iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Buzz Aldrin

Buzz Aldrin

Posted: March 18, 2010 01:11 PM

Instead of planning the retirement of the Space Shuttle program, America should be preparing the shuttles for their next step in space: evolving, not shutting them down and laying off thousands of people. You know the very people whose experience we will need in the years ahead. Except if you lay them off now, they won't be around in the next decade. Today's Shuttle operation is made up of five elements. Here's how we can put them all to use in a whole new space program. America, extend and transform the Shuttle, don't end 'em.

Those five elements of a Shuttle extension - the four segment solid booster motors, the big orange External Fuel tank, the trio of liquid Shuttle main engines, the vast existing Shuttle facilities like hangars and launching pads, and above all the skilled and experienced work force that has been operating the Shuttle fleet for nearly 30 years, can be the foundation of a whole new space goal.

We need to start thinking like our friends in the Russian space program. The first launch of the Soyuz rocket that is used today for taxi flights to the International Space Station had its first flight in November 1963 -- the same month President Kennedy was assassinated! But while the rocket and capsule look the same as the one that flew first in 1963, there have been many changes, some subtle and some more obvious. Newer and more powerful engines, a new upper stage, and advanced spaceship controls and systems mark today's Soyuz. In fact, the Soyuz itself is a more advanced version of the R-7 ICBM that Russia developed in the late 1950s and which first lofted spaceman Yuri Gagarin in 1961. Instead of abandoning the system for something entirely new -- which is what the U.S. intends to do after the Shuttle -- Russia has made incremental improvements to Soyuz, basically building an entire space program around that space-going workhorse.

See any lessons here?

America has invested 30 years in the Shuttle system. Instead of retiring it and beginning with a new "clean sheet of paper" approach that will take extra time and money, I propose we follow the Russian example and make the basic Shuttle the foundation of a space program that can take us literally to Mars. Use the boosters, engines and big tank as the backbone of a new heavy lift rocket. Fly that rocket from the same facilities as the current Shuttles use. Keep much of the existing workforce working, because the only thing you will change is older designs and engines, making way for a heavy lift launcher derived from the Shuttle basics and capable of carrying large new spacecraft to the station or destinations beyond.

You may ask -- how do we get from here to there?

By continuing to fly the existing Shuttles until a commercial crew-carrying cousin comes available after testing, or until the all-cargo ships start flying. On my evolution chart, I see these cargo Shuttles evolving, too, until they become a truly huge heavy lift rocket that can fly elements of an interplanetary spaceship aloft and link them together, using the space station as the testing ground.

But I also have a place for a space capsule in this plan. An Orion-like capsule can be docked to the interplanetary ship and provide aero braking tests as we advance further and further into the solar system, headed in the direction of Mars.

What's aero braking? That's a way to use the gravity and upper atmosphere of Earth to sling shot a ship out either deeper into space, or slow it down to be "captured" by Earth's gravity. It flies in a series of ever-widening spirals. What's the big deal? Because aero braking doesn't need a heavy and expensive rocket stage to muscle our ships around in space. It's a technique we have used successfully in robotic missions to Mars. If we truly want to make humans on Mars a national objective without sending the money -- printing presses into overtime, that's one way to get us there.

But none of this is possible if we abandon the Space Shuttle, and the many decades of experience in flying a winged craft into space and safely back to a runway. They call 'em a runway lander.

And the story of why we need that instead of a spaceship-turned-boat space capsule as our space taxis is the subject of my next blog. Along with ideas on using that big orange fuel tank so familiar to those who have watched Shuttle launchings in a new role: a spaceship itself. More on those ideas soon.

 

Follow Buzz Aldrin on Twitter: www.twitter.com/therealbuzz

 
 
  • Comments
  • 144
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (5 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jimpager
07:54 PM on 04/17/2010
C'mon Buzz,

You know NASA is the "White" Program overlaying the "Black" programs
of the Pentagon/CIA. When they cancel the SR-71, are we to believe there
is no Aurora? The fact of the cancelation screams there IS an Aurora. And
even the government has now admitted there is an Area 51 with its U2s,
its SR71s, its B-70s, its stealth fighters and bombers, its drones, its silent
helocopters, and even its Mig squadrons.

We cannot afford the redundant effort of NASA anymore, the programs need to be black, and
the Shuttle is yesterday's technology. Spending more money on Shuttles may
actually make us weaker as newcomers to the space race will jump in at leading
edge technologies and not chase yesterday's technologies. We should not chase
them either.

Think ScramJets and space planes. If you havn't heard, try a patent search. Test Pilots like
you will love them. The Shuttle needs to go into the history books now.
11:18 AM on 03/22/2010
Dr. Aldrin,

Where is the imagination you are so famous for?

Have you ever seen this picture:
http://rubiconconsulting.com/insight/winmarkets/Horsey%20Horseless.gif

Today it looks laughable, but at the time this Horsey Horseless Carriage was an early automobile design. The carved horse’s head mounted on the front was suppose to make the car look like a horse drawn carriage – as to not frighten real horses.

In order to make a car we needed to rethink the carriage – everything from wheels, controls, seats etc. had to be radically changed and reimagined.
08:51 AM on 03/22/2010
Hello Buz,
Can you EVEN imagine what NASA could have done with all that money that was spent on the 2 "wars" we are now caught up in. We really could have gone " where no man has gone before". I had hoped in my lifetime (I'm 65) to see a maned mission to Mars...or at least back to the Moon.
Thank you for what YOU brought to exploration.
photo
MichaelMcKLA
I'm moving to Pandora.
02:25 PM on 03/19/2010
I agree with you, Buzz.

Take care and be well.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
ClarcKing
Citizen
02:02 PM on 03/19/2010
Mr. Aldrin is right and must lead the political pressure to ensure that NASA is not reduced in size, scope of operations, etc. Expansion of the NASA space programs is essential for the nation's power and recovery of our economic primacy. Industrialization of the moon will produce so many scientific and technological benefits to the nation that will propel our ultimate landing on Mars. NASA , in expanding our scientific growth and its' technological derivatives, is the true source of our nation's power.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
naschkatze
A free man creates himself.
11:43 AM on 03/19/2010
Those thousands of jobs lost will be made up by 16,000 new IRS employees checking up on small businesses that they adhere to the new mandated health "reform". I would prefer that Americans have NASA jobs instead.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Nebris
Auteur and Guru
10:19 AM on 03/19/2010
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIRECT

The above program, which I suspect is exactly the one Col. Aldrin is talking about, has been submitted to NASA and they blew it off with all manner of nitpickish excuses. Of course, now that Ares etc, has been s**tcanned, maybe they'll be a bit more attentive.
09:05 PM on 03/23/2010
Thank you for the link.
09:20 AM on 03/19/2010
I deeply appreciate what NASA has done since the 60's. The space program has always been a part of my life as an observer and fan. However, I think our country has much much larger priorities right now than to pursue further space exploration by way of Government funding. I never thought I would be in favor of NASA cutbacks, but times are pretty difficult for this country and our people's welfare should come first.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dnlmsstch
too much for so few words
11:36 AM on 03/19/2010
for every dollar we give to NASA, NASA gives us back 7.
NASA is an investment whe should we cut back when it gives GREAT RETURNS
04:37 AM on 03/19/2010
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - Burt Rutan at Scaled Composites has achieved miracles with SpaceShipOne and his approach to space travel - yes, we need to keep exploring, but maybe it's time to do it Burt's way? For more info, see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scaled_Composites_SpaceShipOne
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Interbartolo
08:40 AM on 03/19/2010
funny cause I am pretty sure Burt came out and said he didn't think the new direction for NASA was the right way either.
07:25 AM on 03/20/2010
That's suborbital. Low Earth orbit requires 18 times as much propulsive impulse for launch and subjects the vehicle to 9 times the peak heat flux on reentry.

Air-launch single stage to orbit (SSTO) doesn't scale to payload masses useful for exploration (10 tons or greater) until the carrier aircraft exceeds the size of an Airbus A380 super-jumbo several times over, and that's with cryogenic propellants that substantially outperform the simple N2O/HTPB hybrid propulsion on the SpaceShipOne/Two vehicles.

Rutan actually designed the first stage lifting wing for the only air-launched orbital rocket in operation (the OSC Pegasus), which uses three stages dropped from a wide-body airliner that actually has a slightly higher capacity than WhiteKnightTwo and orbits less than half a ton.

Air-launch SSTO from WhiteKnightTwo would probably orbit less than 100kg, which is about the mass of the Sputnik 1, for example.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
03:44 AM on 03/19/2010
The second letter in NASA stands for "Aeronautics". NASA should be redirected towards designing safer airliners, improving the air traffic control system and re-introducing practical supersonic airline service.

Computers at some ATC facilities still use vacuum tubes; you can only get them from surplus Russian stock left in Czechoslovakia many years ago.
02:42 AM on 03/19/2010
Let's retire the Space Shuttle program, and now. The tremendous waste of money spent on the space program should be used on terra firma to help Americans during these difficult days. It is madness to shoot money into space.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Interbartolo
08:42 AM on 03/19/2010
it is madness to think the less than 1% that NASA gets out of the Federal budget is somehow going to solve a social problem that has been going on long before the creation of NASA. such a myopic view.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Proletarian101
09:32 AM on 03/19/2010
I couldn't agree more.
01:27 AM on 03/20/2010
It is not "madness"; it would be a start. One per cent is a hell of a lot of money.
02:02 AM on 03/19/2010
The shuttles have served us very well. To this day, I ALWAYS watch the launches. They NEVER get routine or boring. Anyone who watches a launch and thinks "meh" cannot be human.

The two accidents could have been easily prevented. They were caused by long time problems that NASA was fully aware of.

If it weren't for NASA's arrogance, the shuttles would so far have had a 100% safety record.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DAE
01:33 AM on 03/19/2010
We should have followed the Apollo project with a permanent colony on the moon. And we should continue to fund and expand the ISS (International Space Station) in perpetuity . Rather than hop, skip and jump past the moon we should use the ISS as a conduit for a permanent lunar colony. Astronauts and cosmonauts can cheaply shuttle between the ISS and the moon on a ongoing basis. The moon can serve as a way station for projecting solar energy to the earth in the form of microwaves. There are also many potential riches on the moon than need to be prospected. The economic benefits of expanding the ISS and colonizing the moon are immense and would jump start our economy into the 21st century. Going straight to Mars (or its moons) makes no sense and would be dangerous and wasteful. If we abandon the ISS and the moon, guess what. China will do it and control space the way the British once controlled the seas. With China controlled near space and the moon, they will be in a position to totally dominate the Earth. We will all be speaking Mandarin in the 22nd century. Which is fine by me since I'm a Sinophile and speak the language (even though I won't be around, but my kids are half Chinese and their kids will hopefully carry on the legacy).
photo
Leper
Giving the finger to intolerance
12:52 AM on 03/19/2010
In essence, we will continue to fly shuttles. But it won't be NASA putting the shuttles into space. It will be private companies contracted by the government and providing services to other private companies such as satellite repair or retrieval, ferrying worker to and from the space station, etc.

Think of it in terms of a modern West Indies Trading Company. The gamble is that it will spur the next technological revolution: space travel.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Michael Interbartolo
08:44 AM on 03/19/2010
except instead of Three sail schooners we will be paying for dingies. The difference between crew and cargo capacity of a shuttle and any cots design is pretty dramatic.
photo
Leper
Giving the finger to intolerance
06:09 AM on 03/21/2010
Initially, yes.
But when man first decided to cross bodies of water, he started something as simple as a raft or a hollowed out log. A far cry from the three sail schooners of the 17th century.

he journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. -- Lao Tzu
12:28 AM on 03/19/2010
The shuttle has run its course we need new innovation to get pass the moon and on to new galaxy's the shuttle has its limits we should invest in new ways to travel space because shuttle travel is not practical for long distance travel . who knows what billions of dollars spent on technology of teleportation wormholes or warp engines could lead to .
exuse my nerdieness but its about time !