Why go to space?

Posted: Monday, July 17, 2006 8:45 PM by Alan Boyle

After the shuttle Discovery landed today, I asked NASA Administrator Mike Griffin a rather flip question: Doesn't an admittedly unemotional space agency chief feel even a little bit of emotion over such a successful space mission? In response, I got an answer that wasn't flip at all, but instead sounded like a heartfelt rationale for taking on the risks of human spaceflight.

For the benefit of all those who have been debating the merits of space exploration, here's Griffin's answer, plus some comments in the same vein from Discovery commander Steve Lindsey. After you've read them - or after you've seen the video versions - feel free to weigh in with your own comments.

I started out by alluding to Griffin's earlier comment that "it's a thrill and a pleasure to be here again, especially under these circumstances ... in fact, it's such a great day that I don't think even a press conference can spoil it."

"You said that you really 'don't do emotions,'" I said, "but it sounded like you were doing a little bit of emotion at the top of the show here," I said. "Do you feel like a weight has been lifted, or can you try to do a little bit more emotion?"

"Please forgive me if I showed any emotion. It was an oversight," Griffin replied with a smile. Then he continued:

"I certainly do not feel like a weight has been lifted, other than to recognize, as I continually do ... I think the words 'routine' [and] 'human spaceflight' don't go in the same sentence. Every one of these things is, if not frankly experimental, right on the edge of that.

"A comment that I'm fond of, and I've made before, but some of you may have forgotten so I'll make it again: I was a teenager, or a very young engineer, when we were flying the X-15 - and we flew 199 flights with that vehicle. And ... of course, its performance envelope was a small fraction of what the shuttle achieves. Nobody ever thought that that was anything other than an experimental vehicle - and that's what we have here.

"I think I also said, not terribly long ago, that if you think about it ... it took Western Europeans, and then North Americans, 1,000 years from being able to put Viking ships out into the open ocean to get to the point where nowadays we can load up cargo in an oil tanker and sail it halfway around the world, and almost every single time we do that, it gets there. But it took us 1,000 years to learn how to do that.

"We've been doing this stuff for 50 years. I think that is the perspective that we have to get. The enterprise is eminently worth doing. It's part of what makes us human. It is crucial that this nation does it. But we should recognize where we are in the process. We are just learning. And that's what you see us doing here today."

Later, Lindsey was asked how he would explain the importance of continuing with the shuttle program and finishing the space station to a neighbor who was concerned about the Middle East situation and $3-a-gallon gasoline.

"What I would say is that spaceflight is an investment in our future. We invest in universities for research, to make technological advances that make our life better here on earth. When you go after a task that's difficult - and spaceflight is difficult, it's hard, it's challenging, it's dangerous - when you go after a task that's difficult, and you have to use new technologies and new operational concepts to get there, inevitably you learn a lot of things about yourself, and you learn a lot of things that have applications in your own world ... that you would never think of before.

"If you look back to all the things that have come out of the space program, there's probably not an activity you do at any time during the day where there isn't something that [came about] as a result of investing in the space program. So I think it's a great investment in our future. If a company spends no money in research and development, then their product stands still and eventually that company dies. We all know that, and they invest a certain amount of their earnings in future technologies.

"I think the space program is the same thing. What we're doing right now is a little too expensive for a corporation to take on. And so I think it's a useful role for government in this case, to do that and go after those hard tasks. And it's also an inspiration to people.

"I rarely get a negative comment about the space program. I usually always get a positive comment. If you really want to know, go to a school. Go with us when we go talk to kids at a school. I've never been at a school that wasn't just absolutely, totally enthusiastic about the program - about the advances, about the science, about their opportunity to participate in the science."

British-American astronaut Piers Sellers chimed in with an extra bit of perspective:

"... What does the space station, what does the space program do for us as humans? An important insight is that it's about peace. It's about international cooperation, nations coming together to do stuff. It's about the future, it's not about the past. That's where we're going."

There wasn't much talk about what astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson has said are the three drivers for the great works of civilization: defense (let's build the Great Wall!), financial gain (let's take over the New World!) or praise of power (let's build the Pyramids!). Is that a problem?

Now it's your turn to keep the discussion going, by sending in your comments.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

One point often neglected is that space dollars are spent right here on Earth. They vitalise high-tech industries and usuallly its money that doesn't go off-shore.

However we need to get out of the trap of vote-buying and corporate welfare that NASA has been stuck in for 30 years, thanks to lobbying from aerospace industries and the like which enjoy the state-of-play. Thus the move to buy private space services from new aerospace companies is a step in the right direction.

Aeronautics achieved so much in such a short time by diversity. Cutting down our options to a big few companies run for share-holder benefit by an elitist managerial class with no aerospace background rather than engineers and enthusiasts with a vision of space exploration is not going to crack the problem of cheap access to space.

Space should be for everyone. That should be NASA's goal.

Adam, Brisbane, Queensland (Sent Tuesday, July 18, 2006 6:56 PM)

The entire NASA budget is less than one percent of federal spending (although there's signifigant space-related spending in the Department of Defense).

When people start asking the other agencies to give up their budgets to whatever one's preferred priority is, then I may be impressed. (And many of those bigger-budget agenecies, like the Dept. of Health and Human Services, are there for many of those social needs. Will they do better by recieving the the equivalent of one or two more weeks operation out of a year?)

It's in the nature of much of what NASA does, that it's a high-profile agency, doing spectacular things and (often) getting spectacular results, along with (sometimes) spectacular failures.

Other agencies addressing many of these 'more important' needs, can't help but do so in a slow, quiet way that gets few headlines, even when successful. (Most of us know the date of the first Lunar landing...will there be any single day that we can point to and say that 'cancer was cured,' or 'world hunger ended,' even when we do acheive those goals?)

Compared to what other agencies do, NASA is percieved as being more expensive than it is. (ask the average person what they *think* the percentage of the federal budget is spent there...answers are typically far greater than the truth)

Believing that the same amount of money would get equally spactacular results in other areas, ignores this mis-perception.

One answer to the question: "If we can put a man on the Moon (which has not happened *lately* BTW), why can't we...?" is that some things, believe it or not, are indeed *harder* than going to the Moon.

For Ben, Alpharetta, the US Constitution does not reuire *any* Feferal spending on *any* basic science, or technological research and development. What other government agencies that do those things, would you close? Department of Energy? NOAA? Any federal money granted to colleges or the private sector for any medical, agricultural, climatological, etc. research? (Federa; funding for embyronic stem-cell research is opposed by some, not as a question of money spent, but for the moral/ethical issues that many have with it.) Go down that road if you wish, but it doesn't stop at NASA.

Now, one can question how *well* NASA spends its budget to get the desired results (and in certain ways I'd readily say 'not well'), but that can (and should) be asked of *any* government agency.

Frank Glover, Rochester, NY (Sent Tuesday, July 18, 2006 9:23 PM)

I think we need to go just so that if we fail down here, maybe something at some time will know we were here and we tried.

Yaan, Australia (Sent Wednesday, July 19, 2006 3:40 AM)

On the subject of finding possible new energy sources, I seem to remember in the '70s a man in South Mississippi who had invented a perpetual motion machine that created MORE energy than it used. Experts from MIT and other places came to see and scoff at his invention, but they left saying that it did indeed work. It was on national news and he was Johny Carson. There were reports in the nation's newspapers. what ever became of that? I think the traditional energy players did everything they could to discredit him. But it worked. Maybe something like that could be used.

Jane, Tylertown, MS (Sent Wednesday, July 19, 2006 6:38 AM)

Let it fly, let it fly, let it fly

Ted Clayton, Virginia Beach, Va (Sent Wednesday, July 19, 2006 9:05 AM)

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" says nothing of demanding free services from the medical profession! What's next...Free housing from the Nation's builders or groceries from the Nation's supermarkets? Redistribution of wealth (which doesn't work by the way) is a poor excuse for eliminating the expansion of man's knowledge of who we are and where we are going. NASA's contribution to exploration is the most admirable thing that mankind has ever accomplished. The budget should be doubled at any expense, because the proveable, tangible improvement to everyday life for ALL of mankind is returned 100 fold. And any of you out there that think these small private industry forays can substitute for the federal program are entirely too ignorant.

Jim Shafer, Mason, OH (Sent Wednesday, July 19, 2006 11:36 AM)

))) One point often neglected is that space dollars are spent right here on Earth.

It's neglected because it's irrelevant. Money is a placeholder for real wealth (labor, raw materials, capital). The real wealth most certainly is consumed.

Anyway, are you claiming that the space program is free because we're not employing space aliens or shooting currency into orbit? If so, give me some of that money. I promise I won't spend any of it on any planet other than Earth.

Paul Dietz (Sent Wednesday, July 19, 2006 12:32 PM)

The issue here has moved from the focus of the article. NASA is a federal agency that provides the US with a service that would not be possible in the private sector. NASA brings these private entities inline with the agency to produce that service. If space exploration were moved completely to the private sector, business would get in the way of production, just like it does in every other industry. Why is no one trying to shut down the Nuclear Regulatory Commission...they are providing a service that the private industry can handle. There is a reason why the NRC is here. The government can monitor nuclear activity...just as it monitors space exploration with NASA.

Kristy, Gulfport, MS (Sent Wednesday, July 19, 2006 2:04 PM)

Successful exploration always leads to added value. We already have more than enough energy delivered to planet Earth from the Sun every day - so we don't need more energy. (The games being played with hydrogen, ethanol, etc., etc. are simply job protection / creation efforts by large companies and their government backers.)

What we won't have enough of, as the population continues to grow, is land. And, our solar system offers a solution that will require intelligence, resources and effort to achieve creation of additional land.

We need to mine the Kuiper Belt for materials and build a larger Mars. The old real-estate saying, "they aren't making any more of it", needs to be proven wrong.

Many folks responding on this subject look at space expenditures as taking away from other "expected" freebies such as health care/insurance or food. So on a percentage basis lets look at some numbers. Suppose the numbers are as follows:

20% - Defense
39% - Social Security, Medicare, etc.
8% - Interest
14% - Other mandatory
19% - Non-defense Discretionary

Now, remove one percent from the non-defense Discretionary and spend it on whatever socialistic activities you desire. And, reorient a couple more percent to serve as space-exploration insurance funding. Something like the FDIC insurance except on a far larger scale.

The banks would then be encouraged to make loans to Kuiper Belt miners and eventually to real-estate developers on Mars. Those folks would hire lots of our more intelligent children. That would encourage more of our children to seek higher degrees. And, so on and so on. Lots more families can afford health insurance when the upper classes are expanding.

That should do it. In fact you can probably return the socialistic percent back to what it was or even (likely) lower it.

It's all about wealth creation and wealth accummulation.

Jeff, Marietta, GA (Sent Thursday, July 20, 2006 12:37 AM)

Possible goals for future space activities:

Learning the organic and geographic history of our solar system to the same extent we know and understand the organic and geographic history of Earth.

A full inventory of planets and commentary bodies beyond the orbit of Neptune.

A full inventory of exoplanets around other stars as well as free-floating planets, say, out to 1,000 light years.

Understand and track asteroid and commentary threats to earth and be able to respond to sudden threats.

The establishment of massive L2 space telescopes: both radio and optical. This would require an ability to manufacture such instruments in low earth orbit (LEO) and the ability to maintain them at a distance eight times that of the moon. Such telescopes could fly in-sink: beaming the light they gather to a central focal point. Such "interferometry" would easily be able to detect the cloud tops and mountain ranges of other Earth-like planets around other stars – and therefore the signatures of life. Discovering life beyond our own solar system may be what this is ultimately all about!

Instead of zero G space stations, lets focus on much more massive wheel-shaped space stations that can generate their own gravity. Such stations should be expandable over time into a cylindrical shape with protected assembly areas in the center. Once constructed, we should move such stations to a higher geo-stationary orbit where they could support a massive infrastructure of weather, communications, and GPS platforms as well as missions out to our L2 stations and sensors.

With such an infrastructure we will be able to build mini inter-solar-system star ships that can be sent out to fully explore the outer planets. This might be much more cost effective than 100s of Cassini-sized missions that would be needed to accomplish the first goal on the list. Such ships would refuel once around the moons of Jupiter so that they can either continue on or return.

Ultimately, off-world colonization with a self-contained / self-supporting ability independent of Earth. Space station based colonies are not as vulnerable to asteroid impacts as imobile surface colonies: Mars, Moon, etc.

To accomplish the goals we’d need massive heavy-lift rockets able to place between 300 to 500 tons into LEO. This would likely require massive reusable, flyback boosters – perhaps something like the Boeing/Grumman H-33 once planned for the shuttle program. Nano-composite and single-crystal metal parts would need to be fully utilized to achieve such weight savings and cost effectiveness.

Chris Eldridge, Harrisburg PA (Sent Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:50 AM)

For those who say we should not spend money on space because of all the suffering here on Earth, I would point out that NASA spent a little over $16 billion last year (0.7% of the budget) with about $6 billion going to human space flight. The federal government spent more than $1400 billion on social programs last year (60% of the budget). The state of Florida alone is planning to spend $21 billion on education next year while NASA will spend less than $17 billion. For all the people who need help in this country, it is not that we are not spending enough but that what is being spent is being wasted to a large degree through fraud and abuse. So support the space program and work in your community to improve the impact of the money currently spent at home. This country is rich enough to do both

Roger Mathews, Geneva, FL (Sent Thursday, July 20, 2006 7:53 AM)

I think many of the people in favor of cutting space-related spending are vastly uninformed as to what we are spending on space. They see the huge numbers of the cost of an individual shuttle launch and think this is a waste of taxpayer money.

Educate yourselves. Go to www.google.com and pull up a federal budget website. (my favorite is http://www.kowaldesign.com/budget/ because it lets you play with it to make your own budget) Note that things like nasa take a tiny % of the actual near 3 trillion budget. Hell k-12 schooling is only about 24 billion, special programs discounted.

Instead of saying "Get rid of nasa!" or "take the money out of space" why don't you simply audit the mega-agencies of the government, remove the graft and inefficiency? Trust me, you'll get more money by removing governmental bloat than by cutting Nasa's funding.

That said, I am of the opinion that Nasa should be thinking more like a buisness in some ways. In the last couple months we've had several Near Earth Asteroid passes. Drop a small solar powered ion drive on it, and set it up for a rendezvous several years in the future. (Yes, in space a tiny ion drive can move a city sized asteroid if is constantly thrusting. Just takes a long time.) One of the asteroids was supposed to be composed of a very high % of germanium and related elements. . . including platinum. Start orbital mining. This sort of thing would help the earth more than just adding materials. . . if we move mining and other dirty industry off earth it can no longer harm the environment here.

Cryogaijin, Fairbanks, Alaska, USA (Sent Thursday, July 20, 2006 8:13 AM)

Griffin's "just learning" is crucial. We all (NASA included) overdosed on Columbus and Wright brothers analogies at the beginning of the space age, and took the pace of Apollo 1961-1969 as the norm... when in fact this is a much bigger "new ocean" than any before, and our capability/cost ratio is still poor compared even to the Vikings'. All the advances and payoffs offered in the comments are Out There -- but on the far side of what remains a steep and expensive learning curve.

Those who argue for space activity as the inevitable next step in evolution may well be right -- IF they're prepared to accept something more like an evolutionary time scale.

Monte Davis (Sent Thursday, July 20, 2006 3:38 PM)

I agree that space flight and exploration are great. And mining asteroids will be more evironmental. Why not add a space elevator than launching space shuttles and wasting resources to feul the shuttles. I mean, we pretty much have the technology, many orginizations believe construction would take place between 2010-2020. It will be far more beinefitial than shuttle launches.

Plus, the International Space Station proves we are capable of moving outward into space, we just need motivation. A simple beleif would push us into the sky. I may be young, but I beleive that space IS the future. That is- if we don't kill each other before that happens.

Jory Brown, Puyallup, Washington (Sent Friday, July 21, 2006 2:44 PM)

Ben from Alpharetta, GA states: "I see nowhere in the United States Constitution that says that the federal government should use taxpayer monies to fund a federal space program."

Apparently, your copy of the Constitution must be missing Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes ... and provide for the common defence AND GENERAL WELFARE of the United States...To make ALL LAWS WHICH SHALL BE NECESSARY AND PROPER for carrying into execution the forgoing powers..."

Sorry, Ben -- but you can't execute very many powers or provide for the general welfare without having to spend some money.

Jim, Mountain Mesa, CA (Sent Friday, July 21, 2006 2:59 PM)

Just think of all the things we could do in the space program if we had spent the billions of dollars that we have put into the war-

Wayne Baller (Sent Friday, July 21, 2006 7:53 PM)

Jeff from GA,
Now that's got to be the most dramatic form of terraforming I've ever heard - Dropping Kuiper Belt objects onto Mars to increase its mass, water content, etc. Though a bit too difficult - for now at least - that's certainly thinking out of the box!! One problem would be that any “mass bombardment” would melt the surface of Mars and, thus, would likely take millions of years to re-solidify...

I really don’t think there is any shortage of land on Earth. It certainly seems that way with how poorly things are planned and with how much sprawl exists but one person on the net actually pointed out that you could COMFORTABLY hold the entire population of Britain (and its industries) within a mere 100 mile diameter area with proper planning. In his calculations everyone had their own standard home on a nicely sized lot with garden and all. It was interesting. Latter I had to wonder about all the traffic and smog such a densely packed super city would have but with the right infrastructure that too is no biggy.

Even more recently, I’ve seen shows on the Science channel about plans in Japan for huge 3000-foot-high cities that would hold over 100,000 people and all the services needed to support them such as hospitals. The one was called SKY CITY 1000 and the other was a GINORMOUS pyramid with 30 to 40 eighty-story buildings suspended inside of its supports along with countless parks, zoos, universities and so on…. Wow! It was said that people could spend their entire lives there without ever having to leave if they didn’t want to – all in the space of a dozen city blocks.

I’m not necessarily a supporter of such colossal buildings as I think there’d be a huge danger to terrorists but it just shows how much we can accomplish when we want to. You can apply similar ideas on a much smaller scale – say a 10-story building - that has rooftop basketball courts, auditoriums, and which lowers land use by 95%!!! Take a peak at my web site if you want!

Christopher Eldridge, Harrisburg PA (Sent Friday, July 21, 2006 9:29 PM)

<i>Why not add a space elevator than launching space shuttles and wasting resources to feul the shuttles. </i>

There is one very good reason. Current materials are insufficient to build a space elevator.

Chris Mann, Sydney (Sent Saturday, July 22, 2006 11:34 AM)

Commercial Space: Good!

Government Space: Less good.

Speaking slightly more broadly: Space access is our future. To deny it is to deny humanity of its future.

Bruce, Seattle WA (Sent Thursday, July 27, 2006 7:41 PM)

I noticed in reading the comments, many of the respondents were men. I saw only a few were women. I think I have heard my husband say when he was little he wanted to be an astronaut. So possibly many of these men harbored similar fantasies as children. I am speaking from the perspective of a female with 24 years of teaching experience. In spite of the fact that I did notice quite a bit of trouble with spelling, history (Do you remember the O-rings that caused the death of the astronauts? Surely that constitutes a failure) and simple math in your comments, I also noticed an almost palpable idealism. The space program cannot save our planet. We must do that ourselves by making good decisions and thinking about others. I do not know if you enjoy watching the majesty of the moon, but I was completely baffled recently by the article in Popular Science which suggested mining the moon by bombing it might be a good starting point. UGH! How have we gotten to this point. I fear testosterone poisoning may be to blame. The war in Iraq, and other crazy events of our world today lie simply with the fact that we have not selected leaders who will make good choices. These funds being discussed about NASA are being used to make discoveries. Usually, when planning a budget, luxuries come after basics. Sorry, boys, but food for children, medicine for the elderly and an educated populace are not luxuries. Yes, there are many excesses in government welfare programs, as well as inefficiencies of spending and outright graft. But the facts remain. War is always a loss at a huge cost. If you think Iraq is a huge mess, try stealing the moon from the rest of the world. That is a no-brainer. As far as catching asteroids moving through space, get real. We cannot move them along and/or mine them. Not now, and probably not ever. The main real advantage of the Space Program is international cooperation. If Peace is ever to exist on Earth, some models for all to see must be created. The Space program has made a significant contribution to this endeavor.

Suzanne Gould, Chapel Hill, NC (Sent Tuesday, August 08, 2006 2:53 PM)

Space exploration is not the ends, but a justifiable means to solving most/if not all of the aformentioned issues.

The orginal question "why go to space?" has been lost somewhere in this debate of this before that, and then instead of now.

I choose space because it is there. I don't exactly know what is out there, but it's getting pretty crummy here. space (on Earth) and resources ARE FINITE, and being consumed at an alarming pace. We must be prepared to counteract what the last two centuries of industry and advancement has done to the earth. Our planet has paid a dear price, just as we shall soon if alternatives are not found. to find alternatives, we must explore. We have explored most if not all of the land available here, so now we must venture either outward toward space, or into the ocean (we know more about space than our own oceans), and we can't comfortably live in the ocean. So, I choose the alternative; searching out an additional home/resource depot.

A couple issues with a couple statements:

Suzanne, why can't we catch asteroids for mining?
We have proven that we can hit a comet which is moving a far greater speeds than asteroids with a high tech rocket, and we can land probes, capsules, and all types of gadgety things on all types of objects moons, planets, ect.. (which are all moving at great speeds by the way) why not land on a smaller object, anchor down, and go to work. Suzanne, your self defeating attitude is appaling. I am in no way saying that it would be a walk in the park, but it seems a sound and harmless concept offering great reward.

Issue #2 The moon: if we Americans spend money plannning, getting there, mining, and transporting the loot, how could anyone blame us for that?
countries today were formed by exploring and claiming new territories. Now, I'm not saying we go up there throw a flag down and claim the moon as ours, just because we got there first, but that seems to be how the territories on earth got sorted out. If other nations are upset that we are getting resources from the moon they would have the same right as any nation to get a space program up and running, and 'go get thiers'. Even America was sorted out this way. With 'new world' exporers finding unclaimed land and claiming it as their own. Once again, I'm not saying we should own the moon, but we have just as much right as anyone else on the planet for the resources of an unclaimed territory.

Ted Mitchell, Jackson MI (Sent Wednesday, August 09, 2006 3:08 PM)

Can I remind anyone about Vasco Balboa's claim, of all the lands that touched the Pacific? Why doesn't America claim all the heavenly bodies outside our space station (namely the moon). Then we can prove our dominance once again. Also, for those who say its not fair that we get all the land, my little brother could remind you of finders keepers- losers weepers. Was it fair that Spain got so much of South America, while Portugal just got Brazil? It's all about who gets their first, and last time I checked, we did.

John Smith, Jamestown, VA (Sent Saturday, August 12, 2006 7:48 AM)

Why go to Space? Because it's there. Why Else?

Eric L Haschert Bristol Pa (Sent Saturday, August 12, 2006 7:36 PM)

As a tax payer, I consider myself an investor in the U.S. Space Program. I believe someone owes me (and all the other investors) some dividends, for all the discoveries and inventions, which are of a direct result of our investments. There is no reason, I can think of, why the program cannot be operated as a corporation owned by the American people. Somewhere however, there may be someone (already rich no doubt) who would stand to lose, if the benefits reaped from space research and exploration were to be shared among U.S. citizens footing the bill. There in lies the conspiracy. Personal gain aside, I am proud to contribute to the advancement of mankind and our children’s future.

Barry, Grand Canyon, AZ (Sent Saturday, August 12, 2006 8:02 PM)

When we are babies in our mothers arms we dream of crawling. When we have learned to crawl we dream of walking. After learning to walk we dream of running. We learn to run and we dream of flying. We learn to fly and now we dream of space. Dreams keep us going. Dreams keep us young. Without dreams we wither and die.

Daniel Long Beach Ca (Sent Sunday, August 13, 2006 7:11 PM)

All the high-minded ideas being discussed about asteroid mining, terraforming Mars, creating massive hub-type space stations or space elevators are right on track. Having big ideas and big aspirations are what push us forward as a species. Just because we don't have the means right now is no reason not to start, because in embracing the goal, we devote ourselves to finding solutions, and we always do, sooner or later. Only by expanding beyond our planet and eventually our solar system can we guarantee our survival as a species, and we owe it to future generations to do that, considering how badly the last few generations have screwed up this planet. Given the fact that technology is increasing exponentially, and that population is getting set to pass the seven billion mark soon, we have everything we need here to make it all happen, except for proper education. Once we maximize the intellectual potental of our population by pumping more money into education (diverted from, say, needless war efforts) we will be set to accomplish any goal. Further, with greater education, and encouraging people to manage their own lives better, other social ills can be stamped out, as mentioned before. Then, once we take our first big leaps into space, we will be able to acquire all the resources within our solar system to fuel our extra-solar endeavours. It seems impossible from where we stand now perhaps, but the bulk of it can be accomplished in 100 years, I have no doubt, with the world working towards a common goal. The shuttle program and NASA give people such goals, and provide a uniting force that we so desperately need. I think they deserve far more than they get when one considers the long-term beneits that have resulted from what they do, and what can yet be accomplished.

Lucas LaPlante, Beppu, Oita, Japan (Sent Wednesday, August 16, 2006 8:52 PM)

Thinking about being an astronaut is what kept me driven to be good at math and enjoy astronomy. I may never go into space, but I will be a math/physics teacher. I hope to pass that dream along to my students, and I try to pass it along to any child I tutor or help homeschool. I know it's hard to see the rationale for a space program when we are pouring money into a war and things seem unfair, but nothing will ever bring peace to this planet like working together on space endeavors.

I do appreciate NASA and would like to see more private companies given the go-ahead to help the future along.

Michelle P., Portland, OR (Sent Thursday, August 24, 2006 3:01 PM)

Being an astronaut is not a childhood fantasy as Suzanne suggested. If you study and work hard you can be whatever you want to be according to most of my past teachers. I pity the students that were not told that during the last 24 years. They are truly at a disadvantage.

We, the people, make up the space program. We built it from the ground up and will continue to build the space program. Teachers during the next 24 years need to prepare their students for amazing progress in genetics, space and many other areas of amazing growth.

It is truly a shame that all teachers can not inspire their students to spell correctly, understand their history lessons and perform mathematical calculations with precision as Suzanne desires. Perhaps the small number of teachers that prefer a negative view of the world are tainting our young minds. Fortunately the majority of teachers I know prefer a positive view of the human population.

Sorry, girl, but without past SPACE activities we would have less "food for children, medicine for the elderly and an educated populace". And, I certainly hope in those 24 years that you were not a science teacher since blowing things up is how many things are accomplished. You need to blow things up to provide transportation, food, medicine, mining and many other every day needs. Without blowing things up you might be riding a horse instead of driving your Hummer or Yaris. Today, feeding our world population is no longer a matter of food or even food distribution - all too often it is because idealism about a better life has given way to a greed for power among small segments of the world population. Whether that is in small African countries or small neighborhoods in this country - it is not about food.

I hate to think about the choices you might have made to keep this nation safe from additional attacks after 9/11. All I had to do was write "9/11" and everyone in the United States knows the event. I certainly hope you agree that Democracy is the best system of government devised. If not, there is no need to say more - you would be beyond hope.

At the least I hope you understand that there are people out there that want to kill all Americans. They want to kill all Americans because they know that we would fight to our last breath to protect the freedom of our children, our parents and ourselves. If you do not agree then there is no need to say more.

Somehow you seem to be linking "luxuries" and "discoveries". The scientific research that leads to those discoveries has made many things, a "car" for example, a common item. A "car" used to be one of those "luxuries" you seem to hold in contempt.

You said, "If you think Iraq is a huge mess" - no it is not a "hugh mess", WAR is hell on Earth and no one should put a cute name like "huge mess" on such a serious subject.

No one mentioned "stealing the moon" as far as I recall.

As far as catching up to asteroids and mining them, you must have missed that story. It's already been done. You must have missed the "butterfly effect" and the success with ion engines as well. With well-trained teachers, students of the future in the arts and sciences will be able to make such mining a profitable endeavor. It is just a matter of time.

Scott, Atlanta, GA (Sent Thursday, August 31, 2006 11:05 PM)

The kings of history hyped the peons into building pyramids as a big tribute to the king. I can imagine that they were told how it would benefit future generations, perhaps a gateway to heaven... If the peon had a choice of donating or not, we may not have the pyramids now, but thousands of people wouldn't have had to waste their lives on the kings folley. A simple box one could check on their tax return offering to donate to the current "gateway to heaven" would mean that dreamers could contribute and bottom line practical people wouldn't have to waste their money. Maybe such a simple concept could demonstrate that representative democracy is near the end of its practical existance and now is the time for direct democracy.

Jim Blevins (Sent Monday, October 09, 2006 11:34 PM)

There will always be hunger, wars and pestilance. To think humans will prevent it is a longshot, since they are the cause of it, execpt for pestilance. There is a good posibility that the end of Earth will come from the space and human salvation is space.

a p garcia (Sent Thursday, October 19, 2006 12:22 PM)

if you know so much i think you can help me i'm 12 years old and need an A today i'm workin on neptune here is my question. WHAT IS THE SURFACE FEATURES OF NEPTUNE?

ERICA, COVINGTON, KENTUCKY (Sent Thursday, November 16, 2006 12:09 PM)

I'd like to belatedly weigh in... and point out usually the question is posed incorrectly to the public. The question about whether the space shuttle (or space program) is worth it or not is not a useful question to get opinions about because you end up only with divided answers. You will have a set of people who are advocates and they are enthusiastic. You'll have the nay-sayers and they are unenthusiastic. There's a mix of people in between too. But all this does is show the differences in the opinion and gets away from better questioning. Better questioning would be, "where do you want to allocate the funds you already spend on the space program via taxes?" -- since the space program exists and you are paying for it (the average American spends about $60 a year on the space program via taxes) then direct your energy toward telling NASA where you want the money spent. Manned space flight? Unmanned? Social science? Name it. Tell them. NASA is likely to be one of the few agencies to listen. What other government agency lets you see so much of their success and failure? They tell us about what they're doing, what they are going to do and why they are going to do it. Not many other government offices do this. NASA gives us the opportunity to stop being opinionated spectators without any facts to being conscious directors of our space program. Don't waste the opportunity and your tax dollars.

Michael Friedman, Dallas, Texas (Sent Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:22 AM)

i honestly did not have the time to read all the comments but i soon will and then maybe my own comment will seem irrelevant. my greatest concern is simple: so little is done to improve life on earth - the planet - the HOME - that has been sustaining us for centuries and more. we neglect ravage rape and violate this sanctuary of ours in the name of greed and when all is gone we seek solace elsewhere: in space. seems we have forgotten out priorities. say in a few years we do manage to make a home on a different planet when all is lost down here, who will be able to benefit from this discovery? the filthy rich? do we in fact have enough fuel to take even a small country up god knows where? i think [...] we should concentrate on the s*** we have created in this sewer we call earth and forget about the idealistic haven on the moon. does no one have children who will have children who might want to breathe atmospheric air without the help of a universal studio space suit?

maritza, cape town, africa (Sent Thursday, May 08, 2008 4:41 PM)

Hello. this is Matt Sakurada, and i would like to talk to you guys about this fuel cell we have set. i build these fuel cells, and i need some people to test them. we will cut the price off of them if you could come down to test them. just set a time and email it to me. and i will email you the place to meet.that would be great.

Matt Sakurada, Roy, Utah (Sent Tuesday, May 19, 2009 7:28 PM)

<< Previous

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=1226

More Cosmic Log

Recent Posts:

Archives:

Categories:

Latest Tech & Science News

Syndicate This Site

Add Cosmic Log to your news reader:

ABOUT COSMIC LOG