Neil Armstrong: Obama NASA plan 'devastating'

This seems like another skirmish in a fight that's been simmering for ~20 years within NASA over its various missions. One side, which most of the astronauts (incl. Armstrong) are on, thinks that manned exploration ought to be paramount, and therefore supports things like a return to the moon, a manned mission to Mars, etc. Another side, made up mostly of scientists, thinks collecting interesting data ought to be paramount, and tends to believe the most cost-effective way of doing that is via probes, satellites, and robotic rovers.<p>Bush mostly sided with the first group, making a manned return to the moon as a stepping-stone to a manned trip to Mars the centerpiece of his NASA policy. Obama's mostly siding with the second group.

This article gives more context and seem an more interesting read: <a href="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36476183/ns/technology_and_science-space/" rel="nofollow">http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/36476183/ns/technology_and_scien...</a><p>While Armstrong is on one side, Aldrin is on the other:<p>On the other side of the debate, the most outspoken Apollo-era advocate of NASA's new policy is the man who was Armstrong's co-pilot for the first moon landing: Buzz Aldrin.<p>"Many said the president's decision was misguided, short-sighted and disappointing," Aldrin wrote in an op-ed piece for The Wall Street Journal. "Having the experience of walking on the moon's surface on the Apollo 11 mission, I think he made the right call. If we follow the president's plan, our next destination in space, Mars, will be within our reach."<p>What is the Constallation program?<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program</a><p>An excerpt from the wikipedia page:<p>President Obama's argument[32][2] is that the lifetime for the International Space Station would be extended by an additional 5 years and an additional US$6 billion would be paid to private companies for shuttling astronauts to and from it after the Space Shuttle program ends while NASA develops new technology for future space exploration missions. According to Obama, his vision embodies a "bold new approach to human space flight that embraces commercial industry, forges international partnerships, and invests in the building blocks of a more capable approach to space exploration."

Going commercial for land-to-orbit ferrying makes sense: it's a proven concept that's been done plenty of times and just needs to become more efficient.<p>Building land-to-deep space vessels makes little sense. It unnecessarily reinvents the land-to-orbit step. The launch rockets are one more thing to invent and maintain. Every space mission needs to get into orbit: don't "roll your own", factor it out and let industry tackle it.<p>NASA should go commercial for ferrying and focus on robots and proof of concept projects. Manned deep space missions should be launched starting in orbit from starports, and are unnecessary before then. They can be assembled modularly in space.<p>As far as pragmatic and profitable reasons to go into space, mining is probably the biggest. Asteroids often contain rare metals in abundance and are worth trillions. Space mining will only develop if we first invest in: 1) Making orbital ferrying as cheap as possible 2) Orbital facilities to serve as launch platforms for research and ventures. 3) Advanced Robotics<p>I think NASA's new plan is doing everything right and heading in this direction.

This is what worries me the most:<p><a href="http://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/12041303534" rel="nofollow">http://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/12041303534</a><p>Until we get out of our comfort zone, we won't make much progress.

It all boils down to whether you believe that activities in space should consist of a series of big grandstanding stunts, or whether you think that space should become just another place where people live and work - expanding human horizons. It seems clear that the sorts of missions upon which Armstrong embarked, though pioneering at the time, were not sustainable. The main reason for this lack of sustainability was that the hardware was bespoke and too expensive, and required too large a ground crew to operate. What we should probably be working towards are sustainable and increasing levels of human activity in space. This means working towards lowering costs and standardising hardware, and greater commercial involvement.

It's tough to question Neil Armstrong but to me $50M/seat for launch seems like a bargain compared to the alternative. Just based on the $10B we've spent on Constellation so far that's 200 seats. I don't know how much Constellation is supposed to cost in the end but let's say it's another $20B for the sake of argument. Do we have a pressing need to send 400 people into LEO over the next 5-10 years? Over the next 20 years? Maybe we should just consider dusting off the Apollo.

Some context: <a href="http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/is-a-human-spac.html" rel="nofollow">http://nasawatch.com/archives/2010/04/is-a-human-spac.html</a> (definitely worth reading the comments on that too)

He pretty much lost me with his "the USA is far too likely to be on a long downhill slide to mediocrity" and the "to be without carriage to low Earth orbit ... destines our nation to become one of second or even third rate stature" lines.<p>In an environment of extreme political and economic turbulence, the status of the space program is about the last thing I'm concerned about. The space program was a useful ideological tool when it was fresh. Now any state with enough cash can launch.

Shouldn't we continue to invest in long-term infrastructure development (education, research) before shedding cash for hyperexpensive space trips? I'm just about efficiency