I really do admire Elon Musk and Burt Rutan and Sir Richard Branson and all of the others who are trying to extend commercial space into the realm of human spaceflight. But I am not in favor of using NASA’s limited budgets to support “commercial” space at the expense of space exploration beyond low Earth orbit. The Space Shuttle and the International Space Station have gobbled up vast amounts of NASA dollars during the past 30+ years — keeping us stuck in LEO. That is why I supported Constellation (or something like it) because I want to see humans go back to the Moon and on to Mars and a few asteroids along the way. Where is the inspiration in going around and around and around the Earth over and over and over again? Can the average person tell us what purpose the ISS has served or what scientific return has come from it? Frankly, I sometimes think Skylab produced more science in one year than the ISS has produced in a decade. And I often think what a pity it was that the back-up Skylab wound up in the Smithsonian rather than in LEO. In any case, I don’t discount what Musk and others have achieved, although I do subscribe to Gene Cernan’s remark that “they don’t know what they don’t know.” More power to SpaceX and the others … using their own money! But for heavens’ sake … let’s get our astronauts off the LEO merry-go-round and back into the realm of explorers. THAT is what Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan were talking about. And so am I.

Actually, that’s not quite true. Neil Armstrong has remained very active and very engaged in aerospace activities. He simply avoids publicity as he goes about his serious life’s work. Most recently, he served on the NASA Advisory Council which was chaired by Harrison Schmitt of Apollo 17 fame. (BTW, Dr. Schmitt is still an adjunct professor of engineering at the University of Wisconsin in Madison.) While serving on the Council, Armstrong spent considerable time visiting NASA field centers and industry sites as part of the planning for NASA’s future (pre-Garver). It is simply wrong to suggest (as both you and Bill Nye have done) that Armstrong is ‘out of it’ and unfamiliar with current events. It is more accurate to say that he strongly disagrees with your points of view, based upon his long career in aerospace engineering. I might add that Jimmy Doolittle was an aerospace consultant well into his 90s (long after he flew his B-25 off the deck of the USS Hornet). And Konrad Dannenberg (one of the original von Braun rocket team members) served as a consultant to Burt Rutan on SpaceShipOne when he was in his 90s. A lifetime of experience is an invaluable asset. Don’t be so quick to discount it or to discredit people because of their advanced years.

As for Gene Cernan …

He remains active in aerospace consulting and still flies his own aircraft (remembering to drop his flaps when needed). Cernan is an active member of the Society of Experimental Test Pilots, the Association of Naval Aviation, the American Space Institute, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, the American Astronautical Society, and the Explorers Club. He is also a member of the President’s Engineering Committee at Purdue University, his alma mater (and Armstrong’s).

Again, I think you simply didn’t like what Captain Cernan said on Capitol Hill because he expressed the same reservations about “commercial” space that I have.

Apparently quite a few members of Congress share those reservations. I didn’t see overwhelming support for ObamaSpace, and there is likely to be even less support for “commercial” space given the current political situation in the new Congress.

Finally, despite all of my previous remarks, I should make it clear that I have great admiration for Elon Musk and what he and his SpaceX team have already accomplished. But I don’t think they’re going to get the United States out of low Earth orbit any quicker, cheaper or safer than NASA would have done with the Constellation Program (had it been funded appropriately). My interest is in manned exploration of the Moon and beyond … not LEO space tourism or a short-term project to service the age-limited International Space Station. I think Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan share my perspective. (Or, more accurately, I share THEIR perspective.) And that is why they testified against the Obama Administration’s new space policy. But it’s a lot easier to suggest that they’re senile old men whose time has passed rather than arguing against their specific points on Capitol Hill.

William Mellberg

That’s different. My point is that the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on commercial will save NASA money. That it also benefits non-NASA customers is gravy. And yes, Boeing was not going to develop an SST on its own, but SpaceX has already developed Dragon on its own — all it needs is a launch abort system. It will develop it on its own if it has to, just as it has with the Falcon and Dragon, but it will take longer if it doesn’t get NASA funding. So it’s apples and oranges.

It’s an age old tactic to kill (or disparage) the messenger when one doesn’t like the message.

Whether I like the message or not is irrelevant. The message was nonsense, which is why it was sad to see it coming from people I admired.

Personally, I feel a lot better when I see gray-haired captains sitting in the left-hand seat whenever I board an airliner

More apples and oranges. I wouldn’t be that thrilled to see a gray-haired captain of my airliner if he hadn’t flown in decades, and forgot to drop flaps before throttling up. That was the equivalent of what Cernan did verbally.

“They’re ‘reaching into your pocket’ in the near term to reduce the degree to which NASA will have to reach into your pocket later. As I said, NASA needs them more than they need NASA.”

Mr. Simberg, I am reminded of the people who told us that the FAA (i.e., the American taxpayer) needed to underwrite the development of the Boeing 2707 because the SST was going to benefit millions of air travelers in the future. Years ago, before I worked in the air transport industry and learned about the economics of jet aircraft, I believed the hype. Supersonic transports were the shape of the future. Or so I thought. But after Congress pulled the plug on SST subsidies, the 2707 never left the ground. Boeing understood the economics of jet aircraft, and the company wisely got out of the SST business. You see, Boeing needed the FAA more than the FAA needed Boeing. Without taxpayer dollars, Boeing wasn’t willing to risk their own money on the SST (as they did on the 707 and 747).

“As for Armstrong, Lovell, Cernan, et al, all they demonstrated was that they didn’t understand the new policy, but were encouraged to testify by others whose pork was on the line. I was embarrassed for them.”

It’s an age old tactic to kill (or disparage) the messenger when one doesn’t like the message.

Personally, I feel a lot better when I see gray-haired captains sitting in the left-hand seat whenever I board an airliner — gray-haired guys like Captain Sullenberger whose many years of experience helped put that Airbus A320 into the Hudson River without the loss of a single life.

That’s why when gray-haired guys like Armstrong, Lovell and Cernan speak … I listen.

Incidentally, what makes you think they were encouraged to testify by others whose pork was on the line? Do you know them personally?

William Mellberg

They’re “reaching into your pocket” in the near term to reduce the degree to which NASA will have to reach into your pocket later. As I said, NASA needs them more than they need NASA.

As for Armstrong, Lovell, Cernan, et al, all they demonstrated was that they didn’t understand the new policy, but were encouraged to testify by others whose pork was on the line. I was embarrassed for them.

“Again, with all due respect, I wonder why I should care what you see, when people with a lot at financial stake in it see something quite different.”

Mr. Simberg, I suppose the shortest answer to your question is that the ‘commercial’ space people are trying to reach into my pocket to pay for their projects. So I have a financial stake in their market analyses, and I find them flawed. I cannot help but remember the glowing projections for the Space Transportation System when it was first being ‘sold’ to the American public. It would be just like an airline operation: 100 flights per Orbiter, two week turnarounds, greatly reduced costs, etc., etc., etc. Human spaceflight would become routine and available to everyone (including scientists, corporate researchers, teachers, journalists, and so on). Although I believe the Space Shuttle was a tremendous technological achievement, it did not fulfill the promises and projections that were made back then. Not even close.

I also recall the marketing studies that were done for Concorde as my former boss was closely involved with BAC’s sales effort. I remember the deposits made by sixteen international airlines and all of the charts and graphs showing proposed Concorde routes around the world and projected SST boardings (ticket sales). None of which came to pass. Despite the lofty promises of supersonic flight shrinking the globe and revolutionizing air travel … it didn’t happen. And British and French taxpayers were left holding the bill for those beautiful white elephants. Sure, a few wealthy people made good use of Concorde across the North Atlantic for quite a few years. But the aircraft was beyond the reach of average people, and its economics were TOTALLY impractical.

In addition, I’m reminded that everything didn’t pan out quite as promised for Arianespace. As successful as Arianespace has been technically, the story is a bit different financially. Arianespace isn’t quite as “commercial” as some would suggest.

In short, those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. And, as Richard Feynman pointed out, Nature isn’t fooled by slick public relations. From my perspective, the ‘commercial’ space proponents are looking through the same rose-colored lenses that others have worn in the past. That’s just my opinion, mind you. But I have every much right to express my opinions here as you have to express yours. And I have every right to base my opinions on my own experience in the aerospace industry. Isn’t that what this forum is all about … a healthy exchange of ideas and opinions?

“Sadly, they [Armstrong and Cernan] seem to be completely clueless about the new policy. They were used by those who stand to gain from the status quo (e.g., ATK).”

Mr. SImberg, Neil Armstrong and Gene Cernan weren’t being “used” by anyone. They were expressing their own opinions and concerns based upon lifetimes of experience and achievement in the real world of aerospace hardware and development. But your suggestion does bring up an interesting point …

If you look at the list of former astronauts (mostly Space Shuttle veterans) who endorse ObamaSpace, the majority have a personal stake in ‘commercial’ space — serving as executives or consultants to those enterprises (i.e., they have a financial stake in taxpayer dollars being directed toward those firms).

Such is not the case for Armstrong, Lovell, Cernan, Schmitt and the veteran astronauts who oppose ObamaSpace, although Harrison Schmitt is quick to point out in his speeches and interviews that he sits on the board of Orbital Sciences Corp. and served as a Republican in the United States Senate. But their motivation is not personal financial gain. Rather, their motivation is a sincere desire to see human exploration of the Solar System carry on where they left off — starting with a return to the Moon. Schmitt, in particular, has been making the case for Helium-3, and Armstrong supports him in that effort (e.g., writing the foreword to Schmitt’s book, Return to the Moon). Having actually left LEO and walked on another world, Armstrong, Cernan and Schmitt share a perspective that is quite unique. I find it sad that so many people from today’s generation are so quick to suggest that the aging Apollo veterans (other than Buzz Aldrin and Rusty Schweickart) are senile or out of touch with the times, rather than heeding their wisdom and advice. At least in Russia, pioneers like Boris Chertok (Sergei Korolev’s former deputy) are still respected, and their experience is still utilized. But in America’s youth-oriented culture, there is a mistaken notion that seasoned citizens ought to be sent off to retirement communities and forgotten.

Personally, I greatly admire Mr. Armstrong and Capt. Cernan for taking the time to make their voices heard … and for sharing their invaluable experience and expertise. But it is a sign of the times that others choose to ignore their concerns and to disparage their reputations.

William Mellberg

Again, with all due respect, I wonder why I should care what you “see,” when people with a lot at financial stake in it “see” something quite different.

I can assure you that they do … at least the gentlemen who took the most public stands during the past year. They understand the politics, the engineering, the economics and all the other devils in all the othe details. Go back and read the statements Armstrong and Cernan made on Capitol Hill this year.

I did. Sadly, they seem to be completely clueless about the new policy. They were used by those who stand to gain from the status quo (e.g., ATK).

Ditto. Chemical propulsion is worthless for interplanetary flight due to the weight of shielding required to protect the crew from cosmic heavy nuclei- a fact conveniently ignored and sometimes denied by the commercial space fans.

“Well, the people who have actually done market research do.”

Mr. Simberg, I’ve read scores of market studies for start-up airlines that were totally flawed because of the assumptions they made. In fact, we (Fokker Aircraft) turned away some potential buyers because their market research was so flawed, and we didn’t want our aircraft being blamed for the failures had those ill-fated carriers gotten off the ground. You must also know that numbers can be massaged and conclusions can be made to fit. The bottomline is that there is a difference between ‘demand’ and ‘need’ in the marketplace. I see very limited demand for commercial human spaceflight … and even less need.

“I agree that Bill Nye was rude. But I also agree [with Nye] that Apollo veterans don’t necessarily understand the politics and fiscal realities of modern space projects.”

I can assure you that they do … at least the gentlemen who took the most public stands during the past year. They understand the politics, the engineering, the economics and all the other devils in all the othe details. Go back and read the statements Armstrong and Cernan made on Capitol Hill this year. And may I remind you that Jack Schmitt was a United States Senator. He is keenly aware of the politics, as made clear by his written commentaries, as well as his recent speeches. Moreover, up until two years ago, Dr. Schmitt was Chair of the NASA Advisory Council. Neil Armstrong served on the Council with him. As for the others, their focus is not nostalgia for the past. It’s their vision for the future … and picking up the ball where the Nixon Administration dropped it.

I am pleased that you agree about Bill Nye’s rude remarks. Sadly, I haven’t heard him apologize for his gaffe. The Number One Rule for association executives is to “offend no important people.” Perhaps Nye should have stuck with his childrens shows, although I’ve always felt Don Herbert (“Mr. Wizard”) did a much better job of explaining science to kids. He never talked down to them. Of course, my personal favorite was “Mr. Science” (the Mr. Wizard spoofs which aired on radio from the legendary team of Bob & Ray).

William Mellberg

“As for colonization not happening in our lifetime, I have to disagree with you on that. Using Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, we are completely capable of building true space ships and exploring the solar system any time we choose to. Also the way technology is doubling itself any predictions like ‘not in our lifetime’ are not worth betting on. It is a pleasure corresponding with you William. Thank you.”

Michael,

You’ve got a good point there! I suppose I said “not in or lifetime” based on the record of the past 50 years. But you’re right about advances in technology, and I hope to be proven wrong in this instance. As for He-3, one of the bigger problems at the lunar end of the infrastructure would be the volume of regolith that would have to be processed to extract it. Needless to say, it would be a costly and difficult process given the harsh environement. But most of the work would be done robotically. At this end, it’s a matter of developing the fusion technology. Fusing He-3 with itself would produce no radioactive waste, but would be more difficult than fusing He-3 with Deuterium. In either case, I believe the long-term prospects for He-3 fusion could have an enormous impact on the world’s energy supply and the global economy. He-3 could be our dominant energy source for hundreds of years — replacing fossil fuels. As I’ve mentioned previously, it holds out the promise of being a resource that would put space exploration and settlement on firm economic foundations — providing the sort of return on investments that made transcontinental railroads a paying proposition. They, in turn, opened the West to settlement. But for the time being, government will have to do the trailblazing (proving the viability of the concept) before the private sector moves in to capitalize on He-3 and fusion energy production.

In any case, I certainly appreciate your insights, and I agree that nuclear propulsion systems would totally change the Big Picture. To the extent that “ObamaSpace” supports that sort of R&D, I support ObamaSpace.

William Mellberg