Editing Vision for Space Exploration (section)

== Critical perspectives ==
[[Image:NASA-Main budget chart 14-01-2004.svg|thumb|upright=1.8|NASA's 2004 budget projections for the Vision for Space Exploration]]

In December 2003, [[Apollo 11]] astronaut [[Buzz Aldrin]] voiced criticism for NASA's vision and objectives, stating that the goal of sending astronauts back to the Moon was "more like reaching for past glory than striving for new triumphs".<ref name="Fly Me To L1">{{Cite web|last=Aldrin |first=Buzz |title=Fly Me To L1 |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=December 5, 2003 |url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/opinion/05ALDR.html |access-date=November 14, 2009 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090723144904/http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/05/opinion/05ALDR.html |archive-date=July 23, 2009 }}</ref>

In February 2009, the Aerospace Technology Working Group released an in-depth report asserting that the vision had several fundamental problems with regard to politics, financing, and general space policy issues and that the initiative should be rectified or replaced.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Hsu |first=Feng |author2=Cox |first2=Ken |date=February 20, 2009 |title=Sustainable Space Exploration and Space Development – A Unified Strategic Vision |url=http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=30702 |access-date=October 9, 2009 |publisher=Aerospace Technology Working Group}}</ref>

Another concern noted is that funding for VSE could instead be harnessed to advance science and technology, such as in aeronautics, commercial spacecraft and launch vehicle technology, environmental monitoring, and biomedical sciences.<ref name="Practical Benefits for America" /> However, VSE itself is poised to propel a host of beneficial [[Moon science]] activities, including lunar telescopes, selenological studies and solar energy beams.

With or without VSE, human spaceflight will be made sustainable. However, without VSE, more funds could be directed toward reducing human spaceflight costs sufficiently for the betterment of [[low Earth orbit]] research, business, and tourism.<ref name="Practical Benefits for America">{{Cite web|last=Woodard|first=Daniel|title=Practical Benefits for America|date=2009|url=http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/383313main_25%20-%2020090808.3.practical-benefits.pdf|access-date=November 28, 2009|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20091028045844/http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/383313main_25%20-%2020090808.3.practical-benefits.pdf|archive-date=October 28, 2009}}</ref> Alternatively, VSE could afford advances in other scientific research ([[astronomy]], [[Geology of the Moon|selenology]]), [[in-situ]] lunar business industries, and lunar-space tourism.

The VSE budget required termination the Space Shuttle by 2010 and of any US role in the International Space Station by 2017. This would have required, even in the most optimistic plans, a period of years without human spaceflight capability from the US. Termination of the Space Shuttle program, without any planned alternatives, in 2011 ended virtually all US capability for reusable launch vehicles. This severely limited any future of low Earth orbit or deep space exploration. Ultimately, the lack of proper funding caused the VSE to fall short of its original goals, leaving many projects behind schedule as President George W. Bush's term in office ended.

Keith Cowan wrote in 2014, "The damage done to America and the rest of the world by unsustainable deficits is real, and any lack of zeal in facing this problem would be a mistake. In that context, this would be a good time for Congress to look again at Bush's plans for NASA to re-establish a human presence in deep space. The outgoing Republican Congress gave its Republican president too much benefit of the doubt on this undertaking. The new Congress must, at the very least, articulate more convincing reasons than have yet been heard for such a colossal expenditure."<ref>{{cite web|last=Cowing|first=Keith|title=Nature of Funding the VSE|date=16 November 2006 |url=http://nasawatch.com/archives/2006/11/nature-on-funding-the-vse.html|publisher=NASA Watch|access-date=2014-04-24}}</ref>

"A large portion of the scientific community" concurs that NASA is not "expanding our scientific understanding of the universe" in "the most effective or cost-efficient way."<ref group=Tumlinson name="p8">p. 8.</ref> Proponents for VSE argue that a permanent settlement on the moon would drastically reduce costs for further space exploration missions. President George W. Bush voiced this sentiment when the vision was first announced (see quote above), and the [[United States Senate]] has re-entered testimony<ref group=Tumlinson name="p8" /> by [[Space Frontier Foundation]] founder [[Rick Tumlinson]] offered previously to the [[United States Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation]] advocating this particular perspective.<ref group=Tumlinson name="p8" /> The reason that the [[National Space Society]] regards a return to the Moon as a high [[space program]] priority is to begin development of the knowledge and identification of the industries unique to the Moon, because "such industries can provide economic leverage and support for NASA activities, saving the government millions."<ref group=Tumlinson>p. 13.</ref>

As Tumlinson additionally notes, the goal is to "open space ... to human settlement ... to create ways to harvest the resources ... not only saving this precious planet, but also ... assuring our survival."<ref group=Tumlinson>pp. 6–7.</ref> Regarding "the Moon, NASA should support early exploration now. ... "<ref group=Tumlinson>p. 14.</ref>