Gen. Chuck Yeager Speaks Out Against Return To The Moon

khsl tv ^ | 02/04/10 | Jerry Olenyn

[KevinDavis]

President Obama's decision to cut back on spending for NASA and future trips to the moon has the support of one of the pioneers of space exploration. Action News reporter Jerry Olenyn down with General Chuck Yeager at his office in Grass Valley, not far from his home, to discuss his past and the future direction the United States should take in the new frontier.

[freemike]

PING

[Teacher317]

The difference being that the future of mankind is not going to be centered on the advances we make in earth-moving capabilities... but extra-terrestrial travel, transport, colonization, and resource exploitation almost certainly is.

[muir_redwoods]

Thank you very much for your service General.

Now get out of the way.

[Travis McGee]

You may be worried about traveling to the planets and stars,

I’m worried abou not descending to Mad Max here on earth in the next decade.

[Finny]

For some reason, I can't link to the piece to read it (getting a "You may not have internet connection," when clearly I do, so it must mean a problem on the other source's end). What were Yeager's reasons? Was it was he felt that the resources should be spent going somewhere other than the moon? I think there may be a decent argument for that, to leave the moon and move on to Mars or manned space stations, and I know I've read it from other space enthusiasts somewhere along the line. Even though I personally think that it is crucial, key, paramount, that the U.S. have military and technological dominance in space, and the moon should be included if only for its symbolic value.

Kevin, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND that you read "The Right Stuff," by Thomas Wolfe. I mean, I love the movie, too, and have watched it zillions of times, but the movie is to the book what a Yugo is to a Corvette. You more than most would get a lot out of the book, and I'm shocked (shocked!) that you haven't read it! I've also read BOTH of Yeager's books, his autobio "Yeager" and his next book, "Press On." I love them because I discovered that Yeager and his pals had the same attributes, aloofness from convention, pure necessity for independence and self-reliance, and many personality traits of ... well, my parents, my parents' friends, the circle of commercial fishermen & their families that were part of their/my world (my dad was a fisherman), and so forth. In "Press On" he wrote, "I've always said that the rules are made for people who aren't willing to make up their own." I broke out laughing because that was precisely descriptive of my dad and the finest of the fishermen he worked with, and the way my Dad has lived and loved his adventurous life. BELIEVE ME, nothing describes the spirit of Guys who Get Things Done in a Pinch better than that!

Yeager is one of my heroes, but I'm under no illusions that he's ever been a prince in terms of manners or diplomacy! Nor was he particularly a space guy -- he was a test pilot guy of fast jets. For him to have done what he did, he had to have been monstrously intelligent, extraordinarily gifted in terms of mechanics, and above all, very, very cool-headed and calm thinking. THAT is how he survived all those test flights.

[valkyry1]

He’s right on this IMO, there is no good reason to return to the moon again at the present.

[onedoug]

I’ve always seen Apollo as having been a wasteful showboat.

Don't tell that to a planetologist.

[hinckley buzzard]

Yeager was one of the great aviation pioneers, but he had little or nothing to do with the space program. He's probably just pissed because he never got the chance to fly a shuttle or a lunar lander himself. He and other test pilots bet on a fly-to-orbit-and-return rocket/plane solution and NASA went with the missile solution.

He bet wrong.

[hinckley buzzard]

I’ve always seen Apollo as having been a wasteful showboat

You are too young to remember the Cold War atmosphere of the sixties aren't you. Either that or you're spinning yarn for some reason.

[rawcatslyentist]

>"Likewise, it could power a high temperature furnace, very useful for many experiments."

And for those cold 14 day long nights.

[onedoug]

...there is no good reason to return to the moon again at the present.

I'm not so sure. Beside the gelological aspects, a well supplied lunar staging area could launch a much heavier payload because of the Moon's lower gravity, thus affording a longer manned presence on the Martian surface. It would also effect a more efficient return as the vehicle would be less massive than one that would otherwise have staged from Earth, yet carrying more sample returns given again the lower launch requirements in Mars lesser gravity.

[valkyry1]

Yes but the moon is so far away for all of that. I suggest that if you start to consider all of the logistics involved for either one of those ventures with our current technologies (especially propulsion) it becomes not doable in the next 30/40 years or so.

[dr_lew]

The difference being that the future of mankind is not going to be centered on the advances we make in earth-moving capabilities... but extra-terrestrial travel, transport, colonization, and resource exploitation almost certainly is.

The way this parses, it says that extra-terrestrial travel will depend on advances in earth-moving capabilities.

[GGpaX4DumpedTea]

“...I don’t know if I would call him a pioneer of space exploration...”

Agreed. Riding an X-1 etc in the atmosphere is hardly ‘space exploration’. Me thinks it is sour grapes, or maybe grapes of wrath.

[hattend]

I’m worried about not descending to Mad Max here on earth in the next decade.

Dittoes and BTTT

[Fester Chugabrew]

Unless you can convince me the moon is full of unobtanium, waiting to be hauled back and smelted into something useful.

Problem is, if we bring too much of that stuff back the moon will traverse into a bastard orbit, we'll lose the tides, and future pirates like Blackbeard will have to be executed in a different manner.

[dr_lew]

I agree. Any sort of ambitious manned presence in the solar system would be greatly facilitated by a moon base. If it seems too expensive, that only emphasizes how much is required for such an ambition. It really is the logical step.

Scientifically, there would be great benefit in doing radio telescopy from the moon, both from the far side, to avoid interference, and from the rim, to establish Very Long Baseline Interferometry.

Meanwhile, I don’t see why we don’t launch lunar rover probes to do sample return and detailed exploration. There has been a spate of orbiters of late, so why not keep that ball rolling?

[decimon]

You are too young to remember the Cold War atmosphere of the sixties aren't you.

I'm 64 and I remember the times. I remember that JFK ran on a BS platform of Eisenhower having let us fall behind in a missile gap with the Soviets. That he parlayed that BS into the Apollo program.

What do you remember?

[21stCenturion]

Sorry. I couldn’t let this pass unchallenged.

Col. Yaeger was the Founder and 1st Commandant of the USAF Aerospace Research Pilots School ( at Edwards ) which was ALSO chartered to develop and promote the usage of Military Astronauts. While many ultimately ended up employed by NASA as, over time, the Military Manned Space effort was more or less completely subsumed into NASA’s overall mission, this program WAS completely HIS design and development. He served in this role for something like 8 years from 1961 on. There’s like two chapters in his autobiography discussing this phase of his career. You might try looking it up — it’s a fascinating read, especially the history of Capt. Ed Dwight.

While Yaeger himself was not an ‘astronaut’, many military pilots ( particularly in the X-15 program ) were officially rated as Astronauts — wings, perks and all — because they flew high enough to escape the atmosphere and then safely returned to earth.

The military didn’t ‘bet wrong’ on the “fly to orbit and return by rocket plane” regime. The politicians / bureaucrats / industrialists comprising the NASA machine simply sucked up all the funding / oxygen / resources for space programs and pre-empted any possibility that the Military would ‘own’ any manned space capability outside of the officially sanctioned NASA civilian program(s). ( Although, as we all know, NASA was only too happy to suck up any qualified Military Astronauts who cared to apply ... )

Get your facts straight before sounding off, oh snarky one.

One man’s view ...

21stCenturion

[NVDave]

I, for one, am glad that the General is speaking the truth on this.

NASA has become nothing more than an obnoxious waste of money on a huge PR campaign (with several very visible failures).

During the Cold War, this PR/propaganda served a useful end. Today, the manned space program is a huge sinkhole for cash that would be better spend on probes and unmanned exploration.