Thanks for this link from commenters and emailers. It seems that some namby pambies are concerned about sending astronauts to Space Station Albatross, because its environmental systems are breaking down.

I don't have time for a lot of commentary on this right now, but I'll make two points.

First, this is the most important factor:

Station astronauts have consistently said they prefer to keep the orbiting facility occupied during the shuttles' grounding and that they accept the attendant risks and discomfort. Foale and Kaleri are seasoned veterans, Foale having survived a collision and Kaleri a fire during their tours aboard the Russian Mir space station.

I tire of pantywaist politicians and bureaucrats, and those nervous nellies in the public who urge them on, deciding for other people how much risk they should take, particularly when taking risks is part of their job.

Now, I don't really care if ISS falls into the ocean (though hopefully it will come in without hitting anything with actual value on land), but for people who don't want to see a hundred-billion-dollar "investment" littering the seabottom, the notion that we should risk letting it do so because we don't want to risk a couple of astronauts is ludicrous. Human life is priceless and invaluable to people who know and love the particular humans, but it's not that invaluable. The government manages to put a value on it every day, in myriad ways, and this should be no exception.

But the second point is that this is the almost inevitable result of flawed space policy over the past three decades, in which we developed a fragile monoculture of a space transportation system, with which we've now built a fragile monoculture of a single, politically-driven-but-largely-useless facility in orbit.

NASA's current manned spaceflight programs are largely irrelevant to our nation's future in space, and any new policy that purports to care about that future must accept this reality, and rethink our entire approach to this frontier.

What I found interesting about this is not so much that some nanny-staters would whine about astronauts getting headaches, but more so that we invested 30billion so far and it appears that the routine maintenance is not happening.

Things break on complicated machines. And they have to be replaced. This replacement isn't happening because trips to space are so infrequent and cost too much. And since everything is built as uniquely designed one off parts, replacement parts are expensive and hard to come by.

I'm starting to think the only way to get anywhere in space is if we de-orbit the damn thing, scrap the shuttle program, disband NASA, and make Pournelle's recommendations from February official policy.

Bob

It would almost be Hollywoodian if something seriously accored to the station while Foale was up there.

Rand, youre right that whining about loss of life in manned space activities is pathetic, but youre being a bit unfair on press here.
Couple of posts back, you stated:
"it's unfortunate that the press doesn't understand that this same [NASA] culture is as debilitating for vehicle development as it is for vehicle operations."
Well, judging by this article, Washington Post just got something right: ISS is falling apart for the very same reasons that Columbia did, and only thing you can say is "its irrelevant"?

If thats irrelevant, what on the earth IS relevant ? Is the fact that John Carmack & his crew just came up with novel, potentially very low-cost and scalable rocket engine design relevant ? I dont see you commenting on that.

Please, more actual arguments and views, and less "you will be assimilated"-style of comments.

Well, actually, both the ISS problems and the Shuttle problems are in the same category--operational. My comment in the prior post was about system development (i.e., if NASA can't be trusted to operate the things that it's already built, why should it be trusted to develop new things?)

And yes, I do think that what Armadillo (and XCOR, and others) are more relevant to our space future than NASA's manned spaceflight program, and I say so regularly.

I'm not quite sure just what it is that you're complaining about here.

Rand,

You are whining about NASA just too much. We all know what you think about our space program, but it's the only one we currently have. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the other tax dollars the feds piss away. While I'm following the exploits of Scaled and others with great interest, it would be MUCH more interesting to read about solutions, not bitches. Let the media foam and spew, it's all they're good for.

You are whining about NASA just too much.

How much would be the right amount?

We all know what you think about our space program, but it's the only one we currently have.

And whose fault is that? And if that's the case, it's not worth having. That's what I'm trying to change, by "whining."