Slashdot Mirror
Neil Armstrong To NASA: You're Embarrassing
astroengine writes "Neil Armstrong, Apollo legend and outspoken critic of NASA's current direction for human spaceflight, was joined by three other space experts to address Congress on Thursday. It wasn't pretty. Amongst the other criticisms was Armstrong's tough statement: 'For a country that has invested so much for so long to achieve a leadership position in space exploration and exploitation, this condition is viewed by many as lamentably embarrassing and unacceptable.' He might have a point, but Apollo 17's Eugene Cernan, the last man to walk on the moon, suggested the shuttles should be brought out of retirement to fill the U.S. manned spaceflight gap — a suggestion that probably rolled some eyeballs."
Thank you, maybe they'll listen to you. American space exploration has been in a state of decay for a over a decade.
To offset political mods, replace Flamebait with Insightful.
Manned exploration makes no sense. Just because Armstrong did it in his day doesn't mean it makes any sense now. The only reason to have manned shuttle at this point is the space station, but that has no point now either and is simply kept to fill prior agreements.
Time to move on.
Manned is dead, unmanned is the future.
A guy who walked on the moon thinks manned space flight is a good idea. Full story at 11.
In all honesty, manned space flight makes no sense right now, as it's not something that can be done half-assed. With the current state of American finances (and the petty squabbling surrounding it) , NASA will never get the investment they need to put a human anywhere that matters. Robotic and satellite exploration, however, is not out of reach at all. We need to do more of, and we need to invest more in it if we (the US) are ever going to maintain some innovative power going forward. Space exploration is the right thing to do, but we don't yet have the knowledge or technology to make meaningful manned missions.
My other sig is clever.
As a former "booster" of the space shuttle myself (way WAY back when I believed the promises being made about it), it was ridiculously expensive for the capabilities it brought. If they had kept the Satun Vs rolling off the production line, we would probably have had a HUGE space infrastructure by now with a colony on the moon and an outpost on Mars!
Reminds me (sadly) of the Arthur C. Clarke short story "Superiority" which describes a country at war that keeps developing ever more astonishing weapons in fewer and fewer quantities eventually leading to its defeat by its technically inferior enemy. (Probably was written before WWII where huge technological leaps clearly affected the war's outcome: A-bomb, radar, enigma).
Manned space flight should be put on hold until we're a rich country with money to burn and get our bloated defense budget cut by 90%. Scientifically, its a mission looking for a problem. The best science is with unmanned space exploration. Its at least one or two orders of magnitude cheaper plus the information gathered and scientific rewards are so much greater. What have we learned from the space station? Billions of dollars spent on a project looking for a mission. Look at what we've discovered from Hubble for a fraction of the cost.
it's not something that can be done half-assed.
The truth is its not something that can be done lard-assed. They can't find an American that will fit in a space-suit any more.
NASA should just reply with: "NASA to Congress, You're Embarrassing." I mean it's all about getting people jobs in your state and then protecting those jobs. Nobody in Congress truly cares if we get to the moon or even if the Space Station stays afloat, so long as nobody looses a job in their state on earth. It's time to give the decisions to nerds* at NASA. Let them tell congress what they need not the other way around.
*The Engineering kind who get really work done.
that would be such a wrong way to do things. you would cut a ton of innovation, which may help your debts.
its not as if the debts are at a amount that will be payed off in a year or 5.
In broad, total-budget-allocation numbers, it is unequivocally the case that the US seems to have backed out of a great many 'big picture' projects in favor of a mixture of foreign policy adventuring and financial jiggery-pokery.
In that sense, Armstrong is correct.
However, it must not be forgotten that Armstrong is also speaking in his capacity as one of the White Elephants. The people we sent to the moon pretty much to show Ivan whose dick was bigger. An impressive feat of engineering(that conveniently aligned with the Cold War enthusiasm for big missiles); but not really a high point for science. Those unassuming little RC cars on mars that survived so long did a fair bit more extraterrestrial data gathering, and a combination of orbital and improved ground telescopes have done extraordinary deep-sky work...
So far as Armstrong is arguing that there is something rotten in the US, he is correct. However, I can only take them seriously so long as he stays there, rather than expanding into a lamentation over the decline of the impressive, but scientifically dubious, in favor of unsexy but productive and increasingly robotic space work.The fact that it's easier to find money to save gamblers from the consequences of their own folly than it is to explore the universe is sad. The fact that tinned-monkey 'space exploration' is being supplanted by increasingly sophisticated robotic systems is not.
This is the 5th story about how Neil doesn't like the current direction. Everyone seems to think because he was first on the moon it means something. Should we ask the first soldier to hit Afghanistan wether the war should continue? Is his opinion more important?
But he is also wrong. NASA and the astronauts were political tools from the very beginning and today is no different.
When the astronauts themselves realised this they became incredibly jaded and it's why several of them went a bit doo-lally in the years afterwards.
I put my books on Amazon, Smashwords, Demonoid, ISOHunt and Pirate Bay. Search for 'Michael Cargill'
NASA sure has its problems, but I think Congress can be blamed for most of the embarrassing things.
I'm thinking pork barrelling, micro management, underfunding of stated goals.
When I think of the Mars landers that were planned for 3 month mission and 1 may still be running *years* later, I am in awe of NASA.
it's going to be cheaper and faster in innovation that the endless pork NASA projects that seem to cost more than the GDP of most countries
New tech will only come if somebody is trying to develop it. For that you need goals. Waiting for a government to pay all of it's debt off, waiting for everybody to be rich and nobody poor, that means waiting forever. Those things will never come. If we just quit trying then what is the point? We might as well go back to the Savannah and start hunting termites with sticks.
No, they both suck, just on different levels and in different ways.
No doubt you'd have been down there on the dock pointing and laughing at him,
He didn't say this to NASA, but to congress.
Really, I have a ton of respect for all astronauts and consider them true heros, but please don't resort to making sensationalist statements like (FTFA):
"A lead, however earnestly and expensively won, once lost, is nearly impossible to regain,"
That doesn't even make sense, how is it nearly impossible to regain a "lead"? The only reason he said that was to scare people. Remember at one point the Soviet Union was winning the space race, but the US eventually overtook them by landing on the moon. Now he is claiming that we are at risk of losing our leading position in space to the Russians. It seems that based on his previously quoted statement that should be nearly impossible.
Additionally, Eugene Cernan had this to say (FTFA):
"Get the shuttle out of the garage down there at Kennedy (Space Center), crank up the motors and put it back in service,"
I think all these men understand pretty well that that's not how it works. The shuttles are getting old, are a huge money pit, and they have already been in service longer than planned.
I think NASA's place in space exploration should start to move into an advisory one rather than an active participant, at least for manned exploration anyways. With the advances that the private sector and other space agencies are making, it won't be long before the only reason for NASA to do manned space flights is for the sake of American pride.
If what I just said sounded like a troll, it was probably just a failed attempt at humor.
Perhaps you should also be in awe of Lockheed-Martin and Boeing, who actually put the rovers onto Mars.
No, they both suck, just on different levels and in different ways.
They do both suck, but Bush funded NASA more than Clinton and Obama combined. For all the fucking up Bush did, hurting NASA isn't part of it.
In a word, NASA's problem is: Congress.
Congress's attitude towards NASA alternates between using it as pork spending, and seeing it as a horrendous waste of money. The major points of the space program from Congress's point of view was never to promote science or human exploration of space - it was to learn how to launch spy satellites, and prove to the world how much smarter the US was than those dirty Commies. Since the real motivations are gone, you're left with an agency that has a lot of smart engineers with a wildly fluctuating budget and no clear goal to work towards.
And because NASA projects last way longer than, say, a presidential term, there's no sign they're going to get a clear mission anytime soon.
I am officially gone from
You really are a fucking moron, aren't you?
NASA is not just essential to space exploration, but a constant source of improvement and innovation that you fail to consider as it works its way into facets of life on earth.
maybe in the future newer tech will make gaining escape velocity more cost effective
Force =Mass times Acceleration. Acceleration must be at least greater than 9.81 meters per second squared near the earth's surface. Even a "giant beanstalk" (aka "space elevator") must supply force at its high point in some fashion to counteract the pull of lifting an object from earth's surface (see also: "for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction").
This is not a "tech" problem. This is physics. Even with superheated steam propulsion powered by a nuclear micropile, Force Still Equals Mass Times Acceleration and we still have to design VEHICLES that can survive the acceleration stresses of launch and reentry.
and the space shuttle is like your uncle's old smoking oldsmobile 98 with the dents all down one side, (send it in the junk yard) it was nice a couple of decades ago but it is now showing its age...
What, precisely, is your point? The space shuttle is a marvel. Did we ever get "monthly launches" from them? No. And why not? Because the original fleet was supposed to be a DOZEN or more, until the Republicans chopped the fuck out of the budget; NASA barely got four at any time, and almost didn't get the budget for Endeavour to replace Challenger.
To steal your analogy: the Space Shuttle is like my car. I drive a 14 year old sports car. It's got a couple dents from the redneck fuckwits around here who can't be bothered to put their shopping carts up. It's got some spots where I've hand-repaired some of the interior, a few patches on the seats where the fabric got frayed. But you know what? The engine still gives a nice satisfying growl because I treat it right and my maintenance is on time, I still get 28 mpg, and I plan to be driving it for another 4-5 years.
I'll take a good, solidly running, well maintained 15-year-old car any day over an already rusty shitbucket like the Chinese are building, or worse yet, the 40 year old Yugo that is the Russian Soyuz system.
There are plenty of people currently developing new technologies. It doesn't have to be NASA, and it most definitely doesn't have to be the government.
For all ya'al who keep blaming Congress, realize that Congress has been the same bunch of jokers over decades, until there is culpability and weekly reports of what they have been doing, things will go on the same way, the public will look the other way and the politicians will spend tax payer money in rest area and airport urinals. I could never understand why people get so elated when an election contestant gets a ton of money for his campaign. What this means is he will just be offering that many favors to those who contribute more. Didn't mean to hijack, but if you want your best interests in Congress, make sure you act instead of whining.
who cares about the launch systems anymore?
NASA should focus on the science and engineering payloads, not on being over glorified space truckers.
leave that to private industry, they have been getting pretty good at progress at LEO lately
"manned spaceflight gap"
Not the "gap" crap again. Look up Kennedy's "missle gap" or "bomber gap" sometime to see how our overwhelming superiority in each area was successfully used to convince Congress to overspend on the same things even more.
(I wouldn't be surprised if we start hearing about a "carrier gap" soon now that China is poised to launch a group of their own.)
Boo hoo, we can't afford space flight.
Boo hoo, the people in favor of space flight are being influenced by the size of their ego's.
Look, the simple fact is that space flight is an impressive feat, giving engineers and scientists a worthwhile goal. To abandon it because of cost or to disdain it as some form of ego tripping is something that the US should not even consider. To say that we should postpone space exploration until better times come is a paradox; the better times (advances in engineering, computers, materials, energy) occur when engineers are working on challenging projects.
Turning the US's back on space flight is self defeating.
If anyone's going to be breaking the boundaries of human spaceflight in the next few decades, surely we shouldn't be looking at NASA...I, for one, am absolutely convinced that the first man on Mars will be Chinese. They're the guys who have the cash, the desire and the bordering-on-insanity conviction that can take them there. The global economy has taken this kind of stuff away from Western public expenditure, for a good long time at least...I guess if it's not going to be Asia, then it'll be private companies that will be the next organisation to take us beyond the 240,000 miles we've managed so far.
You should not be in awe of people who so wildly underestimated the capabilities of their own hardware. You should be questioning their technical acumen.
America does not need to worry about taking "humanity" to the space. China is going to take americas is place, the comunists, can you believe it?
The world has changed, bad for america and europe, good for the "3rds worlds".
There will be no more 1st and 3rd only, all will be 2nd.
Unless we are planning to stage nuclear weapons in space, the government is not really suited for the ongoing business of exploration. Such endeavor entails risks, both financial and human. The public will not tolerate it politically. Private enterprise, particularly corporate, is designed for this. A company knows how to quantify a human life and weigh it against the commercial gain. It may seem ruthless because it is ruthless. Space exploration by humans is not for the faint of heart or weak of will. Of course, in thirty years it will be obvious that machines are more capable than people and less costly in every way. Our ingenuity will obsolete our role in space.
What's needed is: A) small passenger shuttles *not* for payload delivery, B) cheap (per tonne of payload) heavy-lift conventional rockets for delivering payload to orbit. Put the two together in orbit and you can either do things there or head off to bigger missions. The idea of bringing the old shuttles back from retirement is stupid, because they were always an inconvenient chimera between big payload and passengers. If you mainly wanted to send passengers up, you had to lug up all that extra ship. If you wanted payload, it was always too small anyway or there were safety concerns because of things such as the solid boosters (necessary to get such a big ship off the ground) and the need to always have human-safety-level inspection and maintenance on such a big craft (slow turnaround). It was like a pickup truck -- convenient if you were always carrying plenty of cargo, but inconvenient and inefficient if you mainly wanted to carry people or wanted an even bigger cargo. Separate the two types of deliveries (cargo versus passengers), customize the vehicles for each, and you'll save money and complexity. Docking in orbit is easy these days, to the point that the Space Station already gets automated supply ships. There's no reason to have a single vehicle that does badly and expensively for two different jobs.
I am the last person who disrespects the way past generation, but I do believe we have to take what they say with a grain of salt. Each generation has to define their own direction, and not be hobbled with the pat saying this is how it is because this is how it was. People going into space may not be the best use of funds right now. If we had been irrationally attached to people in space, we would not right be exploring the Heliosheath. We would not know what we know about Mars. I would like to see hundreds of probes sent in many directions to do some basic science on our solar system. I would also like to see people traveling so they can see and describe in a way that machines cannot. We can have both.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
NASA's strategic goal was to force the Russian's to spend more money on their space program, while they maintained a healthy defense budget to protect itself from potential US threats. Now the USA has an obese defense/ security budget protecting itself from... ???? and it has managed to "bail out" several large companies with large PAC's to protect the USA and "global" economy from.... ??? If there is any question as to why the USA is falling behind, just read a little history about the cold war, or if you prefer the short version look at the National Budget ~20% GPD v. Taxes ~15% GDP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget I suspect that while Neil used the context of NASA, he was talking about a much larger problem than the insignificant budget of NASA, forget man space flight.
insert inflammatory comment here!
Maybe not shelved, but cut? Money is an input to the development process. What you come up with will be different if you have $X versus 10 * $X, but you can still come up with stuff. One obvious thing that inflates NASA's manned space mission costs is safety. The thing is -- how safe does it really need to be? Would there still be plenty of volunteers if the risk of a mission was higher, but much cheaper? As long as they're open and honest about the risks it doesn't seem like a big deal.
Neil, old chum, when you stop listening to RightWing Politics in a science debate and look at the evidence of the science, THEN you can call NASA embarrassing for their current direction on engineering, m'kay?
Congress is surely to blame for most of the embarrassment, for exactly the reasons Maow states.
The Shuttle termination is irreversible, though. Shuttle did its job (big heavy payloads and people to low earth orbit), in spite of Congress constantly cutting its budget. It was a good ride, in my opinion, Congress notwithstanding.
Money spent on NASA has done a lot more for us than money spent on welfare or foreign aid. Sad that this concept is totally foreign to most Americans.
Galactica & the fleet should arrive anytime now.
The Democrats seriously have a lot of people brainwashed to think they're for the little guy.
The bailout was bipartisan and not targeted to Republican supporters.
Citigroup, the largest recipient, in fact donated much more to Democrats than to Republicans.
Everything you use today is a result of the space program. Our current problems will not be solved by class warfare. Support technology or wallow forever propping up the welfare class. You do realize that there are people in this country who will never work, right? Its not because they are unable to do so, its simply because they can get more by not working. Everyday, I see men standing by the road waiting for noobs to give them money. They add nothing to civilization. If you gave them $10,000, they would not use it to get on their feet and get into the workforce. Instead they would squander it and then return to the street later for another handout. Case in point. A local homeless guy used to loiter around the corner store near my home. We all knew him. He was there everyday. One day, I see he has a brand new scooter. It turns out his father died and left him with some land. He sells the land at a discount for $10K. He buys a scooter for $3K. He uses the remaining $7K to buy beer. When he ran out of cash he sold the scooter for $500 so he could buy more beer. If you go into the woods near his tent, there is a mountian of trash and a gulley filled with beer cans. Its literally 6 feet deep. I heard from one of his pals that he is now living in a church sponsored apartment getting free cable. He likes to brag that he so far no one has complained about him getting pay per view porn.
First came the apollo space program and it ceased, then came the shuttle and it ceased, next will be the ISS to cease and then a trip to mars, and it'll cease. All until we find better ways of accessing space and other worlds coupled with a better way of living right here on earth. Try a little harder perhaps you'll be the one who makes a discovery that'll revolutionise space access.
-
If they would just fucking pick something and COMPLETE it, stay with the basic design and develop a wide base of manufacturing for it, manned flight would be cheaper and more reliable. The Shuttle was an expensive sports cars with too many moving parts and too few suppliers.
I think they were on the right track with the Orion, but once again it was killed half way through development. You can't keep killing development programs half way through and then wonder why NASA wants more money.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Oh, I know, those Mars landers were totally "am". That definitely helps makes your point.
(in general) escape velocity exists as a concept when you will run out of fuel before you reach your location and so are coasting along against gravity.
The kinetic energy of the escape velocity must equal or exceed the change in potential energy (due to gravity) required to raise you to the required height.
escape velocity applies absolutely to a catapult, not at all to a flying saucer with limitless zero-point fuel (which could ascend as slowly as the pilot liked), and somewhere in between for a rocket that has enough fuel for a couple of minutes lift away from the earth, to a point of lower gravity and therefore with lower escape velocity.
blog.sam.liddicott.com
It's simplistic to think of governmental budgets in the same way you might think of a household budget. Go and read some introductory microeconomics and contemporary political debate will simultaneously start to make more sense, and look utterly infantile.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from a rigged demo
--Andy Finkel (J. Klass?)
There really is a lock of money out there right now and manned space flight is expensive.
The government is in a hole right now because taxes ( via the Bush tax cuts ) are the lowest on wealthy Americans since the 1950s. Add to that two wars paid for with loans ( mostly benefiting the wealthy through defense spending and securing resources like oil ) and a bailout of the financial sector ( also paid out to the wealthiest Americans, no convictions ).
If you want manned space flight back, stop supporting going to wars on a whim and stop supporting candidates ( i.e. the Republicans ) who want to keep tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and who want to reduce taxes on the wealthiest Americans further.
So by that logic, we should close all military bases overseas, and pull out of Iraq, Iran, and Korea. This could get us out of debt, and clear the deficit in one fell swoop. In ten or fifteen years, we would be so flush with cash, we could afford to colonize the moon or something.
i agree mr armstrong! so lets cancel that nasty pork barrel that is constellation and buy up more spacex falcon 9s and falcon 9 heavies, and fully fund spacex's crew escape system for the falcon 9. well be able to drive down the price per kg to orbit, and send up more weight than we ever have before!
I grew up during the NASA - Race to the Stars era (1960's - 1970's - 1980's) and watched Neil Armstrong walk on the moon. .... You Da' Man !
NASA certainly has a lot of explaining to do about a great many things and I applaud Neil for standing up and sticking it to them in the hallowed halls of Congress.
Go Neil
After the first couple dozen F-22s are lost, and the first several thousand enemy planes, the enemy will be reduced to sending barely-trained newbies up to fight. The kill ratio will get larger and larger.
The Tiger II tanks weren't all they were made out to be, prone to failure and poorly built especially near the end of the war. Tactics used by the Germans didn't help, storing rounds in the turret, using it in sandy environments, and letting themselves get flanked so the light side armor could be hit.
Contrast: The 1,900 American M1 tanks used in Desert Storm. I think we may have had one damaged due to enemy tank fire. The M1's armor, firepower and night vision (plus tactics and training to use them effectively) made the enemy tanks almost completely ineffective. Almost all losses were due to friendly fire. You could have thrown ten times as many Iraqi tanks at them, and the results would have been the same.
...quantity has a quality all it's own.
So.... I guess you are a fan of Stalin?
This is not surprising given that the U.S. military spends more annually on air-conditioning than the entirety of NASA's budget.
When talking trillions of $ in government spending, it's thoroughly and completely embarrassing that an accomplished org like NASA has to scrap for a few billion
And what happens to the 17000 people directly employed by NASA and the 40000 people employed by subcontractors? Those are only direct employment numbers, there is a ton on secondary and tertiary jobs created by NASA spending. Shelving NASA would put tens if not hundreds of thousands of people out of work and close dozens of companies. Then there is the direct loss to the scientific community as well.
Tesla was a genius. Edison however was a overrated hack who liked to torture puppies.
you're right, i am a fucking moron, I am a fucking moron to believe the government will ever solve its debt problems or that NASA will ever be more than an insatiable money pit, i hope the USA collapses like the old Soviet Union did in the 1980's because it outlived its ability to govern itself effectively, and i am a fucking moron to respond to a an article about what a senile old man thinks that once flew to the moon when he should be playing shuffleboard in to Florida retirement home...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
Gene and Neil want to go on the shuttle, right?
Neil Armstrong is a true American hero and patriot, and I'm glad he had the opportunity and guts to tell Congress the very sad truth that under the current administration, our government has allowed NASA to completely fall apart. According to Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA) the ENTIRE 2008 BUDGET of NASA (NOT just the shuttle) was $17.3 Billion. This administration has wasted over $800 Billion in failed stimulus, all while castrating this agency which has provided America with so much technology that has been carried in to the private sector and our daily lives, as well as the non-tangible benefit of the PUBLIC PRIDE that our successes there have brought.
These days, our government spends over $11 BILLION PER DAY and BORROWS over $4 Billion of that money.. That's right - EVERY DAY.. Although I'm not in favor of INCREASING this number, it seems that NASA did an INCREDIBLE GOOD with what amounts to about 0.004% of the annual budget of our government, especially when compared to the money we WASTE on STUPID POLITICAL PAYOFFS to companies like Solyndra, getting HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF OUR DOLLARS as payoff to political friends of Obama. If anyone thinks that $17.3 Billion can't be shaved off the top to save NASA, they're very wrong.
I'm not an "Obama Hater" just to be an Obama hater.. I'm a GOVERNMENT WASTE HATER, and am just as against the $800 bailout that Bush initiated before he left office too. We need to stop taking partisan sides and blaming the other side, and we need to look at our priorities and fix the problems and restore pride in America. If we had any leadership in Washington today, we'd have a "Kennedy-like speech" in which we'd be challenged once again to stop looking to government for help, and be told that by the end of THIS DECADE that we would land AMERICANS on MARS, otherwise we're going to be RENTING research facilities up there from the Chinese in 20 years.
-Steve
BothSidesAreWrong@cherokeesystems.com
-Steve Tired of voting for the "lesser of two evils?" Come talk about it on www.bothsidesarewrong.com
LEO is not the same as Lunar orbit. When the private companies get there, then we can talk. (and I'm sure they will, eventually, cheaper and more efficiently than any government agency could do it)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Bush tried to enact stricter controls long before the crisis, but was continually rebuffed by the likes of Chris Dodd (the guy who got the favorable CountryWide loan) and Barney Frank. The latter is the guy who in response to a 2003 Bush proposal for tighter accounting of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac said they "are not facing any kind of financial crisis" and wanted to "roll the dice a little bit more" in relation to such institutions.
There's enough blame for all sides, corrupt Republican and Democrat politicians, and Republican and Democrat supporters lining up for their handouts from said politicians.
I just find it funny and sad how the Democratic Party has managed to brainwash much of the public into thinking they are for the little guy instead of the bankers and corporations. The uninformed automatically think it's the Republican politicians lining the pockets of their fat cat friends, not knowing the Democrats do it at least as much.
Unmanned spacecraft require just as much science and engineering, and is a better investment.
No, this is slashdot. Democrats are as pure as the driven snow, Republicans are responsible for all the world's problems.
The tech bubble burst at the end of Clinton's term. You can go look at the stock charts. Then 9/11 happened. But, oh, wait, that was an inside job, right?
What you should be so sick of is the fact that you are a pig ignorant, scummy sack of shit. You are completely and absolutely worthless, and the world would be a better place without you.
1. Develop space robot with designed lifetime of 5 years.
2. Send it on a "3 month mission"
3. Lasts longer than expected!
4. Everyone thinks you're a genius.
Bullshit. Most of Slashdot is whiny conservatives who just have to insult the people they're replying to, like this, or this, or this.
America does not need to worry about taking "humanity" to the space. China is going to take americas is place, the comunists, can you believe it?
Eh, what is there to believe? Communists (CCCP / USSR) did take humanity into space...
(1) If a nation attempts to assassinate our president, we are justified in toppling the government. That, by itself, was sufficient (although not necessary) justification for removing Saddam.
(2) We can't get rid of all tyrants at once. We have to take them out one at a time, as we can afford to. The fact that we can't do everything doesn't mean we shouldn't do anything.
(3) Nobody important claimed we were attacking Iraq because they caused 9/11. This is mainly a straw-man.
(4) If we hadn't spent 1T on the war, we MIGHT be 1T less in debt now. We would still be in great debt, and the biggest problems (those going on in Europe) having nothing to do with that war debt.
It's fun to believe that everybody that disagrees from you is just innately ignorant and flawed, isn't it? It means you never have to revise any opinion.
what was NASA's Budget pre-Obama? Ok, now what is it now? I think you now know why you are full of shiat.
A space station that can travel to the Moon and Mars is what NASA should strive for. Forget all the manned missions to the Moon: if you have a space ship can travel between planets, you wouldn't have to create infrastructure just for a specific trip to a specific planet.
2 and 3 are irrelevant. Step 1 is enough to justify step 4.
http://xkcd.com/893/
Robots are valuable scientific tools, but they are merely scientific instruments. They can gather data, and do a great job of it, but that's all they do.
Human spaceflight is not about gathering data. On the scale of human achievement, it's more akin to art, or sport. It's something humans do to inspire and challenge other humans. And not just astronauts or wannabe-astronauts, but engineers and scientists and science-minded kids on the ground.
Many of them will never travel to space, or even work on any space-related project, but many an electronics engineer or biochemist was inspired to study science by watching Neil bounce around like a monkey on that big rock up there. What's the scientific (and economic) impact of that?
Dear Mr. Cernan,
While I respect your contribution to the space program, you're wrong. Specifically, with respect to the Space Shuttle, it is too late. They've been pulled out of service, stripped of flight hardware, and decomissioned. Contracts have been cancelled. Staff has been layed off. Necessary support infrastructure and hardware has been mothballed. It's done.
In addition, required airframe inspections were postponed in order to complete the final missions by the deadline. So, even if we were to renew all the contracts, re-hire all the staff, and pull the ground support harddware out of mothballs, a recertification of all three airframes would be required. This takes time; and, for the duration of the recertification process we would have no launch vehicles. Given that we did not have facilities to do more than one full tear down and inspection at a time, (or have not had the capability for a considerable period of time), the recertification would be drawn out until at least two airframes were inspected, sequentially -- flight rules require a second shuttle be available on standby in the event of an on-orbit accident.
No, Mr. Cernan. As embarrassing as it is to have no capability, returning the Shuttle to flight, now, is not the option. Our best option for NASA designed hardware is a return to flight leveraging proven components and technology, in the form of the SLS (or whatever you choose to call it) If you want it sooner, get it funded faster. And although your past arguments make it clear you find commercial options distastefully, I feel you should review your decision. One option is the ULA Atlas V+ Boeing CST-100. Another option is to use the Lockheed Orion on either ULA vehicles (Atlas or Delta) As these contractors are the people who built and maintained the Shuttle, they're already intimately familiar with the manned space flight requirements. Frankly, they're likely to be ready before SLS.
Finally, You should not be so quick to dismiss alternatives such as SpaceX. Yes, it is rocket science. Yes, these are the "new kids on the block", upstarts some may call them. Consider that SpaceX is hiring many experienced people from both NASA contractors and NASA itself. Consider that the work being done by SpaceX is under contract to NASA and the Air Force, and is under constant review by NASA and Air Force personnel. Consider that their designs, while new, are based on existing works. They may be the "new kid on the block" but they are clearly leveraging the industries 5 decades of experience.
With this congress, the above would be a seriously possible headline....
In fact, it is more alive than it has been since the 60's. We have watched since Nixon, admin after admin after admin, cut and gut NASA and remove more of its capabilities. Well, SpaceX has multiple new CHEAP rockets. Blue Origin has one coming. Likewise, we have multiple human rated vehicles (spacex, blue origin, SNC and Boeing). Then you add all sorts of new capabilities. Multiple companies doing private space stations (Bigelow Aerospace and IDC Dover), and sub-orbital launchers (Scaled, Blue Origin, Xcor, etc).
Our problem is that members of CONgress are trying hard to keep NASA as their personal Jobs Bill. For that, you can blame
Shelby(R), Wolf(R), hatch(R), Hutchinson(R), Coffman(R), Nelson(D), and host of others, mostly republicans.
What is needed is to fire these communist-style congressmen/senators who would rather that NASA devote massive resorurces to building a massive rocket, rather than allowing NASA to figure out how to get to the moon, asteroids, mars, and beyond.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Things are actually BETTER than what is has been in 45 years. We have watched starting with Nixon, admin after admin after admin as well as CONgress, cut and gut NASA and remove more of its capabilities. Well, SpaceX has multiple new CHEAP rockets. Blue Origin has one coming. Likewise, we have multiple human rated vehicles (spacex, blue origin, SNC and Boeing). Then you add all sorts of new capabilities. Multiple companies doing private space stations (Bigelow Aerospace and IDC Dover), and sub-orbital launchers (Scaled, Blue Origin, Xcor, etc).
Our problem is that members of CONgress are trying hard to keep NASA as their personal Jobs Bill. For that, you can blame Shelby(R), Wolf(R), hatch(R), Hutchinson(R), Coffman(R), Nelson(D), and host of others, mostly republicans.
What is needed is to fire these communist-style congressmen/senators who would rather that NASA devote massive resorurces to building a massive rocket, rather than allowing NASA to figure out how to get to the moon, asteroids, mars, and beyond.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
this condition is viewed by many as lamentably embarrassing and unacceptable. ...
But the state of space exploration is still better than the peoples child education, health care, public debt, a justice system that doesn't favor the rich, infrastructures like trains, bridges and roads, research centers,
Hard decisions needs to be taken, and more space research is a low priority for me. We know enough about space for the next 150 years. Now we must concentrate on over-population, clean water and clean energy for the masses.
Most clear thinking people understand that the biggest problem NASA faces is that mission development timelines invariably exceed the election cycle, so become hostage to short term politicking, invariably characterized as jobs in one's own district, or as reckless spending in someone else's district. Ideally, I believe the NASA budget should be funded on some sort of rolling 20-year schedule. This would give near and mid term certainty to allow for the ups and downs of major mission initiatives. It is also probably impossible since to implement it would require 20 years of appropriations up front (the alternative being something like the Social Security trust fund, and we all know how that is never raided for cash), not to mention that Congress never feels bound by their predecessors so changing the law re appropriation would be a near certainty when some critical Rep or Senator retired or was defeated for reelection.
What about giving NASA bonding authority in some reasonable amount? Bond holders could be first in line to commercialize scientific and engineering advances, get preferential treatment for contracts, etc., and perhaps would make an interesting speculative investment for the public.
Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
NASA has a bureaucratic problem on top of its funding and public image problems. A boatload of money is wasted on stupid things and an example of disturbing incompetence is seen almost yearly.
When I think of the Mars landers that were planned for 3 month mission and 1 may still be running *years* later, I am in awe of NASA.
The landers are amazing, but I fear you are falling for the Scottie Principle. They were built to last indefinitely. What NASA did was a great job of setting expectations. The three months was the absolute minimum that they decided they needed to justify the cost. Great project, but also great spin.
The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
And how was the Haterade, was it tasty?
1. And just how credible was that assassination "attempt"? Old HW hisownself didn't think it was worthy of a response. Clinton didn't either. Ten years later the Shrub just wanted to pick a fight so he could stand in a flight suit in front of a Mission Accomplished banner. Meh.
2. When did it become our job to take out tyrants? Movie titles to the contrary, we are not the World Police. Egypt and Libya have demonstrated – quite rightly IMO – that it's the people's job to take out their own tyrant.
3. Oh, they most certainly did.
4. If we'd spent the past ten years paying down the debt, like we had the previous six to seven years, there's no question we'd be in better shape than we are now. And who said anything about europe's debt problems?
> It's fun to believe that everybody that disagrees from you is just innately ignorant and flawed, isn't it? It means you never have to revise any opinion.
Ah, the old ad hominem. Right back at you. Enjoy your beverage.
I have to agree that the current state of the US economy pretty much rules out meaningful human space exploration at the moment.
Nonsense. NASA's budget is a rounding error compared to the DOD, not to mention Social Security and Medicare. There is plenty of money to fund manned spaceflight if we decide that is our priority. So far we have decided to fund other things but the state of the economy is not the problem.
Unmanned spacecraft require just as much science and engineering, and is a better investment.
It requires DIFFERENT science and you can never tell in advance which will be the better investment. If you knew ahead of time it would not be research by definition.
If NASA had focused on near-earth, problem solving activities like large scale power generation, zero-G industrial fabrication, asteroid mining, or *anything* but "let's be first to [insert celestial body], would we even be having this discussion now?
What's embarrassing about NASA is that they are so government-oriented that it never, ever, occurs to anyone there to do anything that has a DIRECT real world purpose that might benefit people with something other than abstract non-astronomical information.
Yes, we got new technology out of it, that we could have gotten anyway, and would have. Please, we've all heard the argument before. What have they invented lately?
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Opportunity is still running. There's an article on the NASA site on the memorial picture it took for 9/11. (there's a piece of the WTC in it's construction.) At this point it's entering Endeavour Crater for a look at the oldest Martian surface it's come across. It just passed Spirit Point, named in honor of it's deceased sibling.
I get the feeling the Chinese have that attitude, so their space program will probably do incredibly well!
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
What do you think would happen if we pitted a modern equivalent of the P-51 against the F-22? Take a cheap-and-quick-to-build airframe, put 10,000 of them in the air, and keep the replacements coming. What would the outcome be?
A massacre of the P-51 because the F-22 does not exist in a vacuum. P-51s would be shot out of the sky in massive quantities by modern anti-aircraft defenses, other fighters, and destroyed on the ground by attack aircraft that can level operating bases with a single sortie. How are your P51s going to operate when their bases are turned into smoldering ruins?
Furthermore your notion that you could bring 10,000 P-51s to bear, to be generous, and absurd hypothetical. Real wars don't work that way.
what was NASA's Budget pre-Obama? Ok, now what is it now?
For the first time since 1962, the U.S. has no means of putting people into space.
This is an epic failure of NASA and, more importantly, of the current administration.
Circle the wagons and fire inward. Entropy increases without bounds.
That anyone named Neil is a douchebag plain and simple. I dare you to test it. Think of anyone you know named Neil or Neal or any variation thereof and you will realize that they are in fact, a douchebag. If you're name Neil, guess what? Your a Douchebag. (that's a capitol "D" douchebag)
Lets get this straight from the outset: these guys are gods among men. Smart and resourceful and well-trained and, oh yeah; cojones the size of small moons. They strapped themselves to the worlds tallest pile of explosives just to see if they could.
But lets also get this clear: one thing they _aren't_ is engineers qualified to say that the shuttle is safe to just "bring out of retirement". I know you guys want more than anything to see your own heroic journeys eclipsed by the shining and glorious future of mankind, and I think that that is just about the coolest thing ever, but Eugene? You did your masters aeronautical in when? 1963? And you've since spent how much time actually working on the shuttle program, the first launch of which was 5 years after you left NASA? They hired you guys, among other things, because you're crazy-brave but cautious, so you should know better than that; If the techs who are working on it _this_ century say it don't fly (mostly) safe, then it don't fly at all. Should we have replaced it with something better? I'd like to think so; some would say we did with the unmanned probes. I'm not going to argue that point. But wishing don't make it so. We _didn't_ replace it. And just because we didn't, we don't keep using outdated dangerous stuff because that's all we've got.
We make something better. And if you and I, Eugene, are dead before it lifts, so be it.
If Congress had let rocket scientists design the shuttle, instead of lobbyists, not only would NASA have achieved the design goals, but it would have been a safer system, and we would have been able to afford to invest on new technology and follow-on systems.
ATK(Morton-Thiokol)/Lockheed/Boeing, and their congressional Pork-Piggie enablers killed the goose that laid the golden egg. And as a result, yes, NASA looks embarrassing. But they can hardly help the design constraints that were forced upon them by IGNORANT LEGISLATIVE FIAT. And Neil Armstrong should know better, for fuck's sake~!
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Well, one thing that folks seem to be missing is that Mr. Armstrong is invested heavily in the recipients of some of that Congressional pork barrelling. I have to go digging and look it up again, but Armstrong is heavily invested in Lockheed-Martin or ATK or Rocketdyne...essentially, he is heavily invested in one of the companies that stood to gain a lot of unregulated cash flow from Congress for the Constellation Project. But I can't remember the specifics off the top of my head, I have to go look it up again...
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
We have private companies that will soon be doing LEO launches. Why should we care if NASA does it?
Even Neil went past LEO 40 years ago. LEO is hardly a technological achievement at this point.
He spent his life in the ivory towers of government and academia, he never directly created a job in his life.
/irony, just to avoid the inevitable conflagration of flamage
Never ran a successful business either.
By today's MBA-driven measures, an abject failure .
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Completely off topic, but when the hell will the US adopt a third political party so we can stop hearing about this false political dichotomy? Christ in a bucket, it's tiresome.
What do you think would happen if we pitted a modern equivalent of the P-51 against the F-22? Take a cheap-and-quick-to-build airframe, put 10,000 of them in the air, and keep the replacements coming. What would the outcome be?
A couple of our expensive spy says notice that Canada is massing cheap vintage planes on the border, and creating fuel and ordinance dumps to supply them. They can easily track their sorties, since the planes, not being stealthy, have a huge radar cross section. The stealthy UAVs we put up to see what the hell is happening over the border, and the video they send back shows pilots and support personnel prepping for combat ops from dispersed rough airfields.
supposing that we decide to play nice guy and wait for the attack before counter attacking, we get warnings from the 3 or 4 AWAC we put up at 35,000 feet on our side of the border that massive flights of planes are being launched in a southern direction. The supersonic jets escort fighter bombers over the border while the attack is inbound, and proceed to bomb every fuel and ordnance depo and C&C installation (quite easy to find, since they are using 'cheap' electronics). They get perhaps 1 or 2 sorties before their entire support infrastructure is utter shambles. Several f-22s are casualties of mechanical problems, and several f-22 pilots make quintuple ace in under an hour when they are given a guns free order on inbound sorties. The rest of the old 'tech' attackers are savaged by ground to air missile fire, which has had an easy time finding and targeting the 350 mph non-stealthy planes. Some civilians are killed in the crossfire, and Canada has lost a large percentage of its air capabilities within 24 hours of mobilizing.
Sorry, I can't really see your argument holding a lot of water. Infrastructure and information is what wins wars, not having more guns.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I think Charles Bolden the director of NASA has it right. They should leave LEO to be done by the commercial launch companies. We need to look beyond LEO we have been stuck in LEO since the 1970s.
I know a lot of nerds still have a boner for the Shuttle but it's launch costs ate most of the NASA budget. By leaving truck duties to companies like spaceX and maybe launch alliance if they can get there shit together makes sense.
Let NASA focus on big picture research and getting out of LEO.
Why is this so hard to grasp?
Thinking about it they made a huge PR mistake by allowing there to be a gap between when the shuttle retires and when someone like SpaceX was ready to take astronauts to the space station.
RADAR is a German invention.
Hertz (German) showed it was possible, in 1886
Christian Huelsmeyer(German) used it to detect metal objects in 1905
In 1917 Tesla(austrian empire*) created Radar until.
In 1922 A. Hoyt Taylor and Leo C. Young(US) discovered they could determine range at 60Mhz
A fully pulsed system was developed by the US and shown in 1934. That same technology was being developed independently by pretty much every major country at the time.
Great Britain rolled out the first mas scale use of radar, but the didn't invent it.
*now Croatia
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
In the USA, 1% of the people are millionaires. In the US Congress, 48% of members are millionaires. Who do you think is duping who? It was once a government By the people, For the people. Now it boils down to, "Corporations are people, too, ya know!". So our once great country is now in tatters -- as far as people are concerned. Yet it remains a fantastic playground for corporations. Yay!
So, let that be a lesson for you, China. Oh... I'm sorry. Too late. You see, you will never grow to be the great country the USA once was because you are trying to emulate the wrong version of our government. Too bad for you.
There will be no more 1st and 3rd only, all will be 2nd.
The entire world is going to be aligned with the Soviet Union? What in the balls, they don't even exist any more!
What is packaged as President Main Street is more President Wall Street. Those who were bailed out tend to be big in political donations or can recruit those who are. They are the real money and politicians care about one thing, reelection. It comes before even their personal views. They will sell their soul for reelection.
We will spend in two days what we budget for NASA (we spend 10 BILLION PER DAY - four billion more than we have!!!!)
We have one of the most progressive tax structures in the world, we have a higher capital gains tax than many European countries, and we tax our businesses higher than most, yet we are out of money? It is a very simple reason, politicians are buying favor with money our children will have to repay, if not us.
It is class warfare of a different sort, politicians and their friends versus us. The aristocracy isn't the mega rich, its the politically connected. They will deftly play one side off another all the while rolling in the money.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
You can mod me down to -1000000000, it's still true. It hurts, but you know I'm right. In ten years, or a hundred, nothing will have changed. I still have my Saturn V kit, my Moon globe, my NASA books from the 1960s, but I know it's just a phase of history. Why can't you let it go?
We need a new variant of Godwin's Law, having to do with how long it takes to accuse some person or group with racism. As the second poster in this thread, you surely win today's award.
Just out of curiosity: do you really think that throwing guns is an effective military strategy?
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
AmAZING. /. truncated it.
Although you're fucking brilliant, truncating the whole "AM" yourself.
I would like to see human beings land on the Moon. The US is probably the only country in the world which terrific combination of resources, $$ and the experience of having done it before.
It might sound dreamy and unreal - but I think in addition to helping technology grow by leaps and bounds - it also helps a society share a dream. In the episode "1968" of the TV Mini-series "From the Earth to the Moon" US is shown as a nation in turmoil. RFK is assassinated as is Martin Luther King Jr. There is the Vietnam war abroad and the rioting and protests at home.
The first manned lunar flight - Apollo 8 - takes place. Even in times as troubled as those , the nation rejoiced. People felt happy and felt that they were a part of something special. As is shown in the TV series - a woman writes a telegram to the astronauts "You saved 1968"
The whole world celebrated Apollo 11. It is an iconic moment in history even now.
We have undergone a communication revolution - people can be brought "closer" to space flight. Lets land a human being on the moon. Or an asteroid. Or maybe Mars ( given the current situation it sounds far fetched )
Let us be a part of a time which will be remembered by history.
If any lawmaker / lobbyist is reading this - I would request you to try your hardest to push this through Congress.
it's a decision you wont regret - you'll be proud of it.
You say that like any president from Texan would do something to reduce spending at NASA; next you'll tell us Ted Stevens gave back the money for the bridge to nowhere!
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
I disagree. We can do this, but we need to invest smartly. Jeff Greason makes an elegant argument: http://www.nss.org/resources/library/videos/ISDC11greason.html
TL;DW: Mr. Greason argues that the first manned Mars mission (parking on Phobos, controlling robots on the surface) would be the greatest science mission in history, accomplishing more in a few months than all previous Mars exploration to date. Current science is slow because our robots are dumb and have a 30 minute ping. (Gamers, how annoying is just 200ms of lag?)
To accomplish this on shrinking budgets, NASA should spend its scarce money on technology development the private sector won't pursue, and together with the private sector, focus on building refueling infrastructure throughout the solar system. Refueling mid-way would completely revolutionize astronautical engineering - fuel mass would no longer grow EXPONENTIALLY with total mission delta V (as each refueling would in effect reset the rocket equation), staging would be obsolete outside planetary atmospheres (the penalty for reusing a propellant tank is much smaller), rocket-powered descent would be practical on Mars (refuel on Phobos before you go), etc. A few cycler spacecraft placed in key orbits (e.g. Earth-Moon, Earth-Mars) could offer radiation shielded human transport even in the worst case scenario, and once put in motion, would greatly reduce delta-V for human missions.
In 25 years or so, the USA can send people to the moon again by purchasing a ticket from some chinese company offering commercial space flight ... It's perfectly fine to waste money on stupid wars and let others do all the R&D!
"I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
I would rather my tax dollars support engineers that help advance our technology than give tax breaks to people just for having kids with no strings attached. Cap the $1000 per child tax credit at two per family and give the rest to engineers at NASA. At least they will give the country something in return.
With respect, the idea is not as bad as you insist because the decomissioning stage is only just beginning and a lot of staff are still on the payroll.
If you'd thought about it for two seconds instead of one you would not have the smug satisfaction of criticising a person that has actaully thought about the idea and has the background to know what they are talking about. Your post make make sense in a few years time but now it provides nothing but the feeling of self importance you get by pretending you are superior to somebody that knows far more about the subject than both of us, and indeed the people he was addressing.
Welcome to the peanut gallery, where we argue over the peanuts
Meanwhile we've spent trillions of dollars on wars we didn't need, Trillions more on bailing out fat cats and who only knows how much to keep our empire stretched as thin as possible.
Liberty.
Apollo 11 used a series of capsule stages that compared to the Shuttle would be dinky. Their onboard computer was among the first integrated circuit computers, had 4KB memory (plus around 73KB ROM) and a clockspeed of 1MHz.
Out of seven lunar landing missions, six succeeded and one failed without casualties. (Out of seventeen Apollo missions in total, two failed, with one killing the entire crew.) Contrast this with the five space shuttles (not counting Enterprise), which made 135 flights, two of which failed and killed the crew.
Basically, while the safety of space engineering can't and shouldn't be compromised, and better technology is required, Armstrong and Cernan have an excellent justification to call NASA wusses for this. "Back in our day, we didn't have no fancy shuttle, no sir. We went to the Moon barefoot through the snow, and uphill both ways."
America will wake up one day too, China has landed a man on mars and look forward too starting their first colony.
enjoy.
The Tea Party movement exists independent of the Republicans. Sure, many incumbent Republicans have done their best to attach themselves to the Tea Party's popularity, and the party in general has tried to portray itself as aligning. The faithful do seem to be buying it.
People tend to think the Tea Party is targeted only at Democrats. Not quite so. The Tea Party knocked out a lot of Republican incumbents and party favorites in the primaries in 2010. If it keeps going like this, the Republican Party may actually turn into a party with something to distinguish itself from the Democratic Party. But, no, I don't have much hope, since the co-opting above seems to be working.