October 8, 2008
Josh Schwartz reports that in two years Star City will be the only place to send astronauts from any nation to the International Space Station. "From 2010, when the National Aeronautics and Space Administration shuts down the space shuttle program, to 2015, when the next generation of American spacecraft is scheduled to arrive, NASA expects to have no human flight capacity and will depend on Russia to get to the $100 billion station, buying seats on Soyuz craft as space tourists do."
Both McCain and Obama are against the suspension, while NASA's administrator Michael D. Griffin, has called the situation “unseemly in the extreme." He writes: “events have unfolded in a way that makes it clear how unwise it was for the U.S. to adopt a policy of deliberate dependence on another power."
Recently, and particularly in light of Russia's recent showdown with Georgia, the US's relationship with Russia has come under scrutiny. Senator Bill Nelson of Florida has referred to Vladimir Putin as "a Russian prime minister who believes he’s czar."
Comments | 4 Total
October 8, 2008 at 5:23pm by Rip Empson
Cold War, Shmold War. Water under the bridge! It's hard to believe, but this is the Bush Administration's de facto policy. And I don't think it's necessarily been a bad idea to do away with aging, risky shuttles and aeronautics technology. If we have to watch China beat us to the moon, so be it. Have we not grown up after the first race? Have we not matured? Clearly, the U.S. needs to continue its innovation in this field, and if the funding simply isn't there to run Constellation (the new, "space-agey" program to replace the old) and the old one (which there isn't), what's the big deal? We cannot allow NASA to fall too far behind in any kind of innovating, but I'd say that we have some areas that are in more desperate need of financing and funding right now than space flight. Just a few.
October 8, 2008 at 5:30pm by Brendan Collins
This is the lesser of two evils, in my book, the other option being the total abandonment of space exploration while we develop the Orion program (the shuttle's replacement). Were we to forgo spaceflight for five years or so, the Russians would have complete dominance over the ISS infrastructure, if not the entire ship. Who knows what our relationship with Russia will be like in five years? By coupling spaceflight with Russia, the US maintains a vital link to a nation that isn't likely to be severed, barring disaster.
October 9, 2008 at 11:34am by Megan DaGata
I don't like the idea of suspending a program until there is one to replace it to continue the goals of the space program. We have not had a big space achievement in over a decade and the ISS is not the first such product that is underwhelming. Orion is not really even a step forward in space flight, it is a step sideways. We are reverting to craft that are not reusable and will increase the amount of debris flying around. Is not the goals of our race to reduce pollutants, not create more in a new place?! I know we need to replace the shuttle, but the new vehicles that will replace it are not the future. And as for dependancy on Russia, the only reason they are constantly causing problems is because they want someone to notice that the still exsist, they still have influence in the world and can make an impact, whether that is good or bad. By allowing our space program to be dependant on them for a time, will build the bond with a forgein power that wants to be noticed. If this works, the future will be all the better for it. But I still don't like the idea.
October 10, 2008 at 4:07pm by Damien Basile
We've been doing the space shuttle dance since about mid last century. Maybe it's time to focus innovation in other areas that aren't primarily a big show of power. hmmm...