America's Space Program: What We Should Do Next

popularmechanic.com ^ | may-22-2003 | BY BUZZ ALDRIN

[green team 1999]

America's Space Program: What We Should Do Next
BY BUZZ ALDRIN

Buzz Aldrin was backup Command Module pilot for Apollo VIII, man's first flight around the moon. On July 20, 1969, he and fellow Apollo XI astronaut Neil Armstrong became the first humans to walk on the moon. Aldrin holds a doctorate in manned space rendezvous from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. He currently heads Starcraft Boosters and is a leading voice in charting the course of future space efforts.

My thoughts about our next steps in space remain fundamentally the same as they were before the Columbia accident on Feb. 1. It has crystallized a bit more since serving as a presidential appointee on the U.S. Aerospace Commission. After the commission report was completed in fall 2002, I began organizing a conference to discuss alternative approaches to space exploration. Tentatively scheduled for late October or mid-December 2003, the conference will be part of the nation's celebration of the centennial of flight. The participants will include a symbolic representation of lunar astronauts, space experts and leading futurists. Broadcasting the event on C-SPAN and NASA TV will open deliberations to the public. Now, in the wake of Columbia, I believe that I cannot wait to have these alternatives introduced for wide consideration.

Crew-escape enhancement must be NASA's first priority. My colleagues at Starcraft Boosters have been working on a plan to upgrade the present fleet of orbiters with a crew-escape module. At any time from the countdown on the launchpad to re-entry, the crew-escape module could be separated from the orbiter and make a parachute landing.

The module's re-entry into the atmosphere would be semiballistic. An ablative heat shield, like those on the Mercury, Gemini and Apollo capsules, would protect the module during re-entry. A parachute or parafoil would slow its fall to Earth and airbags would deploy to cushion the landing on land or water.

The addition of this escape module to the shuttle orbiter could be accomplished during periodic scheduled missions. The first module could be installed on the Atlantis orbiter, which is scheduled for an overhaul beginning in April 2004. But perhaps that is too early.

A high-priority, similar-designed crew-return module also could solve the crew-staffing problem aboard the International Space Station (ISS). Currently the station is limited to three, the number of people that can escape in the Soyuz capsule. Since a certain amount of hours must be devoted to routine station maintenance, having only a 3-person crew cuts extensively into time available for scientific experiments. With a crew-return module that has six seats, the ISS could operate with a full crew after the shuttle returns to flight status. Modules could be transported to the ISS inside the shuttle cargo bay or launched unmanned atop a Delta 4.

Up to now, many people have believed that the purpose of the space program was science. But a science program, or one that is almost exclusively science, has never been that popular with the American people. What everyone has on their minds is some kind of exploration. To me, there are three destinations. The closest is the moon. There are many who think returning to the moon would be a good thing. I believe that lunar missions could lay the groundwork for Mars missions. The third destination could be an asteroid--in fact, this could be an attractive, early public commitment.

Mission To Mars I do not use the question "Is there life on Mars?" as the reason for whether we should go. Mars is a deserving place for people to visit regardless of whether life exists there. If there is no life on Mars, then we should probably ask, "Why isn't there?" Answering that question will take extensive investigation.

A more important question is: How should we explore Mars? I absolutely agree with the idea that when humans go to Mars, they should first go to the moons of Mars, not the planet itself. There is great logic in having human intelligence at the Martian moons. From there, astronauts could control robots on the planet's surface without the time delay that accompanies sending radio signals from Earth

The chief advantage of first going to the red planet's moons is safety. If a mission-ending problem were to develop, it would be much easier to return to Earth from a moon. From the surface of the planet you would have to lift off, get into orbit, and rendezvous with a spacecraft that could bring you back. On a moon, you are already in orbit and in a relatively secure place where you could be rescued at some time in the near future. Mars is not a place where you can come home at any time. Launch windows occur only every 26 months. I envision that the first mission would involve an 18-month stay on a moon, with a possible sortie to the surface of Mars itself by two or three astronauts. It is critical that we not go to Mars unless we are committed to a gradual, evolutionary buildup of a permanent base. We should not go once, twice or three times and then say we have done that and end exploration. It is too expensive an endeavor for it to be temporary.

Asteroids are attractive destinations for science and the public at large. It may be scientifically valuable to establish a temporary human colony on one of these small planets, which you might visit a few times with human missions. Building a temporary base on an asteroid would be a good way to test the long-duration capabilities of operating on another planet and would not require the long-term commitment or permanence of a moon or Mars base.

Steering asteroids is an idea that captures the imagination of the public. Perhaps it is because we recognize that understanding and controlling asteroids could be pivotal to our long-term survival. As an advanced civilization, we owe it to future generations to ensure the survival of the human race. That may involve having a growing settlement off Earth in case something happens to life here. It also means doing what we can to prevent a collision of an asteroid with the Earth's oceans or land mass. We need to do a lot of searching--it should be a combined effort between the Air Force and NASA with high-resolution telescopes that can observe near-Earth objects. We should catalog these objects and find out their composition. Then to assure ourselves that we know what to do if we find one that is on a collision course with Earth, we should visit an asteroid that is not on a collision course. Once there, we should demonstrate our ability to alter its course, without blowing it into pieces, then of course return potential resources to Earth.

Immediate Concerns A more pressing survival need is that of the space program itself. Until the Columbia Accident Investigation Board makes its report, we will not know the fate of the present fleet of orbiters--whether they can be fixed and how long shuttles will have to be grounded. With half of the original orbiter fleet lost to the Challenger and Columbia accidents, these are indeed tough times for NASA.

These are equally crucial times for the future of the space program. NASA must resist the temptation for a quick fix, such as building a space plane that serves as a taxi to and from the space station on expendable launch rockets. We need to consider carefully our next destinations and the vehicles that will take us there. What we decide in the next two years will influence our space program for the next 20 to 30 years.

for information and discusion only,not for profit etc,etc.

[goldstategop]

We should focus plans on developing a new space vehicle that will allow us to land and take off from the moon and asteroids. We will eventually want to establish a permanent lunar base. The first landing of man on the moon in the 1960s must not be the last. Its time to explore the ocean of space.

[green team 1999]

sounds good,also to prepare for a long trip to mars,

[hedgetrimmer]

Go Buzz!

How do we all help to make this happen?

[boris]

None of this will happen. Not one of his ideas. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

NASA's budget is a ripe plum waiting for plunder. When terrorists ignite a dirty nuke in Chicago or release Smallpox in Baltimore, kiss it good by.

This nation will focus on terrorism and dealing with radical Islam, and NASA simply will not be on the radar screen, much less a priority.

U.S. leadership in space is over.

We will do none of the above in my lifetime. Perhaps the Japanese or Chinese, but the U.S. Space program is finished, kaput, dead.

--Boris

[RadioAstronomer]

We will do none of the above in my lifetime. Perhaps the Japanese or Chinese, but the U.S. Space program is finished, kaput, dead.

Not just the space program, but all (not already funded) "big" science seems to be on a back burner.

[JmyBryan]

My desire is that we cut back NASA and do more undersea exploration and experimentation. The oceans are filled with energy and resources, yet we think Mars may offer benefit. Until we develop new and better technologies, let's stay in Earth orbit, and figure out what the planet we live on has to offer.

[Nateman]

This nation will focus on terrorism and dealing with radical Islam, and NASA simply will not be on the radar screen, much less a priority.

Don't be so sure. The high ground is the best place to be militarily and you don't get any higher than the moon. A simple boulder thrown from moon hits the Earth with the energy of a nuclear bomb. If you had a Chinese base built up on the moon that had such a capability you can sure bet we'd want one too. I figure the best bet though is to get there first and use mining as the excuse to get a base started.
 You could simply foam the metal in zero gravity and then land it in the Pacific for pick up. ( It would be light enough to float! ) Foamed metal can't be made here on Earth but It is nifty stuff to build lots of things with once you do have it.

Once space starts making the big bucks you will have a hard time stopping the progress!

[Centurion2000]

I've got a better idea .... start building ORION drives and get real tonnage off this rock and into orbit.

If you make orbit, you're halfway to anywhere in the solar system.

[Kakaze]

" None of this will happen. Not one of his ideas. Zip. Zero. Zilch. NASA's budget is a ripe plum waiting for plunder. When terrorists ignite a dirty nuke in Chicago or release Smallpox in Baltimore, kiss it good by. This nation will focus on terrorism and dealing with radical Islam, and NASA simply will not be on the radar screen, much less a priority. U.S. leadership in space is over "

Can't argue it seems over or at least put side ( space exploration)

But the truth is..this country was never better than when it had a frontier and the only frontier we have now is off this rock.If we don't realise it soon its gonna be like watching rome fall all over.

[Wilhelm Tell]

The next forty or fifty years will be spent fighting Islamic terrorism. What Bin Ladin and his ilk want is a huge Islamic empire circling the globe, and terrorism is just part of the picture.
It is interesting how the fate of the Soviet Union was pretty much sealed when they invaded Afghanistan in 1979. This accelerated a chain of events that fatally weakened the U.S.S.R. Now there is a new struggle. This new struggle had one of its defining moments when terrorists used Afghanistan as a base from which to attack the West.
We are no longer in a post Cold War phase. We are in a new war, that will have its "hot" and "cold" elements. A lot of strange things will happen -- perhaps some European countries will be taken over in an Islamic coup, perhaps Iran will have another revolution and become the first truly democratic Muslim country, and China, which has played both sides, will come to see radical Islam as a threat to itself and will grudgingly, half-heartedly, help the West.
What does this have to do with space exploration? I think the resources of many industrialized countries -- from America to, eventually, China, will be spent in various hot and proxy wars for the next half-century. Space will be forgotten except as a platform for communication and spying and, perhaps, weapons.
It is possible that our exploration of the moon happened a century too early. We did the right thing, but it was for the wrong reasons, and once the Cold War wound down, the space race quickly became a low priority precicely because science and the economic uses of space were never important goals.
We have too many issues to resolve on Earth before humanity can sustain space exploration. And by issues to resolve, I don't mean the liberal claptrap about the government putting a chicken in every pot -- no, the issue that has to be resolved is whether this century will indeed be the 21st century or whether we will revert to the 11th century. If it is the latter, the next manned flight to the moon will happen around the year 3,000.

[snopercod]

None of this will happen. Not one of his ideas. Zip. Zero. Zilch.

I agree. America no longer has the industrial might to do any of this.

[brityank]

It is possible that our exploration of the moon happened a century too early. We did the right thing, but it was for the wrong reasons, and once the Cold War wound down, the space race quickly became a low priority precicely because science and the economic uses of space were never important goals.         -- Wilhelm Tell at #11

Well said, WT; the lack of economic planning and development is the main killer to our future space ventures.

Interesting column from Buzz Aldrin, and some added perceptive comments below.

 

[If you want off or on my Columbia ping list, let me know. FReegards.]

[FreedomPoster]

We need to nuke NASA in any case. They are not part of the answer. It has become a welfare program for technocrats. The administrator:engineer ratio passed 1:1 some time ago, and there is no institutional imperative to reduce the cost/pound-to-orbit and turn-around while increasing the safety; all we see is an imperative to "keep the shuttle flying at all costs". There is no meaningful development for a replacement, as that would imperil the welfare program.

The energy required to get to orbit is about the same as the energy required to fly from the Continental U.S. to Australia. Privatize space, we need a SSTO solution that is at least an order of magnitude cheaper than the shuttle.

For some interesting discussion and good links, try here:
http://www.space-access.org/
and here:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/mail/mail258.html#NASA

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/slowchange/why_have_nasa.htm

[FreedomPoster]

>>The high ground is the best place to be militarily

Bingo. If the U.S. is to regain any kind of momentum with respect to space operations, it will be driven by DoD, not NASA. See my comments/links just above.

[green team 1999]

How do we all help to make this happen?

NASA have to change some of the management,cut the fat inside nasa.

[swarthyguy]

Well, how about starting one.

We'll wake up when some other country shocks us, a la Sputnik.

Til then, snooze time.

Then we'll wake up to realize that a 30+ year advantage in space travel has evaporated.

[gwmoore]

Thanks for the ping, brityank.

I agree wholeheartedly with the opinion.

When one stops, looks back and tries to find the "watershed" of space exploration, one sees the "beginning of the end" at exactly the same time that the liberals began their insidious process of running the asylum.

The roots of failure were in full play in 1968 and I choose that year as the first year that American Colleges and Universities graduated the "counterculture", as well as the tremendous unrest and basically Anarchy, which was strking all the urban areas. This becomes even more interesting, since I have had the chance to view this as more or less an "outsider" having spent the latter part of the '60s in the military, and we either didn't know what was happening, weren't told, or didn't really connect that this was going to be a problem. I learned the hard way how things were connecting very shortly after getting off a DC8QC at Travis AFB and coming back to "the world".

What I saw was a shock, but I firmly believe that the majority of Americans had become so inured to the conditions, or considered the perps "a bunch of kids", and I do take into account that there were no 24/7 news outlets, no internet, no PC's, and one's entire world view was often shaped by a 30 minute news broadcast on one of the 3 channels ov VHF one could get (UHF, for all practical purposes was PBS), or newspapers. At that time, I think people actually BELIEVED what they read and the edited news they watched. Nobody questioned a thing. Because of this, we have been sliding down the slope for 35 years now, and the snowball is getting HUGE.

I believe we need an active space program, if for no other reason than "it's there". We also need public support and interest such as existed in the early days of Mercury/Gemini and the beginnings of Apollo, before people got bored. The challenge and the frontier are still there, we have seriously slipped in the progress department, we have killed most of the industrial base necessary for a serious program, and we no longer have a clear goal (Man-Moon-Decade) which was kind of the spark plug for the Moon landings, as that whole program was linked inextricably with the cold war.

The above being said, I see a very heavy DOD- related mission for spaceflight, and that is where the funding is going to have to come from, unfortunately, the black budget, as there are too many "Weapons of Mass Distraction" that will keep funding from happening.

Privatization? I don't believe that is viable, unless one wants the next version of our spacecraft to be built across the Mexican border. Since this is the way most of our "industrial" operations are handled today, I see no difference with the space program unless something comes along and kicks America in the butt hard enough to see that the high ground is going to be the deciding factor in any future conflict. If we had pursued exploration of the Moon, and a serious presence in orbit, the answer to 9/11 would have been swift, sure, and sudden, with a double sonic boom, a plasma trail and a huge crater with no nuclear side effects (all this subjectively running backward in time to a witness/survivor LOL), where terrorist strongholds existed. Since I have seen no movement in this direction, I am, at this point, somewhat discouraged.

Keep the Faith for Freedom

Greg

[green team 1999]

i would like to have an idea of how much of the budget (nasa)is for the employees and what is left for exploration,missions etc.

and there is other agencies that handle the ocean,give them few more millions,

[green team 1999]

to post #17, the chinese will send two astronauts this year into orbit,
and we got the moon and mars,aaarrggghhhh,mars is the future and the new frontier and hope for planet earth