Is this the end for human space flight?

// added November 20, 2009 // 2 comments //
Image...
pjacobs51
SO WE won't be going to Mars, not in my lifetime anyway. And not back to the moon either, not for decades. Buzz Lightyear fantasies are dashed. Don't believe the spin - the dream is over.

OK, the Augustine panel's review of NASA's human space-flight plans outlines several options. Mars may be out, but the moon is still in with a shout, and plans to go to the Lagrange points and even the asteroids are mooted. Technically, all this is probably doable. But it won't happen, and here's why.

The problem is not money: the US can afford an extra $3 billion a year. It is psychological. NASA, the only game in town, has no idea what space is for, and no audacity.

There certainly was audacity in 1961, when John F. Kennedy made his lunar pledge. The key line was not the crazy bit about landing a man on the moon, it was the hubristic promise to do so by 1970. If Wernher Von Braun had insisted the moon was unreachable before 1975, they probably would never have gone. Why? Because by 1975 Kennedy's presidency would be ancient history. Some other guy would get all the glory as Old Glory was hammered into the lunar regolith.

Of course that happened anyway, but Kennedy's reasoning must have been that, even in 1969, he would be able to bask in the glory of a successful moon shot.

It may simply be that space exploration is incompatible with US democracy. A Mars shot would take four presidential terms at least. No president will ask taxpayers to fund something he won't be around to take credit for.

Another big problem is the legacy of some terrible decisions that left NASA with the expensive, dangerous space shuttle and a white-elephant space station that manages the feat of making space seem as dull as cardboard. The whole thing is a mess.

So where now? Probably nowhere. Expect the Augustine report to be quietly forgotten. After all, we've been here before. In 1989 George Bush Snr promised the moon and Mars too, and that came to naught. The problem with these visions is that they are too sane. Human space exploration requires a tinge of madness - that theatrical Kennedy hubris - to work.

They'll probably keep the International Space Station going out of bloody-mindedness. The shuttles will fly a few more times. There will be some vague plans, more studies. Robots, of course, but no concerted attempt to look for alien life, the most compelling raison d'être for space exploration. But as to the moon, Mars, infinity and beyond, I'm afraid, in all likelihood, Buzz Lightyear will just have to wait.



Continued at link . . .

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427355.700-is-this-the-end-for-human-spa...
  1. groups:
    Science,   US Politics,   Space,   Opinion,   1 more
  2. tags:

2 comments // Is this the end for human space flight?

  • csmonut
    • 0
      csmonut  
    • But part of the other half of the article says....
      "Politics aside, there is a subset of the science and technology community that simply will not let human space flight die. If governments abandon their programmes these individuals will keep the dream alive as a private venture. Perhaps not surprisingly, they include some of the brightest young minds on the planet. Earth will always be too small for them, and the conviction that humanity should and will one day reach the stars too strong.

      To be sure, the desire to fly in space and journey to other worlds is impractical and risks becoming an escapist fantasy. Yet there is a deeper force at work. Space calls to us, as a species, to be more than we have been. It is a call we have, so far, proved wonderfully incapable of ignoring."

      Me...I'm keeping an optomistic view. NASA will find a new and worthy direction. Robotics are great and we need them to do the initial exploration, now that we have them.
      But human spaceflight and travels to other planets is what really keeps the belief and the spirit alive.

    • 3 months ago
  • pjacobs51

current videos