On May 25, 1961, in an address to Congress, President John F. Kennedy stated, “I believe that this nation should commit itself to achieving the goal, before this decade is out, of landing a man on the moon and returning him sagely to the earth.” With those words, space travel became a part of American culture. It took the collective imagination of the American people by storm. The United States was able to achieve that goal July 20, 1969 with “One small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.”

The rockets that took man to the moon soon evolved into the space shuttle program. There are now only three space shuttle missions left before the remaining four of an original fleet of six are permanently retired. This begs the question, without a shuttle program, what will the United States do to advance the space program that has become such a part of our American identity?

 The current plan, at least until another NASA option for travel can be found, is to hitch a ride with the Russians for $50 million a seat. That’s a rate that makes even American Airlines and United blush. As if that weren’t bad enough, according to congressmen Gene Greene (D-TX) and John Culberson (R-TX), the Russians will control transportation to space, creating a massive monopoly where they will be able to increase prices at will while enjoying an ever present demand from across the globe. This creates the need for a swift alternative to the space shuttle, such as the current Constellation program supported by both congressmen. This bipartisan effort, one would assume, would indicate mutual support of the space program on both sides of the aisle in Washington, right?

Not so. In fact, much controversy has been created around President Obama’s 2011 budget cutting all costs for the Constellation program; the program that planned to send men to the moon by 2020 and to Mars by 2030. Neil Armstrong, the famous first man on the moon, wrote a strongly worded letter to the President expressing his displeasure with the direction of NASA given President Obama’s new budget. In his mind, “It appears that we will have wasted our current $10-plus billion investment in Constellation and, equally importantly, we will have lost the many years required to recreate the equivalent of what we will have discarded.” As far as Armstrong is concerned, the Constellation Program is the best vehicle by which to advance America’s dominance in space travel and provide a domestic means of space transportation. Because of the current investment in the program and the potential for technological advancement, Armstrong feels Constellation is the best option on the table.

The president is receiving support from an interesting source considering the criticism from Neil Armstrong. Buzz Aldrin, the second man on the moon, also wrote President Obama, but he proclaimed his support for cutting the Constellation program. Aldrin wrote, “What this nation needs in order to maintain its position as the 21st century leader in space exploration is a near-term focus on lowering the cost of access to space and on developing key, cutting-edge technologies that will take us further and faster – while expanding our opportunities for exploration along the way.” Aldrin wishes to do away with the massive government spending needed to fund NASA and instead work on cost effective ways to travel to space and increase America’s exploration potential.

While it is not difficult to see the logic of Aldrin and Obama’s arguments, it is difficult to derive their incentive for changing the way the space program is run. Since its inception in 1958 NASA has succeeded in landing a man on the moon, sending the probe Voyager II to capture pictures of the planets in our solar system, launching the Hubble Space Telescope for the purpose of taking pictures of deep space and taking a leading role in the creation of the International Space Station. In addition to being an extremely effective government program, according to Annie Lowrey of The Washington Independent, when asked about what government programs budget cuts should be taken from, said only about 20 percent respond with science. Scientific advancement is supported by the American people and that desire should be respected.

And why not; after all, it was NASA that, according to Dan Majors of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, gave us the technology that led to cell phones, GPS navigation systems, the microchip and even tennis shoes. And don’t forget your Tempur-pedic mattress. NASA has led to America maintaining its status as the superpower in the world. If the Russians are allowed to monopolize space transportation for too long, our lofty status as a nation that provides scientific advancement could be in jeopardy. Space is said to be the final frontier; it should not have to end for the U.S. with Obama and the death of the Constellation program.