As it stands now, I think we will pour a lot of money into the next generation of reusable craft. That is, if whoever wins in 2008 doesn't torpedo the effort, or if Democrats take over the Congress before then.
Reply #9 Top
I agree with you too Terp.

But the Shuttle needs to be scrapped. I remember seeing the first one go up when I was in first grade and strangely happy to see a teacher go up in flames with the Columbia a few years later.

Back in 1995, a replacement for the shuttle was being funded and research was underway on the design. But then the program was cut by the last administration and this one has not renewed the program (even with promises to double our efforts to return to space). We have dumped billions into a vehicle that the highest powered computer uses on it is an old 386 processor and has place our credibility to lead in the building of the space station in doubt.

The worst thing is that during the last year of the new shuttle project more money was spent on a joint Chinese/US research program on how to put satellites into space. Why do we need to research how to place satellites into space on the top of ICBMs. One guess what administration was doing that.

But the Space program should not be scraped. The technology is there today for the replacement. People just don't want to spend the time or money to make the materials needed to implement the new tech. They would prefer that the private sector implement the new tech/materials before we invest. But the best thing about the space program is all the new advances that are produced from it, not the other way around as many are advocating today.
Reply #10 Top
I agree mostly with your comments Lee, though the computer technology on the Shuttle was upgraded a bit (by my recollection) to 486 processor class.

I know there are multiple issues with the computing technology, since the chips have to be tested in a myriad of ways before being certed to go into to any space craft. Things we take for granted aren't givens in space, so the NASA folks have to check every possible situation, and it tends to keep them from using leading edge technology for space craft.


I remember an old SitCom/Dramedy: Salvage One that started from a made-for-TV movie. One thing that I'm left with from that show/movie was the idea that we have one serious flaw in our space vehicle designs. One I mention above - the whole mass/fuel/gravity issue. We expend far too much energy trying to burst away from Earth's gravity, which means we have to consume massive amounts of fuel or produce massive amounts of thrust (which normally requires fuel, duh!).

If we could develop more powerful propulsion systems, it would help, but then again, perhaps the answer is use slower technology and try to gently leave the atmosphere rather than trying to burst away all at one time.

All of this is stuff that I wish I knew much more money was being spent on researching and solving, but you are correct that for the most part the money isn't there, and even with trial balloon that Pres. Bush floated of going back to the moon, and on to Mars, it doesn't seem that we are even beginning to doing the types of work that was involved in the Apollo program.


One other thought, for anyone that hasn't seen them, I recommend highly the great Tom Hank's/HBO mini-series/specials: From the Earth to the Moon. Some of the first few episodes do a great job of documenting the effort and engineering that went into the Apollo programs. Fascinating stuff.