Charlie Bolden: Stealth Middle East Diplomat?

he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with predominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering."

........................

...and Nero fiddled while Rome burned." If it wasn't so sad I'd laugh. Somebody in the Puzzle Palace wants Ole Charlie out of town while all the rat killing is done. The Borgia's would be proud!

I personally think that NASA should be inspiring American children first, by oh say, plans to go back to the moon.

I know that is sooooo very 20th century Apollo-centric of course. What does that ancient era have anything to do with now?

Making foreign children "feel good" about themselves? is now a NASA goal? Not sure how that is done exactly.

But hey, elections have consequences.

Welcome to ObamaSpace.

"because we have a conglomerate of about 15 plus nations who have contributed something to that partnership that has made it what it is today ..."

How true. It's a spectacular piece of technology that took too long to build, is in too low an orbit and in the wrong orbital inclination to be of any practical use for exploration or science. Uh, except for growing crystals and microgravity physiology studies. We should rename it Spacestation Babel. But, boy howdy, we'll find something for it to do, if only to justify the expense. I give it an "A" as a technology demonstrator; a "B+" for diplomacy; a "C-" as a science platform; and a "D" as a stepping stone to further human exploration of the solar system. This is what we are giving up on the Moon for? Gentlemen, that doesn't even pass the giggle test.

Good interview. Augustine agrees that possibly the greatest benefit of the ISS to the united states is diplomatic. So getting the middle east into the space program is probably a really good idea. It will take many years to do. No better time to start than the present.

The more people work together, the less they want to kill each other...

Meanwhile, those in the Bible belt of a predominantly Christian nation are getting screwed. They don't feel so good about their contribution to science, math and engineering...

Bolden’s trip, and this interview in particular, are part of the sustained effort to deconstruct the artificial narrative that al-Qaeda and the like are desperately trying to fool the Arab world into believing: that there is an inevitable clash of civilizations between the Muslim and Christian worlds. This world-view is the basis of Islamist terrorism, the source of their funding, but most importantly the idea that generates new recruits. This source denied, Islamist terrorism will wither. Obama has to walk a fine line, employing direct military action to destroy the terrorist infrastructure that already exists, while projecting an image of the U.S. that directly counters the terrorists’ grand fantasy. Restricting U.S. policy to military action alone, while it destroys the existing infrastructure, will serve to expand the radical base from which terrorism grows. In addition, the power of al-Qaeda and their ilk must be reduced by removing the ideological bedrock that allows them to grow. Exploiting NASA’s image, perhaps the finest aspect of the U.S. from a foreign perspective, is a very effective way of doing this. This strategy is behind Bolden’s trip, and is why Obama’s first interview was to al-Jazeera. It’s not because Obama’s a secretive Islamist, but because deflating Islamism, even more so than defeating it, is a national security imperative.

Well, if the whole world wants to hold hands, lets get the troops out of our Muslim friend's backyard. Then we might have enough money to support the space endeavor. I look forward to working with our new friends. I wonder what great technologies they will provide to us for spacecraft.

"Augustine agrees that possibly the greatest benefit of the ISS to the united states is diplomatic."

huh?
that's all that's left for all the time and money, some diplomatic feather in our cap?
no wonder we've not really gone anywhere of value in 40+ years...

I have had it with hearing how much we should reach out to other countries. This is NASA. We should be inspiring and promoting American achievement in space exploration. But no we are selling out our future and the future of our children to have a Kumbaya moment. Not to mention that we are exporting our exploration of space and our jobs to other countries and this Administration has no problem with that. I hope Congress finally puts their foot down and ends this crap before we no longer have a Space Program. Because once that occurs Russia and China will have no problem holding our access to space hostage or ending it out right. Wake Up America!

The entire BO administration is STUCK ON STUPID !!!

I am just completely floored. COMPLETELY FLOORED.

I knew it would be bad... but not this bad.

This, sadly, is politics and the difference between the left and the right. It hurts. It hurts to see our leadership in space being spirited away.

How is all that hope and change working out for us?

Here is vision. Maybe if the president would listen to this guy we would be doing something:

http://www.xcor.com/video/isdc.html

At this point we just need to hang on and hope like hell we get a leader who understands what NASA is and what it needs.

VR
RE327

China and Russia have been aggressively using their space agencies to build win-win relationships (and contracts) with developing nations. All over South/Central America and Africa we've seen China and Russia developing these strategic partnerships, while NASA has focused instead on working with the usual list of ISS partner nations.

NASA should do more of this, and perhaps follow Bigelow Aerospace's lead as they cater to a broader list of national partners for their commercial space station. We need to focus on leading new collaborations in space. Competition is so 20th Century.

Why not engage the Muslim world in the continued robotic exploration of the Moon? We need to continue to return to the Moon to determine the extent to which lunar resources can make exploration more affordable. There's no reason why this can't be an international effort.

This is a means to transport our (America's) technology, money and jobs to Muslim nations.

"Nero fiddled, while Rome burned."

I would make two points.

First this was a very good interview. The interviewer I thought was well prepared and asked really good questions...and Charlie gave really coherent well thought out answers. I guess my first thought was "where are those answers when he goes to bat for his program here".

The political shop at NASA (and I guess this is Lori Garver) is not serving General Bolden all that well in terms of the political debate here in the US. John Logsdon put the change in far better terms in his spacenews op ed then I have seen the political shop at NASA do it.

Second...the outreach. I have more time in my background in the mideast then I wish. Efforts like this are incredibly important. They are kind of like sprinkling "lemon" or "Mint" in the tea...it changes very slowly but eventually you notice it.

This is one place where the outreach to "the children" really pays off in terms of connecting with them that there might be a better way then being a wild eyed pistol waiver and not making it past ones 25 birthday. It is not "to be an astronaut"...but it is "to live in the modern world".

It is hard for most people in the US to realize how clumsy and inept our politics and policies have been in the mideast the last 10 years.

Robert G. Oler

Keep up the good work Administrator Bolden

Happy 4th of July

Once again, Bolden and the administration continue to perpetuate the myth that the US can't afford to go any place in the solar system by ourselves because its just too expensive.

The NASA budget is tiny compared to most other Federal expenditures, representing less than 0.6% of the Federal budget. NASA's manned spaceflight component represents less than 0.3% of Federal expenditures.

There's simply no evidence that going to the Moon or even to Mars would have any significant impact on Federal budget expenditures--- even if you doubled spending on manned spaceflight!

And practically all of the evidence shows that NASA expenditures actually help to grow the US economy, not hurt it!

Marcel F. Williams

Lawrence of Arabia, 2010.

So let me understand -

The way you guys are proposing to motivate US children to support Space exploration is to run around like a chicken with its head cut off, yelling "this is so bad, the president is obsessed with killing HSF", after the president presents the goals of Asteroid and Mars human missions, based on private enterprise initiatives and low cost LEO access.

You ideal HSF program is ISS/STS or Constellation, with a $4B price tag for a suborbital shot.

What the hell is wrong with you people? So blind with Obama-hate that you're willing to completely ignore all that's wrong with the Space program and that Obama's trying to fix?

You wouldn't know a good plan for HSF if it jumped up and bit you in the face, if it doesn't continue to support the exorbitant and unsustainable cost structure that brought us to the depth that we're in today.

Get over it. Time to move on.

This is excellent, and one of the most complete descriptions of the new vision out there! It's interesting how other news agencies can extract the core of something, in ways US ones can't.

And for those who seem to want to win the Darwin Awards via Nationalism - if space is going to work for the human race, we need the max budget to do everything. That means more partners get together, both international and commercial. That means all nations stop wasting money on things like defence they wouldn't need if relations were better. Plus how can space, in the long run, be a national effort, if we have any real future there?

Well done Charlie!! And Al Jazeera!

If Obama charged Bolden with three things, where is running the agency and carrying out its mission on the list? The last I heard that was supposed to be the administrators job.

Engaging international cooperation for space exploration is always important IMO. However, the list of priorities, especially the "perhaps most important" one seem a little out of whack for the top NASA administrator. Anyone who works in science and engineering and knows any history at all understands the huge contribution of Islamic history to math & science. And the people who don't work in science and engineering don't give a rat's ass about it anyway. I am very disturbed that we seem to have a first and foremost politician in the top NASA spot instead of a man of action and leadership who holds the exploration of space as his top priority. It does seem that if we did have that kind of person his hands would be tied anyway but I don't even see a glimmering of true leadership for this most important of US agencies. Sorry Charlie, I want to give you a chance but you're not making it easy for us.

Agreed. Cost is no excuse.
We've been playing the chumps accepting that arguement for years.

What is the Muslim world's dominate view currently of things like space exploration and crewed lunar missions?

If this is the "foremost" thing that Obama has charged Bolden with.

I have a lot of questions about exactly where the starting point is.

Disagreed strongly that I am with this.

Why did Bolden not share this "foremost" task with congress?

Odd how he kept saying " our vision" yet still no Clear goal or destination (@crazy eddie the blogger that's running around with your head chopped off in my opinion ) . I think he meant is grand kids grand kids when talking about the moon and mars.I want him to do an interview like that with an American journalist. I seriously doubt it will happen. Safer to talk to people who have no stake in what NASA is doing than to talk to someone who it actually effects. I like how he basically said oh anyone disagreeing with this plan just don't understand what we are trying to do.NO the people who disagree know what you are trying to do and don't like it. I was pissed that he made American tax payers like myself sound to stupid to understand.

Damn the Gravity!

that was my last damn the gravity from now on its DAMN THE POLITCIS!

"that was my last damn the gravity from now on its DAMN THE POLITICS!"

Overcoming gravity is indeed the least of our worries. We have proven we can do that over and over. Overcoming bad politics? Who can say?

Robert,

You said "It is hard for most people in the US to realize how clumsy and inept our politics and policies have been in the mideast the last 10 years."

This sounds like a typical left wing attack on Bush. Let's see. Over the last 2 decades we have saved the lives of MILLIONs of Muslims in Kosovo, Irag, and many other places. So your argument is bogus.

Now why should the US support countries that do not even allow women to vote in most places? This is not NASAs mission. Heck, I would argue that it isn't even the State Deptartment's mission. There are many in the Muslim world who already like the US. Those who do not have a warped few of the world and no promise of space cooperation will help that.

Fred -
I'll bite on this one.

CxP had a clear destination. But in words only. It was the near destination that could be proclaimed (the moon), but behind it lay a program much like ISS - a never ending money sink.

The rocket was just the beginning. Can you imagine a lunar base that much like ISS is a shadow of its original design, can barely support its own housekeeping, and other than baking in the sun and maintaining itself does almost nothing? This is where we were heading. We were not going to get a "live off the land" "harvest lunar ice" type of fantasy operation. We'd have gotten a beached ISS.

The announcement regarding the cancellation of CxP was just that. Out with the old. An outline of the new. Not a plan - there was not time to engage in one yet, but the people involved are strong supporters of HSF. They will announce the plan, which will be Asteroid and Mars centric, but it takes time to make a plan. We don't want another headline-only plan.

If you followed the publications behind the flexible-path plan, you'd see that these folks are talking about a very rigorous and vigorous (!) effort that will culminate in a Mars expedition. Not in 5-10 years, that's for sure, but you have to understand CxP wasn't going to get us that anyway - it only SAID it would. Much like earlier promises that in retrospect look unbelievable (STS costs, for example, or ISS capabilities) it was not grounded in reality.

So there. I'm very much an HSF advocate. I always thought CxP was just a sham. I am glad it is out, and I hope the replacement will be something realistic.

I have to admit at first I thought, "What the hell??! foremost objective is to reach out to Muslim countries?"

Great comments above though. I really do agree with this approach to foreign policy. This type of thing will continue to push fundamentalists to the fringe in their own countries.

Hopefully he didn't really mean foremost though. Maybe that's one of Obama's foremost objectives, and probably well conceived, but shouldn't be the NASA Administrator's. That said, I don't mind him, or other officials going to other countries once in a while.

This is REALLY sad!!! So, one more exploit for NASA other than pursuing human space exploration. Now our space agency is taking point in Middle East diplomacy???

The cresent moon and star of course is a recognized symbol of Islam for many Muslims around the world.

I mean it almost looks like a mission patch.

Is the moon itself held in any higher regard by Islam other then a symbol?

Would/could this either be a hindrence or advantage in encouraging supporting space exploration in the Muslim world?

What do mainstream Muslims think about how American astronauts walked on it's surface?

I do not recall ever hearing much one way or the other about such things. Perhaps it is utterly irrelevant but I am curious what their teachings would be on this.

I never said Cx was the way to go.. Over funded under budget and poorly managed. I will say no one I know has ever got into their car and said " ok we are going to drive to (x) location maybe, I don't know how I don't know exactly when but we might go whenever". Is it so wrong to have a goal? A destination? I don't think so. It was clear that Cx wasn't the answer. Yet I still think the moon is the destination before mars. But flag planting and foot prints isn't enough. In 2010 we should have multiple rovers on the moon. Its like we just forgot about the brightest object and most inspirational thing in the night sky the last 40 years.Kids should be able to log onto the internet and see earth rise from the sea of tranquility in their classrooms and its a shame they can't. LCROSS/LRO proves you can get bang for the buck with minimal cost. Why not have a rover pull into one of the craters on the moon and test for ice rather than try to interpret RADAR data or MiniRF data . I love boots on the ground as much as the next guy but if its to expensive its to expensive. Right now we are at a crossroads in HSF, living in Florida HSF and space exploration in general has always been a part of my life and will continue to be and I try to convey that importance to my kids. The exploration of space and man colonizing other planets and getting of this rock is the most important thing to the survival of the human race maybe not now but it will be one day.

Damn the Politics!

The NASA administrator's foremost goal is to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world.

It's over, guys.

I'm disappointed that so many commenters here fail to see the benefit of adding a new, important value proposition to NASA's goals. Sure, helping to secure a more stable world through outreach to Muslim countries is different from the "win the Cold War" value proposition of the 60s, but it's still better than where we've been over the last 30 years.

Want more attention from the President? Address issues that are critical to his office. Want more money? Do things that are of greater value to more politicians and our society.

Fred, in that case let's have an honest Moon-first vs. straight-to-Mars debate. Both are valid and real strategies.

You say "Damn the politics", but look at the posts above - so little meat about the benefits of either strategy, and mostly name calling and "Obama/Bolden hate HSF and America's space program in general".

Seriously - is that why Bolden (Astronaut, General) became the Administrator? is that why Obama put up the Asteroid/Mars goals?

I wont get (at least here) into a discussion of politics but I dont agree that the US has saved "Millions" of Muslems...

but my general point was addressed by your line

"Now why should the US support countries that do not even allow women to vote in most places?"

because at one point our culture did not either...it took a century and 1/2 for our "more perfect Union" to embrace the notion of women voting...and General Bolden would have not been a General (or even an officer) as late as 40 years (give or take a bit) ago..women would not have held high ranking government post three decades ago....and that is a voyage to modernity that we should highlight as the triumph of our nation to others who are caught in much the same perceptions of history that we were for sometime...ie that the circumstances of conception dictate ones potential.

Charlie's interview is a statement of our hopes not our fears, it is a summation of our dreams not our nightmares. As one person told me in my latest (and I hope last) stint in the Mideast "when frightened you Americans act like everyone else".

I hope we can do better.

Robert G. Oler

"Straight to Mars" fails to take advantage of the Moon's natural resources and close proximity as a conveniently placed logistical base for further exploration. But, NOOOOOO, let's go ahead and search for "game changing technology" for the next 20 years while the Chinese take full advantage of the Moon.

davo - not so simple.

These resource (Oxygen, water) are very difficult to extract on the moon, and much easier to extract on Mars.

Extracting them on Mars in preparation for the human expedition is more straight forward. This particular question is not even the main debate point, since I don't think anyone has ever proposed mining resources on the moon and then relaunching them to Mars.

The main question is whether to learn how to do it on the moon before we go do it on Mars, and here it's a question of whether there's enough similarity between the two environments to make it a worthy exercise.

Robert as usual you and I do not see things the same way. I would like to avoid the politics so let me just say this. Charlie Bolden is the Administrator of NASA and he needs to get his butt back to DC and do his job. This flying all over the world to enlighten the middle east would be acceptable if he was doing the job we are paying him to do. He is not. The budget proposal is at a dead end. He has produced no plan that will develop "game changing technologies". All he does is go speak somewhere every week. He has spent more time talking to other countries than he has his own troops. I know this because I am one of them, and I have yet to hear an integrated plan that shows how all the pieces fit.

What I find amazing is the complete absence of any information pertaining to renewed development on space nuclear reactors and also possibly nuclear thermal propulsion (for perhaps a 3rd stage).

If Obama's plan in any way involves the VASIMR engine for BEO, then it's going to need low weight, high density power...and that means nuclear.

Why haven't we heard of anything being initiated along those lines? I believe that all NASA space-based nuclear power generation (not RTG's) and propulsion research was stopped in the 80's, or perhaps even earlier. The last R&D I know of was Project Timberwind, which I believe was part of Reagan's SDI program, and thus part of DOD.

"Charlie Bolden is the Administrator of NASA and he needs to get his butt back to DC and do his job."

well I would make a couple of points.

The first is that my guess is that Charlie is doing exactly what his ultimate boss wants. You (or I) might not like it, but particularly things like interviews with AJ by political appointees are cleared at the "highest levels" so...it is not like Charlie is out going rogue. Whatever he is doing he is doing as part of the gang.

Second I guess you have never watched General Bolden operate outside of NASA. I have. Charlie has had (before NASA) two head knocker assignments...a faltering Marine Air Wing and assignment as number 2...which really does the head knocking...at Canoe U..the USNA.

Charlie is doing what Charlie does. Some things have puzzled me, but except for a few nothing I have seen him do so far has surprised me based on his performance in the past.

Third, while I dont like, and have been critical here of some of his rhetoric (or lack of it in explaining the new program)...he is winning the political fight. Things like this are never pretty and it is messy to close things down in terms of federal programs; particularly now as jobs are tight. But every day that goes by he is "strangling the opposition" by the flow of events.

Finally. I think it is enormously important that we show the world that our version of "culture" is a good one. One that can tolerate, in fact embraces individual differences and preferences and yet can come together as one for common purpose sometimes putting aside individual comfort for the group.

We are at our best as a nation when fear and chaos knock on the door and we refuse to panic and act afraid. Charlie was in my view offering that vision in his effort.

Robert G. Oler

These resource (Oxygen, water) are very difficult to extract on the moon, and much easier to extract on Mars.

Upon what technical premise do you make this statement? A simple solar furnace on the Moon can raise a temperature of well over 2000 degrees C which will liberate the oxygen in the Magnesium Oxide and the Ferrous Oxide, which makes up the majority of the lunar oxides.

Larry Tayler from the University of Tennessee used a simple microwave oven to do the same thing.

This provides two simple methods of extracting oxygen from regolith.

On Mars this is far more difficult as you are twice as far away from the Sun, you have no areas other than the polar regions that have continuous sunlight (with a YEAR of darkness in the opposite season).

In order to do ANY significant ISRU on Mars takes nuclear power, so you just blew an extra several billion dollars before any payback.

I agree with you totally Jason. What Is really happening is that Bolden is helping Obama earn his second Nobel Peace Prize, at our kids expense.

I don't think this outreach is such a bad idea. If we (humans) are going
to continue to grow the world economy there are only two ways
to do it: improved technology/productivity and increased population.
The latter and somewhat the former imply getting more resources and
that means near Earth space. It is going to take several generations
to do this and may not ever be possible if the world continues to expend
large amounts of capital on the military. Therefore, using the space
program as a way unite the world could pay huge dividends in terms
of freeing up resources to get the toe hold in space humans need if we
want to continue to grow as we have historically.

However I have two very big concerns:

1) The timing of this isn't great with 3 months to go in the FY, and
the outlook for HSF very grey. Will Constellation be continued in FY11?
What about the ADA and the layoffs that are already starting? How
is the revived Orion to be funded? It certainly looks like NASA's
appropriation for FY11 will not be in place by Oct. 1 so what happens
to Constellation under a continuing resolution where the FY10
budget is used as the template for incremental funding in FY11 until
an FY11 appropriation is signed into law? Does Constellation work
continue during those months?? With all these big issues, an
outreach trip to the MidEast by the NASA admin. sure doesn't look
good on the home front at this time? Sure seems to have gotten a lot
of people on this blog pretty upset! I suppose this would upset some
no matter what, but the discontent seems very strong to me and I think
the timing plays a large role in that.

2) How are we going to make sure that technology with military applications
isn't transferred to these nations. Much of space technology is adaptable
to military applications. For example, we use GPS as part of the GN&C
system on ISS. If a foreign nation wanted to build a similar system for a
cruise missile GN&C application, the ISS technology would certainly be
of great use to such foreign designers. It is fine to inspire the youth of
these nations in the hope that it reduces future tensions, let's just not,
in the process, enable their parents to put a bomb in our backyards.

I think the case can be made that this endeavor is in the best interests
of the US. It however must be done with care especially in addressing the
two issues above and perhaps others. Unfortunately, this administration
doesn't have a very good track record so far in implementing policy
with foresight and sensitivity. Case in point: The handling of the
proposal to cancel Constellation at the budget roll out. It came as a
shock to just about everyone in NASA. I am not sure if anyone knew
except perhaps the administrator and the deputy admin. Also, the
new policy was very vague in the budget document. Lots of the dollar
amounts are nice round numbers. That says to me that on Feb.1 the
Obama administration said "We are going to do something very
different in HSF. Here are some vague outlines and ideas, but we haven't
filled in the details." That is very different from how a federal agency's
budget proposal is typically done, and IMHO very amateurish. We are
now beginning to see effects of this poor planning in the huge train
wreck that is just now starting in HSF. It sure looks like it is going to
get worse before it gets better.

Forrest

The Moon is much more economically viable than Mars since there's plenty of oxygen in the regolith (~40%) plus there are hydrogen resources in the form of water at the poles for resupplying fuel depots within cis-lunar space.

Traveling to Mars is probably going to require hundreds of tonnes of mass shielding plus substantial amounts hydrogen and oxygen for Mars landing vehicles. And its a lot cheaper to transport that mass shielding to orbit from the Moon than from the Earth.

Marcel F. Williams

Dennis - here's the technical premise:

On the moon, just as you say, you need to bake rock to 2000C (and there's nothing "simple" about such machinery in production scale, not even here on earth, not to mention equipment that has to be launch to the moon first).

In comparison, on Mars, you only need to scoop it up, maybe heat it up by 50 - 100 C. Not simple either, but simpler.

The hard vacuum on the moon is much more difficult on any machinery in than the 1% CO2 atmosphere on Mars. Anything from lubrication, cold-welding, heat dissipation - that 1% is closer to 100% than it is to 0%.

Lunar regolith dust is unlike Earth or Mars dust, which are products of flow erosion. That's why it is so much more abrasive than the Mars environment.

So yes, there's plenty of basis to argue that the Martian environment is much more benign for operations, and that the amount of work necessary to extract the resources is much lower.

Energy wise, yes, Mars has a 24-hr cycle, but if you're not trying to bake rock at 2000C, you don't need as much energy... How much energy does that rock melting process take per pound Oxygen produced?

And here's something else that just occurred to me. The sun at the lunar pole is always low on the horizon, but it circles the horizon, once every 30 days.

This means that you cannot lay down PV panels on the ground. They have to be stuck on poles and be able to rotate 360 degrees. Even at 1/6g, this is expensive structure per kWatt-hr produced. And even then, if you want large-scale solar fields, the receivers shade each other, and that's a big inherent problem.

It's a lot cheaper to be able to have PV fields that can be laid out horizontally.

Robert, I finally agree with you on something. Charlie IS doing exactly what the WH wants. I was not implying that he is going rogue. My point is that NASA is drifting aimlessly now and there is a coherent strategy that needs to be communicated. I am not advocating keeping Cx but what we have now is a void. There are plans. They exist. We know the technologies needed for Moon, Mars, Asteroids, etc. They are pretty easy to define: 1)Low weight high density power, which means in space nuclear reactors, 2)Closed life support systems, 3) In-situ resource utilization, 4)Crew protection from radiation and long term effects of zero-G. NASA already knows this and has known it for a decade or more. Why can't Charlie and the HQ bunch put together an integrated plan for Congress to consider? I mean it has been 5 months since the budget rollout and "there is no there there".

If the WH sends him somewhere it is his duty to push back and say "No, I need to stay in DC and work with Congress to get the plan approved". That should be easy to say. It may be ignored, but given the many times he speaks outside of NASA, I get the feeling that he does not even challenge the WH on anything.

Eddie,
Forgive me. I let others do the heavy lifting for me on the science argument about the Moon's resources -- they are correct. We know a great deal more about what the moon has to offer these days. It's not a case of "been there, done that". It's more like "stuff there, go get it, move on". Oh...and one more thing, the Moon is 4 days away!!!

It is unfathomable to me why we didn't act immediately on making use of the Moon after Apollo. Let's see, it took the Spanish just a few years after the Columbus expedition to establish permanent settlements in the New World. Humanity hasn't learned much about exploration in the last 500 years.

If you notice he said he was asked to do this before he became NASA administrator. So now we know that was part of the interview process for getting the job. Now we know why there were a ton of names mentioned before anyone got the job! None of them wanted the job under those terms!!!!

sb023, I did not pick up on that but you make an excellent point. My view is that Charlie is a nice guy, a loyal soldier, but one of the worst administrators that we have ever had. I do not expect miracles, but I do expect a person who dedicates himself to the task if he is asking the rest of us to change.

Davo - yes, we indeed know a lot more about the moon then we used to, and most of it is astonishing.

We also know more about Mars, and most of it is astonishing.

Can't really go wrong with exploration, now can't we :)

The "Been there" comment is taken way way out of context. It wasn't said as in "we have exhausted lunar exploration". It was on the choice between two viable exploration targets.

The moon is closer, there's no arguing that. The Martian environment is more benign, and there's really no arguing that either.

For short trips, the ease of travel wins for the moon. For long stays, Mars breaks even and becomes an easier target.

But the main thing is the potential. Mars is so much more complex than the moon. We get excited over water on the moon, but on Mars we're talking active geology, past conditions for life, and quite possibly present conditions for remnant life as well. It's not even a close comparison.

Even trips to asteroids have the potential to teach us more about the solar system, not to mention when you consider asteroids as potential threats.

Yes, we should have stayed the course after Apollo, but we screwed up because of the same machinery that is now trying to keep CxP alive and oppose Obama's plan.

We didn't stay on the moon, and that's irreversible. Where to go today though? Mars and asteroids, IMO.

In comparison, on Mars, you only need to scoop it up, maybe heat it up by 50 - 100 C. Not simple either, but simpler.

Uh, no, thats water, not oxygen. It takes a lot of electrical energy to get water. Where are you going to get that?

The hard vacuum on the moon is much more difficult on any machinery in than the 1% CO2 atmosphere on Mars. Anything from lubrication, cold-welding, heat dissipation - that 1% is closer to 100% than it is to 0%.

Much more difficult is not an engineering term. That hard vacuum is not any harder on equipment than at the bottom of a mine. In the polar regions the thermal variations are minimal. Cold welding is as much of a benefit as it is a problem.

Lunar regolith dust is unlike Earth or Mars dust, which are products of flow erosion. That's why it is so much more abrasive than the Mars environment.

It is no more abrasive than the shattered dust a mile deep in a coal, gold, or platinum mine. There are a lot of those and we know how to deal with it. You are going to have a lot of problems with the extremely highly reactive regolith on Mars as well so it is not this kind soil that you would like to think.

Energy wise, yes, Mars has a 24-hr cycle, but if you're not trying to bake rock at 2000C, you don't need as much energy... How much energy does that rock melting process take per pound Oxygen produced?

If you are using a solar furnace, it is less energy than splitting water to get oxygen on Mars. At Mars solar insolation is no more than 700 watts per square meter so you need a lot more surface area to get the same amount of heat (1365 watts per square meter on the Moon). You also get metals as a bonus, which can be used for building structures, vehicles, and anything else you want built, something that you are not going to get on Mars.

This means that you cannot lay down PV panels on the ground. They have to be stuck on poles and be able to rotate 360 degrees. Even at 1/6g, this is expensive structure per kWatt-hr produced. And even then, if you want large-scale solar fields, the receivers shade each other, and that's a big inherent problem.

No on in their right mind is going to take solar panels all the way from the Earth to Mars and then lay them flat. The seasonal variation in power is considerably more than on the Earth due to the higher tilt of Mars and the longer year. You are going to have both Azmuith and Elevation tracking on Mars while at the lunar poles all you need is a rotor with power transfer rings, something that we already do for satellites in space. Sorry but that thought does not even come close to being right.

Also, the lunar regolith as we already know from Apollo is up to 1% meteoric metal. All you need is a magnetic rake to get tons and tons per day. This can be melted and poured into forms, for buildings, railroads, rover and bulldozer and other shapes forms, and items.

You are three seconds away from the Earth round trip for telepresence operations vs 45 minutes to Mars. This provides a means to dramatically improve the productivity of robotic equipment. This is simply not possible on Mars.

The solar panels get more than twice the power from the sun on the Moon than on Mars, meaning that to get started on industrialization you do not need nuclear power.

On the Moon you are three days away from the Earth vs a two year round trip to Mars. The time cost of money is dramatically shifted to the Moon.

GEO Orbit, the most valuable space real estate in the solar system is closer to the Lunar surface than it is to Low Earth Orbit. it is another seven kilometers a second from the Earth's surface.

Mars is for colonization, for a second outpost of humanity. However, we will never be able to sustain it or support its growth without the industrial capacity of the Moon.

Uh, no, thats water, not oxygen. It takes a lot of electrical energy to get water. Where are you going to get that?

Sorry meant to say electrical energy to get oxygen from the water.

I did the math recently on Oxygen from water on Mars, then worked in the local insolation, to figure out how much PV receiver area is needed to support a person. Wasn't too bad at all.

If you did the same for extracting the Oxygen from rock, we can compare notes.

And hard vacuum is much harder on equipment, nothing at all comparable to a mine... Almost nothing of what is intuitive to a mechanical engineer applies to a vacuum environment.

Without the molecular layers of gunk that coat all surfaces on an world with an atmosphere (1 atm or 0.01 atm, it does not matter) all sorts of things happen. Exposed metal surfaces will spontaneously cold weld. Solder joints creep out. lubricants sublimate away. Polymers die a quick death.

There are fixes to most all of these issues, but they are expensive, and very limiting to a designer. And the machinery to boil rocks at 2000C is a lot more demanding than an hydrolysis reactor.

Mars is indeed the eventual target for colonization, but what you consider a "first step" on the moon is actually a step in the opposite direction - it poses a set of challenges completely different from those required to overcome on Mars, and we'll spend decades figuring them out, without getting any closer to the real goal.

If we want to colonize Mars, we need to start now by doing ISRU on Mars. If we want to learn about life in the solar system, we need to start now by extensive studies of Mars. All roads lead there - why not get going?

> I agree with you totally Jason. What Is really happening is that Bolden is helping Obama earn his second Nobel Peace Prize, at our kids expense.

What expense are you talking about? Bolden's gas bill? What exactly is the expense of making friends?

Whomever is sending this man on these world-circling trips away from the issues facing NASA isn't doing Bolden or his agency any favors. It only makes strengthening the top leadership ranks of NASA harder; power abhorrs a vaccuum and while Bolden is doing what the WH asks of him, it has little to do with the crises racking the agency. In a time of grave issues facing the future of NASA and HSF, this is just unbelievable and inexcusable.

"My point is that NASA is drifting aimlessly now and there is a coherent strategy that needs to be communicated."

I agree with that, but I dont think that right now "drift" is a bad thing. We have been going in the wrong direction for so long, simply drifting in place is not a bad thing.

There is as a baseline no real political support in The Republic for human spaceflight. There are four groups of people...those who are simply against it (for whatever reason mostly they view the money as a waste), space fans (this is probably "me") who are far it because we see it and the nations (or humanities) future entwined, people who are employees in the effort (and they might share the same background as space fans but they also are worried about their jobs), and then there is everyone else.

The last category is almost everyone...the first three are very small percentages of the American people. The problem is that to these people there is no reason that is based on the "logic of today" (to use Jonathan Alter's term) that human spaceflight should go forward particularly just to "go somewhere". People like Dennis Wingo give it a very good try at explaining in coherent terms "why" and I realize what Wingo/Spudis etal are advocating is more then just "going"

...but in the end that "why" just more and more cannot compete with what is becoming a grim reality of American life (job loss, etc).

I dont care how logical Wingo's arguments are (and they are good) he and others simply cannot break through the "noise" that is growing of our national life right now. This is why almost every politician who talks about deep space exploration talks about it in a time frame that is way in the future and almost none talk about "farming the sky" (my phrase). The politicans have to say the words for the employed and the space fans, but thats all they are "words" (and thats all it has been for decades).

So Bolden is left trying to pick up the pieces of an agency who has some inertia (meaning some money is going to be spent) but whose mission has been "exploration" (at least on theory) taking one "logical step after another" none of which has had any practical use for most Americans...and which now has no real support for the dollars (in almost any form) needed to actually do more like projects. He has got to change the agency for it to survive.

Constellation and NASA's view of return to the Moon has helped him by self destructing...it is just to expensive and some of the cheerleaders/politicians representing the four groups I mentioned want it, but none want to pay for it. We have settled into a state of exploration consisting of maintaining programs, not actually going anywhere. After Cx and shuttle are dead...well thats when the new direction starts.

So in my view what Charlie is trying to do, is let "natural selection" take its course. Turn off the money where he can, let shuttle/Cx and some infrastructure just wilt...

That is annoying to people who like you believe that there is some uber mission for humans to explore the solar system. You are correct everyone knows what needs to be done to go to (insert place here) and you nailed most of the technologies. Where we probably disagree is that 1) I dont think doing it is all that important NOW and 2) I dont see any political will to do it.

While the new NASA Is going to look at some of those things...I think you will find if Charlie gets his way, it doesnt look at a lot of them.

What it is going to do is to nibble at the technologies that are needed to make EArth orbit work for humans. To allow humans to do things in earth orbit that are cost effective and pay their way. While it is on inertia, that is the only mission that the politics of the present and likely future will sustain. Charlie (I think) realizes that unless human spaceflight starts to have some economic reason for existing...it wont.

There are not going to be any grand missions back tot he Moon or on to Mars or much of anything else "exploration" for humans ...for quite sometime. And when it happens (in a decade or two) it will happen because most of the parts will have been developed for something else and doing it wont be all that expensive nor time consuming.

This transition is long and not very pretty. I would like to see Charlie give some more coherent speeches here at home...but the speeches I would like would simply pour JP (of some variant) on the 'save our exploration" forces...and they are losing right now. Best let them simply die out.

Robert G. Oler

Why worry about getting moon or Mars? After 2 more shuttle flights we will not be able to go anywhere, for maybe dozens of years. Has anyone noticed that none of the 3 things Bolden has been charged to do involves actually launching things or flying in space? Is it too much to ask that NASA be charged with space exploration. Why is making Muslim nations feel good about themselves, NASA's mission? Shouldn't that be up to the Muslim nation. Obama is US president and NASA is US agency, shouldn't they do something to make thier own citizens feel good?

Interesting reading all these comments. But not much response on those few commenters that brought up ITAR and EAR?
So here are a set of questions from another perspective: One big question is how is the US going to calibrate ITAR and National and International Export Controls? Is this transparent?

How are we going to maintain balance with National Security, our economy, etc. with all of this playing in the same sandbox with US space assets and energy assets?

Does Obama, Congress, and Senate have a hold on this (or a stalemate) big question of calibrating ITAR and Export Controls in a transparent way?

Is this ITAR/EAR issue lost in short term turn around? Not considering the long term impacts?

So far, no laws have changed per policies in the federal agencies. Will this mean more jobs in the FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. for those loosing jobs at NASA?

In the future could this possibly turn into broader and uglier economic hits on our Country? If not, what do you all think is the justification on how it will improve the economy and national security?

Who benefits? The tax payers or those in positions within large transnational Corporations or transnational Venture Capitals? Or both? If both, how?

Is it transparent?

If we want to colonize Mars, we need to start now by doing ISRU on Mars.

You are not going to do enough ISRU on Mars to support even a small installation without nuclear power. Nuclear power, at least 100 kilowatts to start but rapidly climbing to the megawatts. You are simply not going to do this with solar. A megawatt on the Moon is pretty easy with solar and even that is going to cost upwards of a billion dollars.

While all of the things that you talk about are challenges, they are also opportunities. There are different ways of doing things, especially if you make the big parts for mobile and fixed systems locally that make such a dramatic difference in systems engineering and cost that the entire meme of exploration and development changes.

With what we know about the Moon today, we no longer have to build excessively expensive ground integrated systems in the Earth, launch them, shake the hell out of them, and deliver them to the Moon at $100,000 per kg.

With extremely simple systems, that we will be demonstrating over the next year, you can take the meteoric metal, melt it, pour it into forms made from sintered regolith and make your rover bodies, axels, wheels, and even the seats. If you need a bulldozier, you can add a blade from ISRU made extremely simply with flat plate. It won't look like the pictures of old, but who cares, it will work.

On the Moon or Mars enclosed living space is the true gold. Using nothing more than flat plate that comes from sintered molds, a crane (already developed by NASA Langely), a means to move them, and a laser welder, you can build n sized structures that are more or less radiation proof and build to a structural margin of 100 on the surface. With that living space, and using trace gasses in the lunar regolith that are liberated at no more than 800c you can provide all the breathing gas, nitrogen, carbon, and other gasses you need to make an atmosphere.

With this living space and sunlight agriculture is possible, greatly reducing the need to import food at $100,000 per kg.

At the end of the day, the Moon is going to be one of the major industrial engines of the solar system. People will live on Mars and build a major civilization there. However, it will simply not be possible without what the Moon will provide. Spaceships that will make the spam in a cans that people are thinking about today obsolete will be built on the Moon and assembled in Cislunar space. Large GEO platforms unthinkable today, including if it ever make sense solar power satellites (the jury is still out on that one), and eventually nuclear reactors that could never be launched from the Earth due to the politics will be built there.

Mars has too deep of a gravity well to make this economical and single stage to orbit is a breeze on the Moon.

It is not an either or proposition of the Moon vs Mars. The Moon enables Mars and Mars and the rest of the solar system sustains the industrial fires of the Moon.

Pissing in each other's shoes about the Moon vs Mars is a stupid, pointless, and self defeating exercise. Understand that both are important, vitally so, to our future in space.

"What expense are you talking about? Bolden's gas bill? What exactly is the expense of making friends?"

We're it only so.

Cancelling lunar plans and stressing Muslim outreach as a "foremost" goal for NASA.

It is bizarre, backwards and horribly misguided.

How is using NASA as a foreign policy outreach tool to the "Muslim world" going ot inspire *AMERICAN* children to reach for the stars?

SO we get all these Muslims "feeling good" about themselves. How does that get us back to the moon or even just BEO?

It is at the expense of America's future to do this with NASA. NASA's charter doesn't say "Muslim world outreach". It wasn't founded for that.

Keep that stuff for the state department. That is what it is for. Not NASA for crying out loud.

so now we're making progress -

If we limit this to an engineering debate on whether we should go to Moon or Mars first, that fine.

What pisses me off is that notion that's being propagated that this whole thing is a conspiracy to kill HSF.

We all agree now that CxP should have been axed. I'd think that it's also obvious that Bolden and Co are pushing the Asteroid/Mars agenda.

Then we can have a good discussion on where to go next...

If we limit this to an engineering debate on whether we should go to Moon or Mars first, that fine.

Engineering is only part of that debate. Gordon Woodcock said it best about the different destinations:

Going to Mars rather than the Moon is easy, it just costs ten times more money

Money by the way that NASA does not have and it is readily apparent that congress was never going to provide the funds that Griffin actually needed to make it happen. At the end of the day, if we really were going to have a robust exploration and development program, CxP was not that bad of an architecture. However, Dr. Griffin never made the case for why all that big hardware was actually needed.

He specifically stated on one occasion that what we did on the Moon was not his problem, his problem was to build the rocket. Well no, that is not how it works. You first have to lay out what the goal is, then work backward to the rocket that you need to achieve it. That is what Von Braun did all the way back to 1950 and the Colliers articles.

I am not one of those who proclaims with great vigor that the new plan kills human space flight simply does not understand that it was CxP that was killing human spaceflight, cut by cut, budget by budget.

The flagship tech demos, if carried out right, have the capability of making major strides towards a real architecture to get us out of BEO. The Moon will be easy then. Mars comes later.

I assume that Mars First advocates actually want people to land on Mars. And that's going to be a lot more difficult to do and probably a lot more expensive than landing on the Moon.

But no government, or governments, is going to spend all of that money just for astronauts to collect rocks on Mars for a few weeks. The first astronauts on Mars are probably going to have to stay their several months and perhaps even a few years before returning home-- with no hope of any assistance from NASA or other space agencies on Earth if anything goes wrong out there.

We need to see how well astronauts cope with mechanical and psychological difficulties at a Moon base first before we invest in much more expensive and riskier facilities located months away.

We need to conquer our own immediate extraterrestrial universe first (cis-lunar space) before we attempt to conquer a whole new universe that's several months away.

Marcel F. Williams

Well, I will respectfully disagree.

From what I see, while the moon is closer, everything you do on it will be more difficult and more expensive, and the more you try to do, the more it's going to hurt.

Moon before Mars is like base jumping before parachuting. Learning to survive on a rocky island before trying to survive on the next continent. Harder and irrelevant - a detour.