Russian 'Progress' Ship Launch Fails En Route To Space Station

http://www.huffingtonpost.c...-fails_n_935150.html

CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. — A Russian space station supply ship crashed with a thunderous boom into Siberia minutes after launch Wednesday, rattling NASA and others in this new era without any shuttles to bail out the orbiting outpost.

The rocket failed barely a month after NASA's final space shuttle flight.

While the International Space Station has more than enough supplies, the accident threatens to delay the launch of the next crew, just one month away. That's because the upper stage of the unmanned Soyuz rocket that failed is similar to the ones used to launch astronauts to the station.

In addition, three of the six space station residents who are due to return to Earth in two weeks might end up staying longer. NASA wants a full staff to keep research going. The astronauts were just beginning to spend more time on scientific experiments, now that the station is complete.

The Soyuz rocket soared right on time from Kazakhstan, and everything seemed to be going perfectly until just over five minutes into the flight. The third-stage ignited, but the rocket commanded the engine to shut down because of a problem, said NASA's space station program manager, Mike Suffredini.

All contact with the spacecraft was lost. Russian space officials declared it a total failure after reports of wreckage falling with a deafening roar in a remote area of Siberia.

"The explosion was so strong that for 100 kilometers (60 miles) glass almost flew out of the windows," Alexander Borisov, head of the Choisky region in Russia's Altai province, was quoted by state news agency RIA Novosti as saying.

Shuttle Atlantis' final mission in July left the space station with a year's worth of provisions.

Without the shuttles, NASA now is counting on Russia, Europe and Japan, as well as private U.S. businesses, to keep the station stocked. The Russians had 3 tons of supplies aboard the Progress ship that was destroyed. And it's the Russians who will be transporting astronauts back and forth until U.S. private industry can pick up the human load.

NASA and its international partners want to keep the space station running until at least 2020.

At a news briefing, Suffredini said the Sept. 22 launch of a new three-man crew – one American and two Russians – may need to be delayed, depending on how the accident investigation goes.

They are supposed to replace American Ronald Garan Jr. and Russians Andrey Borisenko and Alexander Samokutyaev who have been on the space station since April and are due to return to Earth on Sept. 8. Their medical status will be taken into account, as well as their exposure to cosmic radiation, before any decision is made to keep them in orbit an extra month or two, Suffredini said.

Their Soyuz capsule for the ride home, which they launched in, is docked to the space station and can remain safely in orbit for up to seven months. That's the length of the longest U.S. space mission to date. The world endurance record – well over a year – belongs to a Russian.

Suffredini acknowledged it would be nice to have the space shuttles still flying as a backup measure, but they wouldn't be rushing to launch one anyway, Suffredini said.

"Logistically, we're in really good shape," he said three hours after the accident.

"We've always known this was a risk, and I very much expect that we'll, together with our Russian colleagues, sort out the anomaly and get comfortable with the next flight."

Suffredini was in his office at Johnson Space Center in Houston, awaiting email confirmation that the cargo ship safely had reached orbit. That message never came. Instead, "phones started ringing and emails started pouring in" saying something had gone wrong, he said.

It was the 44th launch of a Progress supply ship to the space station – and the first failure in the nearly 13-year life of the complex. The spacemen were notified promptly of the accident; almost assuredly, the lost vessel contained notes and gifts from their wives and children, as well as special treats like fresh food.

Another Russian supply ship is due to launch in late October. A European freighter is scheduled to blast off with supplies in March, and a Japanese one in May. The space station easily could go until then, Suffredini said.

A demonstration flight of the first commercial resupply craft, meanwhile, is due to blast off from Cape Canaveral at the end of November. Space Explorations Technologies Corp., or SpaceX, will have its Dragon capsule dock with the space station; only nonessential cargo will be on board.

There was no one-of-a-kind equipment aboard the destroyed Progress, Suffredini said. More than half the load was water, oxygen and fuel.

Suffredini said it's unfortunate the space shuttles retired before these commercial cargo runs were in full swing. But given the limited amount of money available, the decision was made for NASA to concentrate on the next step in exploration – trips by astronauts to an asteroid and Mars.

That's why one extra resupply mission by Atlantis was added before the shuttle program ended, Suffredini noted, just in case of launch failures or delays.
*****************************

Depending on the Russians now isn't my idea of reliability. Answer me this, if possible, would you invest in the Russian Space program? I wouldn't and yet, we've put all of our eggs in that basket. Yep, someone in charge knows what they're doing. The Russian Space Program hasn't always been so forthright in telling others of their failures.

------------------
Ron

I saw that. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

quote Originally posted by carnut122: I saw that. Makes you wonder doesn't it?

Old sayings have a way of comming home to roost; "Never put all your eggs in one basket".

*facepalm* you know that this is just gonna cost us more in the long run that it would have to keep the shuttles going. itll cost us in money and manpower unfortunatly.

Let us hope, that the cost can always be calculated only in $USD and Rubles, and not in something of a more tragic nature.........

I knew it would a bad idea to stop the shuttles from the day they announced it.

Obama's vision for America is making sure every crackhead has a flatscreen and some fresh walker wear, all without having to work a minute of their lives. Programs such as NASA, or any other endeavor that would further the advancement of your country is viewed as a waste by him. His voting base would rather just have free **** . Meanwhile, while other nations such as China and Russia race ahead technologically, Obama will be struggling to figure out what other handouts he can rustle up for his "peeps" all the while letting America slide into has-been status.

You are looking at it the wrong way, "Scuttle the Station" is what realy needs to happen.
We dont have the money for that "dream" "experament" or what ever else anybody wants to call that space junk.
It was tolerated when we had money to burn, but now.... if it aint paying for itself scrap it, sell it to China or who ever else is stupid enough to buy it.
It entertained us long enough (like a movie) but now it is worthless and EXPENSIVE. It has done practicaly nothingin past few years to advance the US standing in any field. No new products, no new test results that we can acualy use and brings in no money.
Pitch it out with the trash after we bring down any parts that we can sell or reuse.

Prove me wrong, please. I acualy do want to want good this this is for the US. Why should we spend another dime on it?

[This message has been edited by Rickady88GT (edited 08-25-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: I am in no way shape or form a fan of Obama, and I see no good reason to waste money on the station. All polatics aside, This is one big fat program that we can and should trim to slim down the Govt. Who in the right mind would trim defence before this program? Something has to be cut, why not the crap that cost more and does less?

Big, fat program?

$10B a year?

That is less than 1.5% of our defense appropriations.

Yeah, the Space Station needs to go, just a money sink. Let other's dump money into the hole for a while. We need to concentrate on other priorities anyway.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Yeah, the Space Station needs to go, just a money sink. Let other's dump money into the hole for a while. We need to concentrate on other priorities anyway.

Such as?

Personally, I view the NASA budget as a drop in the ocean when compared to other expenditures but, I'm open to ideas. Let's hear them.

I'd cut every program but, I'd concentrate on entitlements first. I'd also cut Congressional benefits and retirement programs. Congress should not be above the rest of us. Their pay should also be tied to the same cost of living formula all the rest of entitlements and wager earners must live with. That's just a few of my ideas, how about yours?

------------------
Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 08-25-2011).]

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: You are looking at it the wrong way, "Scuttle the Station" is what realy needs to happen. We dont have the money for that "dream" "experament" or what ever else anybody wants to call that space junk. It was tolerated when we had money to burn, but now.... if it aint paying for itself scrap it, sell it to China or who ever else is stupid enough to buy it. It entertained us long enough (like a movie) but now it is worthless and EXPENSIVE. It has done practicaly nothingin past few years to advance the US standing in any field. No new products, no new test results that we can acualy use and brings in no money. Pitch it out with the trash after we bring down any parts that we can sell or reuse. Prove me wrong, please. I acualy do want to want good this this is for the US. Why should we spend another dime on it?

IMO, If we don't have a "toe in it", it will be so much harder to get started again. And we tend to lose our knowledge quickly- I believe there's stuff we did in the previous 'capsule' era which we needed to re-lean because of various reasons...

In the past, the Space Program motivated people. Made them aspire, be proud, strive for more...(May have been 85% BS, but still...)

If you set your sights at 10, you might reach 8. or 5, even. But if you look to mediocrity as your goal, you are done for. Strive to make the impossible the norm, and perhaps things will be a bit better. Not saying we should fill our heads with false "HOPE", but the more stuff we are into, the more we may come across something and say 'Hmmm, THAT'S interesting..."

Not saying we need to totally fill our youngins heads w/ BS notions, but

IF YOU DON'T ENCOURAGE THEM TO REACH BEYOND, THEY WILL FALL BEHIND.

[This message has been edited by FieroRumor (edited 08-25-2011).]

quote Originally posted by blackrams: Such as? Personally, I view the NASA budget as a drop in the ocean when compared to other expenditures but, I'm open to ideas. Let's hear them. I'd cut every program but, I'd concentrate on entitlements first. I'd also cut Congressional benefits and retirement programs. Congress should not be above the rest of us. Their pay should also be tied to the same cost of living formula all the rest of entitlements and wager earners must live with. That's just a few of my ideas, how about yours?

Well, how about this, tell us what the space station has done lately to help the economy and the poor? What spin off technologies have worked their way into our daily lives lately? I have read articles that the micro gravity aspects can be mimicked here on earth, so there goes that argument. I am all for exploration, but the Space Station really doesn't have value as it was thought. Plus, how much more money is it going to take to keep the thing up there, as it has a finite life span. BTW, I am only talking the Space Station here... not NASA in general.

A wise old Man once said to me..'Look after the pennies, and the pounds will look after themselves'.
I think it is totally insane to say 'Well, it is only 1.5% of whatever..' You all sound like a bunch of credit card holders who owe millions, and refuse to cut up one credit card because it is only a 'small part of my debt'.
I would guess 90% of the technology developed for the Space programme was developed ON EARTH, not in Space. It st5ill worked, still span off thousands of products we can all use....(although moany are contributing to our personal debts because we 'must have that new gadget!!!'...even if we can't afford it!
Roll back time 25 years. Remove all the technology we now have, like it didn't exist. Now roll that forward to today. Would we be any less happier now? I doubt it...but we might be a lot better well off.
Yes I know..the defense programmes are far better now than then. But they too were developed on Earth, just using imagination and knowledge and experimentation. But those defences can't protect us from ourselves and WE are our biggest enemy. Human Beings

quote Originally posted by ThatFieroKid: I knew it would a bad idea to stop the shuttles from the day they announced it.

Quoted for truth...

------------------
Patrick W. Heinske -- LZeitgeist@aol.com

"There are two types of Fiero owners - those that have gotten ripped off by Toddster, and those who will get ripped off by Toddster."

quote Originally posted by ryan.hess: Big, fat program? $10B a year? That is less than 1.5% of our defense appropriations.

....and just slightly less than the funding for school lunches for American children ($13B approximately.)

Yet, we've been told of late that it's more than we can afford.

I guess it's a matter of "prioritizing." We have to "feed the beast" first.

quote Originally posted by loafer87gt: Obama's vision for America is making sure every crackhead has a flatscreen and some fresh walker wear, all without having to work a minute of their lives. Programs such as NASA, or any other endeavor that would further the advancement of your country is viewed as a waste by him. His voting base would rather just have free **** . Meanwhile, while other nations such as China and Russia race ahead technologically, Obama will be struggling to figure out what other handouts he can rustle up for his "peeps" all the while letting America slide into has-been status.

so full of $hit

anyways - yes - the Shuttle scuttling wasn't nearly as bad as the Ares rocket scuttling, which was supposed to replace the shuttle.
the shuttle had a great run - but it IS old. we had newer & better lined up. the ISS is important. and, hopefully when the time to "let it go" comes, it will be sent outwards for possible future use, and not just dropped into an ocean. the Earth cannot sustain us forever. and we still have a long way to go for another option.

[This message has been edited by Pyrthian (edited 08-25-2011).]

The NASA cut back was not much more than a PR campaign. It's a highly visible program, and everyone is cognizant that a launch and recovery, then refitting to next launch is fairly expensive, without any personal gain for most Americans, so cutting the space program "appears" to many to be a great way to save $$. I'm not convinced either direction on it myself yet, tho I do believe there are certai tangible advantages that have come out of the programs, but lots of the results are more of an intangible nature that most of us will never recognize easily or quickly. Whether it is worth the expense at this point in time is really difficult to say.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: but lots of the results are more of an intangible nature that most of us will never recognize easily or quickly. Whether it is worth the expense at this point in time is really difficult to say.

same can be said for welfare programs... or any government program... really.. well, maybe not a bridge to nowhere.

"can be" but those who get the benefits of those programs also vote and they are in much much larger #s than those directly or even indirectly involved with space exploration. Like everything else, it's not a matter of prioritizing, but a matter of--politicising.

everything needs to be cut equally.

quote Originally posted by maryjane: "can be" but those who get the benefits of those programs also vote and they are in much much larger #s than those directly or even indirectly involved with space exploration. Like everything else, it's not a matter of prioritizing, but a matter of--politicising. everything needs to be cut equally.

Oh, I don't disagree, but the same statement can be used by "the otherside"

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Well, how about this, tell us what the space station has done lately to help the economy and the poor? What spin off technologies have worked their way into our daily lives lately? I have read articles that the micro gravity aspects can be mimicked here on earth, so there goes that argument. I am all for exploration, but the Space Station really doesn't have value as it was thought. Plus, how much more money is it going to take to keep the thing up there, as it has a finite life span. BTW, I am only talking the Space Station here... not NASA in general.

Can't answer that question what it has done to help out in any way, I'm not privy to that information and don't follow that kind of stuff anyway. I seriously doubt any of us on this forum have access to that kind of knowledge. As far as NASA versus the space station, that would be an even small number dollar wise. You're all for exploration but not the space station? Some how that just doesn't compute in my micro-brain. Which leads me back to my question. Obviously, you aren't a fan of the space station but what are those priorities you spoke of? I listed where I would start, how about you?

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Oh, I don't disagree, but the same statement can be used by "the otherside"

Therein lies the problem, no one wants to cut their favorite programs. That's precisely why Don's suggestion is right on target. Everyone, every program should be cut an equal percentage. Yeah, I've got my hit list and you probably have yours. We may never agree on which one takes a hit but if all get hit, then we can all be less unhappy.
------------------
Ron

[This message has been edited by blackrams (edited 08-25-2011).]

Priorities? How about bringing more manufacturing jobs to the US? How about reducing the debt? How about getting people off welfare and back to work. How about creating job programs? How about sending more people to school? There are lots of ideas out there.... name your program... let's fix it.

Exploration with the space station? nah... The space station doesn't travel to other planets, it doesn't send rovers, it just sits there and goes round and round.... If it is of value, then let the private sector pick up the tab. As for the shuttle, it could have been unmanned years ago, yet we kept putting people in harms way, over something that was just a large cargo delivery vehicle.

As for other cuts... feel free to cut everything. Nothing wrong with that, but even NASA needs to take a hit and the space station could be left behind as something that is not a priority to our government involvement in space. I would rather the US be known for space exploration, than orbiting gerbils.

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Priorities? How about bringing more manufacturing jobs to the US? How about reducing the debt? How about getting people off welfare and back to work. How about creating job programs? How about sending more people to school? There are lots of ideas out there.... name your program... let's fix it. SNIP As for other cuts... feel free to cut everything. Nothing wrong with that, but even NASA needs to take a hit and the space station could be left behind as something that is not a priority to our government involvement in space. I would rather the US be known for space exploration, than orbiting gerbils.

Your first paragraph gives ideas but doesn't say how to get there. What programs are you gonna cut to reduce our debt? How are you going to stimulate our economy and job growth while cutting the budget? We don't have a level playing field, it costs more to produce in the US than if does in China and India. How would you address that? Most of us feel our tax dollars are being spent in the wrong ways. What do you suggest we spend and or not spend those dollars on? I recognize you don't support the ISS, what else are you gonna cut?

I already stated I'd start with entitlements and Congressional benefits and automatic pay raises, followed by equal cuts across the board to every program out there including the military. We're headed for some really tough times, we need to be figuring out that some folks are gonna go hungry because they are so used to living off of the government tit that they know no other way to survive. That's gotta change.

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Priorities? How about bringing more manufacturing jobs to the US? How about reducing the debt? How about getting people off welfare and back to work. How about creating job programs? How about sending more people to school? There are lots of ideas out there.... name your program... let's fix it. Exploration with the space station? nah... The space station doesn't travel to other planets, it doesn't send rovers, it just sits there and goes round and round.... If it is of value, then let the private sector pick up the tab. As for the shuttle, it could have been unmanned years ago, yet we kept putting people in harms way, over something that was just a large cargo delivery vehicle. As for other cuts... feel free to cut everything. Nothing wrong with that, but even NASA needs to take a hit and the space station could be left behind as something that is not a priority to our government involvement in space. I would rather the US be known for space exploration, than orbiting gerbils.

I do agree that the "job" priorities are important. But, I do not see the shuttle or the ISS interfereing with that at all. And, it DOES employ people & inspire people. The ISS is teaching much on long term zero G effects, and how to get things done effectively in zero g. there are many pharmaceutical & manufactruing possibilities being investigated as well. zero g & contaminate free/vacuum processes are very different, and will be changing the way micro devices are made. we are only a few years into this. how long did it take for the Nina/Pinta/Santa Maria to spawn the USA? 300+ years? sorry its not going fast enough for you - but - to just poo poo it and stay home is a poor choice. We did not just "go to the moon" - we had to take the steps along the way. the ISS is one of the steps for exploration.

Obviously I'm pro-NASA, but I think people don't realize how much science is done on the ISS and Shuttle before it.
Advances in medicine, science, materials technology, nanotechnology all from ISS and Shuttle experiments. The types of experiments they do require a microgravity environment that cannot be readily created on earth.

You can find a list of some of the experiments on the ISS here: http://www.nasa.gov/mission...riments_by_name.html

If you think it's a waste of money, I'd respectfully suggest you need to think long term. It may not give you a faster cellphone or 3D glasses today, but the advances do find their way into the mainstream. If you've been camping in the last decade, you've used technology developed by the space program. If you've been in the hospital, you've likely used technology developed by the space program.

NASA publishes a magazine, NASA Tech Briefs to facilitate getting it's technology out into the private sector.

quote When the U.S. Congress formed the National Aeronautics & Space Administration in 1958, it mandated in the charter that NASA and its contractors must report to industry any new, commercially-significant technologies developed in the course of their R&D, so that engineers, managers, and scientists could use this valuable information to improve their competitiveness and productivity. For more than three decades, this has been accomplished primarily through the publication of NASA Tech Briefs.

Most of this is cutting edge theoretical science. That means the experiments they do today aren't likely to show up at Best Buy before Christmas.
When you put the amount of NASA's budget in perspective compared to other spending, the return on investment for a NASA dollar spent is pretty good.
Both Bush and Obama passed stimulus packages close to $800 Billion each. Either one of those bills is more than every penny spent on NASA since it was created in 1958.

I know I'm not likely to change anyone's mind, but I would just like to suggest that NASA does big things with a comparatively small amount of money.
Government spents a lot more to do much less in many areas.

quote Originally posted by Pyrthian: I do agree that the "job" priorities are important. But, I do not see the shuttle or the ISS interfereing with that at all. And, it DOES employ people & inspire people. The ISS is teaching much on long term zero G effects, and how to get things done effectively in zero g. there are many pharmaceutical & manufactruing possibilities being investigated as well. zero g & contaminate free/vacuum processes are very different, and will be changing the way micro devices are made. we are only a few years into this. how long did it take for the Nina/Pinta/Santa Maria to spawn the USA? 300+ years? sorry its not going fast enough for you - but - to just poo poo it and stay home is a poor choice. We did not just "go to the moon" - we had to take the steps along the way. the ISS is one of the steps for exploration.

The ISS takes such a small percentage of our tax dollar, I don't see dropping is as a viable solution to saving our economy. Should they take a hit, heck yeah. Just like every other program out there.

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Exploration with the space station? nah... The space station doesn't travel to other planets, it doesn't send rovers, it just sits there and goes round and round.... If it is of value, then let the private sector pick up the tab. As for the shuttle, it could have been unmanned years ago, yet we kept putting people in harms way, over something that was just a large cargo delivery vehicle. As for other cuts... feel free to cut everything. Nothing wrong with that, but even NASA needs to take a hit and the space station could be left behind as something that is not a priority to our government involvement in space. I would rather the US be known for space exploration, than orbiting gerbils.

Shuttle was built specifically to build a space station. That was it's reason for existing and why it wasn't unmanned.
As for space exploration, you have to walk before you can run. A trip to Mars will take years to complete. We really should know how to live completely self sustained before we go.
If the farthest you've ever walked is to your mailbox and back, you're probably not ready to hike the Appalachian Trail.

interesting read.... http://www.space.com/9435-i...rth-100-billion.html
$100B (estimated).

ROI? Unknown and it looks like, based on the article, the program still is trying to prove itself. Obama signed a law to keep it going until 2020. Why not sell some space time to some of the super rich? Let them be a tourist for a cool few million a day

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Why not sell some space time to some of the super rich? Let them be a tourist for a cool few million a day

It costs about $20 Million for a one week stay on the ISS.
They've been doing that for over 10 years now. Where have you been? Oh right, complaining about the space program.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/space-tourism.htm

quote Originally posted by Formula88: Shuttle was built specifically to build a space station. That was it's reason for existing and why it wasn't unmanned. As for space exploration, you have to walk before you can run. A trip to Mars will take years to complete. We really should know how to live completely self sustained before we go. If the farthest you've ever walked is to your mailbox and back, you're probably not ready to hike the Appalachian Trail.

The shuttle became a cargo delivery ship at the end, it should have be unmanned at that point. We certainly have the technology.

Let me ask, why send people to Mars? What will be gained, and at what expense? Why not send our consciousnesses there, inside a robot? Sure it sounds far fetched, but we need to think outside the box. Quantum physics is the next great exploration tool. Humans are fragile and it takes a lot of support to send them anywhere. Maybe we are not ready to go to Mars??

I am not anti or pro NASA, but you have an entity that exists and they want to continue to exist. Sometimes that entity gets too focused and misses other opportunities.

Personally knowing engineers on the shuttle program, and having spent hours in discussion with them and many more at panels where this and related subjects were discussed, I knew this long ago. For one, as soon as we announced the end of the shuttle program the Russians jacked up fees for hauling our butts and stuff up, by millions of dollars per head.

Constellation was justifiably canceled. They had massive problems with thrust pulsing with the solids that were used as the main stack, so bad that even with a multi-ton computer-controlled active hydraulic cylinder shock absorbing system between the stack and the crew capsule the ride was going to be brutal. The weight penalty of the hardware attempts to mitigate the thrust pulsing significantly reduced cargo and crew capacity of the capsule. The thrust pulsing is inherent with solids technology. The project was spiraling out of budgetary control with no end in reasonable sight.

As far as the politicization of this issue goes, the biggest problem was that under the previous administration NASA was strangled budgetarily, and has repeatedly had the financial means to develop a next generation heavy lifter and crew launch capability stripped from them. The shuttle was consuming essentially all of what budget money was dribbled down to NASA (a mere pittance compared to *everything* else). From a national pride and function point of view I completely resent the cancellation of the shuttle. However, from a money point of view I agree (reluctantly, very reluctantly) that it had to go, especially after ten years of Congress strangling NASA's budget.

It takes at least five to ten years to engineer, set up for, and then produce, a new launch platform, with man-rated equipment being at the long end of that time range. Most of the cost of that process is incurred during the time leading up to the first launch. It's not cheap, which is why the so-called private space industry has essentially been a failure, and will continue to be so. There is not a single private industry on earth that has the financial resources to design and build a man-rated heavy launch system. And frankly, since all the profits from developing a space infrastructure will pay off decades and centuries down the road for all mankind there is zero incentive for corporations, who are all about short term internalized profits for their shareholders, to go down that road in the first place.

Whoever owns space owns the entire surface of the Earth, that's pretty basic. If a nation with a militarized space program (cough, China, Russia) gains a strong infrastructure foothold in space then the rest of us will be beholden to that nation(s). Not only that, but in the long run we need the resources that exist in space. Materials, energy, and lets not forget the ability to defend our planet from devastating foreign body impacts, are all valid reasons to do it now. It would be best for all if the nation-states doing it were doing so for non-military reasons, because military reasons by definition exclude long-term human survival.

I saw this coming years ago...

America has given up its leadership role on many technological fronts, with space being the capstone of that abandonment and the perfect example of its shortsightedness and inability to think beyond the end of its nose.

quote Originally posted by Rickady88GT: I am in no way shape or form a fan of Obama, and I see no good reason to waste money on the station. All polatics aside, This is one big fat program that we can and should trim to slim down the Govt. Who in the right mind would trim defence before this program? Something has to be cut, why not the crap that cost more and does less?

Our Space Program does an amazing amount of R&D that doesn't grab headlines but affects us all in ways we can not even count. Not to mention Atmospheric, Astronomical, and Communications.

having said all that, I have never liked having NASA in Governmental control. Space exploration does not need to be expensive if the government would get out of the way and let the priovate sector manage it.

quote Originally posted by JazzMan: America has given up its leadership role on many technological fronts, with space being the capstone of that abandonment and the perfect example of its shortsightedness and inability to think beyond the end of its nose.

Privatize it!

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: Privatize it!

or we could outsource the space program to the Phillipines...

If nothing else, the potential discoveries far out weigh the cost IMO. That can't be said for the vast majority of entitlement programs. They teach those on the receiving end to expect, not earn.

------------------
Ron

quote Originally posted by jaskispyder: sorry, I don't walk in those circles... as I don't have $20M to spend. As for complaining about the space program, you are wrong, I am not complaining, I am commenting the fact that even the space station should be questioned in light of our lack of funds, lack of tax base and high spending. You are the one who is pro-NASA and it is pretty clear that you have your heart set on spending the money. Fine, but be aware, that not everyone agrees that this is a good way to spend our tax dollars. BTW, who gets the tourism money? It looks like Russia does, and NASA just tolerates it. Why not let the Chinese play in the ISS, more? They have oodles of money.

Of course not everyone agrees. I also think many who don't agree are simply unaware of the value, which is why I tried to list some of it.
You obviously don't approve of the expense. You also are obviously unaware of what they do, so you can't have a realistic understanding of anything that goes on there, but that doesn't stop you from saying it's a waste.

You don't want to support it - fine. I could respect that opinion much more if it were made from an informed position.
I'm sure you don't care if I respect your opinion or not, though, so carry on.

all and no proof that we need the station.
Give me proof that we need it. I want to know real examples not sell pitches.
We DO NOT NEED to explore anything. So any and EVERY example linked to that specific perpus is a waste of my time.
Advancments..? realy, that is weak. If we made anything in the US anymore this might be an argument. But it aint, we could reverse ingineeer ANYTHING we want. China has done it for ever.
NASA is on my hit list anyway. They are another waste of money. All they have been up to is trying to find life out there. WE DONT HAVE THE MONEY.
let China "find live out there" would we be any better off if we found it or they find it? Pride, pride in America? This is no argument either. America has no pride in America. Look at our leaders. We HATE to even talk about what they do and look at the heat generated bringing up the topic.

Cut NASA, sell the space station and that is only a little tiny piece of what we NEED to do,.. just a part of the start.

NASA would help EACH and EVERY American by being desolved. Tel me how they help any other way.