This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
Election 2012

Bolden Seeks To Force Mars Goal Commitment From Obama

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
October 25, 2012
Filed under , , ,

Charlie Bolden Intends To Press President Obama on Mars Mission Mandate for NASA
“This long term ISS operations plan did not sit well will NASA Administrator Charlie Bolden. Bolden said that he needed to know directly from President Obama whether or not missions to Mars starting in the 2030s was to be NASA’s ultimate goal. If this is not the President’s goal for NASA, then Bolden wondered why NASA should be expected to continue funding the ISS for another decade and a half. At one point, Bolden teared up and said that “Mars is the Goal”. Bolden claimed that he was intent upon going to the White House, “pounding his shoe on the table”, and demanding a commitment from President Obama to direct NASA to send humans to Mars. Bolden said that he needs that commitment to allow him to decide what to do (not do) with regard to extending the ISS.”

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

90 responses to “Bolden Seeks To Force Mars Goal Commitment From Obama”

  1. Adarious ✓ᵀᴿᵁᴹᴾ says:
    0
    0

    I have to agree with Bolden here… but considering how unstable everything is right now, he’s going to have a rough time of getting anything solidified.  I think the first goal..obviously, needs to be the extended space station on the moon.  If that much can be accomplished…especially if it’s used as a halfway point/pit stop..then I think there’s a lot of promise.

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      Are you refering to the proposed station at L2?

      I think NASA should push for it. We need space based vehicles and having an orbital destination in a halo orbit at L2 allows us to develop that type of transportation system.

      I would prefer that it be commercial transportation. NASA order a couple Nautilus – X’s do the field tests then up grade them for travel to an astroid and then have commercial take over that task of LEO to L2.

      • mattmcc80 says:
        0
        0

        I’m a big fan of the Nautilus X concept, since it has no technical unknowns and doesn’t require a bigger launcher than the ones we already have.  But it doesn’t fit within the commercial spaceflight model that COTS and CCDev are designed to support.  That model requires sufficient non-NASA activity to make a commercial spaceflight business profitable.  There’s no commercial market for the Nautilus X on the horizon, so whoever builds it for NASA would be operating under a traditional government contract.

        • Michael Reynolds says:
          0
          0

          How does it not fit within the commercial spaceflight model for COTS and CCDev? Until it is fully constructed and ready to head to Mars or wherever it’s destination is, it will need to be supplied (COTS). Also if SLS is dropped (most likely anyways) in favor of a program like this then it will require commercial crew (CCDev) in the absence of SLS and Orion. Not to mention that Bigelow could play a huge role in constructing parts of it (Inflatable sections) and give Heavy Falcon (possibly Falcon X/XX/X Heavy) business. Because of this I think it will give more more purpose  and sustainability to the commercial market than the current SLS program does.

          • Vladislaw says:
            0
            0

            Excellent points Michael. The reason I believe it will be an easy transition is because it is not nuclear powered. A true mars vehicle will ultimately need nuke power and J.Q. Public may not be happy about commercially operated nuclear space craft.

            The fuel  depots, stations etc all are vehicles for commercial enterprise, all NASA has to do is be the anchor tenat.

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Vladislaw,

            I agree with your nuclear statements.  Educating the masses (and the politicians) to try to overturn their misconceptions about nuclear is one of the things that I feel strongly NASA, and the government as a whole, should have been working on all along.  It’s one of those things where life is much less than it could be because of what people believe, rather than what the truth is.  Nuclear can be dangerous, extremely dangerous, if it is handled foolishly or negligently, but that’s true of almost anything in our high technology world.  With proper safeguards built in there’s no reason why we couldn’t be pursuing a nuclear (orbit to orbit) Mars mission spacecraft.  It means separate spacecraft for going between orbits and surfaces, but I think that was always going to be necessary anyhow.

            I think that a nuclear orbit to orbit spacecraft would have commercial possibilities long before most of the other “mission” proposals that have been kicked around for the last 30 years (since it is not destination specific).  Of course, it still hangs on a cheap, efficient Earth to LEO (and back) system, but it always has.  And that is the best reason, in my mind, to keep supporting COTS and CCDev, etc,. and whatever may be the next logical steps to continue what they have started.

            Steve

  2. Fred says:
    0
    0

    Only those in denial will not see this for what it is and
    has been for the last 4 years with this administration. Nothing short of chaos,
    no plan, no nothing, just winging it all, with spin from their gullible supporters.
    We have been told over and over that Mars is the destination, so why does he
    have to go to the President to validate 
    and confirm this vision? Was that just spin? As for ISS why develop Commercial
    Crew if it will only operate for 3 years and 6 or seven flights at best? Is that
    really cost effective? If ISS goes to 2020 cancel CCP today.  The shoe pounding reminds me of Nikita K.
    tactics hmmm…. But I digress. Bolden should not worry about shoe pounding on
    Romney’s desk. If he doesn’t retire as is rumored by December, Romney will have
    him replaced day 1, along with the other genius on the ninth floor. Of course,
    I appreciate Bolden revealing that there has not been a  plan for the last 4 years.
     

    • Vladislaw says:
      0
      0

      I believe that marker will develop if a ship like Nautilus brings the seat price down below what Russia is proposing … 150 milllion for a fly by. Also it does sound like Bigelow wants to put something there, again … does the counties signing the mou’s for LEO .. do they want to rent space farther out?

      • hikingmike says:
        0
        0

        Off topic, but I bet Bigelow will be making some darn good stations someday since they’ve had all this spare time (and money apparently) to work on things.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Fred,

      Try looking at it from another perspective.  When you consider the progress in growing commercial capabilities, and when you look past HSF to all of the other things that NASA has managed to do in the last four years — despite all of the infantile roadblocks thrown up by Congress — then a lot has been accomplished, and it has not been chaos at all.  One problem that we keep running into is the number of people, apparently yourself included, who equate “vision” with a “mission.”  And it’s often worse than that; it can’t be just any mission, it has to be the specific mission that the comment maker wants, otherwise we have no “vision.”  This presumes that the comment maker has all of the right answers and knows better than everyone else, which I find impossible to accept.  An opinion is an opinion, and everybody is entitled to their own, but it carries more weight when it is backed up by the actual facts.  Try looking at what has been accomplished.

      Steve

  3. Jason Bachelor says:
    0
    0

    I doubt this will actually happen but maybe Bolden should have done this 2 or 3 years ago and not 1 1/2 weeks before election day.  Maybe then there would be a mission for SLS to be designed for.

  4. jamesmuncy says:
    0
    0

    This is strange.  There are a lot of reasons to want to continue to utilize ISS beyond 2020, if it is technically and financially sustainable, other than just using it to enable humans to Mars.  But there is NO reason to spend money on a 130-MT Space Launch System if you are not going to Mars fairly soon.   You don’t need 130-MT if you’re just hopping around cislunar space. 

    (Whether you ever need a 130-MT SLS for anything is a separate issue, but clearly the only reason to build one now is if you’re planning to go to Mars soon.) 

    So, unless Gen. Bolden gets a “Go for Mars” decision, he would toss out a still-useful tool that already exists in favor of a wholly irrelevant one that’s only one year into its initial design. 

    Doesn’t sound very rational to me. 

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

       You don’t need 130-MT if you’re just hopping around cislunar space.

      Jim, you don’t need a 130 ton vehicle at all for cislunar space.  On top of that the ISS could be the critical logistics hub for the Moon or Mars, even with the 6% payload hit.  Someone has been imbibing large quantities of koolaid.

      • jamesmuncy says:
        0
        0

        Not me, I assure you.  I was just trying to avoid a religious flame war.  (I know, I know… “who are you and what did you do with the Jim Muncy who can’t spell diplomacy?”)

      • Vladislaw says:
        0
        0

        i wait for the day when that will be the default setting, we do not need monster rockets for lunar transportation.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Jim,

      I very much agree with most of your post.  And I think that it’s worth suggesting that if ISS spending were to be thoroughly analyzed, and then all of the things regularly being charged against ISS which are not really part of using and maintaining it were removed from the ISS budget — and no longer charged to it — then we just might see a dollar figure that is a lot more palatable than what has been paid out in the past.

      Evaluating ROI on the ISS is always going to be a very subjective thing, primarily because of all the intangibles involved, but I think we’d get a lot less criticism, and more acceptance of the ISS concept, if it wasn’t so expensive.  The catch, of course, is that most of the people who would be called in to do such an analysis have vested interests in leaving things as they are.  This suggests, to me at least, that it’s past time to start playing hardball and forcing matters / decisions / commitments, which is perhaps what Bolden is now doing.  When I try to put myself in his shoes, I wonder how long could I go along, being a good soldier, and being held publicly accountable for NASA’s situation while having been allowed no real authority in determining that situation.

      Whether America / NASA is headed for Mars or not, I think SLS is a huge mistake.  Those who dreamed it up, and those who continue to support it, are still stuck on the simple idea that bigger is better, period.  And that, to me, shows a serious lack of understanding of the actual requirements to be satisfied in the next  half century of developing and exploring space.  SLS’s sole benefit is the jobs it has created/saved, even though it will turn out to have been make-work.

      Personally, I think Charles Bolden has been given a raw deal, criticized by Congress, the public, and even by the President to whom he theoretically reports, and all the while being forced to do things (and make NASA do things) not of his choosing.  Right or wrong, I’m pretty sure that, in his position, I would have marched into the boss’s office long before now, saying you do your job and let me do mine, or find yourself another fall guy.

      Steve

  5. Vladislaw says:
    0
    0

    Funding the ISS for another decade and a half? That is assuming another extension past the 2020 mark. So the eight year extension is already a done deal as far as Bolden is concerned?

    So if President Obama does not commit to a Mars mission today, we should immediately splash the ISS? I am not seeing the logic in this… can anyone explain?

    • Michael Reynolds says:
      0
      0

      I think when they talk about extending ISS past the current 2020 timeframe they are indicating a previous plan to use parts of the ISS to create the L2/L1 base. All supposition of course.

    • Ben Russell-Gough says:
      0
      0

       I’ve heard 2025 or even 2028 being discussed by some commentators (not necessarily informed ones) as a “realistic” date for ISS retirement but that might be just personal opinions and thus meaningless.

      Ultimately, it is the degeneration of the systems on the modules that is going to be the deciding factor.  Some of the ISS elements are already over a decade old.  Eventually, systems will fail that can’t be easily replaced and funding will not exist for replacement modules (even if such could be installed, which is unlikely).  So NASA has to plan for the day when ISS cannot any longer be the centre of HSF and, IMHO, that day will likely come in the 2020-5 time-frame.

      The issue that needs to be confronted, either by Administrator Bolden or by whoever is appointed to the hot-seat by Mitt Romney, is how to best use the decade or so ahead so that, when the day comes when ISS has to be splashed, NASA has an HSF mission already underway to replace it.  This cannot be a series of gesture-politics zero-result make-work projects but must be a focussed plan, developing launchers (if necessary), spacecraft and other payloads as well as any needed technologies so that they are in place when ISS goes “bye-bye”.

      I’m personally a fan of the ISS-heritage EML2 gateway station, as an element of a comprehensive human survey of the lunar surface.  However, I’m no expert and don’t know if that’s doable; I’m sure the real experts will have a good idea of what can be afforded and scheduled into this interim period.

  6. Tom Sellick says:
    0
    0

    Space the final frontier.  These are the voyages of NASA’s administrator.  His 25 year mission to go to Mars and seek out Asteroids.  To Boldenly go stomp shoes where no man has stomped shoes before!

  7. Andrew_M_Swallow says:
    0
    0

    “… missions to Mars starting in the 2030s was to be NASA’s ultimate goal.”

    How would Obama know?  He is not going to be in office after 2016.  Mars missions are for a different president to authorise.

    Also what have Mars missions got to do the the life of the ISS?  Even the extended life of the ISS does not go beyond the mid 2030s.

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Andrew,

      The point you’re not taking into account is that a manned Mars mission is not going to happen during the same Presidential term it is initiated in.  It will take more than four years, and more than even eight years to plan, implement, and execute.  This is the major challenge that has clobbered us every time — every new President cancels his predecessor’s plans and start his own, which means we are forever in restart mode, perpetually throwing away whatever gets accomplished during any one President’s term. So Obama, recognizing this, is making statements, like all of his predecessors, which assume that a Mars mission will be allowed to proceed, once begun, through however many administrations it takes.  If that doesn’t happen, it won’t be his fault.  But some President has to start the Mars program, even if his/her name is long forgotten when the mission finally happens.

      As for how the ISS fits in, what we all seem to overlook when discussing its life time is that how long it’s made to last depends a great deal on what it’s being used for.  Maintaining only those ISS functions and facilities that would be useful for executing a manned Mars mission would be a lot cheaper, and more viable, than trying to maintain/update all of the functions that the ISS currently (in theory) performs.  In fact, with regular reboosts, there’s no reason that I can see why the basic structure couldn’t be maintained for several more decades at least.  The solar cells panels would have to be replaced, ideally with a nuclear electric power generator, and any holes/collision damage would have to be repaired as they happened, but otherwise I think the station is in a fairly static situation, and all of the scientific instruments need not be maintained/updated, only those things applicable to assisting a Mars mission.

      Steve

      • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
        0
        0

         As US Presidents only have 7 years of control authority the planning of Mars missions will have to be performed by NASA.  The plan will have to operate over several presidencies.  When about 7 years from launch NASA tells the president.

        Each part will have to be prepared in advance.  A mission that using the next part will need approving by the current president.  Continue until all the parts exist.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          Andrew,

          We’re saying the same thing, so you haven’t addressed the catch.  If any one President changes the plan, then it’s all out the window.  And this is what we’ve seen over and over, every President cancels the previous plans, for better or for worse, and either starts something new or does nothing significant instead.

          the planning of Mars missions will have to be performed by NASA

          This is obvious.  They are the only ones that could possibly do it.  But if they are not given the same executive orders — to continue on with the Mars program — year after year, then it’s not going to happen.  NASA is the employee, not the boss. 

          Steve

          • Andrew_M_Swallow says:
            0
            0

            Andrew_M_Swallow
            Steve Whitfield it may be obvious that the planning has to be performed by NASA but currently the planning is being (half) done by the White House and Congress.

            US Presidents have up to two 4 year terms so major programs need to be split into 4 and 8 year chunks.  (Minor programs may be able to go longer.)

            The full Mars program will last a lot longer than 8 years, so no president can run it.  Consequently the only president able to comit to going to Mars is the one covering the last 6 years before the launch.

            Presidents before that have to choose missions suggested by NASA that build and use a manned rover or a habitat or a depot or etc.  The information that the equipment can also be used by a Mars mission is hidden in the small print.

            As for one president cancelling the previous president’s plans that simply means that all the sub-programs have a maximum length of 8 years.  If a sub-program takes more than 8 years split it or do something simpler.

            NASA needs all the equipment to go to Mars but with imagination the order of development can be changed.

  8. newpapyrus says:
    0
    0

    For some reason Bolden doesn’t seem to get the message that Obama doesn’t want NASA to do anything when it comes to manned spaceflight!

     That’s why Obama’s  supporting Commercial Crew development in order to end, or to  at least  dramatically reduce, tax payer funding for manned spaceflight.  Obama supports extending the ISS program as merely an international diplomacy program (he loves foreign policy) and also as a make-work program for Commercial Crew companies. But that’s about it!

    Sure Obama talks about silly  stunt flights———- in the far future—— to an asteroid and to Mars orbit. But he really doesn’t want NASA to have anything built to actually do those things.

    Congress had to force the SLS on him! And his administration has tried everything possible to stall, delay, and to underfund the SLS program. And this  has angered both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

    Like many Democrats on the extreme left and many Tea baggers on the extreme right, Obama appears to view a government manned space program as simply a series of silly stunts and a  waste of tax payer dollars! Why Bolden hasn’t come to  realize this is beyond me:-)

    Marcel F. Williams

    • Ralphy999 says:
      0
      0

      I fear you are right Marcel. Manned space flight just isn’t a major consideration for Obama. The ISS and commercial flights suits him OK. The rest of the stuff won’t even happen with in the years of his adminstration, not even an L2 station. So he just doesn’t concern himself with it. Another factor maybe the looming budget cuts. We could be looking at decades of stagnant NASA programs. I see no indication that Romney would be any better.

      • EliRabett says:
        0
        0

         Well yes, manned space flight is an affectation of fourteen year old boys.  Obama is a grown up.

        • Ralphy999 says:
          0
          0

          And the reason you are participting in a forum of Nasawatch is…….?

          • Helen Simpson says:
            0
            0

            The reason is that probably he or she was kicked out of Mannedspaceflightwatch.

          • EliRabett says:
            0
            0

             Because manned space flight is a necessary curse for NASA.  It is needed to involve the public, but it sucks resources from a lot of stuff NASA does really well that are important wrt Earth observation and space science.  What we don’t need is another hole to empty money into (yes, Eli knows about Webb)

          • Ralphy999 says:
            0
            0

            Eli, I don’t do very well with “gotcha” discourse but I must point out that the Webb telescope, if that is what you are refering to, is an unmanned project at which NASA is supposed to excel. Fact is, it’s all risky enterprise and easy to mess up with.

    • Mark_Flagler says:
      0
      0

      I would sure like to see documentation for your opinions.

      • kcowing says:
        0
        0

        “Documentation”? Are you asking me to reveal sources? Uh-uh.

        • Mark_Flagler says:
          0
          0

          That was in reply to Williams, who seems to have a free-form idea of what constitutes verifiable fact.

      • newpapyrus says:
        0
        0

        I guess you didn’t watch the Congressional testimony when Democrats and Republicans in Congress were grilling the Obama administration personal month after month after month on their foot-dragging on the SLS program. It was fascinating!

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          That is simply HILARIOUS. Grilling? What is the most people that EVER show up for these kobuki theater shows? 4 to 5?

          Kay B. Hutchinson, Nelson … lol … Laughable that you somehow equate porkonauts like these with unbaised actors.

          They want their BIG MONSTER pork rocket for the jobs… results .. who cares … inflated costs? What inflated costs?

          Sheesh come on .. wake up and smell the rocket fuel.

          • newpapyrus says:
            0
            0

             You mean like the $3 billion a year mission to nowhere (ISS) program:-)

            Marcel F. Williams

          • Steve Whitfield says:
            0
            0

            Broken reco…; broken reco…; broken reco…;

            Would somebody please fix that thing once and for all!

          • npng says:
            0
            0

            Papy,

            It may take an IQ in about the 40 range to figure out a program has a deficiency, but an IQ of about 140 to figure out how to correct the deficiency.   Reading your repeated categorical complaints, devoid of any solutions, where would you say you are in that range?

    • Nassau Goi says:
      0
      0

      “dramatically reduce, tax payer funding for manned spaceflight. “

      Commercial crew offers longevity for manned spaceflight and increased efficiency with minimal risk from government cancellations which have plagued NASA.

      SLS, if it ever flies will eventually be mothballed and prove to never be sustainable.

      That could be why Bolden hasn’t adopted your viewpoint.

      • newpapyrus says:
        0
        0

         The SLS/MPCV development program is only costing $3 billion a year  out of the $8.4 billion a year manned space program that Obama inherited from George Bush. NASA also says that cost per flight should be about $500 million.

        So the SLS is only unsustainable if you don’t want NASA to  establish a permanent presence at the lunar poles or  if you don’t want NASA to travel to the moons of Mars. The Commercial Crew program won’t get you to the Moon or Mars.

        The SLS is also the only launch vehicle currently under development that could launch the largest private commercial space stations such as Bigelow’s Olympus.

        But if NASA funded the development of a large reusable lunar shuttle (perhaps $1.5 billion a year over 6 or 7 years) fueled from lunar water resources from a lunar outpost deployed through the SLS program,  such a vehicle could operate between the lunar surface and Earth orbit.  And that would give NASA and commercial crew launches easy and cheap access to the lunar surface.

        Marcel F. Williams

        • Vladislaw says:
          0
          0

          No matter how many times you do that.. say the SLS is “only” costing 3 billion a year. It is still insanity on a bun.

          SpaceX, Lockheed and Boeing .. all gave better price quotes than this pork train to nowhere congress have foisted on the american taxpayer.

          SpaceX said 2.5 billion. … for their ENTIRE program .. yet you think it is just find and a bargin that NASA is ONLY burning through taxpayer funding at a rate of only 3 billion a year, that three companies have said they could provide for less than 10% – 20% of what NASA’s cost plus pork extravaganza is costing.

          Sheesh .. wake up and smell the rocket fuel …

          • newpapyrus says:
            0
            0

             The unnecessary  ISS workfare program for Commercial Crew development is going to cost the tax payers $3 billion a year. And it will not get us to the Moon or Mars.  So that’s $3 billion a year not spent on returning to the Moon or trying to get to Mars. More money wasted on NASA’s 40 year mission to LEO!

            I’m a strong supported of commercial crew development. And I strongly support spending tax payer dollar (up to a billion a year) helping private industry get on its feet. But using the ISS program which only requires only about three manned flights per year from the US side as a  means for supporting  Commercial Crew development– is Big Government at its worse!

            At $3 billion a year year, you could fund at least 20 private flights per year to private commercial space stations vs. three private manned flights to the Big Government space station. Its not even close!

            Even Bolden has said that what is being done at the ISS could be better done at private space stations. This extremely wasteful program needs to come to an end!

            Marcel F. Williams

          • npng says:
            0
            0

            Say papy, I wish you’d take another stab at the thoughts and comments you’ve made because I simply cannot make sense of them.

            You seem passionate ~ or is that fixated ? ~ on getting to the Moon and Mars.  What’s the deal?  Did you drop your wallet there or something?

            I love the Moon and Mars too, even though I’ve never been to either location, whether for business or pleasure. 

            To spend $250 Billion for a single round trip ticket seems, well, pricey.  But if you have some argument, some reason to go to Mars that is very worthwhile, maybe $250B wouldn’t make my my my wallet pucker.  

            Ending ISS use to save a relatively paltry $3B is seriously funny, almost like trying to save pennies in a jar thinking it a clever way to pay your kid’s $50,000 college tuition.  How big of a jar is required to hold 5,000,000 pennies?

            You might be smart to really take a look at some of the cut-and-dry R&D work being done on the ISS, especially if you’re planning a junket to Mars.  I take it back, you can skip the R&D review if you plan on getting to Mars, dead. 

            I suppose you could simply walk out your front door now, as is, and walk to Nepal Tibet and try to climb Mount Everest too, unprepared, lacking supply, survival gear, testing, durable systems, etc.   But I really don’t think you’d survive it.  (If you do go, please video the attempt.)

            You seem to claim that NASA’s 40 year mission to LEO was a waste.  I suppose you think a jog to the Moon or Mars would inherently not be a waste?  Just WTF are you planning to DO when you get there?  Play tag?  Print money?  Find the Holy Grail?  Dig up the Martian Fountain of Youth?  Or it is simply the romantic notion of being there? Do tell.

            I puzzles me to see you say you like socioeconomics. If so, it would be good to see a serious economic analysis done based on your statements. 

            Teach us all something about the rigorous economics of tied to being on the Moon and Mars.  Summarize it here. 

            If a private space station is the magical economic answer, just blaring it out fails.  Present the analysis and the facts.  Comments like “Even Bolden says…” are glib.  Explain why the private sector hasn’t done it already.

            If I give you $3B so you can fund 20 flights to a private space station, what would you do on the 20 flights?  What would create or produce or do on those flights or at the private space station?  Anything?  Would I get my $3B back or would it just be money down the drain or burnt up for fun?  Tell me.  If your explanation is really good, maybe I’ll mail you a check.

          • pathfinder_01 says:
            0
            0

            “At $3 billion a year year, you could fund at least 20 private flights per year to private commercial space stations vs. three private manned flights to the Big Government space station. Its not even close!”

            The ISS itself has made it possible to have private space stations. The trouble with a private space station is:

            a. You need the technology to build it—The US had not built a station since Skylab and Skylab was not something that could be commercialized easily.

            b. You need the ability to send crew and cargo to it.

            Those two abilities had previously only been in the domain of Governments.
            The ISS itself has helped those problems. The transhab project began as an ISS project. Bigeloew has matured it some more and plans to use it for his station. COTS and Commercail crew can be used for more than just the ISS.

            Thanks to the ISS we are now getting into the position where the only thing that a private space station owner would have to build is the station itself. Previously you would have had to build the station, supply craft, and manned spacecraft.

            I can see a possible 2028 or so when the LEO portions of the manned space program move into a rented area of a private space station instead of building the ISS 2. In addition the CCREW craft have the potential to be evolved into BEO craft (esp. Dragon).  Oh and the FH itself could be used to for lunar missions much cheaper than SLS and sooner.

            It isn’t what you do sometimes, but how you do it that makes a huge difference. Commercial programs make it possible for NASA to do things with private investment. Govermnent owned ones do not.

        • hikingmike says:
          0
          0

           Any ideas where the remaining 5.4 billion for HSF is going? Is it all ISS ops?

          • newpapyrus says:
            0
            0

             $3 billion is going to SLS/MPCV development.  That’s about $400 million less than was being spent on the Constellation program when Obama first came into office.

             In 2009, $3.4 billion was being spent on the Constellation program, $2 billion   on the ISS and $3 billion being  on the Space Shuttle program.

            Marcel F. Williams

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      Marcel (and others of a like mind),

      I find it curious that after all this time you still refuse to see the obvious.  Obama is not out to kill manned space flight, and he has never, to the best of my knowledge, said anything to indicate that intention.  Obama’s space plans (which a clueless Congress squashed) were clearly an attempt to do two things:

      First — Get rid of the non-doable, ill-conceived programs that were only a detriment to NASA and the country, such as the obvious case of Constellation.

      Second — Put in place the necessary R&D and precursor programs that must be done first if we ever hope to someday go back to the Moon and on to Mars in a manner that is intelligent, i.e., in a manner that let’s us build incrementally with each step an infrastructure which increases capability and brings down costs, while decreasing the risks involved.  Unless, of course, you’re happy to do nothing but pointless flags and footprints missions at thoroughly outrageous costs.

      As far as manned space flight goes, despite the forces working against him, and despite there being no instant gratification missions announced, President Obama has actually done (and attempted to do) more to progress manned space flight than any President for decades.  What you’re failing to see is that he’s doing exactly what we’ve been saying was necessary for so long — he’s looking past his own term in office.  Unlike his predecessors, whose grand proposals all ended up not happening because their successors would (predictably and rightly) cancel them, he was trying to put into place things that would be prerequisite for doing the manned missions in the future, after his term in office.  There is R&D that has been known to be necessary for so long that has never been started for the simple reason (in my opinion) that no President who put it in place would see results within his/her tenure.  The R&D fits this scenario, as does the asteroid mission (which would teach us a lot that we need to know), as does the moons of Mars mission, and as does the L2 mission.  Yet so many of you look down your noses at these proposals because you want to jump straight to more grandiose missions that we are not yet anywhere near capable of doing.

      We finally had what we needed within our grasp, and people not willing to think it through tossed it away.  How long will it be until we again have a President willing to put the needs of NASA and space development ahead of his own legacy?

      People with only politically-based responses need not reply.

      Steve

      • newpapyrus says:
        0
        0

         I didn’t say that Obama is out to kill manned spaceflight. I implied that he was out to kill– government manned spaceflight. There was a reason that he criticized NASA’s efforts to return to the Moon at Kennedy in 2010 and then walked side by side with Elon Musk afterwards.

        But trying to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs will hurt the development of private  space programs, not help it! Public and privately funded  space programs are mutually beneficial to each other.

        Marcel F. Williams

  9. Helen Simpson says:
    0
    0

    One wonders if this in some way represents Charlie’s “come to Jesus” moment on SLS. It makes some sense. Tell his boss that
    we can build an SLS, but only if we have a clear picture of what we’re
    really and truly going to do with it. This is not just a challenge to
    Obama, but to congressional advocates for SLS. 

    It is indeed a little odd how ISS fits into this, and why the future of ISS should critically require a commitment to go to Mars. In fact, this whole piece would make a lot more sense if you substituted “SLS” for “ISS” everywhere.

    Yes, Congress had to force the SLS on Obama. And his administration has tried
    everything possible to stall, delay, and to underfund the SLS program. So it’s about time we figure out why we need it.

    Of course, as it has been pointed out, Obama would have no trouble committing to go to Mars in 2030 if he were pushed to do so. That commitment would cost him nothing right now, and it would be a decision that he’d leave behind when he left office. It would just mean that everything that is being done right now could be formally rationalized by that long-term goal.

    It is also a little odd that this hits the airwaves now, two weeks before the election. The “Romney advisory team”, such as they are, is aiming at the Moon, not Mars. So by declaring Mars his personal goal, Charlie is basically handing Romney his letter of resignation. Not that he would be kept on, but …