Slashdot Mirror
Neil Armstrong Criticizes Obama's Space Strategy
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."
The Shuttle basically is a jobs program (for Florida, mainly). But it's an awfully expensive one. Redirecting the funds to more efficient unmanned and private industry programs will accomplish more with the same money.
I don't think that, given all the other issues facing the country, putting together a space station or another manned mission are really priorities.
When will it be a priority? When China lands on Mars? When the EU, China or Russia colonize the Moon? When we detect an incoming asteroid?
This is shortsighted policy at it's finest. How much additional funding did NASA require to make Constellation viable? As I recall it was only a few billion. We spend hundreds of billions to force people into a broken health insurance market, hundreds of billions bailing out companies that deserved to fail and hundreds of billions invading countries that never attacked us. We can't find a few billion to keep a manned space program? Pathetic.
The dinosaurs died out because they didn't have a space program.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
...but manned space flight really hasn't done much for us.
You realize the computer you typed that message on was built using parts originally designed for the manned space program, right?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm not sure why clout should matter. Evaluate the arguments on their merits where possible. I am a fairly strong Obama supporter on most issues (I wish he'd be a bit more assertive on gay rights and financial regulation, but given I'm straight and work for a hedge fund, the feeling doesn't have the weight of self interest behind it), but the sole point of complete disagreement is his vision, or lack thereof, for NASA. I've heard the arguments that the "new" NASA will somehow develop all the necessary interplanetary exploration technologies instead of wasting money returning to the moon, but I'm skeptical that we'll develop useful technology without a direct mission requirement that it satisfies. It just seems like yet another step in the long, slow decline of our space program since the Challenger accident.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
So the space program not only killed seven people, but needlessly killed seven people.
If you can't take a little bloody nose, maybe you ought to go back home and crawl under your bed. It's not safe out here. It's wondrous, with treasures to satiate desires, both subtle and gross. But it's not for the timid.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So the new compromise is "half a spaceship"- one that can land, but not launch. Only a politician could invent that one. NASA programs have horizons of 10 -2 5 years, but politicians respond to two year election cycles. Bush cancels shuttle. Obama cancels is successor. Obama need better science advice.
Hopefully, that litmus test won't be applied. While I do have the utmost respect for Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan as people with brass balls the size of a Volkswagen bus, they are not accountants or business people. The number one financial rule in any project is: don't throw good money after bad money. It's gone. Don't make it worse. And from what I understand from the Constellation project, it was just not going to fly - not without pouring enough money and time into it to start from scratch. As a result, it makes sense to scratch it, even if this means short-term pain. What I'm hoping for is that the knowledge that we don't have a complete system for putting people and cargo into orbit spurs people into creating that system.
I really hope that the scratching of the Constellation project frees up the resources to create a real lifting program - or at least frees up resources to provide technical assistance to commercial ventures trying to do the same.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
It's not just that. It's also a question of getting something for your money.
Government all around the world give unemployment or 'make work' projects. The one good thing about Asia is their make work projects tend to be productive. Japan creates lots of jobs as it builds infrastructure like rail and roads and bridges... Maybe it's a waste of money. But hey, at least when they're done creating jobs, they have something to show for it. Not just the physical results, but also the retained skill sets.
Contrast that to just spending money on employment insurance, or making more BS government jobs with bureaucrats and lawyers and tax people.
So yes, maybe the space program is a waste of money. But I'd rather have my tax money go to people working at NASA pushing the envelope of space and engineering, than have people paid to do nothing productive (unemployed, bureaucracy, lawyers...).
War in Iraq or return to the moon? You had the choice and you chose poorly. Don't pretend that this is just the new guy's problem or that spending money on health care is the issue. If America is broke (and it is, as well as being broken) you have to be more circumspect about where you spend your limited funds. Constellation failed on the last guy's watch because the vision for creating it and the funds for building it were limited from the outset. See here: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09844.pdf
Actually, Armstrong is notorious for shutting up. He's a very private person and generally avoids the limelight. That's what makes his statement so surprising - he's usually gone out of his way to stay out of the political infighting.
If he's opening his mouth now, Obama's proposal must have rubbed him the wrong way in a really, really big way. When was the last time you heard a public statement from Neil Armstrong?
American Third Position
Finally, a real choice!
The US space program has killed 14 people within spacecraft, 3 more in a test craft.
Countless test pilots have been killed in experimental aircraft.
These people know the situations they're put in, and to die on the job like they did, and to call it needless, grossly insults their memory. These people put their lives on the line for the betterment of science and humanity and I highly doubt any of them would want it any other way.
yes..however NASA spent a shit ton load of money on companies tasked with developing systems for the Apollo.
The manufacturing techniques, systems design, and fab development we now use was all created to meet NASA's needs.
Think about that. Because of a large push from NASA, the computer industry was born. N private industry was seriously persuing making smaller faster computers. The few in the industry where still thinking large lumbering machines that would be usde by a few of the largest companies.
The computer industry is just one industry that got serious legs under it because of NASA.
Now think how much tax revenues is generated from just the computer industry. It that light the Apollo missions where some of the best investments ever made.
Ironically, that development is what made sending robots to other planets possible.
Frankly, I hate the Robots V. man debate. It should be Manned and robotic.
We need to be doing work that sets the foundation for interstellar missions.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It seems silly to think we wouldn't benefit from some other country's space program
So, their space program is going to employ American citizens, whom spend their wages in American communities and generate tax revenue for American Government? They will let their space program benefit our military, in the form of communications and recon capabilities? They will share all technologies developed for their space program without charging us for them?
so why not let them foot the research bill while we work on coming up with a sensible financial strategy
The 2009 Federal Budget included $3,100,000,000,000 of spending. NASA's 2009 fiscal year budget was $17,614,200,000. That amounts to 0.5682% of Federal spending. In reality it's considerably less than that, when you account for appropriations that weren't part of the budget (war spending, bailouts, stimulus, etc.)
I repeat my statement from another thread: Gutting the manned space program to save money is shortsighted and idiotic policy. NASA is not the reason that Federal red ink is spiraling out of control.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
"This will diminish America's technological superiority and our lead in spaceflight."
That's pretty stupid. Let me guess: You ahven't rad the proposed changes, and don't even understand what he wants cut?
Fucking idiot.
The constellation program was going poorly. The previous administration kept micromanaging it and demands result based on a complete unrealistic and made up timeline. Plus the results they wanted kept changing.
SO the contellation program had ended up with bugs and delays.
Thbis is not opinion, it's fact.
He doesn't want ti stiop manned flight; he wants it done properly.
"He has shown nothing but contempt for our allies"
Then why are all are allies praising him? why is are foreign relations doing better now then in the last 10 years?
Stop letting Fox news think for you.
"constantly bows (literally) to our enemies."
oh dear lord. Yeah, lets completely ignore other peoples social norms when trying to do foreign relations~
"Given that almost everything in the technology industry came directly or indirectly as a result of NASA and the space program, it's value is obvious"
which is why we wants to increase NASAs budget... dick head.
"The microprocessor, for example, was invented by Intel FOR the space program."
yes, and nw better robotics are being developed for the space mission. your point?
"A full blown effort to return to the moon, to stay there permanently, and to push on to Mars would greatly benefit not only the United States but the world
true, but to do it we will need robotics to help us. Why not send robots to build the basic structures before we get there? use robots to gather material? land supplies before men arrive. Use robots to gather basic soil samples and do analyses in the field. Put mankind there to do science and develop new technologies that will be needed to go to Mars, and then to planets around other stars?
"(and hopefully only"
your predjudice is showing, and it explains you're incorrect information and logical fallacies.
"With the cancellation of Constellation, we will be retiring the shuttle by next year, WITHOUT A REPLACEMENT EVEN ON THE DRAWING BOARD!"
SO you are saying we should keep putting money into a failing program just ebcase nothing else is 'on the drawing board"? really? talk about fiscal irresponsibility. BTW, there are several other programs 'on the drawing board' Once again, your irrational views of the president are causing you to make logical flaws.
"And to those who say "cancel the space program, we have hungry people here on Earth""
I dont' say that, and I am well aware of the benefits of space mission RnD. You seem to think there will be no benefit to mankind from developing robotic missions. Why?
Please read on what and why he want's to make changes. We can have a discussion on those merits without you bringing in you incorrect assumption about Obama.
You and people like you are starting to look ridiculous. You blame everything on Obama. You don't even discuss the pros or cons of what he suggests you simple take the 'Obama wants it therefor I'm against it and I don't need to bother to think a our it at all approach." You are better then that.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Manned space flight isn't about being "cost effective", "high priority", or "a good return on investment" (yes, I've heard all of these terms used in regards to spaceflight). It's about exploration, curiosity, and wonder. I challenge you to tell someone who was around on July 20, 1969 that manned spaceflight is pointless.
Challenge accepted! I was born just days after Sputnik was launched, and grew up as a space junkie, following every step of the space race, and watching the Moon landing live.
It was many things: a stunning technical achievement (we went to the Moon just as soon as it was technically possible to do so), a stunning geo-political achievement (showing - as it was intended to - the advantage U.S. society had over Soviet society, in a non-destructive manner), and one of the most important symbolic events in the history of the human race.
But it was a colossal scientific failure. Nothing was learned that would not have been learned at a fraction of the cost using unmanned vehicles. Even the "spin off" argument fails to recognize that a focused technology development program could have accomplished similar things far more cheaply.
And today, "return to the moon" lacks all of the favorable features of the Apollo program - it won't be a stunning technical achievement, or an impressive geo-political or symbolic one. It will just be another colossally expensive scientific failure, compared to what could be achieved with similar money on space probes.
It's about doing something simply to show that it can be done, like the explorers of centuries past. I suppose some people find that concept unimportant or even boring. I would say that those people are unimportant and boring.
But is has already been done. An actual viable plan to get to Mars would be a new exploration, but no one has ever been willing to put up the cash for that.
Did space exploration, and discovery end with Apollo? Hardly! Essentially all exploration and discovery has been due to unmanned probes and observatories, manned flight has returned essentially nothing along these lines. The one contribution it has made - fixing the Hubble - could have been finessed more cheaply and effectively simply by building and launching more Hubbles.
So yes, the symbolic value of manned space flight is past (unless genuine new goals are set and adequately funded) and the Shuttle and ISS operations have been a pointless waste of money. Expendable unmanned launchers and vehicles would have gotten us farther, faster and cheaper.
Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
We're not going to the moon to go to the moon; we're going to the moon in preparation for Mars. The problem it's being posed more as the former than the latter. I mean, if we can't even get to the moon, what chance do we have for Mars?
I'm not saying he's wrong, I just don't know the full context of his remarks.
With all due respect to those great men, and their accomplishments, they are wrong.
First of all, everyone take a deep breath, pull up Google, and remember that the space shuttle program was cancelled SIX YEARS AGO by BUSH. That is not a decision by the Obama administration.
Second, the Constellation program was already years behind schedule, billions overbudget, and would still have resulted in years of us paying the Russians for a ride to the ISS, if they could have even worked out the problems and gotten a system flying. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Constellation would have resulted in a massively overpriced, low flight-rate system that was no better than the shuttle it replaced.
By giving private industry more incentives to proceed with their plans for commercial spacecraft (which NASA was previously competing with and blocking investment in), the Obama administration has made it vastly MORE likely that we will return to the Moon and space in general. This time, we will have a business reason to STAY THERE, instead of just going sightseeing.
I am overall not a fan of the Obama administration, but on this one thing, they have absolutely nailed it. This decision is good for the space industry, good for America, and good for the future of mankind.
Necron69
Too much of this debate is focusing on whether the manned flight investments of the past were worthwhile. As if redirecting our efforts now would denigrate what Armstrong represented in the 60's. But that's not the question. The question is, given the initiatives now on the table for the future, both manned and unmanned, both in private industry and government, which are most promising and deserving of funding going forward? What is the mission compelling us to put so much of our limited S&T dollars into manned space flight going forward? There is none.
Neil Armstrong was on the Corporate Board of Thiokol, which became ATK Launch Systems Group. ATK Launch Systems Group was contracted to provide the solid fueled booster for Constellation. With its cancellation, ATK Launch Systems Group is losing value. Now ask yourself, how many shares of ATK Launch Systems Group does Neil Armstrong own from his time on the board? Somehow, I don't think Neil will be coming forth with the answer.
Support SETI@home
So, it's no surprise that Bush failed to fund the program fully, since he put our society 1 trillion dollars in the hole due to the war in Iraq. Now, NASA is cannibalizing all its other programs in order to save the one effort, the moon, and the larger goal of going to mars has been largely forgotten. What Obama did was right.
(Sure, go ahead and mod me down, but you can't escape the fact that Obama is facing a reality where the budget needs to be cut to bring the deficit under control, whereas the past administration and congress continually lived in fantasyland believing that they could spend whatever they wanted.)
Gentlemen! You can't fight in here, this is the war room!
Ares/Constellation was attempting to create a new 'modern' rocket versus 1970's technology. You can't simply take new technology, strap it together with a rocket and watch it fly to space and back. This takes time and money. The fact that Neil Armstrong rarely speaks out should say more about what he thinks then anything else. Maybe he does have some support for his employer, but that is besides the point when he very rarely speaks out.
Rocket science is difficult for a reason....and the reason we won't get to the asteroid belt in our lifetimes is because we have politicians who are not visionary and can only think up to 3 months in the future. We do not have a JFK in office to make goals and follow through on them. Say what you want about our current president and previous presidents, none of them has invested what is required to have NASA seriously content to explore like it is intended.
I am not arguing that commercial is not the way to go...its just that any commercial venture will have the same issues with rockets that NASA does. Until we have the technology to escape the gravity well of Earth reliably, space flight is an expensive luxury at best...and more then likely we will end up sinking just as much money in some commercial company as we would into NASA.