Wednesday, February 23, 2011

NASA space shuttle program coming to an end


Tomorrow, the space shuttle Discovery is making its last journey to resupply the international space station. After that, only two more shuttle flights are scheduled to launch: Endeavor in April, and Atlantis in the summer.

According to NASA chief Charles Bolden, the space shuttle program should have ended a long time ago, in favor of larger scale missions that would go to the Moon and beyond. However, even now, the U.S. doesn't have anything to replace the shuttle once the program ends, and NASA will temporarily have to rely on Russian spacecraft to maintain the space station. Bolden hopes that companies will soon come out with commercial spacecraft to fill this role, so that they can focus on the future: heavier vehicles capable of leaving orbit and perhaps landing humans on Mars.

On one hand, it's nice that NASA will now be shifting their focus to larger projects such as Mars, and it will be interesting if private businesses get involved in space travel. However, it does seem like kind of a messy transition. Are commercial spacecraft really a viable option, considering all the design and safety concerns that go into space missions? And who is going to pay for them? (Is maintaining the international space station a public good? Hm.)

What do you think?

13 comments:

stephen said...

Wow, quite interesting. On the contrary, I kind of look down upon space travel as it seems much too controversial. First off, like Anthony said, it would cost millions and billions of dollars to build spaceships and things that can take humans up into space. There are also safety hazards going into space, such as the possibility of the ship malfunctioning at anytime between liftoff and landing at Mars. If we managed to successfully land on Mars however, what would we do there? I mean, there's nothing we can do there, unless NASA sets up some sort of space camp. But still, minus the zero gravity and the lack of resources, whats the difference between living on Earth and Mars? We can't really do anything on Mars, unless NASA spends billions and billions of dollars to create things that we can do there. They'd also have to provide food and shelter and it would be like starting a new society. Keeping our 14 trillion dollar debt in mind, I honestly do not think this space travel is such a great decision at this time at least. People can get lost into space if they're too reckless, and it'd be quite tough to establish a new society that everyone would listen to. This definitely sounds cool, but I feel that space travel is too much of a luxury. I think we should just stay on Earth, and save ourselves some trouble, time, and money we desperately need.

Aaron Oppenheim said...

Hahahaha we're relying on the Russians. does anyone else smell irony?

nichole kwee said...

While space travel is interesting and has led to many useful discoveries (like electric cars, athletic shoes, water purification systems, MRIs, etc.) I feel like the rate of these discoveries is slowing because this program has already achieved its goal of getting to the moon. In other words, now is the perfect time to end the program-- America needs the money to pull out of its huge debt and space should be made for new projects.

@Aaron: hahaha, funny :)

Aaron Oppenheim said...

ughhhh now that I read Stephen's comment I feel like I need to actually write a post with substance.

First off, I agree that space should not be our number one priority right now...which it isn't...at all. NASA as of 2011 gets 19 billion dollars annually. This is roughly .60% of the federal budgets. I don't see NASA breaking the banks anytime soon.

Second, NASA has contributed to society in many ways, even some you might not think of. Some examples include the Temper Pedic "memory foam," scratch resistant lenses, shoe insoles, Long Distance Telecommunication, water filters and so on. Do you like cell phones? Do you like clean water? Do you like jumping on your bed without worrying whether your strategically placed wine glass will spill or not? Then you better thank NASA for it.

Third. Stephen. Mars is different from Earth. Like, very different. We can learn a lot from visiting this new world. It may help us understand our place in the universe and maybe even uncover life we didn't think existed in our solar system.

Fourth, space is so freaking cool. who wouldn't want to experience zero gravity or visit another planet. If people really want to visit space and companies can make a profit out of it, then let it happen. Humans have a natural curiosity. We want to find new and unique things and chart new frontiers. Space is that next frontier. The Final Frontier. I say allow the space program to continue its work so that we can boldly go where no man has gone before.

Rosslee Mamis said...

I remember when I first heard news of the end of the space shuttle program i was really disappointed because I believe it represented America giving up on travelling beyond this world and further exploring our universe. However with more and more info coming out on NASA and the rest of the governments plan for the future of space exploration i have become more and more supportive of what they are dong here. First of all lets talk about the ISS and short range shuttles that have been eating up NASA's budgets for years. Its ingenious to basically pass most of the travel and supply of it to the private sector. With the private sector already having most of the technology to make the short trips to the ISS they can do it and unlike NASA they will want and need to do it more efficiently then others because of competition for the business and employment by the government. Plus their shuttles will be newer unlike the ones NASA has been using and maintaining for 20-30 odd years. Secondly all the money freed up for deep space and longer range ships is going to be very useful in the future. The US and the rest of the world need to realize that space may hold the answer to so many of our problems involving nuclear waste, decreasing resources, overpopulation, and who knows what else! Oh and on the call that space travel is a waste of our money and contributing to our exorbitant amounts of debt I really have to disagree. What we spend supporting NASA and its programs is not even half a drop in the bucket of our debt when you compare it to any of the other things we do plus NASA is funded with tons of private money and donations. Lastly with us looking at years of just research and experimentation while we try to build the next generation of ships, the funding for NASA will be a bargain when you compare what we spend on it to the potential return of answers to any or all of the worlds questions!

Peter Zhan said...

I agree with Anthony's comment that it is good that NASA will be able to focus on larger projects. We know so little of the universe, and I'm sure that there are still numerous discoveries to be made that may either revolutionize our lives or at least improve them greatly. I believe Aaron has effectively covered some of the important discoveries NASA has already made.

To answer Anthony's question, I DO think that this transition to commercial aircraft for "smaller" missions could be handled more cleanly, but I believe things get trickier when we consider the politics of federal government spending on NASA. I would place more confidence in the transition if NASA waited until commercial spacecraft were actually a viable option (if it ever does become one) for accomplishing the smaller missions. This, however, would probably take years, if not decades, to accomplish, considering the safety concerns of space travel and the difficulty in making space endeavors actually profitable.

Given our budget deficit, I think it would be politically controversial if Obama tried to increase NASA's budget, because even if we see NASA's scientific research as a priority, there will be deficit hawks who don't. Even if it only takes .60% of the national budget, opponents of the administration might use it more as a symbol of government spending rather than making a purely economic argument.

It, however, does seem disturbing that we must rely on another country's spacecraft to access the international space station. This would mean that other countries WOULD be stronger than the U.S. at some forms of space exploration and travel, which might hurt our national image or pose a security threat.

That brings the discussion to an interesting point—do you think that this might pose a security threat to our nation (since it seems that it will take a long time for us to even attempt a large-scale mission)?

Jon L said...

This is a turning point that may be good or bad. The future is yet to be determined, but it is definitely the end of an era. To see NASA having to rely on the Russians or corporations to space is a step towards us losing that "can do" mentality that has made us aspire to reach those far off goals. An odd thing is space travel is one of the cheapest portion of our budget, yet its benefits are among the greatest for all of humanity.

But just as everything else, some things must come to end. I do feel though that this is a loss of pride for our nation, the one and only country ever to land a man on the moon. Instead turning such a small feat into mere memories. The Apollo missions used less computer power than a scientific calculator or graphing calculator that each one of us bring to school.

On another note, I hope some of the teachers will allow us to watch the Space Shuttle Launch, at 1:50 PM Pacific tomorrow. It should be an exciting and memorable endeavor.

In response to Steven, Mars does not have no gravity nor lack of resources in fact there are signs of liquid water running millions of years ago. According to some hypothesis, we may actually be able to warm up Mars by directing more sunlight towards that planet. The odd thing also about space travel is that the Space Shuttle programs as safe as they may seem are actually much, much more dangerous than the Apollo, Gemini or Mercury Programs that it succeeded if counting the number of deaths. So, in a sense our space program is as unsafe as ever.

In response to Nichole, I do not believe that space budgets will actually solve our budget deficit as it is as Rosslee and Aaron said very, very small percentage.

Finally, just as Aaron stated space is our future. It is our past, present, and future. We have always dreamed, still dream, and always will dream; and to quote from Aaron "boldly go where no man has gone before". That is the whole purpose of NASA.

Manny said...

It is unfortunate to read once again the the space shuttle program has not ended. They were supposed to end last September but now the new final mission is set for some time this summer.

The space shuttle costs about $500 million per mission. The only area that it can travel is low earth orbit: where the International Space Station and the Hubble Space Telescope reside.

On the other hand, rockets, costing from $5-$500 million depending on payload, can travel way beyond low earth orbit, it can land on the moon unlike the space shuttle. But it is only a one time use and it creates "space junk".

Having that knowledge in mind, we should not discontinue space exploration because it is not a "luxury". It's research and development for man kind. What should be done is the research and development of a better means of transportation to space.

Also, NASA seems to be always blamed for spending a lot of money when, as Aaron stated, only spends about .6% of the budget. In addition, private companies are starting to sprout and take the place of NASA in terms of space exploration: SpaceX is developing reusable launch vehicles.

Kathy Shield said...

I think there is a commercial interest in space travel: the space. And by space, I don't mean the universe, stars, etc. I literally mean the land on other planets we could theoretically live on. As Aaron stated, who doesn't think space is cool? Though it scares me a bit, I don't think the sci-fi novels centered about interplanetary and even interstellar colonies is that absurd. NASA has recently discovered a handful of planets in the "Goldilocks" zone- those theoretically capable of life. When this proportion was expanded to include a possible 50 billion habitable planets within the Milky Way Galaxy. If NASA continues to explore in this way, I think that the commercial element will do its part to expand the spread human race, hopefully saving our planet.

Chad Bolanos said...

I don't think that commercial spacecrafts are the best for deeper space exploration. I believe that we should design better models of spacecraft that can be safer and more effective for deep space travel and exploration. We need to be able to make sure that the new spacecrafts can act as a "new home" for the astronauts just in case something bad happens during their research missions. But designing new spacecrafts bring up a serious problem for us, how we plan on paying for it. Our country is already in debt and I don't think we can possibly spend more on space exploration. I think that we should just rely on Russia for all the space research for now until we can get enough money to get out of our serious debt. But then again, trying to research and design new spacecrafts can help our economy by making more jobs which will be better for us in the long run.

Alexander Phinney said...

What's really exciting for me is that the private sector might be prepared to handle commercial space flights sooner than we think, although, on your point, Chad, these passenger flights won't be going into deep space. Has anyone heard of Virgin Galactic? Look at this video:

http://www.virgingalactic.com/

these people are either serious, or the whole thing is a scam--either way, though, the possibility of this actually happening (at a few million dollars a pop) is thrilling. Are these people for real? I'm inclined to say yes.

Anthony Lu said...

Very good points, everyone, and interesting link, Alex.

One thing, to those who have pointed out that NASA only consumes a small portion of the budget, so does everything else. It's all the little things added up together that make up our trillion dollar deficit, and cutting its funds is about as sensible as cutting anything else, given that it isn't the most visibly crucial government project out there. However, I do believe that it's a worthwhile expenditure as long as it's aimed at interesting new exploration, and others have validly mentioned the many advancements in technology attributed to NASA.

So... here's to hoping that the space station business gets taken care of, and commercial flights take off? (Since some people are willing to pay for the experience, I guess.)

Unknown said...

I personally think that the US losing it's dominant role in space exploration will have a ripple effect that will jeopardize the survival of the American spirit. It is hard to not have an overwhelming sense of pride when watching these shuttles launch. Aim for the stars, or my favorite, set course for the second star on the left and on til morning. If the main argument against budgeting for further space advancement is funding in a dire economy, there is an easy way out. If Obama could collect as much as he did in small personal donations during an election period, imagine how much NASA could collect on an ongoing drive for the same kind of funding. Look, we cant pay back our debts and will probably lose the ability to print our way out if the dollar is no longer a trade standard. Just think at a personal level, if you had a job that paid 50K a year and debt of 250K, how long would you have to work while trying to live and send your kids to school, without incurring any more debt, to pay that off. As a nation the numbers are even more skewed & we are making interest only payment on our near maxed out credit card. As a person you would try to find your way into a higher paying job, as a nation we need to push for that next big advancement that will change the rules yet again. Who knows what the R&D for the next evolution of space exploration will yield. Communications, waste recycling, food storage tech, & many other technologies will need to be improved. We all benefit from that. Who knows, maybe this substance H3 that is apparently in abundance on the moon and can be used as an alternative to uranium as a clean nuclear energy, will eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. How many trillions will that account for. For the sake of our future and our children's imagination I hope we don't lose the pioneering spirit NASA was founded upon.