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."
What a moran. just because he one the Tour de France, doesn't mean he's qualified to comment on our president's policies!
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?
Buzz Aldrin (the second human to walk on the moon) has a different take
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.
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?"
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.
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
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
Last public statement I can remember from him was... *checks watch* ... July 20th, 1969.
Armstrong is also an engineer and served on the Challenger shuttle accident investigation board. Up till now he has stayed clear of politics and has been on the board of directors of many companies so yes he is also a business person.
Jim Lovell has fromal education includes
University of Wisconsin–Madison
United States Naval Academy (BS, 1952)
United States Naval Test Pilot School, Naval Air Station Patuxent River, Maryland (1958)
Aviation Safety School, University of Southern California (1961)
Advanced Management Program, Harvard Business School (1978)
I think that last one means that he has a firm grasp of business as well as engineering.
Cernan only has two degrees in engineering so he may be the least qualified of the group but then President Obama has zero education or experence in business, engineering, or accounting. His degree is in law.
Frankly these man have nothing to gain at this time. They have all done what a very select few people have done. They are all pretty much set for the rest of their lives so they don't need any more money. To dismiss them I think is the height of arrogance.
And to make matter worse President Obama isn't saving money by killing the Ares he is changing it from a program with at some goals to a welfare program! We are going to keep spending money on developing the Orion but instead of using it for maned flights we are going to use it as the worlds most expensive life boat for the space station.
We are still going to depend on Russia for manned access to space.
We are going to spend money on developing a HLLV with no goal or mission for it!
Yea this is A FREAKING NIGHTMARE OF A PLAN!
What this will let President Obama do is kill them off piece by piece but only after dropping many billions of dollars on them.
Frankly this plan seems to be to be the WORST POSSIBLE plan. Frankly it sounds like something Col Hogan would talk Col Clink into doing!
So to all those that willing to dismiss these three well educated, extremely brillant, and wise men I just want you to think about it long and hard.
This is a freaking disaster.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
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
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
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
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.
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
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?
Wow. You are so misguided, there's hardly space here to correct you, not that I would expect you to be swayed by reality, anyways.
To call the Constellation program "mostly-completed" is purest fantasy -- the paper designs are years behind schedule, simple matters of, say, building and testing the boosters, engines, capsules and control systems are left as an exercise for the reader. The fact that the concepts and designs are simply a rehash of Apollo makes the lack of performance on Constellation just that much sadder. Fact is, buying Soyuz rides to the ISS for years and years was already part of the plan, even if Constellation had stayed on schedule.
Second, the notion that ANY Administration would base the entire national space policy on who holds a single Congressional district is just delusional. Fiddling the budget between Ames, JPL, JSC, KSC, etc. sure, but axing a cornucopia of aerospace contracts like Constellation actually shows the political will to piss off a LOT of people in a lot of districts. I actually have to give the Administration points for recognizing that the project was way over-budget, way behind schedule, not very well thought out and giving it the axe. Then they turned around and increased NASA's budget for things that actually might prove to be useful (or at least more interesting than the "Hummerrrricaa!! FUCK YEAH!!" that putting men in LEO provides).
Calling someone else a "total scumbag" in a sentence where you've already mentioned Tom DeLay is grammatically incorrect. It's like saying "Sure, Stalin was bad, but Dave in Accounting is evil".
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
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.
Calling someone else a "total scumbag" in a sentence where you've already mentioned Tom DeLay is grammatically incorrect. It's like saying "Sure, Stalin was bad, but Dave in Accounting is evil".
To be fair, Dave in Accounting steals my lunch out of the office fridge every goddamn day, and Stalin never did that even once. So yeah, Dave is fucking evil.