posted 02-02-2012 01:45 PM               

Back in the 60's there were two spacefaring nations, okay? Today, there are two spacefaring nations and they don't include America. How do you like that?

China and Russia are the only countries around that are sending humans into space.

posted 02-02-2012 02:57 PM               

(Perhaps there was a couple of days' exception in 2004 when SpaceShipOne flew.)

The same situation was true when the shuttle fleet was grounded for weeks or months at a time due to program-wide technical problems, like ECO sensors and brittle external tank stringers.

posted 02-02-2012 03:39 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cozmosis22:
Having no proven spacecraft available = grounded, like it or not.

---

I would argue that so long as a nation has (a) put a human into space, and (b) is continuing to work towards putting more humans into space, then it remains a spacefaring nation.

posted 02-02-2012 04:14 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
I'm amazed that a Moon base became a talking point of the week rather than the doldrums US human spaceflight is presently in.

---

posted 02-02-2012 04:38 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
...there will be no spacefaring by Americans from sovereign American territory.

---

posted 02-02-2012 06:39 PM               

While we temporarily cannot launch our on astronauts, there are hundreds of people across the country employed to change that. We're building new spacecraft, man-rating the Atlas V, designing other launch vehicles.

posted 02-02-2012 06:59 PM               

As for the U.S., we're launching people. It's just on Russian rockets, an interim solution announced in January 2004 as part of the Bush administration's Vision for Space Exploration. The Soyuz was considered to be safer than the shuttle, so regular crew rotations moved over to Soyuz while shuttle was used to complete the ISS.

Once the ISS was completed, there would be a minimum four-year gap while a successor was prepared. That successor, Ares 1, fell flat on its face, so now we have four companies working on a new commercial crew vehicle.

posted 02-02-2012 08:46 PM               

We currently have no domestic access to space and we are slowly, as a country, losing the will to go again.

The economy is still in the toilet after years of overpromising and under-delivering, CCDev is at risk of further delay, and trips beyond LEO still exist only in artist's renderings. Sometimes I think the greatest advance in manned spaceflight over the last few years is the quality of the computer animations showing "how we're gonna do it..."

Two Presidential contenders stand in stark contrast to each other - one gets laughed off the stage by the media for being too grandiose talking about space and the other one promises nothing more than another commission of "the best and the brightest" to formulate a plan on "how we're gonna do it...this time."

posted 02-02-2012 09:00 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by 328KF:
We currently have no domestic access to space and we are slowly, as a country, losing the will to go again.

---

For example, the National Space Society saw its largest response in the wake of the loss of space shuttle Challenger. Space Adventures attracted more clients after the loss of Columbia.

And the response to NASA's latest astronaut recruitment was the second largest in history (the largest was during another gap, in 1978).

There are more U.S. companies designing and building crew capable vehicles and systems than anytime in our nation's history, and they are investing more of their own money than any time before.

Even companies that are on traditional government contracts, like Lockheed Martin with Orion, are not waiting for NASA to propose bold(er) missions and putting together their own ambitious but achievable flight plans.

It's a fallacy we don't have a human capable rocket right now — we have at least one, if not three: Atlas V (Falcon 9, and maybe Delta IV Heavy). We just haven't completed the spacecraft to put atop them yet.

posted 02-03-2012 11:01 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
Historically, public support for space exploration has been its highest when NASA isn't smooth sailing...

---

My greatest concern for spaceflight today is the typical man or woman on the street. Sure, even back in the '60's there were those who protested moon launches and questioned why were spending large amounts of money on the program. But those times generated great inspiration for a new generation of engineers and scientists who thought we would see a continued robust exploration effort.

But ask anyone on the street today about the ISS. How long has it been up there? How many astronauts are on it? What does it do? You'll likely get blank stares. Half of the people you talk to think the space shuttle routinely went to the moon.

Today, we see MSNBC talking heads make a mockery of Gingrich's comments regarding lunar exploration. They picture his face superimposed in the Aldrin visor shot and openly laugh at his ideas. Was it too grandiose for a campaign speech? Probably. But the fact is our media uses "going to the moon" like a punchline to a bad joke. To be quickly followed up with Ron Paul's predictable quip that he has a list of politicians he would like to send there on a one way trip.

[Rimshot] "Thanks folks, I'm here all week."

posted 02-03-2012 11:25 AM               

The fact that the truth of his words are subject to debate within this forum is one of many indications that the US Space Program is on a downward spiral. If we, the interested general public (plus a few aerospace workers) debate this issue with silly arguments such as

“So just extending this reasoning, the U.S. also lost its spacefaring status between 1986 and 1988 in the wake of the loss of Challenger ….”

then how are we ever going to be successful advancing a space agenda? We can understand the spoken English word. While English, like all languages, leaves room for some ambiguity at times, his (Dr. Tyson’s) words were not one of those times.

I think we all hope for the best for the US Space program (and those of other countires), and we hope the current mess can be fixed, but the situation is what it is, no matter how we may wish it to be otherwise.

posted 02-03-2012 12:09 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
...debate this issue with silly arguments

---

It's silly that some of those same enthusiasts bemoan the lack of public knowledge about the ISS but at the same time, are okay with dismissing it as being a valid U.S. spaceflight program because U.S. astronauts happen to get there on Russian spacecraft.

posted 02-03-2012 12:31 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
It's silly that anyone would think that the U.S. is not a spacefaring nation because it is in-between launch programs — especially when Americans are still in space.

---

My wife is covering the Earth-Moon system in her class. As is sometimes the case when she gets to this point in the year, her students have questions about human space flight. When they do, she invites me to come and speak to them and answer questions.

posted 02-03-2012 12:36 PM               

Just like with the Pluto issue, the fact that he is creating a debate is raising the awareness of space in the public realm. As the old adage goes, "any publicity is good publicity."

By making a statement like we're behind Russia and China, it does nothing but help the cause of space enthusiasts. Maybe average people don't know that we have no current domestic capability to put a human in orbit. Maybe they don't care.

But if deGrasse Tyson makes them think that the Russians and Chinese can do something we can't, then maybe he will drum up a little support or just raise awareness.

posted 02-03-2012 01:24 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
If an indigenous US capability to rotate crews existed today the Soyuz delays would be a problem entirely for Russian cosmonauts.

---

posted 02-03-2012 01:47 PM               

In listening to his many recorded appearances, I come away with the impression that part of his argument is that it looks like we (the US) are on the verge of stopping or that for the first time since we started, it looks like stopping the space program is a real possibility.

By the way, I have never heard Dr. Tyson try to "spin" the end of the shuttle program...he was part of the team that came up with the now ended plan to replace the shuutle, knowing that it could not be done prior to the end of the shuttle program.

posted 02-03-2012 09:12 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
We are talking about his, Dr. Tyson's, remarks here, right?

---

Anyway, as much as I respect Tyson and have enjoyed the few times I've met him, I think he is inconsistent in his approach. He bemoans the current situation, not for the sake of space exploration or science, but for the role NASA plays in inspiring kids to take up an interest in science and math.

That's a laudable position, but if he is so concerned about what kids think, how does it help them to inflate the current situation?

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I don't recall the Soviets — or for that matter, anyone in the United States — charging that the U.S. was no longer a spacefaring nation when Apollo-Soyuz splashed down. The space shuttle, at that point, was no more a reality than Orion or some of the commercial spacecraft under development now. And yet unlike our present situation, no Americans were in space during that previous gap.

It seems Tyson is employing fear tactics, trying to scare the public into action — but what about the children? (Won't anyone think of the children?) Does a student hearing Tyson say that the U.S. is no longer a spacefaring nation have a reason to pursue math or science?

I agree with a lot of what Tyson professes, but his typical space speech — at least the several I've watched or have been present for — generally follow the same model of bemoaning the current state of affairs. I believe he could be a much stronger voice for change if he focused on what we're doing now that is good and how to build off that success.

posted 02-03-2012 09:19 PM               

Yes, we have astronauts. Yes, they're in space now. Yes, we're the principal partners in the construction and operation of the ISS.

But the elementary fact remains that the country whose emissaries put their footprints on the Moon has at present no means of launching anyone anywhere.

I don't believe that a nation which lacks the capability to even place its citizens in orbit, with its own technology, launched from its own soil, can call itself a "spacefarer."

posted 02-04-2012 03:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
It seems Tyson is employing fear tactics, trying to scare the public into action...

---

We got ready to launch an astronaut on a sub-orbital flight, they flew Gagarin on one orbit. We got ready to fly Gemini, they crammed three people in a Voskhod capsule to say they had "three man capability" while we had two. Then they had Leonov do his spacewalk before Ed White did his (a few months before NASA wanted to, but it was still done). All this had the nice effect of attracting money to the space budget, to make Apollo a public works program the likes of which hadn't been seen since FDR's projects.

We get to the moon, cross the finish line and... not much because we "won" the race. Sure, we got Skylab, then shuttle, but no space tug to haul stuff into and back from higher orbits. We had no space station to dock with it. Space Station became a bit bloated in budget for not much result and when the Iron Curtain fell, politicians sold officials at NASA that they should work with the Russians to keep them working so they don't "end up working on missiles and bombs instead". Again, it was a fear thing.

So, Challenger generated more interest because people likely feared that if we weren't flying and the Soviets were in their Salyuts, who knows what might happen next. When Columbia burned up, the fear more was "what do we do now?" as there wasn't really any threat from the Chinese space program yet. But we began to fear not flying because spaceflight had been happening for about four decades.

So, when Neil deGrasse Tyson decides to maybe use a little fear mongering, should we blame him? Frankly, he's right about the "force of nature" that NASA can be on kids. We just saw a movie this week about how a teacher of special needs kids got them to think more positive about themselves and focus on tasks by sending them to Space Camp. While Space Camp has no NASA funding, it would NOT be what it is today if it hadn't been for von Braun and Buckbee (and others) doing what they did and having the inspiration of NASA's great accomplishments to draw upon. Would we have had that if Eisenhower had just said to the American people "we don't have a missile gap, go to sleep, America is safe from the Soviets" and not gotten the ball rolling on a space program?

Without a space program, would Gene Roddenberry have even done Star Trek instead of a western? Would we even have the Trek sequel shows? Would you have even been that young kid who liked to dress up in a TNG uniform when you were younger? What would you or I for that matter have had to look forward to if you couldn't look up at the stars and dream that you or I or someone you know might go there someday? So many POSITIVE things came out of fear, fear that was properly harnessed and which showed us we can do GREAT things when we put our minds to them and have the backing to do them.

But what do we as Americans have to worry about now? We are the only "superpower" left in the world. Many teens would rather spend time scoring buddy points on Facebook or Twitter rather than reading a book and really learning about something. Its been over 10 years since 9/11, so there are kids who are just under age 10 who have never seen that happen and there are others in junior high who were too young to understand it when it happened. They would rather follow the sports star with the silly name who gets his toe nails manicured before every football game, or another star that managed to score a hot record in his sport by taking a short cut and using performance enhancing drugs. Or they look up to the reality TV star that says "I can be famous if I backstab and act out because people will stick cameras in my face no matter what I do."

So, I think if fear is properly harnessed, it can make for a nice kick in somebody's complacency. For me, I am not going to feel comfortable again until a new US manned spacecraft is flying and has demonstrated itself as being a mature system. And I am NOT talking about Rutan and Branson's little sub-orbital shots on SpaceShipTwo, I am talking to and from orbit, to the ISS and back and hopefully further than that. SpaceX has shown a lot, but they still haven't gotten a manned Dragon off the drawing board and have only flown Falcon 9 twice to date (maybe three times). In my estimate, it will still take three or four years before a manned Dragon is ready to fly, just from all the testing and certification they need for it alone.

The spaceship formerly known as Orion (MPCV) is moving forward, but it won't go anywhere until a booster is man rated for it (figure three years for that at least at current funding levels). Plus, I have yet to see work begin on a production version of the capsule, or even just an unmanned test vehicle as all we have seen are boilerplates. You say we have three rockets capable of flying manned spacecraft, technically yes. But they have not demonstrated that capability as it is all still on the drawing board. Even when the board work is done, the unmanned flight testing will still have to be done. Man rating is still going to take time.

And while these spacecraft or man-rated boosters have yet to fly, the budget axe potentially looms over them. If we continue with the underfunding of these programs, resulting in stretched out development time, it only becomes a matter of time before some politician requests a program gets cancelled. Constellation was but the latest example in a long line of drawing board programs that went nowhere (including National Aerospace Plane and VentureStar).

As for SpaceX, lets be frank. Their future is not set by any means. Say they have a launch failure and kill a crew, or say the US decides to abandon the ISS, leaving no LEO destination for NASA astronauts. If that firm doesn't have a government backed contract to fly men into orbit to the ISS (or the cargo flights), it is going to be A LOT more expensive to keep going. Space tourism can only do so much if the cost of flights and operations can't be reduced (there are only so many Dennis Titos and Richard Garriotts in the world) and the only way for the costs to go down by any large amount is frequent flights. And the only near term way to get guaranteed funding for that is a government contract.

So yes, I appreciate the cold splash of water on my face from somebody like Neil deGrasse Tyson. More people should consider his words because he is making a lot of sense. Maybe it is a little over-blown, but the balance could easily be tipped the other way and he knows that probably better than any of us.

posted 02-04-2012 09:42 AM               

My problem is not with using fear as a motivator. The space race, as you rightly point out, was built on a foundation of fear to good results.

But as you also raise, kids today are much more focused on Facebook. So when they glance at their news feed and see a headline "U.S. no longer a spacefaring nation" (if they see that all), are they motivated to do anything?

To use the space race example, kids then were being put through under the desk bomb drills at school. They innately knew the Soviets were the enemy, so they could understand why a Soviet "moon" flying over them could be and was scary.

But does the headline "U.S. no longer a spacefaring nation" impart any fear in kids today? I would suggest it does not. I think it does the complete opposite and results in their becoming even more complacent about NASA and space exploration. Just another thing that their parents had and they will not.

So, if Tyson's primary focus is to inspire kids to take up math and science, his message may be working against him.

But for the record, I am not suggesting he or anyone else sugar coat the current situation. Nor do I think anything he could say would immediately start kids hitting their STEM textbooks.

But I think if you point out that there are programs in place today that, with the public's support, could result in us doing more in space than we have ever done before, and that it could create more American jobs and more benefits for the economy, then it might, at the least, inspire a fraction of kids to start considering those plans as part of their future, and not discourage others from even considering a career in aerospace.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
In public, I like to express that hope as opposed to the pessimism and cynicism that I hear from others.

---

It frustrates me to no end when I hear of space knowledgeable and passionate people who are teachers and in other leadership roles who use their position not to inspire, but rather bemoan the situation. Here we have a real opportunity to build up public support by pointing out what is possible and we squander it by spending more time obsessing over what could have been.

There's a lot of good work going on in crewed space activities today that can make for some pretty compelling reasons why that effort needs to continue and flourish. It just needs better publicity.

But so long as space enthusiasts are content in putting forth hyperbole (e.g. "the U.S. is no longer a spacefaring nation"), that good work is not just going to go unnoticed, it will be disregarded as futile, to boot.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
Plus, I have yet to see work begin on a production version of the capsule, or even just an unmanned test vehicle as all we have seen are boilerplates.

---

posted 02-04-2012 01:05 PM               

In terms of the "fear factor" (I can't think of a better name for it), Neil deGrasse Tyson isn't really aiming that at the kids though, but rather the adults. His point is that with an organization like NASA, if they are doing something good it has the potential to get them involved in science and math. I turned it around so you get the carrot, than the stick approach as to many kids, math is a four letter word while science, which is applied math and other things can be the gateway drug as it were. Sure, not all of them stay interested in space and do other things. But, he has a valid point and a few pursue other science fields.

posted 02-04-2012 05:05 PM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by FFrench:
Dan Burbank and Don Pettit, orbiting the earth as American spacefaring astronauts...

---

posted 02-04-2012 10:35 PM               

As for the moon at double the price... so you consider a one loop around the moon, not entering orbit and coming home in a Soyuz (which we don't entirely know if it can survive lunar return speeds in the TMA configuration) to be better than six months in LEO potentially doing hard science? Sure it might be nice to see the sights. But all that could really be done is some photos on the backside for the most part and the Soyuz wouldn't even be in a parking orbit.

posted 02-05-2012 01:03 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by issman1:
I'm sure they don't mind but is it truly befitting for NASA's finest in this decade?

---

That's a great point, worthy of debate - but a different question. Does it mean that they are not spacefarers? I'd say they are spacefarers, and I bet they would too.

posted 02-05-2012 04:25 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jay Chladek:
It might be nice for a space tourist to go where Apollo 13 has gone before...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by FFrench:
I'd say they are spacefarers, and I bet they would too.

---

posted 02-05-2012 11:08 AM               

Astronauts don't make policy, and while there's certainly an argument to be made that NASA administrators could do a better job of lobbying and promoting the cause of space exploration with the public, the agency is in the end a hostage to political expediency. That's why we're here. And "here" finds us relying on another nation to actually get our "spacefarers" into, uh, space.

posted 02-05-2012 03:14 PM            

Also, just as an FYI, I hardly ever express opinions. So I was surprised that my statement was offered as a debate seed. What drives me is the effort to share fresh perspectives on information and data. So typically there's nothing to deny, even if there's nonetheless plenty to discuss.

Again, thanks for your collective interest in my work.