Dreamers Must Be Willing to Pay

USA TODAY | July 18, 1989 | Joseph P. Martino

[JoeFromSidney]

DAYTON, Ohio — Twenty years ago, Neil Armstrong made “one giant leap for mankind.” Since then, manned space exploration has been one giant leap forward, two giant leaps backward.

When the movie 2001 appeared in 1968, the idea of 10,000 people on the moon by 2001 was believable. All it would take was to continue the moon program already begun.

Now we know there won’t be even 10 people on the moon by 2001. NASA doesn’t plan to go back to the moon until the 21st century. That’s disappointed many of us. As a child, I avidly read Flash Gordon and listened to Buck Rogers. I dreamed of space exploration. Watching TV “live from the moon” in 1969, I felt my dreams were coming true..

What went wrong? In a word, NASA. NASA’s mission is to develop technology. NASA really looks at each space project as an excuse to develop new technology. NASA scraps its successful old technology and starts over. Moreover, NASA is completely bureaucratized. Each of NASA’s centers must get “its fair share” of the budget. New space systems are designed not so much to carry out a task as to give each center a piece of the action.

Congress is also part of the problem. Congressional cuts in the NASA budget delayed the moon landing by a year. Today, the chairman of the committee which funds both NASA and the Department of Housing and Urban Development has said there won’t be any housing in space (the space station) unless more money is spent for housing on Earth.

But Congress only reflects the will of the voters. They didn’t care that Richard Nixon canceled Apollo just as it was starting to pay off. The manned program simply outlasted the public’s attention span.

But those of us who dreamed of space must ask ourselves, why should the taxpayers pay for .the space program we want? After all, it was our dream, not theirs.

The fundamental lesson of our “one step forward, two steps back” manned space program is that space exploration must be done privately, not by government. Only then will we escape congressional politics and NASA bureaucracy. History shows that private enterprise gets the job done quicker and cheaper than government. We’ve lost 20 years waiting for NASA. It’s time to follow our dream again. But this time let’s do it ourselves.

[JoeFromSidney]

This is an op-ed I wrote in 1989, to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Apollo landing. Given President Bush's statements about a new NASA mission, I think it's just as apropos as it was 15 years ago. I've posted it unchanged.

[ambrose]

Thanks for posting this. What's sad is that you wrote this in 1989. 14-15 years have come and gone, and there has been absolutely ZERO progress in our space program.

I don't believe that private enteprirse works, as you suggest. The payoff for space exploration is way off into the future. This is a longterm endeavor, and I don't think a company can persuade shareholders that profits won't be realized for another 80 to 100 years. We owe it to our future generations to begin this process now.

The ultimate treasure trove in this solar system is Titan, but we're a long way off from getting there.

[ambrose]

ping

[ambrose]

ping

[Atlas Sneezed]

Dreamers Must Be Willing to Pay

---

May those who have alternative dreams get their tax dollars back so that they may pursue those dreams?

[Atlas Sneezed]

I hate to say it, but NASA is the NEA for tech geeks (and I am one.)

[JoeFromSidney]

May those who have alternative dreams get their tax dollars back so that they may pursue those dreams?

I'd be happy to have them get their money back. Likewise I'd like to get my money back from those whose dreams include the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, that indoor rain forest in Iowa, and a lot of other dreams I don't share.

[RightWhale]

those of us who dreamed of space must ask ourselves, why should the taxpayers pay for the space program we want? After all, it was our dream, not theirs.

It's something reasonable people can agree to do.

[ambrose]

I hate to say it, but NASA is the NEA for tech geeks (and I am one.)

Could be... but while the NEA put a bullwhip up Mapplethorpe's butt, NASA put a man on the Moon.

I'd say there's a bit of a difference between the two.

[onyx]

Thanks for the re-post.

BTTT

[Atlas Sneezed]

Could be... but while the NEA put a bullwhip up Mapplethorpe's butt, NASA put a man on the Moon.

I'd say there's a bit of a difference between the two.

---

They (not I) would counter that while NASA was incompetently killing astronauts on mismanaged shuttles, the NEA was "inspiring" and "uplifting" children and the arts, including traditional fine arts.

[ambrose]

Too much is made of astronaut deaths. It is sad for them and the families involved, but space travel is an extremely dangerous enterprise, and I am sure the astronauts themselves recognized this.

People were only hoodwinked into believing otherwise due to all of the PR shuttle flights involving school teachers and 80 year-old politicians.

President Bush told us that NASA is going to get serious again, and end all of that nonsense. It isn't like NASA wants to be a bunch of bozos, they've just lacked leadership and a vision.

[Shryke]

I hate to say it, but NASA is the NEA for tech geeks (and I am one.)

Wow, welcome to the Wide World of Ridiculous Analogies.

Hey. Want to moan about "pork"? NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket (with very promising long-term benefits) compared to the overall budget. Listening to Libertarians and others jump on NASA is like someone complaining of heat rash during a nuclear strike. You guys should be trying to cut the BIG ticket items first, no?

[Frank_Discussion]

Remember: Predators always take down the smaller and weaker of the herd.

[HitmanLV]

I agree - the emphasis on the shuttle and low earth orbit missions (no greater than 250 miles or so up, I think) was very misplaced. I am glad we are now correcting the course.

[Professional Engineer]

I suppose we could all dream how the NFL is gonna make our nation even greater.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Hey. Want to moan about "pork"? NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket (with very promising long-term benefits) compared to the overall budget.

---

So, to paraphrase Churchill, we have established that you are a pork-prostitute. We are now haggling about the price.

As a conservative, I prefer principle over pork. Just because a big-government project has a flag on the side, and is operated by former military men, does not make it "conservative."

[Prime Choice]

NASA doesn’t plan to go back to the moon until the 21st century. That’s disappointed many of us.

Spare me this starry-eyed revisionist tripe masquerading as history.

In five short years (spanning 1968 to 1973), America went from pure rapture about the moon missions to complete and utter lack of interest. Hell, the major networks didn't even bother covering the Apollo 13 mission (the third planned landing on the moon) until disaster struck! The American public simply was no longer interested.

As a consequence, the American public chose not to support further lunar exploration and Congress followed suit by cutting NASA's budget to the point that further lunar missions could not be planned or executed.

What went wrong? In a word, NASA. NASA’s mission is to develop technology. NASA really looks at each space project as an excuse to develop new technology.

Excuse me, but NASA has to develop new technology in order to accomplish its objectives. With the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs, NASA had to develop mini- and micro-computers that could fit on the lunar module and lunar lander. With the STS, it had to develop a spacecraft capable of repeated use that could function in both an atmosphere and in outer space. With the Mars missions, NASA had to develop rovers that could function on solar power and withstand huge temperature fluctuations in a dry, sandy and hostile environ.

Who in their right mind thinks that such can be done WITHOUT developing new technologies?

While these ignorant idiots are talking the talk, NASA is walking the walk. Think you can do it better? Apply for a job at your nearest NASA center and show 'em how.

[ambrose]

You tell me what's so difficult about stuffing a couple of astronauts in a rocket and launching them off to Mars.

If the risk is such an overriding factor, then perhaps we can find a retired astronaut with a terminal disease who'd relish going out in a blaze of glory.

[ambrose]

In five short years (spanning 1968 to 1973), America went from pure rapture about the moon missions to complete and utter lack of interest. Hell, the major networks didn't even bother covering the Apollo 13 mission (the third planned landing on the moon) until disaster struck! The American public simply was no longer interested.

What you said is 100% true. The sheep are more interested in their SUVs, Survivor, and the latest developments from the Scott Peterson trial.

The masses have had shortsighted, narrow, and selfish thinking throughout history. It is up to the LEADERS to move the masses along and push them in the right direction. That's why they were elected. That's their job. We seem to have forgotten that after the Clinton era of doing whatever the latest opinion poll dictates....

This is the right thing to do.