Bolden: "NASA won't land another man on the moon in my lifetime"

[KelvinZero]

goddamit!
(fixed)

[MATTBLAK]

Haven't watched all of it yet - but the description of the contents is certainly interesting and apocryphal:

[kkattula]

Dare I say (no provocation, no anti-shuttle rant, this is not my objective here) - that we are still paying the price of losing 14 astronauts ?
This is a pretty heavy toll, plus the Challenger accident (more than Columbia) produced pretty horrific pictures that somewhat carved into public opinion psyché. The more I think about it, the more I feel something broke definitively on January 28, 1986.

I would say rather the price for not losing 3 astronauts on Apollo 13. "Failure is not an option" is impossible to live up to as the two Shuttle accidents demonstrate, but you can waste a lot of money and opportunity trying to.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Dare I say (no provocation, no anti-shuttle rant, this is not my objective here) - that we are still paying the price of losing 14 astronauts ?
This is a pretty heavy toll, plus the Challenger accident (more than Columbia) produced pretty horrific pictures that somewhat carved into public opinion psyché. The more I think about it, the more I feel something broke definitively on January 28, 1986.

I would say rather the price for not losing 3 astronauts on Apollo 13. "Failure is not an option" is impossible to live up to as the two Shuttle accidents demonstrate, but you can waste a lot of money and opportunity trying to.

I would disagree with that.  Apollo 13 and the two Shuttle LOCs worked out in very different ways.  In the Apollo 13 scenario, there was enough time and enough redundant systems, once the problem had been correctly identified, to take remedial action.  In the case of Challenger, the event was near-instantaneous LOV and no remedial action was possible.  In the case of Columbia, the fault was not identified correctly beforehand.

The only commonality between the three events is that all three had a root cause in a failure to identify and/or act upon problems in advance of launch.  The precise details differ but in all three cases, there was a fault that, if identified and remedied beforehand, the incident would have probably would not have occurred.

There is nothing wrong for pushing for maximum assurance of vehicle safety/serviceability before launch.  However, on the other hand, it is possible to be too zealous to the point where nothing gets done.  There will always be the possibility that something unanticipated could happen or something that is so statistically unlikely that no-one would have reasonably expected checks to be in place for it.  Trying to prevent or mitigate every single failure mode in advance is impossible.

Risk cannot be completely eliminated; the key is not to hand-wave away a known, significant risk simply because it is inconvenient, unwelcome or expensive/impossible to fix.

[MATTBLAK]

Let's not forget too that Gemini 8 and Apollos 10, 11 & 12 all had events during their missions that could have ended them in tears. And there must certainly be other problems in other manned missions that had the potential for loss of mission, crew or vehicle.

[kkattula]

Let's not forget too that Gemini 8 and Apollos 10, 11 & 12 all had events during their missions that could have ended them in tears. And there must certainly be other problems in other manned missions that had the potential for loss of mission, crew or vehicle.

The point is not the nature or root cause of the accidents, but rather the myth of NASA infallibility promulgated in the common culture after Apollo 13.

It didn't make sense even then, given the above incidents and Apollo 1, but after the triumph of Apollo 11, 12 was almost ignored as BTDT. The renewed interest generated by 13 was seized upon as another NASA triumph. The politics wouldn't let them get away from it.

[kkattula]

...
There is nothing wrong for pushing for maximum assurance of vehicle safety/serviceability before launch.  However, on the other hand, it is possible to be too zealous to the point where nothing gets done. 
...

And there's the problem in a nutshell. Maximum assurance does in fact mean being zealous to point where nothing gets done. It's an over and misused adjective like 'ultimate'.  Better choices would be 'reasonable', 'high level' or 'an approved standard of'.  As soon as some bureaucrat starts talking about 'maximum safety', they won't stop until all the available budget is used up. And next years too, usually.

[JohnFornaro]

"Maximum assurance does in fact mean being zealous to point where nothing gets done."

Bingo.

[Ben the Space Brit]

Obviously, people have a different definition of 'maximum' than me.

[A_M_Swallow]

Over simple analysis

cost of widget = c
number of widgets = n
probability of failure of a widget = p
probability of failure of device = Q
cost of device = D

D = n c

Method used to increase reliability of device: add more widgets
(ignoring large second order effects)

So to half probability of device failure buy 2 widgets
So to third probability of device failure buy 3 widgets
So to 1/n probability of device failure buy n widgets

Q = p / n

combining equations

D = p c / Q

For maximum reliability Q = 0
D = p c / 0 = infinity

So infinite reliability will cost an infinite amount of money.

How much reliability do we need?
How much reliability can we afford?

[RigelFive]

The only currency the world really has are peoples time and resources.

300 million (USA population) x 67% (age 18-65) x 4 yrs (length of administrators term) x Neil Degrasse Tax of 1% =
108 billion to spend over 4 years.
That is our budget... (it cost about 200 billion in 2013 dollars to pull off the Apollo missions.  )

And let's just say previous results from Apollo and shuttle can be applied to predict future results:  2% failure rate for shuttle ~100 flights, 12% failure rate for Apolllo...  Being that you need a new version of the shuttle and Apollo to go back to the moon, I'd estimate the combined failure rate like this:

98% (shuttle II success) x 88.8% (Apollo II success) = 87% success with combined system.

So a new LEO shuttle + new lunar system will have a combined failure rate of ~13% (I have posed the problem using independent probabilistic rather than conditional)

I think you are implying with your equations that in order to be successful ONCE, the total cost for a mission would be $830 billion.  This is about four times the cost of the original Apollo missions and over eight times what every adult could afford even if we had a Neil Degrasse tax of 1%!!!

So the decision for a new manned architecture should be NOGO in the USA.  Otherwise, we're going to need 4x-8x the current population in the USA.

[CNYMike]

This really, really sounds as the lunar surface is really, really off the table for NASA HSF for the indefinite future.

http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/05/back-to-the-moon-not-any-time-soon-says-bolden/.....He warned that if the next administration tries to change course again back to the Moon, “it means we are probably, in our lifetime, in the lifetime of everybody sitting in this room, we are probably never again going to see Americans on the Moon, on Mars, near an asteroid, or anywhere. We cannot continue to change the course of human exploration.”

I think he's half right -- changing direction every four or eight years accomplishes nothing.  But there's no clear program now, is there?  And if the next administration decides to put the Moon back on the table, it will arelady have SLS and Orion to work with; the only thing needed will be the lander.

[HappyMartian]

...
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2013/04/05/back-to-the-moon-not-any-time-soon-says-bolden/.....He warned that if the next administration tries to change course again back to the Moon, “it means we are probably, in our lifetime, in the lifetime of everybody sitting in this room, we are probably never again going to see Americans on the Moon, on Mars, near an asteroid, or anywhere. We cannot continue to change the course of human exploration.”

I think he's half right -- changing direction every four or eight years accomplishes nothing.  But there's no clear program now, is there?  And if the next administration decides to put the Moon back on the table, it will arelady have SLS and Orion to work with; the only thing needed will be the lander.
[/quote]

Yep. Ignore his political hot air. The SLS and Orion are funded and being developed. Lots of folks everywhere on Earth should be doing some serious planning about building Lunar Landers...

We humans are going to the Moon. And this time it will be to tap Lunar water and other resources.

[Jim]

Yep. Ignore his political hot air. The SLS and Orion are funded and being developed. Lots of folks everywhere on Earth should be doing some serious planning about building Lunar Landers...

We humans are going to the Moon. And this time it will be to tap Lunar water and other resources.

I predicted Ares I demise and the same will happen to SLS. It can be added to the MSFC list of shame.  ALS, NLS, SLI, X-33, X-34, HST, US prop module, OSP, DART, Ares I, Ares V, etc

[M_Puckett]

Yep. Ignore his political hot air. The SLS and Orion are funded and being developed. Lots of folks everywhere on Earth should be doing some serious planning about building Lunar Landers...

We humans are going to the Moon. And this time it will be to tap Lunar water and other resources.

I predicted Ares I demise and the same will happen to SLS. It can be added to the MSFC list of shame.  ALS, NLS, SLI, X-33, X-34, HST, US prop module, OSP, DART, Ares I, Ares V, etc

And what do you think will be the root cause of it's cancellation Jim?

[CNYMike]

I predicted Ares I demise and the same will happen to SLS. It can be added to the MSFC list of shame.  ALS, NLS, SLI, X-33, X-34, HST, US prop module, OSP, DART, Ares I, Ares V, etc

It should be the DC hall of shame, not MSFC.  When a program is allowed to continue by Congress and the White House, it flies.  The Saturn Series and the Shuttle both prove this.  Ares I died not because MSFC wasn't going to do it anymore but because President Obama killed it.  If SLS is killed, the decision will not be made in MSFC but WDC.  NASA is not to blame for the decisions made by the people holding the purse strings, nor for changes in policy.  ALS, for instance, was to be the backbone of SDI, but when that disappeared, so did ALS. 

If our leaders could get behind a consistent policy that could last through multiple congresses and administrations, we might se an end to that.  Until that happens, no.

[HappyMartian]

Yep. Ignore his political hot air. The SLS and Orion are funded and being developed. Lots of folks everywhere on Earth should be doing some serious planning about building Lunar Landers...

We humans are going to the Moon. And this time it will be to tap Lunar water and other resources.

I predicted Ares I demise and the same will happen to SLS. It can be added to the MSFC list of shame.  ALS, NLS, SLI, X-33, X-34, HST, US prop module, OSP, DART, Ares I, Ares V, etc

Jim, failure is and has always been an option in difficult tasks. However, an American failure to lead in human BLEO missions and to the surface of the Moon to do ISRU would cost us dearly.

Expensive failures and being considered to be a second-rate international BLEO human mission nation should be the expected result of continuing with the President's currently vague and continually changing space architectural plan to avoid the Moon at all costs, go nowhere, and do nothing permanent in space.

The funded SLS and Orion, along with the potential of international missions to the Moon's surface, look a whole lot more inviting and exciting than the current President's ever changing excuses to do as little as possible and 'kick the can down the road' for some future President to decide.

A leader doesn't try to keep on changing a nation's goals in space unless that leader is confused and unable or unwilling to lead.

A real leader has a politically bipartisan and doable plan and leads in implementing it. A wise leader doesn't claim BTDT about the Moon when in actuality we have not fully explored nor tapped the diverse and vast resources of our closest and richest NEO. 

Congress wants American leadership in missions to the Moon, to do ISRU, and enable economic development in cisLunar space. Congress has folks that stick around for decades. Congress controls the money. Presidents come and go. The Moon, its resources, and many members of Congress will still be around long after we get a new NASA Administrator.

Congress decides American space policy by funding it. The funded SLS and Orion are the tools that Congress has chosen to implement its space policy.

No mortal knows what tomorrow will bring, but the Orion and SLS combination are affordable and can, with the help of international and Golden Spike Landers, get us permanently 'out of the cradle' and on the Moon, and that realistic plan means something to Congress and many of the leaders of our international space exploration partners.

And you know Jim, it is even the law of the land.

See:

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:
(1) The extension of the human presence from low-Earth
orbit to other regions of space beyond low-Earth orbit will
enable missions to the surface of the Moon and missions to
deep space destinations such as near-Earth asteroids and Mars.
(2) The regions of cis-lunar space are accessible to other
national and commercial launch capabilities, and such access
raises a host of national security concerns and economic
implications that international human space endeavors can
help to address.

From: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Authorization Act of 2010 also known as PUBLIC LAW 111–267—OCT. 11, 2010
At: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/649377main_PL_111-267.pdf.


Edited.

[HappyMartian]

....

If our leaders could get behind a consistent policy that could last through multiple congresses and administrations, we might se an end to that.  Until that happens, no.

"Both agree that human settlement of space is perhaps the overarching long-term goal of human spaceflight, and both see the utilization of resources in space as essential to making such an effort sustainable over the long haul. Greason’s approach is arguably a superset of Spudis’s: both include utilizing lunar resources, although Greason looks beyond to asteroids, the moons of Mars, and Mars as well."

New strategies for exploration and settlement   By Jeff Foust  June 6, 2011
From: http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1860/1


Some folks have a plan to tap the resources of the Moon. That could work out pretty good for "a consistent policy that could last through multiple congresses and administrations".

[CNYMike]

Some folks have a plan to tap the resources of the Moon. That could work out pretty good for "a consistent policy that could last through multiple congresses and administrations".

Except some folks think that's bunk, and we've already lurched from Moon to NOT Moon once already.  We can't keep doing that. 

Until our leaders lead, even in a small way, this could keep happening, and in the end, we'll look like a laughingstock.

[JohnFornaro]

Yep. Ignore his political hot air. The SLS and Orion are funded and being developed. Lots of folks everywhere on Earth should be doing some serious planning about building Lunar Landers...

We humans are going to the Moon. And this time it will be to tap Lunar water and other resources.

I predicted Ares I demise and the same will happen to SLS. It can be added to the MSFC list of shame.  ALS, NLS, SLI, X-33, X-34, HST, US prop module, OSP, DART, Ares I, Ares V, etc

[/sarcasm]

Thank you.  I believe that you might be right again.  However Mike's nit about it being "DC's shame" is spot on.

I'm pretty much aware of your posting history, which has been consistent, even tho I don't necessarily agree with it.

I'm in a big snit about the heist right now, since it will fulfill Mr. Bolden's prophecy.  We are being kept on planet by our government.  And I'm not talking colonization; I'm talking HSF, and scientific bases, whether on the surface of a celestial body or as a ring station.

[sarcasm]