To pick up on a sentiment expressed recently in some threads here:

Until a few days ago, my opinion was that 2004 was a great year for space, and that things in space in almost all fronts were getting better. For me, the most significant event of the year, by far, were the SpaceShipOne flights and the announcement that Virgin Galactic will fly people into space by 2007. I thought that the Bush space plan might actually work this time, as the only space "vision" that failed was the much more poorly thought out and presented SEI. We had the tremendous robotic successes of the Mars rovers, Cassini, and Stardust. (And MESSENGER launched - bet you didn't remember that). We had the X-43 fly a scramjet - twice. We had Spitzer start oprations (remember Spitzer?). I thought that the only major setbacks were Genesis and the Hubble fiasco, which largely seems to be to be the result of a bad political decision by Sean O'Keefe.

In an issue of Discover magazine I read an opinion peace describing NASA's "annus horriblis", which cited the Hubble problem, the Genesis crash (which, while not good, I don't think is agency-shattering. Just a bad switch), and the continued, expected problems with returning the STS to flight. I didn't buy it. But then I saw a similar argument at the Encyclopedia Astronautica, which is generally a good source, and I began to wonder.

But now since the Bush administration announced (is going to announce) a cut to the Hubble servicing mission, whatever it may be, I'm beginning to wonder whether it really did just throw out the space vision as a political stunt. If that's what's happening to Hubble, then I no longer have any confidence that New Horizons will be launched, or that JIMO will get off the ground. TPF will be launched in 2060, if ever. If the Bush space plan does go down the drain, then I am convinced that it is the end of all hope for NASA's manned spaceflight program. We'll fly the shuttles for 15 more years, keep throwing more money at the ISS, and then we'll have another fatal accident that could very well be the end of it all. Perhaps robotic Mars exploration will still be successful, but little else. I'm beginning to think that the Bush administration's (lack of) support for the HST demonstrates that it really is not willing to throw its weight behind the space vision.

If this is true (I desperately hope not), then NASA may very well cease to be an important player in manned spaceflight by 2015. I still see a robust private spaceflight industry taking place; with guys like Burt Rutan at the helm, I have confidence. I see two scenarios for space by 2015 or 2020:

Scenario 1 (good): The Bush space vision plays out successfully. NASA starts flying an Apollo-style capsule and starts a regular lunar landing program. JIMO, New Horizons, JWST are launched before 2020. HST was serviced by a manned mission. Private industry starts a robust suborbital spaceflight tourism industry and is just starting to get into orbital hotels. NASA acts as a trailblazer for the private companies, demonstrating risky technologies or lunar landings, and private industry follows.

Scenario 2 (bad): The Bush space vision deflates by 2006. HST is left to die. The Shuttle starts flying again to the finish the never-finishable ISS, and has another fatal accident. All the above mission are delayed or cancelled. The Shuttles are grounded permanently, and no real alternative is on the horizon. While private industry moves unbeatably far ahead of NASA, it is left as a lumbering bureaucracy which continues to issue press releases about how every research project it funds and then cancels two days later will discover a new drug that can only be made in zero-g or will otherwise unlock the secrets of the solar system.

Those are the possibilities I see. Perhaps I'm being a bit too cynical; I don't know. What I want to hear from you guys is: what do you think will happen? Was 2004 a great year or a lousy year for space? Will NASA take the lead or the back seat? By 2010, will we look back and say, "2004 was the year when we turned oursevles around and finally started a serious space program", or will we say, "2004 was the year where everything seemed possible - and then it all went downhill"? I still hold out hope that private industry will perhaps provide a real space industry, so maybe we don't need to rely on NASA for space exploration anymore. But there's no way to tell at this point.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

As with many polls, I am missing answers.

For example, I can't answer something like "it was a good but not an excellent year" without being drawn into failures. Personnaly I don't remember many failures this year, except for the solar particle collector's return.

My personal answer is "excellent" however (which happens to be one of the options). The MER mission (except for the first 10 days or something of SPirit, which was 2 years ago but anyway), Huygens-Cassini (mainly Cassini last year), SS1, the solar particle collector (eventhough it crashed, because it still has scientific value, at least that was the last I heard about it), the Hubble "very old galaxies" picture (or was that 2 years ago?), the first words on the Clipper, SMART-1 reaching the moon...

Lots of more-than-ordinary missions last year. If 2005 becomes something like that, we're in! And it started very good with Huygens.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

I think that 2004 was a fabulous year. We've had the successes of the Mars Rovers and Cassini. These projects have given us a sense of exploration of the universe, and they have done so without risking human lives.

Every time a life is lost to the space program, the world loses a conscious mind that appreciated the beauty and power of the universe. To me, that loss outweighs any possible gain from a manned space program. The present unmanned program is giving us great gains without risking that ultimate loss.

I'm not sure you can take the administration's abandonment of HST as representative of its seriousness about its own "space vision." My impression is that Bush's space plan was more focused on manned exploration of the Solar System, and how does a space telescope help us with that? Maybe they're going to cut funding for unmanned probes and observatories so they can spend more money on sending people back to the Moon.

And if so, is that a step backwards or forwards in space exploration? Kinda depends on your priorities.

The last decade has been good, with some noteworthy screw ups. You know, conversion goofs flying satellites into the ground, fly by night designs never working at all, spacecraft disintigrating on re-entry.

On the other hand, its had some pretty amazing triumphs. Two major planets with dedicated probes uncovering more about them and their satellites than we ever imagined. Solar weather being reported like the weather outside and its implications for a technological society understood more fully. A new world shrouded for decades uncovered, another world now seeing its first wide ranging on site exploration. A new probe launched to a world not visited in decades to fill in the gaps left behind. A new form of propulsion once thought to be pure science fiction made real and operational. Comets being visited for the first time up close and personal, an asteroid being given similar treatment.

Its been the best of times, its been the worst of times, same as it ever has been.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

With the Mars rovers and Cassini, it was certainly a good year. I don't know about "the best in decades," even though that's what I voted for. I'd have to go back and think about previous good years - for example, what else happened the year Pathfinder landed?

__________________
Everything I need to know I learned through Googling.

MGS? Cassini launched? Although I'd certainly put Cassini more in 2004 than 1997.

__________________
"Too low they build, who build beneath the stars". - Edward Young, 1745

As others already pointed out, cutting Hubble is entirely consistent with Bush space vision. It is NOT about science, but about human expansion into solar system. For that matter, manned spaceflight was NEVER about science. First it was about beating the Soviets to the Moon, and after 1972 it was about... circular self-justification. At least Bush is breaking that circle.

__________________
Fiction has to be plausible. Reality is under no such constraint.

What gives you the right to decide whether someone else should risk their life doing something they want to do? People risk their lives everyday, often for far less gain! If no human ever took risks, we would still be huddled in caves! Nobody is telling you to go into space. Please return the favor by refraining from telling others that they cannot go because you don't think it is safe!

__________________
Any day you wake up on "the right side of the dirt" is a good day.

T. Anderson

I am not claiming the right to decide anything, Kaptain K. I am merely answering the poll and expressing an opinion, as others in this thread have done.

I picked the "Good...." but I don't agree with the failures. Some really big successes like the Mars rovers, Cassini, and Spaceship 1. I'd say it actually approached excellent, but not the best in decades.

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

If I had to pick a best year in space exploration, it would have to be 1969. All the knowledge about the universe is meaningless unless we're up there experiencing it for ourselves.

Without manned spaceflight to follow up, the only thing that we'd truly gain from understanding the universe beyond our atmosphere is how much time we have left before the Sun turns us into crispy critters. I refuse to accept such a limiting view on human survival.

__________________
I'm not completely heartless, the doctor who removed it told me he'd never be able to get it all.

We have only few billion years left to make up our minds about that .

I think we don't necessarily need to go someplace to really gain from it. Knowledge gained indirectly elsewhere can serve us here. And then there's knowledge for the sake of knowledge. After all, we are umans.

__________________
To the regular visitor of internet bulletin boards it is clear that it's an excellent idea your parents get to choose your real name.

2004 was a great year for space exploration not merely because what happened, but because of the new mindset it helped foster.

We don't need Soviet-style Nasa spaceprograms that cost gazillions and don't serve any purpose, a profit seeking space industry can do much more, well, maybe not yet but it's a beginning, investors are looking now.

We MUST explore our Solar System because it's the only way we can cease to exhaust our planet. The Solar System contains so much hydrogen, helium-3, platinum, oxigen, water and other stuff that we can go on for millenia without touching earth's rivers or gas-reserves. A hundred tons of helium-3 could power all of earth for decades. All of the helium-3 and other fusionable gasses could power earth for billions of years even if our population grows 2 thousand times and the per-capita consumption of energy increases by 300 times. Read Mining the Sky by John S. Lewis. "The Solar System is ours to Take!!!!!".

We already have the technology, and fusion is not here yet due in part to lack of funds.

With all due respect, all of this probe stuff is just a pile of junk unless they are there to discover potential resources to improve the lives of the billions down here. Only when we start to harness the unbelievable power of the Solar System will we be able to save our ecosystems and develop the science to understand whatever scientific questions we want.

And 2004 will be remembered as the year when you and I were forced to admit that we can dream of a fantastic future, that we can build this future and take part in it, instead of expecting a government bureaucracy to send its employees to plant a flag and collect a rock in Mars by 2078.

Those who mock space tourism as too trivial must be reminded that it was in search for better spices that the Portuguese kicktstarted today's global society.

Really?!?

I'm torn between the promises and my chain of thought that has us all stuck on a damaged and overpopulated Earth with modern civilizition collasping.

I kinda wanted to live in an O'Neil cylinder.

Who will planet the flags on the Moon or Mars ?

A look at NASA's newest astronauts:

_ Joseph M. Acaba, mission specialist-educator. Acaba, a middle school science and math teacher in Dunnellon, Fla., has two degrees in geology. He worked as a hydrologist before becoming a teacher and spent two years in the Peace Corps in the Dominican Republic, where he taught people about the environment. The 38-year-old, who was born in California, has three children.
_ Richard R. Arnold II, mission specialist-educator. Arnold, a math and science teacher who has taught in places ranging from Morocco to Romania, has a master's degree from the University of Maryland. He most recently taught math and science at the American International School in Bucharest, Romania. The 42-year-old is married with two daughters.
http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/mld/l...l/13849622.htm
_ Randolph J. Bresnik, pilot. Bresnik, a U.S. Marine Corps test pilot based in San Diego, is approaching 3,000 flight hours, including a recent tour in Iraq. Bresnik, 38, grew up in California and has a master's degree in aviation systems from the University of Tennessee at Knoxville.
_ Christopher J. Cassidy, mission specialist. Cassidy, a Navy SEAL, recently returned from a second tour in Afghanistan. He has a master's degree in ocean engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The 35-year-old grew up in Maine. He is married with three children.
_ James P. Dutton, pilot. Dutton, a major in the U.S. Air Force based at Edwards Air Force Base in California, flew combat air patrols over northern Iraq during the 1990s. He has degrees from the U.S. Air Force Academy and the University of Washington. The 37-year-old, who grew up in Oregon and first wanted to become an astronaut in middle school, is married with three sons....