As Friday’s launch of America’s last space shuttle flight approaches, we have all been exposed to the expected hand wringing. From a genuine concern for advancing science, to nostalgia, to economic self interest, various interests are bemoaning the end of US government - run manned space flight. Is the end of the the Space Shuttle program a tragedy; or simply government coming to its senses regarding one part of its bloated budget?
Don’t get me wrong, I love space exploration. For many years I lived across the river from NASA Langley. I have a cousin who is a retired astronaut. My boyhood heroes were men like John Glenn and Alan Shepard. I recognize that many of the products and technologies which, today, we take for granted had their roots in the space program. However, does that justify continuing a program (the Space Shuttle) which has cost the American taxpayer over $196 billion to date and has never lived up to expectations.
Let’s accept the argument that government funded research in the basic sciences and in technology development yield positive economic results in the future. We have to ask – What can we look back to in the Space Shuttle program that is part of our daily lives today? What technological advances in the program have yielded positive economic benefit to our economy (don’t include employment from the program or contractors)?
But didn’t you accept the argument that research in the basic sciences yields positive economic benefit? For the purposes of this argument, yes I do. That does not mean that we need to continue to shuttle program.
A great deal of basic science research can be conducted via robotic missions. If you want manned missions, it appears that private sector space missions are getting ready for prime time. Space X has launched, deployed, and recovered craft into earth orbit. It’s Falcon 1 system is geared to handle low earth orbit (LEO) deployments. It’s Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy systems can launch cargo and personnel in its Dragon recoverable module.
The International Space Station (ISS) will be serviced by Space X. In addition, there are private sector alternatives to the ISS in the works. Bigelow Aerospace plans to launch the Commercial Space Station in 2014. Other alternatives are in the research pipeline.
With these private sector alternatives, is it in our best interest to spend taxpayer dollars on a program that has NEVER met expectations?
Yes, I know that 62 astronauts will have to find employment elsewhere. So will many folks whose public and private-sector jobs depend on the shuttle program. Again, is there a valid reason to continue taxpayer funded manned space flight?
The main reason to continue to fund manned space exploration is that I always wanted to go into outer space. The argument that you set up shows me that, even at its lowest point, the manned space exploration program is far and away a better investment than almost any other government program.
ReplyDeleteAmerica had the first man on the moon. The way you people want it, Northrup Grumman will have the first man on Mars. But "GET THE GOVERNMENT OUT OF EVERYTHING" and all that. God bless corporate America.
ReplyDeleteAnon 1112 -
ReplyDeleteI would agree that this is money better spent than a lot of other programs. However, that isn't the question.
usually, anything the government even THINKS OF touching and getting into is going to be extremely inefficient and wasteful.
ReplyDeleteThats why the gov got out of space. It made sense and was useful for the future
ReplyDeleteMedical advancements made because of research completed thru the space program is INVALUABLE and should continue. IMO, It's a damn shame!
ReplyDelete