posted 04-13-2010 01:33 AM               

An open letter to President Barack Obama, from former NASA Administrator Michael Griffin, legendary flight director Gene Kranz and several NASA astronauts, asking him to reconsider a new space policy that cancels NASA’s Constellation moon rocket program.

Dear President Obama;

America is faced with the near-simultaneous ending of the Shuttle program and your recent budget proposal to cancel the Constellation program. This is wrong for our country for many reasons. We are very concerned about America ceding its hard earned global leadership in space technology to other nations. We are stunned that, in a time of economic crisis, this move will force as many as 30,000 irreplaceable engineers and managers out of the space industry. We see our human exploration program, one of the most inspirational tools to promote science, technology, engineering and math to our young people, being reduced to mediocrity. NASA’s human space program has inspired awe and wonder in all ages by pursuing the American tradition of exploring the unknown. We strongly urge you to drop this misguided proposal that forces NASA out of human space operations for the foreseeable future.

For those of us who have accepted the risk and dedicated a portion of our lives to the exploration of outer space, this is a terrible decision. Our experiences were made possible by the efforts of thousands who were similarly dedicated to the exploration of the last frontier. Success in this great national adventure was predicated on well defined programs, an unwavering national commitment, and an ambitious challenge. We understand there are risks involved in human space flight, but they are calculated risks for worthy goals, whose benefits greatly exceed those risks.

America’s greatness lies in her people: she will always have men and women willing to ride rockets into the heavens. America’s challenge is to match their bravery and acceptance of risk with specific plans and goals worthy of their commitment. NASA must continue at the frontiers of human space exploration in order to develop the technology and set the standards of excellence that will enable commercial space ventures to eventually succeed. Canceling NASA’s human space operations, after 50 years of unparalleled achievement, makes that objective impossible.

One of the greatest fears of any generation is not leaving things better for the young people of the next. In the area of human space flight, we are about to realize that fear; your NASA budget proposal raises more questions about our future in space than it answers.

Too many men and women have worked too hard and sacrificed too much to achieve America’s preeminence in space, only to see that effort needlessly thrown away. We urge you to demonstrate the vision and determination necessary to keep our nation at the forefront of human space exploration with ambitious goals and the proper resources to see them through. This is not the time to abandon the promise of the space frontier for a lack of will or an unwillingness to pay the price.

Sincerely, in hopes of continued American leadership in human space exploration.

• Walter Cunningham, Apollo 7
  
• Chris Kraft, Past Director JSC
  
• Jack Lousma, Skylab 3, STS 3
  
• Vance Brand, Apollo-Soyuz, STS-5, STS-41B, STS-35
  
• Bob Crippen, STS-1, STS-7, STS-41C, STS-41G, Past Director KSC
  
• Michael D. Griffin, Past NASA Administrator
  
• Ed Gibson, Skylab 4
  
• Jim Kennedy, Past Director KSC
  
• Alan Bean, Apollo 12, Skylab 3
  
• Alfred M. Worden, Apollo 15
  
• Scott Carpenter, Mercury Astronaut
  
• Glynn Lunney, Gemini-Apollo Flight Director
  
• Jim McDivitt, Gemini 4, Apollo 9, Apollo Spacecraft Program Manager
  
• Gene Kranz, Gemini-Apollo Flight Director, Past Director NASA Mission Ops.
  
• Joe Kerwin, Skylab 2
  
• Fred Haise, Apollo 13, Shuttle Landing Tests
  
• Gerald Carr, Skylab 4
  
• Jim Lovell, Gemini 7, Gemini 12, Apollo 8, Apollo 13
  
• Jake Garn, STS-51D, U.S. Senator
  
• Charlie Duke, Apollo 16
  
• Bruce McCandless, STS-41B, STS-31
  
• Frank Borman, Gemini 7, Apollo 8
  
• Paul Weitz, Skylab 2, STS-6
  
• George Mueller, Past Associate Administrator For Manned Space Flight
  
• Harrison Schmitt, Apollo 17, U.S. Senator
  
• Gene Cernan, Gemini 9, Apollo 10, Apollo 17
  
• Dick Gordon, Gemini 11, Apollo 12

posted 04-13-2010 03:12 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
It was that conclusion that set the stage for shuttle retirement; all other reasons were secondary.

---

A long time ago a very senior lecturer of mine said, "When people argue/debate they are merely re-arranging their own prejudices."

I fear that you and I Robert are doing this. I still maintain that the Columbia accident may have been a factor but it was not the prime reason for retiring the shuttle. As the CRS report says - it was a complex decision.

posted 04-13-2010 07:23 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
It was that conclusion that set the stage for shuttle retirement; all other reasons were secondary.

---

posted 04-13-2010 10:23 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by jimsz:
Whatever the reason - the shuttle has hampered the US manned program long enough. It served it's purpose. We should be moving towards expanding manned exploration.

---

A very brief history summary...

The original plan was to use the Saturn V to build a space station and to build a new reusable winged LEO crew transport. Why a station? It's needed to go to Mars. The money for both would not be authorized, so the space shuttle, one vehicle for both jobs, was born... but no money for the station.

The shuttle flies waiting for the station, which is needed to go to Mars. A little money finally comes so the shuttle can carry out it original intent: build the station as a waypoint to Mars. Now the next big problem: thanks to international cooperation, the station is in a useless orbit and cannot be used to go anywhere... and there is no money to go. Nevertheless, the objective was always Mars with money (and, hence, political will) in the way. The plan was not to stay stuck in LEO.

Besides something like a new nuclear propulsion system (the funding for which is no where to be seen in the President's "bold vision"), a significant amount of infrastructure will be needed to travel beyond low earth orbit on a regular basis. With the shuttle out of the way, the present plan does not provide the money nor the political will to travel anywhere beyond the station. (Obviously, the US will not be able to travel on its own even to the station.)

posted 04-13-2010 05:53 PM               

The United States entered into the challenge of space exploration under President Eisenhower's first term, however, it was the Soviet Union who excelled in those early years. Under the bold vision of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and with the overwhelming approval of the American people, we rapidly closed the gap in the final third; of the 20th century, and became the world leader in space exploration.

America's space accomplishments earned the respect and admiration of the world. Science probes were unlocking the secrets of the cosmos; space technology was providing instantaneous worldwide communication; orbital sentinels were helping man understand the vagaries of nature. Above all else, the people around the world were inspired by the human exploration of space and the expanding of man's frontier. It suggested that what had been thought to be impossible was now within reach. Students were inspired to prepare themselves to be a part of this new age. No government program in modern history has been so effective in motivating the young to do "what has never been done before."

World leadership in space was not achieved easily. In the first half-century of the space age, our country made a significant financial investment, thousands of Americans dedicated themselves to the effort, and some gave their lives to achieve the dream of a nation. In the latter part of the first half century of the space age, Americans and their international partners focused primarily on exploiting the near frontiers of space with the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station.

As a result of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, it was concluded that our space policy required a new strategic vision. Extensive studies and analysis led to this new mandate: meet our existing commitments, return to our exploration roots, return to the moon, and prepare to venture further outward to the asteroids and to Mars. The program was named "Constellation." In the ensuing years, this plan was endorsed by two Presidents of different parties and approved by both Democratic and Republican congresses.

The Columbia Accident Board had given NASA a number of recommendations fundamental to the Constellation architecture which were duly incorporated. The Ares rocket family was patterned after the Von Braun Modular concept so essential to the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn 5. A number of components in the Ares 1 rocket would become the foundation of the very large heavy lift Ares V, thus reducing the total development costs substantially. After the Ares 1 becomes operational, the only major new components necessary for the Ares V would be the larger propellant tanks to support the heavy lift requirements.

The design and the production of the flight components and infrastructure to implement this vision was well underway. Detailed planning of all the major sectors of the program had begun. Enthusiasm within NASA and throughout the country was very high.

When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial research and technology development, an extension of the International Space Station operation until 2020, long range planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and significant funding for the development of commercial access to low earth orbit.

Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.

America's only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant increases expected in the near future) until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves. The availability of a commercial transport to orbit as envisioned in the President's proposal cannot be predicted with any certainty, but is likely to take substantially longer and be more expensive than we would hope.

It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.

For The United States, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature. While the President's plan envisages humans traveling away from Earth and perhaps toward Mars at some time in the future, the lack of developed rockets and spacecraft will assure that ability will not be available for many years.

Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a program which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal.

• Neil Armstrong
  Commander, Apollo 11

• James Lovell
  Commander, Apollo 13

• Eugene Cernan
  Commander, Apollo 17

posted 04-14-2010 05:32 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
Please remember that the shuttle has not held anything back, lack of adequate funding has.

---

posted 04-14-2010 07:58 AM               

Some audio from the President's science advisor, John Holdren, is making the radio show rounds, the transcript of which is:

"We can't expect to be number one in everything indefinitely. One of the most appropriate responses to this degree of levelization of playing field is to cooperate more, to exchange more."

I quote with reservation, since I do not have the complete context, etc. The audio clip is being played on the radio as part of a general bashing of the Administration, not within the context of any discussion of the US Space Program. However, I mention here because this may explain the "thinking" within the administration, It would seem to explain, upon extrapolation, the Administrator's ending of US manned spaceflight for a long period of time, their remarks about not caring about China first to the moon, etc., and in fact helping other counties get to the moon while the US watches.

In light of the quote, if correct in the context presented here, one must ask if Mr. Holdren is the driving force behind what is going on at NASA or is he merely reflecting the President's position.

posted 04-14-2010 08:24 AM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by BNorton:
It would obviously be very helpful if someone knows the full remarks made by Mr. Holdren and the context in which they were made.

---

Holdren was reportedly responding to a question about "how the United States could move forward now that it is no longer 'the big shiny beacon' where all scientists travel to do their research," and he stated, in part, that the U.S. "can't expect to be number one in everything indefinitely," so the U.S. should improve university exchange programs to address the issue.

In a question-and-answer session with students after the talk, one student asked Holdren how the United States could move forward now that it is no longer "the big shiny beacon" where all scientists travel to do their research.

Holdren called it a mixed picture, and said it was not purely bad for the United States that other countries were making gains instead of us.

"That is, there are many benefits to the increasing capabilities of science and technology in other countries around the world," he said. "It's not an unmixed or dead loss that other countries are getting better in science and technology."

"Other countries getting better increases their capabilities to improve the standard of living of their countries, to improve their economies and, as a result, ultimately to make the world a better and safer place."

Holdren, who was previously director of the Science, Technology and Public Policy program at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, said that as a result of those good advances, "We can't expect to be number one in everything indefinitely."

"Probably the most appropriate responses to this degree of levelization (sic) of the playing field is to cooperate, to exchange more," he said. "We have all kinds of programs already in which U.S. graduate students and post-docs go to China and Chinese graduate students come here -- direct exchanges, university to university."

posted 04-14-2010 09:51 AM               

I'm no expert in all of this, but it seems like these letters and the people that wrote them (referring to the open letter from page 22 of this post and from Armstrong, Lovell, and Cernan) ARE the ones who should know what the best road for future space exploration would be.

"We need to send people to Mars before 2030" is something that would sound sweet, especially coming from a captivating speaker like Obama.

A little rearranging of government spending to up NASA's budget to 1% of course sounds more simple than it is, but wasn't it about 5% of the gross national spending during the Apollo days with the Vietnam war in full swing? Over 700 billion for military budget this year?

I believe one of the biggest problems is the lack of public interest in space travel. As many on this forum have been saying, the ISS ain't very thrilling. Incredible achievement, but when people have been running around on the Moon 40 years ago?