Armstrong and Obama

The abandonment of the U.S. manned space programme

When the first man on the Moon died on Saturday, President Barack Obama tweeted: “Neil Armstrong was a hero not just of his time, but of all time.” Armstrong’s final comment on Obama, on the other hand, was that the president’s policy on manned space flight was “devastating,” and condemned the United States to “a long downhill slide to mediocrity.”

That was two years ago, when three Americans who had walked on the Moon, Neil Armstrong, James Lovell, commander of Apollo 13, and Eugene Cernan, commander of Apollo 17, published an open letter to Obama pointing out that his new space policy effectively ended American participation in the human exploration of deep space.

Armstrong was famously reluctant to give media interviews. It took something as hugely short-sighted as Obama’s cancellation of the Constellation programme in 2010 to make him speak out in public. But when he did, he certainly did not mince his words.

“We will have wasted our current $10-billion-plus investment in Constellation,” he said, “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... to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit... destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature.”

Barack Obama was never a politician with a big international vision. He has experts to do that stuff for him, and of course they are all part of the “Washington consensus,” which is just as parochial as he is. So he cancelled the big Ares rockets that would have taken American astronauts back to the Moon and onwards to Mars and the asteroids. Some other spending programme just yelled louder. Maybe the Navy wanted another aircraft carrier.

If NASA (the National Aviation and Space Administration) wants to put an American into space now, it has to buy passage on a Russian rocket, which is currently over $50 million per seat. By 2015 the Chinese will probably be offering an alternative service (which may bring the price down), and before long India may be in the business as well. But the United States won’t.

There is likely to be a gap of between five and 10 years between the retirement of the Space Shuttle fleet last year and the first new American vehicles capable of putting a human being into space. Even then it will only be into low Earth orbit: none of the commercial vehicles now being developed will be able to do what the Saturn rockets did 41 years ago when they sent Armstrong and his colleagues to the Moon.

Armstrong was a former military officer who would never directly call the President of the United States a liar or a fool, but his words left little doubt of what he really thought: “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.” In other words, don’t hold your breath.

He was equally blunt about Obama’s assurances that the United States was not really giving up on deep space: “While the president’s plan envisages humans travelling 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.” Not the return to the Moon by 2020 planned by the Constellation programme, but pie in the sky when you die.

This is not a global defeat for manned exploration of the solar system. The Russians are talking seriously about building a permanent base on the Moon, and all the major Asian contenders are working on heavy-lift rockets that would enable them to go beyond Earth orbit. It’s just an American loss of will, shared equally by Obama and Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney.

“I know China is headed to the Moon,” Romney told a town hall audience in Michigan in February. “They’re planning on going to the Moon, and some people say, oh, we’ve got to get to the Moon, we’ve got to get there in a hurry to prove we can get there before China. It’s like, guys, we were there a long time ago, all right? And when you get there would you bring back some of the stuff we left?” Arrogant, complacent, and wrong.

Americans went to the Moon a long time ago, but the point is that they can’t get there now, and won’t be able to for a long time to come. Which is why, in an interview 15 years ago, Armstrong told BBC science correspondent Pallab Ghosh: “The dream remains. The reality has faded a bit, but it will come back, in time.” It will, but probably not in the United States.

Gwynne Dyer is a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries


Comments: 6

wildebeest wrote:

The lefties in the USA, of which Obama is primus inter pares, really don't want the USA to be great, or special. This is one way of undermining that greatness.

on Aug 30th, 2012 at 8:29pm Report Abuse

Swervin wrote:

Just to set the record straight, James Lovell flew on Gemini 7 and 12, Apollo 8 and 13. At no time did James Lovell land and walk on the moon.

on Sep 4th, 2012 at 6:45pm Report Abuse

Craggyone wrote:

Putting a man on the moon was a hugely-expensive and, ultimately, largely symbolic public relations boondoggle. Why did the manned space program end with putting a few pairs of American boots on the moon? Because there was no further conceivable reason for humans to be there. What were they going to do? Look for gold or perhaps blue cheese? Even if an ore body of some sort were detected, mining it, refining it and sending the refined ore to Earth would be vastly more expensive than, say, developing an ore body under the Greenland ice cap. Why spend multi trillions of dollars to send humans to, say, Mars? To what end? What would they do there? The unmanned NASA space program has yielded a vast amount of useful information, hugely expanding our understanding of the universe. It would have been vastly better if the U.S. hadn't squandered so much money and effort on the useless manned space program.

on Sep 5th, 2012 at 7:23pm Report Abuse

wildebeest wrote:

Symbolism is important in international politics.

on Sep 6th, 2012 at 4:56am Report Abuse

rube wrote:

Yep, that manned space program sure was useless, with absolutely no side benefits in engineering, computing, aerospace, transportation, satellite technology, military affairs or anything else that has dramatically impacted our lives over the last half-century. What a boondoggle!

on Sep 6th, 2012 at 11:46am Report Abuse

Annette wrote:

With the death of Armstrong, and in the midst of all the US election hype, Armstrong's leadership qualities stand in sharp contrast to those of Obama. Something I blogged about....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/annette-poizner/obama-and-armstrong_b_1834984.html

May the American people achieve clarity about those characteristics of leadership that are essential versus traits that primarily indicate showmanship.

on Sep 19th, 2012 at 5:58am Report Abuse


Post comment: (Login or Register)


All Content Copyright © Fast Forward Weekly 1995-2012

About Us Contact Us Careers Privacy Policy Terms of Use