Comments about ‘Final test of space shuttle rocket motor ends an era’

Yeah!

The 30 year government PORK program is finally over!

Maybe now commerical space programs can get to work.

~ former ATK engineer!

I think it is a mistake to "privatize" the space program. If we invest in NASA which has a core of professionals it will be cheaper in the long run. Yes we should encourage the private sector space industries but at this time NASA should lead and keep training the next generation to continue on toward more "privatization" of the industry. Any feedback is welcomed.

Future advancements..
Thats cost Millions of Dollars for this Rocket..
Just An Amazing Site to View out in the Deserts/Utah

Whats happening here is not a complete privatization of the space program. NASA will be turning over operations in low earth orbit to private companies who are vying to provide services to the space station. This isn't anything new, companies like Space X and Orbital Sciences already signed contracts with NASA 2 or 3 years ago to do just that. Regardless of the change in direction by the administration, operations in Low Earth Orbit would have become privatized anyways. What is changing now is that NASA will pump more money into the private sector hopefully speeding their development. NASA will then move to developing technologies and methods that will allow it to to take human spaceflight further like orbital refueling stations and new propulsion technologies. They will invest many of the billions of dollars they planned to spend on Constellation in the development of these technologies. As a result I imagine in a few years you will see the development of new NASA spacecraft, except on a far more ambitious scale.

I'd still like somebody to explain how NASA has somehow impeded the private sector for all these years. NASA doesn't launch private satellites, those are launched by Russia and Arianne at lower cost than you could get on a shuttle anyway. NASA does pay private contractors to launch government satellites.

Sounds to me like NASA has helped, rather than hurt, the private sector, by developing satellite technology in the first place, by paying the aerospace sector to build rockets, and by staying out of the way of private launchers, which, I notice, do not yet exist.

"Regardless of the change in direction by the administration, operations in Low Earth Orbit would have become privatized anyways. What is changing now is that NASA will pump more money into the private sector hopefully speeding their development."


What is changing is that NASA won't have a rocket that can operate in low Earth orbit, much less anywhere else.

I agree, that Nasa has in the long run helped rather then hurt the private sector. It wasn't until this last decade (more specifically the last six or seven years) that the private sector was even in a position to take over some space operations. Nasa has been a big contributor in getting these companies on their feet. I do think however that this allows NASA to develop more advance systems (i think we will see those plans solidify in the next few years), while the private sector can handle the lower end of the spectrum in and around low earth orbit. The Constellation program called for the first manned launch around 2015. NASA will still be able to have its own ship in that time frame. Several private sector firms are only 4-5 years away from that capability. We just don't have the immediate time table of going to the moon.

The fact that NASA won't have a rocket (for about five years) had nothing to do with these new changes in NASA, we've known for about 4 years now that the Constellation program would leave a 4 to 5 year gap in U.S. space capability.

While I do find this somewhat troublesome, I think that in the long run this will allow U.S. space capability to remain dominant, rather then the possibility of it being overtaken by the Indian and Chinese space programs in the next twenty years or so.

We've got to make cuts in this country somewhere! We can't afford a space program right now.

@ Space

Thanks for the well-reasoned reply. Yes, there was still a rocket gap under Constellation (I would have rather Bush given the program more funding), but at least we were guaranteed a rocket. It's possible that the new contractors will have orbital capability in the same time frame, but they are startups without a lot of institutional know-how and no proven track record. Space flight is a complex endeavor.

Interestingly, Burt Rutan, who knows a thing or two about private sector space flight, has been quoted in opposition to the Obama budget for the same reason.

@ 12:53
Of course we can afford it! NASA takes less than 2% of the entire Federal budget. We can cut welfare or the military or both if we need to. And Obama has increased NASA's total funding, so yes we can obviously afford it. He's just cancelled the manned program to steer money into pet projects, like more global warming satellites.

Apollo got cancelled to help pay for the "Great Society". How's that working out for you? We can set 100% tax rates, spend the entire budget on welfare and still not fix anything.

The 2010 US Federal budget allocates $695 billion for Social Security, $453b for medicare, $290b for medicaid, and $571b on other mandatory programs, which are mostly welfare/social in nature and include food stamps, child nutrition, child tax credits, disability, and student loans.

We'll spend a $664b on the entire military, including all "overseas contingency operations" (Iraq and Afghanistan). We have $79b for Health and Human Services $52b for the VA, and $48b for HUD.

We already spend around 2,000 billion dollars a year on social programs, what pressing problem do you need NASA's $20b for, so you can have ONE MORE social program?