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

[Jim]

I'd rather see NASA "concentrate" on achieving more "flexibity" and capability than on simply "going" somewhere specific.

Bingo. 
The FTD's were a good starting place before SLS got in the way.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21677.0

[CNYMike]

The Congress and politicians will not take it seriously unless NASA is serious.
NASA developing a low cost fuel depots and low cost lunar exploration would be something serious ....

And how is NASA supposed to do it on its own without the politicians approving of it and paying for it?  It can't.  Which brings us back to the politicians. 

NASA like any other government agency or department which all need politicians approving their budgets ....

Exactly my point, which comes back to the question: How is NASA supposed to do something without politicians approving it?

[RanulfC]

Congress "felt" that ANYTHING Obama does/did is "wrong" and therefore needs to be opposed and changed.

I don't think it's an issue of right or wrong, but rather the uncertainty of new direction Obama was taking.

No pretty much just plain old "opposition" no matter what.

The reason we have the SLS is because Congress wanted work done on a "shuttle replacement" that they have been putting off for decades prior to "suddenly" deciding that keeping people working in their home states might actually be important.

The reason SLS is sometimes called the Senate Launch System is because Senate said they were uncertain of the direction of human spaceflight.
And for Senate human spaceflight equates a large rocket.

Well a large program at any rate When "experts" inform certain members that a "130-ton" rocket is "guaranteed" to require SRBs which is what those members wanted to hear...

Of course the Congress gets involved- it's their constitutional duty.
And the pork is like any entitlement- they feel entitled to it.

If only that were the actual case... When their "involvment" is to the point where they decide which project does and does not get funding without consultation or input from anyone at NASA on the subject then that is NOT a duty but an abuse.

... And in the majority of cases we're talking about these same people are the ones who scream the loudest that "entitlments" should be done away with

Right, but Obama wasn't making it easier- instead he was continuation of of the poor examples of idiocy.

Point being they actually did NOTHING about the policy they supposedly were not agreeing too. They in fact INCLUDED the same goals in their policy. In plain terms they do NOT disagree with what Obama said.

That's why it's boring, when Bolden talking about the need not to change things.

Boldens' point, and it IS a valid point is that when NASA is "directed" to change focus it inevitably leads to major work stoppages and priority adjustments that lead to delays and cost overruns.

Bolden is saying simply that allowing NASA to continue to "run" the current projects instead of trying to make a major policy shift will be better in the long run. And he's right. Nothing that's being worked on now will PRECLUDE a soft change to include Lunar operations. Making such a change "hard" policy will.

The Congress and politicians will not take it seriously unless NASA is serious.
NASA developing a low cost fuel depots and low cost lunar exploration would be something serious. The Altair lunar lander is not serious.

NASA is serious, however the politicians are not and simply have no reason to start being serious. Currently any discussion of "fuel-depots" is immediatly opposed as being a danger to SLS. So no one is "seriously" going to bring up the idea of fuel-depots. "Low-cost" Lunar exploration is also not a "serious" consideration in Washington. The government has never given a high priority to "cost" in a government program. And despite rhetoric to the contrary, no one is doing anything to oppose the current direction of NASA which does not include at this time the Moon.

Politicians in general and Congress specifically does NOT take Human Space Flight seriously at all and has no reason to do so. People in space is a "side-line" that occasionally brings good press but more often than not is something they avoid dealing with. It is not important to them and never really has been. Unless and until it IS seen as "important" it will remain limited.

Randy

[RanulfC]

The Congress and politicians will not take it seriously unless NASA is serious.
NASA developing a low cost fuel depots and low cost lunar exploration would be something serious ....

And how is NASA supposed to do it on its own without the politicians approving of it and paying for it?  It can't.  Which brings us back to the politicians. 

NASA like any other government agency or department which all need politicians approving their budgets. The difference is most of government has had significant increases in their budgets.
And NASA probably has more public support than any other part of government except perhaps the military.
The US military space budget is more than NASA's.
Public opinion:
"Overall there has been consistently good news for NASA and the cause of human space exploration. The public has always, insofar as data exists, accordedNASA a quite favorable rating. This is unusual for most federal agencies, as the low opinion held by the public for such organizations as the Internal Revenue Service,the Environmental Protection Agency, and Health and Human Services attest.For example, while Americans may not know muchabout the space program, they have a largely favorably opinion of it—over 70 percent say they have a favorableimpression, compared to less than 20 percent that holdan unfavorable impression. And this tracks over the entire life of this particular question, from 1978 to 1999"
http://www.academia.edu/179045/_Public_Opinion_Polls_and_Perceptions_of_US_Human_Spaceflight_
>snip<
So, NASA has loads of support by who matter, the American public, and though it certainly could get much more money than it gets [if it had more than two brain cells to rub together] it's not a small budget.

You stated the "facts" but missed the reality. Your still missing the point that NASA my have broad "public" support but that does NOT equate to that support being from those who "matter" nor does that support equate into deep support.

The general US citizen does have respect for and admiration for the job NASA does. That does not mean the support increasing its budget and in fact when asked they consider that idea to be very low on their list of places where budget increases are needed. "Those-who-matter" (politicians) are well aware of this and so are not concerned with what NASA actually DOES as much as they are looking to ensure that whatever NASA does accords their interests the most.

Since the majority of US citizens do not have any idea what NASAs budget actually is, (surveys show the majority assume it is MUCH higher than it actually is) when asked they respond that the NASA budget should be kept where it is or possibly reduced. Again politicians are well aware of this and take advantage of it.

It should noted the candidate Obama wanted to cut NASA- but then he later found out that was a stupid idea.

Actually what he found out was not that the idea was "stupid" but that like the majority of Americans his idea of what NASAs budget was and what it really was where far different. Which is why he has constantly proposed increasing NASAs budget since. A measure that Congress has consistantly turned down.

Which brings everything right back around to the issue you keep trying to avoid by laying the "blame" on NASA, the President, anyone but the people who are actually "responsible" for the current state of affairs...

NASA can only do what it is funded and authorized to do. There appears to be no interest in Congress to have NASA go back to the Moon or frankly actually operate on any level beyond LEO. Faced with that reality, how do you propose to generate any serious "interest" in the "people-who-matter" in expanded or extended Manned Space Flight?

Randy

[RanulfC]

I'd rather see NASA "concentrate" on achieving more "flexibity" and capability than on simply "going" somewhere specific.

Bingo. 
The FTD's were a good starting place before SLS got in the way.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=21677.0

True. Those ARE still open and available though? I've been kinda hopeful of "some" progress despite the sequester...

Randy

[HappyMartian]

....

A lunar base with hotel rooms would be a disruptive technology, and it would lead inexorably to Mars.

Amen!