Congress

Vince Lombardi, Jesus, and human spaceflight

In comments yesterday at a Space Transportation Association luncheon introducing Gary Payton (the subject of a separate, later post), Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX) had something of a confession to make: despite living in the Houston area, his favorite NFL team is not the Houston Texans but rather the Green Bay Packers. (“It’s a long, long story,” he said.) However, it gave him an opportunity to cite comments by that team’s legendary coach, Vince Lombardi. Asked about finishing second, Olson recalled, Lombardi said, “I don’t ever want to finish second again. There’s a second-place bowl game, but it’s a game for losers played by losers.”

Olson used that as inspiration for his goal of keeping the United States first in human spaceflight, a position he said it’s held for half a century but is put “in extreme risk” by the FY2011 budget proposal. “And if I have anything to say about it,” Olson continued, “the United States is not going to be a loser in space. We’re going to be number one until Jesus comes back.”

9 comments to Vince Lombardi, Jesus, and human spaceflight

  • Paul Vaccaro

    AMEN, and thank you, my dad (KSC worker from 1959 to 1985) would be proud you are working hard to prevent such nonsense from this administration. GO Congress!!!!!!

  • Robert G. Oler

    Olson can be forgiven on his choice of teams. Houston has had (and still has) horrific football teams.

    Having said that. Olson needs to learn both human spaceflight (comparing a program like Constellation to being number) and Lombardi quotes. It is not impossible that Lombardi said that but the “legend” of the quote is this “There is no room for second place. There is only one place in my game and that is first place. I have finished second twice in my time at Green Bay and I never want to finish second again. ”

    Pete is floundering on this issue

    Robert G. Oler

  • Major Tom

    “Olson used that as inspiration for his goal of keeping the United States first in human spaceflight, a position he said it’s held for half a century… ”

    It’s nonsense to pretend, as Olson does, that the U.S. has held the position of “first in human spaceflight” for the past “half a century”.

    Between the last Apollo mission (Apollo-Soyuz in July 1975) and the first Space Shuttle flight (April 1981), the Soviet Union launched no less than 19 Soyuz missions and launched or operated three successful space stations (Salyut 4, 5, and 6). That’s a seven-year period when the U.S. had no human access to space or permanent presence in space while its Cold War rival had both. There’s no way the U.S. was “first in human spaceflight” during those seven years (1975-1981).

    Even after Shuttle started flying, the Soviets/Russians maintained a permanent human presence in space via the Salyut 7 and Mir space stations that the U.S. could not match for two decades. In fact, after the fall of the Soviet Union, NASA sent Space Shuttle missions and astronauts to Mir to learn or relearn the basics of long-duration human space flight and space station operations. It’s arguable that the Soviets/Russians continued to hold the position of first in human space flight from 1981 to Mir’s deorbit in 2001.

    It would be easier to take Olson seriously if he or his staff had even a basic understanding of the history of human space flight.

    Of course, the upshot of these long periods when the Soviet Union/Russia was first in human space flight and the U.S. was not was zilch. If being second in human spaceflight had no impact during long stretches of the Cold War, it’s hard to see how it could be so important in the post-post-Cold War world.

    “but is put ‘in extreme risk’ by the FY2011 budget proposal.”

    Adding $6 billion to the NASA topline does not put U.S. human space flight “in extreme risk”.

    Putting in place two domestic providers of crew transport to the ISS by 2016 — one to three years ahead of the previous plan and with a backup that NASA has never had — does not put U.S. human space flight “in extreme risk”.

    Accelerating the start of HLV development by at least four years over the previous plan does not put U.S. human space flight “in extreme risk”.

    Pouring billions of dollars into technology demonstration and robotic precursor missions to enable human space exploration missions to multiple targets throughout the solar system does not put U.S. human space flight “in extreme risk”.

    Have Olson or his staff even bothered to look at the Augustine report or NASA’s FY 2011 budget request? What’s their major malfunction when it comes to reading comprehension?

    “We’re going to be number one until Jesus comes back.”

    “Until Jesus comes back”?

    Really?

    Oy vey…

  • Robert G. Oler

    Olson’s problem is the same (right now) as the rest of the GOP…they are trying to defend the status quo and their alternatives to changing it are either “just say no” or they are so goofy as to not be real alternatives.

    Pete ran knowing that Constellation was in trouble. He also ran knowing that Bolden was one of the names that might come up in an Obama administration (should one have occurred) and yet like the rest of the GOP he seems to have no logical alternative to the administrations plans.

    Obama would likely have gotten his plan (no matter what it was) anyway but in the absence of any credible plan the the likely hood becomes “more”.

    Robert G. Oler

  • I’d sure like to know where these Republican hypocrites have been the last six years, since President Bush cancelled Shuttle in 2004 and signed the contract in 2007 to put U.S. astronauts on Soyuz spacecraft once Shuttle retired. They act like Obama made that decision, but the fact is that it was Bush.

  • Fred Cink

    BUSH DID IT !!!! WHAAA!!!! BUSH DID IT!!!!! Was/is shuttle cost effective and sustainable or not? If not then it should have been/is being phased out. It would have been REALLY nice if some forethought and planning would have produced a replacement. The idea that we might agree on, is that Bush showed almost no vision/leadership/interest in anything space. As the Obama cheerleading squad of Oler and Tom love to point out, it’s all about taxpayer supported congressional funding.

  • common sense

    “Was/is shuttle cost effective and sustainable or not? ”

    No.

    “If not then it should have been/is being phased out. ”

    It is and has been since about 2004.

    “It would have been REALLY nice if some forethought and planning would have produced a replacement.”

    It’s called the VSE and first implementation under O’Keefe was a spiral approach (very similar to current, new plan). The second implementation, Griffin’s, was based on ESAS a 90 day study…

    Oh well…

  • common sense

    “We’re going to be number one until Jesus comes back.”

    Poor Jesus who might have to deal with the Space program when he comes back and then we will no longer be number 1 apparently (?).

    Who was talking about the bus to crazy town? Was it you Robert?

  • John Malkin

    Being from Chicago I don’t like the Packers or anything to do with Vince Lombardi.

    It appears that Mr. Olsen is indeed a cheesehead (Our nickname for WI people especially Packer fans). Really did he just call any nation that is second in space, a looser? This is from a congressman… Grow up.

    I support the view that Ares I is a jobs program at this point with no long term future. I think the best argument against Ares I is that the evolution is limited also Ares V development has little to do with Ares I. Note that there is no money to actually develop a moon rocket aka Ares V.

    Space X already has non-government customers interested in its vehicles, I don’t think anyone else is interested in Ares I.

Leave a Reply to common sense Cancel reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>