The Failure of NASA...And a way out

TJohn · 2003-05-30 06:54:24

I love articles like this.

http://www.spacedaily.com/news/oped-03zn1.html

Shaun Barrett · 2003-05-31 01:56:01

Hi TJ.,
This is one of the most cogently damning arguments against NASA I think I've ever read. I can feel the anger in the writer, a fellow Australian, and get the same feelings of angry frustration myself!

The footnotes contain reference to privately funded launch vehicles being effectively stifled by NASA's actions - whether accidental or deliberate, we'll never know.
I remember being particularly interested in the Roton project, which conducted several successful low altitude test flights of its innovative and very promising launcher. (I was seriously looking to buy shares in it.) I never knew why it suddenly closed down ... now I do!!

I am totally at a loss to express my feelings at NASA's monumental mismanagement of manned spaceflight since Apollo and the colossal amount of money wasted in the process ... not to mention the tragic deaths involved!
I guess I always knew there were problems, but it took a fellow Aussie to really clarify their enormity in my mind.

How depressing.

Palomar · 2003-05-31 07:19:19

::sigh::

Yeah. I remember [and will not forget] the exuberant optimism of space exploration forecasts as a kid. If you didn't live back then, you wouldn't know that feeling. There were so many expectations, the future of space exploration seemed very bright. I remember a lot of advertising and promotionals having space-related imagery. Heck, my favorite cereal back then was Quisp, with its kooky cartoon space character flying across the box in a Jetsons-type spacecraft, a huge grin on its face and a propeller on its head, with a smattering of stars in the background. [Shhh...don't tell anyone, but I bought a "bobble-head" reproduction of this little guy 1-1/2 years ago, as a collectable...it's sitting on my dresser...and I'm 38! Geez!] That's just one example. Space exploration themes were so big in the 70s [and in the 60s as well of course, but *my* only 60s-related memory is Apollo 11...and I had just turned 4 years old when that mission launched].

Oh well. What's up, NASA? Can't get your act together or the Oval Office has you on a short leash? Do you want that we should come over there and kick you in the collective keister?

--Cindy

Alexander Sheppard · 2003-05-31 14:38:49

Let's see here...

The author states that "The real lesson of the STG debacle was that a healthy program was not sustainable if funded only by taxpayers", as opposed to the rich elite. I think there's some legitimacy to this statement, as the main concentrations of wealth and power in our society rest with the commercial elite, but simply stating that the government chose not to fund something does not prove that it could not be done. There are numerous programs that the government runs quite efficiently (say social security), moreso than the private sector, and this applies further in countries which have more of a welfare state (so for example, the Canadian healthcare system is more efficient than ours).

"...the purpose of human spaceflight is to open the solar system to all of us, not just to civil servants. The appeal of the program depends on the perception that it is opening a new frontier where people can escape the increasing regulation of life on Earth. A centrally-planned, government-run program is incompatible with that vision. It cannot survive, because it contradicts a principal reason for popular support..."

As opposed, I suppose, to a program which is planned by huge commercial entities for the profit of their investors, obviously a highly individualistic alternative, a true vision that we can all take pride in. We must all grieve for these entities, increasingly (well, actually decreasingly) constrained by dangerous forces which are at least marginally accountable to the public, a terrible threat to the true individualism, and one which, if allowed to continue... well, you get the point.

"Corporations can make rapid progress because they can take risks that government agencies cannot."

Actually, the reality is often just the opposite ; government agencies can often take risks that corporations cannot, because they are not profitable to take in the short run (so take for example the development of advanced planes, rockets, computers, the internet, and a host of other things which originated in the military-corporate nexus). And anyway, all the biggest aerospace and defense firms which do the work of NASA wouldn't even exist if it wasn't for massive government cash infusions over the years. Boeing just recently got another big one, it was in WSJ article a couple of days ago. The writer was very open--not critical, of course--of how this was simply a cash infusion to save Boeing from hard times.

"Ground the remaining three shuttles permanently, as too dangerous and expensive to fly...Mothball the ISS and move it to higher orbit, where it is safe from reentry, citing the lack of shuttles as the excuse. Perhaps somebody will eventually find a real use for it."

This is agreeable to me. What comes in their place, however, is where we differ extensively.

I'm not arguing against private sector involvement in space exploration in the present political climate ; because in that climate either you're going to have it, or you're not going to explore space. I also wouldn't vouch for the efficiency or ethicality of centrally managed operations, though it is absurd to talk about government as the only possible example of this. But nevertheless, I think this article suffers from several major delusions, as does the whole mainstream commentry on these subjects.

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-05-30 06:54:24

Re: The Failure of NASA...And a way out

#2 2003-05-31 01:56:01

Re: The Failure of NASA...And a way out

#3 2003-05-31 07:19:19

Re: The Failure of NASA...And a way out

#4 2003-05-31 14:38:49

Re: The Failure of NASA...And a way out

Board footer