NASA Administrator Says Space Shuttle Was A Mistake
By Traci Watson
USA TODAY
The space shuttle and International Space Station — nearly the whole of the U.S. manned space program for the past three decades — were mistakes, NASA chief Michael Griffin said Tuesday.
In a meeting with USA TODAY's editorial board, Griffin said NASA lost its way in the 1970s, when the agency ended the Apollo moon missions in favor of developing the shuttle and space station, which can only orbit Earth.
“It is now commonly accepted that was not the right path,” Griffin said. “We are now trying to change the path while doing as little damage as we can.”
The shuttle has cost the lives of 14 astronauts since the first flight in 1982. Roger Pielke Jr., a space policy expert at the University of Colorado, estimates that NASA has spent about $150 billion on the program since its inception in 1971. The total cost of the space station by the time it's finished — in 2010 or later — may exceed $100 billion, though other nations will bear some of that.
Only now is the nation's space program getting back on track, Griffin said. He announced last week that NASA aims to send astronauts back to the moon in 2018 in a spacecraft that would look like the Apollo capsule.
The goal of returning Americans to the moon was laid out by President Bush in 2004, before Griffin took the top job at NASA. Bush also said the shuttle would be retired in 2010.
Griffin has made clear in previous statements that he regards the shuttle and space station as misguided. He told the Senate earlier this year that the shuttle was “deeply flawed” and that the space station was not worth “the expense, the risk and the difficulty” of flying humans to space.
But since he became NASA administrator, Griffin hasn't been so blunt about the two programs.
Asked Tuesday whether the shuttle had been a mistake, Griffin said, “My opinion is that it was. … It was a design which was extremely aggressive and just barely possible.”
Asked whether the space station had been a mistake, he said, “Had the decision been mine, we would not have built the space station we're building in the orbit we're building it in.”
Joe Rothenberg, head of NASA's manned space programs from 1995 to 2001, defended the programs for providing lessons about how to operate in space. But he conceded that “in hindsight, there may have been other ways.”
Shoot, I've been saying this for years. But you don't see me getting a headline on the DrudgeReport.
15 comments:
I am a witness, you have said it for years. I think most people are pretty ignorant on the issue, but may have wondered as I have...why did we have such a cool mission in the 60's and now they just float around doing experiments?
Testify!
is now the time to admit such a screw up? they're asking for tons of more money in the face of all this bullshit going on, and with the track record they have for the last 3 decades. good frickin' luck. i miss the good old days of real space adventures, instead of the sci-fi bush is proposing after blowing all scientific endevours away by starting an occupation of a country we can't afford and pushing a christian agenda that stifles all research in favor of a 14th century revival. we will never get back to the sixties mentality space-wise, no matter what, now that the country has better fish to fry on account of 'w's fuck-ups. well, we still have pink floyd and hawkwind records and all those cheesy 50's space movies to imagine what it would be like if things would have been different.
jchmn
well, as far as I understand NASA's new plan, this new direction will not mean more money. They've said they will divert half their annual budget for this. So no new money involved here. As for the rest of your anger friend, I respect your opinion.
pushing a Christian agenda that stifle's research? hmmm me thinks you are either willfully ignorant or you did one too many bong hits before you posted.
Most likely you are referring to restrictions Bush would like to put on EMBRYO experimentation..so F-ing what. Stem cell research is not limited to that small area and all steps forward we've made in that research did not have anything to do with EMBRYONIC research but of stem cells from other sources. like this
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7283645/
I could also post the names of thousands of scientists on the cutting edge for the last 300 years who are believers in God or a grand designer, not just Capernicus, Pasteur, Boyle, Newton and Einstein but..21'st century scientists too, from all disciplines.
Your post shows more about your ability to believe propaganda than it does about anything else.
Now this is what I call discourse!
Word to the voices.
Nostra: nice use of the html slang. But you forgot the [rant] open code!
I am a little tired today and that tends to make me cranky, my apologies if I offended anyone by my brashness. Not sure if we want to get into discussing I.D. but I am game if others are.
Hypocrite; play actor
I however was not acting. I was being honest. Christians can get mad too. Jesus was downright mean to certain folks and was no pansy [sp?]
There are some things that set me off, if I pretend it doesn't that would be hypocritical.
I.D. does not identify the designer,just shows that complexity is very difficult to explain without one, and Darwinism has difficulties doing it. No one is going to pretend that I.D. and Darwinism are equal in development of theory and if problems with Darwinism can be discussed, then problems with I.D. could be too. If it is so convincing that I.D. isn't scientific, students will see it as such.
A cursory glace at the founding documents of this country shows anyone that mentioning a belief in a generic God is not establishing a religion. This is a 20th century twist that just isn't in the founding documents. Bush knows that and does not ignore it like so many others do out of fear of reprisal from the ACLU.
I do believe that many do blindly follow propaganda, especially when it comes to this particular subject matter. The other side of the argument is really easy to find now that Google is king of the universe and I get a little miffed when people just call names without using reason.
One more thing...I was what we called a "freak" in high school many years ago, I know a little bit about the maryjane subject too. Most of my many friends did it and I only knew 1 or 2 out of the bunch that could "maintain" and do their Calculus while stoned. Most of the rest of us had a hard time carrying on a coversation, much less do anything complicated.
Drugs of all types make you stupid while your on them, and eventually when your not. My opinion, your free to have yours.
We are all entitled to an opinion and I am entitled to say I think someone is showing ignorance. Perhaps I should learn to play nicer, but today I don't feel like it..I am being honest again sorry.
I now wish to thank the generic god for the invention of blog comments.
and Sleepy,
"the sci-fi bush is proposing" is the best shit I've heard come out of a US President's mouth since Kennedy.
[shutup]
Helskel
[/shutup]
Space kicks ass. Just go watch Ice Pirates or Flash Gordon and you'll see why. Anyone who wants to go to space, even if it's Bush, rocks. At least in the respect that they wanna go to space.
Yep, aushubar, that's what's I'm saying.
(lotta apostrophes there!)
If the devil himself recommended that our species do what's best for our survival, I'd agree.
I think that's what actually happened.
ah, but the term 'intelligent designer' is just double speak. don't you really mean your christian god? after all it is the so-called christians who are pushing this agenda.(i am a recovering catholic that finds nothing christian about the agenda and propaganda the moral right preach). darwinism is a theory that is more proven than miracles in the bible. and just when did the seculars get so organized as to have a propaganda machine. free and open minded thinkers have always been against the narrow minded vision of my god or the highway stuff. that is what got us into space in the 1st place. we got our heads out of the bible and looked to the stars ...
bush and the fundamentalist right are trying to force us to listen to their christian propaganda (tho it is so fuzzy as to not be identified with the christian right), and if i.d. was taught, (is it gonna be a christian doctrine, muslim, buddhist, scientology?),in schools years ago we would never have gotten to the moon at all.
it's funny that all the scientists mentioned never tried pushing their view of god before scientific findings. they knew god has his place and science is not a church
and as far as bong hits go, if 'w' smoked pot this would be a kinder, gentler nation. or at least it may wipe that arrogant smirk off his face and just give him a dopey look ... oh yeah, that is his other look.
but all that is still not gonna put us back on the moon. bush is no jack kennedy, kennedy was made good on his words. with bush it was more hollow words and idle promises. grand ideas from a shallow mind. i think his staffers told him there is no oil on the moon, that is why you haven't heard a word about it from the white house since his re-annointment. although i wish 'w' would be the 1st voluteer to go to mars ...
ahh paranoid and delusional, a great combination!
:-)
Bong hits save the world!
Christ, it was just a NASA post.
Post closed.
see what ya started ... spoon! always mixin' it up.
Post a Comment