The Bad Astronomer on NASA's Future

[LongTomH]

Phil Platt, of Bad Astronomy fame has an op-ed in the New York Post on the future of NASA.

I have an opinion piece in the New York Post yesterday about the future of NASA. It’s hard to imagine that while at this very moment we have astronauts working so hard to upgrade Hubble and doing such a fantastic job, NASA is itself somewhat rudderless.

Cassini still orbits Saturn, returning one stunning image after another. Rovers still traverse the Martian surface, years after their warranties have expired. The Swift satellite recently saw the most distant single object in the Universe, a titanic explosion an incredible 13.1 billion light years away.

Despite these astonishing achievements, NASA is floundering. The Space Shuttle program is waning. When the current mission touches down, only eight more flights of the birds will remain, the last in 2010. The replacement program, called Constellation, won’t launch until at least 2014, and more likely later. For at least four years, NASA won’t be able to launch a human into space without help from Russia, Europe, or just possibly private industry.

Phil also links to some opinion pieces by astronaut and Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin on the same topic.

[Glorfindel]

1. Where's Queen Isabella when we need her?

We should long since have had permanent lunar bases and astronauts sent to Mars and returned. What a shame that we've squandered all our national treasure and talent in waging senseless, wasteful wars.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. What a shame that 8 years of science went into Sir Crapper's invention

while they spewed religious crap, pro war propaganda, and christian "feith" based reasons for war upon this country.

Even though I think Obama is moving too slowly, or worse, moving too far to the center, all it takes is one peek into our recent history, and I still sigh in relief.

damn, this country is truly fucked up. Any rational country would have planned for the death of the shuttle, planned its replacement, and currently be working on the replacement's super-upgrade. But not us. NOOOOOO. We had a NASA shitheel try to censor big bang theory science in favor of creationism and intelligent design.

FUCK BUSH. FUCK CHENEY. FUCK NASA and its imbeciles that came to us over the last 8 yrs.

[gtar100]

5. Word.

Astounding how much our collective stupidity has crippled us. I've been waiting 30 years for intelligence to lead public policy. But despite all the brilliant discoveries we've made, it all gets thrown aside for greed and security. And the last eight years seemed to be a culmination of this lunacy. I sure hope it's waning. I'm just disappointed I've had to live the bulk of my life under the idiotic rule of republicans. So sick of it.

[Johonny]

3. Does it matter if we send ppl into space or not?

Because most of the best space science does not need an expensive man space program that sticks ppl in low Earth orbit.

[sofa king]

6. Once you can live in space, you have a lot of space.

And perfecting that ability has massive repercussions on what we can do at home. The use of solar power, water purification and recycling, carbon dioxide scrubbing and air filtration, hydroponic plant growth, and the minimizing of exposure to solar radiation are all avenues of research inextricably tied to human space exploration which have inestimable value here at home as well.

None of those avenues of research are indispensable for robotic space science and, if not funded by NASA, will be approached unsystematically by corporate competitors, if at all. The results will not be in the public domain, either.

[Johonny]

9. There is nothing in space to live on

To "live" in space you need to bring all the stuff from... well Earth. You thus gain nothing. It's also really, really hard to live in space. Humans are not exploring space, are robots are and will.

[sofa king]

11. You should read up on it.

We have an asteroid belt which can supply us with metals and silicon, and the Kuiper belt which is rich in the light elements and hydrocarbons. Everything we need to live in space is out there, without ever having to land on another planet. We just have to go to it, or bring it to us.

[baldguy]

7. And Homo erectus should've stayed in Africa.

[Johonny]

8. It's pretty cheap to

walk and sail around the Earth. It's not so cheap to sail around the solar system. It cost a small fortune to send ppl in to just low Earth Orbit for very little scientific gain.

[baldguy]

10. Yes, it is easier to walk a few thousand miles then to put several tons of material in orbit

At least, today for us it is. They didn't know that 2 million yrs ago. To Homo erectus, walking a few thousand miles to new continents was the equivalent of us going to the moon.

No, that's not right ... for them it was more difficult, more of a gamble, and more important to succeed. They wouldn't have made such a long & hazardous journey unless their very survival was at steak - and many of them didn't survive.

Really, when you look at it objectively, the colonization of the earth by Homo erectus was many times more costly in terms of physical effort, time, material and human life, than our piddly little activities in space.

And if WE are to survive we must move into space.

[byronius]

4. I'm for Zubrin's Mars Plan.

We need a staging area for mining the asteroid belt, and Mars is it.

Frankly, the sooner the better. Cheap metals, water, and other minerals from the Belt would lessen or cease the environmental devastation of the Earth.

And people will be required.

I volunteer.

NASA needs to get focused on this, now; forget about the moon. It serves no real purpose, except as a source of that experimental energy source -- what is it -- Helium 3?

Mars is where the action is.