This Friday, Buzz Aldrin will be landing on the moon again—this time in the 3-D, computer-generated film, Fly Me to the Moon. In the kiddie flick, Aldrin voices a digital version of himself during the historic Apollo 11 moon landing mission in 1969. The story follows three adventure-seeking young houseflies that stow on board the NASA spacecraft. 

ScientificAmerican.com spoke to Aldrin by phone about the movie and about NASA, which recently celebrated its 50th anniversary. Aldrin has some reservations about the agency's planned return trip by 2020. He also foresees trouble ahead as the era of the space shuttle, the launch vehicle NASA has used since 1981 to put astronauts into low Earth orbit, ends in 2010. He also has some thoughts on fellow astronaut Edgar Mitchell, the sixth man to visit the moon, who has claimed that U.S. government has been hiding evidence of aliens for over 60 years. An edited interview transcript follows.

Tell us about Fly Me to the Moon.
Well, I think the movie is a marvelous combination of timely historical events and animation. The film showcases some of the [historical] achievements that I think need to be recognized by young people, voters, and the candidates for the office that will direct the space program for the next four years. I think events in the film were depicted accurately. Much of what happened on the [Apollo 11] mission, like the landing of the lunar module, has to be animated, because there wasn't anyone there to take pictures. You still have to put on [the 3-D] glasses to see the really exciting parts [in the movie] that cause the kids to scream a bit. Overall, I think Fly Me to the Moon is valuable as inspiration for children and I was happy to be a small part of it.

What do you think of NASA's current priorities?
I think we're too obsessed with short-term objectives and what satisfies the public thirst for immediate solutions to problems as well as [their] thirst for news. The media market gets in a frenzy about fixing a problem instead of looking at the longer-term progress of humanity.

That's what I'm trying to impress on those who motivate NASA and the leadership of this country. It doesn't mean vacillating back and forth between programs; it means that we have to be judicious in all these things and be reasonable. In the past I think we had examples of being flexible and how to avoid gaps in development, and I think we are in danger of not having that now as we transition from the shuttle and the station to more exploration and space commerce.

4 Comments

1. 1. John_Toradze 12:22 PM 8/14/08

   Mars is a far better destination than the moon is, as detailed in "The Case for Mars" by Zubrin. Mars is the same energy to go, and net less energy to go and come back because rocket fuel can be made on site. Mars has water and oxygen. A self sustaining colony can be established there. Mars has a payoff that could be huge, where the moon does not.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. BarryW 01:20 AM 8/17/08

   The Moon is a far better initial destination than Mars. I have “The case for Mars” and a dead giveaway to a weak argument is to attack other peoples work. The Moon is closer - only 3 days, shallow gravity well – 1/6G, has plenty of H and O for water and oxygen. We can use the resources on the Moon to build space settlements and deliver power to Earth. Once getting off this rock is relatively cheap (tell someone in the 18th century they could go 2000 miles in 4 hours for $500 and ask them if they think it’s cheap) then those who wish to live in a gravity well deep enough to make escape difficult but too shallow to hold a substantial atmosphere can colonize Mars. That said, all of us who wish to create a space fairing civilization need to support each other and stop arguing over what is the best way. I think the only people who benefit from all the difference of opinions (man verses machine, Mars verses Moon verses Space settlements, etcetera) are those who are happy to remain on this rock.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. navy62802 01:57 PM 8/24/08

   Where is our sense of adventure? I recognize that NASA (just as any government bureaucracy) seeks to minimize waste, but we need a grander goal than analyzing the ice crystals in Martian rocks. If NASA wants to expand its funding, it should focus on a high-visibility mission like sending men to the red planet or flying men back to the moon. Either one will likely elicit a huge influx of money to the space agency. The average Joe doesn't give two farts about water crystals or color pictures from the Martian surface. However, if he saw a man step out of a spacecraft and jog around the planet, he would be hooked on the space program. I guess what I'm asking is how did we land on the moon almost 40 years ago, then drop the program altogether and not return? And now we don't even want to set a timetable for achieving a comparable feat. It should be an embarrassment to today's generation of engineers.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. tbracker 06:24 PM 12/18/10

   As far as I'm concerned Buzz wasn't the second man on the Moon, he tied for first when the Eagle landed.
   Neil got a bit closer when he stepped off the pad in his other spacecraft - EVA suit.
   I doubt anyone will ever set "foot" on the Moon. Since Buzz has shared so much more with us than Neil has, why don't we call it a draw?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this