And lo, the vultures circle

Already we're getting articles about why we're still sending men and women into space if it's so dangerous. I won't quote Gus Grissom's views about the risk of life again, but here's a comment I left on sdelmonte's LJ in reply to this entry which I think bears saying (edited for minor typos):

There is a school of thought which says that manned spaceflight doesn't make sense and is inherently wasteful, and the money is better spent on scientific research of space than on high profile projects like the ISS which accomplish little but make people feel good. This school of thought also argues that telepresence and robotic probes are the way to go and NASA should concentrate its efforts on more efficient heavy lifting capabilities rather than feelgood missions. I can see their point to a certain extent - dreams don't pay for themselves, and if space travel to low earth orbit and beyond is ever to get anywhere to a point where it becomes as routine as a cargo plane taking off from one continent to another, it's got to be turned into a business.

As it is, I honestly don't see what the ISS is supposed to be, other than a very expensive Spacelab. I thought that the ISS was going to be an orbital shipyard, a way for us to build spacecraft in orbit cheaply so that we could launch from orbit to deep space without the need to boost ourselves with expensive fuel out of Earth's gravity well, but I'm not sure that's at all in the specs.

However, I don't see the concepts of space as a business and manned spaceflight as incompatible. Let's face it - the glamour and mystique of the astronaut is what draws people into the space program to begin with, and that's a huge recruiting plus. What NASA really needs is a vision and a direction, something that's sorely been lacking since Apollo shut down. Someone's got to take them by the balls and say, "Look, stop wasting time - take the money, go to Mars." Or back to the Moon, or the Asteroid Belt. Right now you've got competing interests yanking NASA all over the place, you've got a standing army of thousands of personnel overseeing the Shuttle which by this time should have been reduced to a standard ground crew. I can't look at the space program now and honestly say that its current model justifies its own existence. Where are we going? Where do we want to go?

In the end, though, I think the impetus for manned exploration will win. Even if it's a compromise of send the probes out first, then send men later like we did with Apollo. As Gus Grissom also said in that famous press conference where he said that the conquest of space is worth the risk of life, "Our God-given curiosity will force us to go there ourselves because in the final analysis only Man can fully evaluate the Moon in terms understandable to other men."

Essentially, it doesn't become real until one of us stands on the Moon, or Mars, or an asteroid, or one of the Jovian moons. Robots can show us the data, but there's little poetry in it - and the impetus to science is just as about the sense of wonder as anything out there. Dave Scott, commander of Apollo 15: "There's something to be said about exploring beautiful places... it's good for the human spirit." Dollars and cents can't take into account those intangibles, and it's those intangibles that will be ensure the future of a space program. The science is one thing, but it's not the only thing. It's also about colonization.

But Lord, we really need to get NASA's act together.