Florida's Space Coast Worried for Future

Privatization is fine. If someone wants to keep into the business of launching space missions and they think they can make money, then fine with me. However, I think you are misguided in completely privatizing NASA. The space program (rightfully) is part of the military-industrial complex that is the USA. It has brought us new technologies that have changed our lives over the years, and it is ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY for us to have a space program for future military reasons. Whoever controls space in the future will control the earth. I think it is absolutely necessary that we stay on the cutting edge, so the Chinese or worse don't end up owning the heavens, IMHO.

Space-based Missle Defense was never invisioned to be part of a manned space program. We can have Ballistic Missle Defence --- controlled and operated in orbit --- without the participation of astronauts.

Military surveillance satellites do not depend on a manned space program. We can, should and will continue to send ever more sophisticated military lookdown technology into orbit --- without any dependence on the state of shuttle or ISS missions.

There may be an argument for continuing with the ISS program on its own merits, but it has nothing to do with the absolute necessity of the US military to keep the orbital high-ground under our control.

The trend in military aviation is, in fact, AWAY from human pilots, not towards an increased dependence on them. What the Predator can do at low altitudes, an army of high-tech/high-orbit satellites can do in space --- all without the need for human pilots.

These are two completely separate issues. They are completely independent of one another.

I was referring to Space Exploration and conquest in general, not specifically manned flights. NASA should not privatize, simply for the sake of NATIONAL DEFENSE. That is all I said. I didn't say anything about manned vs. unmanned flights. You missed the point. I said I am against a COMPLETE privatization of our national space program.

Neither the people who died yesterday or their families share your veiw. Mankind needs to expand or whither on the vine. If anything their deaths occurred because of a lack of boldness, the shuttles should have been replaced years and years ago.

What NASA needs is a grandiose plan and a budget to match. Authorizing a couple of shuttle launches a year is not going to cut it. The infrastructure is getting old and the industry is rotting with it. When was the last time anyone used the word rocket scientist other than in a joke?

The program needs a mass infusion of fresh talent, and that we will need to encourage tens of thousands of talented young people to dedicate themselves to the challanges of a new and exiting career. It needs to become a booming business again as it was in the 1960s and early 70s. A focal point for our most creative to work and develop new and previously untested technologies.

If the shuttle program has taught us anything, it is that the conquest of space can never be done on the cheap. But, with new momentum, we can also expect tremendous rewards. Once again we may be able to put our people and our industries on a firm technological footing. We may provide the competitive advantage so needed by our own industrial base.

Frankly, I am amaze by the call for privatization. NASA has always been a program built upon private enterprise. It is a purchasing agent, and a coordinating body for the government, which relies on the talents and creativity of private enterprise for its implementation. What more privatization could we possibly want? Care must also be taken less our tax dollars be used to fund another nation's competitive advantage. Sometimes it is worthwhile to have the ability to classify and regulate the dissemination of technology. At least to hold on to the technology long for long enough to allow our companies enough time to commercialize it. Perhaps by privatization we mean that the outside of our next spaceship should be smeared with a plenora of advertisements to look like an overgrown race car?

Then there is the very real issue of national security. Our private high-tech industries have been hard hit by the recession, and we have precious few US manufactured technologies on the store shelves. We have to wonder where the next generation of smart weapons is going to come from. It is certainly not going to come from our youth if they are limited to working at fast food joints, retail stores, and daytrading.

The original space program was our largest recruiting poster for an entire generation of engineers, operations managers, and other creative people. What we have today is just a vestigal remnant of that program. We can choose to put the excitement and energy back into the program , or we can choose to teach our kids Chinese. But, it is time to decide what our national space program was, is, and should be.

I used to live a few blocks from Shuttles when I worked at KSC.

One of the reasons I got out was that another accident was inevitable; My wife and I decided that we didn't want our entire life savings tied up in a home in the area. We had heard the stories about after the Apollo program ended, where people were just walking away from their homes - they just couldn't sell them.

Low pay... rotating shifts...job insecurity...rampant political bureaucratic BS...too many people dying young of heart attacks. I loved the space program, but not enough to die for it.

Boy. You nailed it.

Bump.

I agree that mankind needs to expand. And I agree that colonizing the solar system is our destiny.

But I do not agree that the success of military hardware, such as BMD systems, depends on the current success of today's manned space program.

And I do not agree that the current efforts in manned space exploration (such as the ISS and the shuttles) is the most productive and efficient way to build the infrastructure needed to colonize the solar system.

The ISS is all glitz and very little substance. It has nothing to do with military superiority and is a grossly inefficient contribution to solar system colonization.

We'd better be able to fight in space on pretty short notice.

In the old Soviet days there was a secret military SpaceShuttle mission for which the launch time was only released about an hour before. When the launch did occur, the roll manuever was nearly 180 degrees, which put the vehicle on a decidedly northern (polar?) trajectory.

Around the same time I recall reading of a military satellite which the (then) Soviets had apparently lost all communication and even track of.

When that Shuttle mission returned, I think about 5 days later, I noticed on landing that the nosegear seemed to have hit the runway pretty hard after a long maingear roll, indicating something fairly heavy may have been in the cargo bay.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if it was that missing Soviet satellite.

I think we'd better keep, and even quickly enhance this capability of getting personnel rapidly into orbit.

a sleepy patch of orange groves and fishing communities whose inhabitants were far healthier.

What NASA needs is a grandiose plan and a budget to match. Authorizing a couple of shuttle launches a year is not going to cut it. The infrastructure is getting old and the industry is rotting with it. When was the last time anyone used the word rocket scientist other than in a joke?

The program needs a mass infusion of fresh talent, and that we will need to encourage tens of thousands of talented young people to dedicate themselves to the challanges of a new and exiting career. It needs to become a booming business again as it was in the 1960s and early 70s. A focal point for our most creative to work and develop new and previously untested technologies.

Something I posted earlier today.......we must be on the same wavelength

President Bush has presented bold proposals for the economy, defense and health care. Now is the time to reinvigorate the space program. At the memorial to the Columbia crew he should dedicate in their memory, a bold mission to Mars for the 50th anniversary of the first moon landing. July, 2019. That would inspire a whole generation of young people to compete for the privilege of crewing the mission.

The ability to fight in space will be enhanced 100% by increasing the abilities of our satellite drones and the ground stations that control them and 0% by getting some astronaut rambos into space.

Effective orbital weaponry --- and military supremacy in space --- does not depend on cramming people into shuttles and sending them to the ISS.

I generally agree with you second statement, but tend to disagree with your first. Whether they are "Rambos" or not does not preclude the necessity of human applications to military problems in orbit.

I didn't mean to denigrate them by calling them rambos. All our astronauts are heros and I salute them and I love to watch shuttle launches and follow the progress of their missions on the news. Their deaths are genuine national tragedies.

I'm only arguing one point: that military supremacy in space is very important for the survival of our country and that it is completely unrelated to the shuttle/ISS missions. Those missions might have their own valid justifications, but, in my opinion, the military dominance of Near Earth Orbits, which is crucial to US defence, does not depend on them at all.