T+3 Months: Still No Sign of Shoe Pounding By Bolden
Charlie Bolden Intends To Press President Obama on Mars Mission Mandate for NASA, earlier post
“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.”
Keith’s note: It has been more than 3 months since Bolden proclaimed his intent to go to the White House and bang his shoe if he did not get his way. In addition to not approving the L2 station, there is nothing in the FY 2014 budget passback regarding any additional, strong Mars commitment that Charlie Bolden declared must be in the budget (other than what the President has already said, that is). No word yet as to whether Bolden has requested a meeting at the White House for his shoe pounding event – although he was there last week and was told that he could not do some of the other things that he wanted to do. Stay tuned.
– Bolden Seeks To Force Mars Goal Commitment From Obama, earlier post
– Is It Time For Charlie Bolden To Pound His Shoe?, earlier post
NASA leadership (maybe just Bolden) is in fantasyland if they think they will get any significant money to send humans to Mars in the next decade or more.
Does anyone who thinks money is coming ever read newspapers or see the cost difference between unmanned missions and likely cost of a manned mission? The unmanned are hard enough to fund.
Tens of billions of dollars (or more) to send a few humans to Mars? No way. Not until far more efficient and less costly vehicles are developed so NASA needs to spend a few dollars on technology development and get out of manned space sinkhole for a while.
Science and aero have already taken a beating due to ISS and SLS projects (or what some to many call “money pits”) so squeezing more blood out of them to cover overruns, etc. on SLS, ISS and any dreams for humans on mars is not going to happen.
Tens of billions of dollars (or more) to send a few humans to Mars?
A human mission to mars would require something the size of the ISS due to the length of the mission, redundancy requirements, etc., and cost twice as much. And I’m being optimistic.
“A human mission to mars would require something the size of the ISS due to the length of the mission”
The ISS is not the minimal size that is needed for an LEO space station. It has lots of lab modules, docking ports for multiple different vehicles, and duplicate functionality because it’s the merger of independently-designed US and Russian stations, plus everything other partners wanted to throw in.
There have been numerous proposals for Mars missions, and the size of the vehicle varies widely from proposal to proposal. NASA proposals tend to be huge. Other proposals, such as those by Zubrin are much smaller — way smaller than the ISS. Zubrin might be somewhat overly-optimistic, but not by a huge margin. Zubrin is a smart, knowledgeable engineer who has studied the details in depth for years.
NASA in its current form is unlikely to plan a Mars mission smaller than the ISS. But if we put Zubrin in charge, he’d likely actually get us there with a much smaller, simpler architecture.
I’m sure I read somewhere Zubran and Musk are talking.
???????
Don’t Zubran and musk have to lead with a credable plan and then nasa and bolden follow with support.
I just don’t see NASA leading human space flight these days.
??????
I have to say that I genuinely believe that Administrator Bolden has no intention or desire to push for funding of any major new HSF project. Ever.
Ben,
Why do you believe this to be he case?
It is my belief that President Obama has an ideological aversion to ‘national prestige projects’ by the US Government. He believes that America’s future is in co-operation, conciliation and parity with other nations, not further Apollo-style expressions of American exceptionalism. Because of this, Administrator Bolden has been ordered to impede SLS (or any equivalent alternative) in any and all ways possible. Remember that NASA had to be forced by Congress to announce the SLS and has, since then, singularly failed to identify any mission for the project except the low-ambition EM-1 and EM-2 test missions.
In the interests of full disclosure, I am not an American citizen, I do not automatically oppose the President’s policies and I am far from convinced that SLS is the right way to go about human space exploration. However, my own feelings aside, it is my view of the situation that President Obama varies between indifferent and hostile to SLS and any alternative BEO program and has instructed Administrator Bolden to impede them in any way possible.
I personally fear you may be right. If we could read between the lines and know truly what Obama’s agenda is regarding NASA, not just what has been proclaimed, what Bolden has been told to do or impede, it might be what you describe. I don’t believe Obama hates NASA, but I don’t believe he is really inspired by it and wants to shift funds elsewhere–such as education. A poor choice to want to divert funds from, in my opinion–take money from a STEM-inspiring agency to promote education, some of which is STEM in the first place. Congress isn’t much better, as they don’t have the collective guts to provide the funds to keep NASA on the frontier where it needs to be.NASA is symbolic of what America can do, even in cooperation with other nations, and despite its flaws as a government organization, has done things no one else has or dares to. To starve it of needed funds, or to cut its funding, when the WH goal is to increase funding elsewhere, is hypocritical. Obama SHOULD back up his Mars goal with something — and that something should be a cooperative push for properly funding Mars HSF technology and pre-cursor missions. Not empty speeches.
“Obama SHOULD back up his Mars goal with something“
Mike,
Is it just the way you’ve worded it, or are you saying that the Mars goal is Obama’s goal? If so, I’ve never seen it that way. HSF Mars is Bolden’s goal (recently), but Obama (as far as I know) has always had it many decades down the road. I think he even borrowed Bush’s “eventually” term, as opposed to a specific date or time frame. Have I got it wrong?
Steve
Ben,
I’m not an American either, but I think perhaps you’re reading more into this than we have actual evidence for.
One problem I see is that your comments seem to suggest that you equate HSF with SLS, and that I can’t accept, if that ‘s what you’re thinking. SLS is political BS in my mind, nothing more. HSF is a concept. At this point we can’t even say HSF is a set of goals, since that would imply wide consensus, which doesn’t exist.
To be fair to them both, Bolden’s responsibilities are for NASA. Obama’s responsibilities are for the whole country across many “aspects,” of which NASA is only one. It would be unreasonable to expect their priorities to be the same, especially in particularly hard financial times such now.
Exaggerating to make the point, if Obama somehow managed to “be good” to NASA but by doing so let more people starve, or slide over into poverty, or die because of inadequate medical facilities or coverage, or get worse (or even no) education, would we consider that acceptable? I wouldn’t. Because that could very well happen, since it all comes down to money. Also, never forget that Congress has him outnumbered more than 500 to 1, and they seem to consider it their job to make him look bad whenever they can, often without concern for who suffers the consequences.
If you’re the POTUS, then NASA is just one more appointment on your calender.
Steve
No, I don’t think that HSF = SLS. You and Helen keep on seeing things in my posts that aren’t there. In my view, SLS is a mistake but, now it’s the PoR, there doesn’t seem to be any real sense of urgency about developing applications. IMHO, the way SLS is proceeding is indicative of official… well, ‘hostility’ is probably a strong word, ‘scepticism’ is probably closer… not just to SLS itself but to HSF in general.
SLS really exists because there was a political perception of a vacuum in the aftermath of the cancellation of Ares-I. I would argue that it wouldn’t have existed if NASA had either responded quickly to the Augustine Commission with firm proposals for a replacement for CxP or if the role of commercial cargo & crew in replacing the shuttle in servicing the ISS were more clearly explained to the American public.
The problem was that President Obama really didn’t want a NASA-built replacement for the shuttle at all. His reasons for this largely-unspoken but reasonably inferable policy were partly economic, partly pragmatic (NASA had repeatedly shown it couldn’t do the job so tendering out to Bigelow, SpaceX and so on actually makes a kind of programmatic sense) but also ideological in the manner that I pointed out in my other posts.
Ben
“I would argue that it wouldn’t have existed if NASA had either responded quickly to the Augustine Commission with firm proposals for a replacement for CxP or if the role of commercial cargo & crew in replacing the shuttle in servicing the ISS were more clearly explained to the American public.”
Seems to me that Obama understands the only route to HSF is through cheaper commercial space. And seems to me that much of the public understand this too. I don’t buy the expensive public NASA BEO seperate from commercial LEO.
Doesn’t it all have to happen together to have those doing the things they do best all helping???
Sure wish you’ll could figure out the together thing out!
Replying to Ben: Today 08:41 AM
Ben,
It seems we’re not communicating well today, so let’s back up a bit.
“SLS really exists because there was a political perception of a vacuum in the aftermath of the cancellation of Ares-I.“
SLS exists because certain members of Congress mandated it. Neither Obama, nor Bolden, nor NASA, nor anyone else, had any say in it or can change it. It was created in order to: 1) favor certain aerospace companies; and 2) use up left-over Shuttle-based components, even though overall that was not a good idea technically. SLS is pork, and it is not simply “political,” it is specifically a Congress creation.
Second issue: Is SLS a good solution (if it works) in terms of its planned capabilities? In other words, did we really need a BFR, or were there alternative solutions that were better, everything considered? My opinion is that SLS is, for several reasons, a very bad choice as part of the HSF system.
Let’s start with that much. Do you and I agree or not on these two issues?
Steve
If I were Charlie Bolden right now, I’d be less worried about Mars, and more worried about whether he’s still going to have any shoes (or tie, or shirt) after the sequester hits. A few months ago the presumption was that it would be avoided. Now the odds are probably even that it won’t. If it does, it’s going to hit NASA like a ton of bricks. He’s busy deciding whose rug he’s going to pull out from under them in the agency.
Bolden should be at the White House kissing some feet, and not pounding shoes.
He could bang his socks on the table at the White House and demand a commitment to Mars in, say, 2050 or so. Or even a human trip to Pluto in 2100 maybe?
Helen,
You may be right; however, if everybody else is kissing feet, then maybe the one person with the guts to bang a shoe might be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. And what’s he got to lose? It’s not like Bolden needs the job.
Steve
If I was Obama I sure wouldn’t ask Congress for money to go to Mars. They’d laugh in his face.
I disagree. As President I wouldn’t “ask” Congress for it. I’d simply have someone quietly put it in a Bill and let Congress say no. That way, he didn’t do “nothing,” and he’s not the one who killed it. Also, the details of how Congress responds to it is information that can be possibly used to advantage in the future.
Uh, what??? Obama should waste time quietly offering Congress a bill that they would laugh at? That’s supposed to score points for him? Oh yes, if he did that, he would have gotten a big badge for doing NOTHING. Putting in a bill that has no chance of success isn’t “doing” anything at all.
Legislators do this kind of thing all the time, where they offer up symbolic legislation that they know no one will support. It’s cheap, and easy, and takes very little thought. They can sit back and smirk, but their reputation drops through the floor. They aren’t real “do-ers”.
Obviously he wouldn’t do it in his own name. I offer this suggestion as a way to “take what action he could” on an issue, and give that response to Bolden, or whoever was asking action of him. Because the alternative boils down to: “go away, don’t bother me, but still work on my behalf and be faithful to me,” which is a kick in the face, pure and simple.
It’s called diplomacy. You might want to look it up.
“Take what action he could”, as implemented by having “someone quietly put it in a Bill and let Congress say no” is hardly something that a President could take pride in. Obama is smarter than that. No, that’s not diplomacy at all. It’s grandstanding by smirk at best. It accomplishes nothing. Diplomacy is where you create policy that seeks common ground.
As to making up quotes about kicks in the face, please don’t forget that it’s not as if NASA isn’t doing anything. NASA’s science, technology, and pioneering of human space flight and the required logistical sophistication to support it in LEO is, I suspect, something that the White House is happy to be bothered about. No, the alternative boils down to using $18B/year to do good stuff that the nation can be proud of.
BTW, with regard to cancelling ISS, I assumed that’s what you were talking about because, um, what else can one cancel at NASA to free up funds for a human trip to Mars? You didn’t give any examples of what might do that. What notional cancellations were you pointing at? Maybe the $3B/yr that NASA stuffs under its mattress?
Helen,
I didn’t offer any suggestions for cancellation because I said, repeatedly, that I would consider Obama doing any program cancellations to be a big mistake. The exception is SLS, but it is pointless to talk about cancelling SLS because it’s not going to happen under Obama (Congress won’t let it) and because it’s all been said over and over.
My statement about diplomacy was with respect to how Obama might treat Bolden, his underling. I thought I made that pretty clear, but you seem to have missed it.
I’m not going to address the rest of your post because, frankly, you keep responding to things that I didn’t say, and I can’t keep track of the way your unconnected responses relate to what I did say.
I must admit to being somewhat confused as to a matter of protocol. Why is it that you are free to express any opinion you feel like, relevant or not, but any opinions or suggestions that I express are automatically subjected to your ridicule, often sarcastically? This is all the more frustrating because, for some reason, you don’t seem to be able to read any of my posts and see properly what I actually said. In all honesty, I’m getting to the point where I’m often hesitant to respond to anybody else’s posts with an opinion or suggestion of any kind because it might invite another humiliating attack from Helen on what I didn’t say.
Respectfully,
Steve
I suspect that, like many a politician, Administrator Bolden is excellent at promising something in a sincere tone with no intent whatsoever of actually following it up with action. I think President Obama wanted to serve out his eight without having locked America into a new HSF project (something which I think he finds ideologically repugnant anyway) and Bolden is doing his master’s bidding as faithfully and capably as he has been since he arrived at NASA HQ by making lots of promises to prevent an outcry but allowing the undirected drift of HSF to continue.
I think it’s a little unfair to blame this situation on Obama’s presumed “ideology”. To anyone with an ounce of policy sense, the issue is that Obama sees zero — I mean ZERO — chance of a major new NASA program being started by Congress to send humans to Mars in the near term. Congress signs the checks, you see. Not the President.
It’s not about what Obama or Bolden want to do. It’s about what Congress will endorse.
Please name, if you would, anyone in a current congressional leadership role who would commit to rally colleagues to support such a major increase in the NASA budget to do it. Obama doesn’t see anyone, nor do I. Now, it doesn’t help that Obama doesn’t have any flags to raise that Congress would get up and obediently march behind. As long as the flag he’d be holding is simply putting an American on Mars, Congress will stay in their seats.
It isn’t Mars – it is that I suspect it isn’t ANYTHING; not the Moon, not EML-2, not even LEO, if he thought it was possible to back out of ISS without consequences. The proof? No HSF program is underway that isn’t in some form a carry-over from the previous administration. Simply put, it is my view that the current administration varies between indifferent and hostile to HSF.
The alternative would have been to cancel programs already in mid-stream in order to make money available for new programs — and that is exactly what has been killing us all along. Sometimes, the best thing to do is nothing. So your proof is not proof, but rather the first example of sensible program selection decisions that we’ve seen from a US President in quite a while.
So you’re suggesting that Obama ask Congress “Pleeeeze let me cancel ISS so I can use the money to go to Mars!”? Ha. That’s not the way it works. On the current fiscal disaster horse that U.S. legislators are riding, a suggestion to cancel ISS would be GLADLY accepted by Congress (after muzzling legislators from Texas) with vague promises about where that money might be reassigned. Offering up ISS as “expendable” is just selling the farm to Congress.
Don’t believe for a minute that Obama could just tell Bolden to reallocate ISS money to Mars by fiat. He doesn’t have that budget authority.
Fact of the matter is that Obama has very limited cred with Congress these days, and he’s not going to waste it on shoe banging by his administrator about a pilgrimage to Mars that will finally succeed when both are long gone. These are the things you do when your pockets are full. They are things that you avoid like the plague when times are tight.
Indifference and hostility to human space flight? Several administrations proudly point to ISS when that comes up. ISS is not a symbol of indifference and hostility.
Helen,
Whoa, settle down, stop!
You did it again. You got all excited and started down war path attacking something that I did… not… say…!
Ben says that no new HSF programs have been started by the Obama WH which proves that it “varies between indifferent and hostile to HSF.“I disputed his “proof.”
• To start new programs, you need lots of money.
• There is no more money coming into the NASA budget.
• Therefore, the only way to get money for new programs is to cancel one or more existing program.
• Cancelling existing programs before they are finished is wasting money, big time, and doing that is, in my opinion “exactly what has been killing us all along.” (i.e., it’s bad.)
DOD’s history is far worse than NASA’s, measured in both dollars and discarded progress, but the guilt lies with the politicians. Programs generally get cancelled for one of two reasons: 1) Congress stops funding them; 2) a new WH and/or a new Congress throws out the old regime’s space plan and replaces it with it’s own, which (I think) everyone from Eisenhower to Bush II did, except Clinton, who just brought in the Russians to (theoretically) save money.
Cancelling all those programs (like every X program ever) before they had given back the knowledge and/or capabilities (that the investment was supposedly for) have been realized is bad, wrong, waste, pointless and dumb. Is that clear enough?
This brings the NERVA nuclear rocket program of the 60’s to mind. If they had been allowed to finish it a whole lot of things might have been very different. But funding was cut off just as they were nearing success, and all of the work and money were thrown out the window.
The Obama WH has not cancelled programs, which I applaud. Technically, the one thing they did cancel was Constellation, which was already dead and rotting, Obama simply presided over the funeral and signed the paperwork.
The Obama WH proposed delaying the BFR for 5 years in order to pay for new R&D, which I also applaud, but Congress wouldn’t let him. Delaying is not the same as cancelling.
So, I contested Ben’s proof, and I did not say or suggest anything that you attributed to me in your post. Is that clear now?
For whatever it’s worth, I would consider cancelling ISS to do HSF Mars completely idiotic, even if it were viable, which it’s not (the money amounts aren’t nearly the same).
Steve
ISS may be argued to be something that we are doing in HSF, technically challenging in its own right, and you could hang your hat on that and call it a day…but compared to a truly bold program to push the frontier and get us out of LEO, it is far from being that beacon in the sky that many visionary people are seeking. I’m not talking about pet projects here or there, but a series of projects that really get people talking and excited about space.
Talk about Obama has little leeway with Congress? Perhaps, as he clearly is challenging their authority with his. Of course he is trying to pass his agenda. But don’t say he can’t propose new spending or programs, or the cancellation of them, because that is exactly what he has done and proposes to do. He just doesn’t appear to be willing to expend the effort to keep NASA on track on both the planetary science front or the HSF front.
As usual spot-on, based on observation and common sense rather than looking for an explanation rooted in and consistent with one’s political leanings.
Nobody knows how the President feels about space. What we observe, and can reasonably infer, was nicely summarized by Ms. Simpson, with the additional observation that the President’s plate is actually quite full.
Timing is everything in life. And comedy, of course.
You’re forgetting, Steve, that a new project HAS been instituted – SLS. However, it seems to be existing in this strange netherworld of being a priority but not actually DOING anything. I think the current strategy is to impede SLS applications as far as is possible and simply let it wither on the vine, unable to maintain its funding because (beyond the semi-pointless EM-1 and -2 missions) it doesn’t have anything to do.
FWIW, from what I’ve been seeing on NASAWatch, utilisation of ISS has been something less than whole-hearted too.
I am well aware of the budget difficulties. However, the failure of anyone in authority to even seriously talk about anything other the most modest use of the SLS (and even then in only vague terms) does seem to strike me as symptomatic of a high-level disinterest in the program.
Ben,
I’m not forgetting SLS. I wish I could. I hate the damn thing! But, it has nothing to do with Obama or the White House. SLS was conceived, spec’d, and mandated by certain members of Congress, and them alone. It is something that I think both the WH and NASA would kill in an instant if they could, but they can’t. SLS is pork, pure and simple. But it appears that we’ll get SLS or nothing, so a lot of people are sticking by it, because they think it’s better than nothing.
Please see my response to Helen, since I reference your post there.
Steve
Better to talk about programs that use the Falcon Heavy and make BEO plans for that. Money spent there could help feed a REAL, one day non government, space future.
Steve,
‘But it appears that we’ll get SLS or nothing, so a lot of people are sticking by it,’
After falcon heavy flies that will change. There will come a point the people will demmand it.
With all due respect, it is about leadership. A leader puts out his vision and makes the case that it is the right one to follow. You convince the skeptics and win over the detractors. If BO truly felt that a manned Mars mission should be a national priority, it is up to him as the leader of the nation to go out and make that case. A community organizer goes out and looks for other people to step up and lead. Your own comments illustrate what kind of President we have better than anything I can add.
I agree completely. But let’s not confuse “leadership” with leading the charge to go to Mars. That being said, guess what. Barack Obama doesn’t feel that a manned Mars mission is a national priority. Most people don’t. That probably has nothing to do with “ideology”, but rather a simple cost-benefit assessment. I can’t believe that it would have been any different for George Romney. Obama has his own ideas of national priorities and, for better or worse, he is exercising abundant leadership in pursuing them.
So I think you’re exactly right that Obama is failing to exercise leadership in something that he doesn’t consider to be a national priority. Can’t fault him for that.
He has, on the other hand, exercised notable leadership in space commercialization and space technology development. Congress has followed … sorta.
George Romney
*cough* Mitt *cough*
“I can’t believe that it would have been any different for George Romney”
He actually did say explicitly that if someone came in pitching a Moon base, he’d fire him.
I must admitt to being disappointed by Gen. Bolden’s (USMC) lack of drive for the mission he was given marching orders to direct. As a retired Marine myself I am saddened by his inability to rally the needed support. Then again, I must ask if he isn’t in fact executing his orders perfectly? I have not seen a single reason to believe that POTUS has any affinity for HSF at all. He sees it as a drain on funds for (insert name of) social program and thus as the enemy of his utopian objectives. Not that I feel had the 12 election gone the other way we’d all be jumping for joy right now that our prayers were answered.
CIS-Lunar and even Lunar surface acitivies will have to wait until others such as China get to them. By then we’ll have depleted even the most basic ability to achieve LEO away and our fate will be sealed.
Dallas
No affinity for HSF??? Hardly. What do you call the Administration’s creation of the NASA Commercial Crew program, whih will at the very least return the human launch capability thrown away by the previous administration. As for SLS, the sad truth is that it does not have any practical mission, yet NASA, under Congressional orders, continues to pour good money after bad on it. The barrier to human spaceflight is not payload mass, it is cost. SLS is totally unaffordable.
Poor Charlie,he’s proven to be Obama’s “Yes” man, now he’s trying to grow a backbone by speaking up for NASA’s programs. The problem is he’s been catering to his boss so long that when he tried to speak up, he was told to shut up or lose his job. I believe this may be the same case with Lori Garland.
I’m afraid were going to have another 4 years of “what if’s” rather than “can do” due to the administration’s,Congress’s empathy.apathy towards a program that once aided this country in its technological growth.
I want to personally thank the idiots who reelected the administration,what fools you have proven to be.
Maybe you have forgotten Candidate Romney’s promise to fire anyone who suggested spending money on a moon base, and the ridicule Gingrich got for making the proposal.
I agree with you entirely. Except it’s not what this thread is about. We’re talking about shoe banging in the interest of going to Mars, and Obama shoving a “lets go to Mars bill” in their face that they would then laugh at.
In fact, the STEM Act is a great example. That’s where the GOP hid behind STEM policy to push their immigration agenda. They did so knowing full well that the bill would never pass the Senate. It was all for show. A lot of people laughed.
Looking at the extent of the differences in opinion throughout this thread, I’m reminded of the “no national consensus” thread. There’s no chance of the nation having a common set of goals if a handful of space advocates are so far apart in their evaluations of the various programs.
“It’d be called the American Aerospace Restoration Act of 2013, and it’d promise to preserve the nucleus of our precious aerospace-involved STEM workforce so we can Meet The Needs Of Tomorrow and Inspire A Next Generation Of American Explorers!”
You need to turn that into a stupid backronym. Although, NASA is very good as stupid backronyms… you know this might work…
Oh c’mon! It’d be called the American Aerospace Restoration Act of 2013, and it’d promise to preserve the nucleus of our precious aerospace-involved STEM workforce so we can Meet The Needs Of Tomorrow and Inspire A Next Generation Of SPACE SETTLERS.
FIXED
You need to have the right goal.
If NASA is to lead, they should have the courage to state the goal of Space settlement so politians like Newt Gingrich don’t get laugh off the stage.
add
I don’t know anything about the Aerospace restoration act, just tired of hearing that EXPLORER line to waste big bucks.
Joe Q Taxpayer
Given the letter NASA wrote to the Senate and all the technology development programs on the chopping block, it is obvious we will not be going to Mars in my liftime & I’m only in my 30’s.
I think it is interesting that NOAA has dropped all funding for human undersea missions in lieu of exclusive robotic missions.