John Glenn Has Something To Say

Anyone know where this guy was like 10 years ago when something could have been done about this "gap" or dependency on a foreign entity? WOW, where are the folks that see this a threat to national security?

Hopefully our current Congress is listening intently to what Senator Glenn has to say.

"The U.S. for the first time since the beginning of the Space Age will have no way to launch anyone into space - starting next January."

That's a pretty disingenuous statement. Did Mr. Glenn sleep through the years between the end of Apollo/Soyuz TP and start of the Shuttle era?

Whilst largely agreeing with Senator John Glenn's summation of the state of HSF I must take issue with the following rhetorical point:
"Starting at the end of this year, and probably for the next five to ten years, the launches of U.S. astronauts into space will be viewed in classrooms and homes in America only through the courtesy of Russian TV."

Is NASA cancelling NASA TV?

Yeah John, where the hell were you when NASA could have used your voice as we were stuck in low earth orbit for the better part of half a century? Just not paying attention? Being a hero in the 1960s does not make you right forever.
If I sound a little angry and bitter, it is because I am. We walked on the moon when I was in tenth grade. I am now 57 and it seems as if manned space flight to new destinations has been stolen from my generation. Given the small budgets NASA has and will probably have in the future, this new path seems at least to have realistic achievable goals. It would have been nice, John Glenn, if you had spoken up earlier. If an astronaut had spoken against grandiose plans always being under funded it might have made a difference. Now it is too little too late.

"Being a hero in the 1960s does not make you right forever."

Certainly doesn't, and that holds true for Armstrong et al too.

It is a noble intention because no launch vehicle redundancy is bad news. But Augustine did the math to solve the gap last year. He found Shuttle extension could reduce the gap, but NOT eliminate it, and the cost to do that much would be incredible.

Meanwhile Elon Musk said every year for years that he needs $100 million to finish the crew Dragon in 3 years. Probably 3 years later and nobody has taken him up on his offer.

Glenn speaks only for himself. He is a risk-taker extraordinaire as all seven originals were and he continues to be into his senior years (Discovery,'98). He makes one point that has not been emphasized much in the present NASA debate - loss of ISS because of a Soyuz failure. It is maybe the strongest argument for keeping the shuttle going but not without counter-point. Unless the Soyuz failure is acute or really mysterious and requires many months to resolve, there will be waivers to allow Soyuz to fly enough to keep the ISS and crew healthy. Unmanned Soyuz could continue to fly to maintain ISS. Only the most extreme Soyuz's failure could be used to argue that Shuttle remain an active vehicle. I would think maintaining Shuttle to fly once (probably twice would be little more) per year for the next 4 years would be the most one could rationalize.

Funding Levels

Being the same age as NASA and having worked for NASA in 2 decades, I also wish NASA had had more funding. However, since Apollo, the sum of all social factors, which I think is statistically balanced, has kept NASA funding at the present level. Funding has fallen because socio-economic problems have risen in the ensuing time. Do more rational minds arrive at higher funding levels? Maybe not if you consider the inefficiencies that could be eliminated with better planning and management (particularly acute in this Federal Agency).

A Moon base supplying oxygen and hydrogen to space stations, space tugs and orbiting space depots at the Lagrange points, LEO, and GEO would dramatically lower the cost of manned and unmanned space travel within cis-lunar space.

A Moon base would also probably be the prime destination for the emerging space tourism industry which could potentially create tens of billions of dollars of annual economic growth for the US.

The Moon might also be the primary source for hydrogen for mass shielding manned interplanetary vehicles for Mars or the asteroids which are probably going to require at least a 1000 tonnes of hydrogen mass shielding in order to protect astronauts from brain damaging heavy nuclei. Its substantially cheaper to transport hydrogen from the Moon to an L1 launch point than from the surface of the Earth.

So if we really want to go to Mars, by passing lunar resources that could help us get there would probably not be a good idea.

Marcel F. Williams

I have the utmost respect for John Glen, but I do not like it when he makes statements that are NOT true, such as "The U.S. for the first time since the beginning of the Space Age will have no way to launch anyone into space-starting next January."

Ugordan pointed out the gap after Apollo. There were also gaps after the 2 shuttle disasters. This will be the FOURTH time that Americans won't have the ability to launch people into space. I don't see how John Glen cannot know this.

That's great John (and KBH), but where have you been since 2004 when Bush made the decision to retire the Space Shuttle. Everyone knew there would be an extended gap. Commercial crew was and always has been the only solution for getting off Soyuz once the decision was made to retire Shuttle.

It is clear now that even with some stumbling along the way, commercial launching to LEO will replace the Federal Government as the primary means. The Federal Government supplies infrastructure and top-level management that can be leased and/or replaced. Also, consider Glenn's statement on Shuttle. "Why terminate a perfectly good system that has been made more safe and reliable through many years of development?" Focus on 'safe and reliable.' It is an early symptom in the rationalizing within the cycle that led from Challenger to Columbia.

Glenn is a risk-taker extraordinaire as all seven originals were and he continues to be into his senior years (Discovery,'98). He makes one point that has not been emphasized much in the present NASA debate - loss of ISS because of a Soyuz failure. It is maybe the strongest argument for keeping the shuttle going but not without counter-point. Unless the Soyuz failure is acute or really mysterious and requires many months to resolve, there will be waivers to allow Soyuz to fly enough to keep the ISS and crew healthy. Unmanned Soyuz could continue to fly to maintain ISS. Only the most extreme Soyuz's failure could be used to argue that Shuttle remain an active vehicle. I would think maintaining Shuttle to fly once, maybe twice with little cost per year for the next 4 years would be the most one could rationalize. But with the whims of politicians and changing of the administrations, it is risky and slippery slope.

Funding Levels

Being the same age as NASA and having worked for NASA in 2 decades, I also wish NASA had had more funding. However, since Apollo, the sum of all social factors, which I think is statistically balanced, has kept NASA funding at the present level. Funding has fallen because socio-economic problems have risen in the ensuing time. Do more rational minds arrive at higher funding levels? Maybe not if you consider the inefficiencies that could be eliminated with better planning and management (particularly acute in this Federal Agency). I am all for Humankind returning to the Moon and onward into inter-planetary space. Having recently watched the movie Contact for the first in a long while, one thing stands out - "Small steps, Sparks, small steps." Give ourselves time to develop the next generations of technology and permit international relations to mature before taking the next manned steps into our Solar System.

I was thinking the same thing as I read that statement

To build an HLV, you need rocket scientists. To build an exploration programme you need politicians and business leaders.

There is no shortage of well qualified people who know exactly what they would do given the chance but, with the greatest respect to John Glenn, it is shipping magnates who build shipping lnes not the ship's captains.

What do we get for $100M? Do we get a 210 day stay? Abort System? How many crew? Landing? Communication? Controls and Displays? Command and Data Handling? Etc... elon or spacex don't even know the requirements so to throw out a number of $100M is ludicrous. Could they do it cheaper without NASA insight/oversight - sure we all could. But do you think the gov't will buy it without having it reviewed for safety, reliability, assurance...? Of course not and then you are right back to where we are today.

What is commercial space today? Who is the buyer ... the gov't! It is a farse to call it commercial.

I have to agree with most of what John Glenn says and the rationale he provides. Maybe as one Democrat to another, he can have some effect on Mr. Obama.

The letter does have some minor errors.
The Shuttle first flew into orbit in early 81.
NASA PAO still sends people to cover launches and landings and so we are not dependent on the Russians for coverage; actually if NASA had been smart they would have had the Russians provide the coverage as it would have been a lot less expensive than sending people from Houston to provide coverage which few watch.

This is a foolish comment:

"Yeah John, where the hell were you when NASA could have used your voice as we were stuck in low earth orbit for the better part of half a century?"

you are trying to hang NASA's failure to move out and develop new capabilities on heroes who have been out of the program a long time. You could more rightly blame a lot people who were involved in the program a lot more recently.

Fact is we were moving basically according to von Braun's paradigm, established in the 1950s, except at a very slow rate; through development of the Shuttle and then development and assembly of ISS.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s there was nearly zero interest by anyone inside or outside of NASA in continuing the moon missions of Apollo or going further out, as long as risks were high and as long as costs were exorbitant. No one could afford continuing Apollo, which was why Johnson pulled the plug on new development and Saturn production in 68 and there was no outcry by anyone inside or outside of the program. The goals then were (1) using the Apollo technology for applications more directly usable on earth, and that was Apollo Applications which became Skylab. MOL was cancelled in 69 in order to consolidate these responsibilities with NASA. (2) developing a reusable spacecraft which could provide more routine access by more people, flying and landing more like an airliner, and more affordable than throwing away Saturn rockets and Apollo capsules.

Remember a couple things Chris Kraft has said, that they could have done Apollo with a lot fewer people; they could never have done it with any more. He and Gilruth discussed it would be time to go back to the moon when technology was more advanced and access was easier and safer.

The real deficiency of the last 30 years was that we did not learn from Shuttle and develop a more robust, more cost-effective system. The real mistake of Constellation was throwing all that knowledge and brainpower away in order to start over with a throwback to Apollo.

John Glenns comments are very well constructed. However, it has always been clear that he was a partisan democrat. He could have, should have stepped forward years ago. The fact that he did not does not give much credence to his views today.

"Give ourselves time to develop the next generations of technology and permit international relations to mature before taking the next manned steps into our Solar System."

I don't know about you but I want to live to see it. We wait on international relations we will have a very long wait.

And what if no particulary great leap in technology comes? This is part of R&D as well.
Most times it doesn't work out.

Small steps is for when one is not capable of giant leaps. We are capable of that if we simply have the will to do so.

@ newpapyrus "A Moon base supplying oxygen and hydrogen to space stations, space. . . "

Outstanding!! Just think of the technological and continuous operational capability that would provide. Just think of the inspiration those capabilities and operations will instill in kids. STEM education motivation would cease to be a problem.

If John Glenn had come out and stated what you have stated - That would have been more interesting.

I vote to put you in charge.

Glenn leaves out the obvious fact that the Russians have been providing assured crew return vehicles (Soyuz) since the very beginning of the ISS program. The anticipated US crew return vehicle never materialized, despite numerous false starts. Also, Glenn also leaves out the obvious fact that Soyuz has been also been used for US crew rotations to ISS. The reliance of the US on the Russians for manned access to ISS is nothing new.

Glenn is crying foul, but it is too little, and far too late to be of much help.

"Funding has fallen because socio-economic problems have risen in the ensuing time."

I think you would have a hard time showing the two things you identified.

(1) I think you would have a hard time showing that socio-economic problems have risen, particularly since the early 1960s. Things like the poverty rate and number of US people who are hungry has not gone up substantially.

http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty/histpov/hstpov2.html

http://www.npc.umich.edu/poverty/

(2) NASA funding since the conclusion of Apollo has been fairly stable and constant. It went down a little bit in the last few years. It went up considerably in the years after Challenger.

I think NASA did much less with what it was getting, in the last 15 years, than it had during the 1970s, when funding level by per cent of gnp/gdp, was about the same but during the 1970s we were developing a new technological capability called Space Shuttle and during the last 15 years we were developing nothing. Most ISS design and development was done from 1984 to 1995. In Human Space Flight Operations were getting more expensive and eating the rest of the HSF budget.

In the 60s, 70s and early 80s, NASA was funding a lot more academic research and development programs. In the 1980s NASA shifted away from sponsoring external academic institutions in favor of supporting its own internal R&D. Especially in the last several years since Griffin, dollars for academics took a major plunge. The net effect of that was probably to severely reduce the amount of support NASA was getting from academia nationally. A lot of people in academia gave up on supporting NASA five years ago, which is one reason why few people are yelling now.

"I do not like it when he makes statements that are NOT true, such as "The U.S. for the first time since the beginning of the Space Age will have no way to launch anyone into space-starting next January.""

After all of those previous gaps, there was a planned replacement planned and under way. No the case once the shuttle program ends.

Where the heck was John Glenn (and Neil Armstrong, Gene Cernan and the rest) years ago when it was obvious that the gap to Ares 1/Orion was going to be at least five years or longer? I can't tell you how irritating it is for these guys to suddenly pull their heads out of the clouds and chime in. It's too little, too late. That's above and beyond the inaccuracies in Glenn's memo.

Keep flying the Shuttle? Talk about closing the barn door after the horses have bolted.

Poor choice of words: "We wait on international relations we will have a very long wait."

Columbus 2004 - 2007 (Whoops 2008!)
ditto Kibo
Your current President and Executive is working hard to mend a lot of broken bridges busted by the previous Administration.
In many ways the Apollo program was a leap too soon and too far. But we are where we are. Hopefully an international concensus in space can lead to one down on the ground. And another great leap by mankind as a community.

Re-reading his statement, one is struck by the positive tone vs that of his successors.

But this should be carved in stone, somewhere monumental, somewhere that Congress can see every day:

"There is another thing we've learned. Whatever direction we take, appropriations must be made to do it right. It cannot be done "on the cheap." Space travel is a perilous business at best and will become even more so the further we go from earth."

Don't forget Glenn (like Nelson) used taxpayer dollars to give himself a scientifically useless, poorly justified ride on the Shuttle. Glenn is for NASA now only when it helps him politically.

Whyisthat1 wrote: "After all those previous gaps, there was a planned replacement planned and underway. No the case once the shuttle ends.?

The planned replacement will be commercial space providing taxi service to the ISS.

Except the shuttle, how many of those planned replacements NASA started on were completed?

"I don't know about you but I want to live to see it. We wait on international relations we will have a very long wait."

this sort of thinking amuses me.

as far as it affects "you" we are exploring the solar system. Cassini just did some amazing work uncovering a few items about Titan (upon which it has virtually wrote the book on), Messenger is 200 or so days away from going into orbit around Mercury and that will change our knowledge of that planet amazingly.

And both of these probes are exploring to a level that any human mission would interact with the rest of the people on Earth. "you" (and me for that matter) and almost everyone on this forum can interact with the Cassini or Messenger or whatever mission AS much as it would be possible to interact with a human mission. The pictures are indistinguishable from what a human mission would take except that they dont show "any humans" doing the things that NASA astronauts do in the pictures.

Do you follow the current programs? All around the world people are watching (as are almost all of the media markets) the video taken from 1 mile beneath the gulf on the oil spill...its from a robot.

What makes human missions special for you? And why doesnt watching NASA select and the endless streams of humans on the space station excite you?

Robert G. Oler

Sorry, but a repeat of the 60's using the same antiquated method of space travel is not a step ahead. It is re living the past in an age of trillion dollar deficits.

Where were all these old Apollo and Gemini and Mercury era astronauts years ago when the shuttle retirement was set into motion.?late to the game much?

Nasa was given an opportunity with Ares and Orion to build a spacecraft to LEO as good as Soyuz and it (NASA)dropped the ball. SO lets not all start crying now and take a long hard look in the mirror. I understand that Altair never had funding I understand Ares HLV was never funded. They had 9 billion dollars and over 4 years to come up with a suitable to LEO replacement and they DROPPED THE BALL! Now all these former astronauts want to cry we don't need to depend on the Russians?Funny thing most Americans feel the same way but when it comes time to pony up money so we don't have to "depend" on the Russians that same pride and patriotism about American leadership of space is more like "uh well oh uh how much?" rather than " this is something we need to do to continue being leaders in space"

Its like when Obama invokes Apollo which he does every chance he gets . Yet in one breath at NASA basically said it wasn't such a big deal " been there done that" but if he needs something or wants votes he still pulls it out and waves it around " hey look what we can do" It truly makes me sick. Its an insult to all the men and women who built and ran those programs.I have defended him on every attack from my most of my circle a friend who all lean right. I don't anymore I cant he talks out both sides of his mouth I'm done and to be honest regret voting for him .

registered INDEPENDENT.

Damn the Gravity!

John Glenn, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin. Does this sound funny to you?

Why are we asking ex-astronauts when we should be asking the people who are going to fly in them someday?

As my Nasawatch handle suggests, we have technology now to reduce our inter-planetary travel times by a factor of 10. So I agree that we could take giant leaps by investing in what is becoming flight ready. I'm sure I'll see Humans on Mars well before 2050 but we should not rely on existing technology to reach Mars. That would be a foolish, costly giant leap. Maybe there will be leaps if funding arises but I wouldn't count on it. The growth in international cooperation partly depends on investment in great projects but there still needs to be a balance reached that includes the cost factor. There remains too many huge and growing social problems, or problems of cause/effect from social issues that need far greater attention and cooperation of nations. Development in robotics should take emphasis or equal weight to developing and man-rating new technology for inter-planetary travel.

"The planned replacement will be commercial space providing taxi service to the ISS."

Huh? How many people will it carry? What control will astronauts have over the craft? How long will it remain in orbit? When was the contract awarded?

You're confusing some ideas thrown out with an actual planned replacement. This commercial proposal has no real requirements and no schedule. Totally different than the previous gaps.

"Except the shuttle, how many of those planned replacements NASA started on were completed?"

After Mercury came Gemini, then Apollo, then Skylab, then Shuttle. When the previous one was completed, the next was already approved and under way. Not now with Constellation canceled.