Not surprisingly, Tuesday’s launch of the shuttle Discovery triggered some editorials and columns about the shuttle program and space exploration in general. Some highlights (or lowlights, as the case may be):
USA Today founder Al Neuharth, in his weekly column, still thinks we’re racing the Russians in space because they, historically, have launched more satellites and have racked up more person-days in space than we have: “Not only have we played second fiddle to Russia in recent years, we’re in danger of becoming third-raters in space. China has launched humans and announced that it plans a permanent base on the moon.” His solution: “another Sputnik-like scare to wake us up.” He doesn’t explain, though, why a second “Sputnik-like scare” would work any better over the long run than the first.
The Richmond (Ind.) Palladium-Item isn’t too keen on space exploration in general. “Space travel is inherently dangerous so the question must be asked: Why do we need to return to the moon or explore Mars right now? … Paying for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, helping those affected by the hurricanes, working to reduce hunger and illiteracy, improving the economy and reducing the national debt seem to be among those mounting and more urgent concerns.”
A similar tack is taken by the British newspaper The Independent, which offers a somewhat contrived question-and-answer column on the topic of manned space exploration. “Man may return to the moon and one day reach Mars. But machines will set the pace – if only for economic reasons.”
A columnist for the Daily Utah Chronicle, the student newspaper of the University of Utah, asks why NASA doesn’t get the attention and credit it deserves for the shuttle and other programs. “The point is that the public only ever hears or cares about the launches that go wrong or are delayed because too many birds were on the tarmac or because the weather forecast called for slight rain.” This is a familiar rant for space activists, who want more attention for NASA’s routine successes. The problem with that, of course, is that when they become routine they’re no longer newsworthy.
If you looked hard enough, though, you could find some unconditional support for NASA, such as in the Lakeland (Fla.) Ledger. Noting that the scheduled July 16 landing of Discovery coincides with the anniversary of the launch of Apollo 11, “Thirty-seven years later, Discovery keeps mankind’s giant leap alive.”
“The point is that the public only ever hears or cares about the launches that go wrong or are delayed because too many birds were on the tarmac or because the weather forecast called for slight rain.” This is a familiar rant for space activists, who want more attention for NASA’s routine successes.
The reason why the public doesn’t care is because the Shuttle has been a routine failure. It failed before its first launch. It’s a jobs program servicing the worlds most complicated Rube Goldberg machine.
It was never designed to lower the cost of access to space, and cheaper access to space is how it was sold to the public. We’re justifiably unimpressed with a vehicle which makes it vastly more costly to go into space now than in the 1960’s.
“We’re justifiably unimpressed with a vehicle which makes it vastly more costly to go into space now than in the 1960’s.”
First of all, that’s absurd. But I feel your pain, 113 heavy lift launches, reusable high performance cryogenic engines, winged reentry, a space station, it’s just pathetic. I would think we could do better than that.
Hey, I know, let’s return to the moon!
First of all, that’s absurd.
What’s absurd is that the marginal cost of the shuttle mission is now sitting at over a billion dollars.
The space station I might add is still not built despite hundreds of billions of dollars invested, massive reductions in scale, and almost a decade of delays.
reusable high performance cryogenic engines
Rebuildable cryogenic engines. It costs almost as much to service them as bolting on a new set.
“billion dollars”
Which is why we have expendable rockets and the Soyuz. Nobody is stopping you from using them. No, wait, it appears the US government is trying to stop you from using them. Strange.
“still not built”
For something that is not built, well, I wonder where those astronauts sleep at night.
“bolting on a new set”
Yes, engines are so damn inconvenient. One wonders how you get from LA to NY anymore.
You appear to be sinking deeper into irrationality. One would think you don’t want to go into space at all.
What’s absurd is that the marginal cost of the shuttle mission is now sitting at over a billion dollars.
This is a new meaning of the phrase “marginal cost” with which I was previously unfamiliar.
As far as I know, the marginal cost remains what it’s been for years, something between one and two hundred million dollars.