18 Comments

1. klrfz1:

Yes. Exploration of space is necessary. While the human race is confined to this planet we will be constrained by the resources of this planet.

Besides, what will your spirit tell your umteenth great grandchildren when a “dinosoar killer” asteroid hits the earth and knocks human society back to the level in the last ice age. Would your spirit explain “it cost too much”? How about “it was just too dangerous”?

Sorry, Roger. You pushed one of my buttons.

Could we do it better? You bet. NASA funding could have a growth curve like Social Security. Upward, ever upward!

Jul 26, 2005 - 6:26 am 2. Cybrludite:

Yup. Remember, the dinosaurs are extinct because they didn’t have a space program… If we stay on Earth, then humanity will go extinct one day. (If nothing else gets us, the Sun will run out of hydrogen someday. If we break away into the Up And Out, we may well be around until the heat death of the universe. (Possibly longer still, if we can find a loophole around that! Laws are meant to be broken…) As klrfz1 said, it could be done much better if they had economic pressures to deal with, but they’re the only show in town currently able to operate on this scale.

Jul 26, 2005 - 6:43 am 3. RBMN:

Supposedly, the Chinese have long-term plans to put a military base on the Moon (with missiles perhaps.) And, if they’re the only ones in space, who’s going to tell them they can’t do it?

Jul 26, 2005 - 6:44 am 4. richard mcenroe:

I remember laying bed in a blue collar beach colony on Rockaway Point, during the first moon landing, watching Armstrong set foot on the moon. That boot touched down, and everywhere, from every clapboard bungalow up and down the point, you heard this cheering start…

There is something in the human soul (at least the Western flavor as embodied in the US) that needs to see people pushing frontiers… and, rightly or wrongly, consider what has happened to cultures that don’t, when they encounter cultures that do.

And it has to be people doing it, it has to be a human effort. Not robots. Ferdinand and Isabella launching rafts over the horizon would never have cut it.

And if you want a crass, cynical motive, as long as the “progeressives” of this world refuse to deal with the real problems (Kyoto? Great! Mullahs with nukes? Who cares?), anything we can do to get the genome established off this planet is desperately necessary…

Jul 26, 2005 - 6:55 am 5. richard mcenroe:

Discovery has launched. Godspeed.

Jul 26, 2005 - 7:52 am 6. PJ:

Well said, all.

I read the article and noted that many foreign tourists attended the launch. NASA gives the world a chance to bond with us. Idealism, adventure, bravery and brotherhood on display today: it’s a good thing.

Jul 26, 2005 - 7:54 am 7. stumbley:

Yes. “All but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp, or what’s a heaven for?” – Robert Browning

Jul 26, 2005 - 8:03 am 8. richard mcenroe:

*sigh* Roger has some 60’s lib flashback on the Shuttle, Steyn loses it on the London cops… not a good day for VRWC bloggers…

You guys want to remember what happened when Savonarola got off message… *g*

Jul 26, 2005 - 8:39 am 9. dougf:

I don’t have a problem with the program. I have a BIG problem with the shuttle as it is currently constituted.

Two blown out of the sky and everyone crossing their fingers each time another is launched that its time is not yet up.

Launches delayed time after time for mechanical and/or weather related issues.

Massive costs to maintain a decrepit and dying fleet of vessels.

If you are going to do this,spend the money and get a new generation of carrier that can actually fly more or less on a scheduled basis. Amongst other things these things are intended to transport satellites into earth orbit and actually return some cash to the coffers. We need a RELIABLE vehicle if the program is to continue.

Where is it ?

Jul 26, 2005 - 8:48 am 10. Anthony (Los Angeles):

I’m a big fan of manned space flight, but the current shuttle is dated, obsolescent, and dangerous. It needs to be replaced.

Still, there are few things more beautiful than a liftoff.

Jul 26, 2005 - 9:11 am 11. Kyda Sylvester:

Is this really necessary?

In general, yes, absolutely. Specifically, I agree with some of the above posters. The shuttle is a bucket of bolts and should be replaced with whatever the next generation of space craft might be. Funding is ever a problem of course. If you’re ever in the neighborhood, I highly recommend a tour of Kennedy Space Center and Cape Canaveral. Impressive.

Jul 26, 2005 - 10:53 am 12. Katherine:

ìIs this really necessary?î

Privately funded space program? Essential.

Taxpayersí funded space program? Most likely still needed.

Space shuttle? We cannot retire this bucket fast enough.

Jul 26, 2005 - 11:25 am 13. Charlie (Colorado):

My vote: yes.

As to the Shuttle being dangerous, my answer is the same as the astronauts’ themselves: so what? (Interestingly, it’s the same answer my elderly and infirm mother gave after the re-entry failure. She said “If they gave me a ticket I’d go tomorrow.”)

Eight fatalities among a couple of hundred astronauts every 20 years is nothing: you’d expect to see something like 50 among an equivalent cadre of fighter pilots, and worse among test pilots. When someone moves out of a military flying job into the Shuttle program, they’re improving their prospects of survival dramatically.

In fact, the rate of automobile fatalities is about 10 per 100,000 per year… which means that the fatality rate of the Shuttle is roughly comparable — looks like 7 or 8 per 20 years for the shuttle, vs about 1 per 20 years for automobiles.

Should we replace the Shuttle? You bet. Just don’t think it’s gonna be a lot safer, because frankly the numbers indicate the Shuttle is already amazingly safe.

Jul 26, 2005 - 11:28 am 14. Stephen_M:

Another terrific dispatch from Michael Yon begins.

A Kashmiri Mohammedan said to me, “God keeps men in three jars. Do you understand?”

“Yes,” I answered, “you say God keeps men in three jars.”

“In the first jar,” the man looked at me, “God keeps the Americans. God keeps that lid very, very tight, for the Americans try their level-best (he used Indian phrases) to escape and rule the world.”

I nodded, hinting a smile, saying, “God is right.”

The Mohammedan smiled back, holding up a hand to quiet me, and continued, “In the second jar, God keeps the Europeans. But God does not keep that lid so tight,” still holding up his hand, as if expecting interruption, “You see, God knows the Europeans also want to rule the world, but Europeans do not try hard.”

“Is true, is true,” I chuckled.

But, like a preacher, the man held his hand even higher, and continued on with a louder voice, “God keeps Kashmiris in the third jar, but God does not keep a lid on our jar. We also want to rule the world but every time one of us tries to escape, the rest pull him back down!” and he clenched his fist!

“Sir,” my smiled faded, “It would be difficult to convey more truth with fewer words.”

The piece concludes in Iraq with the interrogation of suspected terrorists.

And the calm man, who appeared so clever and confident while standing there comforting a crying infant? How the picture changed when a young American solider stepped into the frame, reached for and gently took the child. Without his prop, the actor faltered, his illusion cracked and shattered as he shuddered before the soldier. This man who cowered behind a crying child was one of the top insurgent leaders in Mosul.

I remember the Kashmiri Mohammedan and his three jars. While terrorists on earth do their best to keep us down, men and women boarded a space ship in Florida today, and flew into space.

Jul 26, 2005 - 2:24 pm 15. Doug S.:

What Katherine said.

I was an awestruck 6 year-old when Neil Armstrong first set foot on the moon. Since then, I’ve dreamed of going into outer space myself someday, as a civilian (knew even then I didn’t have what it takes to be an astronaut). Well, I’m still waiting, dammit, and it’s becoming obvious that we’ll need a vigorous private sector space industry if I’m going to make it at all.

I was also an awestruck 17 year-old when I drove out to Edwards to see the shuttle land for the first time, but I agree that it ought to be retired. The technology is too old, and the program is too cumbersome.

Space exploration is not a luxury; it is an essential investment in our future. To those who continue to say that we are better off spending the money on earthbound problems, I reply, How do you know that looking upward and outward won’t help solve the problems right next to us? Since Apollo, we’ve allowed science education and our engineering capabilities to atrophy. Might a re-invigorated space program re-ignite interest in science and engineering? The picture of earth-rise taken from Apollo 8 generated a seismic shift in popular thinking about environmentalism (whether for good or for ill, I’ll leave others to debate ). And of course, let’s not forget the great leaps forward in non-stick cookware and camping food.

Jul 26, 2005 - 4:10 pm 16. Paul Snively:

Is the shuttle necessary? Only as one step in a long process.

Is human space exploration necessary? IMHO, absolutely, and the best explanation as to why can be found in The Physics of Immortality: Modern Cosmology, God, and the Resurrection of the Dead.

Jul 26, 2005 - 6:40 pm 17. The Friendly Grizzly:

The shuttle exists for the space station, the space station exists for the shuttle.

Yawn.

Things like Viking and Discovery accomplish a hell of a lot more, in my view.

Jul 27, 2005 - 7:06 am 18. Charlie (Colorado):

Yeah? What do Viking and Discovery tell us about the ability of humans to survive in space?

What can they do if an experiment behaves in an unexpected fashion?

Jul 27, 2005 - 3:39 pm

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: