Houston native to head moon-Mars panel

Houston Chronicle ^ | January 19, 2004 | AP

[Cincinatus' Wife]

WASHINGTON -- The man chosen to lead the way to the moon and Mars is a one-time astronaut trainee and former Defense Department hotshot who is almost giddy about outer space travel.

"It's going to be fun," Pete Aldridge said in an interview. "My goodness, the president says this is what we're going to do."

President Bush appointed Aldridge, 65, to head a commission charged with figuring out how to carry out the president's vision and bring in industry and other countries as partners.

In 1986, Edward Cleveland "Pete" Aldridge was training to fly on a space shuttle as a payload specialist, or non-career astronaut, right before the Challenger explosion. His flight was scrapped after Challenger erupted in a fireball during liftoff.

A few months later, Aldridge was appointed Secretary of the Air Force under President Reagan.

Born in Houston, home of most astronauts, Aldridge has degrees in aeronautical engineering and currently serves on Lockheed Martin Corp.'s board of directors. He retired from the Defense Department last spring after working 18 years at the Pentagon.

At the time, he was serving under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics. He says he was looking forward to "a more relaxed period of my career," and like many government retirees he was enjoying the Florida sunshine early last week.

He got the call from Bush just two days before the president announced his new moon-Mars plan and rushed to Washington to be there for the speech.

Aldridge didn't immediately know who would be on his commission or when the first meeting might be. He said the president will appoint the other members, probably no more than 15, all experts from both the private and public sector.

The commission will offer advice on Bush's plan but will not pitch alternative ideas, Aldridge said -- like skipping the moon and heading straight to Mars.

"The purpose of going to the moon is a step to go to Mars," he said, and the commission won't challenge that concept. "We're not going in and saying, 'Well, Mr. President, we believe you're wrong.'"

Bush asked Aldridge to report back to him within four months of the commission's first meeting.

Bush wants astronauts on the moon by 2020, possibly as early as 2015, but the president has no time frame for a Mars landing by humans. NASA Administrator Sean O'Keefe said that would depend on how quickly a new crew exploration vehicle can be developed and how everything else falls into place.

"We'll get there (Mars) when it's time, like a good wine. Not before it's time," Aldridge said with a smile.

As for what all this will cost, Aldridge repeated the president's position that the program is affordable roughly within NASA's budget, with a slight increase. He said he does not worry that the venture may be launched with too little money.

"Trying to do something cheaply is a first indication of failure," he said. "It can't be done that way."

[Cincinatus' Wife]

We're returning to the Moon to stay. We'll survey the resources and learn how to use them and live off planet. Then we can move on to Mars.

[ambrose]

I'm not too happy about there being no time table to go to Mars... and 2020 to return to the Moon? We were able to make it to the Moon in 8 years from a standing start back in the 1960s!

[The_Victor]

and currently serves on Lockheed Martin Corp.'s board of directors.

Liberals are going to be screaming about "Big Aerospace" and Bush's corporate bedfellows.

[Professional Engineer]

We're in it for the oil right?

[The_Victor]

We were able to make it to the Moon in 8 years from a standing start back in the 1960s!

In 1965, NASA's budget was $24,696,000,000 in FY2002 equivalent $s.

[RoughDobermann]

IIRC, the cost of Apollo alone was $25.4 billion, in 1960s dollars.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

I expect we will do this much faster than advertised. As one success builds on the next, excitement along with funding will grow. As it was, Congress never would have funded a manned mission to Mars. Now it's in the picture. By going to the Moon and learning to live off-planet and preparing for the Mars trip, it's viewed as the goal. As soon as the country understands how much we can benefit from lunar resources, it will be much easier to ask for more funding. Things will accelerate as the process unfolds.

[The_Victor]

We're in it for the oil right?

Well, were in for the space programs equivalent of oil. Rocket fuel (H2 and O2) on the moon. :)

[Radioactive]

Reports are that the moon contains a energy source that is called helium 3.

This enegry source is said to be able to power this planted for the next 3,000 years.

See www.infowars.com for more information on this.

[Mr.Atos]

I can understand the fuzzy timetable on Mars, as much of the technology required has yet to be developed and will evolve with moon excursions. The Moon timetable is, I agree, to 'conservative.' I recognize the need for caution considering the fact that we need to scrap and replace the Space Shuutle program first. But, I certainly believe that we could get there by 2010, and the significance of the date would have held some science fictional irony. Additionally, a 2010 committment would have made it Democrat proof. The energy and momentum would be too strong in 2008 to be scrapped by a Democrat president. A 2020 timetable is subject to bureaucratic laziness and political redirection.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Liberals are going to be screaming about "Big Aerospace" and Bush's corporate bedfellows.

***..........In 1986, Edward Cleveland "Pete" Aldridge was training to fly on a space shuttle as a payload specialist, or non-career astronaut, right before the Challenger explosion. His flight was scrapped after Challenger erupted in a fireball during liftoff.

A few months later, Aldridge was appointed Secretary of the Air Force under President Reagan.

Aldridge has degrees in aeronautical engineering and currently serves on Lockheed Martin Corp.'s board of directors. He retired from the Defense Department last spring after working 18 years at the Pentagon.

At the time, he was serving under Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld as undersecretary of defense for acquisition, technology and logistics.

___________________________________________________________________

I suppose to LIBERALS he's suspect because he's overqualified.

[Professional Engineer]

/joke

I like the exploratio and potential colonization aspects as well.

[ambrose]

So true... a Rat could replace Bush in 2008 and simply scuttle the entire process. A 2010 launch date would keep that from happening.

[Mr.Atos]

Handrian's Wall! Like a forlorn Roman outpost on the edge of the frontier, this nation needs a task... a mission... a dream.

Atos

[Cincinatus' Wife]

There are huge quantities of ice (water) at the poles and hydrogen in the soil (from solar wind). With it we have oxygen and water.

[Brett66]

We'll be setting up infrastructure this time, so it will be more than what Apollo accomplished. I believe a L1 depot will be part of what we'll set up, thus giving us greater flexibility in launching missions to the moon and eventually Mars.

[ambrose]

Excuse my ignorance, but how could there be ice in the absence of rain?

[Mr.Atos]

Or even in 2012 or 2016. They most certainly will scrap it as they do not recognise the necessity for this dream (based on what I have heard and read since the official announcement) In fact, it would most certainly propel American leadership well beyond the realm of this world...quite literally. And one need only listen to the Left to recognize the fear that they have of American sovereignty.

Atos

[ambrose]

It boggles the mind to contemplate why so much in the way of resources were blown on the space station in the first place. Even back in the 60s, the general plan was to build a moon base, then on to Mars and beyond. Then we somehow found ourselves bogged down with space stations and space shuttles.

I know it was just a book/movie, but serious minds envisioned us traveling past Jupiter by now.

[ambrose]

Or even in 2012 or 2016. They most certainly will scrap it as they do not recognise the necessity for this dream

It is amazing to see what has happened to the Democrat Party since the days of President Kennedy.