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!
Buzz Aldrin (the second human to walk on the moon) has a different take
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.
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...).
Last public statement I can remember from him was... *checks watch* ... July 20th, 1969.
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
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