Why Go To Space?

msnbc.com ^ | 07/17/06 | Alan Boyle

[KevinDavis]

After the shuttle Discovery landed today, I asked NASA Administrator Mike Griffin a rather flip question: Doesn't an admittedly unemotional space agency chief feel even a little bit of emotion over such a successful space mission? In response, I got an answer that wasn't flip at all, but instead sounded like a heartfelt rationale for taking on the risks of human spaceflight.

For the benefit of all those who have been debating the merits of space exploration, here's Griffin's answer, plus some comments in the same vein from Discovery commander Steve Lindsey. After you've read them - or after you've seen the video versions - feel free to weigh in with your own comments.

I started out by alluding to Griffin's earlier comment that "it's a thrill and a pleasure to be here again, especially under these circumstances ... in fact, it's such a great day that I don't think even a press conference can spoil it."

[KevinDavis]

"I certainly do not feel like a weight has been lifted, other than to recognize, as I continually do ... I think the words 'routine' [and] 'human spaceflight' don't go in the same sentence. Every one of these things is, if not frankly experimental, right on the edge of that.

"A comment that I'm fond of, and I've made before, but some of you may have forgotten so I'll make it again: I was a teenager, or a very young engineer, when we were flying the X-15 - and we flew 199 flights with that vehicle. And ... of course, its performance envelope was a small fraction of what the shuttle achieves. Nobody ever thought that that was anything other than an experimental vehicle - and that's what we have here.

"I think I also said, not terribly long ago, that if you think about it ... it took Western Europeans, and then North Americans, 1,000 years from being able to put Viking ships out into the open ocean to get to the point where nowadays we can load up cargo in an oil tanker and sail it halfway around the world, and almost every single time we do that, it gets there. But it took us 1,000 years to learn how to do that.

"We've been doing this stuff for 50 years. I think that is the perspective that we have to get. The enterprise is eminently worth doing. It's part of what makes us human. It is crucial that this nation does it. But we should recognize where we are in the process. We are just learning. And that's what you see us doing here today."

[KevinDavis]

[thoughtomator]

Because Muslims can't follow us there.

[tet68]

Bingo.

[cripplecreek]

Because we must. It's human nature.

[KevinDavis]

Also in order for the human race to survive, we must go to different planets..

[JamminJAY]

BUMP that.

[tomzz]

You might have noticed that the human race appears to have only about 3000 years worth of history despite being somewhat older than that? One reason for going into near space is to try to get a bit more of a handle on our own history. Take Mars, in particularly those megaliths in the Cydonia region for instance:

There just MIGHT be writings inside that thing which might give us a bit more of a handle on whatever calamity made Mars the way it is now, and left us with just 3000 years worth of recorded history.

[pcottraux]

Why Go to Space?

Because it isn't there.

[pcottraux]

http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a100/pcottraux/Muzzies.jpg

[pcottraux]

Whoops...forgot the html code:

[NonValueAdded]

That was quite the press conference. Glad he is at the helm.

[KevinDavis]

I think Mike Griffin is the best NASA admin in a long time...

[LibWhacker]

I think they're sending a muzzie up to the space station next year. Idiots!

[nuke rocketeer]

I still think that if we are going back to the future, we should have gone back to this...

instead of Apollo redux.

[af_vet_rr]

Ideally we'd be using some kind of true shuttle, similar to what you are talking - which, had not Vietnam sucked up so much money, the Air Force would have been flying in the 1970s, as they were building the infrastructure and the pool of qualified pilots to do so. This would be something geared towards small cargo runs and moving people back and forth.

We'd also be using the Saturn program (just think of where it would be with the advances in materials, propellants, computer, and propulsion today if we hadn't dropped it in favor of the Shuttle).

As to why we go to space, once upon a time we were a nation of pioneers and explorers. These days we appear to have become a nation of settlers.

[nuke rocketeer]

McNamara cancelled DynaSoar before we were spending much in Vietnam (1963) for several reasons, the prime one being he did not see much use for a military manned space program. NASA was already committed to Apollo and had no funding to pursue a parallel path with DS. But if they had, a DS launched by a Saturn 1B, would have been an excellent shuttle alternative instead of the kludge we ended up with.