NASA astronauts bailing from program

Marcia Dunn, Associated Press

Monday, July 18, 2011


Cape Canaveral -- NASA's mighty astronaut corps has become a shadow of what it once was. And it's only going to get smaller.

It's down to 60 from an all-time high of 149 just a decade ago, with more departures coming once the Atlantis returns this week from the very last space shuttle voyage.

With no replacement on the horizon for the shuttle, astronauts are bailing fast, even though the International Space Station will need crews for at least another decade.

The commander of Discovery's last flight back in March, Steven Lindsey? Gone to a company whose proposed commercial spacecraft resembles a mini shuttle; his last day at NASA was Friday.



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/07/17/MN1F1KBJBD.DTL

That remains to be seen, however.

Some science can be profitable, but not all.

The MIC might love it though as they buy the functioning companies up.

You simply can't monetize and profit financially from EVERYTHING. Nor should you even want to.

I'm also not pleased to NASA itself atrophy, but if this mighty astronaut diaspora provides fodder for private human space travel, that wouldn't be a bad thing.

And, it remains to be seen if that even happens. It seems pretty likely that the net impact is going to be "less human space travel" -- so we'd lose.

NASA's role is to be on the leading edge,
we've been launching rockets for decades,
there's nothing leading edge about that,
what's needed is getting the cost down,
and the COTS program is making that happen.

His "Vision for Space Exploration" consumed NASA's budget,
they cancelled the shuttle and ISS to pay for it,
it was way behind schedule and overbudget,
so they cancelled even more science programs.
Obama extended the ISS program,
DragonX and the others were way ahead of Bush's crew vehicle,
so Obama cancelled those, they weren't needed,
the money could go back to basic science.

I don't think privatized launch services are necessarily a blow to basic science. The biggest bang for the buck in terms of basic space science has come from probes without astronaut crews, and much of the basic science involving astronauts has concerned keeping them healthy in space.

The pilot-astronauts really should leave. They don't have anything in NASA to fly for the foreseeable future, and I hope they hook up with productive private efforts.

What I do wonder is whether there will be adequate support for long-term technology development for getting into orbit. But that's less about supporting current astronauts in flight roles than ensuring engineers and scientists have research opportunities to devise better ways to get into space.

"Now that I'm an astronaut, the whole idea of what I want to do when I grow up comes back full circle," said Magnus, a former space station resident who has flown in space three times.