NASA just can’t please anyone

NASA is having a hard time making people happy. Many scientists and space enthusiasts are very excited about how well the Spirit and Opportunity missions have gone. The rovers have survived their original mission time for years, no small feat in an alien world that typically covers solar panels in fine talcum powder in just three months. (I wonder why nobody installs a mechanical brush to clean the dust). And with Phoenix landing safely and accurately and getting to the detailed science of Martian ice and soil, NASA appears to be proving that they can land better and better on the surface of another planet. Before the twin rovers, about a third of all missions to Mars would either disappear or crash-land. In fact, the rovers were built as duplicates of each other in case one crashed.

But hardcore space watchers and space agnostic contributors aren’t thrilled. Phoenix costs $ 420 million. The twin rovers cost around $ 800 million to build and an additional $ 20 million per year to operate. For space watchers, the $ 1.3 billion spent on flights to Mars is too little, research is too slow, and technology doesn’t move fast enough for manned spaceflight. Space agnostics, on the other hand, are surprised that the government spends so much money sending robots to another planet to look at … ice and rocks. For them, this money is wasted. On top of this, like any group with opposing views on an issue, they talk to each other and miss out on issues with their own arguments.

“We are trying to build a civilization here,” say space enthusiasts. “We need to become a species that lives in space and you troglodytes are pinching the future of the human race to buy a new television.”

“Oh yeah?” space agnostics answer. “Well, you’re just a bunch of spenders who want to spend the money we need on flying cans to take pictures of red rocks and blue ice. And that government! Over a billion dollars on three robots? those government programs. are so poorly managed … “

But there is one thing they agree on and that is the fact that private business should get involved in space exploration. The idea is that private enterprise is much less bureaucratic, runs faster, and is driven by people who dream big and do great things. Today’s examples are SpaceX launched by Elon Musk, the co-founder of PayPal, and Virgin Galactic started by Richard Branson, creator of the Virgin hyper-brand. Then there’s the muscle behind Virgin Galactic, Burt Ruitan’s scaled compounds endorsed by Microsoft co-founder Paul Allen. There’s also Las Vegas-based Bigelow Airspace, which is successfully launching inflatable space habitats. And that’s not to mention the fact that much of the technology being launched into space has been made by major defense contractors like Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, and Boeing.

Given that the billions in private equity come from large cash pools designated to invest in startups and the experience already exists, it seems logical that private industry should be working on the future of space travel rather than the government taking citizens’ money to manage a space. Program.

However, it is not that simple. Space X, which just launched its first spacecraft, is still working with chemical rockets to launch cargo into near-Earth orbit. They are just trying to make it cheaper. Virgin Galactic will only offer short trips into space for tourists who can pay the $ 200,000 fee for a few hours of what is a space flight by technical definition only. Bigelow Airspace wants to create space hotels for tourists, and defense contractors who have already built spacecraft need a customer to pay for all the materials and labor required to assemble launch vehicles and space probes. With the exception of Scaled Composites, they are far from creating a radically new technology for putting things into orbit. Plus, they’re business first and foremost and that means your flights should eventually turn a profit. To do something that does not require an immediate return on investment and is done by a combination of purely scientific research and prestige (how many nations have landed a vehicle on Mars?), It takes philanthropists with billions to give away or a government .

Right now, the new class of super philanthropists is contributing to education, health care, the arts, and to fighting war, famine and disease in Africa. Space is not a high priority for them. This only leaves the government which used about $ 6 billion per year on space missions in 2008. Almost all of this was used for the ISS and the Space Shuttle program. The missions to Mars were actually just a small diversion from the money left over after the shuttle and ISS expenses were covered for the year. (see page 10) The government raises about $ 2.5 trillion, almost a million times more than the amount spent annually to build and support new interplanetary missions. There seem to be many more places where money is wasted than on three Martian robots.

As for space enthusiasts calling for science to move at a faster rate, they must realize that the technology used for space travel is very complex and time consuming to build and test. We are not moving as fast as we could, but let’s remember that the entire space program was based on competing with the USSR and beating the Soviets to the moon. As soon as Apollo 12 landed in the Pacific Ocean after its brief sojourn on the Moon, people began to wonder if it was wise to spend a few billion per flight to walk on another world, since the Soviets were now lagging behind in the space race. Space today remains a political domain and a source of pride, prestige, and recently even military prowess. As long as people think of space flights as something to show other countries who’s boss, it will not be a priority when scientific investigation of the existential and esoteric emerges.

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *