…and his alternate reality. And sadly, it’s not just Gene Cernan. Many people who should know better are equally delusional. Though probably, some of them are just lying.
Of course, the media reporting on this subject over the last year (as it is on most subjects) has been abysmal.
Yes, that’s Gene Cernan just another over the hill technical illiterate with nothing worthwhile to say. Almost as pathetic as that other loser Armstrong.
Move along folks nothing to see here. 🙂
Why do people still believe that the current bureaucracy known as NASA has any relationship to the operation that went by the same name 40 to 50 years ago? Where the original NASA could design the systems needed to send men to the moon in less than ten years, the current NASA has, in ten years, managed to launch one (1) Shuttle replacement rocket (with no payload) on a suborbital test during that same amount of time, and discover major design flaws during that test. And they have no confidence that any commercial can exceed this pathetic record, especially when SpaceX has at least managed to successfully send and retrieve an orbital payload?
So yes, it is “pathetic” to see one’s childhood heroes devolve into sentimentality for their glory test-pilot days, when they had a monopoly on “space exploration.” What exactly is there left to “explore” about LEO, anyhow?
Hero worship is for suckers, Joe. I judge what someone says by what they say, not what a younger version of that person did.
Paul D. Says: May 1st, 2011 at 4:28 pm
“Hero worship is for suckers, Joe. I judge what someone says by what they say, not what a younger version of that person did.”
No “hero worship” involved, simply noting what one individual of significant relative accomplishment said might deserve a little more respect than being described as “delusional” (whether you agree with it or not).
But, of course, since I am sure you have achieved so much more you are not obligated to show that kind of respect.
Relax, readers, Joe is probably another sit-on-his-ass do-nothing aerospace worker from the current group of hogs slopping at the pork-barrel trough. He will distort any statement and make any lie just so long as it causes your tax dollar to keep funding his undeserved paycheck. It’s how he raises his kids too, I’m sure, so you can expect another generation to belly up to the trough when he’s had his fill.
Gene is the Donald Trump of Apollo Astronauts.
Ear Wax Says: May 1st, 2011 at 5:30 pm
“Relax, readers, Joe is probably another sit-on-his-ass do-nothing aerospace worker from the current group of hogs slopping at the pork-barrel trough. He will distort any statement and make any lie just so long as it causes your tax dollar to keep funding his undeserved paycheck. It’s how he raises his kids too, I’m sure, so you can expect another generation to belly up to the trough when he’s had his fill.”
Yes that’s it, you have nailed it. Quick somebody call a shrink I am a broken man.
You, on the other hand choose to call yourself “Ear Wax”. I would consider that an insult to actual earwax everywhere.
Since this is the kind of juvenile garbage this thread has now been reduced to, I will sign off.
Have fun kiddies, but remember to not let Mommy and Daddy find out you what you are using the computer for.
“You, on the other hand choose to call yourself “Ear Wax”. I would consider that an insult to actual earwax everywhere.”
Ouch!
“Relax, readers, Joe is probably another sit-on-his-ass do-nothing aerospace worker ”
He could be the CEO of a fortune 500 company or an ice cream truck driver we don’t know.
If he is the later, then maybe he will give us all free ice cream?
A couple of points. He’s getting very old, and folks at that age are often comparing a somewhat biased view of modern events to a highly edited version of their memories of the past. The past NASA he may accurately remember isn’t the current NASA.
I’ve been watching an MIT graduate level lecture course on aerospace systems design (given in 2005) which that year was specifically on the design and development of the Space Shuttle. The course called in the top designers and program managers (whose names you all probably know) and quite a few of them occassionally go off on tangents (if not rants) on the culture change since the 60’s and 70’s, with some unflattering comparisons to the current state of affairs, in management, culture, training, testing, and attitude.
The course is here. It’s geek bliss.
George Turner Says: May 2nd, 2011 at 6:30 pm
“A couple of points. He’s getting very old, and folks at that age are often comparing a somewhat biased view of modern events to a highly edited version of their memories of the past. The past NASA he may accurately remember isn’t the current NASA.”
Hi George,
This is not intended to be snarky, but I really get irritated when people use someone’s age as an excuse to dismiss their opinions (be careful before you accuse me of being a cranky old geezer – as near as I can tell Rand and I are about the same age and he might not like it 🙂 ).
Just an example of why that does not work. Robert W. Bussard (August 11, 1928 – October 6, 2007) was running a small research company and working on Pollywell/IEC Fusion (with a substantial grant from the Navy until the time of his death).
Ask yourself this question: At what age are you willing to guarantee that you will stop working on things of interest to you because somebody (maybe you?) has deemed you to old.
If you want to refute Cernan (or anyone else – of any age – for that matter), try to refute what they are saying (and yes past relevant accomplishments should count).
“The course called in the top designers and program managers (whose names you all probably know) and quite a few of them occassionally go off on tangents (if not rants) on the culture change since the 60′s and 70′s, with some unflattering comparisons to the current state of affairs, in management, culture, training, testing, and attitude.”
I am not old enough to comment on the period in question (although for part of it I was sitting in front of the TV, watching Bugs Bunny cartoons and eating a fudge sickle), but did you ever consider the possibility they might be correct?
Hi Joe,
I should’ve finished my comment by saying that I think Cernan might be comparing commercial efforts to the NASA he worked with back in the 1960’s and 1970’s, whereas the engineers in the MIT lectures sometimes talked about how much has changed since then, and how much knowledge has been lost. After the Columbia accident Bass Redd was called back in to look at the aerodynamics, and he had to send their current engineers to school for a year and a half. He also commented that the current engineers, including the managers, didn’t seem to cooperate with each other. Some of the other lecturers made the same point in different ways.
George Turner Says: May 3rd, 2011 at 11:33 am
“After the Columbia accident Bass Redd was called back in to look at the aerodynamics, and he had to send their current engineers to school for a year and a half.”
Interesting, back in the 1990’s (when I was a boy) I had the honor of getting to spend some time talking to the late Max Hunter. He was a big proponent of what he called the “build a little/test a little” approach, in no small part because it gave engineers real experience with how real hardware worked in the real world. He worried that too much dependence was being placed on elaborate simulations that might/might not represent reality and also did not necessarily make the engineers using the programs proficient in understanding of what they were working with.
“He also commented that the current engineers, including the managers, didn’t seem to cooperate with each other. Some of the other lecturers made the same point in different ways.”
Yes the wonders of matrix management. That (believe it or not) was one of the main things I was thinking about when reading the last part of your post. Unfortunately that particular little gem of modern business is not limited to aerospace/government work (and it was already in place when I got out of college – one of the reasons to at least listen to the “old guys” – they at least saw how things worked when we were not so ‘sophisticated’.).
Joe: we’re not using his age as an excuse to dismiss his opinions. We’re using age as a tentative explanation for the fact he has those opinions. The opinions themselves are problematic independently of his age.
Paul D. Says:
May 4th, 2011 at 6:33 am
“Joe: we’re not using his age as an excuse to dismiss his opinions. We’re using age as a tentative explanation for the fact he has those opinions.”
Exactly how would his age be even a “tentative explanation ” of his opinions?
Are your opinions formed by your age?
Exactly how would his age be even a “tentative explanation ” of his opinions?
If only there was a way age could affect a person’s mental faculties. That could provide an explanation for believing something so counterfactual, don’t you think?
Or on your planet, are all people sharp as a tack until they drop dead?