Delta-V

Buzz Aldrin Backs Obama in Scrapping Moon Program

The famous Apollo 11 astronaut says NASA's sights should be on Mars.

Brittany Sauser 02/04/2010

  • 10 Comments

On Monday, the Obama administration announced its 2010 budget for NASA. It cancels plans to return to the moon by 2020 and focuses on using commercial companies to ferry astronauts to and from orbit.

While some are up in arms over the future of human spaceflight, Buzz Aldrin is backing the president in an editorial in The Huffington Post.

Aldrin calls Obama's decision his "JFK moment." He praises the president for deciding "to redirect our nation's space policy away from the foolish and underfunded Moon race that has consumed NASA for more than six years, aiming instead at boosting the agency's budget by more than $1 billion more per year over the next five years, topping off at $100 billion for NASA between now and 2015."

Aldrin has been far from shy about criticizing the Constellation program, previously calling the launch of its prototype rocket, Ares I-X, "fake" and "a little more than a half-a-billion dollar political show." He thinks that NASA should be spending taxpayer dollars on developing technology for trips to Mars, and he backs a "flexible path" plan that would "redirect NASA towards developing the capability of voyaging to more distant locations in space, such as rendezvous with possibly threatening asteroids, or comets, or even flying by Mars to land on its moons."

NASA's administrator, Charles Bolden, said in a press conference Tuesday that he and senior White House officials will spend the next few months devising a new overarching goal for NASA, and a schedule for developing technologies to send astronauts to destinations as yet unknown.

But Obama's budget proposal still has to be approved by congress. "My biggest fear is that this amounts to a slow death of our nation's human space flight program," Representative Bill Posey, Republican of Florida, said in a statement.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

Matthew Putman

37 Comments

  • 739 Days Ago
  • 02/04/2010

The Moon at all?

It is impressive that Aldrin does not live in the past, but instead projects a future of scientific discovery, and space travel that far exceeds what he himself was a part of. Since there will be appropriate outsourcing of space travel to industry however, I wonder how a Mars mission is being conceived either by NASA or in private. Though sounding reactionary to return to the Moon it does provide a potential base for Mars launches. I wonder if this is part of a private industry plan, or if new innovation will make it more feasible to launch high energy rockets capable of life sustaining trips to Mars possible.

Reply

  • 739 Days Ago
  • 02/04/2010

the moon project

I back Obama on scraping this socialized moon base because he has privet industry investing in it.Anyone can become the OPEC of space travel this way.Besides NASA has procrastinated excuses why not to build it for 40 years.I hope myself to buy my child stocks in it too.HEY IRAN.WILL YOU JOIN US?After all you wouldnt islam to be left out.

Reply

NelsonBridwell

9 Comments

  • 739 Days Ago
  • 02/04/2010

2011 NASA Budget

We all respect the accomplishments and advice of Dr Aldrin. However, looking over the proposed 2011 NASA budget, it does not appear that any of the pre-flight checks have been completed:

How can we be a world leader in beyond LEO space exploration when we have no specific destinations or deadlines? How can NASA ever succeed without any goals?

How can we ever land exploration teams on the surface of Mars if we claim that the cost of touching down on the Moon is prohibitive?

What is it about lunar exploration that requires totally new technologies, if it was already successfully accomplished by us 40 years ago?

Certainly, there is merit in funding plasma engine research and stimulating the commercial LEO launch market, but isn't killing off the Vision for Space Exploration without providing a meaningful alternative totally irresponsible? Can NASA afford to be stalled for yet another year?

If NASA does not commit to any Congressionally-mandated deadlines or destinations, what is to prevent it from becoming an even more tempting multi-billion dollar target for future budget cutbacks?

Sincerely,
Nelson Bridwell

Reply

devassocx

110 Comments

  • 738 Days Ago
  • 02/05/2010

our space prgram

Yes, it is neat to explore all aspects of space
and space flight.

But guess what?

The US is beyond broke and this is an expensive
luxury that we simply can not afford at the moment.

We have squandered our national treasure over the years by making too many bad decisions.

The argument that a dollar spent on space returns
x amount of dollars just doesn't wash any more.

Maybe if this country gets its financial house in
order we can go forward with programs like this; just not now.

Reply

NelsonBridwell

9 Comments

  • 738 Days Ago
  • 02/05/2010

Re: our space prgram

You are correct that some extremely weak arguments are sometimes put forward in attempting to justify space exploration. Many of them do not stand up.

Conversely, the budget argument that we cannot afford NASA also falls over entirely when you realize that NASA's total budget amounts to 1/200th of our Federal budget. In the 1960s it was 1/20th of the federal budget, 10 times larger.

It is expensive, but we can easily continue to afford it as long as it remains at this level. Totally eliminating NASA will not significantly change the solvency of the federal government.

Reply

DJTal

154 Comments

  • 738 Days Ago
  • 02/05/2010

Re: our space prgram

To suggest that America is broke is just plain wrong. America could easily afford the moon mission and beyond. But if  Buzz Aldrin thinks we cannot afford the moon mission how does he think a Mars mission would be any cheaper ?

Reply

Red Brixton

1 Comment

  • 738 Days Ago
  • 02/05/2010

Re: our space prgram

"America could easily afford the moon mission and beyond."

I agree--the US is not broke and can afford a multi-decade Mars program.

But it's not money that's the problem, it's political paralysis.

Fortunately China has a strong central government, ability to make long-term investments, growing technology prowess, huge financial reserves, and interest in space.

If China were to start surpassing American achievements, then the impasse here could break, out of national pride.

Go CNSA!

Reply

Advertisement

boblemay

1 Comment

  • 738 Days Ago
  • 02/05/2010

What about Helium 3

Since this country is currently broke, I would think that we should slow down on spending (and taxing) and concentrate our investments on projects that have a positive return on investment.

That brings up the only economically valid reason that I ever saw for going to the moon, which was to mine Helium-3. What ever happened to that idea? Is it just another one of those political ballons that turn out to be filled with hot air?

Reply

mctoms

1 Comment

  • 734 Days Ago
  • 02/09/2010

Un

-funded, -defined, -remarkable...

I respect Buzz Aldrin greatly and agree that scrapping a stillborn program is good management. However, "flexible" is not exactly a rally cry, much less a pushpin on the cosmic map. We still have no where to go, no way to get there, and been given no compelling reason to make the trip. Yes, many reasons exist. But no one inside the Beltway wants to bet a term on them. As a spacefaring nation, we've lost our way, our leadership, and our stones. God help us...

Reply

neilrieck

67 Comments

  • 731 Days Ago
  • 02/12/2010

Worse than the late 1960s

2010 is worse than the late 1960s. Back then, America was broke while "attempting to fight the war in Vietnam" AND "fund a moon program". Today, America is broke again "fighting two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan)" while "attempting to fund two space programs (IIS/Shuttle) and Constellation". Obama's budget proposes scrapping Constellation so America needs to cancel one of two wars just to be as bad as bad off as the late 1960s.

I have seen very little published science coming from IIS so unless someone can prove otherwise, America would have been better off to cancel IIS/Shuttle while continuing to develop Constellation. According to the Augustine Commission, the previous administration used the OMB to raid NASA's budget to the tune of $12B so it was no wonder that Constellation/Ares experienced delays and cost overruns.

Today, totally private space ventures still have not made it into orbit. This makes space travel much like the 1490s when Spain's monarchs funded Columbus's ventures into the new world. Europe only sent government-funded trips for the next 100 years. (there was no private funding model that worked). At this time I do not see private companies doing as good a job as defense contractors (who should be kept busy with a constructive space program rather than destructive technology of war).

The only way forward, is to get out of those two wars, get the US debt (currently $14 trillion) under control with "tax increases" and "benefit reductions".

With respect to Buzz's comments, we can do a lot of science on the moon if we only had a permanent base there. While there are financial benefits to mining the asteroids, it will be more profitable to do this with automation than people (and profit is what the private companies will be all about). The energy required to get to-from Mars is so great, I don't think we'll ever send people there except to colonize it (one-way missions only: Earth to Mars)

Reply

Bio

This blog focuses on the nuts-and-bolts of space technology. We're interested in the hardware that's actually going into orbit and beyond. We write about what's involved in building, launching, and operating spacecraft, exploration vehicles, and habitats (and what it takes on the ground to support them) today.

Delta-V is written by Stephen Cass, a senior editor at TR who has covered space technology and exploration for nine years, and Brittany Sauser, a space technology reporter at TR.

Subscribe to the Delta-V RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement