Did we miss a very important part of this article? Ok, let the space travel go
to the private sector, but what about our National Defense: "A report to
Congress last year pointed out that delays in the NASA Ares program could have
"significant negative impact" on the industrial base for missile production. If
delays are "significant" an outright cancellation would be overwhelming. We will
lose not just our capabilities for space exploration, but our capability to
protect our homeland. Our nation will be less secure.Maintaining
leadership in space and creating jobs is important, but fulfilling our
constitutional duty to provide for the common defense is an absolute must." Everyone is missing the BIG picture!!!!!!!!
And in 1962 John Glenn went into orbit aboard an ATLAS rocket.Since
then (48 years later), the Atlas has been commericalized and sent over 300+
payloads safely and realiably into orbit and beyond -- for just pennies on the
dollar to the government.Cellphones, TV, GPS -- all thanks to Boeing
commerical and the mighty ATLAS....NOT BIG Government.Boeing
will have the ATLAS V and the Delta IV ready in less than 36 months.BTW,Boeing has been running the International Space Station and all
opertions for the last 15 years for NASA.Cheaper than Government work too.
The mantra of the Republicans and Right Wingers is Government is evil, the
private sector is always better and competition is good. Obama gave you all
three in his space decision. This does not kill the US space effort, it simply
takes the Government (NASA) out of competition with hardware manufacturers. Go
on the web and look up SpaceX, Orbital Sciences, Virgin Galactic and others.
There are literally dozens of private sector companies clamoring for NASA
business. If you want free enterprise, you got it. I understand that Bishop
has to support ATK in this, but for America in general, he is wrong
Okay, one last comment.There are many detractors of the commercial
option of sending people to space who say that the private sector doesn't have
the experience or capability of building safe rockets to launch people into
space.Who do you think has actually built the rockets that NASA has
been using all of these years? The original rockets were built by private sector
contractors to NASA. This includes the space shuttle. This includes companies
like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, ATK, Aerojet, and so on.One of the
rockets that would be used to send people into space is the Atlas 5. This rocket
already has 19 successful flights! All it needs is more sensors and other
relatively minor modifications and a launch escape system to make it "man
rated."The SpaceX rocket is being built by a new company, but they
employed some of the top people from the existing aerospace companies, so they
actually have a pool of deep experience. The Falcon 9 rocket was built from day
one to be man rated.I have every confidence that the private sector
can build safe, affordable access to space.
Defenders of Constellation keep missing the main point. The program was
unaffordable and unsustainable. The Augustine commission said that even if Ares
1 was given to us free by Santa Claus, we couldn't afford to fly it because its
cost per flight was so expensive. Unfortunately, the development cost of Ares 1
was huge too. $9 billion dollars has already been spent on it, and we still
don't have a working rocket and capsule.Switching to commercial
providers of launch should have been done in the beginning. $9 billion dollars
would have paid for 2 or 3 launch vehicles and capsules instead of partway into
building one. Then we wouldn't be at risk of a single point of failure if there
is a problem with Ares 1, like what happened when the shuttle was grounded
The space program must not have a union.
Whoa, a lot of misleading stuff here...1) Obama wants to cancel
Constellation, not the replacement for the space shuttle. Private companies will
offer services to NASA to deliver astronauts.2) End our efforts going to
the Moon: Augustine Commission says NASA has never been given enough money to
achieve the goal of landing before 2020.3) Cripple our capabilities in
space? Military stopped relying on the shuttle to deliver its hardware ever
since Challenger in '86. After Columbia in '03, NASA should have been doing the
same.4) Going from 40 or so per year to 4 or 5 was Bush's plan, when he
implemented the Vision for Space Exploration (VSE). Relying on the Russians for
several years was going to happen with or without Constellation.5) Careful
wording regarding funding to companies with no "tested or proven alternative."
True, but Spacex has man-rated Falcon 9 on the launch pas right now, scheduled
to launch in the next month or so. Where's Ares? The Ares 1-X doesn't count;
it's not the same as Ares 1.There's more, but... Be careful what you
Cutting a 500 billion dollar inefficient and bloated space program in a
recession is not only the right thing to do, but also seeing the big picture. I
just wish that critics of this move could see the big picture as well. Instead
of just trying to regain power in 2012.
A public run space program is standing in the way of private business progress.
Very good article. Utah cannot afford to lose another 2,000 skilled workers and
the nation cannot afford to lose upwards of 30,000 of these jobs!!!
Nope. NASA's best science is unmanned. If you want show, you'll think manned
space flight is where it's at. If you want good science, you'll think
otherwise.Obama just pushed the rocket building to the private
sector. Bishop thinks everything else should be run by the private sector
(maybe not a bad idea). Let the private sector take on that risk, not the
taxpayer.So-called "Star Wars" missile defense is still a feckless
idea. I assume that's what he was referring to when he mentioned defense.Yes, Mr. Bishop, just like every representative in this country, will do
what it takes to keep jobs in his district. I don't blame him. But I'm glad
to see manned space flight canned.
Wow, doesn't, Rob, realize that the most striking thing about the space program
is the sense of wonder, and excitement it engenders? He has reduced the beauty
of the Hubble photos, and the pride we all felt for Neil Armstong, to a dry
argument about jobs, and national defense.
Great article. I don't know whose controling Obama or if this is just another
wacky idea from an inept president. Mr. O just doesn't care about American
exceptionalism. What else can one expect from a radical who was raised in a
radical background? I just hope he had his crew don't destroy America to the
point it can't be fixed.
I think that it is profoundly depressing that a presidency founded on the
foundation, or perhaps more accurately "illusion," of hope, decided to stab out
the heart of America's greatest symbol of hope. But perhaps that is the real
message here, we have left the age of great hopes and the betterment of us all
in favor of vision-less hopes of simply living without purpose in living - a
life without real hopes, aspirations, or dreams.