Armstrong to NASA: You are an embarassment

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jul 14, 2009
Messages
11,196
Location
NY Capital District
http://news.discovery.com/space/armstrong-congress-nasa-embarrassing-110922.html

Neil Armstrong, the first man to walk on the moon, told lawmakers Thursday that the end of the space shuttle era has left the American human spaceflight program in an "embarrassing" state.

"We will have no American access to, and return from, low Earth orbit and the International Space Station for an unpredictable length of time in the future," Armstrong told the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.

"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."



Armstrong was part of a four-member panel of space experts who told lawmakers that NASA needs a stronger vision for the future and should focus on returning humans to the moon and to the International Space Station.

"A lead, however earnestly and expensively won, once lost, is nearly impossible to regain," said the US astronaut, now 81, who was commander of Apollo 11 and walked on the moon in 1969.



President Barack Obama canceled the Constellation program that would have returned humans to the Moon and called on NASA to instead focus on new, deep-space capabilities to tote people to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars by 2030.

The retirement in July of the three-decade-old space shuttle program brought an end to the US capability to send humans to space until private industry can come up with a new commercial space capsule to the ISS, maybe by 2015.

In the meantime, Russia's Soyuz capsules are the only taxis for the world's astronauts heading to low-Earth orbit, and each ticket to the ISS costs global space agencies between 50 and 60 million dollars each.


"Get the shuttle out of the garage down there at Kennedy (Space Center), crank up the motors and put it back in service," said Eugene Cernan, who commanded the Apollo 17 flight and was the last man to walk on the Moon in 1972.

"You want a launch vehicle today that will service the ISS? We've got it sitting down there. So before we put it in a museum, let's make use of it. It's in the prime of its life, how could we just put it away?"

Cernan hailed the vision of John F. Kennedy, "a bold and courageous president who started us on a journey to the stars," and said thousands of Americans have been inspired by the space race with the Soviet Union.

"Today, we are on a path of decay. We are seeing the book close on five decades of accomplishment as the leader in human space exploration," Cernan said.


"As unimaginable as it seems, we have now come full circle and ceded our leadership role in space back to the same country -- albeit by a different name -- that spurred our challenge five decades ago."

He said Constellation has been replaced by a "mission to nowhere" and called on NASA to make plans to
 
The shuttle was far more expensive that it was supposed be and should have been replaced many years ago. I am not sorry for its death.

It's probably also cheaper to have the Russians build and launch the big stuff.

NASA's primary mission has also been redefined to that of cultural outreach.
 
I hear his pain and I lament at what I've seen in my community (so many jobs lost). It also pains me to see we have to rely on the Russians to tote us around. Putin has made it clear enough he is not our friend.

OTOH: I know for a fact NASA is a very expensive Gov't agency to fund and with all the problems we have with debtvmaybe private industry is the right way to go. I have family that work at NASA and the money wasted is OUTRAGEOUS! So it is a hard time but private industry might be helping us soon. We will see.
 
Last edited:
Folks should remember that the shuttles were and ARE, very OLD!

Much of their technology is 1960's era, and having worked on both building the original ones, and helping to keep them flying and repaired, I worked at NASA's facility at Edwards AFB, for many years, and watched the shuttles be reconditioned and prepared for transport back to Fla. It was the idea of the president, who wanted to try and stave off an accounting of our space agencies weak spots, that killed the Constellation Program. He should have been ashamed of himself, but of course he won't as he is too arrogant, and while a good speaker, is not very technological in his knowledge. The shuttles needed millions of dollars just to be able to return to Florida if landed in California. BUT, the Constellation Program would have had a manned vehicle ready by 2015, and was under testing at Dryden Flight Research Center, until 2009!!
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The shuttle was far more expensive that it was supposed be and should have been replaced many years ago. I am not sorry for its death.

It's probably also cheaper to have the Russians build and launch the big stuff.

NASA's primary mission has also been redefined to that of cultural outreach.


All good points. All gov't projects tend to run over budget, though. The thought process of always doing something cheaper eleswhere is what got the USA in the current situation we are in. Oh it's cheaper to make it in Mexico or China...now let the Russians handle the space flights with their questionable space fleet. Didn't anybody think that without the USA habving access to the ISS and such that that hurts our National Security? Russia and China can get to space and we can't....and we cannot trust these 2 countrys - they will probably have a weapons system in space soon to threaten us.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
NASA's primary mission has also been redefined to that of cultural outreach.


What part of the agency title of "National Air and Space Administration" would make any logically-thinking human being think that its legitimate mission is cultural outreach? I'll start supporting that policy on the same day that the State Department launches a spaceship to Mars.
 
The thing is, rocket technology, old isn't necessarily worse. There is a saying in the industry, that more is the enemy of good. Rockets are an accumulation of conservative technology, learned through trial and proven time and time again. Using brand new state-of-the-art technology is reckless, and dangerous. Especially for manned spaceflight. The shuttle may be old, but with few exceptions, it's proven itself over the decades.
 
NASA is not the embarrassment. We are, for allowing... certain individuals among us... to tell us that space exploration and related programs are wastes of money.

NASA's yearly operating budget isn't even a blip on the national economic radar. Its entire operating budget since its inception in 1958 has been something like $700 billion, which we seem to be willing to spend on a whim. Yes, there is waste within NASA. But to call NASA a waste as a whole is... pretty bold.
 
Quote:
President Barack Obama canceled the Constellation program that would have returned humans to the Moon and called on NASA to instead focus on new, deep-space capabilities to tote people to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars by 2030.


While BO is listed here, this thread is NOT a bash BO thread, and will be closed if the hints in language keep going that way.

As an engineer who often works with far-off technology, I have to say that I welcome this approach. Not that the moon is by any stretch an easy task, but we have been there.

Like the thread about aliens, some stuff may not seem doable with current tech, yet was done long ago. id say travel to the moon with manned capability falls in that area.

But asteroids and Mars are more interesting new frontiers, IMO. So if it is a matter of producing goals to reach, those are them, IMO. Nothing says that the Mars solution excludes utilizing a moon-based launch site. Who knows?

The shuttle IS OLD. While I find it a lousy position to be in to have no transit capability to and from the ISS or other missions in space, a legacy platform like that may not have been the best bet to continue on. It stinks to cancel something when there is no interim solution noted though...

Unfortunately because the NASA employees have to by default "support the President's budget", they have to accept whatever cuts or cancels they get. It is on the people to state dissatisfaction.
 
We have no money to educate our kids or people suffering from hunger on the streets and you want to send a person to the Moon?

For what? Whatever a person can do, a machine can do better in a hostile environment like that.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
The shuttle was far more expensive that it was supposed be and should have been replaced many years ago. I am not sorry for its death.

It's probably also cheaper to have the Russians build and launch the big stuff.

NASA's primary mission has also been redefined to that of cultural outreach.

+1.........
 
Quote:
Yes, there is waste within NASA.


How much?

Quote:
Congress has again failed to rid a temporary spending bill of language forcing NASA to waste $1.4 million a day on its defunct Constellation moon program.

Though Congress passed a new stopgap spending bill last week, the measure retained a leftover provision from the 2010 budget that bars the agency from shutting down Constellation, which Congress and the White House agreed to cancel last October.

This so-called "-------- provision" — named for U.S. Sen. ------- who inserted it into the 2010 budget — is expected to cost NASA roughly $29 million during the three-week budget extension through April 8. It has already cost the agency nearly $250 million since Oct. 1.

Equally galling to budget hawks is that Congress has known about the mistake for months and has done nothing to correct it.

"It's like a dripping faucet, eventually it will fill up the sink," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-partisan spending watchdog. "This is just a case of congressional inertia failing to take care of the problem — at a cost to taxpayers."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011...n-politics-nasa

$279 million is just a drop in the bucket right? This is SOP for big government agencies. It's all about taking other people's money and handing it to some other people for political gain.
 
Originally Posted By: CivicFan
We have no money to educate our kids or people suffering from hunger on the streets and you want to send a person to the Moon?

For what? Whatever a person can do, a machine can do better in a hostile environment like that.


While I agree on both fronts, such endeavors do bring forward new technologies that would otherwise not be adopted, and provide some sense of pride, which is a beneficial thing to some.

Even sending a machine to the moon or an asteroid, with the ability to get there, take samples and bring them back to earth will be a stretch.
 
Originally Posted By: JHZR2
Quote:
President Barack Obama canceled the Constellation program that would have returned humans to the Moon and called on NASA to instead focus on new, deep-space capabilities to tote people to an asteroid by 2025 and Mars by 2030.


While BO is listed here, this thread is NOT a bash BO thread, and will be closed if the hints in language keep going that way.

As an engineer who often works with far-off technology, I have to say that I welcome this approach. Not that the moon is by any stretch an easy task, but we have been there.

Like the thread about aliens, some stuff may not seem doable with current tech, yet was done long ago. id say travel to the moon with manned capability falls in that area.

But asteroids and Mars are more interesting new frontiers, IMO. So if it is a matter of producing goals to reach, those are them, IMO. Nothing says that the Mars solution excludes utilizing a moon-based launch site. Who knows?

The shuttle IS OLD. While I find it a lousy position to be in to have no transit capability to and from the ISS or other missions in space, a legacy platform like that may not have been the best bet to continue on. It stinks to cancel something when there is no interim solution noted though...

Unfortunately because the NASA employees have to by default "support the President's budget", they have to accept whatever cuts or cancels they get. It is on the people to state dissatisfaction.



The poster simply mentioned Obama's name as a reference to a fact and that is not political.

However - it was wise of you to chime in now to keep it from getting political.
 
Originally Posted By: Tempest
Quote:
Yes, there is waste within NASA.


How much?

Quote:
Congress has again failed to rid a temporary spending bill of language forcing NASA to waste $1.4 million a day on its defunct Constellation moon program.

Though Congress passed a new stopgap spending bill last week, the measure retained a leftover provision from the 2010 budget that bars the agency from shutting down Constellation, which Congress and the White House agreed to cancel last October.

This so-called "-------- provision" — named for U.S. Sen. ------- who inserted it into the 2010 budget — is expected to cost NASA roughly $29 million during the three-week budget extension through April 8. It has already cost the agency nearly $250 million since Oct. 1.

Equally galling to budget hawks is that Congress has known about the mistake for months and has done nothing to correct it.

"It's like a dripping faucet, eventually it will fill up the sink," said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, a non-partisan spending watchdog. "This is just a case of congressional inertia failing to take care of the problem — at a cost to taxpayers."

http://articles.orlandosentinel.com/2011...n-politics-nasa

$279 million is just a drop in the bucket right? This is SOP for big government agencies. It's all about taking other people's money and handing it to some other people for political gain.


Compared to the GM and Chrysler loans and the finance industry bail-outs, yeah, it is a drop in the bucket.

What's the annual cost of welfare?

What's the cost of the jobs that have been shipped off to China and now these people are on unemployment, welfare or turning to crime?

What is the COST of turning North American into a poverty-torn farce with industry in decline and everything from engineering to manufacturing being out-sourced in the name of "Globalization". China and India are laughing, that's for sure. Now we've got the Russians laughing too.

What is the COST there?

NASA is yet another piece of history; an icon of American leadership that is being tossed in the dustbin so we can [censored] more money into bailouts, hand-outs and sell-outs. The money is going to be spent regardless, you are already spending TRILLIONS more a year than you are bringing in. Fix the system. Give the welfares jobs. Bring manufacturing back. Cisco should be making their gear here, Juniper should be making their gear here, and the new bloody bridge that is going up should be made here! Stop the drain, give the unemployed something to do (we can't all be rocket scientists) and bring the unemployment down to the levels of Germany or Canada. You increase tax revenue, reduce the financial drain of assistance, and all of a sudden, funding programs like NASA isn't a big deal.

Cutting technical programs isn't a SOLUTION. It is a detour to get people's minds off what the real problems are and make them think that "things are being done". It is nothing but thought candy for the sheeple to keep them pacified while the whole [censored] country gets snow-jobbed.
 
Quote:
give the unemployed something to do

Like what?

And I don't care about funding an "icon" that is wasting massive amounts of resources. $18 billion may only be a drop in the bucket in a $3.6 trillion budget, but that is a massive amount of money out side of the US government.

$18 billion/$50,000 per year jobs = 360,000 That is how much wealth is being extracted from people generating wealth to fund this "icon". Funding "icons" and "history" is why we are broke.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top