I 100% agree that space exploration has stagnated as a government program. Its time to free up the funds spent on NASA and redirect them towards private ventures. NASA should still exist - but it's mission should be converted into one that supports private endeavors.
For starters, take $50 Billion out NASA's budget (across several budget years), and turn that into an X prize for the first manned base on the moon. We'd have one in under 10 years. And it'd probably have a starbucks.
Doesn't anyone respect private property any more? If you think there is so much value to space travel then start - or donate money to - a private foundation. Leave my paycheck alone so I can support my family and our ambitions. Your fantasy of what can happen in space is your own business.
As for all of this hatred of corporations, how is it that anyone expects government bureaucracy to accomplish great things for mankind? Government is run by the same flawed humans to run anything else, only without the motivation to create anything of value.
This comment is from a former 20 year NASA employee. I quit in disgust and I continue to be embarrassed I worked for such a phony revolting agency. NASA articles get on my nerves. You should read the "Falling Objects" article by the Houston Chronicle and the irritating response by the Johnson Space Center Director. They got a lot of email about it and they misrepresented my original letter to the editor. They finally had to use parts of the original to defend themselves in "NASA charges paper with unnecessary roughness". It was the final article.
All the high-minded pro and con arguments, are pointless and useless. NASA likes to mention the agency culture a lot. That idea works well here. The real problems with NASA are found the sewer called management and the culture of corruption within NASA. I am not talking about the contracts, money or drunk/psycho astronauts. That is what gets on the news.
I am talking about the corrupt mentalities at levels so deep the official titles don't mean anything to anyone outside of NASA. You don't hear about the NASA correct personnel practices. You are a manager and you don't like certain skin colors? No problem. Do whatever you want and NASA will stand behind you. You don't like single people and don't think they should be employed? You think that means they are irresponsible. No problem. There are ways around the laws. You want to sabotage a former employee's job finding efforts? No problem.
That sewer is the pool from which NASA gets its management stars. There are many "bad boss" sites and some have contests. I have them all beaten. NASA has become a house of cards with a sewer of garbage as its foundation. The garbage is admired. It is promoted. Don't you dare be a competent employee. This is NASA and we don't do that around here.
Sounds like I hate NASA? I do and I am writing a book about just how much I hate NASA and everything it stands for. I will be telling you about the sewer. You will then understand the violence at the Johnson Space Center. You will understand how no one noticed an insane astronaut. How did NASA fail to find any drunk astronaut evidence in its written "records"? You won't like my stories. You will know why many people have no right to complain about government waste.
Worked as a contractor for NASA for about 5 years, and I have to say it is the epitomy of government inefficiency, waste, and beaureaucratic b.s. This civil service minority are a clan of untouchable good ol' boys that do whatever they feel like, and at least have the contract companies are fly by night operations just looking to collect a nice government contract for a few years and then cut and run. Generally speaking, employees and contractors lack dedication and are concerned with nothing besides their own career. When things like the Columbia accident happen, any hint of remorse ia forgotten as everyone jumps to cover their own butts and shift the blame. When Apollo 13 was in trouble, they worked day and night and defied all odds to find a way to get those guys back. When their were warnings of verified problems with the srb's just before the the last Challenger launch, they shrugged their shoulders and launched anyway. When they had indications of possible damage to the Columbia while it was still in orbit, they shrugged their shoulders again, with their typical "Its probably ok and their is nothing we can do about it anyway, so don't worrry about it." attitude. I wouldn't ride on a Space Shuttle even if I was paid to do so.
Yes, NASA has had problems but what the @#$! do you expect? Do you see any other country that has a SpaceCraft like the shuttle? No more SpaceLab, no mor MIR, a slowly progressing International space station.
Yes hubble was a big problem from the begining until they fixed it and it has opened up our eyes, did you know there was a super massive black hole at the center of every galaxy?
If those science experiments NASA is shuttling around aren't good enough for you well let's see you do it with a 17 some odd billion dollar budget. You're talking about space not a drive around the block.
If you don't think rockets NASA built were directly replicated for ICBM's to keep the US in a position of MAD with the Soviet Union.
NASA has sent numerous successful probes mapping the planets and asteroids, doing a lot of work that a business man completely run by the bottom line could never do.
How NASA hinders the businessman I don't really see it. If you can afford to build a spaceship and lauch it, good for you, but don't sit around whining like a big baby that NASA is keeping you from doing what you want to do, that's ridiculous.
Very little in space would have been achieved without the original idea of taking government funds and forming NASA. The starting point was in a large part a vision of the future potential made, I should imagine, by the senior people in places like the Air Force. At the time, there was no method to fund any sort of private adventure into space. People were trying to beat air speed records and the like and, with so many military people still on the ground after WW2, it made good sense to find something some of them could do. Yes, much of what followed was purely military, but enough came through as pioneering science, to bring in some pretty good and intelligent individuals. What has gone wrong?
Engineering must be carried forward by engineers leading the proposals. But if you are spending other peoples money, you have to have others keep an eye on the pennies and one thing leads to another until you get too much of a very poor thing. Which is what you have now. You need a change of emphasis. What has been missing, except for the private business of communications satellites, is that there has been no way to bring in private capital and it is so very hard to find capital outside of government funded projects.
The old pioneer spirit of going right around the old timber fort and making your own way into the wilderness, trapping furs and the like, is not possible in the space adventure without someone putting up the funds, the capital for the adventure. In times past, when modern capitalism first started, such capital was readily available. Today, instead, it is swilling around banks in New York as derivatives doing nothing other than driving up the incomes of the bankers.
We need the Institutional Investors to take the strain and learn from the past history of the adventure that made America successful during the early 1950,s. They must start to invest into a new adventure that is, without a doubt the next great frontier, SPACE. Before that happens, we will all of us have to accept that the recent wars have a very heavy price tag, too high. once that sinks in and the next recession is over, (in a couple of years), we must do all we can to see that change happens. That funding for new adventures in space is made available.
Sometime soon, Congress needs to be brave and accept that NASA should be closed and at the exact same time, another, fresh group started but without the heavy burden of the present quite unnecessary management structure. By that I mean, not a re-branding. A clean break. A completely new start, fresh minds, young, bright people with talent and a real sense of adventure.
You are all going to find out very soon that the control of gravity is at last within our grasp. That single fact will drive the changes needed as rockets become as old fashioned as a horse and cart.
Why is what NASA doing important? The only useful thing NASA does right now is launch satellites. If they quit doing it tomorrow and the government did not try to hold a monopoly, greedy capitalists would find some other way to get satellites in space.
NASA is need to solve the hard problems of space travel travel.
I am sure you are all award of space junk problem where there is lots of little debree floating around traveling around at about 18,000 mph. NASA helps buile the sciencific know-how to make space exploration possible. Unlike the time of Christopher Columus where sailing was a well know practice... Space is something we don't have alot of experience with... I think we need an government organization that studies and understand the problem with space explorations.
I believe that NASA is providing a value service to future space endavoners by providing interesting information about the cosmos. I know it is expensive, but space is the place where if we can establish ourselves, we refuse refuse the risk of extictions due to issues that may accrue on earth. I believe NASA provide a value-added service for us, but more importantely to future generation as Space is important to the advance of our specy,, but life in general. Think about, we can sperate life our the universive, because we are smart enough to do it... we can perverse it in the worst of circumistance... we should use our intellect to the greastest possible extend to ensure life goes on, despite what happens on earth and the solar system....
What we should do is see if any of the brothers or other relatives of the Blackwater fiasco would like another business, and give the NASA account to them. By the time Bush is through with NASA, there will be nothing left of NASA anyway.
'"Ideally I want to move to a world without NASA," said Hudgins, editor of the private space travel book. "For the same reason we don't have a world with the Western Settlements Bureau of the federal government. There's no need for one. The West has been settled, and it was mostly settled by private individuals getting out there through private means. The frontier is the model for becoming a space-faring civilization."'
You've got to be kidding me. NASA isn't all about simply moving up there. Scientists who wanted to study the Western U.S. didn't need space suits and/or highly sophisticated automated probes that would take years to reach their goal.
In addition does anyone associated with this article have the slightest clue as to the overall scope of what NASA does? Do a bit of research before blathering. Of course I've seen other evidence of the writer's libertarian beliefs and how he lets it color his writing so I'm not surprised.
There has been only one private space flight and this flight was unimpressive to say the least. Little more then flight of the X-15 of the sixties. This is still an capital intensive business that the private sector has shown little interest in. To argue these points at this time is ridiculus.
I get the impression that behind this article is some more of that government waste and spending nonsense of the eighties. This kind of Regenique thinking will drive us back into the dark ages. If you want to save government money, we all know what needs to be done and it needs to end now. Iraq!
The one thing that needs changed at NASA is there insistence in postponing flights after accidents. These delays are ruining the USs space program. Venturing into the void of space is dangerous business. I accept this, I think most reasonable people do. We must push on. We must not be afraid. Will we accept these life losses as we have the ship, train, car, and plane fatalities or will these losses be different. In none of these examples do we redesign a vehicle to compensate for a life lost. Am I being cold and callus here? No, just reasonable.
I'm wondering what the first casualty in space for the first truly commercial company will do for there standing on Wall Street.
We don't need nasa, we can just over populate the planet for eons and all will be fine. Don't need any way to move to any other worlds in the universe. No problem, right.
NASA was founded to develop space flight for peaceful uses. The military was already developing space flight for military purposes. The fact that commercial space flight exists is an product of what NASA has provided. So NASA has been enormously beneficial to the USA and the world. I guess the question is has NASA outlived it's usefulness. I suggest that anyone who thinks that we already know all there is to know about space or that spaceflight and all the related science and technology has reached the point that it provides little benefit has a very limited imagination.
The corporate view looks to make money and directs their effort and funds on projects that they think will be profitable. NASA is the best example of why government should invest in programs of exploration. We do not know what discoveries will be made and what benefits they will have.
A present example is that without the discovery of the existence of CO2 in Earth's space environment and the detection of changes on the Earth by NASA's Earth Science programs we would not be aware that global climate change is happening. The very survival of humanity may be the result of the NASA program.
My point is that private industry alone will not choose to expend large amounts of resources when the resulting return is entirely unknown. NASA should be kept even though we do not "see" a need.
What we need is a space agency that concentrates on exploration and hard science. That's the area with the greatest payback at the moment.
Space tourism is a joke, although it takes away money from those who have too much of it to play with.
Some activities, because of scale, cost, and national security, should be run by the government. The rabid "capitalism-can-do-anything" zealots should go back on their meds.
When there's actually real monetary profit to be made in space exploration, they'll muscle in soon enough.
There will never be profit in exploration, so there's no point waiting on that. Profit comes from doing, not looking.
NASA can keep looking, and learning, and disseminating what it learns to the rest of us. Industries need to figure out what products can be made better by making them in orbit, on the Moon, or in open space... that will get them there. Profit will keep them there.
Do we want advances in the natural sciences or do we want advances in manned space flight and national pride? It comes down to one or the other pursuing both endeavors is too expensive and waters down our vision
Sure we need smaller science based missions but I think going back to the moon and accomplishing something is imperative. The Chinese will be on the moon before 2020.
The solution to our energy problems is on the moon in great concentration with the various isotopes of Helium.
I find it funny the head of the Chinese NASA in the below link stated: "Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first."
Hmm, sounds like you prefer "manned space flight and national pride". Why else would you think it a priority to go back to the moon, just because the Chinese are thinking about going there.
As for getting energy from Helium 3, get real. We are a long way from breakeven with duterium/tritium fusion, fusing Helium 3 is far more difficult. Besides, there really isn't all that much He 3 on the moon - inert gas, temps too high, escape velocity too low.
If it weren't for NASA, we would fifty years behind the technology that we enjoy today. NASA creates it's own monies by the sheer volumn of business spinoffs and the employment they create. Let's go to the past,the 70's, and look what happened. NASA was virtuely shut down and everyone wondered where is the monies that we can give away to our pet projects and where did the jobs go? They didn't realise that NASA is self creating. Big mistake. "Look back at the History people". Our future depends on the technologies that NASA develops. Wake up!!!!!----Cush
Declan McCullagh paints NASA as bloated and incompetant, and posits that private companies can take over and do a better job. At what? Suborbital tourist flights? Can they lauch probes to Mars, Saturn, Jupiter and beyond? There won't be much commercial payback, so I'm guessing not. As for using outdated tech, sure the Shuttle used 8086 microprocessors, it was designed in the late 70's when that was all they had. That doesn't mean they have to be upgraded very three years like PCs, they don't run Windows. In avaiation and space you don't discard something if it works, those chips worked just as well in the 90's as they did when the shuttle was built. BTW, the shuttles all have new flight control computers and computerized cockpit displays now. The Hubble has had it's problems, but then it's outlived it's design life, and is currently in need of another shuttle servicing mission, which was delayed after the Columbia accident. NASA has learned a lot from operating the shuttle all these years, and while it will never be perfectly safe, it's a lot safer then it used to be. Unfortunately the shuttle has a basic design flaw the root of which was the requirement to transport astronauts and cargo in the same reusable vehicle. The only way to do that was the present shuttle configuration with the external fuel tank next to the shuttle. We all know now that is a problem, as ice or insulating foam can break off and damage the relatively fragile shuttle tiles. Back when they designed it, NASA did not know all the problems that configuration would cause. The Space Station components were designed to be transported by the shuttle, so they cannot be transported by any other rockets we now have. So we are stuck with the shuttle until the ISS is completed. But in designing a replacement vehicle (Orion) for returning to the moon, NASA returned to the tried and true concept of separating the cargo from the astronauts. If they tried more risky ideas as the author suggests, and get more astronauts killed, the same people calling for a streamlined NASA would wonder why NASA didn't take more care. You can't have it both ways.
I am so sick of funneling bucks into a program that brings so little in actual returns. How many scientific , medical ,or social advancements have been accomplished through the space program ? What is the cost per benefit received , dollar for dollar ? How far would the billions spent searching for evidence of water on Mars go toward breaking our dependancy on fossil fuels ? Or helping to solve the poverty situation ? Or medical research for the thousands of diseases and illnesses which plague modern man. I dare say if any research laboritory produced as little as NASA, per dollar invested it would be classified a failure and it's funding withdrawn . There does seem to be quite a big "bang for the buck" (at lift off ) but all we receive in return for our tax dollars is smoke and vapor. Shalom
This is a bygone agency for a bygone era. This country would only further militarize and otherwise devastate space and its denizens. Nope, don't trust NASA's intentions or those that pull its strings.
In 2004 Engineers from NASA revealed a startling fact that they shop ebay for parts for the old and antiquated shuttles because there are no more parts for these ancient space vehicles. Truly sad that an agency that gets so much money has to salvage junk yards for parts.
Are you joking? We are spending way more that the taxes we pay per year. We just had to increase the debt ceiling once again. Where is this tax break going to come from???
We could use that money for free healthcare for our citizens. OH! forgot, we are afraid of the people using taxes constructively. We are all affraid of the Commie word. Yet nobody understands it really. We are all rich, and have thousands a year for healthcare. Or we could use the money for people to get free educations. OH NO!! Evil Paulie is a commie, and wants people to get educated. go ahead say this "NO!! Paul, your wrong, I just have that 60K lying around for school. I like student loans for 10 f'n years too.." I am a stupid McArthy 1951 coldwar moron. We need space travel to beat them damn commies." I got a cough, time to spend 25 bucks to find out it is a cold. Later..
Manage updates with the Download App
For starters, take $50 Billion out NASA's budget (across several budget years), and turn that into an X prize for the first manned base on the moon. We'd have one in under 10 years. And it'd probably have a starbucks.
As for all of this hatred of corporations, how is it that anyone expects government bureaucracy to accomplish great things for mankind? Government is run by the same flawed humans to run anything else, only without the motivation to create anything of value.
All the high-minded pro and con arguments, are pointless and useless. NASA likes to mention the agency culture a lot. That idea works well here. The real problems with NASA are found the sewer called management and the culture of corruption within NASA. I am not talking about the contracts, money or drunk/psycho astronauts. That is what gets on the news.
I am talking about the corrupt mentalities at levels so deep the official titles don't mean anything to anyone outside of NASA. You don't hear about the NASA correct personnel practices. You are a manager and you don't like certain skin colors? No problem. Do whatever you want and NASA will stand behind you. You don't like single people and don't think they should be employed? You think that means they are irresponsible. No problem. There are ways around the laws. You want to sabotage a former employee's job finding efforts? No problem.
That sewer is the pool from which NASA gets its management stars. There are many "bad boss" sites and some have contests. I have them all beaten. NASA has become a house of cards with a sewer of garbage as its foundation. The garbage is admired. It is promoted. Don't you dare be a competent employee. This is NASA and we don't do that around here.
Sounds like I hate NASA? I do and I am writing a book about just how much I hate NASA and everything it stands for. I will be telling you about the sewer. You will then understand the violence at the Johnson Space Center. You will understand how no one noticed an insane astronaut. How did NASA fail to find any drunk astronaut evidence in its written "records"? You won't like my stories. You will know why many people have no right to complain about government waste.
Yes hubble was a big problem from the begining until they fixed it and it has opened up our eyes, did you know there was a super massive black hole at the center of every galaxy?
If those science experiments NASA is shuttling around aren't good enough for you well let's see you do it with a 17 some odd billion dollar budget. You're talking about space not a drive around the block.
If you don't think rockets NASA built were directly replicated for ICBM's to keep the US in a position of MAD with the Soviet Union.
NASA has sent numerous successful probes mapping the planets and asteroids, doing a lot of work that a business man completely run by the bottom line could never do.
How NASA hinders the businessman I don't really see it. If you can afford to build a spaceship and lauch it, good for you, but don't sit around whining like a big baby that NASA is keeping you from doing what you want to do, that's ridiculous.
Lets GO
And we'll probably still need them after that.
Charles R. Whealton
Charles Whealton @ pleasedontspam.com
Engineering must be carried forward by engineers leading the proposals. But if you are spending other peoples money, you have to have others keep an eye on the pennies and one thing leads to another until you get too much of a very poor thing. Which is what you have now. You need a change of emphasis. What has been missing, except for the private business of communications satellites, is that there has been no way to bring in private capital and it is so very hard to find capital outside of government funded projects.
The old pioneer spirit of going right around the old timber fort and making your own way into the wilderness, trapping furs and the like, is not possible in the space adventure without someone putting up the funds, the capital for the adventure. In times past, when modern capitalism first started, such capital was readily available. Today, instead, it is swilling around banks in New York as derivatives doing nothing other than driving up the incomes of the bankers.
We need the Institutional Investors to take the strain and learn from the past history of the adventure that made America successful during the early 1950,s. They must start to invest into a new adventure that is, without a doubt the next great frontier, SPACE. Before that happens, we will all of us have to accept that the recent wars have a very heavy price tag, too high. once that sinks in and the next recession is over, (in a couple of years), we must do all we can to see that change happens. That funding for new adventures in space is made available.
Sometime soon, Congress needs to be brave and accept that NASA should be closed and at the exact same time, another, fresh group started but without the heavy burden of the present quite unnecessary management structure. By that I mean, not a re-branding. A clean break. A completely new start, fresh minds, young, bright people with talent and a real sense of adventure.
You are all going to find out very soon that the control of gravity is at last within our grasp. That single fact will drive the changes needed as rockets become as old fashioned as a horse and cart.
Steve Hynes
I believe that NASA is providing a value service to future space endavoners by providing interesting information about the cosmos. I know it is expensive, but space is the place where if we can establish ourselves, we refuse refuse the risk of extictions due to issues that may accrue on earth. I believe NASA provide a value-added service for us, but more importantely to future generation as Space is important to the advance of our specy,, but life in general. Think about, we can sperate life our the universive, because we are smart enough to do it... we can perverse it in the worst of circumistance... we should use our intellect to the greastest possible extend to ensure life goes on, despite what happens on earth and the solar system....
Peace out.
You've got to be kidding me. NASA isn't all about simply moving up there. Scientists who wanted to study the Western U.S. didn't need space suits and/or highly sophisticated automated probes that would take years to reach their goal.
In addition does anyone associated with this article have the slightest clue as to the overall scope of what NASA does? Do a bit of research before blathering. Of course I've seen other evidence of the writer's libertarian beliefs and how he lets it color his writing so I'm not surprised.
I get the impression that behind this article is some more of that government waste and spending nonsense of the eighties. This kind of Regenique thinking will drive us back into the dark ages. If you want to save government money, we all know what needs to be done and it needs to end now. Iraq!
The one thing that needs changed at NASA is there insistence in postponing flights after accidents. These delays are ruining the USs space program. Venturing into the void of space is dangerous business. I accept this, I think most reasonable people do. We must push on. We must not be afraid. Will we accept these life losses as we have the ship, train, car, and plane fatalities or will these losses be different. In none of these examples do we redesign a vehicle to compensate for a life lost. Am I being cold and callus here? No, just reasonable.
I'm wondering what the first casualty in space for the first truly commercial company will do for there standing on Wall Street.
The corporate view looks to make money and directs their effort and funds on projects that they think will be profitable. NASA is the best example of why government should invest in programs of exploration. We do not know what discoveries will be made and what benefits they will have.
A present example is that without the discovery of the existence of CO2 in Earth's space environment and the detection of changes on the Earth by NASA's Earth Science programs we would not be aware that global climate change is happening. The very survival of humanity may be the result of the NASA program.
My point is that private industry alone will not choose to expend large amounts of resources when the resulting return is entirely unknown. NASA should be kept even though we do not "see" a need.
Space tourism is a joke, although it takes away money from those who have too much of it to play with.
Some activities, because of scale, cost, and national security, should be run by the government. The rabid "capitalism-can-do-anything" zealots should go back on their meds.
When there's actually real monetary profit to be made in space exploration, they'll muscle in soon enough.
(Although I would like to live on Mars.)
v.
NASA can keep looking, and learning, and disseminating what it learns to the rest of us. Industries need to figure out what products can be made better by making them in orbit, on the Moon, or in open space... that will get them there. Profit will keep them there.
Sure we need smaller science based missions but I think going back to the moon and accomplishing something is imperative. The Chinese will be on the moon before 2020.
The solution to our energy problems is on the moon in great concentration with the various isotopes of Helium.
I find it funny the head of the Chinese NASA in the below link stated: "Whoever first conquers the moon will benefit first."
<a class="jive-link-external" href="http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276" target="_newWindow">http://www.wired.com/science/space/news/2006/12/72276</a>
As for getting energy from Helium 3, get real. We are a long way from breakeven with duterium/tritium fusion, fusing Helium 3 is far more difficult. Besides, there really isn't all that much He 3 on the moon - inert gas, temps too high, escape velocity too low.
Yes, we need NASA to manage the program. But we need NASA to embrace the private sector's ability to cut through red tape and work efficiently.
If we could mass produce the material, it would revolutionize car bumpers, bulletproof vests, and many other possible uses.