Buzz Aldrin's Blog
January 4, 2012
American Space Exploration Leadership -- Why and How
2012 is an inflection year -- the year we will and must decide whether the U.S. has the will and ability to lead the world in human space exploration. For me, I am betting we do -- and here is how I suggest we begin.
January 28, 2011
In Memoriam -- A Rededication to Space
Statement on the 25th Anniversary of the Challenger Tragedy
As we reflect back upon the tragic loss of Challenger and her brave crew of heroes who were aboard that fateful day, I am reminded that they truly represented the best of us, as they climbed aloft on a plume of propellant gasses, reaching for the stars, to inspire us who were Earthbound. They represented the inspiration that is uniquely Space, and planned to share their experiences with the classrooms of future explorers who might one day follow their path and, perhaps, reach higher still -- because of this great mission. A mission so tragically ended was, in a moment, etched forever in our hearts, and memories...
As we grieved at this great loss, President Reagan recited lines from another American hero -- John Gillespie Magee Jr.'s memorable poem -- "High Flight", and reminded a grieving nation -- "they slipped the surly bounds of Earth" to "touch the face of God" -- words that inspired us, describing for us in poetry their great sacrifice, and their noble cause.
I am also reminded of three friends and heroes that we lost in the Apollo-1 fire -- particularly my friend, Ed White, fellow West Pointer, Track Team and Squadron-mate, as we boldly made our way to the Moon -- a journey we would complete in their honor with my colleagues, Neil and Mike, aboard Apollo 11 just two-and-a-half years after that tragic day; and, I think of the brave scientists and explorers of the Columbia tragedy, just eight years ago. They, too, are with us as we turn our attention to science that will one-day help make possible human exploration beyond the constraints of our precious Earth-Moon system -- when the inevitable journey of humankind to the surface of Mars, and into the Cosmos will, indeed, begin in earnest.
These were the tragic beginnings along this path, and we can never forget their passion for Space, their commitment and selfless dedication to it, the joy they experienced in the pursuit of it, and their heroic sacrifice, which took them from us.
It is for us to honor these great pioneers who were paving the way for our future, by continuing this great quest, that their hopes and dreams may be realized by those who were so inspired by their example. In the present uncertainties of the space program, a great transitional opportunity exists, and we must rise to the challenge in the spirit of those who have so bravely shown the way forward, and for those who will follow. A great nation deserves no less, and their memories compel us to continue their journey.
As we reflect back upon the tragic loss of Challenger and her brave crew of heroes who were aboard that fateful day, I am reminded that they truly represented the best of us, as they climbed aloft on a plume of propellant gasses, reaching for the stars, to inspire us who were Earthbound. They represented the inspiration that is uniquely Space, and planned to share their experiences with the classrooms of future explorers who might one day follow their path and, perhaps, reach higher still -- because of this great mission. A mission so tragically ended was, in a moment, etched forever in our hearts, and memories...
As we grieved at this great loss, President Reagan recited lines from another American hero -- John Gillespie Magee Jr.'s memorable poem -- "High Flight", and reminded a grieving nation -- "they slipped the surly bounds of Earth" to "touch the face of God" -- words that inspired us, describing for us in poetry their great sacrifice, and their noble cause.
I am also reminded of three friends and heroes that we lost in the Apollo-1 fire -- particularly my friend, Ed White, fellow West Pointer, Track Team and Squadron-mate, as we boldly made our way to the Moon -- a journey we would complete in their honor with my colleagues, Neil and Mike, aboard Apollo 11 just two-and-a-half years after that tragic day; and, I think of the brave scientists and explorers of the Columbia tragedy, just eight years ago. They, too, are with us as we turn our attention to science that will one-day help make possible human exploration beyond the constraints of our precious Earth-Moon system -- when the inevitable journey of humankind to the surface of Mars, and into the Cosmos will, indeed, begin in earnest.
These were the tragic beginnings along this path, and we can never forget their passion for Space, their commitment and selfless dedication to it, the joy they experienced in the pursuit of it, and their heroic sacrifice, which took them from us.
It is for us to honor these great pioneers who were paving the way for our future, by continuing this great quest, that their hopes and dreams may be realized by those who were so inspired by their example. In the present uncertainties of the space program, a great transitional opportunity exists, and we must rise to the challenge in the spirit of those who have so bravely shown the way forward, and for those who will follow. A great nation deserves no less, and their memories compel us to continue their journey.
In Memoriam -- A Rededication to Space
In the present uncertainties of the space program, a great transitional opportunity exists. As we reflect back upon the tragic loss of Challenger, we must rise to the challenge in the spirit of those who have so bravely shown the way forward.
July 19, 2010
The Way Forward: Achieving a Consensus on America's Future in Space
It is widely known that I support the President's new space agenda for civil space. I was proud to stand beside the President at the recent Space Summit, and to endorse his bold vision for space -- a vision that I believe will enable us to maintain our pioneering leadership in this vitally important enterprise.
The President's approach supports many of the principles that I have long advocated, including -- the opening of space to the private sector, the development of a strong technical foundation in science and technology that will enable our continued leadership in space, while also encouraging truly international collaboration with our space faring partners who would embrace this future, the implementation of a Flexible Path that will afford us opportunities for exciting missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), enabling journeys to: libration points and orbits whose characteristics afford exceptional opportunities for new space science platforms to unlock the secrets of the universe; human missions to asteroids; and, on to Mars and its two moons; or, to other destinations that hold potential scientific or economic promise, such as the potential international commercial development of the moon -- should this become a priority. It is a rich vision that I would hope that we could all embrace.
A number of my former colleagues, and other critics, have expressed concerns about the plan, and in particular, they express grave reservations about 'the Gap' -- the end of the Space Shuttle Program, and the inability for the US to provide human access to space -- save for limited flight opportunities and capabilities with our Russian partners, pending the maturing of the commercial space transportation capabilities, or other future systems to meet these needs.
Perhaps it is less widely known, that I also share this concern, and I have long advocated a number of potential alternatives to try to address this issue: For the very near-term, I have proposed extending, or commercializing, the space shuttle system, which would preserve the opportunity for reduced manifest (one or two flights per year) support of the International Space Station, while also preserving the capability to develop a shuttle derived heavy lift launch vehicle to meet our future space exploration needs, and as importantly, maintain the critical technical workforce that supports our nations space transportation capabilities. A capability that we are in grave danger of losing in the few months ahead...
Some now claim that the Space Shuttle Program has been dismantled to the extent that this is no longer a viable option. It is difficult to accept that reestablishing this capability would be more difficult than the development of an entirely new replacement vehicle.
At the other end, we could close the Gap by pursuing the development of a human-rated EELV launch capability that would be paired with a reusable, runway-lander, crewed spacecraft, while NASA turns its attention to its longer-term space transportation requirements. The EELV has proven to be a reliable launcher, and NASA has spent many years developing candidate reusable runway-landers, including the HL-20 and the X-38, so these concepts are also quite mature. If made a national priority, I believe this capability could be developed quickly, and this system could help reduce the devastating effects of the Gap. While initially developed by the government to address the critical need to fill the Gap, in the longer term, this system might be spun off to the commercial sector for its continued operations.
We have already endured a gap in human access to space following the termination of Apollo, and the eventual first flight of Columbia, with STS-1 on April 12, 1981. During this period our astronauts were Earthbound, while the former Soviet Union embarked on a series of space stations that allowed them to set records for human activity in space -- many that still stand today. Our science program was also disrupted, as a many missions that were being designed for launch aboard Shuttle had to wait for its development and flight qualification.
We also faced two tragic gaps following the loss of Challenger and Columbia and their brave crews. We should learn from these experiences that it is essential to maintain US access to space, and I continue to be a fierce advocate for this need.
What should we do to address this urgent need? I believe that it is possible to find a compromise solution that might address the critical concern regarding the Gap: I would call upon the President to issue an Executive order - requiring that the USAF and NASA collaborate in the development of a launch capability to help fill the Gap. It would call for the USAF to work with NASA to human-rate the EELV, and to provide this launch capability to meet NASA's near-term human space access needs. It would direct NASA to undertake the rapid proto-flyte development of an HL-20 reusable, runway-lander that would be mated to this vehicle to meet its LEO requirements, including supporting the ISS, until an alternate capability has been developed and demonstrated the ability to meet this critical requirement.
I would also continue with the President's current plan to take advantage of the investment that we have already made in the Orion capsule, and use this capability as a lifeboat, or Crew Return Vehicle (CRV), for ISS, so we can fully man space station and exploit its magnificent capabilities. This would also preserve the option to develop future derivative Orion capsules for future human exploration missions beyond LEO, where the higher aero capture heating loads could benefit from this configuration.
I would also ask the President direct NASA to update its space station and logistics resupply requirements study (the so-called 'Blue Book', developed by NASA/LaRC and ISS), to fully understand the long-term requirements to maintain ISS through 2020, and potentially beyond, and to examine these requirements with our international partners to determine how -- collectively, we might meet these requirements. It is in our mutual interest to ensure that these requirements can be met, and to negotiate any agreements, or barters, to utilize internationally provided space transportation capabilities necessary to meet them.
Having addressed what I feel is probably the greatest area of concern for many of the critics who have spoken out about the new path for NASA -- the Gap -- I would call for my colleagues, and our nation, to get behind the new direction for NASA so we -- together with our international partners and the emerging new commercial space industry, can continue the greatest enterprise in the history of man -- the exploration of space for all mankind.
The President's approach supports many of the principles that I have long advocated, including -- the opening of space to the private sector, the development of a strong technical foundation in science and technology that will enable our continued leadership in space, while also encouraging truly international collaboration with our space faring partners who would embrace this future, the implementation of a Flexible Path that will afford us opportunities for exciting missions beyond low Earth orbit (LEO), enabling journeys to: libration points and orbits whose characteristics afford exceptional opportunities for new space science platforms to unlock the secrets of the universe; human missions to asteroids; and, on to Mars and its two moons; or, to other destinations that hold potential scientific or economic promise, such as the potential international commercial development of the moon -- should this become a priority. It is a rich vision that I would hope that we could all embrace.
A number of my former colleagues, and other critics, have expressed concerns about the plan, and in particular, they express grave reservations about 'the Gap' -- the end of the Space Shuttle Program, and the inability for the US to provide human access to space -- save for limited flight opportunities and capabilities with our Russian partners, pending the maturing of the commercial space transportation capabilities, or other future systems to meet these needs.
Perhaps it is less widely known, that I also share this concern, and I have long advocated a number of potential alternatives to try to address this issue: For the very near-term, I have proposed extending, or commercializing, the space shuttle system, which would preserve the opportunity for reduced manifest (one or two flights per year) support of the International Space Station, while also preserving the capability to develop a shuttle derived heavy lift launch vehicle to meet our future space exploration needs, and as importantly, maintain the critical technical workforce that supports our nations space transportation capabilities. A capability that we are in grave danger of losing in the few months ahead...
Some now claim that the Space Shuttle Program has been dismantled to the extent that this is no longer a viable option. It is difficult to accept that reestablishing this capability would be more difficult than the development of an entirely new replacement vehicle.
At the other end, we could close the Gap by pursuing the development of a human-rated EELV launch capability that would be paired with a reusable, runway-lander, crewed spacecraft, while NASA turns its attention to its longer-term space transportation requirements. The EELV has proven to be a reliable launcher, and NASA has spent many years developing candidate reusable runway-landers, including the HL-20 and the X-38, so these concepts are also quite mature. If made a national priority, I believe this capability could be developed quickly, and this system could help reduce the devastating effects of the Gap. While initially developed by the government to address the critical need to fill the Gap, in the longer term, this system might be spun off to the commercial sector for its continued operations.
We have already endured a gap in human access to space following the termination of Apollo, and the eventual first flight of Columbia, with STS-1 on April 12, 1981. During this period our astronauts were Earthbound, while the former Soviet Union embarked on a series of space stations that allowed them to set records for human activity in space -- many that still stand today. Our science program was also disrupted, as a many missions that were being designed for launch aboard Shuttle had to wait for its development and flight qualification.
We also faced two tragic gaps following the loss of Challenger and Columbia and their brave crews. We should learn from these experiences that it is essential to maintain US access to space, and I continue to be a fierce advocate for this need.
What should we do to address this urgent need? I believe that it is possible to find a compromise solution that might address the critical concern regarding the Gap: I would call upon the President to issue an Executive order - requiring that the USAF and NASA collaborate in the development of a launch capability to help fill the Gap. It would call for the USAF to work with NASA to human-rate the EELV, and to provide this launch capability to meet NASA's near-term human space access needs. It would direct NASA to undertake the rapid proto-flyte development of an HL-20 reusable, runway-lander that would be mated to this vehicle to meet its LEO requirements, including supporting the ISS, until an alternate capability has been developed and demonstrated the ability to meet this critical requirement.
I would also continue with the President's current plan to take advantage of the investment that we have already made in the Orion capsule, and use this capability as a lifeboat, or Crew Return Vehicle (CRV), for ISS, so we can fully man space station and exploit its magnificent capabilities. This would also preserve the option to develop future derivative Orion capsules for future human exploration missions beyond LEO, where the higher aero capture heating loads could benefit from this configuration.
I would also ask the President direct NASA to update its space station and logistics resupply requirements study (the so-called 'Blue Book', developed by NASA/LaRC and ISS), to fully understand the long-term requirements to maintain ISS through 2020, and potentially beyond, and to examine these requirements with our international partners to determine how -- collectively, we might meet these requirements. It is in our mutual interest to ensure that these requirements can be met, and to negotiate any agreements, or barters, to utilize internationally provided space transportation capabilities necessary to meet them.
Having addressed what I feel is probably the greatest area of concern for many of the critics who have spoken out about the new path for NASA -- the Gap -- I would call for my colleagues, and our nation, to get behind the new direction for NASA so we -- together with our international partners and the emerging new commercial space industry, can continue the greatest enterprise in the history of man -- the exploration of space for all mankind.
The Way Forward: Achieving a Consensus on America's Future in Space
Critics have expressed concerns about the President's space plan, and in particular, they express grave reservations about 'the Gap' -- the end of the Space Shuttle Program, and the inability for the US to provide human access to space.
May 17, 2010
Why We Should Keep Flying the Space Shuttle
Instead of planning the retirement of the Space Shuttle program, America should be preparing the shuttles for their next step in space: evolving, not shutting them down and laying off thousands of people.
April 24, 2010
Spaceships Worthy of the Name
I'm urging NASA to foster the development of what I call runway landers: a spacecraft that flies to orbit like the retiring shuttles, but glides to a landing like an airplane on a runway.
April 4, 2010
President Obama's JFK Moment
With his deeds, not only words, President Obama has revitalized our struggling space program.
March 18, 2010
Why We Should Keep Flying the Space Shuttle
Instead of planning the retirement of the Space Shuttle program, America should be preparing the shuttles for their next step in space: evolving, not shutting them down and laying off thousands of people. You know the very people whose experience we will need in the years ahead. Except if you lay them off now, they won't be around in the next decade. Today's Shuttle operation is made up of five elements. Here's how we can put them all to use in a whole new space program. America, extend and transform the Shuttle, don't end 'em.
Those five elements of a Shuttle extension - the four segment solid booster motors, the big orange External Fuel tank, the trio of liquid Shuttle main engines, the vast existing Shuttle facilities like hangars and launching pads, and above all the skilled and experienced work force that has been operating the Shuttle fleet for nearly 30 years, can be the foundation of a whole new space goal.
We need to start thinking like our friends in the Russian space program. The first launch of the Soyuz rocket that is used today for taxi flights to the International Space Station had its first flight in November 1963 -- the same month President Kennedy was assassinated! But while the rocket and capsule look the same as the one that flew first in 1963, there have been many changes, some subtle and some more obvious. Newer and more powerful engines, a new upper stage, and advanced spaceship controls and systems mark today's Soyuz. In fact, the Soyuz itself is a more advanced version of the R-7 ICBM that Russia developed in the late 1950s and which first lofted spaceman Yuri Gagarin in 1961. Instead of abandoning the system for something entirely new -- which is what the U.S. intends to do after the Shuttle -- Russia has made incremental improvements to Soyuz, basically building an entire space program around that space-going workhorse.
See any lessons here?
America has invested 30 years in the Shuttle system. Instead of retiring it and beginning with a new "clean sheet of paper" approach that will take extra time and money, I propose we follow the Russian example and make the basic Shuttle the foundation of a space program that can take us literally to Mars. Use the boosters, engines and big tank as the backbone of a new heavy lift rocket. Fly that rocket from the same facilities as the current Shuttles use. Keep much of the existing workforce working, because the only thing you will change is older designs and engines, making way for a heavy lift launcher derived from the Shuttle basics and capable of carrying large new spacecraft to the station or destinations beyond.
You may ask -- how do we get from here to there?
By continuing to fly the existing Shuttles until a commercial crew-carrying cousin comes available after testing, or until the all-cargo ships start flying. On my evolution chart, I see these cargo Shuttles evolving, too, until they become a truly huge heavy lift rocket that can fly elements of an interplanetary spaceship aloft and link them together, using the space station as the testing ground.
But I also have a place for a space capsule in this plan. An Orion-like capsule can be docked to the interplanetary ship and provide aero braking tests as we advance further and further into the solar system, headed in the direction of Mars.
What's aero braking? That's a way to use the gravity and upper atmosphere of Earth to sling shot a ship out either deeper into space, or slow it down to be "captured" by Earth's gravity. It flies in a series of ever-widening spirals. What's the big deal? Because aero braking doesn't need a heavy and expensive rocket stage to muscle our ships around in space. It's a technique we have used successfully in robotic missions to Mars. If we truly want to make humans on Mars a national objective without sending the money -- printing presses into overtime, that's one way to get us there.
But none of this is possible if we abandon the Space Shuttle, and the many decades of experience in flying a winged craft into space and safely back to a runway. They call 'em a runway lander.
And the story of why we need that instead of a spaceship-turned-boat space capsule as our space taxis is the subject of my next blog. Along with ideas on using that big orange fuel tank so familiar to those who have watched Shuttle launchings in a new role: a spaceship itself. More on those ideas soon.
Those five elements of a Shuttle extension - the four segment solid booster motors, the big orange External Fuel tank, the trio of liquid Shuttle main engines, the vast existing Shuttle facilities like hangars and launching pads, and above all the skilled and experienced work force that has been operating the Shuttle fleet for nearly 30 years, can be the foundation of a whole new space goal.
We need to start thinking like our friends in the Russian space program. The first launch of the Soyuz rocket that is used today for taxi flights to the International Space Station had its first flight in November 1963 -- the same month President Kennedy was assassinated! But while the rocket and capsule look the same as the one that flew first in 1963, there have been many changes, some subtle and some more obvious. Newer and more powerful engines, a new upper stage, and advanced spaceship controls and systems mark today's Soyuz. In fact, the Soyuz itself is a more advanced version of the R-7 ICBM that Russia developed in the late 1950s and which first lofted spaceman Yuri Gagarin in 1961. Instead of abandoning the system for something entirely new -- which is what the U.S. intends to do after the Shuttle -- Russia has made incremental improvements to Soyuz, basically building an entire space program around that space-going workhorse.
See any lessons here?
America has invested 30 years in the Shuttle system. Instead of retiring it and beginning with a new "clean sheet of paper" approach that will take extra time and money, I propose we follow the Russian example and make the basic Shuttle the foundation of a space program that can take us literally to Mars. Use the boosters, engines and big tank as the backbone of a new heavy lift rocket. Fly that rocket from the same facilities as the current Shuttles use. Keep much of the existing workforce working, because the only thing you will change is older designs and engines, making way for a heavy lift launcher derived from the Shuttle basics and capable of carrying large new spacecraft to the station or destinations beyond.
You may ask -- how do we get from here to there?
By continuing to fly the existing Shuttles until a commercial crew-carrying cousin comes available after testing, or until the all-cargo ships start flying. On my evolution chart, I see these cargo Shuttles evolving, too, until they become a truly huge heavy lift rocket that can fly elements of an interplanetary spaceship aloft and link them together, using the space station as the testing ground.
But I also have a place for a space capsule in this plan. An Orion-like capsule can be docked to the interplanetary ship and provide aero braking tests as we advance further and further into the solar system, headed in the direction of Mars.
What's aero braking? That's a way to use the gravity and upper atmosphere of Earth to sling shot a ship out either deeper into space, or slow it down to be "captured" by Earth's gravity. It flies in a series of ever-widening spirals. What's the big deal? Because aero braking doesn't need a heavy and expensive rocket stage to muscle our ships around in space. It's a technique we have used successfully in robotic missions to Mars. If we truly want to make humans on Mars a national objective without sending the money -- printing presses into overtime, that's one way to get us there.
But none of this is possible if we abandon the Space Shuttle, and the many decades of experience in flying a winged craft into space and safely back to a runway. They call 'em a runway lander.
And the story of why we need that instead of a spaceship-turned-boat space capsule as our space taxis is the subject of my next blog. Along with ideas on using that big orange fuel tank so familiar to those who have watched Shuttle launchings in a new role: a spaceship itself. More on those ideas soon.
March 17, 2010
A Different Kind of Moon Race
A quarter of a million miles from where you are reading these words, on the dusty surface of our companion Moon, lies the best chance in decades for America to reestablish itself as a global space leader.
