Buzz Aldrin strongly endorses new NASA policy direction

Buzz's comments are typical of the stunt mentality and "first steps" fixation of past and current agency employees. We've "already been to the Moon" so it is inherently uninteresting, so let's go to "Mars and other exciting destinations."

This tells me that a need for space "firsts" and flashy PR is his primary motivation for spaceflight, not a desire to incrementally establish and extend human reach using the material and energy resources of space.

Posted by Paul Spudis at 02/01/10 14:30:26

don't write him off from one statement, I think he has shown interest in what you just said. actually I think he was one of the first people to figure this out

Posted by donnie at 02/01/10 15:00:59

I think Buzz is completely right with what he is saying. I dont see anything wrong with his opinion.

Posted by Elmar_M at 02/01/10 16:01:43

Hi Paul,
I believe we generally agree that a sensible policy would state that human settlement of the solar system is the long term goal and that the best place to start that is the Moon. There we can learn how to live in space, especially with regard to extraction and processing of its resources.

Constellation clearly had zero chance of accomplishing any of that and even worse in my opinion it contributed virtually nothing to development of any of the technology and in-space infrastructure that would allow for it to happen later. I think this new approach will develop much of that technology and infrastructure.

So though I disagree with Buzz's particular motivations, if he helps get this new program going, I hope he is very successful.

Just seems too much to expect everything perfectly to fall into place in one program at one time. If we can at least get the basic elements, i.e. lower cost LEO transport, fuel depots, orbital habitats, etc. we will have achieved a huge step towards establishing an irreversible beachhead in space.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 02/01/10 17:46:54

When Buzz speaks I listen.

I get could behind it to if it had a focus. However the HLV bribe is a bit to much for me. I agree with Buzz commercial is the right choice. i disagree in that the new plan lacks focus.

Posted by Doug at 02/02/10 02:06:18

Hi Clark,

Sorry -- I'm laboring under the handicap of having sat through this movie before. These crusades start out with great excitement, drum-beating and enthusiasm, then taper off to nothing over the course of a few years.

Everybody's excited about new commercial opportunities and fuel depots and flexible paths. The simple fact is that we have exchanged a clear strategic direction and mission (the Vision) for (literally) nothing. There is no statement of mission, no specific destination envisioned, no activities described -- nothing. But as it cancels the hated ESAS and overthrows "Apollo on steroids", I'm supposed to embrace it? I don't think so.

And yes, I know that NASA was ignoring the mission of the VSE. Now, they have nothing to ignore. Is that better? Seems to me a prescription for a decade of viewgraph making.

The Augustine report laid out an excellent rationale for manned spaceflight -- to extend human civilization into the Solar System. They then turned around and devised an architecture that is essentially a continuation of the existing paradigm -- launch on ELV, go to some nebulous destination, plant a flag on Phobos and have a big PR event, and then abandon and throw away everything to "move on" to the next stunt destination. Using lunar and space resources isn't even mentioned. Talk about a paradigm shift! This time, Elon Musk and Jeff Greason get the mega-contracts instead of Boeing and Lock-Mart.

Welcome to the new paradigm, same as the old paradigm.

We certainly are in agreement that we were NOT going to the Moon with the POR. Now, we're not going anywhere with the POR.

I must admit that I am surprised a bit that so many have been taken in by this blatantly transparent fraud. I guess I should go into the swamp land and snake-oil business.

Posted by Paul Spudis at 02/02/10 04:40:33

Ares I competed directly with Space X and other private launchers. It should have never been started. Now that it's cancelled, we should all rejoice.

Big government has already been to the Moon. If they'd quit the lies about how there's no resources up there worth attempting to mine, then commercial launch companies could clearly take over and do a better job than the current batch of space bureaucrats.

Posted by Dfens at 02/02/10 10:23:27

Hi Paul,
Well, I have exactly the opposite view. While we may be losing a statement of purpose, we are finally doing something to make spaceflight practical. Any grand vision for human spaceflight is worthless as long as space transportation is so absurdly expensive.

Humans have little purpose in space when the cost of getting there is $5k/lb.

Claiming something is equivalent makes no sense if degree is ignored. A $300M contract with Elon Musk is not the same as a $3B contract with Boeing or Lock-Mart.

Competitive fixed-price, milestone driven contracts for services from multiple providers is not equivalent to a single NASA designed system built via cost-plus contracts with the usual suspects.

If, say, Pete Worden had gotten the NASA job instead of Griffin, I think his actions would have been very similar to the new plan. Just because it is now being done without the explicit guidance of the VSE is no reason to dismiss it. (Brett Alexander helped to draw up the VSE and he certainly backs the new plan.)

Calling this a fraud is wildly over the top. I'm not being taken anywhere. If I had been asked to recommend a new space program, much of what is being planned is what I would have recommended.

Yes, it would be better if this was all done with a clear directive to settle space starting with the Moon. But I'd rather have the right plan implemented without such a directive than the wrong plan with the right directive.

The overwhelming logic of using the Moon will eventually guide development in that direction regardless.

- Clark

Posted by TopSpacer at 02/02/10 13:30:56

I sort of agree or at least sympathize with Paul (and Doug) on the worry about Flexible Path but from my much more inexperienced and distant point of view I think there's one thing above all other which has the potential to make those worries moot.

That one thing would be that any Program (notice the capitalization) does _not_ matter any more under this new approach as long as the tools contained within the approach are attained:
- Commercially driven redundant and competing access to space.
- Robotics not only for pure science but for enabling human activity through ISRU (Lunar ISRU I might add).
- Commercially driven force multiplying capabilities beyond LEO (fuel depots).
- Commercially driven mass and size efficient structures for human occupation (inflatable modules).
- Government efforts to both enable and reap the rewards of all the above and more and eventually many more abilities.

In fact there isn't a single thing in the new approach which does not tie in extremely well with the spirit and aims of the original VSE as I see it (and I agree with Paul Spudis on the VSE).

And also while I'm not much of a "martian" I don't mind Buzz and Elon and Zubrin aiming for it, best of luck to them: the new developments will help all destinations. Luna, Mars, Venus, Phobos, Deimos, Ceres, or free-space, all of them ^_^

All that said Paul Spudis sure has reason to voice concern that all of this is going to get bogged down and destroyed in the usual manner: it is a real possibility and it's where the fight is right now: Congress.

And after Congress there will be a dire need to keep a watch on all of it because new people will arrive in Congress, things may change for the worse at NASA no matter who is charge, new presidents will come and go, technical difficulties and challenges will appear and more than likely organizational and managerial ones too. A lot of continued effort will be needed.

I would say the VSE is not gone, it is not on hold either, NASA has been corrected back to a course that in effect is the VSE but with less opportunities for people to derail it for all kinds of various reasons as the VSE was derailed by NASA previously.

Posted by Habitat Hermit at 02/02/10 22:42:28

Your comment: Name: Website: E-mail:

Enter the string of characters appearing in the picture: Remember Me