The American Spectator

Casey Abell| 7.21.11 @ 10:50AM

Here's the thing. Nobody cares any more. Really. Space travel seems so...1960s. No politician will pay any price for cutting back the space program. That's exactly why it's getting cut back (duh).

Nostalgia buffs will softly moan and quiver over the good old days of John Glenn and Apollo. But politicians know what moves poll numbers. And NASA doesn't.

Derek Leaberry| 7.21.11 @ 11:07AM

The country is broke. We can't afford gimmicks like space travel. For all the space dorks out there, Star Trek, Star Wars, Lost in Space, Battlestar Galactica, Spock, Kirk, Darth Vader, R2D2 and the gang are all pretend.

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 11:45AM

Derek:

You can predict storms due to the Space Program. Your PC is due to computing advances spurred on by the Space Program. Medical advances in telemetry were spurred on by the Space Program. Your SATELLITE TV is beamed from...

We can argue whether or not Government should still be involved. But to state that it was useless frippery is incorrect. It more than paid for itself. It beat the Soviet Union. Where were the "Star Wars" anti-missile defenses to be placed?

Al Adab| 7.21.11 @ 12:17PM

And yesterdy July 20 was the anniversary of the moon landing. Are we so far into our decline that the greatness of the recent past is but a distant memory?

Derek Leaberry| 7.21.11 @ 12:24PM

You mean the only reason for certain technological advances are due to the space program? Gollee! Big govenrment must work. First, the various lists of technological advances brought to us by the space program seem to have been brainstormed at the NASA Public Relations department. Count me skeptical that it was only the space program that brought us certain advances. Second, many of these advances are of dubious importance. We had road maps for people who could read before we had that "vital" advance called the GPS. Civilized life thrived before the cell phone or satellite TV, and it could be said that the cell phone and any sort of TV has been a step back for civilized life. Third, it seems to be a leftist manner of argument to say that such and such a government program has "paid for itself." If a conservative can make such an argument about the space program, what keeps the liberals from proclaiming the same about any of ten thousand different programs from the Education Department to the EPA to Head Start to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to Midnight Basketball.

Al Adab| 7.21.11 @ 12:30PM

Technological engineering works; social engineering does not. Have a great day.

Zbigniew Mazurak| 7.21.11 @ 3:11PM

Calm down, both of you, shut up for a moment, listen to me, and research the facts.

Occam is certainly right about all the benefits that the Space Program, including NASA, has brought about.

Derek is certainly right about the unnecessarily high costs of that program and America's fiscal woes.

But America's fiscal woes do not mean that the Space Program has to be killed off entirely. Its cost needs to be significantly reduced, but NASA should continue to function.

The right way to explore Outer Space AND to save taxpayers money is to harvest the private sector for as many tasks as possible, while deploying NASA and federal funds only for those tasks that cannot yet be accomplished by the private sector (e.g. high-risk, high-reward projects).

This means closing the Space Launch System program (i.e. the infamous Constellation program under a different name) and the James Webb Telescope program, and fully funding low-cost, private-sector-aiding programs such as the Commercial Crew Development program (which would cost only $850 mn per year) and private space launchers and spacecraft. Doing so will give the US capability to transport astronauts to the ISS (on privately-owned, privately-operated spacecraft) starting in 2014 and will allow the US to stop paying the Russians $60 mn per seat per flight.

It also means dramatically cutting NASA's administrative structures, ending its global warming research projects, and ending its Muslim outreach projects.

NASA is needed for high-risk, high-reward programs. But it is not needed to build or operate rockets and spacecraft. The private sector can do that with minimal NASA subsidies.

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 7:28PM

Derek...OK, I'll be less polite---Satellite imagery has saved hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives, by predicting weather patterns such as Hurricanes, that could kill people on shore. Having a space program is also important in maintaining the capability for putting weapons up the gravity well. Medical Telemetry was a spinoff of the program. Zbig is quite correct.

But to say it's "gimmicky" is idiotic. The question is NOT whether or not to have exploration in space; the question is whether it should be primarily public or private. I can certainly sympathize, Derek, with the concept that NASA wastes money; what I do not sympathize with is that space exploration has been useless. That's a Luddite position worthy of Clint, not you. As a Graduate of University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, located in a city which until Katrina had the record for worst Natural disaster in US history, I APPRECIATED the Hurricane warnings. Now Ron paul may have opposed funding weather satellites, but Paul and his constituents are idiots. (I left Galveston after graduating Med School and have NEVER been back.)

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 7:37PM

Derek,

try being lost in a desrt after being shot down in a fighter and tell me you would not want a GPS transponder.

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 7:38PM

Dear Derek,

when your doctor is in a car while the ER is trying to contact him after your MI, tell me how much you DON'T want him to have a cell phone.

WJ| 7.21.11 @ 1:09PM

"It more than paid for itself." Perhaps you would like to provide the accounting metrics which would indicate the Space Programs has shown any return, especially any return that would not have been produced by always superior private enterprise.

Paid for itself? Not a chance.

Al Adab| 7.21.11 @ 1:24PM

WJ,
What did you use to post the comment?

btims| 7.21.11 @ 11:24AM

Silly thoughts by Derek and Casey.......First, NASA's budget is not that much, when compared to the billions wasted by (fill in the blank): Dept of Education, Dept of Commerce, Dept of Energy, etc. Plus Hussein bin Obama's favorite election-fraud outfit, ACORN, who gets heavily subsidized by taxpayer money.

A retreat from space exploration means a downgrading of our country technologically, as well as the national security (defense) reasons.

But hey, Hussein told the NASA chief to use NASA to outreach to the Mohammedan world. NASA has a purpose and a goal, it's just that space exploration isn't involved.

If we can fire Hussein next year, there may still be a chance to resusitate NASA. Hopefully.

Al Adab| 7.21.11 @ 12:31PM

NASA: 18.7 Billion
Mecicare: 565Billion

Hmmmm.

Casey Abell| 7.21.11 @ 11:29AM

"Silly thoughts by Derek and Casey..."

Well, I can't answer for Derek, but what's so silly about saying that no politician will pay a price for cutting the space budget? It's a statement of political fact. You may not like it, but it sure ain't "silly." It's the truth. Why do you think the budget is getting cut now?

Barry may well lose next year but it won't have anything to do with NASA. It'll be that other thing which Carville talked about.

btims| 7.21.11 @ 12:03PM

I'm not interested in which temporary office holders want to maintain, increase, decrease of cancel the space program; the space program should be beyond mere partisan political whims. Obama has every govt. dept and agency on a spending spree except two - defense and the space program. Curious. His priorities are social programs, aka, winning votes by buying off constituents.

If we stop funding defense and NASA, do you think other nations are going to stop? Private enterprise is many, many years away from doing even pedestrian "space tourism" in low earth orbit.

The United States needs a vibrant NASA. We do not need more social/welfare programs. Period.

Casey Abell| 7.21.11 @ 2:59PM

Okay, you like NASA and want to see a big-sized budget for it. I'm kinda neutral on the issue. I don't see why NASA can't be somewhat downsized with private businesses taking a bigger role in really beneficial space projects like communication satellites.

But nothing you say even challenges my original point that politicans will pay no price for cutting NASA's budget. That's not "silly," it's just fact.

JimH| 7.21.11 @ 11:34AM

Since the government is not going themselves we can only hope that they stay out of the way when some D.D. Harriman comes along who has figured out how to get into space and make a buck doing so.

Al Adab| 7.21.11 @ 1:23PM

No they will start taxing it for harming the environment.

l5j6| 7.21.11 @ 11:35AM

No space program but hey, we have a public school lunch (and even breakfast) program!! In the 1960s and 70s and 80's, human entities called a "mother and father" actually took care of their offspring, including their nourishment routine. They actually paid for and provided human nourishment, every day, three times a day.

Today, we have Big Government to provide for sustinence. Ain't progress grand?

This is a changed America. The space program used to epitomize the nation's "can do", independent, adventurous spirit. Today, we are a nation of dependents, waiting for Moooch-ele Obama to tell us what to eat, what to drink and soon to come, how to wipe our rear-ends.

We live in the age of the lawyer/politician - the "know it alls", who are centrally planning our lives in the name of "social justice".

As said by btims above, NASA's budget is tiny compared to the 99% wasteful social programs' budgets.

mzk1| 7.21.11 @ 12:05PM

Well, as they pointed out on PJTV, perhaps this is just as well. If private enterprise really can fill in the gap, we may have a REAL space program. (Of course, one problem with themoon program si that it is hard to find a practical use, unlike satelites.)

To Derek, yes Star Trek is pretend and theoretically impossible. But GPS is real and believe me, it was once science fiction. (P.S. On the original Star Trek, they have things that look like cell phones and a bluetooth. Old hat, except that they hadn't been invented.)

molly| 7.21.11 @ 12:20PM

While it is sad that the NASA shuttle era is over, I am excited to see what happens to the private sector of space exploration. I think the same competition that fueled our desires to go into space will be recreated by the private companies determined to go into space. I think that the new NASA will continue to make some remarkable discoveries.
I am glad the Atlantis made it back safely. Those astronauts made some great progress on the ISS and are a huge part of history. I wish them the best of luck with their future endeavors.

Share your thoughts on the new changes to NASA with Swakker Shuttle for Iphone! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QHrBhtNCvgY

PCC| 7.21.11 @ 12:49PM

Dear Mr. Goldstein,

"Kobash" is not a word in English or Yiddish. I think you mean "kibosh".

Al Adab| 7.21.11 @ 1:22PM

"i" is next to "o" on the keyboard. My arthritis riddled fingers do it all the time. Cut the author some slack. Yes a proofreader might have caught it, if he knows Yiddish.

Aaron Goldstein| 7.21.11 @ 2:34PM

Darned fingers!!! All fixed up.

Al Adab| 7.21.11 @ 3:20PM

Mr. Goldstein:
Sorry for the delay in this response. After checking my keyboard I was too busy rolling on the floor laughing. Well done.

Purple Lips| 7.21.11 @ 12:58PM

Most of the hi-tech breakthroughs didn't come about through NASA. The military accounts for far more engineering breakthroughs. And NASA will still launch satellites (well, at least try to launch them). NASA will also continue to run the multi-million dollar Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is a prime proponent of Global Warming. NASA also wastes money by duplication of effort. NASA, over the years has gotten into many areas that are outside of its original mission.

Occam's Tool| 7.21.11 @ 7:35PM

Again, my point, Purple LIps (I agree with you) is that Space Exploration spin offs have been fantastic. Derek, most scientific advances in Medicine are NOT obtained by straight on research, but as tangential discoveries.

For example, in my field: Thorazine, the first antipsychotic, was discovered while looking for a drug that would cause hypothermia. Depakote, a superb anti-convulsant and mood stabilizer, was used as a base for a trial of multiple potential anti-convulsants. Elavil was discovered as an antidepressant while looking for another thorazine. The monoamine oxidase inhibitors were discovered by noting that people in TB sanitariums were happier than expected.

Many, many spinoffs. Normally I agree with you. But on this one, it should be noted that space travel is no gimmick. In addition, from a military perspective, you do NOT want you enemies in possession of the Gravity Well heights. YOU DO NOT.

Paul Nelson| 7.21.11 @ 2:32PM

Valentina Tereshkova, not Sallty Ride was the firswt woman in space

Aaron Goldstein| 7.21.11 @ 4:14PM

Good catch. I should have said that Sally Ride was the first American woman in space. In fact, I will.

Wayne | 7.21.11 @ 3:09PM

Lets face it, when NASA put a man on the moon, we thought we would be making many return trips. Instead we settled for orbiting the Earth. The shuttle program was a huge let down: Good riddance.

Now philosophically I have to see that this is better left in private hands, not government. We must scale down government, even though that is not what Obama has in mind.

l5j6| 7.21.11 @ 3:16PM

Yes, let's scale down government........like eliminate the Dept of Education, the Dept of Commerce, The Dept of Homeland Security, eliminate the school lunch program, cut the Dept of Energy down significantly, etc.

But Defense and NASA? Yes, cut defense social programs like homosexual and moooslim "outreach".

Just think of the savings......

Al Adab| 7.21.11 @ 3:23PM

"The captains and the kings depart...and all our dreams of yesterday are one with Nineveh and Tyre."

"This is the way the world ends, not with a bang but a whimper."

Sad day for America and likely for "all mankind" for whom we reached the moon.

ness| 7.21.11 @ 5:33PM

Drudge headlines:

AMERICA: NOW STUCK ON EARTH...

Russia Declares 'Era of Soyuz'...

Perry Slams Obama for Leaving Astronauts to 'Hitchhike Into Space'...

Everybody sing - "Barack, the Magic Moooslim, lives in DC......."

Dixie Pixie| 7.21.11 @ 7:55PM

Goodby NASA and thanks for all the neat photos and data.

Unfortunately NASA was a massive bureaucratic failure in a glorious and hilariously expensive Federal Governmental way.
NASA failed because it was misconceived from the beginning.

The American public wanted a mechanism to go into Space and live there, aka Star Trek.
What they got was a bloated inbred monster of a bureaucracy dedicated to sending science experiments to the far end of our technological ability at outrageous cost.

NASA was also designed to keep the public as far away from Space and as infantile as possible.
Was I the only one who noticed the MSM never grew beyond the “Gee Whiz” stage of reporting.
NASA never bothered to make the hard data from those space experiments available to the public that payed for it preferring to propagate cartoon versions of the data.

In fact NASA went out of its way to push the private sector out of Space.
For an example, when it became possible for a private sector person to buy a ticket into orbit, NASA did every thing in its power to kill the idea.

NASA was notorious throughout the technological sector for killing any rival.
From the Air Force Project Dyna-Soar to the present day, NASA was successfully thwarting any development it did not like.

Time and again a space-launch program would reach prototype stage and then be killed with the convenient reason that the Space Shuttle Project needed the money.
Then NASA would then spend the money on the most frivolous projects like sending a perky science teacher into orbit to teach science at 100 million dollars a lesson.

In short, NASA was a roadblock into Space and the USA is better off with NASA gone.

ebonystone| 7.21.11 @ 10:00PM

One must differentiate between the space program and the manned space program. Most "hard" scientists I know always regarded the manned program as a waste of money, a gee-whiz show put on by NASA to get a bigger budget, a form of what H.L.Menchen called "boob-bumping". The real science was being done, at far less cost, by unmanned orbiting observatories and planetary probes. Even the moon missions' scientific results could have been done, much more cheaply, by unmanned probes, as the Russians showed. Scientists would have been a lot happier skipping the manned program, and spending only half (or even less) of its budget on additional real space exploration.

Dixie Pixie| 7.22.11 @ 1:53AM

EbonyStone....I think you are missing my point.

What the American public wanted was a way to go into Space as a continuation of the American dream of “Manifest Destiny”.
What we got was a bureaucratic nightmare of science experiments gone mad.

When the public found out only a few highly trained specialists would ever go into Space, the public lost interest in NASA.
NASA compounded the problem by killing any rival in an effort to maintain a decreasing public interest in Space.
Now we are at a point where no one believes that NASA will ever promote the public going into Space.
As a result there is no interest in the American public of continuing NASA in any form.

In short, NASA killed the dream of public space travel and it will take decades of work to revive it.

Star Trek and Star Wars was a dream that died in the hands of the NASA bureaucracy.
We are a smaller nation because of dreams now gone.

Derek Leaberry| 7.22.11 @ 8:55AM

Things will change when dilithian crystals are discovered.