|
Author
|
Topic: Public perception of end of the shuttle program
|
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1309
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 06-26-2011 02:15 PM
   
I've had some interesting conversations with family, friends, and co-workers lately about the last space shuttle mission.Generally, their level of interest in space varies from none whatsoever to mildly curious, but there's been a common attitude I've noticed: They all take it for granted that America can, and always will, put astronauts in space. When I mention that the last shuttle flight is coming up, their reaction has usually been something like, "Yeah, seems like it's been flying forever. So what do we use next?" And then, when I tell them that what we use next is still to be determined, and that it might be years before we figure it out, they're a little bit flummoxed. "We need the Russians to get to our space station? Really?" It seems from my own experience that Joe and Jane American don't really yet understand what's happening here, and that when they do, it will be a bigger deal than NASA and our politicians anticipated. Any other thoughts? |
APG85
Member Posts: 306
From:
Registered: Jan 2008
|
posted 06-26-2011 02:43 PM
Most of the people I've talked to are horrified that the shuttle is being retired with no replacement in the foreseeable future. Even if we had a replacement, it would never compare to a winged vehicle being flown to a runway landing. Our astronauts standing in line to pay for rides to ISS (which we built and paid for) is unacceptable and disappointing. Most of the people I've had discussions with don't think the US manned space program will ever be the same and might very well be coming to an end. Sad... |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-26-2011 02:44 PM
quote:
Originally posted by GoesTo11:
...they're a little bit flummoxed. "We need the Russians to get to our space station? Really?"
I've seen similar reactions but its usually defused by explaining that we've been launching American astronauts on Soyuz for more than 15 years ("Really?"), that the International Space Station is not "ours" alone ("Oh, yeah."), and that unlike the last time we had a U.S. gap in manned launchers, the U.S. will have a continuous presence in space, regardless of how long (or short) it is before the next crewed spacecraft is ready ("Ah, that's good."). |
Orthon
Member Posts: 144
From: San Tan Valley, Arizona 85143
Registered: May 2002
|
posted 06-26-2011 02:46 PM
An even bigger surprise is in store if a political riff leaves the US with no way to gain access to the space station that was built with the majority of US tax dollars.
Instead of a slow TRANSITION to reliance on commercial vehicles, our wonderful leaders have pulled the rug out from under NASA. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-26-2011 02:52 PM
I think Tom Hanks' (and via him, Dave Scott's) reaction is typical of many Americans' attitudes, too: "It certainly is the end of an era, the shuttle era, and rightly so. It lasted longer than I think anybody thought it would. And it ended up being a lot more expensive and a lot more dangerous than one would have hoped."But this is just another phase we're passing through. Dave Scott, who went to the moon in Apollo 15, has been a friend for years and years. And he said, 'You know, this is like the days after the discovery of America. Columbus went to the New World, and it was years before others followed in his footsteps. It's a slow, ongoing process, this business of discovery. "We in the United States of America aren't done with going into space and figuring out what's there. Hand in hand with the end of the shuttle program, we still have that amazing science that came from that, ongoing. The images from the Hubble Space Telescope, the research from other satellites and platforms like the International Space Station. Our discoveries there will be ongoing. We just have to wait until [they] come to the conclusion and the national will re-emerges and we get back into that business of going up ourselves to see what's cooking out there. "What will it take? Another space race? With who? China? Ok, fine!" |
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1309
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 06-26-2011 03:21 PM
OK, the ISS isn't just "ours" because we only paid for 95% percent of it. So it's the orbiting equivalent of NATO.You're a better equivocator than I am, Robert.  With respect to Dave Scott, I think he's wrong. This isn't just "another phase we're passing through." The United States is broke, rudderless, and leaderless, and watching our astronauts cram themselves into green-wrapped suppositories and blast off from Baikonur instead of the John F. Kennedy Space Center, and return to bounce around some barren field in Kazakhstan, will just be a too-perfect snapshot of how far we've declined. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-26-2011 03:44 PM
What you see as decline, others see as progress. Unfortunately, your language, while colorful, undermines your position being taken seriously. |
Go4Launch
Member Posts: 542
From: Seminole, Fla.
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 06-26-2011 04:08 PM
From a story this month by AP Science Writer Seth Borenstein: George Mueller, the man considered "the father of the space shuttle," explained why he's not going to watch the final launch next month."It's like going to a funeral. I'm never enthusiastic about funerals," said Mueller, who at 92 is still flying cross-country to talk about space. But he's not going to Cape Canaveral, Fla., to watch the liftoff of Atlantis on July 8. Neither is former astronaut Joe Tanner, who reflected the same thinking in an email: "I have so many absolutely wonderful memories of my 24 years at NASA that I don't want to tarnish them by going to a funeral, if you understand what I mean." |
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1309
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 06-26-2011 04:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Unfortunately, your language, while colorful, undermines your position being taken seriously.
What, exactly, do you think my position is?This thread has unfortunately gotten more combative than I intended. I only meant to convey that my impression is that the end of the shuttle program -- and the impending inability of America to put people in space -- is a bigger issue than the powers-that-be realize right now. I'll unequivocally state my view that it's shameful that Americans will now have no choice but to ride Russian spacecraft to a space station that we built. Who sees this as progress? |
Fezman92
Member Posts: 1031
From: New Jersey, USA
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 06-26-2011 04:11 PM
I've talked to a few people about it and their reactions have been along the lines of "The Russians have a manned space program?" and "we are paying how much for a seat?!" |
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1309
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 06-26-2011 04:20 PM
George Mueller, the man considered "the father of the space shuttle," explained why he's not going to watch the final launch next month... Neither is former astronaut Joe Tanner. I rest my case. They know.
|
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-26-2011 05:13 PM
quote:
Originally posted by GoesTo11:
I'll unequivocally state my view that it's shameful that Americans will now have no choice but to ride Russian spacecraft to a space station that we built.
While I think we should have man-rated Delta and Atlas years ago, so we weren't in this position today, I disagree that it's shameful for U.S. astronauts to still have the means to live and work aboard the space station while new vehicles are developed. It's certainly an improvement over the post-Apollo years, when the astronauts had no seats to space, foreign or domestic, paid or unpaid. quote:
...a bigger issue than the powers-that-be realize right now.
It appears that the powers-that-be — at least at NASA — do recognize this as an issue, as it seems they plan to use the launch of STS-135 to announce the shuttle-derived architecture for the new heavy-lift booster. |
Cozmosis22
Member Posts: 968
From: Texas * Earth
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 06-26-2011 05:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by GoesTo11:
"We need the Russians to get to our space station? Really?"...Joe and Jane American don't really yet understand what's happening here, and that when they do, it will be a bigger deal than NASA and our politicians anticipated.
Seems like the ink was barely dry on the previous Congress' (in effect) defunding of the Constellation project, when the Russians about doubled their "ticket" price from something like $30M to $50M. Expect costs to increase again at the whim of the Kremlin.Yes indeed, Joe Sixpack will be upset when it finally sinks in what the Beltway politicians have done! It WILL be an election issue next year and the current Administration will be hard-pressed to defend their decisions for the US manned space program. |
APG85
Member Posts: 306
From:
Registered: Jan 2008
|
posted 06-26-2011 06:00 PM
I certainly think our space program is in decline. We are shelving a robust and "routine" program that has finally hit it's stride and it seems highly unlikely in today's tight budgets that we will see anything remotely like the Shuttle again. Relying on the Russians for one seat rides on Soyuz is not only embarrassing, it is putting the US in a position of ceding space leadership to a country that could block us from accessing ISS on a political whim. I fear that 50 years of glorious achievements in space by the US might very well be reaching a finish line... |
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1309
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 06-26-2011 06:40 PM
This is what I meant to get at with this thread. Yeah, OK, we can still buy seats on Soyuz TM-whatever, which is better than nothing...but we've ceded leadership.Like everyone else here, I follow space policy much more closely than most Americans, and I still can't divine exactly what our next plan is. When STS-135 hits "wheels stop," and the talking heads start speculating about when the United States might actually be able to again put its own astronauts in orbit via our own spacecraft, I think there's going to be a backlash that NASA hasn't prepared for. |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 06-26-2011 06:48 PM
Launch ≠ leadership.As has been pointed out, the space station is primarily American. As has also been pointed out (under a different thread) the Russians cannot run the station without Americans on board, and they can't afford to run their own program without American support. Launch vehicle or no launch vehicle, the U.S. remains the leader of the ISS program. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 06-27-2011 04:05 AM
quote:
Originally posted by GoesTo11:
I think there's going to be a backlash that NASA hasn't prepared for.
I find this quite amusing. If the American public had been less concerned with American Idol, America's Got Talent and Oprah Winfrey over the years they may just have known the shuttle was winding down. A fact known by NASA and American politicians since 2004. Believe me this "backlash" will last mere days after Atlantis lands. One need only look at the recent debate among Republican presidential contenders to know they're not as "flummoxed" about the coming gap years. And once SpaceX and Orbital Sciences show their vehicles are more than capable of supply runs to the International Space Station, the public will also feel at ease. Any "backlash" should really come at the expense of politicians who used NASA like a yo-yo. In the meantime, let's reminisce. |
Delta7
Member Posts: 1505
From: Bluffton IN USA
Registered: Oct 2007
|
posted 06-27-2011 06:35 AM
I still encounter people who actually believe the Shuttle lands on the moon, so I'm not really confident of a public backlash resulting from a serious concern about the direction of U. S. space policy.  |
Larry McGlynn
Member Posts: 1255
From: Boston, MA
Registered: Jul 2003
|
posted 06-27-2011 07:13 AM
While I disagree with Robert on the lack of a US manned launch vehicle and the US projection of "soft" power as a leader in technology, I do agree with him that we should have man rated the Atlas 5 and the Delta Heavy many years ago. I might add that Dave Scott may have stated that space exploration, like the Earth bound exploration, will progress in fits and starts, he does not look kindly on the current state of affairs at NASA. Dave was at MIT in early May. We talked a lot about the NASA and the lack of a launch vehicle. He believes the we should have the ability to launch humans into Space. In the end, it is a contentious debate that really won't end until we are back in Space via our own launch systems whether they are public or private launch vehicles. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 06-27-2011 09:28 AM
While I am sad for sentimental reasons to see the end of the shuttle program - growing up, it was "my" program - if we are to continue exploring space, we need to get out of LEO. That said, until commercial vehicles develop LEO spacecraft, we're stuck with the Russians. Spaceflight is expensive no matter who pays for it, and I believe with more than one company vying for NASA's attention only can such cost go down. NASA should focus on spacecraft for missions beyond LEO; with the exception of Ad Astra, I can't think of another company who wants to spend the money to do so (and Ad Astra, if my recollection is correct, is focusing right now on the propulsive technology, not the spacecraft itself.) |
jimsz
Member Posts: 616
From:
Registered: Aug 2006
|
posted 06-27-2011 09:33 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Launch vehicle or no launch vehicle, the U.S. remains the leader of the ISS program.
And like the now old and tired shuttle program, matters little.The shuttle if it was the program it was designed to be, would have been worthwhile for a period of time in conjunction with exploration beyond low earth orbit. The ISS altered the Shuttle program to being trucker missions to space which really were a waste of time. NASA however has been lacking clear goals and without vision. It's perceived as nothing more than a bloated government bureaucracy that is wasting too much money going up, circling the earth as we did nearly 50 years ago and then coming down. I have no problem with the shuttle program ending as I think it should have ended 15 years ago (before the ISS). My problem is that NASA, after spending billions of dollars, has no clear vision or means for manned space exploration. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1587
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 06-27-2011 10:47 AM
Most people I speak to or teach, understand why the shuttle program is ending and are fine with that. What surprises people is that there is no clear program on the way -- something with a goal or timeline, like we have been used to in the past. They see this as indecisive or that the manned program is ending. Rightly or wrongly, the average American does not get fired up by the ISS and they are upset that we have no way of getting there on our own from the KSC.Then of course, there are a few who are very happy and see the whole agency as a waste of money. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 06-27-2011 10:53 AM
I'm not sure why not having a clear program with a goal or timeline would come as a surprise to people - because those people are the ones who support or don't support the space program through their votes and their tax dollars. |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1587
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 06-27-2011 11:10 AM
It's just something that are used to I suppose. One problem that I do see is that very few people who are supporters of manned space flight are willing to write an email, or send a letter to a newspaper or politician. If our leaders are indecisive, then they are a reflection of the public. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 06-27-2011 03:42 PM
Right then, let's start a campaign! |
Fezman92
Member Posts: 1031
From: New Jersey, USA
Registered: Mar 2010
|
posted 06-27-2011 03:48 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Tykeanaut:
Right then, let's start a campaign!
To do what? Raise awareness of the end of the shuttle program and that the US does not have a clear cut plan for the next manned space vehicle? The public interest last as long as a few days, a week at most for many things, unless it is a major disaster, some pointless scandal, or something big that does not fall into those two areas. To the gen public, the space program as a whole isn't interesting. |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 06-27-2011 04:36 PM
There already has been a campaign. The website appears no longer to be active, but Save NASA! still has a Facebook page. |
Tykeanaut
Member Posts: 2212
From: Worcestershire, England, UK.
Registered: Apr 2008
|
posted 07-22-2011 02:31 AM
Commercial spaceflight will only deliver cargo and astronauts into LEO though, which may appease the vast majority of the general public. This worries me because greater goals (e.g. Moon and Mars missions)may not reach fruition for many years. |
chet
Member Posts: 1506
From: Beverly Hills, Calif.
Registered: Nov 2000
|
posted 07-22-2011 06:30 AM
Tom Hanks: “What will it take? Another space race? With who? China? Ok, fine!”Really, a space race with China?? Is Tom Hanks aware of who is in the White House? |
Fra Mauro
Member Posts: 1587
From: Bethpage, N.Y.
Registered: Jul 2002
|
posted 07-22-2011 06:39 AM
A campaign starts a little at a time. For example, I showed my classes yesterday, a video of both the launch and landing of STS-135. 12-14 year olds and most of them had never seen a launch or landing before. We must write letters to our newspapers,reps and the President, even Mr. Bolden. We must do what other successful lobbying groups do. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 07-22-2011 07:25 AM
quote:
Originally posted by chet:
...who is in the White House?
From what I gather, Obama and a few of those wanting his job are more-or-less in synchronization with the post-shuttle shift towards commercial spaceflight. Is Mr. Hanks aware that China's last human spaceflight was in 2007? And how would a space race with China be advantageous to NASA today? |
Hart Sastrowardoyo
Member Posts: 3445
From: Toms River, NJ
Registered: Aug 2000
|
posted 07-22-2011 07:35 AM
Yesterday's enemy is today's friend is tomorrow's enemy.The US going to the moon was not for scientific discovery but because of fears the Soviets were going to get there first. It would take another space race, IMHO, to get to the moon sooner rather than later - if at all, or the discovery that the moon contains some resource desperately needed on Earth. Why the push to develop commercial craft? Because shuttle had to be retired and there has to be a way to get to and from ISS, other than the Russians. Is there a push to go to the moon? No, because the US has been there and there's nothing and no one there. |
issman1
Member Posts: 1042
From: UK
Registered: Apr 2005
|
posted 07-22-2011 07:55 AM
There is an authentic and far more compelling reason to settle high earth orbit, our Moon or the asteroids: survival.Thanks to the NASA shuttle, it taught humans how to develop and improve the systems to live and operate in space. The space station builds upon this with the added bonus of international participation. The next step is making it accessible to the masses, and that's what commercial spaceflight will enable. A Sino-US space race now would be a silly sideshow which inhibits or stymies colonization. |
Sy Liebergot
Member Posts: 501
From: Pearland, Texas USA
Registered: May 2003
|
posted 07-22-2011 08:00 AM
I was one of the 166 Space Station Program Office people in the early 80s when it was at JSC. Among the functions we designed was that it would be at an orbital inclination of 28.5 deg, so upper stages could be assembled on orbit, allowing the station to function as a "transportation node" with missions beyond LEO. Of course, we had manned missions to Mars in mind. Congress was against a space station, so NASA scrambled to justify it by making into an international one. When it was moved to i=51.6 degrees, we became stuck in LEO. |
kyra
Member Posts: 583
From: Louisville CO US
Registered: Aug 2003
|
posted 07-23-2011 01:40 PM
There's a toxic mix of life-support program politics and the realities of physics here. The early supporters that didn't understand this are still wondering to this day why there are no Mars or lunar missions staged from the ISS. Thank you, Sy. With what we learned recently about the meetings with Dan Goldin and George Abbey with the policy folks to save the station in the 1992/1993 era, what happened here is fairly clear.STS would have been likely finished with a fizzle by 1998 or earlier with no space station or some radically scaled down plan if they had not taken action then. |
GoesTo11
Member Posts: 1309
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 2004
|
posted 07-23-2011 01:49 PM
This is all illustrative of why it's futile and absurd to point fingers at individuals, organizations, politicians, parties, etc. for bringing us to this sorry pass. It's everyone's fault. We are a now people without purpose or vision, and along with the "leaders" we elected, we now have the space program we deserve. |
MarylandSpace
Member Posts: 1336
From:
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 07-23-2011 03:15 PM
I could see it in Garret Reisman's eyes and hear it in his voice that SpaceX will be at ISS in two years when I heard him speak just prior to the last launch.However, I met a bank teller two weeks ago with the name tag "Chris Ferguson" and asked her if she knew there was an astronaut Chris Ferguson. She did not. |
Blackarrow
Member Posts: 3120
From: Belfast, United Kingdom
Registered: Feb 2002
|
posted 07-23-2011 05:04 PM
If a lot of money (public and private) is spent to develop a commercial spacecraft to deliver astronauts to the ISS, and if (hardly unlikely) it takes longer than expected with a first flight in, say, 2016, what will the commercial spacecraft be used for if the ISS is deorbited in 2020?If there is major problem on the ISS which requires it to be abandoned permanently, is there any other reason to continue developing commercial spacecraft?* I realise someone might be tempted to point out that that's a lot of "ifs" but surely I am not the only person to have asked myself these questions? * Skylab provides a partial analogy. Why if the launch accident had resulted in total loss of Skylab? Would they, would they really, have launched those three habitation crews? |
Robert Pearlman
Editor Posts: 42988
From: Houston, TX
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-23-2011 05:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Blackarrow:
If a lot of money (public and private) is spent to develop a commercial spacecraft to deliver astronauts to the ISS...
These spacecraft aren't being built to deliver astronauts to the ISS. They are being built to deliver astronauts to low Earth orbit. Where they go once there, is entirely open to possibilities. They could go to the International Space Station, or they could go to a commercial space station, much like the one Bigelow Aerospace is currently preparing to launch (not much of a point launching it though, until there is a way of getting people to it). Or they could orbit the Earth and conduct research as standalone free-flyers. Or they could take passengers on orbital trips. Or they could... |
SkyMan1958
Member Posts: 867
From: CA.
Registered: Jan 2011
|
posted 07-23-2011 07:05 PM
Answering the actual question posed at the start of this thread, I'd say that the public perception of the end of the shuttle program is, "Yawn"! ...Probably followed by switching the channel to some "Reality" show... |
advertisement