More Opinions on NASA's Value

@John Muratore:

Sorry but this line "As John Kennedy said in 1962, "We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone and one which we intend to win." does not work anymore. If it did work we'd already be on the Moon, Mars and NEO. Case in point: How did it go for X-38? It was hard? You almost made it? What is it that killed it?

This is a the reality you have to work with now. Not that of JFK.

It is also, not the real reason the Kennedy wanted to go to the Moon. The "because it's hard" line makes a good sound bite, but the underlying reason for Apollo was to get to the Moon before the USSR did. We need to move past the touchy-feely reasons that never were for space exploration and find some solid, pragmatic reasons.

sean

Once again someone is trying to sell the shuttle and NASA as the greatest stuff on earth. To bad the article is out in left field with the the fact on 'fly-by-wire', reasons for Apollo, and good work of the shuttle.

NASA is still living in the past. Time to REBOOT.

@Mr Squid:

Agreed.

But what I was trying to say is that the JFK "sound bite" is old and has been used and abused ad nauseam. We need something new even to capture the public's attention. These words were spoken in a time that no longer exists. Today's public is not that of the 60s...

We went because we thought the Soviet Union was on the verge of dominating the Earth from space!

For folks who weren't around in the late 1950s and early 1960s, you need to understand the psychology of the times. Watching the online documentary 'the Sputnik Moment' might help you to understand.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhJnt3xW2Fc

Neil DeGrasse Tyson has often said, "defense, the promise of economic return, and the praise of power are the principal drivers for every major project ever undertaken in human culture." That's all:
-- Defense
-- Promise of Economic Return
-- Praise of Power

This is discussed at greater length in http://www.chicagospace.org/tyson_space.html (Somebody post a better link if you have one.)

That article also shows a photo of Tyson with a view-graph listing "Historically Ineffective Driver$":
Wonderment -- The Next Frontier -- New Ocean -- Great Nations Do It -- The Calling -- Curiosity -- Urge to Explore -- Destiny -- Discovery -- Journey -- Encoded in our DNA -- Science

The man is a showman, for sure, but he's also often very insightful. In this case, I think he's right on target. For really big projects, you need a big justification, and those 3 are at the top of the heap. Yes, the ones on the "Historically Ineffective" list have been successful in getting $, but not for really big projects.

So keep this in mind as you try to help NASA explain why it should continue spending several $B going to the Moon and Mars.

Do you guys not realize how important NASA is to this country? I guarantee you that you used something that was developed from NASA research. You wouldn't even be able to post your comments if it wasn't for NASA. The micro-processors in your computers might not exist today if NASA didn't have a need for a computer that could fit in a spacecraft. You wouldn't be able to talk on your cell phone if it wasn't for the advancements in communication, from...oh yeah NASA research. NASA keeps us ahead of the curve when it comes to technology and it will be a huge mistake if we relinquish the asset that is human spaceflight at NASA.

"For really big projects, you need a big justification..."

Well, we apparently spent $35B on cyber security upgrades recently, so I guess he's right.

"...
-- Defense
-- Promise of Economic Return
-- Praise of Power..."

Yep, nothing new there, just the old reliable standbys Fear and Greed. And who claims that humans aren`t just bigger monkeys ?

Uhhh, The F-8 Digital Fly By Wire project played a significant role. Granted it was based on the old Apollo computer, but mostly because that's what was available at the time.

If you're going to talk about the spin-offs of space flight as they apply to aircraft flight, at least have the decency to talk about NASA's Aeronautics projects.

I didn't know the F-16s analog flyby wire design that came out he same year as the shuttle's digital flyby wire depended on NASA technology. I think the redundant set design used in shuttle is a one of a kind. I also don't think the shuttle radar mapping missions are an essential part to modern day maps.

I think NASA should stop spinning spin offs and go develop useful things like unducted fans, Mach 25 airbreathing engines, aero-spike engines, VASIMR, etc.

Man, you are a cynical bunch. No impassioned rah-rah speeches will work on you, as you only see the dark underbelly of motivation by greed. I have to extend an offer of rose-colored glasses for the whole lot of you, as I disagree with your simplistic view for the reasons behind the success of the Apollo program. Sure, there was an implicit sense of us vs. them at the start of the effort, which resulted in one of the best motivational speeches of modern times. But the ultimate success of actually fulfilling the promise of landing a man on the moon and safely returning him to earth had much less to do with "defense, promise of economic return, or praise of power" and more to do with honoring the leadership of our fallen President. We succeeded because the entire country was behind the effort. Everyone put 110% into the effort due in part to the charismatic leadership, the cult of personality. I believe that is ultimately why we (NASA) have failed so miserably ever since, and that is no President since Kennedy has actually truly supported the space program. Bush gave a nice kick-off to the VSE, but then subsequently ignored it. Obama has the personality to lead a healthy space program, but who knows if he has bought into the vision?

@Patrick - Cell phones were invented concurrently by Bell Labs and Nokia in the '80s. Had nothing to do with Apollo except that they both use radio and electricity. Apollo computers were not the driving factor in PC or portable computing - invention of the integrated circuit created modern computing. Spinoffs are not enough and poorly chosen examples make it worse.

Space needs to have real, tangible value for people to support it. Weather sats and GPS do that. Tang/teflon/etc does not.

NASA's value is pork, plain and simple. NASA is not about NASA like so much of our government. It is about wasted money that advances power and kickbacks for the politically connected.

I am amazed that NASA people have the gaul to say $17 B is not enough money to go to the moon. It's plenty of money if you don't waste 80% of it.

At one point NASA did have value. It motivated and inspired us. It broke new ground in so many areas. Now it just wastes money. Government spending is going to hit a wall pretty soon. When it does NASA will be gone.

Malden12