Comment by mkn | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mkn | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

After seeing that clip, I wondered how Cernan and Armstrong could have said the things they said and, eventually, how they could even feel qualified to comment. I think the answer to both questions is related.

Armstrong and Cernan are just the Spam in the can. They're glorified pilots. As such, they are extensions of the PR arm of NASA and the entrenched aerospace industries. I've phrased that a little harshly, but not by much. Certainly, as trained monkeys go, they are marvelously trained. And not just any monkey could be trained to perform as they did in their, and I emphasize, highly specialized and limited roles within the space program. But, when we see a well-trained dog, the credit goes to the master.

If Armstrong and Cernan were rocket designers, if they had captained a startup that created a new launch vehicle, then I could take their statements seriously. If they were systems integrators, if they were manufacturing engineers, if they were anything other than good pilots, then they might have something useful to add to the discussion on a national level. Until then, all I want to hear from them is how beautiful the Earth looks from space, how fun it is to play golf on the Moon, and various other fun facts about events that took place 40+ years ago.

I feel awful trying to cut these men down, trying to knock them back into place. However, the truly shameful thing is that they've used their legacy to usurp beyond their areas of expertise. I console myself that the bounds over which they've stepped are generous bounds, the bounds of heroes, and it takes a truly cataclysmic level of folly to behave as they have done. It would take nothing less than the legendary ego of a pilot.

Cernan and Armstrong, rest on your laurels, and get out of the way of people who are doing.

This is very wrong. As pioneer astronauts Armstrong and Cernan had an important say in the Gemini and Apollo program especially in regard to safety procedures and 'human' friendliness (both are trained engineers by the way). At my work place we do some intense parallel computing on clusters and are occasionally consulted by the likes of intel when they're designing new hardware (and I'm sure this happens more frequently with other groups) because of our experience running their hardware to the max. Very few people have the knowledge and experience (both technical and practical) of what it's like on the user end to safely and reliably put a man in space and you shouldn't dismiss their views as coming from 'glorified pilots'

I really wonder what Von Braun would say about Elon Musk and SpaceX.

He would probably decry the lack of slave labor.

None of his early literature mentioned private space exploration, but considering he fell out with NASA over the bureaucracy and spent the last years of his career in private industry, he would have been all for it.

Consider also the similar passion and ambition both von Braun and Musk have for manned spaceflight.

If he was still able he'd probably be working for them.

One can cheer on Musk and everything he's doing, yet still see the complete short-sightedness of ending the Shuttle program. Nothing contradictory about that.

We could take a clip without context, or we could read what Armstrong and Cernan actually said:

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov...

http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov...

Their main thesis seems to be that it's unwise to take a program that's currently functioning, took an enormous amount of time to get to where it is, and shutter it before its replacement is viable. To say nothing of the fact that NASA is laying off perhaps the world's best bucket of space-related institutional knowledge. Sure, many are finding employment at private space firms, but many aren't.

Yes, Cernan has been outspokenly pessimistic on the chances of private industry to get there in time, sure, but he's a guy who knows first hand what it takes to get a man into space when starting from scratch. And it's not an unreasonable perspective to say that we are gambling a known-quantity for an unknown, which, given the time it takes to get there, is unwise. Yes, let them develop, and let's help them all we can. But until they have the demonstrated capabilities that we're giving up, why don't we keep what we've got until we know what the transition will look like?

He's been quoted as saying:

"It has been the commercial space industry, under NASA’s leadership and guidance, that has allowed us to get to the moon and build a shuttle and everything that has happened in the last 50 years. To entirely turn it over without any oversight to the commercial sector, which is a word I question anyway, is going to take a long time. Some of these guys are highly qualified, but some are young entrepreneurs with a lot of money, and for them it’s kind of like a hobby. Not all of them. But some of them are making claims to get into space in five years for $10 billion, and even the Russians say it’s going to take twice as long if we put our eggs into that basket. I don’t have a lot of confidence in that end of the commercial space spectrum getting us back into orbit any time soon. I’d like to hear all these folks who call themselves commercial space tell me who their investors are. Tell me where their marketplace is. A commercial venture is supposed to use private money. And who are their users? Suppose we, NASA, have no need for their services. There’s no other marketplace for them. So is it really a commercial venture, or is it not? Is it a group of guys who have stars in their eyes and want to be a big space developer? I don’t know."

Those are not unfair questions.

"I don’t think they’ll come anywhere near accomplishing what they’ve said they can do. I said before Congress, and it’s still true today, they don’t yet know what they don’t know. We, if you’ll allow me to include myself with NASA, have been doing this for half a century. We have made mistakes. We’ve lost colleagues. Don’t you think we’ve learned from some of those mistakes? You bet your life we have. They have yet to learn from those mistakes."

Armstrong, on the other hand, doesn't seem to have any problem with it. In fact, he actually supported the idea of giving serious consideration to the commercial proposals NASA received to keep the Shuttle running.

If we considered any other system of infrastructure--roads, water, the grid--and said, "let's shut it down before the private industry creates its replacement," we'd be laughed off the stage.

I'm all for doing things the most efficient way possible, but given the relatively low cost (remember that the Shuttle program costs the same as the UK bank bailout) of maintaining the Shuttle program for another 5-10 years while other options came online, I don't see how this rush to privatize is viewed with anything but complete skepticism of the current administration's strategy. They know full well they'll be out of office before any of these issues come up, and, like the one before it, seem content to kick the can far enough down the road to defer current issues to future administrations.

We've got a space station orbiting that we can continue to use for at least another 8 years, if we can get there. Our ability to do so is entirely dependent on a re-emerging power with interests contrary to ours. Or, some very brilliant, ambitious guys who are still a ways off from launching people.

The fact that their most recent launch mishap allegedly almost ended the program should be a massive wake-up call to anyone who thinks Cernan's completely wrong. What will happen when a mistake kills a few of our (dwindling) astronaut cadre?

Again -- I hope Musk knocks this one out of the park and goes down in history for it. But that's no reason to end a well-functioning program to score some political points and free up money to pour into voting blocs and bailouts.

You're not wrong.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com