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

[Proponent]

It seems to me that Bolden is just stating the obvious:  however much a few space-state congresspeople might wish it weren't so, there's no prospect they can swing the money needed for a lunar mission or an L2 station while also paying for SLS.  Since SLS represents jobs and funds in their states and districts right now, they quite naturally favor SLS when forced to choose. 

(The description of Orion as a deep-space capsule doesn't bother me, by the way, as I don't think it implies that a hab wouldn't be needed, only that Orion might be used on a deep-space mission.  That's my two cents' worth, anyway.)

[Jim]

Parenthetically, I'm slightly distressed that the senior official seems to think that Orion is a "deep-space capsule", which it mostly isn't.  It's going to be tough to get to Mars without a proven DSH.

It is a "deep-space capsule".  It is made for high speed entry.  There is nothing in that statement that means it goes solo for long durations.  Orion is always paired with a "mission module" whether it is an LSAM, DSH, MTV, etc for such missions.

[ChileVerde]

(The description of Orion as a deep-space capsule doesn't bother me, by the way, as I don't think it implies that a hab wouldn't be needed, only that Orion might be used on a deep-space mission.  That's my two cents' worth, anyway.)

But how many people reading the description know that? For that matter, how many members of the relevant Congressional committees do?  Especially as there seems to be an inclination to conflate "deep space" with "cislunar."

Edit: Dan Dumbacher expressed the situation very concisely in his interview a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.americaspace.com/?p=33312

Dumbacher: “Some of the destinations that we are looking at between here and Mars are, obviously, the Moon, the area around the Moon, and of course some asteroids. This will serve to get us ready to go to Mars and its moons. Now, the one thing that we want to make sure that everybody understands is that there is a fundamental capability that we need to have to get to any of those destinations. We need to get crew beyond Earth orbit, and we need to get crew home from beyond-Earth orbit—and that’s the role of Orion. Orion gives us about a 21-day capability; now that is obviously a short time, but what is missing in that is that we will eventually have to develop what we call the habitat module, or ‘the habitat.’ The astronauts would stay in this for the longer-duration missions, and Orion would be attached to the habitat. It would remain ‘quiet’ (essentially powered-down) once we got the astronauts to the habitat, and it would be reactivated once we needed to get the astronauts back home.”

[JohnFornaro]

I have told every head of agency of every partner agency that if you assume the lead in a human lunar mission, NASA will be a part of that. NASA wants to be a participant.

NASA will no longer even lead from behind.  I believe the term is "also ran".

[JohnFornaro]

Congress doesn't want to go to the moon, it just wants to fund NASA and those congressional districts.

Can't argue with that.

It is certainly true that GS is not a government agency; neither are ATK, LockMart, and so forth.  All of these companies can feed at the government trough if they are well connected.  As a current example, PRI seems to be playing its political cards along the misguided lines of the Administration's dictates, and may end up making a few bucks for its founders.  They won't be going anywhere though.

A lot of vocal people on this forum say that if Luna could be an interim goal, then, mankind can never, by dint of some unspecified logic, never go to Mars.

[Mark S]

So Administrator Bolden thinks that his feckless plan to eviscerate NASA HSF is so obviously and incontrovertibly sane, and has had such great success, that no subsequent NASA administrator should dare touch it? And that any future administrator that actually planned to, oh I don't know, go somewhere and do something, would be making a huge mistake?

What an embarrassment he is, and what a huge huge missed opportunity for America. The Obama years will be remembered as NASA's "lost decade": the decade when our amazing Space Shuttle fleet was dismantled and handed out to museums as political favors; when the follow-on Constellation program was cancelled, instead of restructured and corrected, with no replacement planned; when the Administration fought tooth and nail against Congress's attempts to save NASA; when the Senate's desperation led to the NASA Authorization Act of 2010, SLS, and MPCV; when the Administration dragged its feet and slow-rolled every possible aspect of said SLS and MPCV development; and when the Administration refused to set any kind of goals for NASA that were seen as compelling, challenging, and relevant to practically anyone.

What a mess. I hope that Administrator Bolden is not expecting to be remembered favorably by history, because it's not looking likely at this point.

Mark S.

[Jim]

It is certainly true that GS is not a government agency; neither are ATK, LockMart, and so forth.  All of these companies can feed at the government trough if they are well connected. 

Those contractors are funded through NASA to meet NASA (USG) requirements.  ATK, LockMart, and so forth don't get funded via other means  for USG civilian space projects. GS isn't going to get funded unless NASA has requirement for it.  So if NASA (which means the US Govt) isn't going to the moon, there is no need for GS to funded by it.

To sum it up, all funding for USG civilian space projects* go through NASA. 


* except for weathersats, which is NOAA, but NASA still ends up procuring the spacecraft.

[JohnFornaro]

... The Obama years will be remembered as NASA's "lost decade": the decade when our amazing Space Shuttle fleet was dismantled and handed out to museums as political favors; when the follow-on Constellation program was cancelled, instead of restructured and corrected, with no replacement planned; when the Administration fought tooth and nail against Congress...

I think that Mr. Obama is planning to rest his legacy on other things, which I suppose he believes will outweigh this probable legacy that you sketch out.

[JohnFornaro]

It is certainly true that GS is not a government agency; neither are ATK, LockMart, and so forth.  All of these companies can feed at the government trough if they are well connected. 

Those contractors are funded through NASA to meet NASA (USG) requirements.  ATK, LockMart, and so forth don't get funded via other means  for USG civilian space projects. GS isn't going to get funded unless NASA has requirement for it.  So if NASA (which means the US Govt) isn't going to the moon, there is no need for GS to funded by it.

To sum it up, all funding for USG civilian space projects* go through NASA. 

Yeah, I know.  And which I didn't dispute in my comment.

[muomega0]

Very interesting posts.....

Parenthetically, I'm slightly distressed that the senior official seems to think that Orion is a "deep-space capsule", which it mostly isn't.  It's going to be tough to get to Mars without a proven DSH.

 {  and demonstration that the crew can stay in deep space for the appropriate length of time  prior to the trip... }

It is a "deep-space capsule".  It is made for high speed entry.  There is nothing in that statement that means it goes solo for long durations.  Orion is always paired with a "mission module" whether it is an LSAM, DSH, MTV, etc for such missions.

These two posts say a mouthful with a simple addition.

------

What is really needed (L2 Gateway) is finally acknowledged partially by NASA!   and it can be used for possible moon missions.   (think of it as certifying the DSH and the crew prior to its trip to Mars..a step missing in the Tito proposal....should be an exiting 2030s for NASA  )

(The description of Orion as a deep-space capsule doesn't bother me, by the way, as I don't think it implies that a hab wouldn't be needed, only that Orion might be used on a deep-space mission.  That's my two cents' worth, anyway.)

But how many people reading the description know that? For that matter, how many members of the relevant Congressional committees do?  Especially as there seems to be an inclination to conflate "deep space" with "cislunar."

Edit: Dan Dumbacher expressed the situation very concisely in his interview a couple of weeks ago:

http://www.americaspace.com/?p=33312

Dumbacher: “Some of the destinations that we are looking at between here and Mars are, obviously, the Moon, the area around the Moon, and of course some asteroids. This will serve to get us ready to go to Mars and its moons. Now, the one thing that we want to make sure that everybody understands is that there is a fundamental capability that we need to have to get to any of those destinations. We need to get crew beyond Earth orbit, and we need to get crew home from beyond-Earth orbit—and that’s the role of Orion. Orion gives us about a 21-day capability; now that is obviously a short time, but what is missing in that is that we will eventually have to develop what we call the habitat module, or ‘the habitat.’ The astronauts would stay in this for the longer-duration missions, and Orion would be attached to the habitat. It would remain ‘quiet’ (essentially powered-down) once we got the astronauts to the habitat, and it would be reactivated once we needed to get the astronauts back home.”

Hence the wisdom of a L2 Gateway as a critical long term science goal, and not extending the lifetime of Orion for a 3 day trip, or certify it for 2 years for Mars.  Not going to the moon initially...which has nothing to do with Mars.

Now is the message getting out?

Congress doesn't want to go to the moon, it just wants to fund NASA and those congressional districts.

Can't argue with that.

A lot of vocal people on this forum say that if Luna could be an interim goal, then, mankind can never, by dint of some unspecified logic, never go to Mars.

Is the the logic of a certifying the vehicle and crew in the proper environment with as little energy expended (less cost) to demonstrate long term (1 yr+) stays still unspecified?

... The Obama years will be remembered as NASA's "lost decade": the decade when our amazing Space Shuttle fleet was dismantled and handed out to museums as political favors; when the follow-on Constellation program was cancelled, instead of restructured and corrected, with no replacement planned; when the Administration fought tooth and nail against Congress...

I think that Mr. Obama is planning to rest his legacy on other things, which I suppose he believes will outweigh this probable legacy that you sketch out.

the numbers state that smaller LVs and a gateway and missions beyond the moon are a very beneficial correction in course.

A lost decade...sigh..... SSME to RS68 to SSME, J2X back to RL-10s, 4 segment to 5 segment to composite 5 segment to liquids, a 20,000 lb LAS, a 3 day trip capsule being extended to 21 days to 2 years...Mars architectures that forgot to include mass for GCR....no depots in the architecture and only refueling stages are being considered......Here is a summary of the  HLV only architecture

No moon because no money and skips the first logical step of a gateway.  Show stopper.

To infinity and beyond...or was infinity the time scale with HLV and the Constellation/SLS architecture?

[WindnWar]

I think the point Bolden was trying to make is that, congress needs to provide consistent funding for a goal, rather than changing the goal and funding every time there is an administration change be it the Whitehouse, or congress. If you are going to change plans, then change it and stick to it. All of these projects will typically take more than the time that one administration is in power, but without consistent goals and funding, you will just continue the cycle of paying for busy work with no results, which space state congress folk are fine with as it keeps the pork flowing to the people that will vote for them, but it doesn't make for a great business plan.

Given his position he can't really say if he hates the current plan, but you can be sure he is probably tired of the constant funding changes, all while trying to get somewhere with it. This is probably his way of showing his frustration. To a large extent, his hands are tied, because he can't control what will or will not be funded, or for how long.

However I think it's pretty unrealistic to see any of it changing anytime soon....

This is all my opinion of course.

[JohnFornaro]

Very interesting posts.....

Congress doesn't want to go to the moon, it just wants to fund NASA and those congressional districts.

Can't argue with that.

A lot of vocal people on this forum say that if Luna could be an interim goal, then, mankind can never, by dint of some unspecified logic, never go to Mars.

Is the the logic of a certifying the vehicle and crew in the proper environment with as little energy expended (less cost) to demonstrate long term (1 yr+) stays still unspecified?

Not quite sure I understand your question there, Mu.

For example, they are planning on using some Block variant of SLS to do a manned lunar flyby, Apollo 8 redux.  My inspirational cynic acknowledges that this is better than the apex of Ares, an unmanned Mercury redux.

I would ask them to consider upping the ante a bit for this mission.  Send SLS and the capsule to a lunar orbit, but stretch out the whole trip to the expected 21 day limit of the capsule.  They could spend a week doing a comprehensive polar site exploration.  Properly equipped with photography and spectroscopy, this mission might suffice as a prospecting mission which would inform as to which of the PSR craters might be the best one for ISRU prop manufacture.

That would certainly certify the crew and capsule with no new hardware.

Again, not sure what you're getting at.

[aquanaut99]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-wont-lead-manned-moon-landings-nasa-chief-191835839.html

'Nuff said.

[HappyMartian]

http://news.yahoo.com/us-wont-lead-manned-moon-landings-nasa-chief-191835839.html

'Nuff said.

According to the article, "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," Bolden said."

Who is the "We"? Where is the money and political support going to come from? International missions to the polar regions of the Moon would be a lot more doable, cheaper, and have lower risk.

Yep, "'Nuff said".

[sdsds]

And then:

Bolden also warned that if the next presidential administration chooses to make another major course change in NASA's human spaceflight program, such a change would mean "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."

"The path is not flexible," he might have said. I guess he's just not a believer....

[GalacticIntruder]

You get this random and nonsensical crap when no one in Congress and especially POTUS cares about space. It is budget time but their record speaks for itself.

I love how Bolden warned the next Pres not alter this current President's non mission/goals/destinations or we will never get to any non mission/goals/destinations!

[MikeSalsgiver]

It breaks my heart that my first post (yes, I'm mostly a "lurker") is criticism.

Administrator Bolden -- a man I have met and respect -- has unfortunately become the voice for the abdication of American leadership in human spaceflight. He represents an agency being directed by an administration with no vision, no sense of what true global leadership means, and with no perceptible sense of direction.

I am sickened by Bolden's statement. I can only hope Congress leads where Obama will not.

[Robotbeat]

American media (and everyone here) is /ONLY/ grabbing on to a single side of the story: the fact that NASA isn't going to the Moon (newsflash: the average joe didn't think NASA was, either).

The other side is that NASA is being focused on asteroids and later Mars as the next steps. NASA, I'm sure, is full of Moon-huggers just as this forum is, and it isn't exactly productive to have NASA pulled in two directions. The goal is asteroids by the 2020s (2021 for the first mission, just 8 years away) then the Mars system by the 2030s.

And Bolden is probably right. Given how devoted to SLS/Orion that Congress is (whose support is necessary), given the fact that the deficit-hawks have basically won the rhetorical argument and NASA will NOT see a significant increase for the foreseeable future, there really is no money for what would be needed for a return to the Constellation-type lunar architecture. There never was, actually... Congress and the previous administration never gave enough funding to actually execute Constellation and fully develop things like Altair (which would be VERY expensive) necessary to actually land on the Moon. So, we're stuck with whatever else we can do without significant payload development (like Altair) at least until ISS is gone. An asteroid mission as described fits the bill.

Also, there's really not any public support for a Moon mission. You /might/ be able to make an argument for some public support for an asteroid mission, if you can make it sound like it helps asteroid defense (which it would, though not directly). Because it really is a threat to the public. We had some public support for a Moon mission during Apollo because the leaders and public saw Soviet dominance of space as a threat, and saw a lunar mission as something the US could definitely beat the Russians on, cementing the US's position as technologically superior (in PR terms, at least).

[fregate]

Current NASA Administrator is 66 years old (born August 19, 1946).
Average male life expectancy in USA is 80.5 years.
Personally I wish Charles Bolden to be in good health till his 100+ birthday,
but according to his statement NASA could return to the Moon surface in year 2028. 

[Ben the Space Brit]

I agree with one key aspect of Administrator Bolden's testimony: NASA lacks the institutional flexibility to be able to change direction every few years.  Simply put, if they're told to start again yet again, the lost momentum will possibly prevent NASA from achieving anything, even as limited as the current EM-2.  That's why, although I'm an SLS-sceptic, am opposed to another change of direction - it just simply is not executable in a reasonable time-scale.

If there is to be another Moon landing before around 2030, it will have to be as part of the current program, not as an alternative program.