Follow this blog:
RSS

NASA preps last Shuttle flight: Can the U.S. really endure a manned space hiatus?

By | July 7, 2011, 7:17 AM PDT

NASA’s final Space Shuttle mission countdown is underway and the handwringing over a manned flight hiatus is picking up. The big question: Does the last Shuttle mission signal weakness or a necessary transition to a better way?

The Atlantis is scheduled to lift off for a final mission on Friday, but weather may delay the launch time. The last mission is essentially a final supply run to the International Space Station. After that, NASA—and the U.S. space program—is in a manned flight limbo of sorts as private sector picks up the space travel baton.

A sampling of recent press coverage highlights some of the reality behind the final Shuttle mission.

  • An Associated Press account rounds up how NASA legends Neil Armstrong and John Glenn are leading a group of critics who say that the U.S. space program is ignoring a long-held belief that there should be a backup plan. Indeed, the end of the Shuttle program leaves a manned flight vacuum.
  • The Wall Street Journal notes that the International Space Station now depends solely on Russia, the historic rival to the U.S. in the space race. The U.S. and European Space Agency will depend on Russia’s Soyuz for a lift. In other words, Russia has a monopoly on manned space flight. Jean-Jacques Dordain, director of the European Space Agency, is quoted as saying that the situation is “uncomfortable” and a “collective mistake.”
  • The end of the Shuttle means the loss of jobs and specialized expertise in space, CBS News notes.

So where is NASA headed? President Obama said on his Twitter town hall that NASA needs a new frontier. NASA Administrator Charles Bolden defended NASA, its plan to move forward and shot down critics over a backup plan. Bolden said:

As a former astronaut and the current NASA Administrator, I’m here to tell you that American leadership in space will continue for at least the next half-century because we have laid the foundation for success – and for NASA failure is not an option. Once again, we have the opportunity to raise the bar, to demonstrate what human beings can do if we are challenged and inspired to reach for something just out of our grasp but not out of our sights.

In many respects, Bolden noted that the U.S. needs to outsource low-orbit to the private sector.

When I hear people say – or listen to media reports – that the final Shuttle flight marks the end of U.S. human spaceflight, I have to say . . . these folks must be living on another planet. We are not ending human space flight, we are recommitting ourselves to it and taking the necessary – and difficult – steps today to ensure America’s pre-eminence in human space exploration for years to come.

But we have to do things differently. For one, we have to get out of the business of owning and operating low Earth orbit transportation systems and hand that off to the private sector, exercising sufficient oversight to ensure the safety of our astronauts.

We need to focus on deep space exploration, while empowering today’s innovators and entrepreneurs to carry out the rest. This new approach to getting our crews and cargo into orbit will create good jobs and expand opportunities for the American economy.

And let me be crystal clear about this: I believe that American companies and their spacecraft should send our astronauts to the International Space Station, rather than continuing to outsource this work to foreign governments. That is what this Administration is committed to, and that is what we are going to do.

Along with supporting the ISS and commercial crew transportation, NASA will pursue two critical building blocks for our deep space exploration future — a deep space crew vehicle and an evolvable heavy-lift rocket. And we will make the technology investments required to begin the era of deep space exploration today.

In other words, the future of manned flight will depend on companies like SpaceX, Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

If the U.S. can go through the transition to private low-orbit vehicles, maintain leadership and keep focused on going to Mars and deep space perhaps this three-year hiatus is worth it. In the meantime, many folks will wonder if that Atlantis lift-off is a time to celebrate or mourn.

Related:

Start your week smarter with our weekly e-mail newsletter. It's your cheat sheet for good ideas. Get it.

Larry Dignan

About Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan is the editor-in-chief of SmartPlanet.

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan

Editor-in-Chief

Larry Dignan is editor-in-chief of SmartPlanet and ZDNet. He is also editorial director of TechRepublic. Previously, he was an editor at eWeek, Baseline and CNET News. He has written for WallStreetWeek.com, Inter@ctive Week, New York Times and Financial Planning. He holds degrees from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism and the University of Delaware. He is based in New York but resides in Pennsylvania.

Follow him on Twitter.

Larry Dignan

Larry Dignan
Larry Dignan does not hold any investments in the companies he covers.
If you liked this, don't miss...
15
Comments

Join the conversation!

Follow via:
RSS
0 Votes
+ -
acceptable
It's acceptable for the government to outsource LEO operations to industry and focus on higher tech or farther out programs. The USA has a chance here to be #1 in that industry, but will those who can make it happen do it?
Posted by opcom
7th Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Future of NASA
I was disgusted that the shuttle program was ended without a replacement. A friend explained that what NASA does best is tackling the challenges in space flight through science and engineering. He said that the shuttle and even the earlier flights to the moon are challenges that NASA succeeded in accomplishing. The strength of NASA is to work out how to do things that have not been done before.

NASA is looking at doing the next big step in manned space exploration, going to an asteroid and to Mars. These are more difficult to accomplish than the previous missions. NASA's attitude is that they have already done the hard part to get to the moon, build shuttles that launched satellites and brought modules up for the space station. Those are things that other organizations can continue doing while NASA aims to solve the next step in exploring ever further in space.

NASA is like a great explorer, once they have blazed the trail then they move onto another challenge; allowing others to take over developing the trail. Still, it would have been nice to have another program start up as the shuttle missions wound down. The hiatus is similar to the early 70's after the moon missions and before the shuttle.
Posted by sboverie
7th Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
(Y)
NASA is looking at doing the next big step in manned space exploration, going to an asteroid and to Mars. These are more difficult to accomplish than the previous missions. NASA's attitude is that they have already done the hard part to get to the moon, build shuttles that launched satellites and brought modules up for the space station. Those are things that other organizations can continue doing while NASA aims to solve the next step in exploring ever further in space.

At last somebody with common sense and vision of the future. Thank you.

I have no idea why so many people insist in keep pursuing travels to the ISS or the Moon. That is OLD news and something that somebody else should do. Keeping the Shuttle program is not making the U.S. having the advantage in space exploration. Quite the contrary, it's tying hands around something rusty and increasingly useless.

Remember, the sun and the oceans will not last forever. In about 1 billion years the latter will boil. By that time we _must_ have reached other planets beyond the solar system or humanity will extinguish. Flying to the Moon or to Mars is useless. That won't save us. We have to start furthering the space science and developing the technology that can take us out of this planetary system. And no, 1000 million years is not that of a long time considering all the effort necessary to achieve our goal. We must start NOW.
Posted by nomorebs
Updated - 7th Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Orbitz
NASA has now become Orbitz, booking their flights with someone else. Maybe the Air Force should do this?

Seriously, the problem isn't whether or not NASA should use these services when the become available. The problem is that NASA doesn't receive enough money. Sometimes they blow it like the James Webb Telescope and can't manage a budget. But the cement shoes they are forced to wear because the political winds force them to start and stop projects.

The President now wants a new propulsion system. It was developed in the 60's and stopped in the 70's (NERVA). VASMIR was started by NASA but they didn't have money to develop it. So you want it, budget for it.

NASA is a can do place but No Bucks, No Buck Rogers.
Posted by Kansan52
7th Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
More of The Same
Most folks don't remember it, but this has all happened before.

The last Apollo flight was the 'handshake in Space' under Nixon. The Apollo program was canceled, the Saturn production capability was scrapped, and it was 6 years until the next manned flight could be done.

It also happened earlier with a gap between Mercury and Gemini, though that one was only a year or two. There was also a similar gap between Gemini and Apollo.

This is not the End of the World. NASA is a research organization. They are really not very good at transportation or longevity in any activity. There should be another group encouraging development and colonization for the Moon. We can't do Mars or the Asteroids yet.

In colonization, which should be our real goal, remember that a colony must be able to be economically self supporting. We can do this soon on the Moon. Mars and the asteroids will take longer.
Posted by YetAnotherBob
7th Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
That's a good exercise
But we need to start developing the technology necessary to reach other planetary systems. Reaching Mars is a good first step. But it's just that, a step. The objective should be to colonize other "Earths" beyond the solar system. The Sun will boil the oceans in 1 billion years. Living in Mars or the Moon won't be any kind of solution at that point either.

I propose that:

* By 2050 we should already have a base/colony in Mars
* By 2100 we should have a base/colony in some Jupiter's moon.
* By 3000 we should have been able to discover other habitable
worlds located in other planetary systems
* By 4000 we should have one or more colonies in those systems
Posted by nomorebs
Updated - 7th Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Vision for the Future
As a fan of the space program since the early 60's, I am saddened by the decision to stop the shuttle program. I have mixed feelings about the goal of visiting Mars and asteroids with manned missions. And trips to the moon probably are inconsequential in the furtherance of human knowledge. Near earth space exploration is probably the best bang for our buck at this time and probably till the end of the century. I would prefer to concentrate on using resources to save the planet from self-destruction at the hand of man instead of exploring space beyond near earth. At the rate we are going, we will end up making our planet uninhabitable by humans if we don't change our current course. In fact it may already be too late to change the inevitable. NASA has brought us great technology over the years, from velcro to microcircuitry, and we need the knowledge from that effort to continue. I hope the brain drain from the loss of the shuttle program will be temporary and that these folks will be gainfully employed on new projects and programs that help us see the 22nd century.
Posted by dcr100@...
7th Jul 2011
-1 Votes
+ -
I'm afraid this may be the very end of manned space flight...
...for America, anyway.

As America becomes more and more socialist economically, the greater political pressure will be for the expansion of benefits to the growing dependent class at the expense of other traditional expenditures by the state such as on defense and space exploration. That, combined with the lack of a clearly definable goal for the program will cause NASA to retract to but a minor government-run R&D firm.
Posted by JohnMcGrew@...
7th Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
We are so conditioned to instant gratification
Nasa will deliver as normal.

I noticed that the Moon was not on the list of next projects.
What a pity. There is Hydrogen 3 in vast quantities & that could be the best safe nuclaer fuel for fusion generators.

Apparently China sees the potential & plans to do something about it.
Posted by TonyTrenton
8th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
It needs to be noted.
That Burt Rutan offered his Space Ship 1 design to NASA before finding Richard Branson to fund it. The SS 1 design was originally intended as a "lifeboat" for the International Space Station. The next phase was to be a slightly modified version of the current SS 2 designed to get people to and from the ISS.
Posted by Hates Idiots
Updated - 11th Jul 2011
+1 Vote
+ -
The Moon ...
should be our focus now. The material and energy resources available there are much easier to boost to orbit than from the surface of the Earth. Get a permanent base started on the Moon and get the materials processing going. From that base we can explore the whole solar system and beyond.
Posted by riverat1
8th Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Mission
I just consulted the primary NASA website, and, believe it or not, their mission statement is this: "NASA's vision: To reach for new heights and reveal the unknown so that what we do and learn will benefit all humankind."

That is the vaguest, most ridiculous mission statement I've ever seen. One's mission must be clear, concise, and something to which you can list specific goals for achieving. Of course, NASA's mission is political because they are walking a very fine line caused by ignorant people who think the money going to NASA should be used to feed the poor (but those same people never say the same thing about the useless and vastly more expensive Middle East wars).

NASA is a rudderless ship. They list projects, one of which is "Multi-Purpose Crew Vehicle" capable of taking four astronauts to Mars....but...are we committed to going to Mars? "W" said yes, Obama says no. In my opinion we will not be ready for a mission to Mars for 50 years because we need an advance in propulsion.

Another project is operating the US laboratory on ISS. Trouble is, now we need Russia to get us there. And another: "to design and build aircraft that are safer, more fuel-efficient, quieter, and environmentally responsible."

I think NASA should have a 50-year mission of unmanned exploration of the Solar System and a new, practical propulsion system 1000X more efficient that we have now.
Posted by dangnad
8th Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
This is the end
Regrettably this is the end of US manned spaceflight - though I would love to see a powerful resurgence.

The snag is the people with the skills and the retaining of the good technology are leaking away. With the successful return of Atlantis another 3,000 workers will lose their jobs and those too old to hang on for a new launcher and capsule will simply retire or move to other industries if the US has any left to move to.

Even the generation of space-enthusiastic entrepreneurs are getting old; most if not all like myself were entranced by the Apollo flights - but they were several generations ago. How many US children have grown up in the meantime without seeing US astronauts on the Moon?

In essence, if NASA, or some private enterprise doesn't get the ball rolling again within five years, then the game is over. Anything after that will require a return to a Gemini-type program of missions; with the whole learning experience of how to perform orbital operations, EVA and rendezvous having to be relearned all over again, simply because the skilled staff able to do such things will have long gone (and perhaps even passed away).

What the US needs is an innovative approach to getting into orbit. And innovation is a problem, because US firms have spent the last decade giving their technology away for free to India and China, in a process called 'offshoring'. In the next decade most if not all US corporations will be finding their major competitors will be gunning for them, having been established using given-away tech' and business knowledge. In such an environment what chance does a resurgent US manned space program have?

And can the US mount such a program in the future? What attraction will there be for a budding aeronautical engineer have in going to a US university? Better surely to go to Europe, or even China? How will the US keep and maintain skilled workers when it already has a reputation for letting its industries fade away, its manned space program to wither, its most skilled people to be made redundant?

To get restarted again - and it will be a 're-start' the American public has to demand the money to be spent on a manned space program. That public showed little or no interest in the recent or event distant pass - most of us know of the complaints received when an episode of 'I Love Lucy' was interrupted by a broadcast from an early Apollo mission! Before the explosion of a pressure tank, Apollo 13 already typified how the US public saw the missions; uninterested in the main, and bored.

The Apollo Program was easily the greatest thing America has ever done - something no other nation could do. It was the culmination of generations of American (and German and British-born) engineers and scientists working at the very top of human ingenuity. All that was sacrificed to the whims of politicians, and that sacrifice has continued year-after-year. Even the Shuttle was a compromise, and that compromise ran for 30 years. If Americans are going to be seen going into space on anything other than in a Russian rocket, the nation has to make the collective desire to actually do something about it.
Posted by tigerIII
21st Jul 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Just another nail in the coffin...
- of America's technological dominance. Maybe, just maybe NASA will end up being the regulatory body over future commercial manned space flight much like the FCC oversees broadcasting. But how effective could NASA really be in such a role if they are only involved in governance, and not directly involved in the development of the technology itself? Truly, a lukewarm concept at best and shows no more government commitment to backing the future political solvency of the United States than issuing a business license to the Japanese to build an automobile plant in Dallas.

This is a dead discussion until we remove the current administration from power and have someone occupying the White House that once again honors the constitution and desires to posture the country in a position of respect.
Posted by nozmoking
21st Aug 2011
0 Votes
+ -
Thank you very much
Well done! Thank you very much for professional templates and community edition
sesli chat sesli sohbet
Posted by yarinsiz
Updated - 25th Aug 2011
Join the conversation
Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]

Join the SmartPlanet community and join the conversation! Signing up is fast and free. Don't wait -- we want to hear your opinion!