Fiery op-ed against shuttle

[radarredux]

I guess Space Daily has replaced Jeffry Bell with John Derbyshire. His latest op-ed piece The Folly of Our Age: The Space Shuttle (which is actually listed as "Shuttle News") makes Bell look tame.<br /><br />Some of the quotes:<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Like the monster in some ghastly horror movie rising from the dead for the umpteenth time, the space shuttle is back on the launch pad. This grotesque, lethal white elephant - 14 deaths in 113 flights - is the grandest, grossest technological folly of our age.<br />...<br />None of which is any reason why the rest of us should believe in it, let alone pay for it. There is nothing - nothing, no thing, not one darned cotton-picking thing you can name - of either military, or commercial, or scientific, or national importance to be done in space, that could not be done twenty times better and at one thousandth the cost, by machines rather than human beings.<br />...<br />To abandon all euphemism and pretense, [the Columbia astronauts] died for pork, for votes, for share prices, and for thrills (immediate in their own case, vicarious in ours).<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote>

 

[spacefire]

wow this guy must be reading my mind! <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[yurkin]

Your telling me that wasn’t in the op-ed section. How was that not an op-ed?<br />Even if the boycott never causes any changes then at least I still get to not read SpaceDaily.<br />

 

[shuttle_rtf]

Mentioned already on the Return to Flight thread.<br /><br />Shining example of a columnist having a rant - no news value whatsoever, no quote value at all, filed in the correct place....the bin.

 

[wvbraun]

I agree. What a load of crap. The author is obvioulsy not only against the Shuttle (understandable) but against human spaceflight in general. I guess he never heard of Rutan or Musk or Bigelow...

 

[spacefire]

No, he's not agains space. He'd go to space in a second if given the chance.<br />He just thinks the Shuttle is unjustifiably expensive and risky for the kind of stuff it does. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>http://asteroid-invasion.blogspot.com</p><p>http://www.solvengineer.com/asteroid-invasion.html </p><p> </p> </div>

 

[chidave]

He sounds very anti-space to me. Not only his blasting the space shuttle, but also the section about the mining of asteroids. Of course it's too costly at the moment to pursue, but the goal of the space program is to develop technologies that would make it feasible to do so. My take on the article is he feels the the exploration of space is a waste of time and resources, and I might add one of the worst least effective attacks on space exploration I have read since being in elementary school.

 

[cdr6]

I think Space Daily is Latin or something for "Collection of total idiots, with access to the internet..."

 

[wvbraun]

He is against manned spaceflight and that's what I said. Have you even read the whole article?

 

[quasar2]

actualy he kinda does seem to be against Space. but the way we`re going about Space lately leaves alot to be desired. the fact we haven`t broken orbit, although some would of course argue the semantics of that statement is aspect. another is our priorities: Moon-bashing for example. many saying nowadays the Moon is worthless etc.. i do agree w/ the guy the way we`re going about it is useless. & the same would go for ISS. just as useless, unless used for going further out, etc.. another thing i keep hearing is that the Shuttle is actually unfinished & i assume is a compromise of the original plan or something. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[frodo1008]

This guy is just plain incredible!! He should be placed in with “NASA Moon Hoax” types over on the SETI Forum. No, I kind of think he would pollute even those nut cases!! <br /><br />While even those of us who support NASA: The space shuttle, and the ISS realize that these projects are not without their faults and legitimate critics. We should realize that unlike these reasonable critics. people like this guy, who of course is the kind of person who is ALWAYS correct (even if in reality he is 180 degrees from being even close to rational, let alone correct), at least according to himself, should be condemned and then ignored. Is this web site really a space advocacy site or just a bunch of totally negative idiots?<br /><br />According to this creep, there is noting that we have done with the space shuttle that is at all worthwhile. I would suppose that this would include the Hubble telescope. Which without the space shuttle would be just so much useless junk. Instead, with the shuttle repair missions (and if you think that the Hubble manned repair missions were expensive, just think how much it would have cost to do this with robotic missions, even if it could even have been done at all!!) the Hubble is quite probably the greatest single scientific instrument of the last century (of so far in this century for that matter). Of course, this doesn’t even include Galileo, and Cassini, both of which were too large to be launched by any other means. I guess the incredible knowledge gained about our solar system by these (an many other) scientific missions which depended upon the space shuttle were a complete waste of time? <br /><br />Then there is this creatures general attitude toward manned space in general. One of the main reasons for the exploration of space is the eventual use and exploitation of the truly VAST resources of space for the betterment of all mankind!! Of course, I would expect that this guy would also have condemned the Apollo project as a com

 

[botch]

Exactly. The shuttle has problems, granted. Nevertheless, this author doesn't seem capable of making a distinction between a problematic vehicle and 'the greatest folly of our time'.<br /><br />It's a good thing his opinion doesn't hold sway, I doubt he'd think a SDHLLV would make sense. Or any other HLLV for that matter.<br /><br />And as far as his anti human spaceflight rants are concerned, has it entered into his head how fragile our existence is on earth? Lets refrsh his memory: <br />(in no particular order)-<br /><br />1) Nuclear warfare<br />2) Super epidemics<br />3) Natural disasters<br />4) Global warming<br />5) Asteroid/comet strikes<br />6) People like him<br /><br />The most compelling reason to get out there is so we don't become extinct before our time. <br />He's a good example of an earthbound mind.<br />Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr indeed! <br /><br />EDIT: and I totally agree with boycotting that website, or at least they should rename it Space Waylay

 

[mattblack]

THIS GUY IS A JERK!!! It's more than just me disagreeing with his opinion; he's just ranting and nastily at that.<br /><br />Look: I want the Shuttle gone, too. But not until U.S. Core Complete, Columbus Module, JEM, Node 3 and one more Hubble flight. 28 flights? No, cut it to 12 or 15 and pay ESA for more ATV flights for experiment racks and re-supply. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>One Percent of Federal Funding For Space: America <strong><em><u>CAN</u></em></strong> Afford it!!  LEO is a <strong><em>Prison</em></strong> -- It's time for a <em><strong>JAILBREAK</strong></em>!!</p> </div>

 

[SpaceKiwi]

I didn't realise Stephen Jones had branched out into 'opinion' pieces on Shuttle. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><em><font size="2" color="#ff0000">Who is this superhero?  Henry, the mild-mannered janitor ... could be!</font></em></p><p><em><font size="2">-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------</font></em></p><p><font size="5">Bring Back The Black!</font></p> </div>

 

[quasar2]

another failure would change all that a wee bit. some of what he`s sayin is why wait for failure. another vehicle &/or a "sooner" MoonReturn would`ve certainly done far more than the fartin around we`re doin now. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[wvbraun]

No, he is saying: End manned spaceflight. Read the article.

 

[radarredux]

> <i><font color="yellow">No, he is saying: End manned spaceflight. Read the article.</font>/i><br /><br />His basic premise (massaged by me) is that manned space exploration cannot be justified by economics or scientific advancement, and therefore it shouldn't be pursued (at least when paid for by tax payers). This opinion is widely held by many, including in the space science arena. (The Planetary Society has been a frequent critic of manned space exploration.)<br /><br />I was surprised by the ferocity of the language, and I don't think it does much to inspire an educated discussion on the topic.</i>

 

[drwayne]

There is a part of me that says that if an endeavor appears worthwhile at some level, like pushing mankind into space, but does not satisfy the tangible, the economic return on investment, that that is the sort of endeavor that the government *should* be doing. The far sighted stuff, the stuff that won't "pay off" for decades or even centuries.<br /><br />But I have been known to be somewhat off nominal...<br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>"1) Give no quarter; 2) Take no prisoners; 3) Sink everything."  Admiral Jackie Fisher</p> </div>

 

[j05h]

I read the article before the thread started here. It was disrespectful, startling and insulting in tone. he's like Jeff Bell but stupid. <br /><br />He sets up a Catch-22 that sets humanity up for failure: no government spaceflight and make sure it never becomes commercially feasible. Derbyshire proves he does not grasp the technologies involved or the rewards possible. If he can't figure out the solution, it just shows he hasn't tried hard enough. His goal, of course, is not to try. His goal is to kick the hornets nest.<br /><br />This article reminds me of why I HATE space conferences. The presentations are OK, but the community infighting is unbearable. Insufferable scientists, bitter activists and overwrought businessmen butting heads. Where is the fun in that? At last summer's RTM V conference, Guenter Wendt spent a good part of his speech complaining about how unprofessional Mike Melville was for tossing M&Ms. We don't need this kind of friction anymore, as amateurs, engineers or NASA employees. We need to build the future. <br /><br />Josh<br /><br />PS I apologize for the Planetary Society's anti-humanflight attitude. It will change when we can build telescopes on the moon. 8) <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div align="center"><em>We need a first generation of pioneers.</em><br /></div> </div>

 

[shuttle_rtf]

I can't say how pleased I am to see the replies in this thread. <br /><br />This forum has a large amount of Shuttle doubters, but the comments from most sides of the debate on here are encouraging and a testiment to the people who post in Missions and Launches.

 

[wvbraun]

"PS I apologize for the Planetary Society's anti-humanflight attitude."<br /><br />Are they really anti-human spaceflight? I know they favor unmanned probes for now but that doesn't mean they actively oppose manned space exploration. Just look at the report they produced in response to the announcement of the VSE. Nothing negative about human spaceflight in there.

 

[nacnud]

To be honest it is hard to justify manned spaceflight on scientific and economic grounds, in that respect I agree with the unmanned probe camp. <br /><br />However I want to see manned space flight because I WANT TO GO. <br /><br />I think that NASA et al should be aware of this and allow for it in their plans. Human spaceflight protagonists need to stop pretending its all about science and admit it was and largely is just because we can, and want to. <br /><br />No more justification needed, just don't steal funding from the scientists to do it.

 

[mrmorris]

<font color="yellow">"I can't say how pleased I am to see the replies in this thread. <br /><br />This forum has a large amount of Shuttle doubter..."</font><br /><br />Yes, well you're about as far on the opposite side of the scale from Derbyshire as is humanly possible, so seeing people call him an idiot has to feel great. However, I think you'd find that a majority of the posters on SDC -- even the ones who called Derb an idiot in this thread, are actually disgusted (as I am) with his over-the-top writing style rather than with many of the points in the article. This article dissects the rant and pulls out some of the better (and worse) points from it, making reasoned commentary on them. It's a <b>much</b> better read despite agreeing with about 70-80% of what Derbyshire says in his article.<br /><br />What this forum has is a lot of Shuttle realists. There are a few people on the forum who demonize the orbiters as Derbyshire does, and there are a few on the forum who idolize it, as you do. From everything I've seen -- the vast majority sit in the center on STS. It's a flawed system, but the only one we have at the moment.

 

[frodo1008]

nacnud: You have a very good point that has been expressed many times by some very powerful scientists. I too, believe that if we were to justify manned space exploration on science alone the cost of putting people into space would be just too great to justify.<br /> <br />However, putting humankind into space is NOT either just an exercise in wish fulfillment. There IS a very real and justifiable practical reason to put humanity into space. No, I am not just talking about killer asteroids either. The problem with the practical reasons is that they all take the long view. That is, the best reasons for developing a true space faring civilization will quite probably not come into place within the lifetimes of most of us on these boards (certainly not myself at the age of 62). Also, although the peril to humankind from rouge asteroids IS very real I will not even use this argument in itself (although it is indeed a good point in itself). <br /><br />No, the real reason for manned space exploration is that it is (again, in the long run) the greatest ecological program at humankind’s disposal. This is because, regardless of how we treat our spaceship Earth we are going to eventually destroy it. Oh, I know the arguments for conservation and other ecological efforts that are generally put forth by scientific ecologists, and I am generally in total agreement with them. I am in agreement with them because I am hopeful that these efforts will give humanity enough time to generate the best solution to the degradation of planet Earth, and that is to get off planet Earth. The resources of this planet are limited, and we are eventually going to use them up!! I don't care what we do, this is absolutely as certain as the fact that in any engineering system, regardless of how good that system is it will eventually run out of resources and fail. Any good engineer knows this and compromises to work around it. Of course, if we make our spaceship Earth system fail we will at

 

[shuttle_rtf]

><br />Yes, well you're about as far on the opposite side of the scale from Derbyshire as is humanly possible<<br /><br />You obviously haven't read any of my articles?