Mr. President, Will You Lead Us to Greatness in Space?
The roadmap is now complete. Today the commission formed to provide President Barack Obama with a series of potential pathways to America's future in space has delivered its final report. Officials in the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP, as they say in Washington) received the report from my friend Chairman Norm Augustine, and have begun the formal process of reviewing the analysis it contains. The plan is for President Barack Obama to select one of the "options" for America's future in space that the plan lays out-or none at all or something else entirely.
For me, one option is superior to all the rest. A review of that option -- called by Norm the "flexible path" -- will be the subject of this week's blog. In future blogs, I'll explain some of the other elements of this important report, especially in terms of new heavy lift boosters and the use of commercial providers to send our crews to the space station. This is a report that should be read and digested by all Americans. But now, let's talk about flexible path.
Like, what is it?
In the words of the report:
The Committee developed five alternatives for the Human Spaceflight Program. It found:
• Human exploration beyond low-Earth orbit is not viable under the FY 2010 budget guideline (no bucks, no Buck Rogers!)
• Meaningful human exploration is possible under a less constrained budget, ramping to approximately $3 billion per year above the FY 2010 guidance in total resources.
• Funding at the increased level would allow either an exploration program to explore Moon First (we shouldn't!) or one that follows a Flexible Path of exploration. Either could produce results in a reasonable timeframe. (Yes, we can!)
It is option 5 that got my heart racing! It says:
Option 5. Flexible Path. This option follows the Flexible Path as an exploration strategy. It operates the Shuttle into FY 2011, extends the ISS until 2020, funds technology development and develops commercial crew services to low-Earth orbit. There are three variants within this option; they differ only in the heavy-lift vehicle.
Variant 5A is the Ares Lite variant. It develops the Ares Lite, the most capable of the heavy lift vehicles in this option. Variant 5B employs an EELV-heritage commercial heavy-lift launcher and assumes a different (and significantly reduced) role for NASA. It has an advantage of
potentially lower operational costs, but requires significant restructuring of NASA.
Variant 5C uses a directly Shuttle-derived, heavy-lift vehicle, taking maximum advantage of existing infrastructure, facilities and production capabilities.
All variants of Option 5 begin exploration along the flexible path in the early 2020s, with lunar fly-bys, visits to Lagrange points and near-Earth objects and Mars fly-bys occurring at a rate of about one major event per year, and possible rendezvous with Mars's moons or human lunar
return by the mid to late 2020s.
Why do I support this option for America's future in space? Unlike the current plan, called Project Constellation, it bypasses a "Moon-centric" race that spends all of our time and precious development money on the Moon, and basically for the same amount of money -- a $3 billion annual boost for NASA -- allows us to roam the inner Solar System, developing the long-duration spacecraft and experience to travel deeper and deeper into space. We gain that experience -- and the valuable scientific research and engineering -- by making rendezvous with comets or Earth-threatening asteroids, eventually flying by Mars itself -- our "ultimate destination" in the words of Norm's group -- making early landings on the moons of Mars, like Phobos, before taking the plunge and setting up our first human colonies on the Red Planet itself.
And by the way, I think the new heavy booster we need should be a variant of their 5C: a true booster derived from the Space Shuttle, a side-mount monster that can carry both big cargoes and astronauts, too. Why on Earth (or off it!) do we need to waste money and time on the unstable and costly Ares 1 rocket that can barely limp into orbit? Let's make the best use of the money we have and shoot for a heavy lifter with both crew AND cargo capabilities. Option 5 also preserves the ability of America to return to the Moon as part of a grand global alliance that I have urged policymakers to consider.
All in all, option 5 makes dollars -- and sense -- for America.
I repeat the call I made last summer at the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum, when I spoke about the future of the space program. It is time we sailed the sea of space once more in a bold, expansive space vision. To achieve such a goal we need strong leaders, for to sustain a growing and momentous effort in space may require that we reject a defeatist mentality that mires us in second place, reject the loss of jobs that lack of leadership would cause, and that we set our sights higher, that if needed we sail against the wind. Not everyone will understand this need for America to lead the world in space.
In his grand novel about the space program, author James Michener put it plainly. "The world is called dark," Michener wrote, "not because the sun fails to shine, but because people fail to see the light." So let there be light.
President Barack Obama, the rest is up to you.
America, will you urge the president to pick a bold new mission for our nation in space? Call or text the president at 202-456-1111 or Switchboard: 202-456-1414. or email him at http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact.
In Twitter-friendly style, ask him this simple but profound question: Mr. President, will you lead us to greatness in space?
All Americans await his answer. For me, it is clear:
Ad Astra-per aspera! ("To the stars with difficulty!)
![Korean War Stories [VHS]](http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51NEYG7BW4L._SL160_.jpg)
Follow Buzz Aldrin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/therealbuzz
Dr. Susan Corso: Invading The Moon & Our Disordered Home Planet
I think there's a message in Chicago losing the Olympics. I also think there's a message in the moon invasion despite its alleged success. The message is a simple one: It's time to focus on home.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
During the 1960's two nations competed to reach the moon..
One won that competition and the other lost.
One nation still exists and the other does not.
I rest my case....
Heavy lift is a must but lets toss some $$$ at VASIMR technology. You know, the one that is estimated to be able to get us to Mars withing 39 days instead of six or more months using standard lift vehicles. In fact the VASIMR technology could be used for 120 day missions to what, Europa, Io, et al. Wouldn't that be grand.
It would be such as waste if it isn't tried...let's hope that it works!
Vasimir is great but to get that 39 day trip to mars, you'll need a nuclear reactor to power it. To date only the russians have put nuclear reactors in space. We might have trouble doing that due to the anti-nuclear activists.
I read there is some effort to use a solar powered vasimir to help boost ISS but I'm not sure if there will be enough remaining shuttle flights to get it up.
Solar is still better than Nuclear for Mars and Venues, because you don't have to carry the fuel., and nuclear reactors are super heavy.
Solar is still about 300 watts per meter at mars, and about 2000 watts per meter around Venus.
How about straightening out Earth first?
I'd even settle for just putting a few crooked CEOs in prison, getting healthcare for everyone, and stopping foreclosures.
Buzz Obama must deal with 2 major wars- a global collapse- loss of jobs- a GOP who wants to
crush him. So he's a bit busy now. Outer space will have to wait .
It can't wait too long - he's spending a$17 B a year on it, right now.
And, as I've said elsewhere, it can help us deal with some of those problems.
When NASA releases all it's secrets, perhaps it will be relevant. When NASA releases all of their secret technologies, perhaps we can apply them to sustaining and improving life on Earth. Then, once we have implemented these technologies and raised everyone's standard of living, we can think about exploring space. But do you really think the ETs are going to want to deal with us while we are perpetuating petty wars and severe economic disparity? Space travel will be really fun once we get our priorities straight.
Rockets are fairly primitive. Bombing the moon for water is silly. Sure, we can all buy awesome plasma fiber optic TVs, but they are still being run by coal plants.
NASA will be relevant again when it's discoveries improve life on Earth. Then we can explore space.
Actually, mbaty, you've hit the nail directly on the head - the issue is whether space can help with societies problems. And that is its biggest problem, which is annoying as hell because, given a chance, it could. We just don't utilize it at all well
As for the issue of NASA & its secrets - the issue isn't that NASA is hiding anything - the dirty secret of NASA is that it is, and has been, so mis-managed as to make itself irrelevant to our country.
And that is a real tragedy.
You want secrets? Here's one. Under Sean O'Keefe NASA quickly constructed this document in June of 2003 and filed it without comment in October of that year? We gathered the evidence in July of 2003. Look at the date at the top. NASA wasn't sure if the friend of the military industrial complex and their main benefactor GWB would be elected a second term. In that event a democratic President and DoJ may be inclined to go after them for misconduct. Of course the voting machines and vote tabulating servers worked flawlessly and GWB got in. Shortly thereafter his political appointees set about de-clawing and de-fanging the DoJ with new ideological political plants and NASA breathed a deep sigh. But they wanted to have that document in place so they could come back and say. "Look we do not condone censorship nor scientific misconduct, see this law we filed"? (Try not to look at the date).
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/03-18982.pdf
Uh... "secret" technology?
NASA is still doing a tremendous amount of discovery to help improve life on Earth. The problem is people are not using the information to that end. Look at the resistance to move to more fuel-efficient vehicles, why are folks still cutting down forests worldwide despite decades of NASA research about the effects of emissions and loss of foliage on our atmosphere and environment.
Just FYI, NASA does make quite a bit of its technology available for US Industry to develop into commercial products. For example, part of the ECLSS system on the ISS converts human sweat and urine into clean drinking water. This technology is now being commercialized to make compact water purification systems that can be used in disaster situations. Consider that not ALL of NASA technologies can be released, particularly its launch vehicle technology as it may converted for nefarious military uses by foreign nations.
Screw "greatness," Mr. President. Please lead us to solvency.
I agree enthusiastically with Buzz Aldrin.
While on the surface of the moon, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin received a call from President Nixon who said: "For one priceless moment in the whole history of man, all the people on this Earth are truly one."
It was also pretty nice when Buzz Aldrin punched that conspiracy theorist in the face who called him a coward.
Truly one ? Yes but that did not last long We have insane fanatics who want to kill us.
as well as a right wing agenda that seeks to over take this President.
Drugs- gangs - wars with no end in site Outer Space must wait
Except that space development can help us deal with some of those problem. For example, it can provide physical resources for us, economic resources, and arguably even some spiritual resources.
In short, outer space can't wait - not if we want to save the earth, and ourselves
We are already spending the money, saying it can wait just isnt in the cards. The question is how to best spend the money.
Your analysis seems very reasoned and worthy of consideration, but then, what else would we expect from you.
Thanks for your post Mr. Aldrin. I imagined I was with you when you went to the moon.
Honestly, now ... what has manned spaceflight done for us that we couldn't have done more cheaply and efficiently with un-manned rockets? I don't much like the taste of "Tang," and I can't feed pride to homeless children anyway. Train your eyes on the stars ... keep your feet on the ground.
Managed to get funded. It's the synergy of of many interests that allows HSF and space science to exist. Pull one element and you endanger the entire structure. Hows that supercollider going? Oh yeah, cancelled. Science only sure sells itself to senators.
And hubble wouldnt work at all, and certainly not as long, without HSF. And if you want a very large next-generation scope? You'll need HSF to justify the heavy rocket to congress, then you can launch 8-16 meter scopes. Hubble being 2.4m.
I'll take what works over purism any day.
How to do human operations in space. THere is a lot of discussion that we couldn't do the same level of field geology with robots. How to contstruct large structures in space.
And then there are the things that are close to paying off, but haven't quite yet, like industry creation (space tourism, cheap remote sensing, suborbital science, zero-g manufacturing)
Buzz, Great to hear from you. I bought you're book Encounter with Tiber last year at a second hand book shop and loved it. I don't know how I missed it. You are a true American hero and adventurer... and not a bad author either. Thanks for the memories!
Let's look at it another way....
WE ARE DOING "EARTH FIRST" RIGHT NOW.
AND WE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT SINCE JANUARY OF 1973!
Buzz: Much as I am elated by what NASA has done in the past--the party is over. We cannot afford these things. Take the International Space Station, due to be ABANDONED in a few short years. What purpose has this served? Nothing! It was a jobs program for Aerospace companies. We cannot afford these things now. No! We do not need to go to the Moon or Mars or anywhere right now.
It's not going to be abandoned. That was simply the date where the agreements were expiring. The Augustine Commission has suggested the ISS be continued for at least another five years. It will probably last well into the 2020s.
And the funding NASA gets is a very small part of the budget. 0.5% and only a portion of that is for manned space. Polls show that Americans believe NASA gets far more (as much as Defense, they think) when really they spend more on pizza each year.
So Tom I guess you must have a job huh?
Astronomers and Geologists for for NASA etc.
SOL1,
The point is not ANY job but jobs that solve pressing problems.
We gained a lot of value out of the original Apollo missions because there was a lot of inventing to be done. However, I do not believe that the Space Station really has brought about any innovations. Please inform me if you know of any. I would much prefer if our science dollars went toward solving the Climate Change issue, the Green Energy problem et al.
If our only goal was jobs, then we could just pay people ala Cool Hand Luke to "get their dirt out of my hole" and then to "get their dirt off my grass". If we just spend our money on pointless ends, it really does no good.
In short, space travel is NOT A PRESSING PROBLEM. We have no shortage of pressing problems that need our attention.
Sounds like you are in favor of your job but not for anyone else....
If people want to cling to the "solve problems on Earth first," thing then do it already. Stop handing $700B to banks so they can go back to doing the same things, stop spending trillions on wars that go nowhere and do nothing!
Put a fraction of that into space, go somewhere, solve problems, develop things, motivate people.
What nonsense.
indeed.
Well, with that kind of argument, I am surprised more people aren't flocking to your banner /snark
The Moon is the obvious place to develop solutions which can be applied to Mars and other outposts. R&D on a base 3 days from Earth makes more sense than a place months of travel away. Lagrange stations/depots need to be developed stocked mainly from the Moon to avoid the hideous cost of the Earth's gravity well. Launching from the moon's surface using superconducting mag lev catapults is infinitely cheaper than dragging stuff up from Earth.
Orbital bases made from moon dust or asteroids makes sense.
But the advantage of the flexible path that Aldrin is backing is that we dont need to develop the additional systems ($$$) for landing, such as landers, habs, moon suits, etc. Just working on better long distance ships is a good use of the money in my opinion. This is the option favored by the Augustine Commission.
That's sort of what I thought too....
A Moon habitat would have to be pretty sturdy...why not (with some exceptions) build for the moon and use on Mars?
Remember...I said some exceptions...
Look to the past to solve the problems of the future....or at least let them be the guide.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
