Apollo Veterans (And Mike Griffin) Plead Their Case

I'm sure many on this site may disagree with me, but my sentiments are entirely with these gentlemen.

If they were still with us, I would love to hear the sentiments of Wally Schirra, Alan Shepherd, Gus Grissom, Ed White, Roger Chaffee, Pete Conrad, Richard Scobee, Rick Husband, Max Faget and Werner Von Braun. I could be wrong but I think most of them would be mortified by the "grand vision"

There's that three hundred pound gorilla in the room again. ( insert sinister music). Apollo the ultimate in human innovation and accomplishment but also setting the bar so high for NASA, that anything else pales in comparison.

I wonder, If I went back to 1969 and ask Buzz and Neil and Micheal as they were on the way to land on the moon if they thought we would be stuck in LEO in 2010. I suspect they would laugh at such a ridiculous notion.

Damn the Gravity!

49 years ago yesterday, the era of Manned Space Exploration began. It began in the midst of a time of fear, and flourished out of America's need to prove herself better than those who opposed her ideologically. John Kennedy supported the space program because it was a sound idea both politically and ideologically. He was right. It called out the very best in us, gave us a goal, and left the next generation a dream and a challenge.
Wernher von Braun was another man of both dreams and drive. No signatory of this letter needs anything other than the mention of his name to understand and remember his contributions.
Today, our dream has come to such an ugly impasse because we lack the quality of leadership of both a Kennedy, and a Wernher von Braun.
I shall refrain (as difficult as that is for me) from commenting on the individuals and the faults and flaws of those individuals who have reduced a grand adventure to little more than a "turf war" and a petty, childish squabble over "Not-invented-here."
Along with this story, and the copy of the letter, there's a graphic of what's left of Pad 34. Like Wernher von Braun, for anyone who remembers, the mention is, painfully, enough. Our friends have given life and blood for this dream. Even now, I cannot think about it without weeping.

Now,a nation is deep economic trouble and gripped by new fears needs a new challenge. This generation of political leadership recedes, whining like allowance-poor teenagers that living up to ourselves and our history is just too expensive.

This too, is cause to weep. The best in mankind, and the best in our dreams to brought out in the challenges we set for ourselves, and how we meet them.

In a few days time, another President, one who never knew the mettle of a von Braun, will, I suspect, stand not far from where Al Shepard was launched, and try to tell us why lowering the bar is so much better for us nearly half a century after it all began.

President Barack Obama needs to be reminded of the historical maxim that spacecraft, and launch vehicles tend to do better when they, and the people who support and fly them, are pointed upward. What he must do is set an upward goal, rather than one that lowers fiscal costs and spirits along with them.

Below is the April 12, 2010 letter Homer Hickman blogged to the current astronauts at JSC.

"I just had to write you. I know I said I wasn't going to comment on NASA anymore in my last blog titled "Homer Shrugs," but the bad news keeps getting worse so I'm driven to the computer....."

Dear Astronauts of the Johnson Space Center, Houston, Texas

They seem to be generalizing about the Constellation Program. They're not arguing specifically that the familiar Ares1/Orion designs should be adhered to. My interpretation is that they're saying Ares1/Orion should not have been replaced with nothing, but with something. At least I hope that's what they're saying, and that they're not advocating going back to "Apollo on steroids" and "the stick".

This is an amazing list of people on this open letter. Even if you don't like Mike Griffin and the way he managed NASA, you have to respect the others listed. This statement made by such a distinctive group of individuals should be taken seriously.

The good ole boys making their case of self interest again. In July 1962, Glenn testified before the House Space Committee in favor of these guys and excluding women from the NASA astronaut program, while the USSR flew woman starting in 1963. These guys have had enough time in public.

Good luck trying to get the attention of this president...

This is not going forward. This is re enacting Apollo. These shuttle hating retro spam canners should not get their way. Not only do they want to bring back an obsolete method of travel, they want that Shuttle gone so quickly they can taste it.
I support Aldrins view

I wish Tom Hanks would have signed it instead of Griffin or that he and Rita could take the lovely Lovells and Neil deGrasse Tyson to the Estefans' for a meaningful discussion.

It's sad that so many people who should know better seem to have drunk the Constellation Kool-Aid. Then again, the old NASA is all they know. Their premise statements are all false, so everything that follows is unsupported.

... America ceding its hard earned global leadership in space technology to other nations.
False. Constellation would have ceded our leadership by slashing NASA's R&D. The new plan restores it.

... this move will force as many as 30,000 irreplaceable engineers and managers out of the space industry.
False. The budget increase should fund 5,000 to 10,000 more jobs, not fewer. And they'll be better jobs, doing real development as opposed to operations. If some of the old folks don't want to do the new jobs, let them make way for younger people who will.

We see our human exploration program ... being reduced to mediocrity.
An opinion, but false. Destroying the Space Station and then spending fortunes doing nothing productive until a Lunar landing some time in the 2030's would have been worse than mediocrity. The new plan offers a chance for an economic boom in space, the beginning of a real space frontier for the American people.

... forces NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable future.
False. Constellation would have done that by destroying the Space Station. The new plan not only continues Space Station operations, it restores the funding to actually use the Space Station that Constellation used to cover part of its cost overruns.

The tragedy of rigid old thinking trying to impede progress is nothing new. It recalls Max Planck's famous quotation: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Considering you didn't even need a college degree to be on this list and just be a white male. I don't think to highly of it's prestige. Don't get me wrong, there are some competent people on this list, but I'd rather take a list of noble prize winners from the same time period by far.

This NY times issue sums up the situation today. NASA has about the same budget today as it did in the 1960's (adjusted for inflation), but that won't pay for an Apollo program.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/13tier.html?src=mv

"In space transportation, though, many costs have actually risen since the days of Apollo. NASA estimates that each seven-person space shuttle mission now costs about $65 million per astronaut, and outside experts say the true cost, once you add in all shuttle-related expenses, is double or triple that figure. Even a cramped trip to the space station on the Russian government’s Soyuz will cost the United States more than $50 million per astronaut. "

The only kool aide being drunk are from those that keep telling us how bold and exciting the Obama plan is. Because we have to be told it is bold and exciting says a lot doesn't it? LOL

Obviously, it isn't.

It's boring and OLD thinking. You think a kid is going to get excited when a so called "merchant 7" representative comes to class to inspire? LOL

Well no kids, we aren't doing anything new at all that NASA hasn't done 40 years ago. In fact, we don't even have a single second of flight time.

But hey, we're going to dock to the space station someday! Like the shuttle does!

Yes, the Obama plan IS old thinking more then new.
It is in part the thinking of the sixties liberal that Obama is born of. That NASA human spaceflight and landing on the moon is a waste of time and money. So he comes up with the fatal "farm it out" LEO solution and wash his hands of it once and for all with promises (haven't we learned what this guys promises are worth yet?) of miracle technology cures in the fuzzy future.

He is no hero of human spaceflight, if the ISS was in the political and financial state of years ago he would have canned it too and we would have NOTHING.

The Obama plan is fatal to NASA human spaceflight and beyond low earth orbit.

The people on that list ARE heroes of spaceflight and the legacy they wish to pass on to us is one of success and goals worthy of this nation.

Not the shrugging of shoulders, saying it's too hard to go back to the moon now and walk away to embrace nebulous un-goals and champion LEO in commercial non-existant vehicles.

Wow.
No college degree's on that list huh?

Go look at the bios of some of those folks and get back to us.
And I guess if your making race relevant too,

Better check the video here.......

Black Americans fighting for NASA HSF are prominately featured...

http://www.cfnews13.com/Space/DestinationSpace/2010/4/11/thousands_gather_for_save_space_rally.html?refresh=1

Not to mention the wonderful speech by Neil deGrasse Tyson.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQhNZENMG1o

Yes, he has a degree.

The Obama plan has him seriously worried.

I can't believe you said that!
All of these people not only have at least masters degrees they have many years of intimate, personal knowledge of the space program.
How would a Nobel Prize winner from that time period, basically the past 45 years, ave any more in site to the present situation than these folks?!

You need to change your handle cause you just proved you are NOT a Nuclear Rocket Scientist.

"NASA has about the same budget today as it did in the 1960's"

Huh?

The averaged NASA budget in from 1960-1969 is $22.22 Billion (in 2007 dollars), and the average from 2000-2009 was $15.9.

The peak year was 1965 with $33.514 Billion!!! The peak from the 2000-2009 was $17.138B. 2010 is slightly higher at $17.9B.

What if NASA had this money today?!?!?!?

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NASA_Budget

Tell that to Gene Krantz. I'd rather have him than a Nobel prize winner any day. And he got his job by being a proven leader, not for being a white male.

Most of what you say is true and accurate.

It is unfortunate that such an esteemed group, who could have made an appropriate plea for a logical change, instead got confused and delivered a very unclear message.

Constellation had serious technical and managerial problems, and politically it was unsupportable over the long term. Since so many of these signatories lived through the shutting down of Apollo, which was also politically unsupportable for exactly the same reason, they should have known better.

Constellation is not something that anyone should be trying to reinstate. Constellation as it was being designed and as it was being run would have most assuredly killed US human space flight.

We have a human space flight program today; it is Shuttle and Station. Both offer tremendous capabilities today, and both offer tremendous opportunities for tomorrow.

We've successfully headed off the Bush/Griffin plan to shut down ISS prematurely. NOW, IMMEDIATELY, we need to do the same for Shuttle and KEEP SHUTTLE FLYING AND ITS PERSONNEL ON THE PAYROLL FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE

Shuttle and the heavy lift capability that could easily and inexpensively be derived from it, is what we stand to lose.

Constellation was lost from the start and these people are trying to save it ?

This letter does a great disservice by not having kit the nail; instead these people are confusing the message and they have wasted an important opportunity to make the case.

Homer is a very cool person, but his e-mail to CB is just dripping with missing data. This isn't, and can't be, about whether astros will fly soon; Under CxP, almost none of them would have flown until the 2020's, apart from ISS flights. The New Vision at least gives a longer and expanded ISS role, which will increase the the number of US astro flights in the next decade over CxP! Yes, they may not be on a US vehicle, but more of them will fly, and more of them will work on important exploration-forward missions. NASA will have an increased HSF programme.

Even if STS flights are extended, there is already talk that there may need to be a removal of LON capacity, using Soyuz as the emergency vehicle, thus reducing STS crews to the 2-3 crewmember level, so they can be picked up in Soyuz. So, again, a very low flight right for US astros. ISS is approaching completion, with little in the queue.

Indeed, what would the astros prefer - one flight a year on STS, with 2 crew, or 4 of them flying to ISS per year via Soyuz?

Folks need to read the NASA budget documents, or at least report them correctly. Under all plans, there are not going to be many astro flights for a long time, independent of new developments. That's been planned for many, many, years, as were the KSC layoffs.

NASA's budget is very comparable to the Budget of the Apollo. It's now 40 yrs after Apollo and the biggest difference in budget between these periods is 2x, which is still below what it would take to Complete constellation (2005-2032 (27 yrs) vs Apollo (~10yrs) on the same time frame. "The peak funding per year was 1965 with $33.514 Billion!!! The peak from the 2000-2009 was $17.138B. 2010 is slightly higher at $17.9B."

The Augustine panel concluded that much more funding ($ 3billion /yr MINIMUM) would be required in order to make constellation successful, not to mention a much later return to moon date of 2032...MORE THAN 2 DECADES FROM TODAY.......

It's simply unexescusable that the budget is comparable even if it is 50% of what has been. We should be getting to the moon an order of magnitude cheaper by now.

I didn't say "no college degrees" were present then, I said you didn't need one. If you want an example of someone who doesn't have a degree, look at John Glenn. We named a NASA center after him.

What I find remarkable is that there is no one on that list who is less than 65 years old.

There is a lesson in there some where.

"If you want an example of someone who doesn't have a degree, look at John Glenn..."

????????????????

"Glenn attended primary and secondary schools in New Concord, Ohio. He attended Muskingum College in New Concord and received a Bachelor of Science degree in Engineering. Muskingum College also awarded him an honorary Doctor of Science degree in engineering. He has received honorary doctoral degrees from nine colleges or universities."

About average for the accuracies of posters on this site...

Wrong. The first one I looked up is (Griffin).

"... this move will force as many as 30,000 irreplaceable engineers and managers out of the space industry.
False. The budget increase should fund 5,000 to 10,000 more jobs, not fewer."

False right back at you. The problem is, of course, not the number of jobs but the timing. The Constellation contractors are going away in as little as two months (if Obama's folks get they're way). Even assuming Obama's budget gets passed and takes effect October 1, it will take upward of a year to get new contracts written, released, bid upon and awarded. So these folks are going to go on welfare for a year and then come back and work for the Obama "plan"?

"And they'll be better jobs, doing real development as opposed to operations."

The absolute arrogance. I have done both jobs and neither is more "real" than the other.

"... forces NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable future.
False. Constellation would have done that by destroying the Space Station."

Whaa? WTF does THAT mean?

" The new plan not only continues Space Station operations, it restores the funding to actually use the Space Station that Constellation used to cover part of its cost overruns."

Complete bull. There was NO funding for ISS beyond 2015 because that was where the former President's budget ended. That phantom money wasn't used by anyone because there WAS no budget beyond 2015. Everyone knew the money would have to come from somewhere, but no one expected ISS to be shut down in 2015. That point made by the Augustine Commission was purely self-serving, making it seem like they discovered this great revelation.

And please document this Constellation "overrun?" Constellation projections have NEVER exceeded the initial operating plan. The funding was simply pulled from underneath it.

This is getting so boring...

"These shuttle hating retro spam canners should not get their way."

This is a moronic statement. Look at the list, please. Shuttle commanders, crewmembers and center directors during Shuttle development and Operations.

EXCELLENT Anne! thanks for sharing that. Now, let's see how many actually resign...

Has anyone considered what the HSF would be after the 2020 retirement date of the ISS, should the Obama space plan pass? At some point you have to ask, what next beyond ISS, even if ISS were extended until 2025. As amazing an accomplishment of building in space as ISS is, it is simply NOT the Moon and NOT Mars. WHEN do we plan to get out of LEO? Under the Obama plan, does HSF just end after ISS? Even considering the supposed heavy-lift R&D and advanced technology development, has anyone considered when do these come together in a mission back to the Moon or to Mars under the Obama plan? They appear not to.
And as far as the Apollo-style capsule being viewed as looking to the past, how do you think the Russians still transport cosmonauts? In a capsule.

Unfortunately, they're on the cleft stick of having to admit that ARES design and "development" was a grossly expensive mistake. Worse "backroom boys" joining with "rank amateurs", came up with a better and cheaper solution. I see a closing of ranks here; result: Constellation 2.0 is dead in the water and commercial LEO flights will be all she wrote.

Yes, but those 65+ year olds went to the Moon while Gen-Y's biggest achievement seems to be who has most friends on Facebook. ;-)

I'm saying this toungue-in-cheek, but there's a serious undertone to it. There is definitively some drawback in modern wonders such as the Internet where there is a dissociation between 'hard reality' and 'idilic virtuality'.

Modern generations, alas, don't have much attention span for science or engineering beyond that first telescope (rarely, if ever, to be used) or 500+ piece LEGO set (which only daddy shows some interest in building) they get from Santa Claus instead of latest game console they had asked for.

Ahh ...that last phrase in the letter "...lack of will or an unwillingness to pay the price."

If it were only that simple, as the phrase makes it all appear as if we are in control, able to make a large variety of choices, that there are no limits to what's on the table?

We are heading to a budget where Medicare, and all things Homeland, Defense and such, will compete in the next 10 years for federal revenue even more so than in the last 40.

Typically, and trends on percents of federal spending in these insurance programs, vs. defense matters, have resulted in smaller and smaller percents of the budget going to military matters and such. Each area, Medicare and National Security, are now squeezed by Interest on the Debt, which in past deficit spending days actually helped for some time to avoid an amount of friction between these 2 areas of the federal budget, in the sense that debt immediately is a benefit, and only later a drain.

Social security will be fixed easily, a slight increase in the maximum taxable income above $100K/yr.

After these 4 large gorillas, (1) Medicare, (2) National Security matters, (3) the interest on the debt and (4) social security, will be everything else.

NASA is in that "everything else". Everything else will be squeezed by the 4 areas prior, inexorably.

Now we can think that somehow we as NASA must be different, an investment, not an expense, that we are worthy, such a small expense for so much return, and so on. I can defend those points too, maybe better than the next person. Or we can get on with the task at hand - making do with what we have to make the exploration of space more sustainable by making access to space more affordable and reliable (safer) than current systems.

The alternative - getting lots of money - does not address long term sustainability. Constellation never said they would be just as much as Shuttle or only twice as much, to get farther out, more often. Rather it was heading to being three times as much for just a couple of missions a year, recurring. Forget how much to get there.

That's a formula for money and a victory now, and fight after fight after fight forever to hold that line.

Or we can go and say lets get competition into crew access to LEO, anyone who wants to provide the service can bid, and we'll be fine providing less government oversight, putting that resource to future matters.

We decide that R&D is to build a case that says exploration beyond low earth orbit can now proceed, once it's shown the recurring cost is such that it does not consume the budget of others and of critical functions at NASA like R&D. You will have a program to get to the Moon and Mars once R&D and demo and test shows it's doable for an amount that on a recurring basis is sustainable. That is, for an amount that is within a realistic look at NASA's future budgets, which are likely close to today's in purchase power terms (if lucky).

The world will change a lot in 10 years. We can change with it and be prepared for the change, or be caught short, having insisted the world be something else.

One note of caution going forward, as societies age matters of defense will lose priority. NASA has a chance to shine in ways that even in such an environment can do well in any federal budget.

Whereas endless involvement abroad and the hundreds of bases we keep round the world will likely not do well at all. NASA has a chance to be seen as a positive force in even an aging society, one of increasing diversity and new ways, in a manner that defense matters may never be able to "sell".

So again, the world will change a lot in 10 years. We can change with it and be prepared for the change, or be caught short, having insisted the world be something else.

Oh..and BTW... Dr_Prunesquallor ...you're comment on ISS is incorrect. Cx budgeting went to 2020, beyond the official budget cycle. The needed/planned funds there in Cx went up in 2015 dollar for dollar for the de-orbit of the ISS. Cx did not have to do this linkage.

So saying one plan, the previous plan, de-obited the ISS and the other did not, the current plan, is correct.

Ideally Cx planning would have assumed ISS as an independent matter, with no linkage. Then defining a system that could be within a topline linear budget assumption, while the ISS flew, or alternately reflecting a large plus up in 2015 for Cx needs. Neither was done.

"There was NO funding for ISS beyond 2015 because that was where the former President's budget ended."

WRONG. Constellation's assumption was ISS was to be deorbited in 2016 because NASA's overall projected budget could not even come close to enveloping ISS operations, CxP LEO operations AND CxP lunar development beyond 2015 (+ everything else outside of CxP).

"Constellation projections have NEVER exceeded the initial operating plan."

Hmmmmmm, ever heard of Ares I-X ? How well did that stay within their "initial operating plan" ? As for the program as a whole, its pretty easy to stay on budget when you delay the schedule every year.

Figures you'd say that, John Glenn did not have a degree in 1959 when he was selected as part of the Mercury 7. He then later testified to congress to the fact that woman should not be allowed to be Astronauts. In fact, NASA had been training women up to that point

If my response was average, what does that make your? You must be an excellent "Doctor"

Since the main point of my comment has gone awry, I will clarify.

The point is that, why should these individuals be given such a grand status when much of their selection criteria did not depend on excellence, but being white, male and great at public relations?

Werner Von Braun and several engineers on the ground that made Apollo possible deserve more accolades, yet are given 2nd to none tier status. The Astronauts just flew the thing, even rarely at that.

This is exactly why NASA has become so disfunctional, they've let the political figures and public relations people lead. It's all superficial and destined for failure.

Very True. We have to be honest about the way things are. Most people care about making money now and not science.

We went from a racially divided society to a economically divided society and everyone wants in now as before. That doesn't fair well towards cost efficiency in massive engineering projects. It'd be amazing what NASA could accomplish if it's costs were lowered by only 25%. (Should have happened already, to be honest)

This cancellation was only a matter of time. The sad thing is that it didn't get noticed before the bank collapse. We might have had a chance for bailout.

Folks here are forgetting the International in the ISS. Its not exclusively NASA property, but is owned jointly by all the ISS partners.

The other partners showed little interest in approving it to be de-orbited in 2016, and such approval would be needed under the ISS agreements, so even if NASA funding ended it likely would have continued in service, especially as NASA, with the Shuttle gone and no CEV flying yet would have no physical way to de-orbit it without the help of Russia. And no legal authority to do so without the agreement of the other partners.

So in many ways keeping the ISS flying past 2015 is as much an acceptance of the wishes of the other partners in the ISS, and the avoidance of a foreign policy crisis between the ISS partners, as it is a U.S. space policy decision.

I see you changed your handle to Scientist, and I very much doubt that. I also see your a racist and a bigot.
All these men have impeccable credentials and are far better qualified than us comment on the planned direction the president would like to see NASA go.
Is your argument so weak that you have to stoop to character assassination?

Others have also joined the chorus against this ill concived policy:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36470363/ns/nightly_news/

Yes, but those 65+ year olds went to the Moon while Gen-Y's biggest achievement seems to be who has most friends on Facebook. ;-)

Hmm.... last time I checked there is an 800,000 lbs space station in orbit above our heads.

Last time I checked there is a $200 billion plus per year comsat industry.

Last time I checked there is a global communications infrastructure that dwarfs anything postulated by even the most forward thinkers of the 60's.

Last time I checked the computer in my laptop is about 1 billion times more powerful than the computer that was in the Lunar Module.

Yes, nothing at all.

The problem today is that too many people want to attempt to recreate the Apollo era without understanding that times have changed, and a different solution, a sustainable one, must be developed. Constellation was never sustainable, nor did the architecture even close.

With the station as an anchor point we could be on the Moon in five years if we really wanted to, within the money that we have today on the table.

ISRU, reusable in space systems, those are the keys, not Apollo on geritol.

Oh, and my friend who claimed that these were fantasies did not have the grumbas to show his face again and take up my challenge.

Tell you heavy lift fans what, publically, here on NASA Watch, I will take any one of you or all of you put together on, on this subject.

You want sustainable space or really big lawn ornaments.

Your choice.

Dennis is right on the flight path here!

Not just CxP, but Apollo itself, were never sustainable. Apollo was a great step, but, in the end, a dead end. It was never designed to be part of a program that takes us out into the solar system and beyond. It is time for us to move out into the solar system, using what we know now. As Dennis says, our technologies are several orders of magnitude better than during Apollo. Those technologies need to move into space. Those will give us the robustness required for spacecraft to spend their entire lifetime in space, without constantly lifting large masses into orbit. We can use far more complex trajectory planning, dynamically, to avoid our brute-force low-efficiency single-burn trajectories. We have emerging materials science, control technologies, and more that can take human spaceflight out of the holding pattern it has been in since the 1950s, and get us to our next stage. Consider the technologies present in modern communication spacecraft, built by commercial companies, with powerful on-orbit processing with decades-long spacecraft longevities. We can do this, and we can do it now.