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."
I don't know how long ago this letter was drafted, but in response Obama has already changed some of his plans for NASA: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/13/AR2010041304043.html
How about a slashdot story about that rather than old news?
Government funding of space travel? I dunno, sounds mighty socialist to me. If we didn't cut funding I bet Obama would launch a statue of Lenin into orbit to gaze down disapprovingly at our capitalist paradise!
In all seriousness, without a good heavy launcher we'll be at a strategic disadvantage, and the constant scuppering of next-generation space vehicle development is starting to look really stupid. Between VentureStar and Constellation, exactly how many tax dollars have been wasted because some penny-pinching bureaucrat decided it would be "cheaper in the long run?"
It's interesting to note that the Air Force is taking over low-high orbit exploration. I recently read an article that if not mirrors slightly what Armstrong is talking about; it certainly elaborates on what proposition America has for it's space exploration future. The Air Force is proposing a new reusable platform aircraft for exploration; following in the long line of advanced craft with the same naming convention such as the Bell X-1 (which broke the sonic barrier) http://www.dailytech.com/US+Air+Force+X37B+Reusable+Spacecraft+to+Launch+Into+Orbit+Later+This+Month/article18077.htm, You'll also note that Nasa has recently started arming unmanned craft with scientific equipment; http://www.dailytech.com/NASA+Global+Hawk+Completes+First+Science+Flight/article18096.htm I certainly think were in a transition right now with our space program, With the Air Force reusable platform; It's a scary thought should they decide to make it a weapons platform. I think we should see what's going to happen to our space program; also speak out if we don't agree as americans with what is happening to our space program. It was an awesome step that kennedy took in '61 and what we accomplished on July 20, 1969. It's unfortunate we haven't been back in 40 years. Lets see what we can do now with current technology.
Of all the things I've lost; I miss my mind the most. - Mark Twain
Apollo Astronauts: Obama Space Plan Will Put the U.S. "on a long downhill slide to mediocrity"
April 14, 2010 (LPAC)—In an open letter, obtained by long-time space reporter Jay Barbree, and first reported on the NBC Nightly News Tuesday evening, three of the Apollo astronauts who embody the dedication, no-nonesense attitude, and commitment that brought this nation to the Moon, attacked President Obama's proposal to kill NASA's Constellation program. Neil Armstrong, Commander of Apollo 11, which landed the first astronauts on the Moon; James Lovell, the Commander of the near-fatal Apollo 13 mission (NASA's "finest hour"); and Gene Cernan, Commander of Apollo 17, and the last man to set foot upon the Moon, described the cancellation as "devastating."
Reprising the history of the American space program, the three former astronauts state: "World leadership in space was not achieved easily. In the first half-century of the space age, our country made a significant financial investment, thousands of Americans dedicated themselves to the effort, and some gave their lives to achieve the dream of a nation." No program in modern history, they state, "has been so effective in motivating the young to do 'what has never been done before.'"
Nor was the development and design of the Constellation program haphazard or ill-conceived, they state. "The Ares rocket family was patterned after the [Wernher] von Braun Modular concept so essential to the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn V" rockets, which took them to the Moon. Although we will have "wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation," equally important, "we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have destroyed." This, for a second time, following the cancellation of the follow-on missions to Apollo, to live on the Moon.
The timing of this letter is no accident. On Thursday, President Obama makes a whirlwind stop in Florida, at the Kennedy Space Center, to try to sell this destruction of manned space flight. Three days ago, more than 4,000 people rallied nearby in protest, to tell the President what they think of his plan. There has been virtually NO support anywhere for this "outsourcing" of NASA. Out of 435 Representatives and 100 Senators, ONE has backed the President. And he will see, again, the outrage of the American people.
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.
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.
"You will pay for your lack of vision..." - Emperor Palpatine to Ray Charles
Robots can't do everything repairs to equipment for one are tough to do because of the delay and not seeing the full picture. Manned endeavors are ways to get the general public interested in science again to do this requires great feats which have been canceled by Obama so we don't intimidate countries that hate us. Furthermore I think it is Obama's goal to make the US weak because nobody hates a loser, but nobody respects one either.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
War provided the necessary impetus to develop the technologies. The fact that we invest more in research during war doesn't make investing in research bad. Investing in pure research is hard to sell though, so we hide it behind something more impressive. Personally, I'd rather we hid it behind a peaceful space program, rather than hiding it behind bombing people in the stone age back to the pre-Cambrian, but that's me.
$_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
Maybe they could scale Constellation down to reach LEO (low earth orbit). Forget the moon, that is just going into another gravity well. it is not a "stepping stone" to mars, the asteroids, or the other planets.
The Soyuz spacecraft is based on a diving bell and was outdated almost as soon as it was built. It would be a shame if that will be the only way to get humans into space.
...like sending them up to the Indian space station, or visiting the Chinese moon base.
If you take the long view, Obama's plan to slow down the US space program may be the best thing for it. The most progress NASA ever made was while trying to catch up with the Russians, so trying to recreate the same circumstances might...
Nah, I've tried, but I can't really defend this move. I understand the reasoning behind it, but it looks like it's going to cause more harm than good.
Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity.
Hate to break it to you, Neil, but we've been on the long downhill slide to mediocrity in the USA for quite some time now. It's nothing short of a miracle that NASA has resisted this for so long.
In almost every major technical and intellectual endeavor, we're worse now (relative to other developed nations) than we were 20 years ago:
And Obama is doing his part to encourage this long, downhill slide into mediocrity.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
Ask ten different scientists about the environment, population control, genetics and you'll get ten different answers, but there's one thing every scientist on the planet agrees on. Whether it happens in a hundred years or a thousand years or a million years, eventually our Sun will grow cold and go out. When that happens, it won't just take us. It'll take Marilyn Monroe and Lao-Tzu and Einstein and Morobuto and Buddy Holly and Aristophenes .. and all of this .. all of this was for nothing unless we go to the stars.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I guess that's why the '70s were such a golden economic age, with low inflation, low unemployment, and high Dow. Oh wait...
Well, space research started in the late 50's, and Apollo was over and done by the very early 70's. Expecting a benefit in 10-15 years isn't exactly short-sided. Instead, we had the economic malaise of the period. The space program has always been about bread and circuses, so once the show is over all you have is nice memories of essentially meaningless stunts.
A few guys on Mars could do what the rovers have done in a couple of months.
Actually, I've read somewhere that the amount of geological study performed by both Spirit and Opportunity together (I think) would amount to a single Earth's geologist's (busy) working day - perhaps save for the distance traveled. Pity that I haven't saved that bookmark.
Ezekiel 23:20
And the chemical eventually chosen to replace those used in refrigeration, and also in many other things, was Freon, a chlorofluorocarbon. It was invented by Thomas Midgley, Jr.
He also was the bright person who realized that adding tetra-ethyl lead to gasoline made an engine stop knocking. He was responsible for the 'discovery' of, or the discovery of a use of, two of the most dangerous chemicals of the 20th century. Freon did great damage to the Ozone Layer. Humans living today have some 600 or so times more lead in their systems than those who lived before the use of tetra-ethyl lead as an additive in gasoline.
Truly, the world would be a better place if he had picked another career, like dentistry, if he had to be born at all.
The more you know!
Edward@Tomato - /home/Edward/ man woman
man: no entry for woman in the manual.
"Qua!?"
"Queen Isabella, that Chris Columbus fellow is asking for another audience. He's still trying to get funding for that foolhardy expedition to discover a shortcut to India by sailing WEST! I beg of you, please don't divert any funding from the domestic programs. Odds are it'll just be a waste of gold and the fool will just get himself killed."
Don't be so sure about that. For 2 years I was a single parent on welfare/food stamps going through school until graduation. Currently I work directly on Orion as a software engineer, my job likely being saved by the change in stance Obama has just (or at least will tomorrow) announced. And I've much more than paid back in taxes what I took out of the system.
It's amazing how the responsible people I know never got in trouble with the real estate bust.... yet those who lived beyond their means got bit in the ass.
And of course the best way to determine whether someone was responsible or lived beyond their means is whether they got into trouble with the real estate bust. Kind of a self fulfilling prophesy.
Anyway, Constellation was a welfare program for corporations. You do know that Neil Armstrong sat on the board of ATK Launch Systems Group (formerly Thiokol) and that ATK is a big loser in the Constellation cancellation. I wonder how many shares of ATK Neil has?
Support SETI@home
What a waste. A great man that decided to not use his fame to push his own agenda and to become of all things a TEACHER! I mean really what good is that.
Actually I give him more credit because of that. This finally pushed him to take a stand. It is a shame really that he needed to.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
I don't know many proponents of the private sector that believe it is the solution for everything. The private sector is better at job creation, it's better at near-term efficiency for most ordinary endeavors. There are a very few things, however, where it is more economically feasible for government to do a thing, than it is for the private sector. For example, maintenance of a military, or building a highway system that spans a continent; these are things where government successfully drives industry. The space program, in terms of the kinds of energies (literal and figurative) needed to succeed at it, is one of those few things that government can establish better than can the private sector. That's just basic economics.
Besides, I thought liberals liked nuance, or is that out of fashion now?
Which part of the computer? How about "semiconductors."
The Apollo Guidance Computer was the first computer based on semiconductors rather than vacuum tubes. It was estimated that building the ACG consumed close to 100% of the world's semiconductor fabrication capacity while the Apollo Program was in operation.
Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
Obama has a very clear plan. It goes like this:
1.Stimulate economy with massive government spending in 09-10.
2.Slash government budget in 2011. (this includes NASA funding)
3.Cross fingers that step 1 works.
4. Increased tax revenues caused by step 1 and spending cuts from step 2 yield budget surplus at then end of 2011.
5. Say, "See, I balanced the budget!" in 2012.
6. Get reelected in 2012.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Actually, I am a space scientist. In fact we know all to well about the economics of doing our work. For many years we've had to scrounge money and expertise to engineer our projects. I have been advocating in Canada for many years about the problems with the CSA supporting human space flight while leaving potentially important scientific work behind. That is how things like micro- and nano- satellites and the cubesats have evolved.
As far as one offs - you are obviously not familiar with space instrumentation. Most projects I have been involved with use sensors that were developed long ago and have just been tweaked for new technology and communication. The last imaging project launched in 2000 used the same sort of imager design done in the 80's. The same design is once again likely to be used on the next set of flights, just with upgraded technology - better detectors and communication hardware. Ever heard of the DMSP and LANL satellites? They have many satellites, and continue to launch them all with the same instrument packages. This is the same for sounding rocket launches and ground-based stations. It is the norm not the exception to re-use designs that work. One-off such as the Hubble telescope and CASSINI tend to take millions and billions of dollars that few people can even get.
And believe me when I say, the data we retrieve is EXTREMELY important to us. We are careful to make sure that our projects are as cost-efficient but still get a "bang" for our buck. Many satellites we keep running long past their lifetimes, even if it is just for one or two instruments, the simple fact is that these instruments are generally hard to replace (money is usually the sticking point - competition for it is extreme).
So unless you are an actual expert in space science and instrument design, I would be very careful about who you insult.
Comment removed based on user account deletion