Author Topic: Bolden: "NASA won't land another man on the moon in my lifetime"  (Read 79055 times)

Offline Mark S

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2131
  • Dallas, TX
  • Liked: 173
  • Likes Given: 37

Don't count on it
My reply is no
My sources say no
Outlook not so good
Very doubtful


Remember, in space policy, no one can hear you scream.

And they'll ignore your carefully constructed application of clear and concise logic, too.


Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
Quote from: Mike Gallagher

While I agree with all the reasons for returning to the Moon, we can't lurch between Moon and not-Moon every four or eight years, and the transition to anti-Constellation should prove why.

Don't count on it
My reply is no
My sources say no
Outlook not so good
Very doubtful

Remember, in space policy, no one can hear you scream.

And they'll ignore your carefully constructed application of clear and concise logic, too.

Congress has indeed defied logic for many years....and it appears to be at a exponentially increasing rate...IMHO.

The path forward to go to an asteroid with SLS/ORION and SEP that compromises the mission and the cost forward is a case in point.  because  including SLS/Orion in the path forward takes NASA back to Square Zero by not meeting the fundamental challenge of economical access to space.

There will be no space infrastructure developed, no habitat, no lander, no depot, ..., and no technology development without the 2.5B/year savings from SLS.

It is not about the missions, its about developing things NASA and country do not need, which is basically on the border of fraud, waste, and abuse.

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 5
Remember, in space policy, no one can hear you scream.

And they'll ignore your carefully constructed application of clear and concise logic, too.



And yet that's what has to change.  And until then we stay stuck in the weeds over how to do what we're not sure we're going to do.
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 5
.... It is not about the missions ....

Actually it is, because unless someone has figured out to make antimatter by the ton for a reasonable price, we're at the mercy of celestial mechanics: Where you go determines when you can go, how long the trip is, and then there's the question of what you do when you get there.  Targets in cisulunar space, including the asteroid retrieval, are one thing, and other planets are another.  The choice has to be made sooner or later, and getting that made is like pulling teeth from a stone at the bottom of the ocean.  But you can't avoid it and talk about generic "exploration" forever. 

Quote
.... its about developing things NASA and country do not need....

Without more guidance from inside the Beltway, what NASA does or does not need is an academic discussion between rival tribes of propeller heads, and accomplishes nothing.
 
« Last Edit: 05/16/2013 03:22 pm by CNYMike »
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
.... It is not about the missions ....

Actually it is, because unless someone has figured out to make antimatter by the ton for a reasonable price, we're at the mercy of celestial mechanics: Where you go determines when you can go, how long the trip is, and then there's the question of what you do when you get there.  Targets in cisulunar space, including the asteroid retrieval, are one thing, and other planets are another.  The choice has to be made sooner or later, and getting that made is like pulling teeth from a stone at the bottom of the ocean.  But you can't avoid it and talk about generic "exploration" forever. 

Quote
.... its about developing things NASA and country do not need....

Without more guidance from inside the Beltway, what NASA does or does not need is an academic discussion between rival tribes of propeller heads, and accomplishes nothing.
 
So sit back and watch the mess continue, that is your solution?

there is data, analysis, and opinion.  All the suppressed studies show a different path forward.  While folks keep asking for justification of SLS/Orion, all they see is the need for $3B/year more when one could do the same job without the additional budget.

Clearly, the whole community sees the mess NASA has been handed the last decade, and the huge mess in its future.   Hey Crew, we will begin preparing for a 4 hour space walk to occur in 2025 next week.  Exciting times.  Thanks mark S for this summary....BTW do you support SLS too?

Imagine if a depot was operational in low earth orbit, filled with 100,000 kg or more of propellant that does not boil off.
   the depot is filled with $1,000/kg to perhaps $10,000/kg propellant.
   Cost is 100M to 1B.
   With SLS, the cost is at best 1B, but more likely 3B.
   For one mission.

Now take a uncrewed mission (cargo or science) that offloads propellant to add an instrument or more supplies and fills up on orbit..  it will trade the cost of the addition versus the cost of "buying" the propellant at the depot.

With SLS/Orion, there are no missions..it is all academic--the fixed costs simply consumes the cost of supplying the propellant.

By freeing up the 2.5B a year, then many many debates on science and exploration forward will be quite exciting topics, but are all academic now because NASA is left with a $40B program that does not develop infrastructure for a 4 hour space walk by 2025.  So here the missions will start to become part of the debate.

NASA PMs can have budget flexibility to fill the depot or develop hardware from year to year.

And the technology advancements with this 2.5B/year would simply be inspirational.   

And we can all clearly see who is sending NASA back to square zero.

Honestly, many of the posters on this forum might benefit by looking in the mirror.   Perhaps the right to vote is one alternative for the others.  ...What might have been.     

Now how does STEM fit into this mess?

To infinity and beyond...or was infinity the time scale? 

Congrats on your path forward.... you should be commended, i quess.
« Last Edit: 05/16/2013 04:00 pm by muomega0 »

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11650
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8735
  • Likes Given: 7369
(snip)
This plan makes way too much sense to ever be adopted. Plus it doesn't have enough pork.
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4446
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 814
  • Likes Given: 32
Deep, clear and oh so true! Thanks Gramps!
(That last just sounds SO wrong no matter how I write it.... He's not much older than me! :) )

Randy

Thanks again, but if your having problems with the signature, just add Cro-Magnon, and it pushes my age at least up to 43,000 yeas; should make it easier  ;D
Well probably not :) My wife has often refered to me as a "Neaderthal" though she admits that might be pretty insulting to them rather than me ;)
Quote
btw, you've written some awesome posts recently  ;)
Why thank you sir! I'm glad I'm keeping things interesting... Now if you will excuse me I have to find a way to get my recently swelled-head out the door! :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline muomega0

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 861
  • Liked: 65
  • Likes Given: 1
(snip)
This plan makes way too much sense to ever be adopted. Plus it doesn't have enough pork.
Actually it could do both by simply awarding contracts to start working on payloads and the advanced technology.   The larger companies would just be the integrators of the small business products so they can receive their "wraps".     How could these small companies ever have the capability to integrate this architecture together by themselves. ;)

I also feel with this infrastructure in place, the current budget could be working the missions and tech development, and NASA could ask congress to fill the depot with plus up to reduce the schedule, or ask the International Partners to help fill it too.  The depot could be a source of income, so to speak.

Shallow minds.....

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4446
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 814
  • Likes Given: 32
I'm in agreement with Gramps too. Commercial is where exploitation (== infrastructure) comes from

What I am struggling with is... what is holding commercial back? Commercial has been doing "things" (communication satellites but not much else) for close on to 50 years now... why hasn't it done more.

Is there something that government should be doing? should be NOT doing? My Libertarian Macho Flash is, of course, that "Government Should GET OUT OF THE WAY..." but then I am left with "ok what does that mean, really"
That last is actually a very good question that needs to be answered before anyone says that the government getting IN the way is the issue :)

See the major problem with commercial use of space (meaning an expanded commercial presence/market/use) is the basic fact that there are not a lot of "commercial" activities that need "space" to be done in/with! About 90% of the various "space commercial industries" that were envisioned in the '70s and beyond have turned out to be able to be done on Earth. There aren't many "new" opportunities because it is so expensive to DO commercial research in space and there isn't much incentive to look given the price.

Now if we had several available "space research stations" in orbit things would be a bit different but we don't and the ISS while available doesn't always turn out to be the best place for every type of research.

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4446
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 814
  • Likes Given: 32
O is the one who starts wars without Congress, and the one who changes the direction of NASA without Congressional approval.
So getting the Congress on board is the way one gets consistent funding and direction. The reason we have the Senate Launch System is the Senate didn't feel O was going in right direction.
Not that I support SLS, but generally the Senate doesn't get involved unless they feel the President is going rogue.

It's tedious to hear this from this administration.
????

Congress "felt" that ANYTHING Obama does/did is "wrong" and therefore needs to be opposed and changed. 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.
(Not important enough mind you to look to a "near-term" solution though that would avoid massive lay-offs in the first place but something "designed" to make appropriate work in appropriate places. Recall please that 130-tons is "required" because that is the size that certain Congress-critters were "assured" by "experts" that would require Solid Rocket Boosters. This is in the public record)

Congress and the Senate get "involved" with NASA decisions and budget all the time. Usually to the detriment of both! They go as far as to zero-out budgets and veto line-item appropeations and transfering the money to specific "pork" applications on a regular basis. This is nothing new or special.

Getting Congress "on-board" for ANY systematic or serious space exploration program has been historically problematic simply because they have no interest in supporting manned space flight in general and serious space exploration specifically. It was specifically arranged that no matter what the "President/Administration" proposes that Congress would in the end be the final abritrator and decision maker on what would actually be done. There is some leeway in the Administrators office in how some funding is applied but the majority of it has to be authorized and approved by Congress and if they do NOT want something they can and have gone as far as to zero out the budget without director or Administrative approval and cancel the program or line of work.

Change is only going to be possible when and if a general consensus can be reached where EVERYONE takes the space program seriously enough to NOT make it a political and rhetorical football. Figure out how to achieve that particular little "miracle" and we can be on our way anywhere we want to go...

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 5
So sit back and watch the mess continue, that is your solution?...

No, get a clearer policy out of DC, that's my "solution."  The depot vs. SLS argument is academic without that. 
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
O is the one who starts wars without Congress, and the one who changes the direction of NASA without Congressional approval.
So getting the Congress on board is the way one gets consistent funding and direction. The reason we have the Senate Launch System is the Senate didn't feel O was going in right direction.
Not that I support SLS, but generally the Senate doesn't get involved unless they feel the President is going rogue.

It's tedious to hear this from this administration.
????

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.


Quote
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.

Quote
(Not important enough mind you to look to a "near-term" solution though that would avoid massive lay-offs in the first place but something "designed" to make appropriate work in appropriate places. Recall please that 130-tons is "required" because that is the size that certain Congress-critters were "assured" by "experts" that would require Solid Rocket Boosters. This is in the public record)

Congress and the Senate get "involved" with NASA decisions and budget all the time. Usually to the detriment of both! They go as far as to zero-out budgets and veto line-item appropriations and transferring the money to specific "pork" applications on a regular basis. This is nothing new or special.
Of course the Congress gets involved- it's their constitutional duty.
And the pork is like any entitlement- they feel entitled to it.

Quote

Getting Congress "on-board" for ANY systematic or serious space exploration program has been historically problematic simply because they have no interest in supporting manned space flight in general and serious space exploration specifically. It was specifically arranged that no matter what the "President/Administration" proposes that Congress would in the end be the final arbitrator and decision maker on what would actually be done. There is some leeway in the Administrators office in how some funding is applied but the majority of it has to be authorized and approved by Congress and if they do NOT want something they can and have gone as far as to zero out the budget without director or Administrative approval and cancel the program or line of work.
Right, but Obama wasn't making it easier- instead he was continuation of of the poor examples of idiocy.
That's why it's boring, when Bolden talking about the need not to change things.
Quote
Change is only going to be possible when and if a general consensus can be reached where EVERYONE takes the space program seriously enough to NOT make it a political and rhetorical football. Figure out how to achieve that particular little "miracle" and we can be on our way anywhere we want to go...

Randy

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.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2013 12:08 am by gbaikie »

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
When OB, said that been there done that, he was not disparaging NASA or it's mission direction, he was just stating a fact.

I'm afraid I disagree with your assessment of this part of the President's speech.  By my take, his wording "because frankly, we've been there", clearly illustrated the paucity of his argument against the proximate destination.  I don't imagine that he disparages NASA at all; he was simply disparaging the idea of a lunar base because that's what he has been told by his inner circle of close knit advisors.  Mr. Obama is not known to welcome a diversity of thought, nor are his advisors.

The vast majority of life is "being there and doing that" over and over again.  There's only one Columbus, or one Lewis and Clark, or whoever, who discover something for the first time; the rest of humanity's march consists of returning and settling those new areas.

I would add that we have not been to Lunar poles.
And lunar poles are to Lunar equator as LA is to the Antarctic.
If you include the polar poles, the Moon is one of coldest bodies in solar system.
I would not be surprised if we will be surprised when we go to lunar poles.
The lunar poles are less explored then our deep oceans. The deep oceans were thought to be uniform and lifeless for decades, recently we found black smoker, pools of CO2, and enormous amount of Methane Hydrate.
It could be that permanent dark craters are everything we assume, but I am not counting on it- I think we probably get, what the hell is that?
« Last Edit: 05/17/2013 01:03 am by gbaikie »

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 5
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 politicans approving of it and paying for it?  It can't.  Which brings us back to the politicians. 
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline CNYMike

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 318
  • Cortland, NY
  • Liked: 33
  • Likes Given: 5
Change is only going to be possible when and if a general consensus can be reached where EVERYONE takes the space program seriously enough to NOT make it a political and rhetorical football. Figure out how to achieve that particular little "miracle" and we can be on our way anywhere we want to go...

Randy

Agreed.
"I am not A big fat panda.  I am THE big fat panda." -- Po, KUNG FU PANDA

Michael Gallagher
Cortlnd, NY

Offline gbaikie

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1628
  • Liked: 49
  • Likes Given: 5
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_

So, IRS budget about 12 billion, EPA about 8 billion, HHS is $698 billion-
"Approximately 90 percent of the HHS budget is directed towards mandatory spending on programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. The remaining 10 percent is for discretionary spending."
http://www.hhs.gov/ocio/capitalplanning/budget/hhsbudget.html
So 10% is 69 billion for discretionary spending.

The Chinese space agency get 1.2 billion.
Europe's gets US$5.38 billion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Space_Agency.

So NASA gets hardly any money considering the EPA doesn't launch rockets or do much but piss people off. Though NASA gets more money than combine of all the world's civil space agencies.
And Chinese [who say they can't compete against SpaceX] could go to Moon before NASA gets back to it.
Everyone in the world is most interested in the Moon- India, China, Japan, Europe [though not so much Russia] and are engaged in exploring the Moon.
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.

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

Online QuantumG

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8830
  • Australia
  • Liked: 3831
  • Likes Given: 916
Okay, let's put this another way: if you can get more budget for NASA, then build a "monster rocket" and plan a return to the Moon, or whatever. In the mean time, reality beckons.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2013 06:30 am by QuantumG »
Human spaceflight is basically just LARPing now.

Offline JohnFornaro

  • Not an expert
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9238
  • Delta-t is the salient metric.
  • Planet Eaarth
    • Design / Program Associates
  • Liked: 664
  • Likes Given: 361
Change is only going to be possible when and if a general consensus can be reached where EVERYONE takes the space program seriously enough to NOT make it a political and rhetorical football. Figure out how to achieve that particular little "miracle" and we can be on our way anywhere we want to go...

Randy

Agreed.

Me too.
Sometimes I just flat out don't get it.

Offline Lar

  • Fan boy at large
  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11650
  • Saw Gemini live on TV
  • A large LEGO storage facility ... in Michigan
  • Liked: 8735
  • Likes Given: 7369
Change is only going to be possible when and if a general consensus can be reached where EVERYONE takes the space program seriously enough to NOT make it a political and rhetorical football. Figure out how to achieve that particular little "miracle" and we can be on our way anywhere we want to go...

Randy

Agreed.

Me too.

Mee three. But who bells the cat?  Public love for space is wide, but shallow. Also, I'm with Jim... much of what I want isn't really in NASA's remit, but rather needs to be done by private enterprise.
« Last Edit: 05/17/2013 03:04 pm by Lar »
"I think it would be great to be born on Earth and to die on Mars. Just hopefully not at the point of impact." -Elon Musk
"We're a little bit like the dog who caught the bus" - Musk after CRS-8 S1 successfully landed on ASDS OCISLY

Offline RanulfC

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4446
  • Heus tu Omnis! Vigilate Hoc!
  • Liked: 814
  • Likes Given: 32
Change is only going to be possible when and if a general consensus can be reached where EVERYONE takes the space program seriously enough to NOT make it a political and rhetorical football. Figure out how to achieve that particular little "miracle" and we can be on our way anywhere we want to go...

Agreed.

Me too.

Mee three. But who bells the cat?  Public love for space is wide, but shallow. Also, I'm with Jim... much of what I want isn't really in NASA's remit, but rather needs to be done by private enterprise.
Belling the cat isn't all that hard... IF you're bigger and meaner than the cat :)
(Revenge is sweet however. Sitting on the dresser all night rocking back and forth pretty much guarantees the bell will be removed ASAP :) )
NASA is only able/going to do what those in charge (Washington) allow them to do. That's a fact of life and pretty non-negotiable.

Getting politicians to take anything seriously enough to NOT play politics with it requires commitment and personnal buy-in from the politican. ACCOUNTABLE buy-in to be specific. You'd think given the general attitude in Government about various "issues" which can be or are effected by "space" there would be a big incentive for such a commitment. However reality shows the opposite effect. Space is a very "low" priority because it actually is not "applicable" on a large scale and does not (normally) effect the lives of a large number of citizens or politicians.

Hence the lack of a "handle" on the political attitude towards all things "space"...

Getting increased commercial interest in space means finding and promoting ways of increasing markets, new opportunities, and a good profit margin. Difficult to do when there are so few economical things that require space to do. Worse there is little or no incentive to look for new opportunities due to the high cost of operations and every incentive to use other methods or process that can be done on Earth instead.

Getting broad public engagement means finding a way to make "space" a priority ahead of most others. Difficult at best given the very lack of perceived "impact" on the average persons daily life. Space is not a "frontier" in any conventional sense, since there is no perceived chance for the average person to go there and nothiing there that offers opportunites for personal, financial, or other gain.

Changing any one of the above from the current position to one more activily supportive would be a major step forward. However my personnal opinion is it is going to take changing all three to have a significant effect.

I'd like to see Bolden proven wrong, that the US DOES land a "man" on the Moon within his lifetime. But it can't be because that was what NASA was "focused" on doing. That is how they have operated in the past and every time it has been a dead-end. I'd rather see NASA "concentrate" on achieving more "flexibity" and capability than on simply "going" somewhere specific.

I won't say that the current "direction" is what I am hoping for though I must admit it has been the closest attempt yet :)

I really, really wish I had some solid ANSWERS to the "how" to effect the changes needed. Then again if I did have the answers I suppose I wouldn't be here asking questions :)

Randy
From The Amazing Catstronaut on the Black Arrow LV:
British physics, old chap. It's undignified to belch flames and effluvia all over the pad, what. A true gentlemen's orbital conveyance lifts itself into the air unostentatiously, with the minimum of spectacle and a modicum of grace. Not like our American cousins' launch vehicles, eh?

Tags: