How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
The news about space seems to get worse every day. First, the United States voluntarily withdrew from from the final frontier by ending Space Shuttle flights and canceling the follow-on Constellation program. This transformed our once-trailblazing astronauts into mere ticketed passengers on the Russian Soyuz capsules for access to the International Space Station, indeed any access to space whatsoever.
Now, this:
Astronauts may need to temporarily withdraw from the International Space Station before the end of this year if Russia is unable to resume manned flights of its Soyuz rocket after a failed cargo launch last week, according to the NASA official in charge of the outpost.
A Soyuz rocket rocket crashed Wednesday minutes after lifting off from the Baikonur Cosmodrome in Kazakhstan...scattering debris in the Altai region of Siberia more than 1,000 miles east of the launch site, according to Russian media reports.
How sad it makes me to think that only four decades after my parents' generation conquered the moon (when they were my age!) Americans find ourselves Earthbound like the ancients. I pray this national embarrassment is over soon.
It is time for SpaceX to step into the void, so to speak.
- Comment (34)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Apr '11
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
I was dismayed to see our national space program coming to an end. Along with police officer, fireman, superhero, and X-Wing pilot, ever since I was a kid I dreamed of being an astronaut.
On the other hand, twenty years ago, I remember reading editorials in one of my Sci-Fi magazines and a common theme was that it was nearing time that we turn to private industry to head up space programs for many of the same reasons we argue for privatization on many other fronts: A private company can do the job cheaper and more efficiently.
It's a bit of a tragedy to see our program gone, but this crisis can become an opportunity (or, as Homer Simpson says, a Crisortunity.) The downside is that a lot depends on whether the federal government is a willing partner or passive-aggressive adversary to a private space program. Given the current administration's current activities, I fear we will see the latter.
Jun '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
That's a great point. Not entirely dissimilar to the notion of drilling for oil in the gulf. Their words suggest there's no moratorium, but their actions to deploy regulatory roadblocks to delay permits will drive up the cost so much as to make much less profitable for the oil companies.
In the same way, I can see the government "supporting" the idea of private sector space initiatives while likewise throwing enough regulatory restrictions as to squelch the opportunity and profitability before it gets off the ground, so to speak.
On another note, it is sort of sadly ironic that shortly after one Russian official declared this the new age of Russian space dominance, they've had a few unfortunate mishaps.
Abandoning the station for any significant length of time though will increase pressure to prematurely mothball it. Here's hoping it stays in business.
Oct '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
Under the current administration the rule is rather straight forward: Either the government runs it, no matter how inefficiently and badly, or they will drive private enterprise to failure by regulation. The die is already cast, at least for the next two to six years... there will be nothing exceeding mediocrity in the space adventure.
There are still jobs for firemen available, if you meet the proper EEOC standard... oh, that's mediocrity again.
Apr '11
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
raycon: Under the current administration the rule is rather straight forward: Either the government runs it, no matter how inefficiently and badly, or they will drive private enterprise to failure by regulation. The die is already cast, at least for the next two to six years... there will be nothing exceeding mediocrity in the space adventure.
There are still jobs for firemen available, if you meet the proper EEOC standard... oh, that's mediocrity again. · Aug 30 at 1:54pm
I think I'd better gussy-up my resumé for X-Wing Pilot then.
May '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
As I see it, there are three important features of our situation.
Oct '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
raycon: Under the current administration the rule is rather straight forward: Either the government runs it, no matter how inefficiently and badly, or they will drive private enterprise to failure by regulation. The die is already cast, at least for the next two to six years... there will be nothing exceeding mediocrity in the space adventure.
There are still jobs for firemen available, if you meet the proper EEOC standard... oh, that's mediocrity again. · Aug 30 at 1:54pm
During a recent stay in Austin, the Fire Dept. was conducting interviews at the hotel. There were some 2,700 plus applicants from all points on the compass. The number of actual positions open were rather small.
Did read later that the interviews needed to be redone due to some regulation. Not clear on what that was, save consider the huge cost to applicants and the do over.
After watching the parade of applicants in and out for the week, I can just imagine which regulation was called into play....
Jul '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
Isn't the basic technology to put a man on a rocket into orbit the same as launching a missile? Is there any concern about private companies having that capability?
Oct '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
And the GOP is the anti-science party?
May '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
Yes, they are basically the same technology. But all of our existing missiles and the majority of launch vehicles are designed and manufactured by private sector, for-profit defense contractors and funded by the government. I don't think it's ever been a concern for nongovernment companies to have that capability. The technology is subject to strict export controls, though, if that's what you're hinting at.
Oct '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
Recall a space museum with one of the first one man Mercury capsules on display.
Now there was pause and instant respect for some early space flight volunteers. A tin can that looked less safe than most fantasy rides of today. Probably was.
Sad legacy to abandon in such a cavalier fashion.
Jul '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
Mark Wilson
Yes, they are basically the same technology. But all of our existing missiles and the majority of launch vehicles are designed and manufactured by private sector, for-profit defense contractors and funded by the government. I don't think it's ever been a concern for nongovernment companies to have that capability. The technology is subject to strict export controls, though, if that's what you're hinting at. · Aug 30 at 4:56pm
That and also allowing private companies to fire rockets off. This would actually be one industry where for security reasons I would want some sort of oversight by the military as opposed to letting private companies run free.
Oct '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
We should celebrate the end of the Shuttle Program. It was the worst bit of corporate welfare imaginable; the Russians spent years copying the damn thing, and it was so over-engineered (in that make-as-many-jobs-as-possible-way) that they designed their own shuttle from scratch.
Private sector all the way!
May '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
Joseph Eagar: We should celebrate the end of the Shuttle Program. It was the worst bit of corporate welfare imaginable; the Russians spent years copying the damn thing, and it was so over-engineered (in that make-as-many-jobs-as-possible-way) that they designed their own shuttle from scratch.
Private sector all the way! · Aug 30 at 5:23pm
Joseph, I share your dislike of the space shuttles, but it's quite an amazing piece of technology (objectively speaking) and certainly better than nothing, which is what we have now. I'm not lamenting the end of the shuttle era per se, but the fact that nothing has replaced it, leaving us helpless.
I'll cheer on the private sector but until they have something reliable, we are better off doing it with federal funding just to ensure we have the capability. The fact that the private sector didn't come up with manned spaceflight long ago is a good enough reason for the government to do it now.
May '11
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
The end of the shuttles isn't the disappointing part, it's the lack of a successor program. Perhaps going to the moon was just too expensive and wasteful to continue without a strategic benefit, maybe the next step beyond is just too great to attempt with current technology for exploration's sake alone. What I do know is that our parents' generation, when faced with an enormous challenge, took it on. The current one (of which I'm a member) seems more interested in finding excuses not to.
Aug '11
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
I see no reason to send humans into space beyond the purely visceral. In fact, I have nothing but contempt for the one-use only rocket. A 93% successful launch rate is pretty sorry. Frankly, we have gone down the wrong path by following the big candle approach.
Now we have this gigantic white elephant in orbit, what do we do with it? If you thought Skylab's crash was worrisome, then ILS is even worse.
With bots all the rage on Ricochet, I support sending them into orbit. Then we don't have to worry about developing human-rate rockets with all its cost.
Jul '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
This is an excellent time to stop and take stock of who we were, who we are now, and who we want to be. Americans as a group have never wanted to be Europe. A lot of Americans came here to escape Europe.
When we remember who we have been (not as easy as it sounds given the hideous state of history curricula in the public schools) we will know who we should become.
The last American stepped off the Moon 38 years, 8 months ago. We are not that nation today. We can be again.
Jul '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
Charles Rapp: I see no reason to send humans into space beyond the purely visceral. In fact, I have nothing but contempt for the one-use only rocket. A 93% successful launch rate is pretty sorry. Frankly, we have gone down the wrong path by following the big candle approach.
Now we have this gigantic white elephant in orbit, what do we do with it? If you thought Skylab's crash was worrisome, then ILS is even worse.
With bots all the rage on Ricochet, I support sending them into orbit. Then we don't have to worry about developing human-rate rockets with all its cost.
The major success of manned space missions since Apollo has been to learn the effects of long-duration missions on human beings. And a ton of experiments on technologies like micro-gravity crystal formation to see if there was an industrial basis for orbital manufacturing. (Not that we found.)
NASA has become a contractor driven coalition of the billing rather than the science and technology leader it use to be and must become again. The NASA that built many new experimental manned space vehicles a year became anchored to five for 35 years.
Apr '11
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
Mark Wilson
Joseph, I share your dislike of the space shuttles, but it's quite an amazing piece of technology (objectively speaking) and certainly better than nothing, which is what we have now. · Aug 30 at 5:58pm
Amazing in what sense? It's amazing that it worked at all, given the incredible complexity, but that doesn't really do it for me. By design the Shuttle was going to be launched once a week, be a less expensive launch vehicle than nearly anything else out there, and give us a wide variety of orbital capabilities. In practice success was approached only by the last of these goals.
A single-use, heavy-lift rocket a la Saturn V is a much simpler, less expensive design and we've ignored it to our detriment.
That said, I'm all for privatization as well. The Fall 2010 New Atlantis had an interesting article about one way to do this.
Dec '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
Charles Rapp: I see no reason to send humans into space beyond the purely visceral. In fact, I have nothing but contempt for the one-use only rocket. A 93% successful launch rate is pretty sorry. Frankly, we have gone down the wrong path by following the big candle approach.
Now we have this gigantic white elephant in orbit, what do we do with it? If you thought Skylab's crash was worrisome, then ILS is even worse.
With bots all the rage on Ricochet, I support sending them into orbit. Then we don't have to worry about developing human-rate rockets with all its cost. · Aug 30 at 6:59pm
Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
As the distance to home increases, so does the requirement for the robot in question to be autonomous.
EM radiation travels at a set speed (which, granted, is quite fast). Over the distances we're talking about here though, the travel time for a command/feedback signal is measured in hours (or days), so you cannot "drive" a robot exploring the outer solar system from home like an RC car.
It has to be able to fend for itself for the most part, and that is an extremely tall order, never mind the fact that even tiny problems can entirely scuttle a mission years in the making, with no hope of performing a "fix".
Robots are not people, and for the foreseeable future they will continue to be such. Therefore humans and their ever agile brains will continue to be an integral part of real exploration.
It is one thing to send a small platform to a distant world, programmed to scoop up a single shovel of dirt from its surface and perform a few preset experiments upon it.
It is quite another to go to a new place and truly explore it.
The rovers did yeoman's work on Mars (even with the several minute signal travel delay), but they were able to examine only a tiny portion of two very small areas, on a very large planet.
Edited on Aug 30, 2011 at 9:13pmMay '10
Re: How Far Shall We Fall and Who Shall Lift Us Up Again?
James Jones
Mark Wilson
Joseph, I share your dislike of the space shuttles, but it's quite an amazing piece of technology (objectively speaking) and certainly better than nothing, which is what we have now. · Aug 30 at 5:58pm
Amazing in what sense? It's amazing that it worked at all, given the incredible complexity, but that doesn't really do it for me. By design the Shuttle was going to be launched once a week, be a less expensive launch vehicle than nearly anything else out there, and give us a wide variety of orbital capabilities. In practice success was approached only by the last of these goals.
A single-use, heavy-lift rocket a la Saturn V is a much simpler, less expensive design and we've ignored it to our detriment.
The shuttle certainly fell short of its high billing. And it came to represent the worst things about bureaucracy. But it was an engineering marvel, I don't know how anyone could argue with that.
I'm a big fan of the Saturn V too.