The Future of NASA and U.S. Space Exploration
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-04-15/future-nasa-and-us-space-exploration
President Obama plans to dramatically scale back NASA's return-to-the-moon program to make way for implementing a new vision for the space agency. A group of astronauts led by Neil Armstrong opposes the move, but astronaut Buzz Aldrin and others believe it will propel the U.S. to the forefront of space exploration. A look at the future of NASA.
Guests
Pat Duggins
news director, Alabama Public Radio; author, "Final Countdown: NASA and the End of the Space Shuttle Program," and "Trailblazing Mars: NASA's Next Giant Leap."
James Kitfield
senior correspondent, "National Journal" magazine.
Marc Kaufman
reporter on the national desk of The Washington Post, covering NASA and space; author of a forthcoming book on astrobiology, the search for life beyond earth.
Scott Pace
diretor, Space Policy Institute, and professor of the practice of international affairs, George Washington University.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Listening to the show. Why didn't President Obama simply scale back the shuttle program while doing everything he has sketched out in the new plan? The PR impacts for the space program will be devastating. As one of your panel members pointed out, "It's the public that funds the program."
Terminating the shuttle program is analogous to terminating Amtrak (since so few people ride it) while we wait for the high speed rail system to be built.
In regards to the commentator's 2001: A Space Odyssey, in the film, the rotating Space Station was NOT run by Hilton Hotels, it merely had a Hilton Hotel in the station.
Also, the commentator neglected to mention that the main space ship in the movie, the U.S.S. Discovery, was in fact a product of a government space agency, not a for-profit corporation.
I like Obama's plan thus far. I would like more details on it though. I believe NASA needs to be lead into the future instead of following the same ole footsteps of the past. With trillions of dollars, we the tax payers have paid over the decades little stride has been made since the 60's in comparison to the cost. Obama's plan seems to be more streamline and more cost effective. A plan to build new rockets and ships for a journey to the Mars is a goal I would like to see us reach. With new technology comes more jobs. It's time to move in a new direction and I'm excited to see where we will be heading.
Great show. I keep hearing about job losses as a result of the shuttle program ending, but don't shuttle workers represent an attractive labor force for private companies that want to enter space exploration? I'm sure the state of Florida would create some attractive incentives for private companies to locate in the area and hire those workers.
My prediction is that space fight will be privatized, and a huge company will be created. Its management will be compensated like the current Banksters are. The company will ultimately be mismanaged, will be too big to fail, and will be bailed out by the Tax payers at an expense much larger than if we just let NASA run it like it does now.
Tom in NC
Hi,
I have known nuclear engineers who worked on the Nerva rocket project, which had actual test firings in the Nevada test site. Its practical value was never understood by the engineers working on it. The radiation fields produced by the nuclear reactor were deadly to any astronauts.
But, my question is: Why expect that the American public would accept the cost of a manned spaceflight program when universal health coverage is vocally rejected by 50%?
Everyone is worried about the loss of jobs with President Obama's new plan.
All the talk about utilizing the "private sector" sound very "Republican party platform" to me. I suppose all those out-of-work engineers and astronauts could come on over to those "high paying" science/math teaching jobs in the high schools and middle schools across the country. We do need more teachers in those areas. I wonder if NASA salaries and teaching salaries are comparable? IF NOT, I suspect all those jobs in the "private sector" will be open to take advantage of NASA skills and experience.
I'm with you, Tom. Folks talk a big line about privatizing, and they go after government contracts . . .$$ coming from the taxpayers . . .to support their "private" business.
EDITED below
Tom wrote:
But, my question is: Why expect that the American public would accept the cost of a manned spaceflight program when universal health coverage is vocally rejected by 50%?
Not sure who the "vocal 50%" were in your analysis above, but I am sure of the following:
NASA's budget last year was $17.8 billion (0.62% of the Fed Budget).
The Healthcare bill is estimated to cost over $1.6 trillion over 10 years ($160 billion / year) which is about 10 times the NASA budget.
The cost of the "War on Terror" will soon approach $1 trillion since 2001, again about 10 times the NASA budget.
The (first) $700 billion financial bailout would have funded about 40 NASA programs for a year and likely gotten us to Mars.
Let's look at the entire Federal Budget and see what's going where, shall we? Otherwise we risk people talking about false numbers that only seem relevant.
I wish I had been able to get a response from the panel on the fundamental problem that the manned NASA program has had since the mid 60s & that is getting the rug pulled out for under its major projects every few years. It's not all political, but also partly NASA's by underestimating the cost of what it wants perhaps at the cost of what it needs.
Case in point is the Shuttle development history at the expense of a stand alone heavy lift booster or successor. Although that may not have been part of their original plan, the budget precluded that back in the 1970s. The shuttle replacement search over the last 30 years have yielded several cancellations without any viable system (most visibly the X-33 which was excessively ambitious given that even when proposed the economies of reusable vs. expendable systems was in question).
Unlike Russia which has continuously developed from existing launchers reliable man rated boosters & their support resources, NASA has kept developing new ones & apparently throwing out much of the technology & resources upon their retirement. It's unfortunate that only at a late date has NASA decided to develop man rated systems from Shuttle technology, but again seemed bent on pushing for really new systems vs. improving and adapting progressively (Ares systems vs. DIRECT or Delta IV which rely on more legacy systems).
To some extent if NASA wants a manned program they need to differentiate between developing advanced engines, boosters, & vehicles and the equipment they need to have on hand for current work. This is probably impossible since to work smoothly this has to be done concurrently much like aviation development (we didn't start working on jets after we retired the last prop one). It's hard to see the proper approval of what would be effectively 2 expensive budget items (and has not been the case historically).
I want to compliment Susan Page for her fantastic job in guest hosting the Diane Rehm Show concerning International Adoption. This was a most fascinating program. Susan was so skilled in bringing all her guests into the conversation in an informative, entertaining and compasionate way. I was truly impressed as well as enlightened.
Though I was familiar with the case being discussed and do have a thorough background on the topic of international adoption I found that Susan's interview style shed so much light on the topic with her delicate and all-embracing way of inviting all who spoke to share their stories; she always expressed her appreciation for the participation of her guests and callers who discussed the topic.
I would like to take this moment to further state that, having listened to Susan Page present many a past program, subing in for Diane Rehm on several occasions, that I noticed from the beginning Susan's absolutely fantastic skill and instinct in interviewing guests and telephone callers. She puts everyone at ease, gets in lots of material and moves the show along in an entertaining yet efficient pace without cutting anyone off or making anyone feel rushed. This is true masterful radio.
I can only hope that NPR will always keep Susan Page on the payroll. For she can be a benefit to host any program. Perhaps the powers that be at NPR should give Susan her own show some day. It would surely be a welcome addition to the high quality of news and commentary that I have come to expect from NPR. Bravo Susan Page.