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!)
Follow Buzz Aldrin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/therealbuzz
One won that competition and the other lost.
One nation still exists and the other does not.
I rest my case....
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 about 300 watts per meter at mars, and about 2000 watts per meter around Venus.
That requires 200 meter square, 40,000 square meter solar collector driving a 50% efficient closed loop turbine generator or a 40% solar cells.
Lightweight solar concentrators of several types have been tested:
http://algor.com/news_pub/cust_app/srs/srstech.asp
Aluminum Mylar weigh about 5-10 grams per meter, for about 400 kg for a 40,000 sq meter mirror.
I'd even settle for just putting a few crooked CEOs in prison, getting healthcare for everyone, and stopping foreclosures.
crush him. So he's a bit busy now. Outer space will have to wait .
And, as I've said elsewhere, it can help us deal with some of those problems.
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.
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.
http://www.bccmeteorites.com/03-18982.pdf
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.
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
In short, outer space can't wait - not if we want to save the earth, and ourselves
Thanks for your post Mr. Aldrin. I imagined I was with you when you went to the moon.
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.
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)
WE ARE DOING "EARTH FIRST" RIGHT NOW.
AND WE HAVE BEEN DOING THAT SINCE JANUARY OF 1973!
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.
Astronomers and Geologists for for NASA etc.
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.
Put a fraction of that into space, go somewhere, solve problems, develop things, motivate people.
Orbital bases made from moon dust or asteroids makes sense.
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.