Open Letters, Announcements & Other News

The Astronaut Commanders' Open Letter

Commanders Neil Armstrong, James Lovell and Eugene Cernan released an open letter of criticism of President Obama for his cancellation of the NASA moon program and other programs in the American space operations.

The full content of this letter (originally released on April 13, 2010) is presented here. It is offered to you because the subject and expressed concerns are vital to America's space program and are of historical importance as well.

The astronaut commanders' open letter is as follows:

   The United States entered into the challenge of space exploration under President Eisenhower’s first term, however, it was the Soviet Union who excelled in those early years. Under the bold vision of Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon, and with the overwhelming approval of the American people, we rapidly closed the gap in the final third; of the 20th century, and became the world leader in space exploration.

   America’s space accomplishments earned the respect and admiration of the world. Science probes were unlocking the secrets of the cosmos; space technology was providing instantaneous worldwide communication; orbital sentinels were helping man understand the vagaries of nature.   Above all else, the people around the world were inspired by the human exploration of space and the expanding of man’s frontier.   It suggested that what had been thought to be impossible was now within reach. Students were inspired to prepare themselves to be a part of this new age.   No government program in modern history has been so effective in motivating the young to do “what has never been done before.”

   World leadership in space was not achieved easily. In the first half-century of the space age, our country made a significant financial investment, thousands of Americans dedicated themselves to the effort, and some gave their lives to achieve the dream of a nation.   In the latter part of the first half century of the space age, Americans and their international partners focused primarily on exploiting the near frontiers of space with the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station.

   As a result of the tragic loss of the Space Shuttle Columbia in 2003, it was concluded that our space policy required a new strategic vision. Extensive studies and analysis led to this new mandate: meet our existing commitments, return to our exploration roots, return to the moon, and prepare to venture further outward to the asteroids and to Mars.   The program was named "Constellation." In the ensuing years, this plan was endorsed by two Presidents of different parties and approved by both Democratic and Republican congresses.

   The Columbia Accident Board had given NASA a number of recommendations fundamental to the Constellation architecture which were duly incorporated. The Ares rocket family was patterned after the Von Braun Modular concept so essential to the success of the Saturn 1B and the Saturn 5. A number of components in the Ares 1 rocket would become the foundation of the very large heavy lift Ares V, thus reducing the total development costs substantially. After the Ares 1 becomes operational, the only major new components necessary for the Ares V would be the larger propellant tanks to support the heavy lift requirements.

   The design and the production of the flight components and infrastructure to implement this vision was well underway. Detailed planning of all the major sectors of the program had begun.   Enthusiasm within NASA and throughout the country was very high.

   When President Obama recently released his budget for NASA, he proposed a slight increase in total funding, substantial research and technology development, an extension of the International Space Station operation until 2020, long range planning for a new but undefined heavy lift rocket and significant funding for the development of commercial access to low earth orbit.

   Although some of these proposals have merit, the accompanying decision to cancel the Constellation program, its Ares 1 and Ares V rockets, and the Orion spacecraft, is devastating.

   America’s only path to low Earth orbit and the International Space Station will now be subject to an agreement with Russia to purchase space on their Soyuz (at a price of over 50 million dollars per seat with significant increases expected in the near future) until we have the capacity to provide transportation for ourselves.   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.

   It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation 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, the leading space faring nation for nearly half a century, to be without carriage to low Earth orbit and with no human exploration capability to go beyond Earth orbit for an indeterminate time into the future, destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature. While the President's plan envisages humans traveling 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.

   Without the skill and experience that actual spacecraft operation provides, the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity. America must decide if it wishes to remain a leader in space. If it does, we should institute a program which will give us the very best chance of achieving that goal.

Neil Armstrong
Commander, Apollo 11

James Lovell
Commander, Apollo 13

Eugene Cernan
Commander, Apollo 17

If you agree with this open letter, you can contact your representatives in Congress and express your concern.

The End Of The Space Program

As We Have Known It?

   On May 12, 2010, the headline tells it all: "Contractors Face Shutdown Costs As NASA Space Program Morphs." (Wall Street Journal)

   John Glenn (the first American to orbit the Earth) asks that we keep the shuttles flying. He declares that, "We'll spend almost as much buying our astronauts seats on Russia's Soyuz as we would to keep the shuttles flying. The cost of continuing the shuttle is really very tiny compared to the $100 billion investment we've made in the station."

   It should also be noted that the NASA yearly budget is approx. 1/2 of 1 percent of our overall current national yearly budget. Drastically cutting this NASA budget saves very little and begins a serious drain of important scientists from our nation.

~<>~

   On June 24, 2010, the WSJ headline read, "Dispite Orders, NASA Keeps Funding Projects." Then, on July 2, 2010, NBC reported that, "The U.S. Senate Commerce Committee is proposing to save as many as 7,500 jobs of those who work on NASA's launch team by funding an additional space shuttle supply flight to the International Space tation a year from now. That mission would be followed immediately with the building of a heavy-lift rocket and spacecraft to replace the space shuttle."

   This will have to be approved by Barack Obama, who originally cancelled the space shttle and much of the current space program. So far, NASA has confirmed that the shuttle program will be kept alive, at least until next year (2011). After that, America's future in space remains somewhat uncertain.

~<>~

   The next announcement (also in July, 2010) came from Charles Bolden, the newly appointed NASA Director. He indicated that the President has given a new, major assignment to NASA. It is to reach out with a sort of "affirmative action" educational program to the Muslims of the world.

   No one seems to understand what this has to do with NASA's previous, original purpose. It may take some time to figure this one out.

An Important Letter From The Planetary Society

(Aug. 19, 2010)

From:

The Planetary Society

85 South Grand Avenue

Pasadena, CA 91105

To:

Senator Barbara Mikulski, Chair

Senator Richard Shelby, Ranking Minority Member

U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Science

and Related Agencies

144 Dirksen Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Representative Alan Mollohan, Chair

Representative Frank Wolf, Ranking Minority Member

U.S. House of Representatives Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies

H-310 Capitol

Washington, DC 20515

Senator Bill Nelson, Chair

Senator David Vitter, Ranking Minority Member

U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Science and Space

428 Hart Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

Representative Gabrielle Giffords, Chair

Representative Pete Olsen, Ranking Minority Member

U.S. House Subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics

2325 Rayburn House Office Building

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Senators and Representatives,

President Obama has proposed a new plan and budget for U.S. human space exploration this year, one that would shift routine access to low Earth orbit to commercial launch vehicles (such as Atlas, Delta, and the new Falcon) and focus NASA’s human space exploration program on interplanetary destinations: beyond the Moon, near-Earth asteroids and, ultimately, Mars.

We are excited about this refocusing of NASA’s activities, and our communications with the public tell us they are excited, too. We are, however, concerned about omissions and a lack of coherence in the four committees’ versions of this bill. In particular, among the various bills we note the following:

• None include a plan to restore U.S. technical capability to launch astronauts to space once the shuttle is retired. At best there are directions that -- even if followed -- will likely lead to a “launch gap” years longer than was planned, even with Ares, and certainly longer than could be expected from the commercial launch industry, if they are supported.

• Instead, we support government – private partnerships to develop U.S. designed and built commercial launch vehicles, proven ones like the Atlas and Delta, and new ones like the Falcon.

• No exploration goals are set other than vague citations of building capability to ultimately fly to destinations beyond Earth orbit. Instead, we support identification of specific targets such as going beyond the Moon for the first time, then to a near-Earth asteroid, then to the orbit of Mars, and then to Mars itself. As Gemini and the early Apollo missions engaged the Nation on the way to the Moon landing, so too can steps into the solar system engage the Nation on the way to Mars.

• The various bills push to start “heavy-lift launch vehicle” development sooner than proposed by the Administration, despite having no destinations or flight goals for such a rocket for at least a decade. We strongly support American development of a deep-space rocket, but we believe that premature development through political legislation rather than technological studies could result in huge waste and eventual delays. Thus, we suggest support for a technology program to develop and evaluate competing approaches and to complete a preliminary design before committing to the final selection. A shorter actual development time will lead to a lower-cost project.

• The Administration’s proposed exploration and space technology programs are deeply cut. This exacerbates the situation of the past decade when NASA technology programs were eviscerated and the agency was unable to develop new technologies that could reduce cost or enhance performance. We support restoration of NASA’s proposed technology funding.

We do appreciate very much that, by approving the President’s proposed increase in NASA funding over the next five years, all the congressional committees involved support space and Earth science, robotic planetary exploration, new science initiatives, and NASA generally. We also appreciate the support for increased scientific use and international collaboration on the International Space Station, which will advance space exploration. As representatives of the Planetary Society, the largest space interest group in the world, we can assure you these programs have widespread public support.

Building a sustained and popular program of human space exploration requires both ambitious goals and robust partnerships. The Columbia shuttle accident caused many to question the high cost and significant risks of human space flight, but the Nation wisely decided that those costs and risks could be justified if the goals were truly great. That led to revamping NASA’s human space organization to focus on exploration. Exploration requires not just supporting an agency like NASA, but also building public and private (including commercial) partnerships, supporting international cooperation, and advancing science and technology. Those elements are all there in the fiscal year

2011 budget now before the Congressional committees. We ask your help in bringing them together into a coherent plan for human space exploration.

As noted, we are concerned that the path on which the legislative process is proceeding will lead to an incomplete plan, which would be worse than no plan at all. We ask for your help and leadership, and that of your colleagues on the full Committees, to prevent that. This may require stepping back from each of the Congressional bills now passed by Committees and refocusing on the whole. Congress’ interests and the Administration’s interests are more alike than different. We urge your support for a new NASA plan.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Jim Bell, President

Heidi Hammel, Vice President

Louis Friedman, Executive Director

Bill Nye, Executive Director Designate

Members have direct phone contact and receive special opportunities, newsletters, etc.