Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Neil Armstrong Criticizes Obama's Space Strategy

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the ok-you-can-cut-in-line dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Former astronaut Neil Armstrong has issued a strongly worded rebuke of President Barack Obama, criticizing the president for proposed revisions to the US space program. Armstrong, along with astronauts James Lovell and Eugene Cernan, called the proposal 'devastating' in a letter obtained by NBC News."

3 of 508 comments (clear)

  1. Another Former Astronaut by ral · · Score: 5, Informative

    Buzz Aldrin (the second human to walk on the moon) has a different take

    1. Re:Another Former Astronaut by darkmeridian · · Score: 5, Informative

      Buzz Aldrin had the best take on the goal to return to the moon. He said it was "more like reaching for past glory than striving for new triumphs." It's hard to ignore him. Aldrin was universally acknowledged by the Apollo astronauts as being the smartest. He was known as Dr. Rendezvous because all he focused on was orbital mechanics of spacecraft and getting them to line up. He graduated from West Point and then MIT. As he's a tough SOB. Some moon hoaxer who called Aldrin a liar and a thief got socked in the face.

      Anyway, Aldrin is a Republican who took Communion on the moon. It's not as if he's a Democrat trying to get behind his President.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  2. Re:Shut Up, Former Astronaut! by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 5, Informative

    That is a very salient point.

    But I still can't agree with his arguments (yes, I read them). I think killing NASA's booster programs HAD to happen.

    Let's not forget how this was supposed to work: NASA was supposed to build a manned program on the backs of the military's hardware. If there was going to be a major space program beyond that, it would be those same aerospace contractors who would be designing, building and supplying the systems.

    One of those military groups was the US Army at Huntsville. They were proposing to build a new booster called the Jupiter V that used several existing boosters to build a single rocket with a total of 1 million pound thrust. Meanwhile the Air Force was starting research on a 1 million pound thrust engine, which the Army was hoping to use to replace their cluster of smaller engines if that program went well. To further differentiate the new design from the older Jupiters, they re-named it Saturn, "the one after Jupiter".

    The Air Force would have nothing of it. They had already limited the Army to short range _weapons_, which is why the Saturn was a "launcher", not a "missile" (although there was TABS, look it up). As soon as Saturn was being floated the AF was all over it, trying to get it cancelled. Yet the newly-formed ARPA saw merit, and overrode their objections, causing a major hissy-fit in the Pentagon.

    So when NASA came along, everyone saw a way out -- hand Saturn to NASA. Now the Army would be out of the missile game, which would make the Air Force happy. ARPA would still get the spy-sat launcher they wanted, just built from a different budget. The rest is history.

    The problem is that NASA was suddenly in the launcher business, for no reason other than political expediency. And they've tried to hold onto that business since then, in spite of the major problems it's caused for everyone involved. If all went well I wouldn't say this, but it hasn't, so I think the evidence is clear that they need to get out of the launcher biz.

    Maury