NASA at 50

Many happy returns?

America's space agency has reached middle age. Will it now recapture the glory of its youth, or dwindle into decrepitude?

See article

Readers' comments



Andover Chick

All in all, space explorations and blasting people on rockets are just so darn cool!!! What would childhood be like if one couldn't image rocketing into space to explore strange places and maybe someday gnarly, mutoid aliens. I think NASA and the Euro agencies should keep going full force - it is the BEST piece of the taxes I pay!!


There's quite a zoo of invisible but tangible animals in the living room here. One of the larger ones is that access to asteroids could transform human existence at a stroke. Nudging a 1-mi. diameter nickle-iron asteroid into accessible Earth orbit would make easy the mining of as much base and precious metals as has been extracted from our crust in all of history. Estimated value: about $1,000,000 for every human on the planet, or about 6 quadrillion (American terminology) / 6 thousand billion (UK terminology) dollars. Now that SpaceX and Branson and others are pushing commercial access to LEO and the moon, it may be a lot sooner than NASA's timelines suggest that humans begin to climb out of their playpen.


RE: GoodQuestionThere is no "government monopoly" on spaceflight - ever heard of SpaceShipOne? Or NASA soliciting contracts for a private company to demonstrate the technical capability to resupply the International Space Station?The limiting factor on non-governmental spaceflight isn't government regulation, but rather that most spaceflight, aside from (somewhat privatized) commercial satellite launches, is deeply unprofitable.


The last data I read was that the spinoff from the NASA research were at least a 20-1 benefit. The teflon family of products, fuel cells, flat screen monitors, and microprocessor designs all benefited from the space program as a stimulus of innovaton. These led to business innovations that helped produce jobs and products when those items were still manufactured in the US.


Reallly a quite naive piece. You get no gain unless you invest. I would have thought that any economist would know that. Until we break out if this literally viscous circle of earth orbit we won't even begin to capitaliza on the resources awaiting us in space - be int minerals, platinum group metals ... the list goes on. There is not YET ONE DOLLAR (or Euro) spent or made in space. Space commerce will take us there. The voyages of discovery were based on years of training and study. If someone had decided to suspend this activity, where would we be ?Robots are great but the human intellect and situational awareness will trump robotics ecery time.then there is the issue of jobs. Do we want aerospace jobs, like many other jobs, to be exported offshore.Full disclosure - I am in the aerospace industry. What are the author's credentials ?

Random Commentator

You omitted that NASA in 2000's got funds cut by Bush administration, who wasted it all on Iraq war.NASA will do well to accept more space tourism. And the best hope for space program is that Chinese both progress their own space program and prompt U.S. competition.Remember old joke about Soviet spaceship which finally landed on Mars - and was asked not to trample rice plantations.


This article is quick to claim the costs of the Space Shuttle and International Space Station programs as potentially being a waste. Taking a couple of quotes from the article:

"Nevertheless, he is right that there was something heroic about the Apollo project."

"... turned on a tap of dollars and cents that, within five years, was running so fast it gave NASA access to three-quarters of 1% of America’s GDP."

NASA operates under extreme budget constraints. The cost of Apollo may rival the Manhattan Project taking into account inflation. If you want great achievements you have to assume the risk of spending/wasting a great amount of money. I am sure one find a few default miltary programs that cost just as much. But this article, like others, avoids the comparison of annual US miltary budget against the NASA budget.

The Shuttle-MIR program of the 1990's brought to end 50 years of Cold War. It showcased each countries great scientific and engineering acheivements and more than symbolically bounded our nations. In constrast, I wonder how many billion's were spent during the Cold War on fostering fear and distrust between the US and USSR?

In 1998 when the US and the former states of the USSR launched their components of the International Space Station it obligated our great nations to continue to grow in understanding and cooperation. Today these weary enemies of the Cold War not only cooperate but trust and rely on each other. For the peace of mind, the cost of the International Space Station seems a bargin in comparison to fifty years of Cold War.


$30 million to drive a rover across the moon? What's that got to do with internet ads? Do the shareholders know about this?


Ban25: Google putting a rover on the moon (be it themselves, or someone going for them) equals a stroke of advertising genius!!Which reminds me- someone should put an end to government monopoly on space flights...Let the government regulate and ensure the safety of other projects, and let free market take us to the stars...Or a reasonably sized oligopoly, I guess....


NASA wears the crown of one of America's greatest organizations. In less than 10 years, a group of dedicated scientists and engineers sent the first people in human history to the moon. Spectactular achievement. Boredom led to cancellation of the program. Lately, robotic exploration of Mars has found evidence of water. Good for potential colonization perhaps. Spectactular achievement. Ho-hum publc response. Where is the sense of adventure and exploration? Its not a bloomin' video game! NASA is great in science and engineering, and less great in explaining science and engineering, which is as it should be. Perhaps NASA should invite artists, poets, composers, and writers on EACH of its missions, for free, to write about the experience for the popular culture, so that it can be "digested" by most of the world, made into sit-coms (ala "I Dream of Jeannie") art, and musical works. I think that would do wonders for public support and budgets.


Though an avid reader of the Economist and someone who agrees with many of it's points of view, I disagree with the Economist's stance on space travel.
My question is - what is the point of knowing about the planets through robotic exploration if we never really intend to do anything useful with that data? In other words, what is the point of just knowing?
Our space programs should be a prelude to colonization and we need data to know where water is, where minerals are, what the surface conditions are etc. What grander vision can NASA offer than colonizing the planets.


With the current energy problems, space based engineering efforts to collect sunlight and transmit it to earth base stations may finally come of age. Transmission of collected solar energy from geosyncronous orbital collectors and transmission to earth stations by laser or maser for infusion into a power grid has long been discussed. Zero carbon emissions, use of nearly available technology, and a great need met. Sounds like a mission plan?


Illusion (computers) is better than reality (Apollo) because reality (Apollo) is illusion (television)?

Methinks the illusion of the Economist's high standards is better than the reality.

John B Goodrick

Why do humans dream? It defies all logic and reason to want to go where no one else has gone before. It also defines humans. Why do some children like to play in ponds or tidal pools, or open trunks in attics? And why do algebra and geometry fascinate some people or examining strange animals? And why did Spanish education authorities decide it was good for the Spanish astronaut Duque to visit schools?

I propose that the annual budget for NASA be divided by the number of American citizens and any country willing to provide the same level of support be invited to join in competing in providing personnel, equipment and direction. We could sell such an idea as stimulation of imagination of young people and challenging the imagination of adults.


Hopefully, NASA's already doing this. Just in case . . .I can suggest one NASA mission no one would miss--spaceship building. Instead of design and building all of its spacecraft in-house, like they did with Apollo and the Shuttle, ask for bids from private companies for craft with the needed abilities for different missions. At most, NASA should just be experimenting with untested and too-advanced-for-prime-time technologies and techniques.


I think the robotic landers have had a strong cultural impact. Hubel defently has.

The shuttle was a huge mistake. Only the Hubble repair missions were worth a dam. The Aries V ane I will be cheeper and more logical. The Aries V will focus on putting tonnes of equipment into space and Aries I will be rated to put humans in space.

After the challenger blewup the Shuttle became a "closed" system. Not even the Air Force could get time on the shuttle. The Aries rockets will be most valuble if they are "open" to the worlds billionaries who will find inovative was to use them.



Products and events


Take our weekly news quiz to stay on top of the headlines

