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

[HappyMartian]

Your assertion that NASA is  "America's legally designated national BLEO human and robotic spaceflight agency" is irrelevant. There is no legal constraint on private companies or individuals landing on the Moon. If Golden Spike or some other company can raise enough capital and get customers (not very likely, I admit), then they can go to the Moon.

Despite your comments denigrating private space efforts, I think if you want to see humans on the Moon in a sustainable fashion, then an economic reason for them to be there will have to be found.

Economic Reasons include:

1. ISRU propellant production on the polar Lunar surface, then transport it to low Lunar orbit, high Lunar orbit, and LEO.

2. Lunar tourism, research, and resource exploitation than is enabled by Lunar ISRU propellant production.

I respect and like the folks at Golden Spike. However, a LEO space transportation monopoly or oligopoly isn't really interested in competition or lowering costs. I am not "denigrating private space efforts", I am simply noting that many folks are not overly impressed with the USA's government largely financing the creation of LEO human space transportation monopolies or oligopolies that are being passed off as "private space efforts" while we also get told that such heavily subsidized companies will replace NASA's Lunar and eventually Martian exploration efforts.


Note:


"The heavy lift launchers and crew vehicles necessary to journey beyond LEO cannot, in anything like the near future, be provided by any entity other than NASA, on behalf of the U.S. government. The analogy I have used elsewhere is that NASA will build the “interstate highway” that will allow us to return to the Moon, and to go to Mars."

And, "We as a nation once had the systems to build this “interstate highway” leading out into the solar system, we should have retained and evolved them, but we did not. So we need to rebuild them. But the “highways” themselves are not, and are not supposed to be, the interesting part. What is interesting are the destinations and, particularly to the point of the present discussion, the service stations, hotels, and other businesses and accommodations that we will find at the “exit ramps” of our future “interstate highways” in space. It is here that a robust commercial market can develop to support our exploration goals, and eventually to go beyond them."

From: NASA and the Business of Space  By Michael D. Griffin  NASA Administrator November 15, 2005 American Astronautical Society 52nd Annual Conference   
At: http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/138033main_griffin_aas1.pdf



The Moon is a useful, affordable, and sustainable BLEO ISRU and exploration destination. Our current and future international space exploration partners and various businesses want to see people and robots on the Moon. We are building the SLS Moon rocket and Lunar mission capable Orion spacecraft. The only thing we need is a Lander, and if our current and future space exploration partners build the Lander the polar regions of the Moon will become an accessible destination for regular international spaceflights.


Edited.

[JohnFornaro]

Clear to *us*. Not clear to the mundanes sheople.

Fixed that for ya.

[JohnFornaro]

Your quotes are from Hap, not John ...

Thanks for pointing that out. Apologies to John. Edited.

Snif.  Apology accepted.  Snif.

[Warren Platts]

[smirk]There is no legal constraint on private companies or individuals landing on the Moon. If Golden Spike or some other company can raise enough capital and get customers (not very likely, I admit), then they can go to the Moon...[/smirk] [ ]

Why is it that Mars huggers never make the same argument when it comes to Mars?

[douglas100]

[smirk]There is no legal constraint on private companies or individuals landing on the Moon. If Golden Spike or some other company can raise enough capital and get customers (not very likely, I admit), then they can go to the Moon...[/smirk] [ ]

Why is it that Mars huggers never make the same argument when it comes to Mars?

Don't know, Warren. You'll have to ask them. 

[Lar]

Clear to *us*. Not clear to the mundanes sheople.

Fixed that for ya.

I like mundanes, it's a nice SF/Gaming word from back in the day. And I thought it was sheeple not sheople (sheople sounds like Sheol...)

Anyway, this thread seems to be spinning around the same themes as usual. Hap is serenading us with walls of text... Different people are pointing out that there needs to be some economic incentive for private industry to get involved and that we have a chicken/egg problem. Jim pointing out that there is no mandate for NASA to do anything, that there is no economic value at all in the moon or mars, etc.

Just another day at NSF ...

I can't decide if I am a moon hugger or a mars hugger. Is there a quiz I can take to tell for sure?

[douglas100]

...Anyway, this thread seems to be spinning around the same themes as usual. Hap is serenading us with walls of text... Different people are pointing out that there needs to be some economic incentive for private industry to get involved and that we have a chicken/egg problem. Jim pointing out that there is no mandate for NASA to do anything, that there is no economic value at all in the moon or mars, etc.

Just another day at NSF ...

I can't decide if I am a moon hugger or a mars hugger. Is there a quiz I can take to tell for sure?

Yeah, we are repeating ourselves, aren't we?  For myself, I think I'll give it a rest. I was getting close to being drawn into an argument about SLS and I don't want to go there.

I think your comment is a fair summary of the thread so far.

[Warren Platts]

I can't decide if I am a moon hugger or a mars hugger. Is there a quiz I can take to tell for sure?

It's possible to be both. They aren't mutually exclusive.

[JohnFornaro]

Clear to *us*. Not clear to the mundanes sheople.

Fixed that for ya.

I like mundanes, it's a nice SF/Gaming word from back in the day. And I thought it was sheeple not sheople (sheople sounds like Sheol...)

Anyway, this thread seems to be spinning around the same themes as usual. Hap is serenading us with walls of text... Different people are pointing out that there needs to be some economic incentive for private industry to get involved and that we have a chicken/egg problem. Jim pointing out that there is no mandate for NASA to do anything, that there is no economic value at all in the moon or mars, etc.

Just another day at NSF ...

I can't decide if I am a moon hugger or a mars hugger. Is there a quiz I can take to tell for sure?

The spelling I prefer is sheople, from the latin or whatever, people.

Actually, I also like the term "the mundanes".  Just being funny.  Like with Lori Garver on that other thread.  Unfortunately, partisans are in deadly earnest when supporting their own agendas, while mocking other viewpoints.

But on the serious side:  You're right about the same old themes going around in circles.

Obviously, I see Luna and a ring station, not necessarily in that order, as a steppping stone to Mars.  Nor do I see Mars as a final destination either.

The partisans muddy the well by insisting that any vision other than their own is a sort of prison sentence; that any goal or destination other than their own is a sort of "hugging", and thus dismissed.

My theory of how we're being kept on planet revolves around the partisan politics regarding HSF.  All the people with the power and money want to be the boss; if they can't have their way, nobody gets to go anywhere.

Right now, we're not even going to an asteroid.  We're not even going to an asteroid in ten years, either.

[Hop_David]

Isn't the Moon is considered to be beyond low earth orbit? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's the case that both China and Russia are committed to sending humans there. Every other space agency on the planet except NASA wants to send humans there as well.

And if the NASA is not exactly disabled or in ruins, the asteroid mission is a sign that the agency has become rather impotent: asteroids were chosen rather than going straight for Mars because Mars is considered to be too hard, and in fact asteroids were chosen over the Moon not because of the BTDT argument so much as even the Moon is considered to be "too hard" due to the expense of the porkalicious Altair lander design.

And now it's apparently turning out that even the asteroid mission is too hard: hence the Keck proposal to bring a meteoroid to astronauts, rather than the other way around.

I don't see support for the Keck proposal as lowering our sights.

Planetary Resources will tell you water is the most valuable space resource. At least in this respect they agree with Spudis.

A 500 tonne rock that's 20% water would give 100 tonnes H2O at EML2. Not enough to help much with Mars settlement. But certainly enough to make orbital propellant depots and ferries throughout cislunar space more interesting.

Orbital depots, cislunar vehicles and infrastructure at EML2 would make the lunar poles more accessible. And if a water rich asteroid jump starts development of depots and cislunar tugs, the ice in lunar cold traps becomes much more attractive.

Spudis' predictable reaction is asteroids are an evil distraction to The-Moon-The-One-And-Only-Worthwhile-Goal. It's sad he can't see PR and DSI as possible allies.

[RanulfC]

An "aggressive" Mars program would be especially subject to avoiding the "side-tracking" of putting infrastructure on the Moon which we've seen demonstrated in both the "Mars Direct" and "Constellation" concepts.

Mars Direct was the inspiration of Constellation. It was not the only possibility on the table, however: [The VSE was about] going to the Moon for propellant and THEN using THAT to go to Mars; [that] WAS the plan, before Griffin perverted it.

No it wasn't, however it was the ONLY "plan" that would fit the political and financial reality that there was NO support for going back to the Moon to establish ISRU to provide propellant for a much longer range Mars mission and a Cis-Lunar infrastructure to support it.

Not true. There was plenty of political support for the VSE back in 2004--just go back and read what the pundits had to say about it back then. Congress approved the plan multiple times. The actual implementation--Mars Direct-inspired CxP--on the other hand, was Griffin's brainchild. He literally laid out the design for the Ares rocket on the back of a napkin, and then ran with it. Griffin's (2005) white paper on why he chose not to go with a  depot-based, commercial architecture is attached, in case you're interested.

Read the paper, thanks I had issues with Griffin's "double-think/double-speak" seperation and combination government/private plan way back when as well...

Anyway, unfortuneatly it WAS true that there was not much political support for VSE. I read the same stuff then as can be found now, Congress funded but did NOT "approve" of either the VSE OR "Constellation" as proposed and they said so publicly many times.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/space/RS21720.pdf
(Page-3, FY2005 Funding)
“to date there has been no substantive Congressional action endorsing this initiative.”

They kept "praising the goal" while questioning the methods, price, and program.

The opposition was both bi-partisian:
http://www.spacepolitics.com/2004/10/20/bipartisan-opposition/

And some of Bush's own supporters in Congress were opposed:
http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/House/Georgia/Newt_Gingrich/Views/NASA/

Griffin's "1.5-architecture" aside, Congress applauded the retirement of the Shuttle but balked at loosing the ISS and in fact insisted (and made apporiation in the budgets for) on extending the ISS operations. They specifically refused Griffin's 2016 ISS "end-of-mission" date and insisted Griffin include continued ISS support under Constellation.

The clear and authoritive support was just never there, even if a "real" plan has been politically acceptable.

The fault of the administration was...

We COULD go on for weeks over this one, and I doubt we'd find many items on the list that came from it we DIDN'T agree for the most part on

Griffin came 'recommended' since he'd been assistant director before no one in the administration saw any reason to question him, and I have to agree given the way O'Keefe left and the lackluster support VSE got from Congress there really wasn't a lot of "fight" about with the appointment.

Reading Griffin's supposed "stances" on everything from commercial space to the role and requirements of government space from that time it seems he really DID have a serious 'commercial' bent and despite his enthusiasm for "Mars Direct" it didn't seem to color his viewpoint according to his writing and speaking. Once he was in though.... :::shrug::::

Things probably would have been far different with O'Keefe in charger but we won't ever really know. My personal opinion at the time was he got hammered pretty hard for Columbia, and for OPS not turning out as planned and my take was he wanted out. YMMV

Congress had very little to do with the origination of the CxP "implementation"--if you have DIRECT evidence to the contrary, please provide it;

I don't think I was giving the impression that Congress had anything to do with the origination or implementation of CxP, if I did I'm sorry. However what they DID was simply show lackluster "support" for CxP as time went on. They STARTED by immediatly comparing "costs" for VSE with the older "90-Day" plan and constantly questioned NASA planning. There was a lot of talk at first about how much all the "infrastructure" for Mars was going to cost with the "assumption" (until Griffin explained CxP) that there was going to be an expensive Moon base and other infrastructure all piled into the new VSE "plan".

IF there is a lesson HERE, it is that IMHO aeronautical engineers and astronauts should NEVER be chosen as the top Administrators. They should be deputy administrators at the highest. Consider that the two best administrators NASA ever had were James Webb and Sean O'Keefe: the former was a businessman and O'Keefe was an accountant--people who can understand the economic aspects of the Space Program IOW.

Can't say that you're wrong at all.

The problem is/was that the DAY Bush suggested the VSE, Congress started making it VERY clear that they had NO support for Lunar missions, Bases, or ISRU ...

Again, I don't believe this is the case because I am not aware of any direct evidence that that is the case.

"Congressional Opposition to the Vision of Space Exploration" worked for me. It's there in the media of the time, especially the "early" cries comparing VSE to the earlier Bush's space plan and the "90-Day" study. Congress was seriously gun-shy of NASA getting grand plans in their heads of large segments of infrastructure being part of the plan.

Griffin played that angle by pitching ESAS/Constellation as a "cheaper-more-direct" mission. He played up all the financial and program angles straight to the Zubrin play-book, making any build up of "infrastructure" or Lunar missions as a money-pit, side-track that would cost billions for no return.

This I agree with: but if O'Keefe and Marburg had been in front of those committees instead of Griffin, things would have turned differently. No one in Congress had enough expertise to call incorrect on the Ph.D. aeronautical engineer.

No one tried. As long as the "plan" didn't require a Moon base or any "infrastructure" then really Congress was willing to go along with the idea of something like CxP/Mars Direct. There was no support for that kind of a plan. That might have been different if someone had been able to convince them it wasn't just a "repeat" of the "90-Day" study but the general consensus was that building up infrastructure, depots, Moon bases were all going to be far to costly to consider. That attitude has not changed either.

The Golden Spike proposal shows that we could be doing a couple of "human precursor" missions 2 or 3 times per year for less than the current cost of SLS/Orion.

That right there works directly AGAINST what Congress wants...

While these necessary scouting missions are taking place, over half the HSF budget would still be available for developing (commercial) other legos in the system, like an ACES 3rd-stage, depots, and a heavy Lunar lander. These would allow the construction of a relatively major, permanently manned, research station on the Moon.

Congress isn't really INTERESTED in "commercial" applications and they don't especially seem interested in developing the capability to go back to the Moon, hence the LACK of support for such developments. If Spudis, etc could make a convincing case for the Moon that made sense politically, but the constant argument of "cost-savings" and other benifits is lost on polticians who are not convinced of the NEED in the first place.

We can go on and on about how "logical" the plan is and how much money could be saved and value added but the point that's being missed is despite the "rhetoric" from Congress as a body they do NOT seem convinced that the Moon, propellant depots, etc as infrastructure are needed or wanted for the US space program. That's the barrier we have to get past...

There is more public support for this plan of action than any other (Evidence: National Research Council Report [2012], free pdf here)

THE problem is that is NOT "public" support really as much as academic and scientific community support and in either case it's simply not POLITICAL support which is the area needed. NCR can make all the claims it wants the policy makers are not seeing the "need" and therefore have no desire to pursue the activity.

Randy

[RanulfC]

Warning: Personal opinion follows. May not agree with your world-view. Caution is advised.

Mark I won't quote the whole of your excellent personal opinion, though I will say I agree with it in general

The problem here is that it IS "personal" and as far as evidence we can gather suggests it is most definatly NOT the "political" opinion. This is unfortunatly NOT an "admininstrative" issue but an underlying political one that runs through Congress as well.

And being a political problem the solution also lies in politics. NASA can't do what its not funded or authorized to do and despite HappyMartians repeated suggestions that "its-the-law" if those who write and pass the "laws" don't believe it or support it how does the agency go about "doing" it?

"We" know the whys and wherefores of which we speak, but "we" also have been unable to translate that information into a format or vision that is understandable and believeable for the "avererage" person and/or politician. And whether "we" like it or not those are the "mundanes" who have the actual "power" to move the vision forward or keep in forever where it is. The question becomes and still is, how do WE change the equation and how do we say what has been said over and over again so many times in a way that MAKES it relevent to the "mundanes" around us?

Randy

[clongton]

...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.

[gbaikie]

 "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.”

Quite the drama queen.
Especially since any new course he has set is going nowhere- though I am not suggesting Bolden has actually set any new course, knows of a course, or could find a course if directed by Congress.

The only real course NASA has done is fly the Shuttle and make ISS.
So changing the course again must mean asking questions or offering  "new ideas".
Or perhaps put some effort into defining what SLS is going to do in the future.

Come to think of it the change from constellation to SLS is probably what he means by "change course again".
Though I haven't really considered the constellation or SLS as going in a new direction.
So long ago, when NASA was first directed to go to the Moon, that was a new direction, and the building of Saturn V wasn't a direction as much as it was how best to go to the Moon "before the end of the decade".

And SLS going nowhere "before the end of the decade".
So continuation of going nowhere by end of the decade, is a comfortable direction that we have heading towards with stern deliberation and thoughtfulness.
And we wouldn't want to change that, else NASA would not be going to the Moon or Mars in anyone's lifetime.
A little confusing, unless, one takes into account that  Bolden is probably merely telling some reporter asking some annoying question, to shut up.

Now, question I would ask: "Is there minable water on the Moon?"
And the follow questions regarding the answer to this question would be the most important part of it.

Perhaps, a wiser reporter question could be:
Can you describe the conditions which would have to exist for there to be minable lunar water?

This way you don't need a follow up question.

[Lar]

Perhaps, a wiser reporter question could be:
Can you describe the conditions which would have to exist for there to be minable lunar water?

Why would you expect him to be able to answer that in any useful detail? He's a political appointee, and has been adminstrator of NASA for 4 years now... any useful knowledge he ever had has leached away by now.

I'm not (just) being unkind, I really want to know why. I wouldn't ask Ginny Rometti how any of my software works either...

[Khadgars]

I don't have a problem with what Bolden said, he is mostly correct.  Everyone seems to be forgetting a major development from Constellation and now, in that the ISS looks to be extended until 2028 which was originally scheduled to be decommissioned in 2015.  No way you can have ISS operations and a robust BLEO operations operating at the same time.  Everyone has their favorite bird to do it better and cheaper but that is mostly moot at this point.

Flying SLS every other year BLEO and to the ISS 3-4 times each year will be the most robust HSF in the world.  Once ISS is taken off the books, BLEO operating will get a significant boost.  Until then, flying to a captured asteroid while building up SEP technology and other capabilities is not a bad way forward.

[JohnFornaro]

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.

[mike robel]

Well, we can debate this till the cows come home and go around in the same circles as in the threat "What if Apollo-Saturn had not been cancelled?"

My feeling is by scrapping the Saturns and moving to Shuttle (with its gloriously overestimated flight rates and cost factors) we blew our first opportunity, even if we had turned away from the moon, and only flown some missions to a series of Skylab stations one or two times a year.

We blew it a second time when we allowed the Shuttle to end without a flying US replacement.

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.

 It coulda/woulda/shoulda all been contained in the stimulus bill.

After we had assured access to the space station, then we could turn the follow on program.  Also in my view, these things need to have meaningful sub-objectives that take 4 years or less to meet, so that they are completed in a presidential term and of 2/3rds of the Senate, and 2 house elections.  Such as effort would call for real planning on NASA's part perhaps together with private industry to determine the next steps, though I do not see a business case for it.

Off the soap box.  Return to your normally scheduled opionion exchange.  (I know, I have said this before.  Don't mind me, much.  Not much to see.  move along.  move along...)

[gbaikie]

Perhaps, a wiser reporter question could be:
Can you describe the conditions which would have to exist for there to be minable lunar water?

Why would you expect him to be able to answer that in any useful detail? He's a political appointee, and has been adminstrator of NASA for 4 years now... any useful knowledge he ever had has leached away by now.

I'm not (just) being unkind, I really want to know why. I wouldn't ask Ginny Rometti how any of my software works either...

I would not be expect much in terms of details, for instance certainly not such details as one could expect for business which may invest a billion dollars related to it.

But I would expect Ginny Rometti to be able to answer why IBM is still in business and where the company is going in next few years and explain why this the right direction for IBM.

So in general terms I expect numerous people at NASA could give a reasonable answer to the question, but I don't know specifically what answer Bolden would give, and the type answer Bolden gives would be informative.

I guess my question is what would you regard as useful details.

And if you think Bolden would be incapable of saying anything useful in this regard, in your opinion, is there anyone in particular at NASA which could provide details you would regard as useful?

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 other space agencies plan to do more robotic exploration before even considering it.
Or whatever. Etc.

[JohnFornaro]

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.