The Shuttle debate

The Orange County Register (here) had an editorial on NASA getting rid of the shuttle right now and privatizing the fleet.

The best approach now would be to scuttle all three shuttles, or privatize the fleet. The problem isn't just safety, but economics, said Ed Hudgins, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute and editor of "Space: The Free Market Frontier." He said each shuttle launch now costs $500 million to $1 billion.

"From a scientific view, very little is gained" from a shuttle flight, Mr. Hudgins said. The shuttle also provides services for the International Space Station, which in the 1980s was projected to cost $8 billion, but whose real cost now is expected to be $50 billion to $100 billion. "Again, the space station is doing very little science," Mr. Hudgins said.

I wonder if the private sector will be geared up to go. If we privatize will the space station be completed? A good argument for private enterprise, but my belief is private enterprise will not have the government red tape to go through.

In sum, half of NASA's $7 billion yearly budget goes to human space exploration – the shuttle and space station – money that could go to better uses, such as unmanned space exploration.

I still think "manned" or the PC "Human" exploration is important to the US. If we give up the shuttle and private enterprise does not ramp up then were will we be? Is the US going to let China or Russia take over space exploration for six years waiting for the CEV to be build?

Granted I favor private enterprise getting into space. But space exploration's history has had some hurtles to face. Will privatizing the shuttle help or hinder the USA space program stay the front runner in space exploration? My option is to complete the shuttle flights within NASA and retire it in six years. But I also favor private companies getting into the space exploration business. They will eventually take over the low orbit activities while NASA explores the outer regions.