Categories
Quick Analysis

Moon Landing Changed Human History

Today marks 4 9 years, almost half a century, since Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin, aboard the “Eagle” Lunar Excursion Module, became the first humans to set foot on another world.  Mike Collins orbited overhead in the “Columbia” Command Module.  Upon touching down on the lunar surface, they reported “Houston, Tranquility Base here.  The Eagle has landed.” Later, as Neil Armstrong set foot on the surface, he stated “That’s one small step for a man, one giant leap for mankind.”

On television, at least one famous news anchor wiped away tears of pride.  Across the planet, people crowded around televisions, news screens in public places such as Times Square, and other informational sites.  There was no internet, of course, back then. Many music radio stations continuously played moon-themed music.

The Astronauts left a plaque that read “We Came in Peace for All Mankind.”  And, indeed, for just a very brief period of time, and despite the competition for space supremacy between the U.S. and the U.S.S.R. much of humanity saw itself as a singular entity, a species evolving into something more.

Earlier this century, Air and Space noted that “it signaled a climactic instance in human history…The flight of Apollo 11 met with an ecstatic reaction around the globe, as everyone shared in the success of the astronauts. The front pages of newspapers everywhere suggested how strong the enthusiasm was. NASA estimated that because of nearly worldwide radio and television coverage, more than half the population of the planet was aware of the events of Apollo 11. Although the Soviet Union tried to jam Voice of America radio broadcasts most living there and in other countries learned about the adventure and followed it carefully. Police reports noted that streets in many cities were eerily quiet during the Moon walk as residents watched television coverage in homes, bars, and other public places. Official congratulations poured in to the U.S. president from other heads of state, even as informal ones went to NASA and the astronauts. All nations having regular diplomatic relations with the United States sent their best wishes in recognition of the success of the mission…Those without diplomatic relations with the U.S., such as the People’s Republic of China, made no formal statement on the Apollo 11 flight to the U.S., and the mission was reported only sporadically by its news media because Mao Zedong refused to publicize successes by Cold War rivals.”

In the years since then, America, despite the extraordinary success of efforts such as the space shuttle program and the construction of the international space station, has had a far less ambitious manned space program.  Barack Obama did everything possible to eliminate NASA’s ability to place astronauts in space, and during his tenure the United States endured the humiliation of depending on Russian craft to place personnel aboard the space station that America had largely constructed. However, that situation is undergoing a sharp reversal, as President Trump has enthusiastically supported NASA’s manned space efforts, and its goal of returning to the Moon and then on towards Mars.

The cause may be of any; this tadalafil pharmacy is called viagra. However, discount bulk viagra women who are on blood pressure or cholesterol medications can not use this type of treatment. The skyrocketing rate of teen pregnancy has nothing to do with the option of global delivery. online prescription viagra tadalafil overnight shipping Look for Comfortable Way to Start the Conversation There are numerous ways for starting the conversation. His position has opponents, who believe that NASA’s minuscule budget—it’s considerably under one percent, just about 0.4% of all federal spending, should be spent elsewhere.  It’s an irrational perspective, since the space agency’s accomplishments actually result in a significant net gain for the U.S. economy.

A Space Foundation report in 2007 found that NASA activities resulted in a net gain of about $180 billion to the national economy, a startlingly large return for a budget that is currently about $19 billion. In 2007, then-NASA Administrator Michael Griffin stated:

“NASA opens new frontiers and creates new opportunities, and because of that [NASA] is a critical driver of innovation. We don’t just create new jobs, we create entirely new markets and possibilities for economic growth that didn’t previously exist. This is the emerging space economy, an economy that is transforming our lives here on Earth in ways that are not yet fully understood or appreciated. It is not an economy in space — not yet. But space activities create products and markets that provide benefits right here on Earth, benefits that have arisen from our efforts to explore, understand, and utilize this new medium… We see the transformative effects of the space economy all around us through numerous technologies and life-saving capabilities. We see the space economy in the lives saved when advanced breast cancer screening catches tumors in time for treatment, or when a heart defibrillator restores the proper rhythm of a patient’s heart. We see it when GPS, the Global Positioning System developed by the Air Force for military applications, helps guide a traveler to his or her destination. We see it when weather satellites warn us of coming hurricanes, or when satellites provide information critical to understanding our environment and the effects of climate change. We see it when we use an ATM or pay for gas at the pump with an immediate electronic response via satellite. Technologies developed for exploring space are being used to increase crop yields and to search for good fishing regions at sea.”

The late, brilliant Stephen Hawking believed that “Sending humans to the moon changed the future of the human race in ways that we don’t yet understand.” He stated, notes the British newspaper The Independent  “I believe that the long term future of the human race must be space and that it represents an important life insurance for our future survival, as it could prevent the disappearance of humanity by colonising other planets.”

Photo: Armstrong on the Moon.  (NASA)

Categories
Quick Analysis

U.S. Losing the economic & defense high ground in space

For far too long, the U.S. space program has been treated as a frill—something desirable and good, but not essential to the military, economic, and scientific health of the nation.

It is difficult for Americans brought up on the history of the U.S. beating Russia to the moon to realize that their nation is now rapidly falling behind. Fifty-two countries, according to the Space Foundation,  now conduct space activities. “Many nations now recognize the strategic value and practical benefits of space assets and are pursuing space capabilities.”

According to Rep. Bill Posey (R-Florida)  “NASA and America’s mission in space are important components to our national security…and national economic growth; and to the advancement of new technologies and our global economic competitiveness. America’s achievements in space are universally recognized and admired around the world. Yet, today our nation’s leadership in space is being threatened by Russia, China, India and others. We must recognize and respond to this threat with urgency. We cannot rely on our past and pretend that is enough to propel us as the world leader in space. Too many in Washington have lost the vision and they have taken our past achievements for granted…We, as a nation cannot afford to take a backseat to anyone when it comes to space. We must lead. Our failure to do so will cede the final frontier to others who do not have our best interest at heart and it will jeopardize our technological superiority, our economic security and our national security.”

America’s Space Industry is faltering. While NASA has sought to move forward, the budget plug gets pulled with alarming regularity. According to Posey, “In the last 20 years NASA has spent more than $20B on cancelled development programs.”

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce  notes that “The United States invented the space industry, but steadily over the last decade or more, the country has seen global competitors increase their capability to launch satellites and people into space, even as the United States has spun its wheels and gained little ground, stuck in the quicksand of bureaucracy and misaligned public and private interests…

“This industry is very smart, and we’re living off a set of past wonders that were achieved in the 60s, 70s and 80s and think that that carries through to today,” said John Higginbotham, chairman & CEO of Blue Ridge Networks. “We have to get real and look in the mirror. We had it right , but the recipe got out of whack…Maybe we should listen to people in other industries, in other countries, and look at other business models.”

In the hey-day of American space exploration, the U.S. private sector worked hand-in-hand with their public counterparts, collaborating to develop something the world had never seen. Though rocket science grew out of World War II, NASA, other parts of the U.S. government and the American private sector took an emerging idea and refined it into a robust industry. It also did this in record time. Recently, however, the public-private relationship has broken down with cascading effects throughout the industry and those industries that support it.

“If you actually look at the launch industry,” said Linda Maxwell, Aerospace, Defense and Government (ADG) Investment Banking Group, Houlihan Lokey, who also spoke on the panel, “when United Launch Alliance is using Russian and Ukrainian rockets to throw our commercial satellites into space, you know something is wrong…”

“In the ‘80s and ‘90s, the United States was a satellite powerhouse, providing satellite capabilities for more than 90% of the global market. …To have the statement that 1 out of 25 satellite operators is a resident of the United States is a dismal failure.”

What happened? Export controls and International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR). Since 1976, the United States has kept a list of defense-related technology, weapons and other items whose export and import is regulated by the federal government. ITAR was borne of the Cold War and the U.S. effort to control arms exports.  In 1999, another set of technologies was added to the regulated U.S. Munitions List – satellites. This made what was already a costly and complex endeavor significantly more challenging, if not impossible in some cases.

With heavy regulations on U.S. business’ ability to sell satellite infrastructure, companies and investors also lost the cash flows that come from providing goods and services. By limiting how satellite infrastructure could be used, sold and launched, the United States effectively took itself out of 95% of the global market – this for an industry America invented and propelled to world-changing ends.
A UK based online store mouthsofthesouth.com order cialis uk always delivers cheap male impotence kamagra tablets in a discreet packaging, just to maintain privacy. Esteeming our client needs and endeavoring to give them the best administration in the business helps cost of cialis to achieve erection for desired time. The growth of male organ starts during pregnancy cialis professional for sale and childbirth, most notable is her posture. The pumps are said to offer considerable benefits within 6 to 8 weeks of use. tadalafil on line
“If you ask major aerospace firms why they are losing to competitors abroad, it is because of ITAR regulations,” said Maxwell. “International customers don’t want to come here…The amount of regulation on the way that the government does business is stifling the profitability and time to market.”

In 2013, the National Defense Authorization Act removed that restriction, though it may have been too late.

“Even as U.S. space initiatives have slowed to a leisurely stroll, other countries are sprinting ahead, seizing the opportunity to acquire a larger stake in the industry while the United States sleepily allows its supremacy in space to slip away…

“While regulations are a hindrance, another challenge for investors and the U.S. space industry overall is a lack of a national mission and unreliable mission consistency between administrations…”

NASA’s Budget Woes

Rep. Posey, in statements noted by the Tampa Bay Times and the Miami Herald, has been sharply critical of President Obama’s role in cutting funding for key  space agency programs, particularly manned space flight.  In 2011, he stated “After the administration let NASA flounder for the past two years, a flawed NASA authorization bill was finally agreed to and signed into law… Now the administration is proposing to ignore this law, placing a higher priority on global warming research and making cuts to the next-generation launch vehicle.  Over two years ago, the president promised to close the space gap, but now he seems intent on repeating the events that created the space gap in the first place — putting in place a new rocket design and then trying to underfund the effort, ensuring that it will never happen and ceding American leadership in space to China and Russia.”

Of course, NASA’s problems did not first arise under the Obama presidency, although his Administration must take responsibility for pulling the plug on the Shuttle program before a substitute crewed vehicle could be prepared, and for diverting funds away from key projects to more fully fund climate change studies.

This year, The Republican-controlled Congress has also cut funding from the development of crucially needed commercial crewed vehicles. The reason given was that it allowed dependence on Russian craft for too long going forward.

Space defense also troubled

It is not just the civilian side of space that is a concern.

The Breaking Defense  publication quoted Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work’s worries about  “increasing threats” against America’s satellites “While we rely heavily on space capabilities, in both peace and war, we must continue to emphasize space control as challenges arise…To maintain our military dominance we must consider all space assets, both classified and unclassified, as part of a single constellation. And if an adversary tries to deny us the capability, we must be able to respond in an integrated, coordinated fashion.” China’s capability to destroy U.S. satellite in orbit is a key motivation for the Pentagon’s concern.

On June 26, Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Alabama), chair of the House Armed Services Committee addressed a hearing of the Subcommittee on Strategic Forces on America’s reliance on Russian rocket engines. He stressed that without “an effective space launch program, we lose all the advantages from space capabilities. Losing space for our warfighters is not an option… Because we are committing to ending our reliance on Russian engines, we must invest in the United States rocket propulsion industrial base.  Investment in our industry for advanced rocket engines is overdue.  While we may lead in some areas of rocket propulsion, we are clearly not leading in all.  This is painfully obvious considering that 2 out of the 3 U.S. launch providers we have here today rely on Russian engines.  And it’s not just the Russians leading the way — according to online press reports, the Chinese may be flying a new launch vehicle on a maiden flight this summer, with similar technologies as the Russians, using an advanced kerosene engine.”