Star Trek

I've been under the impression for quite a while,
that NASA dismissed the International Space Station
as a white elephant and couldn't wait to get out of
its obligations to it. Leaving it to ESA, JAXA, etc.

So, I'm a little confused on why buying rides with the
Russians to that very same station is so attractive?
Is it just to give our astronauts something to do?

Growing large crystals and doing taste tests for Coca
Cola doesn't seem to justify the expense. After a few
Russian rides, we could've afforded a brand new shuttle!

To bad we were leaders in space exploration, now we are tourists.

The Soviets and China will be the first on Mars and beyound.

The Soviets? Funny.

Yes the guys we are paying to take a tourist in the Soyuz to ISS

Russians ,Ruskies, Commies, Red menace what ever they like to be called these days

So MR - give us some ideas. How does NASA remake its image? 

Im actually quite disappointed in NASA for not focusing so much anymore on the space program

Fresh from Russia:

The Associated Press reports, "The Russians are hiking the price of rocket rides again for US astronauts - to nearly $63 million (per seat)." The higher price for 12 launches to the International Space Station starts in 2014. "NASA officials say inflation is the reason for the latest price increase." The article notes NASA Administrator Charles Bolden "says it's critical for US companies to take over this transportation job."

In an article for "Space Review", consultant James Oberg wrote about last October's launch of an upgraded Soyuz that was a "shakedown cruise" of how Russia may report issues when NASA will be more dependant on the country for launches after the shuttle program ends. After problems occurred during launch, Oberg noted there were only some mentions in the following months and "rumors" that turned out to be true but denied at the time by Russian officials. Oberg detailed the issues, how he learned of the issues, and how NASA denied him a report by astronaut Scott Kelly about the spacecraft when he filed a FOIA request. To Oberg, "until a more transparent culture is put in place, there is no reason to have any confidence that the full extent of specific risks is being made known to the appropriate decision makers on the US side."

Sounds logical

Can't happen in human affairs

Let's keep it real, politicians blow with the wind and the government is probably too bureaucratic for the real risk and long-term investment that comes along with space exploration. Then, you throw in a fickle populace who aren't generally science-minded (because the space race really was about beating the commies after Sputnik's launch in 1957 more than it was about exploration) and a craptacular economy and these are the types of the decisions that will be made. I don't fault Bush or Obama who realistically have to deal with folks wanting to know where the money is going. People like us who can wax poetic about the benefits of space exploration and can think long-term are drowned out by the joe Dirts who aren't impressed with shuttle launches to nowhere (which the ISS really is).

Perhaps it is time that private industry/academia took the lead in space exploration, with goverment being a distant third partner. These groups have the luxury to think long-term and don't have to be beholden to public expectations.

Look at what Sir Richard Branson is doing: http://www.virgingalactic.com/

I also think NASA will continue to play a pivotal, though less risky, role in unmanned exploration for the short-term. My goodness, look at what has been accomplished already:

Voyager 1 and 2 are headed toward the edge of the solar system: http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/

Galileo's exploration of Jupiter: http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/galileo/mission/index.cfm

My personal fave, Cassini-Huygens and Saturn: http://saturn.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/overview/

Mars Rover Mission: http://marsrover.nasa.gov/home/

And HUBBLE! http://hubble.nasa.gov/

Yeah, NASA's direction, funding, and space program sucks right now, but all is not lost.

The ISS is not a "nowhere", no more than the Scott-Amundson South Pole station. It produces excellent science and a lot of human biology studies that are helpful on earth.  The lessons learned in it will also prove valuable when humanity is ready to taked manned space seriously.  However NASA does a terrible job telling this to the public.

They need to fire their entire PR department and find people who know how to talk and sell to the public.

Sorry, I disagree. I didn't say it wasn't useful or that it was a waste of time and money. Maybe I'm just being cynical, but it's easier to hype a mission to the moon or Mars or someplace other than low Earth orbit.