Space, the Final Frontier -- Looking Like a Ghost Town
I grew up in the middle of the greatest achievement of mankind's technical prowess. I was born in 1960. Sputnik launched in the middle of the Cold War in 1957 and the Space Race was on, baby. Yuri Gagarin became the first astronaut (cosmonaut) in 1961. By the time of the summer of love, 1969, I watched, rapt, as Neil Armstrong slowly went down the ladder and touched down on the surface of the moon.
We beat the Russians! For me, it had nothing to do with beating another country to the moon. For me, it still doesn't. What matters to me is what the American Space Program did for us as a nation.
It showed that we could all lean into a vision, buy it and then make it happen. Hell, in 1968, people were still saying going to the moon was impossible. Not me. At all of 8 going on 9, I couldn't wait to grow up and get a job that would let me be in space. I thought, "We're on our way to stay!"
I watched the Apollo Program come and go. I watched Skylab go up -- then come down. I watched our Shuttle Program get started, then cut, and cut, and cut, until the original fleet of 12 shuttles was down to 5 with number 6 being on display at the Smithsonian.
And still, look what we as a country managed to do! This week (pending good weather) STS 135 will be launching, marking the end of the Shuttle Transportation System. And there will be nothing else on the boards, and has been nothing else on the boards, for decades.
In those 135 missions, we lost two shuttles and 14 good people. We pulled the Enterprise out of mothballs (and the Smithsonian) and prepped her for going to work. And what we managed to do with the four remaining craft, including the two long periods of inactivity after each lost craft, one hell of an accomplishment that no other nation can even come close to saying they'll upstage.
Without the shuttles, the Hubble Space Telescope wouldn't be up there. Not just for the initial insertion (as it was carried, prepped and 'launched' from the cargo bay of Discovery during STS-25, but also for the Servicing Missions, which not only added fuel, they pushed the Hubble into a higher orbit (to correct for gravity and drag,) made repairs and added new modifications to make the Hubble Space Telescope the crown jewel of astronomy.
Without the Space Shuttle the International Space Station, as forlorn and underbuilt as it is now, would be nothing more than another dream on the boards, living only in the imagination of a few. Without the shuttle we wouldn't have made the progress we have. Without the shuttle, I wonder if very many people would really have any dreams of going into space today?
This space program, which cost a lot of money, no matter how you look at it, paid off in spinoff technology, increased understanding of our universe, our solar system and even our own planet. The money we invested in these efforts over the years is a mere pittance to the cost of the wars we fought, funded and participated in during the same period of time. Wars that ultimately cost us people, talent, economic well being and worldwide good will.
Even so, some of the technology we used in warfare was developed directly from the advances we made in our space programs. Cruise missles, GPS, advanced imaging, satellite observations and communications allowed us to become ever more accurate and precise in our weapons delivery. Materials developed increased our soldiers' ability to survive initial contact with their foes. Even the food that the soldiers carried into battlefield situations came as a spinoff result of attempting to package food for space.
The medical technology that was developed to maintain and monitor the health of the astronauts, exercise equipment and routines, as well as telemetry (long distance recording and monitoring) of their states of health was directly integrated into advanced medical treatments and diagnoses for the common man. Nutrition, measuring bone loss, radiation exposure (there's that to contend with in space as well at all times) and even psychological evaluations all benefitted from the space programs.
We also managed some really nice public relations and international relations by encouraging other nations that didn't have a space program of their own to submit astronauts for training, experiments to be conducted and to obtain greater exposure to cross cultural points of view. These astronauts from other countries have all had glowing comments for our space program and the shuttle. Of course, you'd expect that, but even so, I doubt the enthusiasm was ever feigned.
So, we now have one last chance to look up into the sky and see the last Shuttle orbiting in the night across our horizons. And, for someone like me, who's watched it all since the last Gemini capsule was launched (my dad was on the 'backup' recovery vessel for that, as well as for Apollo 5) I have a hard time seeing this without a little bit of a tear forming in the corner of my eye.
I am saddened by the country's overall lack of support for greater and more ambitious space exploration and exploitation plans. There is a void that is going to be in the hearts of many of us for years to come. There will be others out there, attempting to repeat what we have already done as a nation, but it just won't be the same.
The Ansari X-Prize was an uplifting moment when Spaceship One and the White Knight launched the first successful sub orbital flight of a civilian enterprise in space. Space isn't cheap. Space is dangerous, no matter how easy they make it look on Battlestar Galactica, Star Trek or any other number of space related shows over time.
Does that mean we shouldn't be attempting to conquer it's dangers? I say, "No." Look at what we got in terms of benefits from the first long term space program.
Your LCD screens, your computers (even inside your telephones,) the materials that make your tools lighter, stronger and still more durable to the elements, medical breakthroughs, materials science, recycling, filtration and purification methods -- all of these directly benefitted from the space program's focus on making space reachable.
Every ounce they shaved off materials, every article that could withstand the rigors of space, every thing they had to learn to keep people alive in a small closed loop environment for days on end made the space program work. All these things made life better here on earth, or at least provided us with the opportunity to capitalize on that to do so.
More than anything else, the space program generated something no other program has done before or since: It provided us a place to dream up the impossible; and then show the world that it's not impossible, just something a determined and inventive mind can do if there is the will to commit to it and succeed. It was the ultimate, "Can Do," achievement this world has seen. It gave people hope and faith that we can solve any problem if we set our will to it.
I bid a fond and tearful farewell to our shuttle system. It is tearful for two reasons. The first reason is that I don't see a replacement program waiting in the wings and so it makes me sad. The other is a tear of pride in an accomplishment that this country can still hold up to the rest of the world and say, "See, we can do this!"
I applaud all space efforts, from any country. Currently China, Japan, India and Iran all have active space programs in their beginning phases. Russia is still in the game, though at an extreme economic disadvantage now. And we have Americans, Canadians and folks in Great Britain and Australia all working at private space activities to get us riding into orbit and hopefully beyond.
My personal dream of working and living in space is done. It never got off the ground. That doesn't mean I have given up on it or think it's never going to happen. My role today may be different than what I had hoped, but I will still champion pushing the limits of our knowledge, our technical knowhow, science, and the spirit of exploration, adventure and pioneering the edge of our abilities. If there are young out there who wish it, I will bequeath the excitement, the enthusiasm and the desire to go there, not because it's easy or cheap, but because it's not.
I leave you with the words of John F. Kennedy, speaking at Rice University in 1962:
"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."
(you can read the enire speech here: http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/Ready-Reference/JFK-Speeches/Address-at-Rice-University-on-the-Nations-Space-Effort-September-12-1962.aspx )
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Steven J. Gulitti
sagemerlin
Petitioner person
beauty1947
Jeanette DeMain
Poor Woman
Salon.com
Comments
We probably wouldn't have a space program at all were it not for the so-called space race with the Russians.
Guess what? We can't afford these wars, either
"Kiddies, your Uncle Sam is broke. Up the spout. Where the woodbine twineth." -- Lucius Beebe
I've been thinking about a post on this, but it all sounds so boring; Not trying to put your writing down, but is seems that American political culture, at least, is impatient with laundry lists of benefits. Arguments of this kind often provoke conspiratorial or Ad Hominem rejoinders; Validity is never discussed. The short answer is: "We're not going back."
Let's look at history as learning; A thousand years ago the Western World was centered in Rome and knowledge was obtained from The Church. A thousand years from now?; Maybe humans will learn that this world Earth (the ground beneath their feet) is not their mother, lover, commander, possessor, status symbol....but is the main impediment of their dreams.
Our little achievement spawned the technology boom that today is starting to fade. It's fading in America, at least. I don't disagree that there are many problems out there in our country and in our world, but the most pressing of them all have answers in the next iteration of technology derived from a dedicated program of getting into space -- permanently.
Recycling technology, energy production, filtering technology, earth sensing and viewing to expand our understanding of our own planet will help us to come up with novel and workable ideas about how the planet works, what we can do about it (if anything) and teach us ways to manage, conserve and utilize our resources more effectively, more humanely and be able to reduce our wasteful actions as well.
The promise of these things don't NEED space exploration, but they will certainly benefit from it. Wherever man invests time and energy to develop new ideas and new focus for adventure, the spirit of challenge and the ideas of exploration, new answers and new solutions to older problems always present themselves.
All civilizations throughout time that we know of have all failed when they stop growing in one of three important ways:
When the civilization stops physically expanding;
When the civilization stops improving mankind's lot within it;
When new ideas and technology stop issuing forth.
New ideas are there and so there is hope. Mankind's overall lot, however, has steadily deteriorated on the whole in this society for the first time since it began, post Reniassance. New areas to expand into simply do not exist on the planet, unless you somehow expect people to move, en masse to Antarctica or in the Oceans.
Space has the promise to allow us to develop and utilize Solar Power, beamed down to the planet as electricity in what amounts to an unending source for as long as the sun burns. That alone, to my view, is totally worth whatever it takes to make that happen.
IN the drive to do something like that, I wonder what will happen to the efficiency of solar photovoltaic conversion? In so doing, I wonder what new ways to make launching and fueling our space craft that can be adapted to commercial airlines, ocean going transportation, high speed rail, mag lev technology and other things from the advances made?
The amount of financial return on that investment will be staggering. And it will be there. We just have to learn to measure returns such as these on a different scale that requires years, perhaps decades of dedicated perserverance instead of the current quarterly reports.
I hear some say we can't afford it. I say to you, "How can we not afford it?" Is there any other technology enterprise out there that can provide us the possibility of removing ourselves from the path of an oncoming asteriod? Is there a better way to ensure our long-term survival by 'toughing it out' here on the planet, all our eggs in the one basket? Can we develop any other single program on the planet that has or has the potential to have, this sort of long lasting and beneficial effect on not just our civilization, but on the entire planet?
If there is, I have yet to see it. Thanks again to all of you for reading and commenting. I look forward to hearing more of your views and ideas, suggestions and other commentary.
If I can inspire only one other person beyond my self, then I will have deemed this essay to be a stunning success.
And that stuff is important. Very important. It should not be the end-all be-all of a species that has, at its core, a drive to know, to explore and to seek new places and experience. The only reason people can't go out that far anyway (to use your phrase) is not cost, not lack of ability, but, put simply, a lack of will and commitment on the part of the population.
I know there are many who don't think it's important. If you still don't after reading the essay, you're certainly entitled to do so. What that means to me, is that I still haven't found all the best arguments or means of persuasion to convince you and others who feel the same. I'll just have to get better at this.
I don't defend Nazism any more than I can rampant greed and lust for power disguised as capitalism, socialism or despotism calling itself a Republic or Democracy. Then again, seeing what is beyond the names is important, in this or anything else we do as human beings.
Think of this, though, before you completely disregard the space race:
A) It's not over, it's really just getting interesting. China, Japan, India and Iran are all entering the fray. This is great news in one way and troubling in another. For the same reasons that Kennedy felt it was important to have American interests and technical prowess lead space then is just as important now. We, the people of a democratic republic, while not perfect, by any stretch, need to maintain a level of supremacy so that we have a say in how the exploitation, exploration and domination of space will proceed from here.
B) Again, the advances and improvements to our industry, our manufacturing capacity and our economic health all stand to benefit enormously from this sort of endeavor. To date, there is no other program in the US that has this potential.
Those two factors should at least make you wonder: What will space dominated by China, Iran, India or Japan be like? What benefits would the rest of the world recieve from their dominance in space?
I can't answer those questions, but they are fair questions to consider.
I'm so tired of 'politics as usual', so tired of my country, your country.. what's wrong with "It's our world and we're all the human race."?
But then, I AM a dreamer..
Rated for the thought, no matter the deaf ears it falls on.
I believe in humanity as a whole. I believe that people are really underrated by governmental leaders on the whole as well. I believe we have to ensure our long term survival as a species. There is only one Human Race.
Space Exploration and Exploitation is one step to reaching the objective of ensuring our survival. Taking care of this planet -- inclusive of enacting strong regulatory controls on the despoilation and ruination of our resources by rapacious corporate interests for profit -- is another objective in this platform. Lastly, we must learn to stop emoting against ideas that could serve to bring us all out of the Mental Dark Ages and move us all into another Enlightenment Age similar to the explosion of knowledge and education that came during the Reniassance.
You can't expect these sorts of things to occur if you rely on governments alone. You have to have a high respect and value in people. People are the greatest resource available to our civilization and to the world society. I believe that implicitly.
And my intent and hope is that what I write will awaken in others the spark of humanity and interest that sows the seeds of humanity's greatness.
Once again, thanks to all who read and thanks doubly to those who take the time to comment.
>as forlorn and underbuilt as it is now, would be nothing more
>than another dream on the boards, living only in the
>imagination of a few.
And we'd be more than $100 billion dollars richer for it.
Sorry, but the ISS is the poster child for white elephant money sucking government waste and pork barrel spending. It's scientifically useless - to boldly sit where Skylab and Mir sat before.
The Shuttles, meanwhile, should have been put out of our misery after the Challenger disaster, and leaving them operational after Columbia burned itself to a crisp on reentry was criminal. They never came close to delivering on any of their promises - they weren't more reliable, cheaper to operate, or capable of delivering more payload to orbit than their predecessors. Dumping more money into a failed experiment is just stupid.
They did, however, deliver a virtually limitless stream of pork to well-connected defense industry criminals.
>be up there.
The Shuttles could lob around 30,000kg into low earth orbit. The Saturn V - which the Shuttle unwisely displaced - could chuck 110,000kg into low earth orbit. A Saturn V could haul 3 HSTs into orbit at once.
>Servicing Missions, which not only added fuel, they pushed the
>Hubble into a higher orbit (to correct for gravity and drag,)
>made repairs and added new modifications to make the Hubble
>Space Telescope the crown jewel of astronomy.
If the HST had been launched aboard a Saturn V, it could have been boosted into a much higher orbit, and it could have been equipped with more fuel.
As for the modifications, the Shuttle program ended up costing taxpayers well north of $100 billion. The Hubble telescope cost something like $2 billion. You could have built and launched 50 of them for the cost of the Shuttle program. And gotten scads more science in return.
>from the advances we made in our space programs. Cruise
>missiles, GPS, advanced imaging, satellite observations and
>communications allowed us to become ever more accurate and
>precise in our weapons delivery.
I'm sorry, but none of that technology was developed for or by the space program. The first satellite navigation system, Transit, was first successfully tested by the Navy in 1960. Advanced navigation systems were developed for ballistic missiles during the '50s and '60s and later utilized by the space program.
Advanced imaging? Thank spy satellites for that. Nothing to do with NASA, and certainly nothing to do with manned spaceflight.
It's easy to blame stuff and point out costs and then dismiss things. Howver, the truth is the truth. Yes, the costs were high, but you could not have lofted the HST with a Saturn V, because that method of launching would have been too strenuous on the HST. The cost of the Shuttle Program or the cost of the Apollo Program was as high as it was, not because it was too expensive in the first place, but because there have been problems in the Military Industrial Complex that keeps costs high to ensure that those developing things for the government get a payback right away. This is part of the cost of doing business in our current (and when I say current, I indicate the way 'business' and 'government' operate to ensure the 'business' end always gets it's cut.)
It doesn't change the fact that the development of the Space Program as I mention it is directly responsible for the advances in technology that followed. Not because they were all being built for a space or moon shot, but because the nation invested in science and technology at a pace unheralded even in the last phases of World War II.
This investment in training, education, innovation and technical advances necessary did, in incontrovertible fact, cause the nation to create a pool of trained, intelligent and positively minded people that felt that there were no challenges completely beyond solving.
A Saturn V could loft that much payload, but don't forget that the majority of that payload was actually fuel for longer range missions. Even so, the Saturn V could not easily loft things into LEO like the Hubble Space Telescope simply becuase it was so powerful. The launch forces in a Saturn V were too great to prevent damage to the Saturn V. Additionally, the Saturn V body was not sufficiently modifiable to accept the necessary stage configuration to place something as large as the Hubble onto it's body.
So while you can make the claims based on thrust, power, and lift ability, that doesn't tell the whole story. And if the claim you made were true, that the Hubble could have been lofted higher initiall and had more fuel, I have to ask, how can you put more fuel in a piece of equipment that has "full" already listed in it's tanks?
Everyone likes to point out the cost as if the "bottom line" were the only thing we should or could ever see as the 'reality index' of any project. Sadly, that point of view never made advances in things that change a nation's people and point of view. That attitude of looking only at the cost on a balance sheet as being the only rational way to see things is the reason the Programs cost as much as they did in the first place.
As to the ISS, I can't really argue with you there. There were so many mistakes made with it, due to wrangling for control, monetary contracts and returns by the companies involved (who had to get their profit margins in first before actually coming up with a better plan -- in my view) that by the time it was half as built as it is now, I couldn't understand how our government could have allowed it in that form in the first place.
If, however, the Space Shuttle Program had been properly funded in the first place, and if they had used those big boosters as resources instead of expendables, the ISS might have been radically different, successful and something so much more than what we have. That's an issue for perhaps a different essay. I also wonder why the US spent so much of the money to get the International Space Station going? I don't mind internationl efforts and I don't mind one nation bearing a larger portion of the cost of such a thing. That doesn't mean it should have been done the way it was.
As for your views about the shuttles regarding their losses, I'll just have to respectfully disagree with you in pretty much every point. If we took that attitude, the Apollo Program would have stopped with a burned up command capsule and three astronauts during a test in 1967 of the first manned Apollo mission during a test. With that attitude and belief system, maybe oil drilling, coal mining and sea vessels would not be here.
If we looked at stopping something when someone died or got hurt, we'd all still be throwing rocks and using pointy sticks to catch our dinner. I never could understand how some people can claim that once someone gets hurt any endeavor should be deemed unsafe and we should quit trying. If that were really the prevailing thought, then we wouldn't have steam power, the internal combustion engine, automobiles, aircraft or any other number of things in our lives and the advanced level of technical civilization we now enjoy. So on all those counts, we shouldn't also be fighting any wars (and maybe there's a decent tradeoff when you look at it like that) or doing anything to protect our nation's people, or even have the United States, because the human cost was just not worth the effort.
It's easy to come up with 'reasons' and rationalizations for things we have little to no interest in as to why we shouldn't be doing them. It's easy to knock down and so much harder to build up. And this is true of any purpose, endeavor or activity. The overwhelming response in history is to convince people why we should not do things, why it's too dangerous and why it's too expensive.
I can only offer to you that it's a good thing there are people out there who do not fear the cost, fear the danger or fear new ideas and new challenges. Again, if we let those fears get the better of us without challenging the 'normal' world view at the time, we'd still be using pointy sticks and rocks to survive.
Your refutations regarding the technology, again, I point to you that the the industry and the technology infrastructure (and the trained and educated people are the most important component of that) would not have allowed any of those technologies to develop and grow without a space program.
No space launch capability, no satellites. Simple. No satellites, no communication in space, no earth observation, no GPS. And you can paint the cost any way you like. I cannot do anything more than tell you that the cost was worth it, even with all the pork, trimmings, skimmings, shady deals and stupid contracts that did nothing other than line the pockets of certain folks over the prospect of 'getting their bottom line' numbers before providing tangible assets.
The money that was spent on space programs did provide something back in return. And all the money spent on space, from 1961 to 2011 (50 years of it) is only a small percentage point compared to all the money spent on warfare in that same period of time. And the human cost, the economic cost and the cost of international relations in all that time from using modern versions of pointy sticks and rocks against our fellow man is so much greater and so much more painful for absolutely no tangible gain makes any argument about the cost of a peacetime activity, in my view, moot.
I respect your point of view, though, with respect, do not agree with it's logical implied outcomes or it's application of use of statistics that do not take into account a more complete use of those statistics to bear witness to certain logical fallacies.
I wish it were as easy as you made it out. I wish it were as simple as measuring the cost versus what we could stand to gain. I really wish that perhaps more people like you (and possibly I) had more to do with making certain that the costs were reasonable in many respects and that the initial profit motive behind the money in the contracts was done with an eye to making sure we built the best we could for the least amount possible out of a drive to do our best instead of get as much as possible at the cost of the taxpayer first.
Until the methods and means of getting government projects and business to meld with higher minded ideals than that last dollar amount figure in black ink only, that is the climate and environment in which any endeavor must operate. I don't like that any more than you seem to. Until that situation changes, though, what do you propose? That we sit on our hands until it does?
"A Saturn V could loft that much payload, but don't forget that the majority of that payload was actually fuel for longer range missions. Even so, the Saturn V could not easily loft things into LEO like the Hubble Space Telescope simply becuase it was so powerful. The launch forces in a Saturn V were too great to prevent damage to the Saturn V. Additionally, the Saturn V body was not sufficiently modifiable to accept the necessary stage configuration to place something as large as the Hubble onto it's body."
Has a glaring error in it:
"The launch forces in a Saturn V were too great to prevent damage to the Saturn V."
Should have been:
"The launch forces in a Saturn V were too great to prevent damage to the HST."
As it was written it makes absolutely no sense. Sorry folks, got ahead of my self and missed in my edit re-read.
>HST with a Saturn V, because that method of launching would
>have been too strenuous on the HST.
I'd love to see a source for that assertion. Anyhow, simple solution to a complex problem - you make the HST out of stronger stuff. Since the Saturn V can launch three times as much weight into orbit, this isn't likely to present much of a challenge. Certainly, not one worth spending tens of billions of dollars on the Shuttles for.
>It doesn't change the fact that the development of the Space
>Program as I mention it is directly responsible for the advances
>in technology that followed.
The space program had precious little to do with any technological advances outside of the space program itself. The military drove a ton of technological progress in the '50s and '60s building things like ICBMs, spy satellites and hardened communications networks. The civilian space program benefited from those developments, but it didn't engender them. Probably the most substantial technological development of that period was the microprocessor, which was invented by Intel for calculators. Had zilch to do with the space program.
>Additionally, the Saturn V body was not sufficiently modifiable
>to accept the necessary stage configuration to place something
>as large as the Hubble onto it's body.
That's funny - they launched Skylab using a Saturn V, and it dwarfed the HST. 77,000kg for Skylab vs. 11,000 for the HST. Skylab was 36.1 meters long and 6.6 meters in diameter. Hubble is only 4.2 meters in diameter and 13.2 meters long.
>I have to ask, how can you put more fuel in a piece of equipment
>that has "full" already listed in it's tanks?
Well, if we hadn't wasted 100 billion on the Shuttle, you'd design your scope to be launched aboard a sensible booster like the Saturn V and not an overpriced white elephant like the Shuttle. Then your scope can be bigger, carry more fuel and sit in a higher orbit. So not only was the Shuttle a pile of junk, but it forced NASA to do lots of other stupid things to the missions they were trying to accomplish, compromising space science for decades.
The Shuttle was a *disaster* for the space program. Between it and the ISS that's $200 billion up in smoke. $200 billion would have gotten us to Mars. I don't know how useful going to Mars would have been, but it would certainly have been more impressive...
>If we took that attitude, the Apollo Program would have stopped
>with a burned up command capsule and three astronauts during a
>test in 1967 of the first manned Apollo mission during a test.
Apollo burned up because they were (stupidly) using high-pressure oxygen mixture in the capsule. That had nothing to do with the booster. The Shuttle is a design disaster as a launcher. It costs more per-pound than virtually any alternative, requires extensive repairs and maintenance after each mission (it's hardly "reusable" in any meaningful sense, as expendable boosters cost far less), and being strapped to a huge tank of liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, is guaranteed to be destroyed in the event of any structural failure of the tank. It's also - as we saw with Columbia - a dangerous reentry vehicle due to the fragile nature of its delicate wings. Fail on top of fail on top of fail. These obvious flaws were all pointed out *before* the Shuttle ever launched, and the Challenger and Columbia disasters - as well as the black hole of the Shuttle budget - proved its critics correct. But that didn't stop the gravy train running to the well-funded defense contractors behind the Shuttle. Some bad ideas are just too lucrative to die. Until the parasites have bled the host to death, anyhow.
>If we looked at stopping something when someone died or got hurt
Space travel is inherently risky. That isn't an argument for not doing it. But it also doesn't excuse taking unnecessary, stupid and costly risks when cheaper, safer, more reliable alternatives are available. And it certainly isn't a good argument for throwing away a perfectly-functional launch system like the Saturn family and replacing it with an unreliable, far more costly system like the Shuttles proved to be.
Unless, of course, you're one of the corporate parasites set to profit from the white elephant. Then it's a very tasty prospect, indeed.
>Until that situation changes, though, what do you propose? That
>we sit on our hands until it does?
Since the United States refuses to tax its beloved rich people, I think you can pretty much kiss space travel goodbye for this lifetime. Maybe someday, after the "Let them eat cake" crowd finally pisses off enough of the population that we go all Robespierre on them and heads start bouncing off of the pavement, we'll end up with a government that looks after those who do instead of those who don't. Those events tend to be kinda messy though, so I don't see the cycle completing in any of our lifetimes.
No technology outside of the space program? I can assure you that you are mistaken. I will provide only one example that I am pretty sure you can painstakingly verify if you wish.
Mass Flow Controllers.
They are used nearly ubiquitously in the Semiconductor manufacturing arena. The MFCs used in all Semiconductor manufacturing equipment owe their heritage to the mass flow controllers initially developed during the Apollo Program to help control and stabilize the flow of Hydrogen/Oxygen mixtures as well as for the thrusters and attitude controls used on the boosters, upper stages and the command module.
Might they have been developed without a space program? Maybe. Quite possibly in fact, but how much later? How much longer would it have taken to get them to their current levels of fineness and productive use in creating microelectronic circuits instead of controlling hundreds of pounds of fuel flow per second?
Kevlar, carbon graphite fiber, high strength aluminum/titanium parts, high strength quartz, even clean room technologies, all directly benefitted from the Space Programs due to the wide ranging nature of the talent, technology and science required to put people in space.
Maybe I'm wrong about the Saturn V, but if I was then there are plenty of others who are also wrong about that. Still, though, your assertion that the space shuttle was a waste of money and a failiure is negated by what 2 losses out of 134? You gotta admit, any statistician would tell you those are the markers of success versus failure.
Again, the issue of corporate greed, private deals and 'captured' politicians is not the purview of my essay. If that were the case, this would be a politically motivated and politically oriented essay. It sounds to me, though, like you and I probably agree more than we disagree, both on space in the main and possibly in our political views.
I don't wish to argue against your point of view. By the same token, some of your assertions are clearly a matter of perspective and opinion. My question to you is this: Do you think we should keep trying to make it there, or do you think we should stop? That's the only real reason for me to have written this essay. All the rest is, ultimately, a difference of perspective and opinion that has little full bearing beyond that point.
I respect what you have to say, even if we don't fully agree. I guess what I am really seeing is that I think we agree more than we disagree (as far as some of this goes, it seems) and so don't see any good reason for being contentious. Feel free to be the 'gadfly' as knowing there's a sharp mind out there offering free editorial criticism can only improve my work in the long run.