Jeff Foust has a report.
[Update a few minutes later]
Frank Morring on why we explore space.
This all misses the real point, which is that exploration is a means to an end. As long as we imagine it’s just a search for knowledge, we can’t possibly justify the insane amount of money (for so little activity) that NASA spends on human spaceflight.
“As long as we imagine it’s just a search for knowledge”
Well, it could but that isn’t ideologically important in our society. We need those ideological arguments to justify government resources because the government cant, and shouldn’t, be closing the business case.
This all misses the real point, which is that exploration is a means to an end.
Sometimes, it’s a means to an end. Sometimes, it’s an end to itself. Everyone has hobbies; there’s nothing wrong with that — as long as they’re using their own money and not asking the taxpayers to pay for their hobbies.
Let me pose a Politically Incorrect question.
NASA was originally created to take manned spaceflight away from the military, for Cold War propaganda reasons (to contrast our “peaceful” program to the militaristic Soviets’).
That purpose no longer applies. So, why not transfer the human-spaceflight program back to the military and let NASA go back to being the NACA?
DoD would be motivated to find some military useful mission for it, and NASA would no longer be tempted to compete with the private sector. As a side benefit, human spaceflight would no longer fall under the House and Senate science committees but would be under the defense committees who *might* be a bit less stupid about it.
Ed W,
Alas, I have little faith in the statement, “As a side benefit, human spaceflight would no longer fall under the House and Senate science committees but would be under the defense committees who *might* be a bit less stupid about it.”
In a zero defect leadership environment you get some of the silliest decisions. Just and example, Prior to approx. 10 years soldiers were allowed to drive Hummers about post in soft caps. Unfortunately, a soldier took an unauthorized trip from his training site to make a Burger King run in a Hummer. He was not wearing a helmet (although, standing orders are to wear the helmet at all times when in a tactical environment), was speeding, rolled the Hummer by taking a tight of a turn. He died his head hitting the rollover bar. I don’t recall if he was wearing his seat belt or not.
From that day forward, no one was allowed to travel in a Hummer in a soft cap. About 4 years ago, the Army (as in big A army) relented and removed the constraint – as far as I know no lower level commander has authorized soft caps when traveling in a Hummer. CYA ya know.
Regards,