Perhaps it is time to again dream big in space. During times of economic down-turn opportunities occur for big public works projects. Developing a cheap way to orbit and a colony on the moon would generate millions of jobs and get the human race off the planet thereby insuring people will be around long after we are gone.

NASA has been a source of Awe-Inspiring Pride for Decades. The achievements of the organization are historical in proportion and result. NASA deserves a constant and huge round of applause for meeting and surpassing their own purpose and goals. The lives lost are not without cause. All of the men and women that have died in their quests knew that it was a possibility, and none wavered in the face of it. Neither should we when we come to the threshold of having to reengage our country in the face of a new set of galactic challenges. Space is the final, and most daunting frontier. It cannot be explored without investment and some loss. It’s secrets cannot be discovered without intense observation and ingenuity. It’s benefits cannot be measured in simple terms. Mankind’s need for the continuing exploration of space is a fundamental aspect of our human experience. How many people of the 5 Billion or so, do not want to go to space? How many years before we look to actually inhabit other places, whether it be a satellite orbiting our Earth, or a far away destination not yet imagined. Space is our future, whether it be a satellite orbiting Earth, or a faraway destination yet to be determined. Mankind is on the brink of being able to achieve what was an impossible dream just 100 years ago. We have already achieved more than anyone could have truly thought possible, now we must realize our potential to become exactly what we would want to be, truly galactic inhabitants with the freewill and ability to achieve ALL that we so desire. Mankind is the most amazing thing to happen to our part of the universe, and we must continue to improve and stretch, and redefine ourselves in the face of adversity and difficulties. We are strong enough to do it, and it is what comes all too naturally to us. Change is inevitable, and fundamental.

NASA should utilize existing heavy lift rockets made for the Air Force. It would get their Orion manned Capsule into space in less time and for less money because it would take an existing sytem and man-rate it rather than a start from scratch design.
Plus the factories producing the Air Force rockets are currently under utilized and would achieve economies of scale if NASA was also using those rockets. It would save the taxpayers a bunch of money and get NASA’s astronauts up in their Shuttle replacement sooner.

I feel NASA is ill-suited to continue carrying America’s space goals and dreams. While NASA has certainly provided us with many benefits over the years, the pace at which they grow and advance will not provide us the same in the future. The Obama administration should develop policies tand utilize capital to help foster technological and business innovation in commercial space enterprises. The burgeoning SpaceDev’s, Scaled Composite’s, and Virgin Galactic’s of this country are the ones who will end up pushing our nations space program to the next level. NASA should be left to research and science.

We should never have stopped going to the moon, even less should we reduce NASA’s budget. Because of the medical advences attributable to the space program, my mother had mitral valve replacement and lived over 10 years longer than she would have done. Medical science without the space medicine advances might not have been advanced enough to do this. The entire Apollo program cost less than one year in the Vietnam war, and if we had just kept going back to the moon for science, yes there would probably be other names on the list of died in service, but we wouldn’t be in the economic crunch we are, and we would have our moon base and geosync space stations, and a better system than the shuttles to serve them.

I was very disappointed with the way the Phoenix mission was carried out and the lack of communication with the public. I don’t know if we really learned anything from this mission that we didn’t already know.

As per usual, some people would cut off their nose to spite their face! NASA may not be perfect, but it sure beats the “War on Proverty”, and the “Great Society” for success! NASA’s faults are over emphazied and its successes under emphazied by NASA’s detractors. The knowledge gained by NASA is priceless. We have a better understanding fo our place in the Cosmos and how our planet works due to NASA’s efforts. To cut the program would be a terrible waste! Maybe fewer wasted dollars for “poor” people and “suffering” children would be more appropriate! Maybe a few less employees of each Congress person would be appropriate, or just possibility, just a little less “pork” from each Congress person just might total a budget reduction in Federal spending rather than picking on NASA!

NASA should remain a priority for this country. We enjoy all kinds of benefits from a strong space and science program and I would like to see us add to NASA’s buget just because we spend so little on it compared to the overall budget currently. That being said, the economic situation cannot be overlooked. I would hope the Obama administration will embrace the Planetary Societies “Road to Space” policy paper. This plan shuffles Bush’s space exploration initative by placing Mars and Earth monitoring higher on the priority list and de-emphasising the Moon. This plan also calls for stages of implementation that take into account budgetary constraints. We need to learn the lessons of the Space Shuttle and ISS programs. NASA programs tend to become big and bloated and tend to take a lot more money than anyone plans for. So to by pass the Moon, there is less of a chance that a Moon program would sap resources from Earth monitoring and the ultimate goal of Mars.

The Space Exploration programs must forge ahead. My only comment is that NASA needs to spend more time and money marketing the benefits to the general population. Clear goals and objectives with all the potential benefits.

We need to enagage our youth with enthusiastic exploration and discovery……..

The American Space Program is important for numerous reasons and can help us better understand the universe that we are a part of and is a whole lot more productive than war. If the money spent on war was invested in the space program we might actually be a little more aware of our reasons for being and where we came from and what else is out there. That being said, it would be much more accepted and supported by the population if NASA was more open and honest about what it actually does know about space and not just show us pretty pictures. It`s rather obvious what that statement means. But of course as we all know the powers that be are always more concerned about how much money they can make and don’t care much about the rest. However, for the program to be worth the expense we must get uncorrupted information and knowledge that is not influenced by close minded politicians who can`t see past they`re next bank deposit. But that`s just what this writer believes ….

I think it would be a real detriment to mankind if our space exploration program was allowed to fall by the wayside in tough economic times. There are plenty of other, more bloated areas of the federal budget to concentrate upon — two-thirds of one percent really shouldn’t be on anyone’s radar. America’s grip on the “super power” title will slip just that much more if NASA is not given the funding it requires. Its successes — Hubble, anyone? Mars explorations? — could save humanity from itself in the future. Consider an Earth that’s too polluted to live on (which could be the case in coming generations) … where will we go? The Moon? How will we get there? How do we know what’s there? Whether it will support Human life? All of these questions, and more, are answered by NASA and its counterparts in other countries. Space represents the last great frontier, and thus far has represented a really remarkable collaboration amongst some of the world’s countries. That spirit of cooperation must flourish if we’re going to continue as a species. I say leave the NASA budget alone — increase it, if you’re going to do anything — and start cutting some of the pork barrel crap out of the budget first.

How can anyone say we can “give” all these billions to failed companies and not “invest” 17 billion in something we can be proud of and gives us technical expertise in return.

Abandoning or cutting back one of the very few programs in which we achieve active and enthusiastic international cooperation, the pursuit of knowledge about the planet and universe we all share, and keeping alive the spirit of exploration and conquest of the unknown would be a huge tragedy.

We have no cash flow problem with Mars: most of those dollars are spent here in the U.S., cycling back into the economy.

Our efforts to make space accessible should be increased, not decreased. The creation of highly reliable technologies that work in closed environments can only benefit humankind as we struggle to better understand and manage our shared planetary environment.

Space exploration is cheap, hurts or kills no one intentionally, is a symbol hope rather than hate, provides focus on the sciences, and challenges us to excel in every endeavor associated with its mastery.

Communications satellites that have transformed human realtions, weather satellites that track hurricanes and save lives, land-, ocean- and atmospheric-survey probes that have defined our current understanding of the environment–NASA was instrumental in the development of all these things. Then there are the manned and unmanned missions which have shown us worlds that even Hollywood couldn’t have imagined (pictures of Io, anyone?), and put men on the moon. NASA’s not perfect (at 50, who is?), but its contribution to human physical well-being and its inspiration of the human mind would be a bargain at any price. And at its present price, it’s downright cheap.

It amazed me to read that NASA’s annual budget was 17 bil. Considering the size of the organization and all that it does in the year at the forefront of modern tech, this doesnt seem like a lot at all. Conside rthe fact that we just approved spending 700 bil to bail out some banks and mortgages. They are looking to spend more added to this on the auto industry. It seems a small price to pay (17 bil a year) for all the tech we get out of NASA research. All this said I am still a fan of private research and development in space flight.

If we are considering bailing out GM for emotional as much as financial reasons, doesn’t it also stand to reason that NASA deserves a similar treatment?

We could do TEN TIMES as much with the money if we took the “manned” out of Manned Space Flight. Robotics, telemetry, immersive remote 3D visualization and remote control as pioneered by our Mars rovers were only tiny baby steps. For the price of one manned space mission we could have TEN robotic missions. Keep it robotic and stretch the money!

We should curtail manned spaceflight. The aerospace industry is soaking up billions of dollars and providing little return on the investment. Robotic probes generate thousands of papers and are vastly less expensive as they don’t have to include life support or a survivable return to Earth at the end of their missions.

Proponents of a Mars mission or a Moon colony mistakenly assume that the potential funding for those programs exists in a vacuum. But that money has to come from somewhere, and it’s difficult to imagine a scenario where legitimate scientific projects get funding cuts in response.

If science and knowledge are the aims of our space program, we should be reaping the maximum benefit from our investment, and unmanned missions are the best way to achieve that end.

Science is all about discovery and exploration. If Obama decided to withdraw from supporting NASA in great depth, than it would be a sad, sad time for the world. It is imperative as humans to have the freedom to explore what is around our planet and find out why Earth (and our solar system) is the way it is today. As Carl Sagan (the late astronomer) states, finding life on other planets would be one of the greatest discoveries of all time. Are we going to turn a blind eye and be egotistical to think searching for something that profound, is a waste of time? I sure hope not. I think space exploration should be one of our top priorities. Let’s see what Obama can do.

The shuttle program was a mistake. We should have focused on an Orion-like program as a follow-up to the hugely successful Apollo program. The ISS may have also been a mistake: we should have used the moon as a “station” and instead employed a “SkyLab”-like solution for a LEO station.

That said, we can still build on our successes. Returning a manned presence on the moon is the right priority for us. After all, China, Russia, India, and perhaps the EU are all planning to eventually set up a manned base on the moon. Longer-term, we need to return to discover if mining for H3 is practical. If it is, the reward will be huge (as an energy source to replace oil).

Most of what’s left of the US economy comes from by-products of the 20th-century space program. Not everything we develop for space will be the next integrated circuit, but integrated circuits were invented as a by-product of the space program, and nothing positive that’s happened to the US economy in the past thirty years happened without the integrated circuit. If you want to talk about hydrogen fuel cells, you’re talking about space technology. Same for the advanced avionics used in modern military aircraft.

If what the economy needs is innovation, NASA is one of our best hopes to produce that innovation. Funding university research grants wouldn’t hurt, either, but NASA has been one of the most productive investments ever undertaken in the US.

The USA absolutely should support NASA longterm. We should continue to lead so that no other nation can or will hijack the unknown frontiers for use against others. Besides, through our current and future space programs we promote a greater understanding of our own world and the things in it which benfits all nations.

The first thing we should eliminate is the Space Station and other manned programs. They’re a drain on resources and really show very little for the investment beyond “bragging rights”. Most of the more important work that we could be doing in space requires conditions that are incompatible with a manned platform - temperature extremes, little or no vibration, the willingness and ability to go into extremely dangerous situations. As automated systems become more advanced, there is less and less need for a person on board a spacecraft.

Many projects have been proposed over the years but never pursued due to budget restrictions. Some of the things that might be possible, were it not for our infatuation with human travel, are:

1) An automated radiotelescope on the far side of the Moon, where it is insulated from man-made interference by the Moon.

2) A replacement for Hubble. If launched using an unmanned rocket, a replacement based on the same design would cost a fraction of what we already have invested in engineering for the original.

3) An automated survey of the Moon, in the near future.

I could go on and on.

NASA needs change alright: change in focus and change in management. Funding NASA has always returned value, but its mission does need to be scrutinized carefully. For the most part, manned space flight should not be so high a priority. Unmanned missions actually accomplish much more and at a fraction of the cost. Bush’s 2004 announcement was nothing more than election year campaigning; he never had any real intention of going to the moon or mars. The first of these we’ve done; the second is impractical.

We should continute to fund NASA. Unfortunately we cannot be spending hundreds of bilions per year funding a war on two fronts, spend a trillion per year bailing out banks and auto makers and continue to fun NASA or much of anything else.

The mission should be scrubbed (mostly). Continue to work on Ares and DS1 Ion thruster, (high risk technology investments) but cut everything else which is for the most part overblown dabbling and ’showcase’ science. Mars missions are certainly a waist of money at this time. Whatever it is we intend to find on the martion surface, will still be there in a couple of decades. Right now, the taxpayers don’t have the money to fund such frivolous activities. Cut them out completely until we can pay off our deficit. Mothball the manned moon spaceflight program and defer maned ISS programs until Ares is finished. I too am a fan of science, but yes, I’m a grump - I live in the real world; not the Rodenberrian Zone. In the mean time there’ll be plenty of ATV riding Arizona nutcases to keep the dream alive.

As an astronomy grad student, I have a vested interest in the space program, but the gains we make in space far exceed the costs we incur. There are problems to overcome in putting people on Mars, problems we don”t know exactly how to solve yet. In solving those problems, we will develop new technologies, and who can guess what will come from them. The space program embodies everything that made America a great nation; to abandon it now would be to abandon our status as one of the leaders of mankind. Our future is in the space program, and though it doubtless has its flaws, the right course of action is to fix the flaws and expand our goals in space, not to shift our focus and leave space to be conquered by other nations.

The Obama administration should conduct an independent review of alternatives to the Ares launch vehicles. This review should include the latest version of the DIRECT system. (www.directlauncher.com).

DIRECT leverages the current shuttle infrastructure, reduces existing solid rocket boosters, has lower research costs and lead times than Ares, and provides better performance than the Ares boosters. The system is flexible and can evolve as launch needs change.

Evolved Expendable Launch Vehicle (EELV’s) should also be reviewed

When you consider that the Nasa budget is 2/3 of 1 percent, it’s a no brainer to continue the program. Space exploration has historically returned on its investment. Many technologies we take for granted today are a result of spin offs from space. Also, the science gained in space, particularly planetary science, helps us understand our own world and has greatly aided in our understanding of global warming. Plus, other nations are taking space seriously. Japan, China, Europe and even India all want to go back to the moon. Should we abandon our position and allow other countries to gain all the benefits from this technology. The argument that money spent in space could be better used on earth is a short term one. The long term benefits of a well constructed program would pay dividends through the 21st century.

We complain that the United States is producing fewer scientists; but why should students bother studying science if programs like NASA are cut back to the point they can’t accomplish anything?

We’ve gained alot from our space program, as the other comments indicate. Must everything be about profit? Can’t we explore our universe for the pursuit of knowledge? It’s very short-sighted to assign a dollar sign to everything. Who can predict what we will gain when visionary people explore the universe?

Half of the Environmental Protection Agency’s budget should be allocated to manned space exploration and settlement of the moon. If we really want to learn about recycling, what more rigorous place to test than in an environment where waste is uber-expensive and failure fatal?

Our new president should use a multi-faceted review process for NASA to prioritize those specific technologies that assist the US in energy independence and those that promote technology to education cooperation to improve how the US moves ideas in the laboratory into viable, sustainable, green products for the world. Further, a commitment to NASA for funding that supports projects that can take decades to finish, not just mid-term election (broken) promises.

Obama and the powers that be need to greatly increase scientific, technology and infrastructure programs even if that means sacrificing a bit on the mundane (social security, welfare and even defense). The key to a strong economy is investing in what makes the economy grow rather than taking from one group of people (say the working in the case of social security) and transferring it to another (say the retired).

As Stephen Hawkins points out, the single greatest thing we could do to promote our survival is to extend ourselves beyond a single planet. That is also the only way to maintain a very long term growth in species success. Otherwise in 100-200 years, we’ll be stuck on a depleted planet waiting for the next plague or asteroid to knock us out.

Much closer to home, the current economic struggles are in part caused by a 20+ year failure to invest in science and infrastructure. Space is part of the science investment that is crucial. The 1+ trillion bailout could have funded a lot of investment instead of being wasted on banks, home borrowers and (now) buggy manufacturers.

What does the author mean “its rarely been mentioned since”
about the Moon/Mars initiative.

NASA is working on it everyday.

All the space media reports on is retiring the shuttle and the Gap until Orion is ready.

Moderator:

In my post “reduces existing solid rocket boosers”

should read “reuses solid rocket boosters”

I think that we should hold the president to his word when it comes to campain promises. I also believe our shuttle fleet should have been replaced years ago. The US is falling behind too much when it comes to technology. Japan’s robots are a prime example. The US is a great country and this is a technological age where we will be judged by our descoverys in science. NASA is a great dream for all our young people to work toward a new horrizon. Let’s cut the red tape and launch a new shuttle tommorrow!

With all of the talk of another great depression we need a focus to pull us out of it. One of the major factors in our coming out of the Great Depression was World War II.

Instead of a war this time how about we focus on space. Focus our industry on space exploration. I can only imagine what our world would be like if we were to take the money we invest into our various wars and invest it into a private sector space program

If humanity leaves all its eggs in this one tiny basket we are going to disappear.

‘The first thing we should eliminate is the Space Station and other manned programs. They’re a drain on resources and really show very little for the investment beyond “bragging rights”.’

Big ticket items such as the space station and manned missions are inspirational. Most folks don’t care about the “scientific” missions. They care about the big ones that drum up national pride. National pride is is not inspired by universal heath care, throwing good money after bad on failed anti-poverty programs or on GM bailout to save UAW jobs.

Far better to have manned program as well as scientific unmanned missions as opposed to more funding for welfare leaches.

Dave,
We do have a survey of the moon going on in the near future…. Foreign governments (India I think) have launched a rocket that is doing just that. NASA will also receive that data

We cannot afford to stop expanding our boundaries. NASA and space exploration fuel the dreams of children and adults alike. It is also impossible to put a price on the resources developed by and for NASA which are now used by ordinary people every day. Where would America be if we didn’t have the most advanced technologies in the world? Many of these come from aerospace exploration and development.

What many people don’t realize is that we loose so much intellectual resource when we stop and start projects like this. When we stop funding aerospace the engineers and scientists get different jobs. If you loose a generation of knowledge then you start back from day one. There is no one who can teach the next generation what we have already learned.

NASA brings jobs to many places that sorely need them.
NASA brings hope to people when they see what we as humans are capable of.
NASA brings new technology and innovations that one day may do more for us than the current gov bailout.
Funding NASA in a way is funding our future. The investements we make today return tomarrow, however not investing would be a sure-fire way to never recieve them.

NASA is a multi-threaded organization. People equate NASA with space exploration, but there are so many other programs within the agency that continually affect us. Geology, Oceanography, Climatology, Astronomy, Cosmology, Health Sciences, Technology and Advanced Materials are just a few areas where we all benefit from NASA on a daily basis.

NASA also provides one of the few national outlets for exploration that we “all belong to”. When we send machines and people into space and push the envelopes of what can be accomplished we are all stakeholders and all along for the adventure. If the U.S. does not lead in space exploration another country will fill the void.

The whole manned vs. unmanned exploration debate is as old as space flight itself. The real debate Dave is arguing is pure science vs. applied science, and in that argument pure science will ALWAYS lose. The only real way to continue to fund NASA at all is to sell the romantic notion of human space flight and the development of new technologies.

I am a big supporter of NASA’s pure science missions but I am also a realist. Most Americans could care less about the origin of Life, the universe, and everything, they are looking for a place to slash the federal budget, and science usually the first target. If the public and congress can’t see any value in or return on the investment they will stop investing. So you have to compromise, cut back on the science and add a bit of the national pride human factor (which has always been both a blessing and a curse) and you continue, or go hard science and lose your funding all together.

Dave -

I beg to differ with your assertions.

In order to have a successful replacement for the Hubble, you need to have a crewed launch & servicing capability. Had it not been for astronauts, Hubble would have been DOA in 1990…but even had it been launched without any flaws, the spacecraft would have been a shortlived 3-5 year mission and would never have survived to return the copious amounts of scientific data the last 18 years.

In order to set up a radiotelescope on the Moon’s farside will also require human assembly and servicing. Humans have already demonstrated this skill time and again - robots have never done so.

To state that human spaceflight is a “drain on resources” and has no return on investment is to ignore the facts. We spend three times as much money on budgetary earmarks every year as we do on human spaceflight…how is something that accounts for 0.2% of the Federal budget (shuttle/ISS) a “drain”, exactly, when 99.8% of the budget is spent elsewhere (and with much less scrutiny and debate I might add)?

NASA (and by extension the aerospace industry) is one of the only goverment agencies that actually produces a return on the investment….pumping some $100 billion into the economy annually - far more than NASA spends. The estimated 30,000 commercial uses for technolgies developed by NASA to support human spaceflight benefit the U.S. economy, create jobs, attract investment, save lives, and improve the quality of life and have proven to be well-worth the paltry initial investment.

NASA is one of the few areas of international relations that America still commands respect and admiration. Go to Europe, Australia, or any of our other friends, and you’ll hear constant (negative) discussions about the war(s), the economy, the environment, etc. Bring up NASA, and you’ll hear the whole tone change.

The U.S. Space Program still inspires people to look beyond local politics and realize that there are still things worth dreaming about. This may not seem important on a daily basis, but it still can be a critical component of our foreign policy. Cut NASA, and you are removing our single shining jewel.

Does that mean NASA is fine the way it is? Of course not. There are major improvements that could be done. More Earth observation research, more probes to other destinations in our solar system, and a manned program we can afford. Ditch the Ares money-sink and do what every non-biased engineer is already asking for: shift to an affordable single launch system that leave money available to construct actual payloads for the launcher to launch! Be it the Jupiter Launch System or something similar, a new administration (both in the White House and at NASA) has the opportunity to do something truly historic.

No doubt about it that the US needs to have a comprehensive space program. If nothing else for Earth monitoring (environmental concerns), NEO monitoring, which, event though events are small in probability the results of one would dwarf any problems we currently have, and just because one cannot tell where the research will lead. Perhaps we can use a space-based power source to add significantly to our energy needs on Earth. Finally, just as the people of Europe needed to leave their shores in the 15th century, the people of Earth have the same need in the 21st century.

Having said all of that, whether it is NASA to best be the US “face” to deliver this is an open question. If not in its present form, perhaps it would be best to “change” it so that it can be an effective US agent in this arena.

Of course NASA should be fully funded. An increase in funding wouldn’t hurt for that matter. You don’t make progress by not investing a small amount into your own future. The future of space can either include the USA or it can be left to China, India, Europe and Russia. Anyone who says the government could better use the money elsewhere fails to understand, if they don’t fund NASA they will not actually use the money elsewhere, and meanwhile, many hi-tech jobs will be forever lost (not to mention the research).

We should continue the ISS and continue robotic missions to the moon and mars but put plans to send humans to either body on long term hold. For any longterm stay much of the work has to be done robotically anyway, so lets just focus on that alone.

What failed Mars missions? The ones on Clinton’s “Better Faster Cheaper” nonsense? That was a decade ago! What we have now is two rovers that have been working for 5 years straight! How exactly is Lisa Nowack’s meltdown NASA’s fault? Sorry given what NASA is asked to do and the crumbs they get to do it - they do amazing work for a LOT of ungrateful people.

As to “Dave” that wants us to be planet bound - what about the Chinese, the Russians, the Indians, the Europeans or the Japanese? Have you forgotten that 16 other nations are involved with I.S.S - so we just give them the station? We should just ignorantly head to the back of the line? Do your research! Why are all these other nations striving to reach the moon? Look into it, if the “bragging rights” as you so put it are long gone - why are they all determined to get there?

The Hubble would be a hunk of junk if not for MANNED missions.

Please DO go on and on - you’re wonderfully displaying your ignorance on the topic.

We need to drastically cut NASA’s budget so we can free up money for un-wed mothers. This would allow more of them to stay home to care for their illegitimate children and teach them that it’s easier to let Obama take care of them than working for a living.

Not only should funding continue, I believe fuding should be doubled. there are tons of government spending that can be cut that goes to programs that do nothing to improve the lives of Americans.

While I agree that basic research science is a laudable goal for NASA, I, as an aerospace worker myself, I know all too well how many good ideas are torpedoed by short sighted burecrats (this, by the way, is where a lot of your tax dollars for space goes…right into the toilet because people are afraid of “risk”, or it doesn’t fit their pet agendas). I am of the opinion that as a nation, we should focus strongly on the industriallization and commercialization of space. Because the infrastructure costs are so high, government is the only real way to get there in the near term. However, government investment in the commercialization of space is virtually guaranteed to transform our economy in a big way in the long run (consider the highway system for example). Basic science and research will be a big part of that, and should be the industrial partner, rather than competitors for space dollars.

I’m with Dave. Eliminate man space flight completely. That would save well more than 1/2 the current budget. Focus on instrumented spacecraft. Examples, telescopes specifically designed to study black holes, further planet exploration in our solar system, space telescopes designed to directly image planets in other solar systems. This are really worthwhile goals and can be preserved in our space budget. Frankly, humans were never meant to go into space. If you doubt that, look how much it is costing to try to keep them there. The countries that follow this path will follow the path to backruptcy. Ironic that the dreams that inspire us to do more can also be the measure of our undoing.

Both people who want to cut the space program altogether, and those who want to cut manned programs in favor of pure science, completely miss the point — and frankly I feel sad for them. It’s not all about just getting the answers. Rather it’s all about what you are willing to do — and, yes, risk — in order to try to get them. It’s not just a matter of “bragging rights,” it’s about expanding and celebrating the human spirit by allowing a select few, on behalf of all of us, to be the first to dare to (OK, I’ll say it –boldly) go somwhere previously unexplored. Succesfully sending a person to the moon, or Mars, or Jupiter’s moons shouts out to the universe, not only that we’re here, but that we have sense of purpose, and it reaffirms our faith in ourselves. We dream, we aspire, we struggle to acheive, or we die quietly in our collective bed. I know what I prefer.

1) An automated radio telescope on the far side of the Moon
2) A replacement for Hubble.

Both of these are great ideas. I’ve read about the Hubble replacement (James Webb Space Telescope) that would place the new telescope in an orbit around the L2 point (see: http://www.jwst.nasa.gov/orbit.html), where there are a number of excellent benefits.

The other thing to consider is whether we want to be a part of the new frontier this century, or let China, et al become the de-facto owners on the largest piece of undeveloped real estate just floating above our heads. And consider this: in our childrens’s lifetimes, they will see the new moon dotted with the lights of civilization. Do we want to own some of those lights, or are we going to just rent space?

Considering we’re spending $10 billion per month in IRAQ, I think it should be pretty easy to keep NASA flush with a solid budget.

Just have to wrap up ops in IRAQ and bring everyone home.

Then all of that D.O.D. money can can go from a war with zero positive returns to supporting Exploration, Discovery & Science through NASA which benefits the entire world.

In the 1960’s, NASA managed to design and deploy 3 seperate launch programs (Mercury, Gemini, Apollo) on multiple Launch vehicles (Redstone, Atlas, Saturn 1A, 1B, V) including the LEM (another launch Platform) all within less than 10 yearss, using slide rulers, pencils and a few large mainframe computers that all together were less powerful than the machine I am typing on. They also developed from scratch launch control, on-board computing systems, imbedded software subsystems, etc. Today, Lockheed Martin is being allowed to reinvent essentially an Apollo program in steriods, but with the benefit of advanced CAD/CAM/CAE/DMU Product Lifecycle Management systems, software Application Lifecycle Systems, etc. NASA is accepting that this cannot be done safely without a development period for the first of these vehicles that exceeds the entire time it took us to leap from Sputnik to the Moon. LM must be extremely poor users of these advanced product development technologies, and appearently extremely good lobbyists and politicians. As a taxpayer and a Space exploration advocate, I find the premise that we must suffer 4 years with no manned space program unacceptable. NASA needs to be toughened up…and the US needs a new contractor. I bet Toyota could get it done in less time and money.

Dr. Phil Plait (who recently wrote Death from the Skies“) has a few words on this as well: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/11/14/whither-nasa-admin/

I still cannot fathom the narrow minded view that anything like planetary exploration (or nearly any legitimate field of science) could be construed to be a waste of money. What sort of wonderless world do these people live in?

Obama should direct NASA, and give them the $$$ to do so, to do the following.

1. Fly Shuttle until until 2020 to service needs of ISS. CAIB gave NASA a way to recertify the Shuttle beyond 2010. If any one thinks Orion/Ares will fly 100+ missions without 1 or 2 accidents you are kidding yourself. Shuttle was designed to service needs of a Space Station and to utilise it. $3 Billion a year extra is nothing in comparision to what your country is wasting in Iraq and miltary in general. Fly Shuttle 2 or 3 missions a year. Max of 5 crew. Maybe invite ESA, private industry etc to help fund the cost of extending shuttle. If the Shuttle is that unsafe it should have been grounded for good in 2003.

2. Ares/Orion to focus on Moon with ISS contigency only.

If USA allows a 5 year Gap it will be one of the worst failures in USA policy making.

If Soyuz has an accident during the Gap, especially a landing or re-entry accident, there maybe no way to get the ISS crew home.

We lost many scientists and engineers when Congress killed the last Apollo missions (have you seen those nice Saturn 5 boosters in museums). There was a very long gap unil the start of the Shuttle in 1981, nearly 6 years after the last Apollo mission, the ASTP joint US-Russian mission. Can we afford that again when we are already falling behind and the NASA staff is aging? What about commercial alternatives such as Dragon from Space X and the T-Space CXV? Maybe those outside of the traditional military-industrial complex should be the standard bearers of the future (not Boeing, LockMart, etc.).

We need MORE funding for math and science — and NASA is a large, very-visible example of what we as a nation can do! NASA serves as an inspiration to us all (I just witnessed the night Shuttle launch last Friday, it lit up the sky). Look at the Hubble deep field images. Look at how NASA and space technology have changed our lives (let me turn on my GPS and listen to my XM radio).

I’m not sure where Dave is getting his information, but I disagree with pretty much all of his comments, particulary regarding elimination of the manned spaceflight program. As stated in another comment, two-thirds of one percent of the national budget doesn’t really hit anyone’s radar, and considering what we get back in return for that investment affects everyone. A couple of examples:

- Research into why astronauts lose bone mass during long-duration flights has resulted in the development of drugs that are now available here on Earth for treating osteoporosis.

- Research into improving the efficiency and lowering the cost of manufacturing solar cells for use in space has resulted in making solar power installations more affordable for businesses and homeowners, helping to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels (and their resulting emissions) for generating electricity.

Work taking place in space today will continue to provide benefits to us on the ground — the new Water Reclamation System being installed on the space station during this shuttle mission (which converts waste water into drinkable water) can be the model for improving our Earth-bound waste treatment and water purification systems to produce more usable water more efficiently and at lower cost, particularly in areas of the world where clean water is in short supply.

Now about his other points:

Regarding a radiotelescope on the far side of the Moon, it’s been discussed for years…but how are you going to set it up, operate it, and maintain it at its peak effectiveness without humans visiting it at least periodically? As the Mars Rovers have shown, you can operate and do science remotely and do it very well, but in time parts do wear out and you lose efficiency in the process.

Regarding a replacement for the Hubble Space Telescope based on the same technology, that doesn’t make sense. There have been many advances in imaging in the 20 years since Hubble was launched (just consider how much digital cameras have changed since 1990); plus, the Hubble was designed to be serviced and upgraded on a regular basis by humans — how would you propose to perform that service work if you eliminate the manned spaceflight program? Remember that NASA had considered a robotic mission to service the Hubble after Columbia was lost, but decided that it would be too complex for robots to perform.

(Besides, the Hubble’s replacement is already being built - - it’s called the James Webb Space Telescope, and it’s due to launch (on an unmanned, expendable rocket) sometime around 2012 or so. Yes, it’s a new design and doesn’t reuse any of the engineering work that were developed for Hubble, but it takes full advantage of all the improvements in technology since Hubble was launched, as well as all of the lessons learned from operating Hubble over the last two decades.)

And finally, there is already a vehicle being built to perform an automated survey of the Moon in the near future. It’s called the Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter, and it’s due to be launched early next year. It will join three other vehicles already in orbit around the Moon from China, India, and Japan that are also performing their own high-resolution surveys.

And all of this coming from a very modest investment - about 1/40th of the $700 billion that is going to bail out the financial industry. To accomplish all of that work on so little budget in the first place is certainly something worth bragging about! Imagine what NASA could do with even more money!

I am perfectly fine with the US government adding additional funding to the NASA program. My only concern is how they use the funding, We have been using the same exact tech since the 70’s on the shuttles and now they want to go back to an even older model. It does not make sense. We are in the digital age. They should put the funding into developing a new shuttle that is more advanced and is able to launch like a normal aircraft. The blackbirds can almost break through and I am sure that they could punch through if they had proper heat sheilding for reentry. So why cant NASA?

And look at the rovers. Yes i know that they are an unexpected acheivement. But why are they not equipped with the latest tech? How hard is it to equip them with a true HD full color range camera with an led for a flash?

We need NASA for a multitude of reasons, but I’ll focus on only two:

One is “our dreams as a nation” : Americans have always identified themselves as explorers and pioneers. It matters not at all that on an individual basis, few Americans are either, as a nation we see ourselves that way. Space is the final frontier (to borrow a phrase) and I believe that we, as a people, would be profound disappointed to not be leading the exploration of space.

The second is a pragmatic one : We cannot afford to cede the “high ground” of near Earth space to any nation unchallenged. However, neither should we overtly militarize space. NASA is the grand compromise for us. NASA, as an organization, pursues space exploration in a non-military way (for all mankind, remember), but nonetheless establishes America as the preeminent space “power”.

Think of it this way, the nearly trillion dollars we’re tossing at the financial crisis over the next year or two, much of which will be wasted or basically stolen, would fund NASA for over 50 years.

NASA’s budget is currently only two-thirds of a percent of the federal budget. When we were ambitious enough to beat the former Sovient Union to the moon, NASA’s budget was a more then four percent of the nations federal budget! Many believe that the ISS is a waste of money since not much comes out of it. We obviously take the spin off technologies of space for granted but what we also take for granted is the political “glue” we supply to America. Without a friendly internation cooperation to we have in working on the ISS, we could have been in a polictical hot spot with countries such as Russia.

NASA needs a robust manned and unmanned mission for the future. Obama says he wants to ensure we close the gap between the retirement of the shuttle and the development of the next generation vehicle, Orion. But what he does not say is what are the plans for that point on. NASA wishes and currently has a plan to land on the moon by 2020 and set up an outpost in the future. Is this going to stay alive and well funded by the Obama administration? Time will tell! All we have to do is hope the country is on NASA’s side and allows for increased funding over the two-thirds of a percent they see currently!

There is no political interference with climate scientists, and repeatedly asserting that this is truth won’t make it so. It’s an attention getting claim, period.

Meanwhile, NASA doesn’t have enough money and I’m certainly willing to cut a *lot* of programs to give it even more; I’d like to see it get 5% or more of the budget. We do *not* need to cut manned programs; in fact, I’d cut other programs instead. We need *more* manned programs, and the sooner, the better. Why? It’s simple: cheap access to space and experience building stuff and being in space translates to spaceborne power delivery. The sun ain’t gonna run out of juice in the next 200 generations, but we may run out of oil by then. If Obama and his green friends are serious about thinking CO2 is a pollutant, then let’s get on the stick and get the power sats operational.

NASA Administrator Mike Griffin acknowledged multiple violations of Agency policy in restricting the comments of NASA scientist James Hansen and others, and instituted changes in Agency policy to prevent recurrences in the future. This is a matter of record, I’m not “simply asserting this is true.” PD

We all benefit from the NASA space program in one way or another.
There is so much to learn about our past, present and future of
our place in the Universe for continued survival. In addition, new technologies, new medications and medical applications
have been made possible as a result of the NASA space program. So, it is not just about finding life in other dimensions. The money
is well spent and the program should definitely continue.

Beside the benefits of scientific and specifically astronomical research and exploration, there’s also the fact that NASA plays a very large part of the economy in terms of jobs in Houston, East Central Florida, Huntsville, AL, and many other places where NASA has a large presence. It’s short-sighted folks that say “kill NASA” that are largely behind the fact that the U.S. ranks below every developed nation in the world, as well as many third-world countries, in terms of science education and development. Of course, better efficiency could be exercised in the agency, and minor fat-cutting could lead to small budget cuts, but by and large we need a strong NASA.

Its been almost 40 years since we went to the moon. We’ve accomplished little in space since then. This planet can not continue to support the explosion of global population. We need to be doing more if we’re every going to move beyond our solar system. Mankind does’t even look to the stars anymore, much less reach for them. We’re a culture obsessed with cell phones and video games. When’s the last time you looked up, and wondered ‘what if?’. I had hoped I would see space flight for the average person in my lifetime. I’m 37. Now I know it will be reserved for the ultra rich, and maybe a few from NASA. Sad that we can not move beyond politics and budget cuts to reach for the stars.

The very best thing that could happen is to abandon the “cast of thousands” approach to accessing space, and to work diligently to achieve Single-Stage-to-Orbit (SSTO) capability, and begin to operate with an airline paradigm rather than an ICBM paradigm.

Please don’t quote the old, old, old descriptions of the STS as intending to do this - only in the very earliest, manned-first-stage versions of Shuttle was this even remotely possible. The Shuttle we have now, as wonderful as it is, is a crippled design, compromised in the birthing by political forces. We shouldn’t need standing armies to do this job.

Let NASA do its job of bleeding-edge research unencumbered by the false promise of profit, and let the private sector unleash its creativity on the problem.

HONESTLY, DON’T YOU THINK THE SOLVENCY OF THE U.S.A. IS MORE INPORTANT THAN ROCKS ON MARS?

MAYBE THE ENGR’S COULD GO TO WORK FOR THE AUTO INDUSTRY AND THE REST COULD GET A REAL JOB.

Its amazing to me how much we fund simply surviving (i.e. wars etc). But when it comes time to fund exploration advancement of human knowledge, we do not want to fund it because it isn’t clear what will come from it and we just know there’s tons we do not know and we have charged NASA with the task of never stopping in the search for knowledge. That’s the most amazing thing about NASA, there doesn’t have to be a business case for every single project because their goal is to continue to inceasing curiosity of the unknown by uncovering bits and pieces of it. This organization is not only focused on space missions, but on funding research the field of aeronautics (i.e. planes) and discovering ways to improve Earth-contained air travel. In times like this, where the economy is struggling, wars are very real/personal events to many Americans and we need the HOPE that comes from scientific research because that will get us through these tough times. Seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.

NASA has been one of the few bright areas of our governmental operation. I cannot think of another government agency that has been responsible for our economic well being. Some might argue past wars (with its associated R&D) is responsible for our high tech economy and that may be true before NASA. However, I don’t think that it is no longer the case. JFK, DDE, LBJ and many other Presidents have all believed that putting money in NASA was an investment in the future, even during hard times. In fact, during hard times like this, we should put more mony in to exploration. Think about it, you put money into an agency that would likely result in job creation as a result of contracting, etc. These are high paying jobs too. It is time to invest more into the future and not squander it by being very short sided.

To quote one of JFK’s last speeches:
“Frank O’Connor, the Irish writer, tells in one of his books how, as a boy, he and his friends would make their way across the countryside, and when they came to an orchard wall that seemed too high and too doubtful to try and too difficult to permit their voyage to continue, they took off their hats and tossed them over the wall–and then they had no choice but to follow them.

This Nation has tossed its cap over the wall of space, and we have no choice but to follow it. Whatever the difficulties, they will be overcome. Whatever the hazards, they must be guarded against.”

Space exploration is a noble endeavor in which the best qualities of mankind are manifested.

As compared to the often devastating consequences of earthly exploration over the centuries, including genocide (intended as well as accidental), cultural devastation, ruin of the environment for profit and so on, space exploration has brought people and nations together in common cause.

It has greatly expanded knowledge of our earthly environment, revealing both its beauty and fragility . In revealing to us the true magnificence and mystery of the cosmos it brings us closer to an understanding of the origins of our humanity.

Inevitably, it will someday unite us with other life in the universe.

How could such an effort not be worth the cost?

Do NOT abandon the ISS! It is a marvelous platform for on-going scientific testing and could serve as a jumping-off point for subsequent manned or unmanned missions.

I agree the focus SHOULD currently be on unmanned missions to the planets and moons other than our own. More manned missions can come later when technology and finances are (hopefully) more abundant!

No one wants to see people go hungry, struggle for housing, and struggle for employment opportunities. But if we allow our reach for the stars to die, a part of our soul will die. As other nations surpass us, it will be one more step in the decline of our great nation!

Stephen Hawking has it right - ultimately, we cannot survive unless we become a space-faring civilization. That requires both science and exploration, and is ultimately an either-or survival choice. A need, not a want.

We must continue to explore, we must continually push forward into new frontiers, or we’ll lose our bold, pioneering, quintessentially American spirit. Two-thirds of one percent of our national budget is a small price to pay and we cannot afford to just give up and stay home.

I pray that our great country does not loose its leadership in space and other technical disciplines. I am prod to say that our country met the late president Kennedy’s challenge of landing a man on the moon and that we led the way in aviation technology. I can not speak highly enough of the effects of the space race on my life and the life of every other American, whether they realize its impacts or not. My grandfathers generation can proudly say that it led the way in transatlantic flight and nuclear power, my fathers generation can say it led the way in landing a man on the moon and defeating communism. I will not stand by idly and loose the right to say that my generation led the way in the return to space and solidifying mankinds and Americas grip on the moon and other celestial bodies.

We absolutely should continue to support NASA, increase its budget, and foster more cooperation between government space agencies and the private sector, namely Elon Musk’s SpaceX company just for starters. Humanity tends to expand and economies grow when we tackle great challenging projects that are worthy of our technical abilities. Had it not been for Columbus 500 years ago, most of us would not be sitting here now in the US doing much of anything that we do now (or it would have happened much later). Everyone should read the book from former Lockheed-Martin aerospace engineer Robert Zubrin, “The Case for Mars”. I believe the real reasons to go into space are numerous:

1) An aggressive plan to put a permanent human base on the moon and the first manned flights to Mars would create numerous high tech jobs, give the young people something to aspire to instead of the stagnant bleak future they are now looking at.

2) For the long term, humanity must be become a multi-planet (& eventually multi-star system) race in order to survive planet-wide disasters on any 1 planet (be they natural or man-made). The possibility of the supervolcano under Yellowstone Park eventually erupting or an asteroid wiping us out is very real in the longer term. The asteroid Apothesis will already pass Earth less than 22,000 miles in 2029 where our satellites are. Depending on its exact path, it could actually hit us when it returns in 2036. It’s not big enough to wipe us out, but it still could do some major damage. The number of people mapping out near Earth asteroids is less than the staff of 2 shifts at McDonalds. Extremely strong gamma ray bursts from thousands of light years away are much more rare, but could still wipe us out faster than any asteroid, as there is no current defense or even much of warning system against them.

3) Thus, we should not only send humans to Mars, but eventually colonize it and maybe even terra-form it to some extent over the long term as suggested by Robert Zubrin’s ideas. The late great Carl Sagan believed this also. Think of all the related jobs that would be created. The only way out of this economic nonsense is to innovate our way out with technological progess. That is supposed to be what the US does best.

4) In order to send humans to Mars, NASA will have to perfect nanotechnology in medicine to save them from cancer in space. The spinoffs from this will be advanced nanotech medicines for all of us that will cure many of today’s diseases from the inside out such as cancer, heart disease, diabetes, and almost everything else. Who doesn’t want a longer lifespan? Some scientists even predict that physical immortality might even result eventually from this, or at least eliminating natural causes of death. At that point, we definitely need to be expanding outwards and colonizing other planets.

5) If we screw up this planet with Global Warming as much as some scientists fear by 2100 or 2200, it might really be necessary to find a new home in the long term. Global warming that we are so good at is exactly what Mars needs (if it can be controlled) for us to live there.

6) If NASA doesn’t do what it needs to in space, private enterprise will eventually do it anyway. God bless entrepreneurs like Elon Musk, Richard Branson, Burt Rutan and others who are actually out there innovating with private rocket ships, plans to build space hotels, etc.

7) Lastly, if we don’t do it, the Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Europeans, and maybe even Russians will eventually do it without us. Where is our sense of adventure and bold vision to do what we used to do, like be the first to land humans on the moon? If 1969 was our 1492, then the 21st century needs to be like 1620 when we start colonizing the new worlds. Let’s bring on the future and quit living in the past!

P.S. How about also mining the moon for Helium-3 for cleaner nuclear fusion power in the future and/or placing huge arrays of solar panels into space to beam power back to Earth in microwaves to solve the major energy crisis in the future when all 3 fossil fuels finally run out?

Well Peter, You know I fully support funding for NASA…selfishly because I know it leads to more scientific knowledge that CAN help the poor, the ill, the disabled. Not to mention the insight into God’s beautiful creation (Hubble space pics) that I wish would be put into poster size so we can frame for the home…..especially the most recent. My take is that if enough people speak loud enough I think he will be consistent in what he promised. So far he’s consistent on his word.

I think Obama should bring back Project Orion. Stop wasting money on big rockets with tiny payloads, start putting up huge rockets with huge payloads, and make space a large enough operation in scale to do real science, perhaps production on a meaningful scale, and real exploration, at long last.

For those of us who remember the original moon landings, that effort brought this world closer than anything before or since. In a time of war and protest we all came together to see what seemed like a miracle at the time. Now, more than ever, we need to be brought together in a common peaceful purpose. Imagine what we could accomplish if we all work together. On the practical side, the space program accelerated many of the technical advances in computers, robotics, and medicine we have today. It has and will continue to be a great benefit to humanity.

Rebuilding infrastructure will make a good jobs program, but putting together a spectacular space program (ala “We choose to go to the moon in this decade…”) is an outstanding jobs program. More importantly, the space program isn’t as mundane as building roads - it gives a sense of moving forward and being on top. Any roads you remember that did that?

Two thirds of one percent is a small price to pay to stay in the tech game of the millennium. I believe we need to up the ante. Why do so many companies spend millions to be involved in NASCAR? – name recognition. That name recognition benefits successful companies in so many other ways not even connected with NASCAR. I realize that it is a strange comparison but the US needs to be competitive in space exploration. I feel that if we lose our leadership in space that many other industries will begin to lose ground too – even more than they have already. If we settle for being in the top ten it will be exponentially more expensive to move back in to the gold medal position down the road. I for one don’t want to sit back and watch countries such as China waving the checkered flag.

Up front I have to admit some bias - I’ve been a space enthusiast since the Gemini days. So I am in favor of manned space exploration. But until we get through some difficult near-term issues (financial crisis, auto industry, Iraq war), I’m not in favor of a big Mars or Moon manned exploration. In due time I think we’ll get there.

For now I would suggest we keep funding our investment in the ISS and Orion, but any new programs be focused on unmanned exploration. There’s so much to learn about our solar system and the best way to gather the knowledge is through unmanned probes. These increasing more ambitious unmanned missions will require advances in robotic A.I., ultra-reliable systems, new propulsion systems (ion drive, solar sails, etc.), new remote sensor designs, and more. Those missions will pave the way for manned missions - someday.

Bravo to Miles O’Brien for stimulating this discussion. If Obama is true to his word, there should be a budget amendment that guarantees NASA a full 1% of the fedral budget. This might allow us to operated the shuttle for two more years while accelerating the building of the Orion and Ares.

The Ares/Orion project is a very smart step. It gives us a cheaper, semi-disposable way to get to orbit and the ISS (it’s similar in principle to the Soyuz which has served the Russians fine for decades), while also giving us a working framework to get back to the moon - since the same ship would make up half of the moon mission. It is absolutely essential that this vehicle remain on the fast track, unless we want to trust another country with the only way to get people to and from a space station that we’ve already invested quite a bit into.

Part of Obama’s message is to make people believe in America again, to restore faith in our hopes and dreams. I see few better ways to do that than to restore excitement in manned spaceflight.

Two-thirds OF one percent. I want everyone to think long and hard about that number. Is that how much you thought NASA costs out country? I bet you thought it was more expensive–and I don’t blame you; every time i read a news story about the exploration of space, or just an important scientific experiment in general the first thing that is usually mentioned is how much it cost. Sometimes it seems like everything this nation does is funded with a blank check EXCEPT when it’s in regards to scientific studies. I think that’s ironic when science was the engine that drove this nation for so many years, and yet unsurprising when you consider that now days US students fair only better than those from third world countries when rated internationally.

If it was not for the space shuttle program starting up when I was in kindergarten and my enthrallment with it throughout its ups and downs over the years, I doubt that I would be where I am today as an member of the aerospace community ensuring that today’s aircraft are certified for safe operation such that passengers may enjoy the safest cross-country means of transport. Scientific programs such as those which Nasa pursues inspire young children to grow up and enter careers which ensure the technological future our country.

I guess we do have the option of abandoning such pursuits and eventually end up buying our airplanes, helicopters, fighters, bombers, and satellite launch vehicles from Airbus, Eurocopter, EADS, etc… but do we want to give up on the future of one of the few industries which nets the US a trade surplus?

Gee, the Bush-bashing goes on: “In his 2004 State of the Union speech, President Bush announced an ambitious effort for manned missions to the Moon and Mars. But the money never came through, and it’s rarely been mentioned since.”
Where has Dykstra been for the past 4-5 years? NASA has been marching to Bush’s “Vison for Space Exploration” ever since that speech, and hardware is now being built. First test flight in 2009. And NASA has been doing this within its usual annual budget…no big new funds that “never came through.” If Mr. Dykstra, in his position, hasn’t heard of this and thinks “it’s rarely been mentioned,” how come I’ve heard all about it? A Time magazine article (ironically in cooperation with CNN) does a much better job discussing this subject: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1858878,00.html?xid=site-cnn-partner

The more complex the science or technology, the longer the lead-time for tangible results to be enjoyed.

We Americans are an impatient people, as so very well displayed with our tendencies to worry over profits 6 months from now rather than looking for the longer picture to economic stability. (Automobile industry, anyone?) We do the same with NASA and our space program. We are always asking “What have you done for me lately?”

Enough with this impatience. Impatience can foster the need to excel, and it has its place, but not with such a complex task as developing the space program. We’re dealing with lives here, not just in space, but down here where we live and work.

The space program is critical on so many important levels that we cannot afford to reduce it. Because of the lack of foresight of the Bush Administration, we face a potential crisis in the loss of an incredible wealth of bright scientists. These are men and women who have given their lives to helping develop the our capabilities in space, and enable us to enjoy myriad things that have come into existence only because of this research. Now, because of the vacuum that will likely be created by the inept planning (during the past 8 years) that has failed to provide a solid bridge to carry our expertise to the next step while we transition from the shuttle to a new generation of space vehicles, we may fall miserably behind China, Russia and now even India.

It is imperative that the Obama administration provide the resources to carry us through this ‘other’ transition, and enable us to retain the wonderful wealth and depth of human resources that have given us so much. If this doesn’t take place, we will have the space and science equivalent of what happened when the “No Child Left Behind” mandate was put in place, but the funding never appeared. All words and good intentions. No action, and therefore woefully few results.

It CAN be that the golden age of space science, research and travel has not yet occurred. A large and concerted effort can have many unforeseen benefits for our country, not the least of which would be the tremendous boom it will bring both economically and intellectually. The Golden Age may be just ahead of us. Let’s hope so.

The more complex the science or technology, the longer the lead-time for tangible results to be enjoyed.

We Americans are an impatient people, as so very well displayed with our tendencies to worry over profits 6 months from now rather than looking for the longer picture to economic stability. (Automobile industry, anyone?) We do the same with NASA and our space program. We are always asking “What have you done for me lately?”

Enough with this impatience. Impatience can foster the need to excel, and it has its place, but not with such a complex task as developing the space program. We’re dealing with lives here, not just in space, but down here where we live and work.

The space program is critical on so many important levels that we cannot afford to reduce it. Because of the lack of foresight of the Bush Administration, we face a potential crisis in the loss of an incredible wealth of bright scientists. These are men and women who have given their lives to helping develop the our capabilities in space, and enable us to enjoy myriad things that have come into existence only because of this research. Now, because of the vacuum that will likely be created by the inept planning (during the past 8 years) that has failed to provide a solid bridge to carry our expertise to the next step while we transition from the shuttle to a new generation of space vehicles, we may fall miserably behind China, Russia and now even India.

It is imperative that the Obama administration provide the resources to carry us through this ‘other’ transition, and enable us to retain the wonderful wealth and depth of human resources that have given us so much. If this doesn’t take place, we will have the space and science equivalent of what happened when the “No Child Left Behind” mandate was put in place, but the funding never appeared. All words and good intentions. No action, and therefore woefully few results.

It CAN be that the golden age of space science, research and travel has not yet occurred. A large and concerted effort can have many unforeseen benefits for our country, not the least of which would be the tremendous boom it will bring both economically and intellectually. The Golden Age may be just ahead of us. Let’s hope so.

beam me up scotty

If it’s up to me, I would increase the NASA budget, maybe up to 50 billions or more (maybe, you should cut the DOD budget). Most people complain that investing in the space program is a waste of money and doesn’t pay off in a short term but the truth is that to the Moon, Mars, and beyond is where we will need to go, sooner or later, when we have depleted all resources in this planet.

I agree that we should never abandon the space program. It is reasonable to expect that we should keep them honest and make sure their budget is spent wisely and re-evaluate our space priorities every so often. But the space program is one of the few cutting-edge scientific endevours where anything is on the table, and consequently we discover all sorts of things that were never expected, and benefit humanity in numerous fields. That is and always will be the true benefit of the space program. The actual space exploration part is just fun icing on the cake. And I believe the secret to our energy freedom lies in space, not under the ground.

Incidentally, the space program will never die on earth. Private investors and dreamers will always keep it going in some form or another, even if it the US government loses interest.

Long term increases in humanity’s standard of living are due, almost exclusively, to scientific advances.

So,. rather than stimulate the economy by getting people to borrow money to buy SUV’s, the government should be using this opportunity to restructure our economy towards rapid development of technology and science, including space exploration.

One of the tragedies is that we are spending billions of dollars on a stupid war against terror and maintaining huge armies to protect us from I don’t know who — when most of us will be killed by the degenerate diseases of old age; not some terrorist, not the Cubans,
not the North Koreans - but by a cancer cell or clogged artery.

And the way to fight that is through scientific research; of all types.

I read somewhere that NASA’s budget during the push to the moon under Kennedy and Johnson was an equivalent of 1% of the nation’s entire GDP at the time. Most of the things that we take for granted in today’s world came from that technological development. If we could only give them that kind of money now, the space elevator would be a done deal, we’d have a permanent place on Mars almost immediately, and we would have so many amazing things in our pockets, kitchens and cars …

Yes, President-Elect Obama made a lot of promises during his campaign. Many of us who work for the space program feared that if he were to be elected that NASA’s budget would suffer. However, Obama seemed to learn during the campaign that cutting NASA’s budget would not be a good idea. He wants to build an energy independent America? One of the first places to look is at our space program for the technology to help get this started. He wants to improve education in our country? Look to the excitement of the space program to inspire the next generation to focus on science and Math. He wants to hope? He wants to dream? Our space program is an international symbol about what is good about our country. That’s why so many other countries are now trying to develop their own. We have seen some dark days recently. Now is not the time to cut funding for one of the government agencies that does so much good in so many different ways.

It makes me glad to see so many pro-space program comments here. My fear is that we are in the minority. Sadly too many people are of the opinion that “there is nothing out there”. Which disturbs me because all one must do is look up at the sky on a clear night to see that there are plenty of things out there. Obviously a serious look needs to be taken at NASA’s projects, but only in a effort to strengthen the space program and give it focus, not to weaken it.

America must lead the way in space. If we don’t China or somebody else will. The amount of technology we developed for the Apollo missions is one reason the US is so strong today. Preparing for man missions to the Moon and Mars will most definitely grow our technology toolkit. Not only that, it will attract more leading scientists from other areas of the globe and also inspire our children to excel in math and science.

The Shuttle is too dangerous and expensive. It should be retired as soon as possible. The current plan to finish ISS and retire the Shuttle is reasonable.

NASA has a $500M program called COTS to encourage 2 independent commercial launch services for cargo to the Space Station after the Shuttle is retired. That’s in contrast to the $100B+ (if it doesn’t go over budget!) NASA program to develop government rockets to deliver crew to the Space Station and return to the Moon. The commercial effort is over 200 times cheaper for the taxpayer, has low risk because (unlike its traditional contracts) NASA doesn’t pay if the service milestones aren’t met and NASA doesn’t pay if the effort goes over budget, and if successful will return something extremely useful: low-cost commercial access to space. This effort should be expanded with additional funding to encourage commercial services to send crew to and from the Space Station with emergency Station evacuation capability a