The Space Shuttle Must Be Stopped

Time ^ | 2/2/2003 | Gregg Easterbrook

[Reeses]

What's the point in building a moon base if only the government-selected elite "get to" live there at the expense of the multitudes who remain on earth?

What's the point of capitalism if only a few people get rich at the expense of the multitudes of workers?

Envy is the fuel that powers leftist politics.

[sonofatpatcher2]

Re: Space programs should be MILITARIZED! We are the only country that treat space as a University project through NASA.

You may have a point here. If it will get us back to the Moon, to Mars and the Asteroid Belt, I'd vote for it.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"When you and TIME magazine are done urinating on the memory of yesterday's dead heroes, would you mind cleaning up? Thanks."

This discussion is about government space programs, not about the individuals. If you can't handle it, maybe you should flag the thread for later, or never. But your point has no pertinence to the discussion. We do not dishonor their memories by criticizing the shuttle boondoggle of which they were victims.

"Oh, and by the way, not every benefit has a dollar value. Just thought you should know."

Easy to say when you are spending my earnings.

[Dave S]

And should I add that I am sick and tired of leftists criticising America and our good programs only to ask for more money into PUBLIC EDUCATION!!!

Good screed but what bearing does it have on this thread? The author doesnt appear to be a socialist to me. He is only arguing for a more rational space program and not the public relations program we now have with NASA's shuttle efforts.

[Man of the Right]

The Western hemisphere was explored largely by entrepreneurs. And it didn't cost trillions of dollars.

[BlazingArizona]

I presume that somebody who proposes retiring a failed '60s technology is a Luddite.

The Space Shuttle is no more a "failed" technology than the DC-3 was. It has served us well and started the process of opening up space, but has now reached the end of its technological life. It's time to start building a "space 747".

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Exactly. All this talk about sending stupid cameras to Mars is silly. We already have pictures of it. Do we want to take the next step and live there or not? I certainly do. Isn't that what space is for?"

Is that what income tax revenues are for?!

[Physicist]

Robots can do limited science. Humans can do a lot more than robots.

Not so far. Name one bit of important science performed by NASA that could only have been performed by a human in space. We'll see how it stacks up against Pioneer, Voyager, Mariner, Magellan, Galileo, Ulysses, Hubble, Compton, Chandra, weather satellites, GPS, COBE, Viking, Sojourner, Clementine, NEAR, LDEF...I could fill a page like this, but you get the point.

Again I think people who like robots who is in space is a bunch of cowards.

So to you, the purpose of the space program is machismo. That's fine, so long as it doesn't interfere with the serious and practical--not to mention adult--purposes that others have in mind for space exploration.

[TomB]

So explore. Just stop taking my earnings to fulfill your dream.

Considering it has been done since the beginnings of the country, you've got history against you here.

[Pravious]

"The average Joe who doesn't follow the program doesn't understand the direct benefits to mankind."

I'm probably a little smarter than your average Joe, but I STILL don't understand the direct benefits to mankind of the program.

When I was a boy, space travel was very exciting and special, with the moonlanding and subsequent visits - but then they got into all this "space shuttle" nonsense, where it seems that they've done nothing but spend billions and billions of dollars over the past two decades on undefined "scientific experiments" - like antfarms, the effect of weightlessness, setting up a new telescope, blah, blah, blah.

To me, it all seems to be a colossal bore, and colossal waste of money.

Of course, that's all based on my perception of the program - but, as you initially said, that's probably the common perception. I'd be happy to hear about some real-world benefits all of this effort, money and loss-of-lives has produced.

[Hawkeye's Girl]

What's the point in building a moon base if only the government-selected elite "get to" live there at the expense of the multitudes who remain on earth?

None, which is why we need to privatize it. We could make a FR colony to start :D

I agree that NASA and the shuttles aren't the way to go.

[JimVT]

1) Manned spaceflight is dangerous, and has been since day one. It will NEVER be a ride to the supermarket for groceries.

Yes it is dangerous...but NOT as dangerous as a ride to the grocery store as motor vehicle stats will attest.

I'm not carping just agreeing with you.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Good thing you weren't around to advise Isabella and Ferdinand...Columbus would have never sailed."

Isabella invested with the realistic hope of increasing her wealth, not to inspire the masses whose taxes were taken for a mission.

And the new world would not have long remained undiscovered in the free market of exploration.

Why not develop huge undersea colonies? That would inspire *some* people. Why don't we spend *your* tax dollars on such an inspiring goal?

[Two Thirds Vote Aye]

Agreed.

[Dave S]

Consider the plane crashes that take place each year and compare them to the space program. NASA does a darn good job IMHO.

LOL!! There are upwards of 25,000 commercial airline flights a day in the US. If commercial airlines lost two flights out of every 130 or so, no one would fly and the airlines would be grounded in less than a day of operation.

[cynicom]

Man...

In this age, there are ventures far beyond the capability of private enterprise. Even the Queen had to hock her jewels to finance exploration and at the time I think she was Queen of Spain, head of government. In past istory most exploration was done in the names of government.

Once again, all you are concerned with, came about by expenditure of governments, not private capital. Von Braun, the father of the method of transportation for these explorerers was always financed by government, always, there was never any advance paid for by private enterprise.

[Man of the Right]

There's no public support for such a program despite hundreds of millions of dollars spent by aerospace companies lobbying for it. After Challenger, the Shuttle lobby got a replacement. This time, I'll bet they get feasibility funding, but the replacement will never fly.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"We have the technology to build robot race cars to zip around an oval track better than any human could. It will never be done though because no one will pay to see it. Things that interest humans always involve being able to imagine yourself there, up on stage. It's either that or nothing. It's either a space program that sends up the occasional human, or no space program at all."

Circuses for the tax-impoverished masses?

[KevinDavis]

That is based on current technology. We have to develop faster means of traveling in space.

[Howlin]

You should post it on ALL the threads, not just the shuttle ones.