While Armstrong is on one side, Aldrin is on the other:
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.
"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."
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."
I'm totally with Obama on this. I'm crazy about space and although I'll almost certainly never go I'd love to see us on Mars or with orbital colonies before I die. Open sourcing NASA and treating commercial space ventures on an equal footing would be a great step towards that.
The first time one of those private companies blows up a rocket and kills a crew of astronauts, the resulting public outcry will put NASA back in the astronaut-launching business instantly.
And if that doesn't turn out to happen, so much the better.
It's possible Obama is calculating enough to see this.
Accidents happen. You can't calculate for accidents. Currently Space exploration are very centralized around government's willingness and ability to invest on it. For long terms sustainability and for space program to really expand we need more than a few players.
We need heavy investment from private sectors. This will happen eventually, why wait?
While Armstrong is on one side, Aldrin is on the other:
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.
"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."
What is the Constallation program?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constellation_program
An excerpt from the wikipedia page:
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."