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

[Jim]

  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.

No, you or anybody else are free to go anytime.  The gov't has no obligation to provide for HSF for the masses.  Again, offplanet settlement is not in the interest of terrestrial govt's or majority of their citizens.  The terrestrial colonization of the 1600-1800's is not an applicable analogy.  They were trying to provide resources for the mother countries.  Only "prilgrim" type colonization analogy is applicable and it was done "commercially" without support of a gov't.

[cro-magnon gramps]

  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.

No, you or anybody else are free to go anytime.  The gov't has no obligation to provide for HSF for the masses.  Again, offplanet settlement is not in the interest of terrestrial govt's or majority of their citizens.  The terrestrial colonization of the 1600-1800's is not an applicable analogy.  They were trying to provide resources for the mother countries.  Only "prilgrim" type colonization analogy is applicable and it was done "commercially" without support of a gov't.

agree with everything you said above...

HOWEVER!! You have not answered the question: on what do you base your PROPHECY "I predicted Ares I demise and the same will happen to SLS."

[Avron]

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

Ditto , on prediction and cause.. not a bad list for failure .. keep em funded..

[M_Puckett]

  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.

No, you or anybody else are free to go anytime.  The gov't has no obligation to provide for HSF for the masses.  Again, offplanet settlement is not in the interest of terrestrial govt's or majority of their citizens.  The terrestrial colonization of the 1600-1800's is not an applicable analogy.  They were trying to provide resources for the mother countries.  Only "prilgrim" type colonization analogy is applicable and it was done "commercially" without support of a gov't.

agree with everything you said above...

HOWEVER!! You have not answered the question: on what do you base your PROPHECY "I predicted Ares I demise and the same will happen to SLS."

A program that is ahead of schedule and on budget with strong Bi-Partisan support in Congress that shows no sign of wavering.  Whether one likes it or not, those are the facts on the ground at this time.  Now, What condition is going to get us from there to cancellation Jim?  As far as I can tell, SLS hasn't had a single significant stumble to date.

I hear people talking about it's cancellation as though it were an article of Faith and never see any detailed explanation as to why it will occur or when.

[Jim]

A program that is ahead of schedule and on budget with strong Bi-Partisan support in Congress that shows no sign of wavering. en.

It doesn't have strong Bi-Partisan support, nor does it have a mission.  It is not really ahead of schedule.  It has an overly drawn out timeline that is making it more expensive.

[spectre9]

Dark days for NASA after so much hope in the wake of shuttle's retirement 

Thanks for your honesty here Jim. You've been reluctant to touch on this subject and it's good to hear your opinion.

[HappyMartian]

...

Again, offplanet settlement is not in the interest of terrestrial govt's or majority of their citizens.  The terrestrial colonization of the 1600-1800's is not an applicable analogy.  They were trying to provide resources for the mother countries.  Only "prilgrim" type colonization analogy is applicable and it was done "commercially" without support of a gov't.

Yep. Things can only be done one way and for one reason, right?

I suppose that if we had lots of propellant available on the Moon and some spaceships with some really big nukes there, too, we might have been able to deflect the Unnamed asteroid of 2047 into the middle of the Pacific instead of having it hit Los Angeles. Maybe we could have saved the lives of over 5,000,000 people and ten trillion dollars of infrastructure.

But hey, nobody could have predicted the future, right? I'm glad we all listened to the folks that nixed the Moon ISRU base and saved the government a 100 billion dollars. Lots of folks wouldn't have jobs today and the company I own probably wouldn't have much business either if the government wasn't trying hard to rebuild Los Angeles.

And you know I never buy any insurance for my house either because I paid off the mortgage twenty years ago, live in a good neighborhood, am a careful person, and know I'll never need it. Yep, more people should be wise like me, right?

[Jim]

I suppose that if we had lots of propellant available on the Moon and some spaceships with some really big nukes there, too, we might have been able to deflect the Unnamed asteroid of 2047

False logic and not worthy of this forum.  Having a landing on the moon or having lunar bases does not automatically lead to the capability to deflect an asteroid or "lots of propellant available on the Moon and some spaceships with some really big nukes there"

[HappyMartian]

I suppose that if we had lots of propellant available on the Moon and some spaceships with some really big nukes there, too, we might have been able to deflect the Unnamed asteroid of 2047

False logic and not worthy of this forum.  Having a landing on the moon or having lunar bases does not automatically lead to the capability to deflect an asteroid or "lots of propellant available on the Moon and some spaceships with some really big nukes there"

Right Jim! It is obvious that NASA ignoring everything beyond LEO and following your prescription of the "NGOs can do it" beyond LEO would be far more logical and likely to ensure a robust and deeply layered defense of our home planet.

Yep, and those nukes I saw years ago were owned by some NGO that had nervous young folks running around in blue uniforms carrying M-16s, too. We have always entrusted our nukes to NGOs, haven't we Jim? Because those NGOs can do the best long-term planning and carefully consider all the ramifications that any given NGO endeavor will have on our nation and its future. 

You know Jim, with those NGOs doing all the things that the government might be expected to do, maybe we don't even need any local, state or national governments anymore, right? NGO police officers, firefighters, sailors, aircrews, soldiers, and committee chosen Presidents seem to be doing a pretty good job, right?

Thanks to your political wisdom Jim, we don't even need politicians anymore! What a relief! I'm sure everyone in Washington DC, Moscow, Beijing, London, Paris, Berlin, and Delhi will be impressed with your logic.


Edited.   

[JohnFornaro]

  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.

No, you or anybody else are free to go anytime.  [Today] The gov't has no obligation to provide for HSF for the masses.  ...

One small technical nit.  Today.

Furthermore, there are far more governmental obligations which are not being met:  Freedom from elective war; a sound and honest financial system; a working educational system; and on and on.  Building a lunar base, which is the only topic at hand in my narrative, is and has been a government obligation, since that is what we were promised forty years ago.  They are deliberately not fulfilling that promise; I have outlined some valid reasons for this, but still, there is no coherent explanation from the government as to what exactly it is doing regarding fuirthering this obvious, fundamentally neceesary, and reasonable need. 

In fact, Mr. Bolden has addressed my main recommendation pretty directly; we're simply not going back to the Moon in his lifetime, and he's the boss.  A lunar base is officially off the government table at the moment.  It is the stated policy of the government.  The current ballyhoo about the rock is sound and fury.

Instead we have the forty year history of political largesse, and modest accomplishment in LEO.

One more thing.  Nobody is free to go anytime.  Anybody who builds a Saturn V, complete with lunar lander and so forth, and who fires it up into the air without government approval, will be arrested.

It may be that SpaceX is going about the "free to go any time" methodology in an appropriate fashion; securing government approval at each step in the process.  Time will tell if their approach is correct.

[Warren Platts]

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the American government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian."--Henry Ford

[HappyMartian]

"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the American government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian."--Henry Ford

Yep, and anyone who thinks an NGO can defend our planet should ask why didn't that NGO give a little warning to the good folks of Russia prior to February 15, 2013 to allow some preparations for the Chelyabinsk meteor blast that equaled 440 kilotons of TNT?

If Jim's fabulously efficient NGO or NGOs that can do everything BLEO had notified the Russian government in advance and the Russian government had managed to intercept and deflect the 10,000 tonne asteroid into a neighboring country, would the BLEO NGO or NGOs be partially legally or morally liable for any of the potential deaths and damage in that neighboring country?

Would intercepting and bumping or dumping an explosive object on one of Russia's neighboring countries, a meteoroid that released 20–30 times more energy than what largely destroyed Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, be considered an act of war? Should an NGO's decision help start a war?

Why worry about such things, right? An NGO is going to make any such decision if the object is BLEO, right? Then why worry?
 
Has any NGO made it a clear priority to start building the robust in-depth BLEO NEO defense infrastructure that is needed on both Earth and the Moon? Does that NGO also have relevant experience in building, maintaining, targeting, launching, and in-flight controlling the precise type of missiles required to carry the very powerful nukes that would be exploded in an appropriate location and sequence to effectively defend the Earth against a large NEO?

Why only rely on our government's infrastructure to defend our nation if something is coming at us from LEO but everything above LEO is taboo for our government and must instead be done by a BLEO NGO? That might be a silly idea, right?

The Moon is where propellant can be made and sent to where it is could be best used in maintaining the cislunar and beyond cislunar infrastructure needed to effectively defend our planet. Many telescopes on Earth, the Moon, and in diverse orbits in cislunar and beyond cislunar space would be needed for the earliest possible warning. Time is extremely valuable in planning the most effective response to a rogue NEO that is on an impact course with the Earth.

Retired Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Charles Frank Bolden, Jr. is NASA's Administrator and he should have had extensive training in the logistical needs and requirements of defensive actions.

To preemptively give up the many logistical and other options that the vast resources of the Moon offer for NASA BLEO missions and Earth's NEO defense means that NASA's Administrator is being unduly influenced by the ever wandering and confused mixed message space policy thinking of a President who really isn't interested in the dangers posed by NEOs, the economic development of cislunar space, the stated interest in human missions to the Moon's surface by our current space exploration partners, or in affordable and sustainable missions to the surface of Mars.

Perhaps we should forget the idea of NGOs doing everything BLEO and just pay the Russians to develop the Moon and build the robust in-depth technical infrastructure and political decision making networks needed to deal with unfriendly NEOs and the transport of humans to and from Mars.

Yep, I would trust the Russians to do such needed things in a timely and robust manner far more than I would trust an NGO. America has successfully exported much of our low tech industries all across the world, I guess the brilliant 'talking heads' now figure it is appropriate to also start exporting abroad our future high tech NEO defense industries in cislunar space and on the Moon.

Let's pay the Russians to do what we are unwilling to do. You know, that really isn't a very original idea, is it?

Oh, and did I mention that I once worked for an NGO?


Edited. 

[clongton]

Bolden said:

NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime

He said "probably" and that changes the tone of the statement. He did not say what the thread title attributes to him. The title of this thread is misleading and should be fixed.

[Warren Platts]

Bolden said:

NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime

He said "probably" and that changes the tone of the statement. He did not say what the thread title attributes to him. The title of this thread is misleading and should be fixed.

AGREED!!! 

[ChileVerde]

Bolden said:

NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime

He said "probably" and that changes the tone of the statement. He did not say what the thread title attributes to him. The title of this thread is misleading and should be fixed.

AGREED!!! 

Well, I started the thread under a different title, which was then changed by parties unknown to the present one.  I leave it to those parties to make additional changes if they think them needed.

[ChileVerde]

Bolden said:

NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime

He said "probably" and that changes the tone of the statement. He did not say what the thread title attributes to him. The title of this thread is misleading and should be fixed.

If you look at the original quote, it seems pretty emphatic:

“NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime. And the reason is, we can only do so many things.” Instead, he said the focus would remain on human missions to asteroids and to Mars. “We intend to do that, and we think it can be done.”

“I don’t know how to say it any more plainly,” he concluded. “NASA does not have a human lunar mission in its portfolio and we are not planning for one.” 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.”

[cro-magnon gramps]

Bolden said:

NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime

He said "probably" and that changes the tone of the statement. He did not say what the thread title attributes to him. The title of this thread is misleading and should be fixed.

If you look at the original quote, it seems pretty emphatic:

“NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime. And the reason is, we can only do so many things.” Instead, he said the focus would remain on human missions to asteroids and to Mars. “We intend to do that, and we think it can be done.”

“I don’t know how to say it any more plainly,” he concluded. “NASA does not have a human lunar mission in its portfolio and we are not planning for one.” 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.”

He could not say categorically that NASA would not be on the Moon in his lifetime, because he can't predict the future. But he made it abundantly clear, that given the present parameters he has to deal with, he can not foresee a situation where NASA can or should go to the Moon.

[ChileVerde]

He could not say categorically that NASA would not be on the Moon in his lifetime, because he can't predict the future. But he made it abundantly clear, that given the present parameters he has to deal with, he can not foresee a situation where NASA can or should go to the Moon.

Exactly so. In the context, I think his use of "probably" was simply an acknowledgment that statements about things in the distant future come with a certain amount of uncertainty attached.

[cro-magnon gramps]

He could not say categorically that NASA would not be on the Moon in his lifetime, because he can't predict the future. But he made it abundantly clear, that given the present parameters he has to deal with, he can not foresee a situation where NASA can or should go to the Moon.

Exactly so. In the context, I think his use of "probably" was simply an acknowledgment that statements about things in the distant future come with a certain amount of uncertainty attached.

What I find particularly interesting is Charlies World View. There he sits astride the middle Earth conflict, between the Congress and the White House while at the same time seeing to the distribution of NASA budgets, and management of the various NASA Centers, as directed by that conflict. While all the time, cognizant of the Original Charter to which he is uniquely responsible for. It has to be at one and the same time, a confusing and bewildering kaleidoscope of inputs, while at the same time, a vantage point, like that of a man on a mountain in the Himalayas or Rockies, looking out at the various peaks about him.

[Rocket Science]

He could not say categorically that NASA would not be on the Moon in his lifetime, because he can't predict the future. But he made it abundantly clear, that given the present parameters he has to deal with, he can not foresee a situation where NASA can or should go to the Moon.

Exactly so. In the context, I think his use of "probably" was simply an acknowledgment that statements about things in the distant future come with a certain amount of uncertainty attached.

What I find particularly interesting is Charlies World View. There he sits astride the middle Earth conflict, between the Congress and the White House while at the same time seeing to the distribution of NASA budgets, and management of the various NASA Centers, as directed by that conflict. While all the time, cognizant of the Original Charter to which he is uniquely responsible for. It has to be at one and the same time, a confusing and bewildering kaleidoscope of inputs, while at the same time, a vantage point, like that of a man on a mountain in the Himalayas or Rockies, looking out at the various peaks about him.

Wow, that's pretty deep gramps....