Buzz Aldrin Changes His Mind; Now Favors NASA Return to the Moon

[Rick]

http://www.associatedcontent.com/art...rs.html?cat=15

When President Obama rolled out his vision for space exploration at the Kennedy Space Center, Apollo astronaut Buzz Aldrin was in the audience, nodding with approval. Aldrin, at that time, did not see any purpose for a lunar return.


While other Apollo astronauts, such as Aldrin's Apollo 11 crewmate Neil Armstrong, denounced the Obama space plan, Aldrin lent his voice to support it. The Moon was passé, Aldrin maintained. Mars should be the ultimate goal for American space exploration. Indeed, President Obama mentioned Aldrin in his speech, in which he said, "Buzz has been there," to explain why Americans should no longer return to the Moon.


Fast forward six months later. It appears that Aldrin, perhaps examining the full implications of what the Obama space plan entails, has altered his position. According to Fox News:

"President Obama recently green-lighted a brand new mission and a new budget for NASA, including a grand long-term goal: a manned mission to Mars. But Aldrin, the second man to walk on the moon, says the moon is much more essential to American space efforts.


"In its haste to make new policy, Aldrin and other experts say, Obama is overlooking a critical component of space travel: a permanent, manned base on the moon that would make reaching Mars a much easier task.


"Establishing a lunar base could provide a safe source of water and a site for fuel depots, which would reduce the cost of transporting fuel from Earth for an eventual Mars mission, Aldrin told Fox News.com.


"He said returning to the moon 38 years later should be at the heart of NASA's plans, and he said he fears domestic politics may be playing with our goals for space."

Dr. Paul Spudis and other space experts have maintained that deep space exploration would be made far more sustainable if a lunar base could be built to extract the large amounts of water present in deep craters and chemically bonded to lunar regolith and create rocket fuel from it. Aldrin, who hitherto had disdained a return to the Moon, has now come to that conclusion as well.


Aldrin claims that the insertion of a lunar return into future space exploration plans is a "minor course correction." It is in fact a major change in the timeline of the Obama space plan that includes visits to Earth-approaching asteroids, a Mars orbital mission, and a Mars surface mission, bypassing the Moon altogether.


Aldrin's new support for a return to the Moon is part of a growing realization of people within and outside NASA that the Obama space exploration plan is essentially unworkable and unsustainable. The question arises, what will the Congress that will be elected next month do about it? Since President Obama is hardly expected to alter his position, since he has so publicly made it, Congress may need to mandate that a lunar return take place first before any other destination is considered. This in turn would provide ammunition for the next President to repair the damage Obama has inflicted on our space effort.



Sources: Why Mars? Buzz Aldrin Wants a Lunar Base First, Gene J. Koprowski, Fox News, October 15th, 2010

Lunar Resources (Part 2): Changing our approach to spaceflight, Paul Spudis, Air and Space Magazine, June 5th, 2010

[spacefan]

Clearly the science has informed the debate. Nasa has found large quantities of useable water, this makes the moon a much more feasable and desireable destination than previously thought.

[Rick]

No doubt. I seriously do not think the current US adminstration has any resolve in altering its HSF plans, anymore than they have now.

[spacefan]

Well, the requirement to build a hlv was forced on Obama by the senate compromise Nasa wouldn't be doing it otherwise. Unless the republicans are even more obnoxious than usual it appears Obama is likely to be a one term president and space exploration will be somebody elses headache.

[Rick]

Well, the requirement to build a hlv was forced on Obama by the senate compromise Nasa wouldn't be doing it otherwise. Unless the republicans are even more obnoxious than usual it appears Obama is likely to be a one term president and space exploration will be somebody elses headache.

Republicans have nothing to do with it. HSF has been a very bipartison issue, as both Democrats and Republicans serve states that have spaceflight as an interest.

It is ashame that spaceflight is perceived as a 'headache'. If the average American citizen had an inkling of what NASA was about, that term would not even arise. I blame the lack of information that the country perceives to be a fault of NASA's ability to communicate.

[spacefan]

I was referring to politics in general according to my news scources there is a widespread disatisfaction in america with the current administration due to the economy. The momentum appears to be with the GOP and assuming the can keep their nuttier elements away from the voters they must surely be in a strong position to oust obama. I think Nasa has proved to be a headache for obama, not as big as healthcare admitedly.

I think things are about to get very partisan and this does not bode well for HSF.

[Rick]

I was referring to politics in general according to my news scources there is a widespread disatisfaction in america with the current administration due to the economy. The momentum appears to be with the GOP and assuming the can keep their nuttier elements away from the voters they must surely be in a strong position to oust obama. I think Nasa has proved to be a headache for obama, not as big as healthcare admitedly.

I think things are about to get very partisan and this does not bode well for HSF.

Nuttier elements? Are you generalizing everyone that leans Republican? I am one of thise nuttier people it appears.

Also, your opinion is obviously biased, as most others are.

HSF needs to be advertised in such a way, like a huge Hollywood blockbuster, so those who are uninformed, won't be.

[klydemorris]

*snip* I think Nasa has proved to be a headache for obama... *snip*

Incorrect- Obama does not care, one little bit about NASA. He delegated it to a team of his boot lickers- they flubbed it, they gave him a save face speech- which fell flat and that was it- he was done with it and all that was left for him was to sign what the Congress decided for him. No headache- you can only have a headache over something that you actually give a crap about... he doesn't care abot NASA- period.

BTW- I had the displeasure of attending an event where Holdren, one of the chief designers of ObamaSpace, was one of the speakers. Although his subject at the event was supposed to be engineering and STEM, he spoke for exactly four minutes on that subject and then went into a rambling, worshipful sermon about how amazing, smarter than anyone and everyone Obama is. For 22 minutes he went on and on. How you can give Obama a 22 page technical memo in the evening and the next morning he can ask detailed questions about it- how Obama can see the future with an awareness that no one else has and on and on some more. The only thing missing was a flat out saying that Obama is a living God. He finished by doing another 3 minutes on how terrific ObamaSpace was- as if the Congress had passed it as it was proposed on Feb. 1 without changing a bit of it. I wanted to say where they hell were you for the past 9 months?

Holdren represents another reason why Obama has no hot water over NASA- because he and his inner circle have convinced themselves that they got ObamaSpace exactly as they proposed it. It's like the guy with the bad comb-over hair... Just comb some off the sides over the top and bingo! No bald spot there. The obama administration combs over everything.

[Rick]

I think things are about to get very partisan and this does not bode well for HSF.

As a follow-up, why do you think it will become partison? The only partison opinions appear to be coming from the Obama camp, which is why nearly all members of Congress, both Dems and Repubs, were against the adminstrations radical change in plans.

[Rick]

In an earily similar vein, here's an interesting article:

NASA's Future: A $100 Billion, Paid-For-By-Americans, Please-Rule-Outer-Space Gift for -- Russia?

by Taylor Dinerman
November 18, 2010 at 5:00 am
http://www.hudson-ny.org/1667/nasa-gift-to-russia
In the process of trying to set a new course for NASA, neither the White House nor the Senate has covered itself with glory.

The Obama Administration's February 2010 proposal for NASA's future direction is mostly dead: if the administration's goal was to kill the Bush-era plan to return American to the Moon, it has been a success. If the President and his advisors' goal, however, was to chart a bold new direction for the US Space Agency, the proposal has been an abject failure.

The Earth's Moon has long been recognized as the critical control point, or "Gibralter Point," of the Solar System: for more than 200 years, the British controlled access to the Mediterranean from their base at Gibraltar; similarly, even an unarmed a base on the Moon would give a similar advantage to whichever nation owned it.

Although the Constellation plan was justified by the Bush administration on both scientific and economic grounds, more important were other, unspoken, strategic grounds: to put it plainly,: from the Moon one can control access to the other planets. Further, the Moon has been shown to contain critical resources, especially water.

The US House of Representatives humiliated itself when, on September 29th, it rejected its own Science Committee's NASA Authorization Bill in favor of one that had already passed the Senate. As Gabrielle Giffords (D Arizona), Chairwoman of the Space and Aeronautics Subcommittee, said; "This is a bad ball, it will do damage to NASA and must be struck down." Sadly, it was passed and the President has signed it.

The Senate version gave the administration a little more of what it wanted than did the House version, which tried to preserve much of the work that had been done on NASA's Constellation Return-To-The Moon project that the Bush administration had accomplished in the years following the February 2003 Colombia Shuttle disaster. The Constellation plan proposed going back to the Moon by 2020, or 2025, and building a permanent base there.

By killing the Moon program -- and its associated rockets, capsules and other systems -- in favor of a vague and ill-defined plan that may or may not include a trip to an asteroid sometime around 2025, the administration has put NASA in an impossible situation. Nothing is easier to cut than an aimless and expensive technology development program. It will be difficult -- perhaps impossible -- to justify to the new Congress spending tens of millions on a project such as the orbiting fuel depot, which may someday provide propellent for undefined and unfunded missions into the Solar System. This year the House and Senate have put together an authorization bill that promises more than $250 million for this type of unfocused program.

The authorization that passed the House on September 26th instructs NASA to begin work on a new Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle using existing technology. This new Rocket could substitute for the private space-taxis if they fail to emerge on time. However the Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle will certainly take many years to develop and will probably end up costing more than the rockets that were already under development for the Constellation plan.

Not only did the Obama administration kill off the plan to go back to the Moon, but the administration may end up eliminating America's ability to send astronauts to the International Space Station, which just celebrated its 10th anniversary in orbit.

The Space Station is a critical place where we can do long term research in weightlessness; it has also been more than 80% paid for by the US; for NASA to abandon it after spending more than $100 billion on the project would insure the end of the space program, while other countries are working full time to supplant the US there.

Instead of sending our people, gear and supplies there using the Shuttle, whose final flight is scheduled for next year, the adminustration proposes to send them up on privately developed space launch vehicles. This program called "Commercial Crew and Cargo Development" evolved from the smaller "Commercial Orbital Transportation Services" program begun by the Bush administration. The Obama administration hopes that sometime around 2015 one of these private firms will be able to provide this "Space Taxi" service. Until then, the Russians will have a monopoly on the business of carrying people to and from the Space Station. The biggest question for NASA is: Why should we be dependent on Russia to send our people to a Space Station that was largely built and paid for by America?

Theoretically there is nothing wrong with buying seats for American government space travelers, formerly known as astronauts, on a private vehicle. However without a firm plan to develop an alternative to the new private spacecraft, the US could be dependent on Russia for a very long time.

Now that the Space Station has been built and paid for, NASA and its international and domestic partners have begun a wide variety of research projects on everything from the mysteries of Dark Matter to, for example, the bone loss caused by osteoporosis, which affects men and women in weightlessness, if one can find a solution to this problem in space, finding a cure for people on Earth would logically follow.

The station is also an excellent place for the development of new materials for use in space and on Earth, just as lightweight insulating cloth used commercially for ski-wear, and the Global Positioning System were. Some of these programs would have a direct impact on the health and well being of everyone down here on Earth. Other space station projects and experiments would help build the knowledge and expertise needed to work and travel beyond this planet -- if we should chose to go.

Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Florida seems confident that the appropriations committees of the House and Senate will follow the guidelines laid out in the authorization bill that was passed. Traditionally though, the appropriators have always wanted to put their own mark on NASA spending bills, so nothing will be certain until the final appropriations bill is passed and signed.

Even trickier is the fact that the election results indicate that the majority of the voters want to cut federal spending, NASA has always been an easy place to find savings. Canceling the Constellation Moon Program has knocked the supports out from under the old political alliance that kept the space agency's budget funded at roughly 7-8% of total federal spending. This alliance, in 2005 and 2008, was able to assemble impressive majorities in favor of the Moon Program. In 2005, when the GOP controlled the House, the vote was 385 to 15; in 2008, when the Democrats held the most seats, the vote was 409 to 15. This year, the vote in favor for the compromise authorization bill was 304 to 118 -- not exactly a powerful endorsement.

NASA's leaders have failed to convince Congress that they have a clear and well-thought-out plan for human space exploration.

NASA Administrator Charles Bolden often talks about the need for more international cooperation. He stresses that American cannot "go it alone.".This sometimes sounds as if he and his team want to give up America's unique role as the world's leading space exploration power. If the US is to become merely the biggest bill-payer in a new transnational space program, NASA will have have lost much of its reason to exist.

When President Obama proposed to cancel the Constellation Moon program last February, Senator Richard Shelby (R Alabama) claimed that this would be the beginning of a "Death March" for America's manned space program. Unfortunately he may have been right.

[Rick]

Here's another:
http://www.standard.net/topics/atk/2...n-advises-nasa
Utah delegation advises NASA

Utah's congressional delegation on Thursday urged NASA Administrator Charles Bolden to comply with federal payload requirements for a heavy-lift space system they contend can only be met by solid rocket motors like those built by Alliant Techsystems (ATK) near Promontory.

Sen. Orrin Hatch, Sen. Bob Bennett and Rep. Rob Bishop, who are Republicans, along with Rep. Jim Matheson, a Democrat, met with Bolden and NASA Deputy Administrator Lori Garver.

Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, was unable to attend because he was at a GOP Majority Transition Team function.
In April, President Barack Obama originally detailed a plan for the U.S. spaceflight program that moved away from using a rocket partially being developed by ATK, and cuts to the Utah project have been cited by the company as one reason for recent employee layoffs.

The shuttle program already is being phased out by federal officials.
Since April 2009, more than 1,500 people have left ATK in Utah, voluntarily or otherwise, as the company reacts in part to changes in the U.S. space shuttle and other missile programs.

In July, Congress approved the $19 billion NASA Authorization Act that supports development of a heavy-lift launch system, similar to the Ares rocket.
Hatch succeeded at getting language inserted in the bill that details specific payload requirements for the heavy-lift system. The payload requirements do not specifically obligate the system to use solid rocket motors.

However, Utah's congressional delegation says experts they have consulted maintain the legislation's requirements can be realistically met only by using solid rocket motors like those built by ATK.

For example, the rocket must be designed from its inception to carry 130 tons. The heavier the payload, the more likely the rocket will use solid rocket motors, Utah's delegation says.

The law also requires NASA to use, as much as practical, existing contracts, work forces and industries for the space shuttle and Ares rockets.
During Thursday's meeting, the delegation pressed Bolden and Garver on the use of solid rocket motors for the heavy-lift system.
"NASA has signaled an interest recently in possibly circumventing the law," Hatch said in a prepared statement.

"My purpose in calling this meeting was to explain, in no uncertain terms, the Utah congressional delegation's interest in ensuring that Utah's solid rocket motor industry is protected.

"Though they assured us that NASA would comply with the law, some of their answers reaffirmed my suspicions that we need to keep a very close watch on the agency."

NASA and ATK officials could not be reached for comment regarding the meeting.
Bishop also said he's concerned about compliance with heavy-lift system requirements outlined in the NASA Authorization Act.

"While I appreciate Administrator Charlie Bolden and Assistant Administrator Lori Garver's willingness to meet with us, I remain very concerned that NASA continues to delay the transition from Constellation systems toward the new heavy-lift program while they needlessly explore private startup technologies that remain unproven, require more money and are unfit for human-rated space travel," he said in a prepared statement.

Bennett said strict adherence to the NASA Authorization Act and the use of solid rocket motors is critical to saving thousands of jobs in Utah and sustaining national security.

Chaffetz said in a prepared statement he will continue to push NASA to utilize existing contracts, investments and work force in the design of the next generation of the space launch system.
Matheson agrees with the other members of Utah's congressional delegation, said his spokeswoman, Alyson Heyrend.

"The delegation is pretty united on this one," she said.

[Rick]

And beileve it or not, one more.

http://www.aolnews.com/opinion/artic...ander/19722259

Opinion: NASA Goes Badly Off Course

Nov. 18) -- Last week, a panel of experts assembled at the request of Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., issued a report on cost and schedule problems with NASA's James Webb Space Telescope, the much-vaunted successor to the aging but still-productive Hubble Space Telescope. Its results are troubling not just for future deep-space astronomy and other space science projects, but are the latest symptom of an organization seriously adrift, with management diffident at best.

Moreover, the latest revelation that the telescope project is a third over budget and more than a year behind schedule couldn't have come at a worse time for the space agency, still in budgetary limbo, operating under a continuing resolution for its funding appropriations that is likely to extend into next year.

Some heads should roll at NASA, and a good place to start is with NASA's administrator, Charles Bolden.

It's true that the space telescope problem didn't start on Bolden's watch -- it really started back in the 1990s when the program was conceived -- but he never did anything about it until forced to by the release of last week's report on the problem, which some have characterized as NASA's Katrina.

And his response has been anemic, at best.
First he declared that Ed Weiler and Chris Scolese, two people within NASA largely to blame for the troubled space telescope program, would keep a closer eye on it. Then he issued a private e-mail that the program manager at Goddard would be (wait for it) ... exchanged with another one.

So in Charles Bolden's NASA, you are punished for program failure by either being one of the deck chairs rearranged, or not at all. Some might say, heckuva job, Charlie.

If this were Bolden's first, or only misstep, it might be forgivable. But it's simply the latest in a series of problems since he took over the agency in 2009. Among them:

• The incoherent rollout of President Barack Obama's new space policy in February, which he didn't seem to understand himself, resulting in hyperbolic mischaracterizations of it as "the end of U.S. human spaceflight."
• A lack of command and ability to articulate the policy in congressional hearings on the subject over the months since, allowing the program to be further mischaracterized as a "bailout" for commercial space companies, when in fact its predecessor was one for the traditional contractors on the failing Constellation program.
• An ethics scandal, in which Bolden was forced to apologize for actions viewed as inappropriate with a potential conflict of interest.
• Bolden's announcement to Al-Jazeera television that the agency's prime focus was on an outreach to Muslim countries (though there is nothing in the agency budget to reflect this priority), further complicating the administration's job of selling its new plans.
• His recent trip to China, strongly opposed by the incoming House NASA appropriations chairman, to discuss cooperation with them.
• And just last week, the former manager of the space shuttle program (now retired) revealed on his blog that the NASA bureaucracy is potentially sabotaging the new commercial direction for the agency by proposing onerous requirements on private American providers that it never imposed on itself, or the Russians.

The White House is clearly not happy with Bolden. He wasn't invited to attend the signing ceremony of the NASA authorization bill a few weeks ago, and he has been kept away from the media. He was never their first pick -- he was basically forced on them by his friend, senior Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.

Bolden is by all accounts a good man, but perhaps one too affable. If he remains in place, it may be because the White House doesn't want to have to repeat the agony of both finding and confirming a replacement, always a difficult job for that position. (The old joke is that you have to find someone smart enough to run NASA, and dumb enough to take it.)

But while NASA isn't a significant part of the budget -- you could zero or double its funding without being more than a rounding error in the deficit or debt -- it's a very visible part of it. If the incoming Congress wants to make a statement about getting spending under control, it could do worse than to turn up the heat on the White House about cleaning house at NASA's headquarters.

Rand Simberg is an aerospace engineer, space and business consultant and serial entrepreneur. He blogs at Transterrestrial Musings.

[Rick]

To sum up, where is the partison wrangling that you are speaking of?

[spacefan]

You got me Rick I am biased against US republicans. The news coverage i get over here is of the opinion current US politics is all about the partisan wrangling. Add to that an influx of the nuttier elements will we see less or more partisan bickering? How will all that relate to HSF?

In my biased and pessimistic opinion its not looking good.

[spacefan]

Antboy said "Incorrect- Obama does not care, one little bit about NASA. He delegated it to a team of his boot lickers- they flubbed it, they gave him a save face speech- which fell flat and that was it- he was done with it and all that was left for him was to sign what the Congress decided for him. No headache- you can only have a headache over something that you actually give a crap about... he doesn't care abot NASA- period."

A minor headache is still a headache. The administration must care a little bit about what nasa is doing otherwise they would be letting Bolden open his mouth more often, rather than jetting him all around the world so he can have photo taken with foreign officials.

[Rick]

You got me Rick I am biased against US republicans. The news coverage i get over here is of the opinion current US politics is all about the partisan wrangling. Add to that an influx of the nuttier elements will we see less or more partisan bickering? How will all that relate to HSF?

In my biased and pessimistic opinion its not looking good.

Imagine those like myself who works for the space program feels about the ongoing chaos happening? I myself try to weed through the political waverings and try to latch on to information that is accurate and beneficial to both myself and NASA itself.

[spacefan]

I hope the politics can work through to a satisfactory resolution, there's nothing worse than uncertainty.

[Rick]

I fear you are correct.