Buzz Aldrin Thanks President Obama

Dr. Rendezvous may know a hell of a lot about orbital mechanics but he needs to go back to school for an introductory course in politics and the budget process.

JFK moment???

"We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too."

JFK, September 12, 1962

http://er.jsc.nasa.gov/seh/ricetalk.htm

JFK? Give me a break. Dr. Aldrin must be suffering from some latent after effects from his Apollo 11 mission. Oh, but I guess that was really a hoax given that 30% or so of Americans believe we never landed on the moon. And the number one reason given - "we can't go to the moon now, how could we have done it 40 years ago? ".

And we are not likely to even get out of low earth orbit in the next twenty years by following Obama's half-baked myopic vision. Technology development without a goal is no path to the future. Let us all hope that congress can get itself together enough to override this idiocy and keep Constellation. Even with all its foibles it's still better than this "JFK moment". Let's also hope the American voters get rid of the idiot who came up with it in 2012.

Mike Hilton.. agreed.

Mr Aldrin.. "thanking" Obama isn't exactly the thoughts of many of us who are deeply passionate and commmitted to this nation leading on the frontier of space.

You may feel you have "done" the moon, and perhaps your quite finished there.

America however is NOT.

The journey had only begun with Apollo, return to moon to stay is the beginning steps of a grand exploration, exploitation and colonization of the solar system.

Private industry cannot deliver on that dream in any timely fashion, and certainly not exclusively.
T

NASA CAN DELIVER! If funded properly and directed properly. Constellation wasn't perfect, but it would accomplish the goals if properly funded, the Augustine commmission concluded this.

Private industry will be making incredible claims to get that money from Obama now. We already have heard some wild stuff.

COTS made sense. Cancelling the VSE and how to do it DID NOT! I champion private industry but this is madness to expect it to deliver so much and rely on it with no other back up if it fails!

I think this is the greatest mistake in human space exploration our nation has *ever* made.

Some are in denial about this I know.
But the propulsion unicorns, the "game changers" as it is becoming know as, do NOT exist, and nobody even knows what they even would be.

That is NO foundation to build human exploration of space on for America.

I am committed to restore the goals of VSE and funding to accomplish them through NASA where primarily it belongs.

I will be tireless, I will not cease.

President's do not always get what they want.
We have learned this. There will be battles in congress. Obama will not be president forever.

He blew it, he could have championed Constellation's goals as a brave young new President, instead he has chosen to rip the heart of NASA's human exploration of space out and hand the red meat out to a jobs program that is destined to provide only LEO access alone.

@Lowly Contractor:

Well-quoted, and reinforced by JFK's comments in the Rose Garden 9 months later after John Glenn's successful shot:

"We have a long way to go in the space race. We started late. But this is the New Ocean, and I believe the United States must sail on it AND BE IN A POSITION SECOND TO NONE." - JFK, 20 February 1962

Unless somebody straps a high-tech Orion atop an Atlas V or a Delta IV soon, we've got a long wait until we see any sort of replacement for the Shuttle. What a shame that America is surrendering space to our once (and future?) enemies, Russia and China, as well as to India and God knows who else.

And another thing...handing over a bunch of NASA's budget to "Earth studies" or "climate studies" is ridiculous. What in Hell are NOAA and USGS for?

Its time for the Congress to have a JFK moment! Write your Congressmen.

You guys need to get out of the Constellation echo chamber and listen to reality. No one is abdicating America's lead in space, and no one has taken the Moon off the table as a destination. In fact, if anything we'll be leaving Earth orbit sooner than the 2028 date that Constellation would have handed us.

We're going to save the few bits of Constellation that actually made sense. You'll see that Orion on top of an Atlas V, but it will be called the Boeing/Bigelow capsule, will seat seven, and (since it's on top of a far superior launch vehicle) will have a toilet instead of buggy springs for seats. Alongside of the Boeing solution you'll also see at least three other vehicles with different characteristics and strengths, reflecting the vitality of free enterprise as opposed to the central planning approach you so cherish.

We're going to get that heavy launch vehicle, we're going to get it sooner than 2028, it's going to cost less, and it's not going to blow a hole in the ozone layer every time it blasts off. You'll probably see Buzz Aldrin have a fair amount of input in its design; the guy is true American patriot with a good dose of common sense.

As for game changers, if you don't try to make them exist, they never will. The attitudes you guys show would have never made the cut back in the Apollo days.

Constellation is dead; get used to it because Congress will not bring it back. If you won't help us shape the future of manned spaceflight, then leave. We've got work to do.

High-tech Orion? Isn't that an oxymoron? Going from the shuttle back to a can isn't high-tech, it's just plain dumb.

I like JFK's quotes too but you people are giving him too much credit. A lot of it was a cover to develop the technology to make ICBMs. The moon trip was a good selling point.

Now we have ICBMs and no moon rockets.

It's funny to watch conservatives rail on the president for thinking like a conservative. They are the ones that always say the private sector does it better.

The VSE was a decent plan and would have worked, just not with the budget it had. It was more of a wish than a "vision."

JFK backed up his words with a budget to get it done. Bush didn't.

I was reading where Sen Bill Nelson was questioning the OMB director and he admitted that the programs weren't canceled because it cost too much, but because Obama wants to do things differently. It also points out that not setting a date allows the administration to say it's working towards that goal without actually doing anything.

Buzz, it's odd that you would thank the president when your entire plan that you submitted to the Augustine Commission, with the exception of commercial launchers, was blown off.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/air_space/4322647.html

Here's what you advocated:
Extend shuttle flights through 2015 until an Orion capsule can ride atop Delta IV or Atlas V rockets upgraded for human flight.
Will that happen? No.

Return to moon with international consortium for commercial exploitation only.
Develop runway lander based on robot X-37B and boosted by rockets like Japan’s H-IIA.
Will that happen? No.

Develop Exploration Module for manned flights of up to three years to comets, asteroids and Martian moon Phobos, where robots prep nearby Red Planet outpost for human settlement.
Will that happen? No.

Your plan didn't do enough, and now we will do far less. Nasa is now just an R&D shop without any specified goal to aim for. With all due respect for your accomplishments 41 years ago, get out of the way and make room for real space advocates.

That's right, graybeards, cold-war-era quotes are really going to inspire the younger generations.

NASA will never again be what it was in the 1960s, precisely because the 1960s are dead and gone.

I don't see why many conservatives are upset with Obama's proposal. Obama's move is straight out of their playbook: outsource to the private sector, which can do it more efficiently and cheaply. I wonder if this had been a conservative president, would they be singing a different tune?

@flyboy: NASA may be just doing R&D at the moment, but it seems to me that what they're focusing on -advanced deep space propulsion (eg, VASIMR), closed-loop life support systems, on-orbit refueling-are the type of things you'd *need* to research to build aforementioned Exploration Module.

Not saying that any of that necessarily will be followed through on, of course (though I certainly hope it will), but to say that NASA is no longer trying to focus on manned spaceflight is a bit of an overreaction in my opinion.

"Going from the shuttle back to a can isn't high-tech, it's just plain dumb."

So how much is Obama spending on improving winged re-entry vehicles to survive debris hits during launch? This lack of technology was a reason for the Apollo style Orion.

SOME OF MY FAVORITE POSTS FROM THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS:

The greatest irony here is that The Administration is doing precisely what the VSE was supposed to do. Commercialize space flight. I say, give it a shot, it's been beat to death for 20 years on the internet (even before it was called that). Can't hurt to try.
-------------
It is what it is and there NEVER was anything any of us could ever do about it--Period!

You could complain to your managers and to your representatives or congressmen all you want but the fact is the decision was always out of our hands.

The decision to create AND cancel Constellation both---out of our hands.
-------------
I was thinking of sending them a very different message...something around the lines of how we should not continue a faulty and short-sighted program just to preserve jobs.
-------------
the Constellation program threatened other important parts of NASA’s endeavors and mission, while failing to achieve the trajectory of a program that was sustainable, executable, and ultimately successful.
-------------
when it came to Orion, whether or not this was an appropriate and affordable design to go with, and I don't think it was, the fact that the program had made so little progress over 5 years meant that it was time to pull the plug.
-------------
It is clear that the Orion is becoming a mature spacecraft system
-------------
I find it ironic that the new budget is more in the spirit of VSE than ESAS ever was.
-------------
This is for Mike Griffin and I quote from the movie Hunt For Red October "You arrogant ass you killed us all".
-------------
A lot of commenters say it's a good thing that this move will drive away a bunch of civil servants.

One group that will be driven away is those that are close to retirement. I know at least four. I can't imagine these commenters consciously throwing away experience if it's expressed in millions of dollars per person. I hope they wouldn't throw it away if it is measured in lives lost as a result of inexperience.

Besides the incalculable loss of experience, it doesn't make a lot of sense to move productive, experienced, mature personnel out of the workforce and on to a pension.
----------------
In the end, the Program of record is a train to nowhere. It attempts to preserve the status quo of how human spaceflight has been done in The Republic for the last 40 years, 20 years (or more if it ever got operational) into the future.
----------------
I look at this budget proposal with a sigh of relief. Hopefully, we’re going somewhere, but this administration has been brave enough to pull the plug on an effort that was going nowhere. Well, it was supposed to be going to the Moon, but we all knew it was never going to get there.
----------------
“Many in Congress are extremely angry that the Moon program has been canceled.”

No they’re not. Congress cares about whether the taxpayer money in NASA’s budget is going to their constituents, not whether NASA ever gets back to the Moon.
----------------
Lest everybody has forgotten, no tears shed here for CxP folks - these are the same folks (regular and mgmt) that arrogantly dissed the Shuttle and Apollo workforce and their expertise, refused to listen to anything but their own self-proclaimed betterness at all things, and outright ran off anybody that really did know better than to go along with the charade!
----------------
MANY OF US HAD WAITED SINCE SEI, MORE THAN A DECADE, FOR BUSH'S VISION, SO THAT WE COULD BEGIN TO LAY THE GROUNDWORK FOR THE FUTURE.

GRIFFIN AND HOROWITZ CAME UP WITH A PLAN TO REESTABLISH APOLLO. THIS WAS A MISTAKE THEN AND STILL A MISTAKE NOW. THEN THEY PUT A BUNCH OF OPERATIONS PEOPLE IN CHARGE, WHO THOUGHT THE GOAL WAS TO BEGIN LUNAR OPERATIONS IMMEDIATELY, AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEY NEEDED TO START GETTING THE SURFACE SYSTEMS AND CREW TRAINING FOR LUNAR GOING RIGHT AWAY; TO BEGIN DEVELOPING THE LUNAR ORION NOW.

GRIFFIN, HOROWITZ, AND CONSTELLATION MISSED THE POINT OF THE VISION ENTIRELY.

AS FAR AS DOLLARS, AT THE TIME OF THE VISION ANNOUNCEMENT, NASA WAS TOLD THERE WOULD NOT BE A LOT OF NEW AND ADDITIONAL FUNDING. NASA'S BUDGET HAD BEEN FAIRLY STABLE FOR 4 DECADES AND WAS NOT GOING TO GO UP IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY. THE GRIFFIN/CONSTELLATION PLAN TO STEAL FROM EVERYONE ELSE, TO SHUT DOWN SHUTTLE AND STATION, IN ORDER TO RE-CENTER ALL OF SPACEFFLIGHT IN THE CONSTELLATION EFFORT WAS MISGUIDED AT BEST.

THE ARROGANCE, AND SNOBBERY, OF THE CONSTELLATION MANAGEMENT WAS A BIG DOWNFALL FOR THE PROGRAM. THAT THEY WERE PROMOTING ALL THEIR BUDS INTO POSITIONS THEY HAD NO CLUE WHAT TO DO, BESIDES BEING ILLEGAL, WAS SIMPLY SEALING THE END OF HUMAN SPACEFLIGHT AS NASA KNEW IT. THE CONSTELLATION MANAGEMENT SUCCEEDED IN ENDING THEIR OWN PROGRAM IN THIS WAY.

I THINK THE NEW OBAMA/BOLDEN PLAN IS MUCH MORE IN-LINE WITH THE ORIGINAL VISION. I AM HOPEFUL THAT WE WILL SEE IT CARRIED OUT IN AN HONEST AND FORTHRIGHT MANNER. WE WILL NOT GET TO THE MOON OR MARS THIS DECADE, BUT NEW PLAN GETS US ON A PATH TO SUCH MISSIONS.

I DISAGREE WITH THE POSTER WHO SAID WE NEVER HAD ANY INFLUENCE OVER THE DECISION. I THINK THE CONSTELLATION MANAGEMENT HAD THE PRIMARY INFLUENCE ON THE DECISION BY THEIR MISGUIDED PLAN AND THEIR FAILURES TO TAKE EVEN THE FIRST COUPLE STEPS TOWARDS CARRYING IT OUT. AND I DO THINK THAT NASAWATCH AND SOME OF THE OTHER BLOGS DID HAVE AN INFLUENCE BY MAKING SURE THAT THE COMMUNITY WAS FULLY AWARE OF HOW POORLY CONSTELLATION WAS PROCEEDING.

CONSTELLATION WAS ON A PATH TO NOWHERE. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN TERMINATED A LONG TIME AGO.

THE NEW PLAN WILL BE WHAT WE MAKE OF IT. HOPEFULLY WE'LL DO A BETTER JOB THAN THE LAST 5 YEARS.

"I wonder if this had been a conservative president, would they be singing a different tune?"

Any President who just scrapped US human spaceflight and put 7000 highly skilled people out of work would be criticized.

> He blew it, he could have championed Constellation's goals

Constellation's goals suck. Did you consider that?

Did you consider that unaffordable heavy lift is the reason nobody has left LEO since 1972?

... quite simply because it is *not* true.

(1) The lion's share of work to develop Constellation/Ares was already outsourced to Lockheed (Orion), Boeing (2nd stage), ATK (1st stage), Rocketdyne (J-2S), etc, all of which have a proven track record.

(2) What the new plan proposes is to divert the funds to a set of newcomers (i.e. the self proclaimed '7') which say they can 'do better and cheaper' but are years away from actually proving they can do so.

(3) The previous administration already supported these newcomers by taking a huge risk in awarding unmanned ISS resupply flights to Elon Musk before Falcon 9 even had its first flight (due right around May).

(4) Whether you agree or not a NASA safety review has raised issues about these newcomers. They, of course, brushed it aside and apparently so does the administrator. This, to me, rings quite like a redux of managerial decisions that led to the Challenger disaster.

Bottom line: this is not about public vs. private, it's really about whether it was prudent for the new administration to accept at face value the promises of a underbidder with a rather slim track record.

Would you trust a contractor to do work at your home (say rebuild the roof) under similar circumstances? Would you sleep soundly the first night your area is hit with 40 mph winds? I very much doubt it.

P.S. To make it worse, it's increasingly apparent this decision was made before the new tenants moved into the 9th floor. The Augustine study had many opinions (some good and spot on) but it doesn't stand to logic that in its short lifetime the level of technical analysis to suppor them was anywhere near to what NASA did over several years.

, also, very weak in real engineering analysis .

One doesn't just 'give it a try and see if it works' at a pricetag of billions. This is not like trying a new brand of deodorant and, if you hate it, just dumping it into the trash can and going back to your old brand.

How come Gene Cernan's comments are not posted? He disagrees with both Buzz and the president.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3998554/turning-americas-back-to-the-moon?category_id=86861

"As we leave the Moon at Taurus-Littrow, we leave as we came, and, God willing, we shall return, with peace and hope for all mankind."

-The last words spoken from the moon were from Eugene Cernan, Commander of the Apollo 17 Mission on 11 December 1972

>(1) The lion's share of work to develop Constellation/Ares was already outsourced to Lockheed (Orion), Boeing (2nd stage), ATK (1st stage), Rocketdyne (J-2S), etc, all of which have a proven track record.

Yup. The same guys who now are competing to provide solutions to NASA without the specs changing every few weeks.

>2) What the new plan proposes is to divert the funds to a set of newcomers (i.e. the self proclaimed '7') which say they can 'do better and cheaper' but are years away from actually proving they can do so.

Yes. Years away. As opposed to the many, many years away of the Constellation solution.

Also, you speak as if something like Ares I is a proven design. Frankly, it's in the same boat as all the private guys. That flat spin at Mach 6 that Ares IX put its upper stage in showed that. As Keith said, you would think the default mode of separation would be a stable one, wouldn't you? I would rather trust my life to an Atlas V with zero launch failures than an Ares I.

>(4) Whether you agree or not a NASA safety review has raised issues about these newcomers. They, of course, brushed it aside and apparently so does the administrator. This, to me, rings quite like a redux of managerial decisions that led to the Challenger disaster.

You must be speaking of the Aerospace Safety Advisory Panel. The same panel that's destroying their credibility every time they open their mouths? The NASA insiders say they're a bunch of suits toeing the party line. From what I understand, safety requirements and procedures are being pulled together for the private guys right now. No one is going to scrimp on safety here -- it's not the way to get repeat business.

>it's really about whether it was prudent for the new administration to accept at face value the promises of a underbidder with a rather slim track record.

Yeah, the track record Boeing has worries me too. Can't imagine they'll be able to produce a manned LEO solution, much less a safe one .

You know, if Ares I was such a good, freakin' design, someone in the private sector would snap it up, stick a Bigelow on top and compete for LEO launches. The fact that no one is, not even ATK, should tell you something.

"Constellation's goals suck. Did you consider that?"

Nonsense. If your against those ultimate goals, your against the whole point of human exploration of space.

The goals of Constellation were to fullfull goals of VSE.

Let's boil this down to the essence.

There are extactly TWO places in this solar system we can go and make footy prints and create permanant presence anytime soon and move humanity beyond a single planet existence.

Constellation/VSE/HSF/NASA were all starting to focus on MOON and MARS in my dwindling lifetime.

Obama's proposed budget just effectively DUMPED THOSE GOALS!

Lowly Contractor-- Good point. Isn't that what been done to HSF at NASA since the early 80's? I feel sorry for the folks who work at/have worked at NASA who have been jerked around every few years for the past three decades. Do this, no wait, do that, no wait do this other thing, no, stop, now do this....

I never give up hope that this time something good will happen. I eagerly await the details of concrete objectives that should be coming out in the next few months.

> The goals of Constellation were to fullfull goals of VSE.

The goals of Constellation started with building the most expensive rocket ever built. Remember what happened last time NASA did that? Need someone remind you how long the moon landings lasted before they were cancelled? Twitter has lasted longer.

Congress won't pay for your huge expensive rocket because their constituents don't care about it. The new plan does what you want, except without the fantasy budget. Join us in reality where there is not unlimited money.

"So how much is Obama spending on improving winged re-entry vehicles to survive debris hits during launch? This lack of technology was a reason for the Apollo style Orion."

I never said he was spending anything. I simply commented on New Frontier's post and the Orion in general. Orion isn't the way it is (or isn't as the case may be) just due to a lack of technology. It's the way it is due to a contrived, mass limited launch vehicle and an utter lack of vision.

Did you actually look at the "Merchant 7" details? Both Boeing and ULA are part of the group.

So, you were saying something about unproven newcomers and the "self-proclaimed 7"?

As for NASA safety... well, we know all about that from shuttle operations now don't we?

"That flat spin at Mach 6 that Ares IX put its upper stage in showed that. As Keith said, you would think the default mode of separation would be a stable one, wouldn't you?"

Why would one think that? Someone, please show me an analysis that shows it was suppose to be stable. Numbers please not animations.

I think its very funny how all of the ares/cxp haters are always knocking the Ares1-x for being fake, cobbled together, and a PR stunt. BUT yet, they are always quick to point out its failings as if it can be used as evidence that the design is bad.

Logic someone?

Sounds to me like Buzz is trying to get some political position with all the boot-licking going on in that article.

I think its a terrible idea what is happening with the budget proposal and cxp cancellation. Its all politics sadly. If they want to cancel the ares projects, that is fine, if they want to cancel orion thats fine, BUT at least leave the moon and mars as targets to measure ourselves against.

Thanks to this cancellation we are estimated to lose 1/3 of our contractor workforce. GREAT! Job creation in action.

We must reach beyond.

>I think its very funny how all of the ares/cxp haters are always knocking the Ares1-x for being fake, cobbled together, and a PR stunt. BUT yet, they are always quick to point out its failings as if it can be used as evidence that the design is bad.
Logic someone?

Silk purse out of sow's ear. We paid half a billion dollars for it, might as well use it for something useful.

It too bad that the Griffin and Constellation haters didn't, as you put it, leave six years ago. How short and selective your memory is.

But in reality it isn't about the griping it's about the budget and it will still be about the budget, or lack of it, that determines the success of any path.

"Did you consider that unaffordable heavy lift is the reason nobody has left LEO since 1972?

You're kidding right? "Affordability" was not the reason, it was budget cuts by a shortsighted President and Congress that shut down the production lines and the program. In 1969 there was to be no manned space program after Apollo. You need to go and review the political climate of the time. Not too unlike what we're dealing with today.

"The goals of Constellation started with building the most expensive rocket ever built. Remember what happened last time NASA did that?"

Yeah, I remember the last time. We got the space shuttle with 1/5 the lifting capability of a Saturn V launch vehicle, a $28B development cost (2008 dollars) before first flight, an operating cost of about $1.2B per flight and 14 dead astronauts.

"Yeah, I remember the last time. We got the space shuttle with 1/5 the lifting capability of a Saturn V launch vehicle, a $28B development cost (2008 dollars) before first flight, an operating cost of about $1.2B per flight and 14 dead astronauts."

Cheaper, less expensive, and safer than Ares I could ever hope to be, don't even think about Ares V.

Well "possum" I see you pulled more unsubstantiated "facts" out of your......hat.

Hope? We don't need "hope" to review the facts. Let's see...Augustine stated that Ares I and Orion would have an estimated recurring cost of almost $1 billion per flight. Hummmm that compares favorably with the shuttle's recurring cost of $1.2B per flight. So there goes your cheaper, less expensive argument and although it is open to debate, independents have ruled that it would be safer than shuttle.

We don't have to discuss Ares V or any other heavy lifter as those are in a different class than the shuttle (300k vs 55k to LEO) so comparisions are moot.

I don't object to you hating Ares but you're going to have to do better than substituting hand waving for valid reasoning.

CxP deserves to be canned, but to add to the commercial skepticism (and the airline analogy that Garver & Diamandis seem to like mentioning),there's the current Boeing Dreamliner that's still busting the cost & schedule bigtime with govt. funding assists no less. Ironic, Boeing commercial's latest better-faster-cheaper fad, outsourcing!

And as for ULA, what's their actual launch record been, from day 1?

Aldrin is a self serving as*, the second the next generation astronaut touches the surface of the moon, "Buzz" is out of a job. No more $50 autographs, no more multi $1000 speaking fees, ... . No wonder he supports not going to the Moon.
Augustine comission, send a bunch of MBA bureacrats to decide about an engineering project, can we say Challenger? Anyone ever notice where the comission members used to or still work?
I have seen the Falcon 9 up close, disaster waiting to happen.
Why don't we just make it simple hand over all designs to the Chinese (that's where they will end up anyway) and buy the rocket from them?