Sen. Rubio asks: what’s next for NASA? SpaceX marks the spot

BizPac Review ^ | Erich Landstrom

[T.O.K.]

On July 7, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio spoke on the future of America’s space program.

“When this final shuttle mission draws to a close, many Americans will be startled by the realization that we don't have an answer to the question: What's next for NASA?” he said. “We know that our commercial space partners are working to fill some of the gaps in our human space flight capabilities, and that is a promising development that we should encourage. But we need NASA to lead.”

I follow one of those commercial space partners,Space Exploration Technologies, also known as SpaceX, on Facebook. Less than three weeks after the senator asked his probing question, SpaceX posted a status update that suggested the gap is closing more rapidly than Rubio or I were aware.

[T.O.K.]

There's probably a lot in the works that the public isn't aware of. I hope people stay passionate about it.

[Perdogg]

How are we going to pay for it right now? New taxes?

[newheart]

What's next for NASA?

Obie has already told us what NASA's mission is:

"Last year, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden told Al Jazeera television that President Obama gave him three primary tasks: encourage children to learn about math and science, improve relations with foreign nations and "perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science ... and math and engineering." (From Human Events.com 7/26/2011)

Personally I am not so alarmed that space exploration might be genuinely shifting to the private sector. If that is the case, fine. But don't keep NASA around just as yet another channel to throw money at Muslims.

[Oshkalaboomboom]

Sen Rubio, supposedly a fiscal conservative, shows with perfect clarity America’s problem. NASA is one of the things you don’t get to do when you’re broke. Yet politicians lament and look for funds we don’t have to continue programs we can’t afford. Here’s a little hint, Marco: it all won’t come out of NPR, the National Endowwment for the Arts or by defunding Planned Parenthood.

[messierhunter]

NASA is a tiny fraction of the federal budget. You can cut its budget by getting rid of the global warming hoax nonsense and shutting down GISS without shutting down all of NASA. If you shut down NASA then you lose all the talent present there, and you lose the leading role the US plays in spaceflight. We’re on the verge of losing it as it is. SpaceX is great and all, but they wouldn’t exist if NASA hadn’t come first.

Like Lewis and Clark, NASA needs to map out the way for future development, but if we don’t do it soon, someone else like China will. You don’t want China to have control over the moon while we’re stuck in low earth orbit or worse. NASA’s probes are the Lewis and Clarks of today’s generation, letting us know what’s out there so we can figure out how to get there and what we can use once we get there. The difference is, we don’t have a sovereign claim over any of it, so if we don’t use it, someone else will and we will be paying the price for generations to come.

NASA should be ensuring our presence in space and on the moon by building “gas stations in space” as was recently proposed and making it possible to refuel mid-trip. They should be working to make it easier for private industry to access the moon on their own to generate their own profits from resource gathering, instead of just buying flights off of them. Build the roads, let the private industry use them. The way things are going, government is going to buy the cars and trucks instead, keeping the private industry entirely dependent on the government dollar which will only be enough to keep us circling our own planet while other nations forge ahead.