The final launch of the space shuttle brings to an end the dreams of the Apollo era

There's no point in denying the fundamentals, at the present, there are no incentive for any large expedition beyond low earth orbit, the argument that humans are explorers are invalid, only some are, while most are just competent working 9 to 5 or just getting enough to eat, so at best we can only expect slow incremental missions or robotic ones (also very few).

On the other hand, just like no one in the 16th century could have predicted we now build ships hundreds of meters long to carry black fluids from Arabia to North America, you can never rule out a fundamental need for going beyond LEO will appear sometimes in the future.

The Space Shuttle was confined to Low Earth Orbit, roughly 200-250 miles in space--about the distance from NYC to Boston. The nearest planetary body is the Moon at 250,000 miles.

The shuttle could not do a left turn and head to the Moon, Sun or any other planet. It was a child's toy with training wheels. And it regressed from even the ancient Apollo Lunar Program.

We are farther away from the Moon today in 2011, than 50 years ago when President Kennedy made his Moon Speech in 1961. We are not going anywhere beyond this rock.

A child born today has more chance at playing a Spaceship Captain on a Hollywood Sci-Fi Franchise than to be an actual interplanetary astronaut. Cultivate the good looks, hair, and debonair charm and lose the physics and rocket science. Sigh.

While politics can drive short-term exploration and one-off adventures, it's always commerce and hope of gain that drives the fundamental changes. Until there's a compelling economic gain from sending people out beyond the bounds of LEO, we're unlikely to go boldly anywhere except to the office and the golf course. But, if no one goes out there, how can we determine if there's a compelling economic advantage to doing so? Perhaps robotic probes will uncover interesting things out there, or perhaps experiments back here on Earth will suggest gain to be had out in space. For now, though, it's difficult to argue with the conclusion of the article, which is that man's brief foray into the world beyond his home soil is to all intents and purposes concluded.

The shuttle is antiquated and should have been retired long ago. Technological progress is accelerating exponentially. Commercial ventures will develop new vehicles for space travel before 2020. Nanotech bridges to stationary orbit will lower the price of access to space within 30 years. Life on Earth's destiny is in the stars. Prepare to evolve.

A sensible article, but I would suggest the idea that the US Air Force was ever very enthusiastic about the shuttle is off target. The only reason the Air Force got on board was because AF Undersecretary Hans Mark pushed it -- Air Force brass themselves weren't eager. The Air Force imposed stiff requirements on the shuttle that substantially increased its size and complexity, insisted on having a backup expendable launch capability, demanded priority for its missions, and provided not a penny of funding for the program. After the Challenger disaster, the AF promptly bailed from the program.

Clarify: No doubt the USAF provided mission funding, but the Air Force did not fund shuttle development. The service did build a launch facility at Vandenberg AFB in California, but it was scrapped without performing a mission.

You forget to mention one other benefit with robotic exploration - they need not be brought back. On the contrary, a human on Mars would want to.

This concern with China and India is absurd. It's akin to Sir Edmund Hillary worrying about others climbing Mt. Everest. Hundreds have, but it does not diminish what he achieved. And, he did not want to go back up again just because others were. Similarly, America need not go back to the Moon just because the Chinese want to. So, the Chinese want to spend a few billion dollars to go to the Moon and bring back its soil. Let them and so what? What, pray, has America gained by several pounds of soil its astronauts brought back from the Moon? I can't recall one personal benefit from all those lunar rocks sitting in various labs.

There is a huge mismatch between public expectations and the political reality of human spaceflight. If the governments got their act together, we'd have a permanent base on Mars in 10 years for 1/3 the cost of the Greek bailout.

If proper money was invested in research, we'd have launch vehicles capable of putting things in low Earth orbit for a tenth or even an hundredth the price we're paying now to government subsidized aerospace giants. (If you want to know more, google Skylon - it's a proposed reusable, single-stage-to-orbit launch vehicle that could reduce the per-kilo cost to low Earth orbit to about $600 or even $100 in the long term. Currently, it costs $10,000 which is absolutely ridiculous.)

The thing is, with the political leadership we have now - a bunch of inherently cowardly people who avoid solving problems and don't give a damn about the long term future of anything - we're not moving anywhere. Nowhere is this so apparent as in the United States. This superpower is now in the process of dismantling its human spaceflight programme because its political class is incapable of letting NASA do its job. I invite you to study what has happened in the US in the past 3 years and draw your own conclusions, but I am afraid you'll be just as disgusted as I am.

Author misses that a Defence and Telecommunication industry was built on the lure of space

The next goal of NASA after the first man on the moon, should have been: the first man on other planet (Mars).

1. The space shuttle was a failure, and America to much to long to realize it, for sentimental reasons. Failing is OK but taking 30 years to react is a bad sign.

2. 50 years after Kennedy's speech there are more people living in the Antarctic than space, because it is more accessible and inhabitable. This doesn't look likely to change in the next 50 years.

3. Robots didn't much exist in the 60s. Space is perfect for robots, but not for people. In retrospect, if all that money had gone into space robots, we would be much better off.

In 1989 I was talking to an American aerospace engineer who announced that he was now working for a private company that were showing the Chinese how to make rocket nozzles .
Made me think.

Manned (or womaned) space travel is just a huge PR stunt. With today's technology unmanned space travel is more efficient and cost effective. Let's spend the money on worthwhile projects on Mother Earth.

carmen-sf wrote:

"Manned (or womaned) space travel is just a huge PR stunt. With today's technology unmanned space travel is more efficient and cost effective. Let's spend the money on worthwhile projects on Mother Earth."

That's a common argument, and it's flawed.

1) Space exploration budgets are only a tiny fraction of the overall budgets. NASA's budget is less than 20 billion dollars, which is 0.5% of the US federal budget. For comparison, the Department of Defense budget is about 690 billion dollars, which is 34.5 times as much. So, do you consider blowing things up, which is the sole purpose of the military, as more worthwhile than expanding human knowledge and presence in the Universe? I am sorry (well, no, not really) to break it to you, but if you're looking for savings, you should look elsewhere.

2) Every time you watch satellite TV or use your personal computer, the Internet, your frying pan or dozens of other things of everyday use, please remember you have them because of the space programme and the new technologies it generated and the people it inspired to study engineering and science. It was these people who then went on to push us into the information age.

3) Space programme can be seen as a form of (very effective) stimulus spending. It is true that the immediate benefits are hard to see, but the medium- and long-term benefits are great. Space exploration not only inspires children to study science and engineering instead of law and political science, it stimulates hi-tech industries to develop cutting-edge technology that inevitably enters the commercial production further down the line. I'd say that's much better than, say, farm subsidies which benefit us... how, exactly?

4) The future of humanity is in space, especially if we want to address Earth's environmental problems. We'll need more earth observation satellites at first, and later also space resources and manufacturing. The sooner we establish a robust space infrastructure, the better.

5) No, space exploration can't be done fully by robotic spacecraft. The entire amount of exploration done by the two US rovers on Mars during their years long operation could be done by a single human geologist in the span of a few weeks. Robots are great, but they cannot replace humans (yet, and hopefully never). Also, robots don't inspire people nearly as much as real human presence.

6) Space exploration is today's equivalent of polar expeditions and other great feats of exploration and engineering. It not only inspires people, it increases the prestige of the country which does it. If you take your time and listen to what people like the former NASA administrator Mike Griffin have to say, you'll see that the space programme is in fact a sort of a security policy. It makes people in other countries like America, and it makes these countries want to take part in it and be America's friends. Pray tell, what else elicits a similarly enthusiastic response? America's foreign policy surely doesn't.

This applies elsewhere as well - European Space Agency brings European countries closer together, the Russian space programme is a source of pride to the nation (if I as a Czech were to name one thing I truly admire about Russia, it would be their space programme), and China is catching up because it understands that great powers of this era must take part in global space exploration efforts.

---

So please, enough of this "we have better things to do" fallacy. I'd say we also have many worse things to do, and we're doing them anyway. Space exploration is worth every penny we invest into it and more.

What's the point of sending people to bases on mars, or anywhere else outside our atmosphere? What are they going to do, look at rocks, take atmosphere samples and press buttons on a console? Robotics can already do all that without the need for biospheres and a constant stream of supplies coming from earth.

And if you're going to say "we could build permanent colonies", we're at least hundreds of years (probably thousands of years) away from having the technology to leave our solar system in a human lifetime, and we're just as far away from having the technology to build a sustainable mars colony. I'm sure those colonists on mars will feel real sustainable when all the air filters for their air-tight, radiation-prof bunker breaks, and all the machines that make new air filters are broken because the machine that makes circuit boards for the air-filter-making machines is also broken.

Send robots. Save money.

@ Frwillborough wrote:

"What's the point of sending people to bases on mars, or anywhere else outside our atmosphere? What are they going to do, look at rocks, take atmosphere samples and press buttons on a console? Robotics can already do all that without the need for biospheres and a constant stream of supplies coming from earth."

-> What's the point of going to Antarctica? Send robots. What's the point of climbing Mt. Everest? Send robots. What's the point of holding the Olympic games? Send robots.

This is a totally narrow-minded viewpoint that has nothing to do with the reality of being a perceptive human being. Humans need to explore. When we explore, we're forced to overcome challenges and it makes us better (aside from the other great benefits that I mentioned in my reply to another comment).

Of course, we're not going to Mars just to explore and study the place. Our ultimate goal is to settle the planet, to establish permanent human presence there at first, and eventually make the settlements self-sufficient. Mars is going to be a step on the way to human expansion throughout the Universe.

What future do people like you offer? That we stay on Earth forever, waiting until something (most probably our own folly) wipes us out? What kind of future is that? Thank goodness our ancestors weren't so limited in their thinking, otherwise they'd never crawl out of Africa.

"And if you're going to say "we could build permanent colonies", we're at least hundreds of years (probably thousands of years) away from having the technology to leave our solar system in a human lifetime, and we're just as far away from having the technology to build a sustainable mars colony."

-> No, we're not "centuries away" and anybody who actually understands the issue knows that. We've had the technology to go to Mars for decades now. Developing technologies that will allow us to stay there, to obtain water, air and food from the Martian environment, is not extraordinarily difficult and it can be done within a decade or two. Ironically, these technologies include things like solar power, recycling, biotechnology, advanced materials, etc., which would help us immensely here on Earth too.

If we wanted (= if we allocated sufficient funding), we could have self-sufficient colonies on Mars in a matter of decades, it's entirely doable and whoever says its not had better come with a very good explanation why.

"I'm sure those colonists on mars will feel real sustainable when all the air filters for their air-tight, radiation-prof bunker breaks, and all the machines that make new air filters are broken because the machine that makes circuit boards for the air-filter-making machines is also broken."

-> I am sure you'd feel the same way here on Earth if all our power plants broke down and all our factories that produce parts for these power plants broke down too. Fortunately, something like that is only possible in your defeatist imagination.

Sustainable settlements on Mars will rely on Martian resources to produce their energy, air, water, food, metals, construction materials, and so on. Everything is perfectly possible, because Mars (unlike most other places in the Solar system) contains all the chemical elements that are needed to sustain life and civilization.

"Send robots. Save money."

-> If that's your motto, please do exactly that the next time you decide to go on holiday, okay? Just send the camera, it will take some photos while you do something more productive.

In any case, robotic probes are capable of performing relatively limited tasks that are pre-programmed. True exploration requires initiative, improvisation, and immediate presence at the place that is being explored. In other words, robots *aid* us in our exploration efforts, but they can't do everything *for* us.

RIP space age.

Here lies the tomb of space age. A prodigious child who grew to be a promising adolescent. Later he went wayward under influence of inheritance from his rich Uncle Sam to wander aimlessly. His initial promise, which was more speculation was belied devastatingly and broke many hearts. Many are mourning his death but the rationalists are thinking it was long overdue. From the ashes of his cremation, will rise a new phoenix which will realize all the initial promises and more.

Amen !

@victor_d

>{This is a totally narrow-minded viewpoint that has nothing to do with the reality of being a perceptive human being. Humans need to explore. }

This is not narrow minded. Rather your view is narrow minded. true that humans need to explore, but explorations are done with tools. Robots and spacecrafts/rovers/hubbles are tools which we use to explore space/planets/stars/nebulae just like we explore the world of microbes inside a petri dish. Now I hope you are not supposing that we junk the microscope and enter the petri dish to see those microbes with naked eyes. Then why shd a human physically walk on Mars to see its ravines.

>{Our ultimate goal is to settle the planet, to establish permanent human presence there at first, and eventually make the settlements self-sufficient. Mars is going to be a step on the way to human expansion throughout the Universe.}

let us first learn to live in Antarctica before dreaming about Mars. Any corner of Antarctica is like a paradise compared to the most friendly places of Mars.

Biting off more than one can chew is a unique hallmark of humanity. It is time we shed this dubious distinction. Don't you think so ?

>{Thank goodness our ancestors weren't so limited in their thinking, otherwise they'd never crawl out of Africa.}

By that logic, you shd thank the bacteria to venture out from the sea to land before thanking the apes to come out of Africa.

>{we could have self-sufficient colonies on Mars in a matter of decades, it's entirely doable and whoever says its not had better come with a very good explanation why. }

It seems you have some internal knowledge of space technology that no scientist/engineer knows yet. So far nobody claimed to have any kind of technology to replicate a 'self sustaining human colonial' system anywhere in south-pole-Antarctica/Sahara/Kalahari/bottom-of-sea let alone Mars. Maybe you shd read the debacle called Biosphere II. Since you have the knowhow, why not be more forthcoming with the explanation instead of asking the others who do not know.

>{If that's your motto, please do exactly that the next time you decide to go on holiday, okay? Just send the camera, it will take some photos while you do something more productive.}

well much of exploration by a large majority of humans is precisely that. what else is watching a documentary made on under sea life ?

The Space shuttle has to be the coolest and most impressive engineering invention ever. Well beyond the concorde or the Japanese Shinkansen (bullet train). My utmost respect to the men and women who inspired the "buckrogers" dream of having a craft that can fly into space and back again.

I will never forget watching that first take off of the shuttle.

It seems like we are going back in technology, first the concorde is grounded and now the space shuttle. HOWEVER !!!!

The sad reality is that the Space Shuttle should not have left the drawing board - or it should have been grounded sooner. As a point of interest, the Soviets/Russians, built a space shuttle and successfully flew an orbital mission - google this point - the Russian Space Shuttle is called the "Buran".

The Russians (in their Communist mentality) were bright enough to realise 2 very big flaws in the whole concept:
1. The space shuttle can barely reach low earth orbit - it is too heavy to break out of earth orbit.
2. the dream of a reusable craft can be achieved in other ways (capturing the spent rocket parts) and the whole space shuttle concept is actually not really reusable only the craft itself (which is the same for the a rocket capsule).

The sad reality is that the Space Shuttle program was such a publicity stunt, that the benefits of the space shuttle didn't really exist - it only inspired people to believe that the America is the only place where this kind of thing can be done. All the more reason why I suggest people should read about the Soviet/Russian Space Shuttle - and perhaps understand why the Russians built the world's biggest plane to carry the space shuttle, then they built the world's biggest rocket to launch the shuttle and after 1 mission they tallied the costs and the benefits and realised - this is simply crazy.

After all their investment - the Soviets/Russians realised (what the Americans should also have realised sooner) - this is not a good and beneficial endeavor.

There is hope for a MUCH BRIGHTER FUTURE !!!!

Probably the biggest draw back of the entire space shuttle program is the government focused investment into making this program work at the expense of crowding out a private rocket industry. Finally with the space shuttle out of the way - the US private sector can get in on the space game - and I hope - bring out that good ol' American ingenuity and perhaps give the US the economic 'boost' they need.

Is it not telling that in the same year that China put their first man in space, a private American company achieved the same feit?

The "Virgin Company" and "Scale Composites" have already come a long way to building a full blown Space Port and a fleet of space crafts that will give you and me the ability to get up there - experience zero-g and see the curvature of the earth from space (albeit it at a hefty cost and a low-earth orbit short trip). Google Virgin Galactic and see what they are up to - it is exciting stuff!!!

SpaceX is Obama's biggest gamble. This is an American company (headed by a South African) that has rebuilt what is really the original Apollo rockets (and made them better) that will carry larger payloads than the Space Shuttle, 7 astronauts, have the various components float back to earth by parachute (to be re-used) and the best part - SpaceX does all this at a fraction of the cost of the Russian program. Not even the Chinese can beat the financial and engineering creativity of SpaceX. It is these private companies that are showing how America can provide space ingenuity in spades.

Finally with the Space Shuttle out of the way, we could now have the ability to allow the creativity and efficiency of the private sector do so much more with space travel and perhaps even inspire a new age in US economics as the US population grows out of it middle class status into a space age......

Am I dreaming??? maybe - but I will be watching that last shuttle launch with awe.

So you want to do cool exploration and build colonies in alien environments? Shut down NASA's manned space flight programs and look to the bottom of the oceans. We really COULD build colonies on the bottom of the world's oceans, and not have to worry about cosmic rays or loss of bone bass due to low/no gravity. And there really are alien creatures to be discovered there. Permenantly manned stations with research subs could stream live video to the world of everything they find as they find it, and contribute to our knowledge of our own planet. And no doubt it could be done for far less than putting fragile humans in space.