Congress, NASA

Senate passes bill renaming NASA Dryden after Neil Armstrong

A bill passed by the House nearly a year ago—and since all but forgotten—to rename one of NASA’s centers is now on the verge of becoming law. On Wednesday, the Senate passed via unanimous consent HR 667, legislation that would rename NASA’s Dryden Flight Research Center the “Neil A. Armstrong Flight Research Center.” The bill would also rename the Western Aeronautical Test Range the “Hugh L. Dryden Aeronautical Test Range,” preserving the Dryden name.

Rep. Kevin McCarthy (R-CA), the House Majority Whip whose district includes Dryden, introduced the bill last February, where it passed on a 394-0 vote late that month. The Senate, though, had taken no action on the bill until its passage by unanimous consent, and without floor debate, on Wednesday. It wasn’t clear why the Senate acted now, more than ten months after the House passed the bill. McCarthy, though, was pleased. “I’m honored that the Senate has passed my legislation, which will now go to the President’s desk for his signature that recognizes the rich history of Neil Armstrong and Hugh Dryden in Kern County and the Antelope Valley,” he said in a brief statement after the Senate passed the bill.

17 comments to Senate passes bill renaming NASA Dryden after Neil Armstrong

  • amightywind

    I’m glad the Senate choose to honor America’s greatest explorer. I am saddened that so few people listen to his views on the future of NASA. We slouch toward a diminished future in space.

  • Hopefully, America will, finally, get a lunar outpost named after Neil in the 2020s.

    Marcel

    • Vladislaw

      Let’s hope a commercial firm names their first Lunar facility after Neil.

    • Hiram

      I really hope that we can do better justice to the memory of Neil Armstrong than naming an occasionally-occupied dusty shack on the Moon after him. Armstrong’s legacy is as a skillful pilot, and that legacy is probably well served by renaming DFRC after him.

      Of course, the 2008 NASA Authorization Act included a proviso that “The United States portion of the first human-tended outpost established on the surface of the Moon shall
      be designated the ‘‘Neil A. Armstrong Lunar Outpost’’.
      How insightful was the idea that this name be given to just our portion of such an outpost. Even then, deep in the Constellation era, the presumption was that a lunar outpost wasn’t just going to belong to the U.S. So maybe an occasionally-occupied dusty room?

      • Mader Levap

        If you think USA will use Moon base only occassionally*, you can forget about Mars.

        * Makes no sense at all, obviously, but hey, anything to downplay manned missions to Luna, right?

  • Hiram

    “If you think USA will use Moon base only occassionally*, you can forget about Mars.”

    You know, when the sun goes down on the Moon, it’s a pretty wretched place to be, at least until we have some lunar-qualified nukes that we’re ready to invest in. We have no such plans. Now, there are a few acres on the Moon where you can have sunlight most of the time, but still … The “Neil Armstrong Lunar Outpost” then becomes less of a facility and more of an opportunistic site.

    Of course, from the same 2008 Authorization Act were these important words — “As NASA works toward the establishment of a lunar outpost, NASA shall make no plans that would require a lunar outpost to be occupied to maintain its viability.”

    So at least Congress smartly admitted that the “Neil A. Armstrong Lunar Outpost” wasn’t going to be occupied continuously. That was, to them, less a thermal issue, and more fiscal insurance.

    It’s funny how, in the minds of many people, the word “outpost” connotes colonization and settlement. Colonization and settlement is an entirely different ball of wax.

    • Vladislaw

      You are assuming ZERO growth in a lunar facility. NASA is currently renaming something to honor Armstrong. The FIRST facility on the moon by the US will be named Armstrong. What is to say that in the next century that the Moon base 5.0 doesn’t get named or renamed the Armstrong base.

      • Hiram

        We were talking about a “first lunar facility” in the 2020s. But yes, if Newt want the 51st state on the Moon to be named Armstrongia in 2136, that’ll work for me.

        • Vladislaw

          Oh, thought it was moon bases in general, I am not a moon firster, I think we should keep out of the gravity wells but I really do not believe NASA will get any funding for moon bases in my lifetime.

          • Hiram

            Keeping humans out of gravity wells makes sense to me. Send telerobots to do the work down there. As such, a “lunar base” might look a bit different than what is commonly assumed it would look like. Even if that’s the case, humans staying there might be less about accomplishment, and more about symbolism. Don’t get me wrong. Symbols count a lot. Wouldn’t it be something if a vast telerobot garage and workshop, controlled entirely from the Earth or from orbit, was called the Neil A. Armstrong Lunar Outpost”? That ought to freak some people out.

            • Vladislaw

              Excellent points. I believe the humans that land should more than likely be repair technicians for repairing industrial robots. Having worked in the construction field the standard is that equipment breaks down and is repaired at night and put back out in the field. I can not imagine that because we are going to another body in space that dynamic will change. To make things to be so absolutely reliable that it voids out the need for humans to repair them … makes them overly expensive. A couple techs at a base to make repairs, swap out mother boards, batteries etc.. makes sense to me.(once there is enough hardware on luna FIRST to justify it.)

              Once we hit a point where a NASA lunar researcher can just lease a winnebago for exploration from commercial firms.. that is when we should worry about the type of bases Marcel dreams of.

              • Hiram

                “I believe the humans that land should more than likely be repair technicians for repairing industrial robots.”

                Careful here. Telerobotic technology is advancing rapidly, and that technology development isn’t limited by being driven by space. It’s being driven by commercial and military applications with HUGE budgets. We’re talking about mobility, dexterity, and vision. Yep, dexterity as in swapping out mother boards, batteries, etc. For goodness sake, telerobotic hands have more dexterity right now than EVA-gloved humans, and they’re just going to get better. A LOT better.

                The premise that the purpose of humans on-site is to fix the robots on-site is getting long-in-the-tooth. But the premise that humans on-site are there to wave flags and leave footprints is still kinda hard to argue with … to the extent that’s important.

    • Mader Levap

      I will explain more clearly what I meant by “If you think USA will use Moon base only occassionally*, you can forget about Mars”. You completely missed point.

      I meant by that level of interest in space. If USA can’t be arsed to do something manned on Moon, why I would expect it doing anything manned on Mars? No, talking does not count. Talk is cheap.

      Only counterargument I see is level of robotic ops on Moon and Mars – significantly higher on Mars, despite Moon being easier to reach. For me, it shows sufficiently high interest in unmanned exploration of Mars to overweight easier Moon.

      Difference in cost between manned Moon and mannned Mars will be way, way larger than robotic Moon vs robotic Mars. Like orders of magnitude larger (with current and near future tech). For me, it makes manned Moon earlier (so-called “Moon first”) inevitable, despite Mars being more interesting target.

      “Colonization and settlement is an entirely different ball of wax.”
      Arctic station is occupied premanently, yet it is not settlement nor colonization.

      • Hiram

        “If USA can’t be arsed to do something manned on Moon, why I would expect it doing anything manned on Mars?”

        Very simple. Because we’ve never sent humans to Mars. We’ve sent them to the Moon. To the extent that going to a rocky destination in space is a measure of national accomplishment, the Moon doesn’t count anymore. That’s an expectation that should be easy to understand.

        “Difference in cost between manned Moon and mannned Mars will be way, way larger than robotic Moon vs robotic Mars.”

        Of course. But the difference in cost between manned Moon and manned Bermuda is huge as well. Let’s just skip the Moon and send everyone to Bermuda, no? The ultimate decision about strategy can be informed by cost, but cost isn’t rationale.

        … “if you think USA will use Moon base only occassionally, you can forget about Mars. You completely missed point.”

        No, I didn’t miss the point, but you didn’t really make one. You’re saying that we have to have a permanently (as in, not occasionally) occupied outpost on the Moon before we head to Mars? But now you’re talking about doing “something manned on the Moon”. Make up your mind. We’ve done “something manned” on the Moon already.

  • Neil Shipley

    I believe that Congress has done a disservice to the memory of Dr Hugh Latimer Dryden who made many contributions to aerospace in general and deserved continued recognition far and beyond the esteemed Neil Armstrong. Others disagree, that’s ok but do a bit of research first and determine for yourself who provided lasting legachy beyond a popularity contest. Both men were leaders and many gained from their leadership however one should not have been set aside simply to facilitate recognition of another. JM2CW.
    Cheers.

  • Jon Bryant

    I agree with Neil Shipley. I have a lot of respect for Neil Armstrong and believe he contributed a great deal to humanity. But so did Dr Dryden and it is a “rock star” mentality that is driving this renaming move. We could honor Neil Armstrong in a lot of ways without renaming an existing facility.

Leave a 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>