The momentum and inertia of time

Two weeks ago, the nation watched with awe and not a little trepidation as Discovery blasted off from Cape Canaveral and "slipped the surly bonds of earth." Now, I have always been a fan of the space program (heck, NASA pays my salary) and have always wanted to be an astronaut. So I was thrilled to be back in space. I also made a personal goal of seeing the shuttle launch before it is retired. Which brings me to my next point.

The shuttle, admittedly, is a test vehicle and needs to be treated as such. The latest mission did a good job of making this clear. However, the truth that absolutely must be faced is that not all test vehicles are successful. And by this I absolutely do not mean that we should expect to lose a shuttle every so often. I mean that when it is clear that the shuttle does not fulfill its original (or current) design requirements, it should be scrapped. Sunk costs are sunk. Spending more money on the shuttle will not bring back what you already spent. It just doesn't work like that.

The space shuttle is the relic of an age at NASA marked by large dreams but few realizations. Easy, cheap access to space is a great goal, but when that goal ends up in the most expensive (and dangerous) launch vehicle ever built, it's time to go back to the drawing board. As someone within the industry, I know how much this can hurt. To suddenly lose a source of income that seemed stable is fiscally disastrous. So people fight against change and invent weird ideas to help sell their cause.

For example: American access to space. What exactly is the point of this? I am a huge advocate of the manned space program, to the dismay of many of my colleagues. However, I see no merit in always being able to throw Americans into space. I think our prestige is not tarnished in the slightest if we step back and say, "the shuttle had a good run, but it's now in our best interest to move on to the next step." There is absolutely no fathomable defense justification for having people in space. So what if China and Russia can do it when we can't? China's space program is still in its infancy and Russia relies on our money. American prestige is furthered by speeding up delivery of a next-generation vehicle. It's ridiculous to think that when the shuttle breaks, we fall back to a 40-year old Russian design. Where's the prestige in that?

As it has been previously mentioned, the only people who seem to support the space shuttle are those whose wallets (or constituents) are affected by it. Certainly, ATK Thiokol and other companies for whom the shuttle program is a cash cow will be hard hit. However, the only way to grow a business is through innovation, not stagnation. It is interesting that an agency whose stated purpose is to reach for the stars has such a hard time being progressive. Which gets at the title of this post. Change is always hard. But the more you wait, the harder it gets to change. Spending billions more dollars on a failed program is not useful. Developing better technology that captivates the hearts and minds of the American public is. If NASA can recapture its old glory, then perhaps a new boon in the space industry will result as people get excited and funding increases.

We need to always stretch the limits of human knowledge and abilities. For the past century, war has been the impetus for many groundbreaking ideas and technologies. It is time to overcome our baser instincts, reach for the stars, and begin to dream again.