Neil Armstrong, other astronauts call Obama's NASA plans 'devastating'

WillRockwell said:

You are calling for another one trick pony, a gimmick to capture the imagination. We are not children anymore, and it's time to begin the serious work of designing hardware to enable man to explore space on a large scale. These are the boldest footsteps yet, you just refuse to see them.

Click to expand...

An overriding sense of purpose need not be a "one trick pony." The purpose can be broader than, let's say, a trip to Mars. For example, the President could have committed to expanding the frontiers of manned exploration in deep space. Once he laid that vision, he could have committed the U.S. to a number of steps and ambitious deadlines to signal that progress on that journey was being made.

Instead, there were no firm and specific outcomes-related commitments. There were no ambitious deadlines. Investing in a series of projects should lead to some progress, but there are no demanding timelines. A belief that an outcome will occur is far short of a commitment to that outcome. A belief is about risk minimization. A commitment entails risktaking, as a nation puts its reputation on the line.

All said, given the very distant timeframes and absence of commitments, it appears that the new strategy is one of investing in a variety of projects but leaving it to the normal rate of technological change to bring about outcomes related to those investments. There is nothing bold about such a course, except perhaps in the fiscal sense, as there is no effort to accelerate the rate of technological change, much less to seek to achieve revolutionary breakthroughs.

donsutherland1 said:

An overriding sense of purpose need not be a "one trick pony." The purpose can be broader than, let's say, a trip to Mars. For example, the President could have committed to expanding the frontiers of manned exploration in deep space. Once he laid that vision, he could have committed the U.S. to a number of steps and ambitious deadlines to signal that progress on that journey was being made.

Instead, there were no firm and specific outcomes-related commitments. There were no ambitious deadlines. Investing in a series of projects should lead to some progress, but there are no demanding timelines. A belief that an outcome will occur is far short of a commitment to that outcome. A belief is about risk minimization. A commitment entails risktaking, as a nation puts its reputation on the line.

All said, given the very distant timeframes and absence of commitments, it appears that the new strategy is one of investing in a variety of projects but leaving it to the normal rate of technological change to bring about outcomes related to those investments. There is nothing bold about such a course, except perhaps in the fiscal sense, as there is no effort to accelerate the rate of technological change, much less to seek to achieve revolutionary breakthroughs.

Click to expand...

The President's speech laid out a timeline leading to Mars by 2035. It is a realistic plan which will leave us with the foundation for even more ambitious exploration, rather than leaving us with space junk, as did the Apollo program. The timeline for development of a heavy lift vehicle was accelerated by two years even beyond Bush's unrealistic and unmanageable delusion. The development of reusable, reliable and safe space technology requires patience. If you need something more immediate and "bold", I can recommend the recent Star Trek movie.

1984 said:

Five percent? NASA FY 2009 consumed less than half a percent of receipts.

Click to expand...

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we are talking about a lot of money.:2razz:
Question remains, would you pay extra to support your favorite programs?
If the tax form had a section for voluntary extra payment to NASA, would YOU pay extra?

WillRockwell said:

The President's speech laid out a timeline leading to Mars by 2035. It is a realistic plan which will leave us with the foundation for even more ambitious exploration, rather than leaving us with space junk, as did the Apollo program. The timeline for development of a heavy lift vehicle was accelerated by two years even beyond Bush's unrealistic and unmanageable delusion. The development of reusable, reliable and safe space technology requires patience. If you need something more immediate and "bold", I can recommend the recent Star Trek movie.

Click to expand...

Three points:

First, that President Bush’s approach had serious flaws does not make it the proper standard against which to measure the new approach. Noting the very limited ambitions of the new approach is not the same thing as expressing support for the Bush approach.

Second, the Apollo program was truly revolutionary. It required the U.S. to develop new technologies that did not exist at the time of President Kennedy’s speech. It set forth a very demanding timeline. Its larger purpose was to regain leadership in space for the U.S.

In the wake of Kennedy’s bold address, critics immediately attacked the program as ‘proof of American decadence,’ ‘extremely wasteful,’ ‘unlikely to yield the expected results,’ an initiative that would ‘steal’ engineers from Detroit and other productive industries, among other things. They advised that “we can spend money to better advantage on earth than by shooting it into space.” Both the President and Congress chose the bolder course and the “expected results” were achieved even sooner than the President had envisioned.

Third, the flippant “Star Trek” comment is nothing more than a powerful rationalization for seeking limited aspirations. It is outright dismissive of a pursuit that would push the frontiers of progress, technology, and knowledge. It advocates the easier approach, but one that can only undermine the spirit of exploration, research, and risk-taking that leads to revolutionary breakthroughs and/or sustains a nation's position of leadership.

Had that perspective prevailed, the U.S. would never have undertaken the Manhattan and Apollo Projects. Proposals for such initiatives would have been derided as figments of science fiction. Then, the Soviets would almost certainly have achieved the first nuclear breakthrough and the world would likely be vastly different today. Man would likely still be waiting to take the first steps on the Moon.

donsutherland1 said:

My biggest sense of disappoint is that the new plan can probably be described as being "better than nothing." Unfortunately, in an environment in which numerous nations are accelerating their space-related activities, "better than nothing" is not good enough if the U.S. aspires to remain the leader in such technologies/capabilities.

The enormous timeframes also reflect a lack of urgency. There is nothing revolutionary about the effort. Indeed, the large timeframes and lack of firm commitments even to those distant dates, suggests a strategy that is, at its heart, one that will rely on the normal rate of technological change to produce such outcomes. There is no effort to aggressively push and expand the frontiers of technology. There is no expression of a "can do" spirit that pervaded President Kennedy's speech.

Click to expand...

you began by grousing about Obama's refusal to fund a project constellation plan that takes us back to a 1969 objective; and now that he replaced that with a more far reaching objective you continue to complain
appears you are simply looking for an excuse to bash Obama

I love it when people think you can legislate technilogical breakthroughs. Just like legislating morality, it is not likely to work no matter how much you throw money at the people who are trying to make something happen.

All this whining about budgets....it is like someone complaining that his latte' didn't have the right amount of foam while the rest of the world can't even afford coffee....

justabubba said:

you began by grousing about Obama's refusal to fund a project constellation plan that takes us back to a 1969 objective; and now that he replaced that with a more far reaching objective you continue to complain
appears you are simply looking for an excuse to bash Obama

Click to expand...

Not really. I began by discussing generalities based on Neil Armstrong et al's concerns, although looking back, I should have been more clear that my discussion was rather general and should not be read to indicate that I wanted to preserve the Constellation Project per se. IMO, as I expressed it later, if the President felt that there were a better approach than Constellation, that is fine. What I stated at various times in this thread is that I believed it would be important for the President to establish a clear, overriding goal and to lay out an aggressive course for pursuing that goal (investment, assessment mechanism, etc).

I believe the President means well and is dedicated to manned space exploration. Nevertheless, I have a profound disagreement with the initiative's lack of a defining mission and its unambitious timelines. Given its enormously long timelines, the approach does little more than rely on the normal rate of technological change to produce outcomes. At the same time, even those outcomes are expressed as beliefs, not commitments.

The historic experience with disruptive technologies, argues that one's relying on the normal rate of technological change and incremental advances in established technologies does not produce revolutionary breakthroughs. In fact, such an approach often contributes to the relative decline of companies'/industries' leadership positions. Harvard University Business School Professor Clayton Christensen has written extensively on disruptive technologies. At the same time, organizational missions that lack unifying characteristics, absence of concrete objectives/commitments, and enormously long deadlines do not produce organizational leadership (myriad literature on management and also psychology address such issues).

Overall, my view is that the new approach is perhaps a little better than the one it succeeded. It is better than nothing. But it is far from "Kennedyesque" and it is far from a path that assures continued U.S. leadership in space technologies/capabilities over the longer-run. I hoped for better.

UtahBill said:

I love it when people think you can legislate technilogical breakthroughs. Just like legislating morality, it is not likely to work no matter how much you throw money at the people who are trying to make something happen.

Click to expand...

The Manhattan Project, Apollo, and ARPAnet are all counter examples to what you have said.

All this whining about budgets....it is like someone complaining that his latte' didn't have the right amount of foam while the rest of the world can't even afford coffee....

Click to expand...

It is not our culpability that they cannot afford coffee. Neither is it our responsibility.

UtahBill said:

I love it when people think you can legislate technilogical breakthroughs.

Click to expand...

One can't legislate outcomes. President Kennedy was very clear about the daunting challenge he was setting forth. One can set the nation on a bold course and put in place the investment/mechanisms/personnel to pursue that course.

UtahBill said:

I love it when people think you can legislate technilogical breakthroughs. Just like legislating morality, it is not likely to work no matter how much you throw money at the people who are trying to make something happen.

All this whining about budgets....it is like someone complaining that his latte' didn't have the right amount of foam while the rest of the world can't even afford coffee....

Click to expand...

Whoa, just slow down.

The foam to milk to espresso ratio is extremely important for a good latte.

Kelzie said:

Whoa, just slow down.

The foam to milk to espresso ratio is extremely important for a good latte.

Click to expand...

I may be a philistine in these matters, so I will bow to your expertise.
Growing up, I was of the opinion that one could not add enough sugar to make coffee taste good.
OTOH, Earl Grey Tea, hot or cold, with honey....that is my favorite drink...

As for our world famous astronauts, let them drink Tang...

Why are some even comparing the Kennedy Administration with Obama's? It's clear the background to Kennedy's decisions were completely different.

UtahBill said:

OTOH, Earl Grey Tea, hot or cold, with honey....that is my favorite drink...

As for our world famous astronauts, let them drink Tang...

Click to expand...

You must be a Red Coat

donsutherland1 said:

Three points:

First, that President Bush’s approach had serious flaws does not make it the proper standard against which to measure the new approach. Noting the very limited ambitions of the new approach is not the same thing as expressing support for the Bush approach.

Second, the Apollo program was truly revolutionary. It required the U.S. to develop new technologies that did not exist at the time of President Kennedy’s speech. It set forth a very demanding timeline. Its larger purpose was to regain leadership in space for the U.S.

In the wake of Kennedy’s bold address, critics immediately attacked the program as ‘proof of American decadence,’ ‘extremely wasteful,’ ‘unlikely to yield the expected results,’ an initiative that would ‘steal’ engineers from Detroit and other productive industries, among other things. They advised that “we can spend money to better advantage on earth than by shooting it into space.” Both the President and Congress chose the bolder course and the “expected results” were achieved even sooner than the President had envisioned.

Third, the flippant “Star Trek” comment is nothing more than a powerful rationalization for seeking limited aspirations. It is outright dismissive of a pursuit that would push the frontiers of progress, technology, and knowledge. It advocates the easier approach, but one that can only undermine the spirit of exploration, research, and risk-taking that leads to revolutionary breakthroughs and/or sustains a nation's position of leadership.

Had that perspective prevailed, the U.S. would never have undertaken the Manhattan and Apollo Projects. Proposals for such initiatives would have been derided as figments of science fiction. Then, the Soviets would almost certainly have achieved the first nuclear breakthrough and the world would likely be vastly different today. Man would likely still be waiting to take the first steps on the Moon.

Click to expand...

I respect your logic, and feel sure you recognize the difference between Kennedy's commitment to a specific goal, and the current challenge of prioritizing the beginnings of a centuries-long dedication to deep space exploration. By jettisoning Bush's half-assed ideas and offering incentives to bring private enterprise into the effort, I believe Obama has laid exactly the right foundation to establish America's ascendancy in space.
By the way, Buzz Aldrin's interest is not just historical, he heads a company that is developing a heavy lift rocket - exactly the kind of free enterprise collaboration we need to transfer the cost of spaceflight to private enterprise.

The Carnage said:

Why are some even comparing the Kennedy Administration with Obama's? It's clear the background to Kennedy's decisions were completely different.

Click to expand...

The single point of comparison is that one approach offered a bold, unifying purpose, while the other lacked such a sense of purpose and is relatively incremental in nature. One approach pushed the frontiers of technology. The other seeks to leverage the normal rate of technological change. One provided demanding deadlines. One offered enormously lengthy timelines.

No arguments, at least that I'm aware of, concern literally redoing the Kennedy-era program. Instead, there are arguments that the new approach should have been bolder, should have had an overriding purpose, etc.

Finally, if one had read the thread more closely, one would also have come across discussion of the differing policy background. For example, earlier in the thread, I noted:

Perhaps it was the challenging geopolitical environment and strengthening Cold War rivalry with the Soviet Union that created an opportunity for bold leadership that President Kennedy seized.

At the time of President Kennedy’s notable speech of 1961 in which he committed the nation to landing a man on the moon, the U.S. was still reeling from the Soviets having taken the early lead in exploring the frontier of space with their 1957 Sputnik mission.

This time around, the U.S. is not confronted with a similarly urgent challenge. It remains the leader in a broad range of space technologies and capabilities. The U.S. has been drifting for more than a decade, even as a slowly growing number of nations embarked on their own space programs. During that decade of drift, the qualitative U.S. edge has been eroding. Yet, perhaps because the pace of erosion in the U.S. edge has been slow and progress to date among the other nations has consisted largely of their covering ground already forged by the U.S., the relative decline in the U.S. position has been beyond the detection of the nation’s policy makers. As a result, even as the White House has changed hands, there remained strong continuity in a policy paralysis that has been nourished by a strong bias toward complacency, not to mention pain of the recent severe recession.

winston53660 said:

You must be a Red Coat

Click to expand...

Target aquisition, ON.
Range, SET
Windage, SET
FIRE!!!

Leave it to the Brits to wear bright red on the field of battle...

WillRockwell said:

I respect your logic, and feel sure you recognize the difference between Kennedy's commitment to a specific goal, and the current challenge of prioritizing the beginnings of a centuries-long dedication to deep space exploration.

Click to expand...

A goal to strengthen America's advantages in space, namely to build an advantage in deep space exploration could have been articulated as the overriding mission. The President could have said:

1. America will become the leader in manned exploration beyond the lower earth orbit.
2. To get there, the U.S. will need to develop reliable and safe technology.
3. A critical ingredient will be a suitable rocket.
4. That rocket will be completed and used for its first trip within a decade.
5. Successful attainment of that step will provide a foundation for further progress.

The goal would have been specific. There would have been focus on a pivotal early step. A specific deadline for the early outcome would have been established. It would be clear that the outcome marked a step along a longer journey.

The speech did not contain such clarity. There is little doubt that the President is committed to manned space exploration. But setting a goal for leadership is a bolder pronouncement than affirming a commitment to manned space exploration.

With respect to the rocket, he declared, "And we will finalize a rocket design no later than 2015 and then begin to build it." Although that is well-intended, it is far from a concrete commitment to success. After all, the troubled F-35 fighter jet has passed design and has been in the building phase for a number of years. To date, all the U.S. has to show for it is delays and cost-overruns.

A commitment to complete and launch the rocket would be much bolder. There would be the kind of sense of urgency that cannot exist under a more limited commitment to settle on a design and then to begin building the rocket.

In sum, the biggest issue concerns the lack of concrete outcomes. It is far easier to suggest that one will start a process than to pledge to complete it. There are abundant examples where an absence of commitments led to insufficient progress toward concrete outcomes. The rebuilding on the grounds of the World Trade Center offers another example. No commitments were made in terms of when the project would be completed. Today, almost a decade later, very little has been achieved except in the generation of a growing litany of excuses for the failures to date. Whether in the private sector or public sector, an emphasis on starting projects is far less effective in generating progress than an emphasis placed on concrete outcomes.

... Kennedy's speech was not the source of NASA's moon landing success, although it was helpful in other ways, like improving the state of the national consciousness. NASA succeeded because of its Cold War military mentality, which was relative to its members perceptions of their nature of their work (saving America from Soviet attacks from orbit).

WillRockwell said:

You are calling for another one trick pony, a gimmick to capture the imagination. We are not children anymore, and it's time to begin the serious work of designing hardware to enable man to explore space on a large scale. These are the boldest footsteps yet, you just refuse to see them.

Click to expand...

Man! You really like Obama! It seems the man can do no wrong in your eyes.

Boldest footsteps? That's a joke, right? My, my, my...

UtahBill said:

A billion here, a billion there, pretty soon we are talking about a lot of money.:2razz:
Question remains, would you pay extra to support your favorite programs?
If the tax form had a section for voluntary extra payment to NASA, would YOU pay extra?

Click to expand...

Absolutely I would pay. In 2004, about 89 million Americans filed a tax return that had more than zero liability(1). That means each one of those Americans would only have to pay approximately $169 a person in order to pay for NASA's budget; I'd pay at least three times that amount if my tax burden wasn't already so large.

That doesn't take into account revenues accrued from payroll taxes, corporate income taxes, excise taxes, customs and duties, and estate taxes.

As I said, NASA only accounts for a minuscule portion of our total budget outlays, but the point is moot, since Obama isn't even decreasing NASA's funding; he's just transferring it from space exploration to climate research. Which is more important to you?

(1) - The Tax Foundation - Number of Americans Outside the Income Tax System Continues to Grow

I'd like to know when our resident Obama-lovers are going to address the fact that NASA's budget hasn't even decreased, which would make their concerns about the budget perplexing, since it does nothing to address that fact.

Obama is increasing NASA's funding. He's just transferring the funding from space exploration to climate change. I suppose you liberals think research on climate change is more important than space exploration? C'mon! Tell me what you think, you damned rascals!

1984 said:

I'd like to know when our resident Obama-lovers are going to address the fact that NASA's budget hasn't even decreased, which would make their concerns about the budget perplexing, since it does nothing to address that fact.

Obama is increasing NASA's funding. He's just transferring the funding from space exploration to climate change. I suppose you liberals think research on climate change is more important than space exploration? C'mon! Tell me what you think, you damned rascals!

Click to expand...

Wha...I already did. Do I not count?

Kelzie said:

Wha...I already did. Do I not count?

Click to expand...

Then you agree, that Obama has made a stupid, stupid move here?

He hasn't cut spending, he just transfered it from space exploration to climate research. Did you already tell me which one you think is more important? I don't think you did...

1984 said:

Then you agree, that Obama has made a stupid, stupid move here?

He hasn't cut spending, he just transfered it from space exploration to climate research. Did you already tell me which one you think is more important? I don't think you did...

Click to expand...

1984 said:

NASA's entire budget in FY 2009 only accounted for approximately 1% of the deficit, and half a percent of the entire Federal budget. Your concern over the deficit is, forgive me, laughable.

Never mind that Obama didn't even decrease NASA's budget; he just shifted the funding from space exploration to climate research. I'm sure you consider that "essential".

Click to expand...

Kelzie said:

Nope. Shocked?

I don't blame you for thinking I'm one of "those" liberals though. Climate research is a luxury too. And a concern over the deficit should not be laughable. If I spent more than I made each month, I would consider a book, even an educational one on say, space, to be a frivolous expenditure.

Click to expand...

I'll forgive you just this once for missing it. Though if you're asking what I would chose between the two if I had to, it'd be space research. Much cooler (ha ha, pun) than climate.

Kelzie said:

I'll forgive you just this once for missing it. Though if you're asking what I would chose between the two if I had to, it'd be space research. Much cooler (ha ha, pun) than climate.

Click to expand...

Alright then! We agree Obama has made the wrong decision, yes?