[Daktoria]

This was a rather interesting speech that came up in a discussion on another forum. We were discussing which is worse: fascism or communism?

Eisenhower seemed to hit the nail on the head in showing why both are bad despite not referring to either. He talked about the twin pillars of militarism and unchecked technological revolution unraveling social fabric.

What's especially interesting about this is this was after the '50s. Remember, the '50s were a time when people took pride in Cold War militarism and consumerism fueled technological revolution.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/ike.htm

The record of many decades stands as proof that our people and their Government have, in the main, understood these truths and have responded to them well in the face of threat and stress.

But threats, new in kind or degree, constantly arise.

Of these, I mention two only.

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence – economic, political, even spiritual – is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system – ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be, instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Eisenhower, the Supreme Allied Commander of forces in Europe, warning against "agony of the battlefield"...

...it's no wonder he beat out MacArthur in running for President.

[Xbow]

Daktoria

I find it interesting that in its original form of his address he used the terms 'Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex'.

Geoffrey Perret, in his biography of Eisenhower, claims that, in one draft of the speech, the phrase was "military-industrial-congressional complex", indicating the essential role that the United States Congress plays in the propagation of the military industry, but the word "congressional" was dropped from the final version to appease the then-currently elected officials.

Larry Wilkerson: The Military Industrial Complex

[Daktoria]

Definitely Xbow.

The military by itself is just a cultural establishment, and nobody should advocate emasculating the country while social engineers behind the scenes still get away with social spending in education, health care, and public pensions. We shouldn't be downsizing and increasing unemployment while at the same time, further disintegrating society through bureaucracy.

The heart of Eisenhower's speech seems to hit on this cultural angle by emphasizing the PROCESS of technological development being institutionalized. This institutionalization can only be inhibited through social values where people learn to appreciate relating with each other on an organic level. Notice the paragraph on inventors. In today's world, inventors get looked at as eccentric, schizophrenic, and bizarre. This attitude needs to stop so people relate with creative thinking again and stop believing the meaning of life is to fight.

Think about it. Is downsizing NASA really a good idea either?

[Xbow]

An excellent post Daktoria.

In my humble view the problem facing the USA now is not too different from the problem that Hardian encountered when he essentially halted the growth of the Empire. An empires economy that is based on wars of expansion can not be sustained forever so what comes after that? History tells us that Decline and contraction is inevitable.

And the sacred tome of the Neo-Cons "The Project for the New American Century" proves just how short sighted and absurd powerful elements in the government have become. And the Neo-Cons have plenty of support from the other side of the aisle. Enough to lead the nation down the path of its destruction. I just can't seem to forget that the war against Iraq was passed by 215Rs & 82Ds in the house and 48Rs & 29Ds in the Senate.

When Hadrian came to power he stopped this policy of relentless expansionism but by this time it was too late. Although this was the most sensible course of action, the economic situation was such that the problem could not be solved. The best Hadrian could do was slow down the inevitable economic decline.

I'm not sure that slow down is even possible for us at this point.

Think about it. Is downsizing NASA really a good idea either

No. But, getting them to operate without a blank check mentality is a good thing. Look at the cost of NASA's new generation of HLLV's and SHLLV's that were Xed in comparison to what say Space X can provide at a fraction of the cost. Actually NASA's program should and could be expanded via a stable budget at 20 billion/year and increased efficiency not diminished. If they can just be made to drink a nice tall glass of fiscal reality that is entirely possible. I mean what is NASA's budget 17-18 billion? a drop in the bucket when one considers the technological return. NASA has always been a whipping boy for the left...remember that idiot Frederick "Fritz" Mondale who's intention it was to gut NASA for political gain?

Note: A combined launch of the Ares I rocket and an Orion spacecraft would have cost $1 billion per flight to LEO or the ISS. TWO Falcon 9 Heavy Launches can handle a lunar mission on the scale of an Apollo mission and costs $160M to $250M. The 1st stage boosters are reusable after refurbishment and the Dragon X space craft is both cheaper & more capable than the Orion spacecraft and it also will have a greater degree of reusability.


A chip off the old Fritz...mindless.

[Typhoon]

In today's world, inventors get looked at as eccentric, schizophrenic, and bizarre.

Generally because they are, its a kind of badge of honour! Its not unfortunate the engineering and scientific community is over represented by these types of people, just a fact of life that those who shy away from the rest of society will no doubt end up tinkering with bits and pieces in sheds.

The loss of the solitary inventor is highlighted in the speech but this is simply because there is not that much left to invent or innovate that can be done by a solitary researcher, that is unless all we are interested in inventing is more powerful vacuum cleaners. Continued innovation needs the infrastructure, finance and manpower that it currently receives otherwise innovation would come to a shuddering halt, though it would be a mistake to say that intellectual curiosity does not primarily motivate scientists today.

[youtube]ehD4yLqeCyw[/youtube]

The 1st stage boosters are reusable after refurbishment

Reusable is a bad word in space-flight, especially if you want to do it to cost. Reusable was the reason the shuttle was uneconomical, if people want a cost effective space program then its got to rely on single use launchers.

[Xbow]

Reusable is a bad word in space-flight, especially if you want to do it to cost. Reusable was the reason the shuttle was uneconomical, if people want a cost effective space program then its got to rely on single use launchers.

Nope! I respect your view but it was The 'False Pretense Of Re-usability' that was the cost multiplier for the titanium goose. But, I certainly agree with you in spirit, that ELV's designed to operate in a performance 'comfort zone' are cheaper and more efficient than all other types. A classic example of this type would be this R-7 variant the Soyuz-U. Or The Falcon 9
....
But the reason why the shuttle was a waste of money was because virtually none of it was actually reusable without a complete and total rebuild they were almost remanufactured for each flight. In fact the so called fleet of four shuttles never actually existed. Sure there were four: air frames, sets of Main engines, etc etc etc but the truth is that space shuttles shared components and it was all NASA could manage to cobble one together from the four sets of components it had for a mission. No two shuttles have ever met in space...ever. No rescue of one shuttle by another was ever possible. NASA would like you to believe that they kept one shuttle in ready reserve to perform such a task...and that is pure NASA horse shit. If a shuttle had ever gotten stuck in orbit that would have meant seven desiccated corpses to be collected on the subsequent body snatching mission months later.

When the project started the image below represents what NASA actually wanted. (and this would have been ultra expensive as well)


Notice that we have a manned booster and an orbiter. But the most important feature of this concept is what you don't see and that is that these both ran on fuel carried internally. What this did for the orbiter was reduce the heat and stress of reentry and negate the need for all those 35,000 maintenance intensive thermal tiles. For the original concept a titanium underbelly backed by an insulating layer would have sufficed and because of the vehicles low cross sectional density very little stress would be generated during reentry.

And I am sure you know that the SMEs are very complex high performance engines that required a complete and total re-manufacture after every flight. And in any case those SME's had just a 66% chance of ever being reused at all. Not good for engines that cost 60,000,000 a pop. The shuttle was never re-useable it was just advertised as such to keep the program going.

However the SpaceX approach is to simply scavenge engines and various other high dollar trinkets from the first stage boosters and possibly the second stage boosters. And also return the entire DragonX orbiter to duty...nothing fancy.

Note: I misspoke about the Falcon9's re usability, actually only the engines and certain other components are reusable the fuel tanks are not reusable.

Check out theFalcon9's Merlin engines. Very simple, very basic, very conservative and very reliable Lox/Rp-1 engines (their design drew heavily on the LEMs descent stage engine (too simple to fail was the goal)

[Typhoon]

^ Seems the right say to go about it but I hear they are planning on stage reuse which they have been unable to demonstrate to date, which will eventually lead to full reuse (grasshopper?) which I am a bit concerned about...especially when they quote 1000x reuse!

[Xbow]

^ Seems the right say to go about it but I hear they are planning on stage reuse which they have been unable to demonstrate to date, which will eventually lead to full reuse (grasshopper?) which I am a bit concerned about...especially when they quote 1000x reuse!

1000? That soulds a bit optimistic . As far as the boosters are concerned aside from recovering and reusing some percentage of the high dollar components such as instrument packages, turbine pumps, engines etc etc they never will have that absurd degree of re-usability. Id say three to five uses of the components is quite sufficient to reduce costs of unmanned missions. However as far as the man rated versions with seven passengers sitting inside a DragonX that is sitting on top of the Falcon9 I doubt that any recycled components would be used at all. But the components of the man rated versions could be kicked down to unmanned launches. I would sure hate to be sitting inside any space craft booster combination that has been used 999 times before.

[Rainbow Crow]

I heard that spaceflight and space research cost lots of money with little to no immediate profit returns, and that people don't want to pay taxes. Could this be related to NASA cuts?

[Daktoria]

I heard that spaceflight and space research cost lots of money with little to no immediate profit returns, and that people don't want to pay taxes. Could this be related to NASA cuts?

Nope.

NASA cuts come from a decadent culture that doesn't care about STEM education and R+D. It was a program built to satisfy nerds, and now, people don't care about nerds anymore.

That's why this economy's falling apart, coincidentally.

[nucklepunche]

One of many reasons Eisenhower was in my opinion the best president of the 20th century.