Is having no manned launch vehicle like Space Shuttle like superpower wearing sweatpants?

[yurbud]

Poll question: Is having no manned launch vehicle like Space Shuttle like superpower wearing sweatpants?

NASA's budget is about one half of one percent of the total federal budget. The most it ever was was 6%. Oil industry subsidies alone are three times as much as the total NASA budget. I could live with not giving oil company execs their Christmas bonuses out of our tax dollars and spend the money to send somebody to Mars instead.

I know we got a lot of more pressing priorities, but it reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when an unemployed George starts wearing sweatpants all the time and Jerry tells him that's the official uniform of giving up.

Giving up the space shuttle without a replacement and relying on Russia for rides to the space station seems like our government saying our best days are behind us, we have no imagination or enthusiasm for the future, and we're just going to get by by having an ongoing garage sale of privatizing public assets until the country is gone, while elected officials lay on the couch in their sweatpants watching Maury Povich all day.

[KittyWampus]

1. Manned space flight is an absurd waste of resources. An anachronism.

[Electric Monk]

2. Unlike, say, waging multiple wars?

I'd say that's a bigger waste of resources and lives than NASA is, but we don't let that stop us :shrug:

[RC]

3. +1

We are supposed to the be the biggest, baddest and toughest and we can't even put or retrieve our own astronauts?

How far the mighty have fallen.

[neverforget]

4. Agree 100%

With a war, we get to destroy stuff and then rebuild it PLUS we get to replace whatever equipment we use due to either destruction or wear and tear. It's a win-win for the MIC.

[gateley]

5. +2

[KittyWampus]

14. Those are the only two options? I can think of LOTS of things, in science even, to spend resources

on. And it isn't just the money.

[Electric Monk]

19. It was merely one example, not a binary choice. nt

[gateley]

6. Tell that to your decendants a few centuries down the road when they

have nowhere to live.

[KittyWampus]

15. If they can't live on Earth, why should a chosen few pollute space?

[Gidney N Cloyd]

8. Absurd? Fuck, yeah. But where would man be today if we never took a shot at the absurd?

[joshcryer]

11. We spend more on snack foods than we do the space program.

Think about that next time you're eating junk food and pondering what is a waste of resources.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. Space flight an anachronism? God that is really funny.

nt

[KittyWampus]

16. I specifically wrote MANNED space flight.

[Selatius]

22. An anachronism in what way? I would say space flight will aid in humanity's survival.

In the long-run, our chances of survival are higher if we're living on multiple planets instead of just one. Also, the technology developed in a space race could benefit humanity in many ways.

[Odin2005]

25. Carl Sagan would disagree with you.

"We began as wanderers, and we are wanderers still. We have lingered long enough on the shores of the cosmic ocean. We are ready at last to set sail for the stars."

[11 Bravo]

26. You were born into the wrong era. We could have used you to tell those dumb-ass Wright brothers ...

to quit fucking around and get back to making bicycles.

[MisterP]

7. it's exactly like a superpower not having a crew launch system, nothing more, nothing less

[joshcryer]

10. Indeed, Japan, Germany, the UK, France, hell all the EU.

[joshcryer]

9. The Space Shuttle was the sweat pants in this analogy, the new line of vehicles will be...

...sportswear.

[Peregrine]

17. Space Shuttle killed manned exploration

The US decided that Earth orbit was all we needed and we set our goals low.

[yurbud]

18. now we've gone from low to zero

[joshcryer]

21. The Space Shuttle was underutilized. It was to be a construction ship.

It would've worked, too. For 20 years it flew 5-6 times a year and had absolutely no construction payload. If you go back and look at all of the wonderful sketches done, they genuinely thought we'd have space hotels and fuel depots and space based solar power and all sorts of science fictiony stuff. Had it flown as it was designed to, we'd have at least 3 ISS's. With the inflatable hab technology (inflate once, it becomes a hardened space structure) we could've had gravity in torus hotels, and the destination, simply existing, would've brought costs for flight down dramatically (rather than SpaceX being a new company there would've been a half dozen companies like it, already aged quite well).

Go out any time the ISS http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/realdata/sightings/">flies over and have a gander. The second brightest object in the night sky is manmade. It's brighter than Venus, and only the moon is brighter. It is a humbling experience to be sure.

Earth orbit was not the initial design consideration for STS, I would argue, it was supposed to open the heavens to humanity, it fell far far short of that goal. And unfortunately NASA, thanks to the cost-plus contractors, is building a ship that will likely never fly, and it's based on STS technology. Yes it does preserve jobs in the short term but in the long term is spoils the very essence of human spaceflight.

[Odin2005]

29. The deficit-hawk bean counters took over and forgot the shuttle's original purpose.

If we want an ecological friendly source of metals we need to develop a low-cost way to mine asteroids. We can't keep ravishing the planet in search of metals.

[Electric Monk]

35. Sure, if energy was free. Do you have a gravitic drive handy?

[bananas]

43. Energy costs aren't what make rockets expensive.

Fuel costs are a tiny fraction of launch costs.

[bananas]

34. The shuttle was also supposed to bring back chemical and manufactured products

The zero gravity and almost perfect vacuum were supposed to allow chemical and manufacturing processes that were difficult or impossible on earth. The shuttle would be able to return these products gently to earth gliding down to a runway. There was a lot of excitement about this.

[unkachuck]

12. more evidence of our decline....n/t

[Ichingcarpenter]

20. The Repair of the Hubble wouldn't have been possible

without the shuttle. Which I think is one of the greatest missions ever done in space. I put the Hubble up there with landing a man on the moon.


NASA's man missions vision have been directed by past presidents

Bush had this vision which made NASA change directions

From NASA:

http://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/bush_vision.html

[yurbud]

23. think of the great leap forward Hubble has been in what we know about planets around

other suns since then, and that would have been lost.

[yurbud]

24. I have a feeling we could get an invite from some other planet, and Washington would

say we can't afford to go because we have to invade another country to steal their oil or give rich people more tax breaks.

Maybe if the aliens came offering bribes, that would help.

[bananas]

36. We've launched a dozen Hubbles without the Shuttle

But they're pointed down, not up.
And they're supposed to be secret.
http://www.fas.org/spp/military/program/imint/kh-12.htm

[Odin2005]

27. We should have been colonizing Mars by now!

[WillyT]

28. Yep... And I'm Not Real Thrilled With The Privatization Of Space Either

:shrug:

:kick: & Rec!!!

:hi:

[Odin2005]

30. I have no problem with the commercial development of space.

NASA should concentrate on the pioneering stuff, exploration and colonization.

[yurbud]

31. yep--it's not either/or

[WillyT]

32. Oh I Agree... It's Always Been A Blend, But...

I want NASA to have regulation, safety, and veto power... among other things.

:shrug:

:hi:

[Kind of Blue]

33. I disagree. It seems to me that NASA is

being redirected to deep space exploration, manned missions to Mars and asteroids beginning in 2025. As one article I read said this is not "sacrificing American dominance in space, but by extending that dominance into new areas of research and exploration." Harvard Political Review http://hpronline.org/united-states/in-defense-of-the-obama-space-exploration-plan/

In one NPR report this week Lisa Rice, president of Brevard Workforce, said with the $40million the feds gave the space community in Florida, "We've been in the planning and training and preparing stage for four years now, essentially. The workers are much better prepared. They've been getting their certifications, they've been getting work, so it's a different day."
"Even with the shuttle's demise, thousands of workers are still employed by dozens of aerospace companies working on defense and civil projects that continue to be launched at Cape Canaveral.More jobs will be added in coming years as private companies developing manned and unmanned vehicles are drawn to the Kennedy Space Center. But those jobs are still years away. It's the kind of emerging business that gives workers and officials on the Space Coast hope that the end of the shuttle may mark the beginning of a new, diversified economy."http://www.npr.org/2011/07/11/137677198/end-of-shuttle-program-leaves-thousands-jobless

It's just the beginning.

[yurbud]

37. when politicians plan something more than ten years in the future, that's their way of saying never

[Kind of Blue]

39. Serious question, for instance?

[yurbud]

40. Social Security trust fund for boomers?

At the time, they double SS tax to pay for boomer demographic bulge, now they are pretending like they never did that and still want to cut benefits even after a couple of decades of accumulating a surplus.

[joshcryer]

41. That's why flex path was chosen, it can't be so easily killed.

[BOHICA12]

38. And eating Cheetos .... nt

[yurbud]

42. Republicans want to declare them a new food group