President Obama entered hostile territory this week at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida. His plan was to address panic that was setting in at NASA on news leaking out of the cancellation of the Constellation program to return to the moon. It was a project initiated by the Bush administration to both jump start our space program and to revive the excitement of the Apollo days when people were proud and excited about space exploration. It was thought to be a good way to add luster to a program that has become viewed as a mere trucking operation. On the practical side, moon base operations were to be established. The moon base would serve as a jumping off place to Mars and beyond, as well as conduct mining operations for minerals rare on earth but abundant on the moon.

The hostility level was raised even further by an open letter from former astronauts Neil Armstrong, Jim Lovell and Gene Cernan. Those of you who were raised in that era will have no trouble recognizing the names. Neil Armstrong was the commander of Apollo 11 and the first man to set foot on the moon. Jim Lovell was the commander of the ill-fated Apollo 13 mission that was made famous by the Ron Howard / Tom Hanks film. Gene Cernan was the last man to walk on the moon.

The trio argued that cancellation of Constellation will "set us on a slide into mediocrity." Armstrong in particular lends great weight to this argument, as he has typically shunned the spotlight. Two points in particular stand out. The first is that the United States will for the first time be dependent on "hitching a ride" into space with the Russians, at a starting price of $50 million per seat. The second is the loss of the $10 billion already invested in Constellation. This cost represents time, materials and manpower that has been dedicated to the project since it's inception in January 2004. The astronauts fear is that by hamstringing the manned space program we will never regain our leading status in space science and engineering. We will be involved in a never ending game of catch up.

TPP takes the trio at their word in their concern. We did some investigation, and found an equally credible voice that has stood in opposition to the Constellation program since it's inception. That voice belongs to Dr. Edwin "Buzz" Aldrin - fresh off his brief stint on "Dancing With The Stars". Aldrin was the second man to walk on the moon and cabin mate to Neil Armstrong. Armstrong and Aldrin had long been rivals, and they were often on opposite sides of issues concerning space exploration.  

Dr. Aldrin has been advising President Obama on the future of NASA and the direction that it's mission should take. Aldrin viewed the prospect of returning to the moon as a "been there, done that" proposition. He found the arguments of mining resources dubious at best, and saw little need for a moon base launch to Mars. He argued that advances developed in assembly of the International Space Station provided the basis for assembly and launch of vehicles from space, rather than from a terrestrial base. Think of the partially constructed USS Enterprise in the Star Trek movies. Aldrin believes that the vehicles we require now can be constructed with similar methodology. This would bypass cost factors and time involved in establishing a moon base. Additionally, assembly of launch vehicles in open space eliminates the need to escape the moon's gravitational field on ignition.

Efficiency and advancement were the principles espoused by Aldrin. Instead of revisiting a past success we were to reach further into space by standing on what we had learned from the Apollo and shuttle programs. This argument makes good sense if you accept his premise that in six missions to the moon we have learned what we need to learn to go further.

President Obama did what he does best today. He gave an inspiring speech heavy laden with imagery recalling the glory days of Apollo while reaching forward to the coming of Captain Kirk. A speech is a speech. What is the program he proposes?

The development of a Constellation spacecraft by NASA is dead. Obama proposes contracting that out to private industry in the manner that the Lunar Module was developed by TRW. It is customary for this type of collaboration to occur between private industry and NASA. The Orion vehicle project has been modified from a full crew launch vehicle project. The funding will now go to perfect a quick launch vehicle to rescue astronauts in peril. This is a project first envisioned during the crisis experienced by Apollo 13. Collaboration between private industry and NASA will stress new propulsion systems capable of making practical excursions further into space for the next generation of manned crew vehicles. A severe limitation on current exploration is the investment of time for a manned crew to reach a given destination. Development of more efficient support systems will also be a cornerstone of this collaboration.

Obama has called for an expansion of the robotic exploration that has proven to be very successful. Projects such as the Mars rovers, probes sent to the asteroid belt and to examine the sun's atmosphere along with a new generation high resolution telescope to replace Hubble were all cited as projects expanding our knowledge and preparing us to reach further into space.Continuation of creation of a heavy-lift rocket will continue. President Obama proposes manned space flight to deep space by 2025 and an asteroid landing (a la the movie Armageddon) as part of that mission. He further proposes a manned mission to Mars by 2030.

NASA has been without a clear manned flight mission since leaving the moon for the last time in 1972. There have been huge advances in robotic and remote exploration and that is good. It has given us ever expanding knowledge about our universe and solar system. Skylab  (anyone remember Skylab???) was an interesting sideshow but not as inspiring as a moon shot. The shuttle program has lived past it's need. Technology has left it in the dust. The remaining shuttles are run by computers running a DOS program on 385 processors (remember those original computer terminals with the green and orange letters? These predate those.). They are literally flying trucks, not exploration vehicles. The shuttle was never meant to be the sum total of what we want to accomplish in space.

The cancellation of Constellation is a mixed bag loss. It was proposed as a way to not have to reinvent the wheel. We were instead building on methods and technologies developed for the original Apollo program. Unfortunately, it has run horribly over budget and behind schedule. If part of the plan is a more efficient program, stopping the bleeding is an important component. TPP shares Dr. Aldrin's assessment that a return to the moon is more of a victory lap than an advancement to the next level, though it would spark more interest than yet another shuttle mission.

There is a need for manned space flight for two reasons. The first is that no robotic device however complete and sensitive, will ever be able to discern and interpret the information presented with the subtlety and imagination of the human brain firsthand. Robotics are useful in paving the way and preparing. The ultimate analysis is performed by a human with his own eyes, own hands and own mind. The second reason is that manned space exploration meets an inherent need in the human spirit and psyche - the need to reach out and understand his surroundings and to test the limits of his ingenuity. One can argue the appropriateness of that need, but not the fact of the need itself. A human defines his own being by defining his surroundings.

For this reason TPP finds itself in agreement with the Armstrong position. Beyond the science, there is a romance in exploration that pulls at the human spirit. Science is practicality, but practicality does not drive the success of Star Trek or any of it’s spin offs. There is an intently American appetite for fulfilling our destiny in the most amazing way possible – what is often defined as the American can-do spirit, or American Exceptionalism. Manned space flight is about more than science. It is about the type of indomitable drive that we have to reach our potential.

Common Sense Dictates

It sounds like a good and inspiring plan. But a plan is more than a speech. Those of us who remember the Apollo era were expecting the landmark Kubrick film "2001: A Space Odyssey" to be true by 2001. Imagine our dismay as we sit in traffic on an overcrowded freeway instead of zipping home in our Jetsonmobile. We landed on the moon not because of JFK's speech, but because of his commitment and the commitment of his successors to accomplish that goal. Maybe it was easier with the Soviets breathing down our necks.

Beyond the science and romantic aspects of the manned space flight, there is the vast array of technology that has risen from the space program to make our lives easier and more comfortable. The space program has given us far more than Tang. Cell phones, digital cameras, personal computers and even Velcro have all made their way to everyday use through the path of NASA. What we learn as we venture further into space will serve us well on earth.

All four astronauts weighing in have solid foundations for their positions. We endorse Dr. Aldrin’s forward reaching but also support General Armstrong’s passionate plea to keep a viable manned mission at the top of it’s game. Ultimately, in a mixed bag such as most government programs are, the driving force will be the Obama administration. The ambitious agenda laid out by President Obama can only be achieved by commitment and dedication. However inspiring the speech, the result will only be as successful as the priority that the space program enjoys in the mix of all other issues. We at TPP support a strong commitment to a strong space program. 

RLB