U.S. Retiring from Space Exploration?

Unfortunately this seems true. The dream started by President Kennedy about putting a man on the moon by the end of the 60's, "and doing the other things not because they are easy but because they are hard", seems to be dying a slow death. With the retirement of the space shuttle in two years and it replacement not coming on line until 2015, we have seen no clear vision for space exploration from either presidential candidate.

Indeed, Barack Obamma has indicated delaying the shuttle replacement for five years in order to free up money for more social programs. This action would mean the end of a U.S. manned spaceflight program.

NASA would be best served in the current financial environment (2008) by tightening its focus to a single area of endeavor such as space exploration with one of its primary goals being technological spinoffs. The rest of NASA's activities needs to go by the wayside at least for the near term. Budget is the deciding factor here.

The public is well aware of numerous wide areas of interest that NASA is involved in.This SEEMS like a lack of focus to many. Public perception is important. NASA, DO WHAT YOU DO BEST !. An Administrator with a high public profile (like Daniel S. Golden or Sean O'Keefe) can't hurt either. Currently Michael D. Griffin holds the post. That's not to say that he isn't doing a great job, but illustrates the need for the Administrator to get out there on the "cocktail circuit" and in front of network television cameras (though not at the same time). Get to know those individuals whose constituents who will fuel NASA's coffers down the road. Houston, I'm rooting for you !

Tom Strome

NASA needs to divorce its self from the "GOV". Let the government keep some sort of obvious control of the defence aspect of what NASA does and spin off the rest. Let private equity benefit from the technology NASA has. You want to turn a 24 hour flight into a 3 hour one, then let the movers and shakers into the program. The best thing right now is to let NASA go belly up (The Politicians Know This) and auction off the rest. The question is can private equity keep a secrete. Remember, not every satellite is owned be the Fed.

This is a problem that started with Carter and was exacerbated by the Clinton administration. NASA, the military, and basic forward looking research were not funded properly and now we are several years behind. These are investments that have to be made if you want to continue to have a viable technological program. The problem is that neither them or their advisors were forward looking enough to see what the investment could gain this country. This is the same problem we have with our lack of vision in energy. Anyone who is not blind could see that we needed to be doing the research and creating the technology base path for our future ten years or more ago. (When was the first energy embargo?) Look at the returns the investment in space gave us through the eightys. Pick any technology and the advances are there. Look at the advances investment in military technology has given us. It is not all just a better gun. Unfortunately that take vision that has been missing. I can not help but feel that it is very short sighted for us to allow ourselves to be put in the position again of relying on a country that is not really our friend for something this important just as it is stupid to rely on countries that arenot our friends for our energy needs.

um hello the world hates the USA and I am from Australia, somewhere in the 60/70's your country lost its way I am thinking vietnam is the starting point, the USA has become arogant and a school yard bully, just like in school no one likes the bully but they do all partornise them as gain his protection in order to avoid his wrath.... Personally if you look at the wars around the world the USA has started or entered most of them and the result has been far from good.. And lets face it just because your commander and cheif says you off to war cause some other country saber rattled is real weak to put your own sons and daughters in harms way, is the USA or Iraq better off ? Seems to me no one in hindsight wants that spoilt egg. As for space funding they chop and change that many R&D programs that the head of NASA need to spend 2 yrs under a chinesse or russian space program ... the russian is a classic dont fix what arent broke... i mean they launch a manned flight for what under 20-30 million i wonder if NASA could ever compete. To much admin to much R&D in fields that waste of money (ie that robot landed on mars didnt even have a set of wheels .. come on you going to another planet least give the robot mobility) after 3 days off digging in the sand about its base the job is basically over .. and what cost. Just realy poor judgement on approval.

Before we get totally off the subject and begin foolish nationalism, just remember that we all must share this one tiny planet and bickering and pointing fingers solves and improves nothing!!

If NASA will not continue the Outleap, it is up to us, the engineers, the designers and the dreamers to continue the climb.

We are like little children trying to understand the whole universe from our sandbox.

There are discoveries "out there" that humanity cannot begin to conceive.

Is it not time that we insist that the money is spent for the Great Adventure? That our children's children inherit all of Space?

Spreading out lessens our chances of ending up like the dinosaurs, like Neanderthal, like Cro-Magnon, like countless other species that only had one home.

I, for one, and all of my progeny will continue this work with or without NASA, or any Governmental approval.

Regards Dragon

I cannot help but think ego & bragging rights = space exploration and spending money on food/drugs/clean water/energy research is more beneficial.

If we are headed toward United Socialist America, as it seems we are, we will lose our lead in almost every field other than stealing from those who work and "redistributing the wealth" to those who are deemed "poor". Of course our "poor" are rich by the standards of most of the world. If 90% of the people had two homes and two cars per family, then those with only one home and one car would be called "poor". Poverty is relative to the population as a whole and no matter how rich the whole becomes some will have less and be called "poor".

The political Left has to pay off for its votes by giving more money to the "poor". Even if the money becomes worth less and less, it will still buy votes. Far too many people are willing to live off the government dole and vote accordingly.

It is a shame that the political Left tends to look inward and not outward. The exploration and use of space is essential to our future.