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

[Jim]

So for me I am interested in main points. Such things as:
Concentration of water in lunar regolith as main factor?
Foreseeable market for lunar rocket fuel as main factor?
The gross volume of minable water involved?
The current cost of rocket launch being a factor? Not the proper timing for lunar rocket fuel- now, not good, whereas if NASA were doing Manned Mars it would be a better time, or whatever.

The current foreseeable cost of electrical power on lunar surface. The difficulty of extracting water due to environment.
Or simply from available data, there is low chance lunar water is minable.
Or NASA experts can not come up with viable plan. NASA and others space agency plan to do more robotic exploration before even considering
it. Or whatever. Etc.

Many of those are not for NASA to answer such as what is the market and cost of electrical power.   Nor should NASA come for a plan.  Answering the concentration of water is a good one for NASA.

[mike robel]

YVMV, but for me, the quickest path lay with Delta IV Heavy + Oriion.  It could have been done and the proof lays (perhaps only a little) with the test launch for next summer.  Alternately or perhaps simultaneously, make it a race with SpaceX and fully fund both efforts.

Great mileage there, Mike.

You probably know this, but the DIVH/unmanned Orion is a one shot deal.  They have no intention of using an actual rocket with a known history for a useful purpose such as this.

Even tho they could if they wanted to.

@ John, Yeah.  I know.  DAMMIT.  I hope I still live on Merritt Island next summer to see it fly.

[RigelFive]

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.

There is no question but that NASA has been and is being pulled in several different directions.  It is not at all certain that the "goal is asteroids".  That is a palliative trotted out by Mr. Obama three years ago.  Now, on the third anniversary of not really going anywhere, he's pulling a George Bush, and announcing "mission accomplished".  "Mission accomplished" meaning only that he's set a "goal", and his political appointees have selected a subset of the bureacracy who agree with this "goal".

They are presenting a false budget, and are handwaving away actual pragmatic objections since they are in political favor at the moment.  There's a palpable hope among this particular faction that the Unlimited Budget Scenario will be played out over the next two decades.  Maybe, over the next three administrations (Obama's, the next, and the next -- at least) they will be present and build a technically successful solution.  That would be a fortuitous happening, not at all predicted by the way they are approaching the problem at present.

You think that there is "no money for what would be needed" for a lunar return, and that opinion is, well, "decidedly not correct".

There's plenty of money floating around, but also plenty of NASA directorates and other unrelated presidential imperatives competing for that money.  You disparage a NASA group for your pet project, while hugging your own personal preferences.  Then, you ignore pragmatics and cost.  Good luck with that strategy.

If you take any relatively expensive product (car, yacht, lawn mower), there are life cycle costs that start out low in the beginning and end up to be greater than the original cost it took to buy that thing.  It takes excessive to unlimited amounts of money to maintain these items past their designed life.  That's when you go back to buy a new thing.

Its like NASA continues to return to the used car lot (after the last two cars were totaled).  somehow they find solice looking for a brand new 2013 Indy car for less than the dump they just retired.  They fail in this effort, so the answer must be.... go visit the used car lot in the other part of town.

You know, talking about buying cars is one thing.  Taking about making a new car, something else too. 

It takes someone really special to say, I'm going to go and find the front end of a VW, then shove it into a chassis of a Ford pickup truck and use the tail end of a Porsche.  Then have it designed and passed into law to say that it must be designed this way because Congress wants it that way.

I think Bolden has just realized that he didn't want the "car" for the vacation anyways. Can't blame him.

[HappyMartian]

...there really is no money for what would be needed for a return to the Constellation-type lunar architecture. There never was, actually...

That is decidedly not correct. The "actually passed" Constellation budget would have easily supported ALL the human lunar goals defined in the ESAS, which Constellation was supposed to enable, if NASA had used either Administrator O'Keefe's approach or the DIRECT hardware and architecture instead of the Ares debacle. The truth is that NASA pissed away the opportunity, the budget and a great deal of good will by a misguided attempt to build the biggest, baddest rocket ever flown by man. The budget was - and still is - sufficient provided the program is designed from the onset to fit within it, which Constellation was certainly not. What it takes is leadership - genuine leadership - which NASA has not had since Sean O'Keefe left office.

Yep! Thank you Clongton!

[HappyMartian]

"The towering Space Launch System (SLS) is a 384-foot (117 meters) behemoth intended to launch astronauts beyond low-Earth orbit to deep-space asteroids and Mars."

From: NASA's Mars-Bound Mega Rocket on Track for 2017 Test Launch
By Clara Moskowitz  Apr 16, 2013
At: http://news.yahoo.com/nasas-mars-bound-mega-rocket-track-2017-test-113505306.html



"In effect, to use the now-often quoted phrase from the Obama administration, NASA would 'lead from behind.'"

From: Russia Turns Its Sights to the Moon While NASA Vows to 'Lead from Behind'
By Mark Whittington  Mon, Apr 8, 2013
At: http://news.yahoo.com/russia-turns-sights-moon-while-nasa-vows-lead-203000869.html



"Slated to fly in November 2017, the mission, called Regolith and Environment Science and Oxygen and Lunar Volatile Extraction (RESOLVE), will have a week to accomplish its goals."

From: NASA hopes to make water on the moon  By Irene Klotz
At: http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/15/17763225-nasa-hopes-to-make-water-on-the-moon?lite



Use a Mars rocket to lead from behind to... no one knows where. OK, to a 'captured' asteroid that is brought to a stable high lunar orbit. And then... follow the Russians to the Lunar surface. What a brilliant plan!

Maybe we could put a political spin on it and say, 'NASA has a secret plan to lead a coalition of international space exploration partners to the water rich polar regions of the Moon.' Perhaps that was what General Bolden wanted to say but couldn't because it is a super-duper secret. Maybe even the President doesn't know.

Yep, that could explain the wandering space exploration plans. Meander, dissemble, and twiddle one's thumbs long enough and people might even forget their questions about NASA's space exploration architecture. 

[JohnFornaro]

... It takes someone really special to say, I'm going to go and find the front end of a VW, then shove it into a chassis of a Ford pickup truck and use the tail end of a Porsche.  Then have it designed and passed into law to say that it must be designed this way because Congress wants it that way.

I think Bolden has just realized that he didn't want the "car" for the vacation anyways. Can't blame him.

I'll run with an analogy for a bit.  The VW/Ford/Porsche part of that analogy more closely resembles StratoLaunch.  No doubt such an approach could work given money.  There's a group of special someones who have the pocketbook for that effort.

Shuttle was more like a super well equipped camper on the back of an F-350 flatbed.  NASA tried to build an F-150 from scratch (Ares), and the plug was yanked when it became clear that the costs were outrageous, and the shocks didn't work all that well either.

Congress then decided upon SLS.  Why?  Because the shuttle workforce and the NASA bureaucrats all insisted that the existing "legacy" F-350 flatbed would be reasonably cost effective to modify just enough so as to shoot the biggest camper realistically imaginable into almost anywhere.

Again: Congress did not "design" anything.  In the current case, the President has already "designed" the camper, without even the courtesy of discussing it with the majority of the NASA workers.

As to Mr. Bolden's realizations, IDK.  The President tells him what to say.

[Hop_David]

"The towering Space Launch System (SLS)

SLS, SLS, SLS...

Same oL Sh** around here. Guess some things never change.

Use a Mars rocket to lead from behind to... no one knows where. OK, to a 'captured' asteroid that is brought to a stable high lunar orbit. And then... follow the Russians to the Lunar surface. What a brilliant plan!

To 100 tonnes of water in high lunar orbit.

Until we have an extra terrestrial propellant source, there's not much incentive for propellant depots or orbital ferries. And without depots and ferries, there's little reason to invest in mining lunar ice.

100 tonnes of water in high lunar orbit could be what breaks this Catch 22.

So no, a justification for SLS isn't the only reason to return an asteroid.

For years I've been arguing we should develop the lunar poles. Personally I regard PR and DSI as possible enablers of lunar development, not competition. I am pleased that NASA is expressing an interest in the Keck proposal.

[JohnFornaro]

Until we have an extra terrestrial propellant source, there's not much incentive for propellant depots or orbital ferries. And without depots and ferries, there's little reason to invest in mining lunar ice.

Well, you certainly could go for the ice that's ten years away, and not go for the ice that three or four days away.

Assuming that the *cough* TRL *cough* of the zero gee water electrolysis plant is already at six or so...  and the funding uncertainty won't happen ... yada yada ...

No question that a hundred tons of water would be sufficient for a properly scaled in-space demonstration of propellant manufacture.

Over the ten to twenty years while this first hundred ton demonstration is instantiated, we will learn a lot more about the characterization of the one hundred million some odd candidate asteroids.   We might even find larger candidates while the seven meter rock is being slowly pushed to a Lagrange point.  None of that larger retrieval hardware will be designed or built at all, until after successful demonstration of the one hundred ton prop manufacture mission.

And since there is the stated need for NASA to only build one-off missions, there will not be any re-usable components to this extra terrestrial propellant source infrastructure.

Everybody can talk about one hundred tons of what is now water would be a good thing.  Very little talk about how 'x' tons of water at an L-point every five, ten, fifteen years or so, will lead to much human exploration beyond the cis-lunar arena.

Go ahead, ask me anything.

[Hop_David]

Until we have an extra terrestrial propellant source, there's not much incentive for propellant depots or orbital ferries. And without depots and ferries, there's little reason to invest in mining lunar ice.

Well, you certainly could go for the ice that's ten years away, and not go for the ice that three or four days away.

Once the rock is at EML2, it will be 8 days and 3.5 km/s from LEO.

The lunar surface is about 6 km/s from LEO. Sorry to break the news, but don't hold your breath waiting for landers that'll get humans to the moon's surface.

Assuming that the *cough* TRL *cough* of the zero gee water electrolysis plant is already at six or so...  and the funding uncertainty won't happen ... yada yada ...

Eyup. And the TRL for mining ice at 40 degrees kelvin is better?

Over the ten to twenty years while this first hundred ton demonstration is instantiated, we will learn a lot more about the characterization of the one hundred million some odd candidate asteroids.

Such characterization wouldn't commence with the retrieval of an asteroid. It would start much sooner with the launch of the Arkyd probes. And it would continue during and after retrieval.

We might even find larger candidates while the seven meter rock is being slowly pushed to a Lagrange point.  None of that larger retrieval hardware will be designed or built at all, until after successful demonstration of the one hundred ton prop manufacture mission.

A large part of the first vehicle's price will be design costs. The second, third, and fourth retrieval vehicles would be cheaper. NASA has said it hopes to work with PR as well as DSI. Why would PR sit on its hands all that time?

And since there is the stated need for NASA to only build one-off missions,

Cite?

Planetary Resources has said they would reduce cost via mass production. A major reason why the Arkyds are expected to cost a small fraction of earlier orbital scopes and why the third generation Arkyds will cost a tiny fraction of the Dawn or Near missions.

there will not be any re-usable components to this extra terrestrial propellant source infrastructure.

Your imaginary NASA prohibition of reuse is easily debunked. See the reuse of the Themis hardware to study the moon in the Artemis mission.

And if there were such a policy, then it would prohibit reusable lunar lander/ascent vehicles. As well as reusable ACES tankers. If this silly argument were true, Spudis like architectures as well as asteroid schemes would be futile. I sure hope this is a figment of your imagination.

Everybody can talk about one hundred tons of what is now water would be a good thing.  Very little talk about how 'x' tons of water at an L-point every five, ten, fifteen years or so, will lead to much human exploration beyond the cis-lunar arena.

X tonnes of water could have plenty of uses.

While the asteroid retrieval vehicles would use ion engines, they could use chemical to avoid the long slow spiral from LEO to C3=0. The water from the first retrieval would make subsequent retrievals easier.

The water could also be used for tugs that would ferry sats from LEO to GEO, you know the stuff they want to use lunar ice for.

As for leading to human exploration? PR's goal is profitably mine extra-terrestrial resources, not send humans to Mars or elsewhere.

However profitable space exploitation is a prerequisite for human activity beyond flags and footprints publicity stunts. If you like, you can wait  for far-sighted governments to build space infrastructure needed for human settlement. Wake me up when you get a bite.

[davey142]

I have 3 opinions on this.
1 side of me says "No you fool, don't you realize without establishing a foothold on the moon, this program will end just like Apollo did."
The second side says "Maybe going to the moon would sidetrack us from our ultimate goal of reaching Mars." 
Finally, the more patriotic side of me says "I don't care as long as an AMERICAN is the FIRST to an asteroid and on Mars!"

[JohnFornaro]

Off topic response here.

[RigelFive]

Bolden had an interesting PR yesterday.  This confirms my thinking that NASA can accept risks with robotic / autonomous flight systems.  NASA is kind of saying "failure is now an option".  NASA cannot accept risks on new flight systems when jobs/lives are at stake:

http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=43870

The only way a manned moon mission (single visit or moon base) will happen is if there is an acceptable level of risk of human life.  Probability of that occurring in our lifetime is zero.

[clongton]

Bolden had an interesting PR yesterday.  This confirms my thinking that NASA can accept risks with robotic / autonomous flight systems.  NASA is kind of saying "failure is now an option".  NASA cannot accept risks on new flight systems when jobs/lives are at stake:

http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=43870

The only way a manned moon mission (single visit or moon base) will happen is if there is an acceptable level of risk of human life.  Probability of that occurring in our lifetime is zero.

The risk-averse attitudes of today v.s. what they were back in the day are truly stunning! If today's attitudes prevailed back then Mercury, Gemini and Apollo would never have existed.

[KelvinZero]

Bolden had an interesting PR yesterday.  This confirms my thinking that NASA can accept risks with robotic / autonomous flight systems.  NASA is kind of saying "failure is now an option".  NASA cannot accept risks on new flight systems when jobs/lives are at stake:

http://spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=43870

The only way a manned moon mission (single visit or moon base) will happen is if there is an acceptable level of risk of human life.  Probability of that occurring in our lifetime is zero.

The risk-averse attitudes of today v.s. what they were back in the day are truly stunning! If today's attitudes prevailed back then Mercury, Gemini and Apollo would never have existed.

But today there is pretty much no need for a test pilot. I think HSF is still trapped by politics to risking human life unnecessarily by often insisting on humans on the first or second flight of a thing. This has to greatly increase the cost also, as well as the risk that the whole thing gets shelved after an unnecessary tragedy.

Nowadays most of us are not interested in flags and footprints but want long term stays, repeat visits and infrastructure. I think it is totally plausible to come up with an architecture that tests out pretty much everything just landing unmanned infrastructure several times before sending people, and then allows for long stays actually at the destination instead of shuttling them back and forth.

[Archibald]

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.

[sdsds]

But today there is pretty much no need for a test pilot. I think HSF is still trapped by politics to risking human life unnecessarily by often insisting on humans on the first or second flight of a thing. This has to greatly increase the cost also, as well as the risk that the whole thing gets shelved after an unnecessary tragedy.

Nowadays most of us are not interested in flags and footprints but want long term stays, repeat visits and infrastructure. I think it is totally plausible to come up with an architecture that tests out pretty much everything just landing unmanned infrastructure several times before sending people, and then allows for long stays actually at the destination instead of shuttling them back and forth.

This is constructive and deserves consideration.

Let me ask, how much influence inside NASA do you think the corps of flown astronauts wield? I think the answer is, "A lot." The approach you outline might have a chance if they were supportive of it!

[JohnFornaro]

X tonnes of water could have plenty of uses.

As a general reminder, that's "x" tons of water at an L-point of one's choosing. 

I'm saying that "x" is "planned" to be 100 tons of water, as per the Keck mission conjecture.  What "x" were you thinking of?

[KelvinZero]

Hi guys,
I have made a Captured Asteroid Vs Boeing Robust lunar architecture thread here:
http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=31701.0

(fixed spelling)

[JohnFornaro]

That's not a bad idea at all. 

[JohnFornaro]

"Bowing"?  Doncha mean "Boing"?   I mean Boeing?