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.
Policy

Is Charlie Bolden's Shoe Pounding Moment Approaching? (Update)

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
April 10, 2013
Filed under , , , ,

Back to the Moon? Not any time soon, says Bolden, Space Politics
“However, [Bolden] made it clear NASA has no plans to lead its own human return to the Moon under his watch. “NASA will not take the lead on a human lunar mission,” he said. “NASA is not going to the Moon with a human as a primary project probably in my lifetime. And the reason is, we can only do so many things.” Instead, he said the focus would remain on human missions to asteroids and to Mars. “We intend to do that, and we think it can be done.”
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: There is no mention of an Administration committment to a human mission to Mars in the NASA FY 2014 Budget. Either Charlie Bolden never pounded his shoe at the White House – or (more likely) they were not listening when he did.

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

46 responses to “Is Charlie Bolden's Shoe Pounding Moment Approaching? (Update)”

  1. Denniswingo says:
    0
    0

    Charlie has fallen for the Mars fallacy.

    • meekGee says:
      0
      0

      oooh! the Mars Fallacy!  Sounds like a book title.

      And poor old Charlie…  Since he knows so little, I guess he must have been swindled by those Martian con men, selling lies for glory and profit, yes?

      If only we had a real knowledgeable NASA administrator, one that would cook up a credible program that would take us back to the moon for a real HSF program – oh wait.

    • thebigMoose says:
      0
      0

      Dennis, spot on.  Dangle a shiny new mission.  Change focus and splash the Station… now defund the Mars initiative… and we are then left with … nothing.

      • Russel aka 'Rusty' Shackleford says:
        0
        0

        Pssst!  Bigmoose!  Ever hear of Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk Robert Bigelow, SpaceX, Planetary Resources, Falcon Heavy, BA 330, Dreamchaser…..that’s some nothing!

  2. Littrow says:
    0
    0

    Charlie has shown himself to be a good military man – I won’t even say officer – he is very good at following orders. But officers show initiative and some sense of competence as a result of experience. Think Patton, McArthur or Lemay. The good ones need to be curbed because they tend to be independent thinkers. Charlie has shown himself to have no such problem. He cannot think for himself. He only does what he is told. Great for his staying on at the top. Bad for NASA. Pound the table- you’ve got to be dreaming.

    • RockyMtnSpace says:
      0
      0

       Well, rumor has it that the WH is interviewing for 9th-Floor replacements so the Charlie and Lori show may well have run its course.

    • meekGee says:
      0
      0

      Bolden was almost in open mutiny as congress imposed SLS on him. You can’t do more than he did.  NASA is congress’s plaything, and congress doesn’t care where NASA is going as long as it knows where the money is going.

  3. Mader Levap says:
    0
    0

    Walk before you run. Crawl before you walk. Return to the Moon is must before we can even think about tackling Mars.

    • meekGee says:
      0
      0

      Moon to Mars is like Base Jumping to Parachuting.    

      Nearer does not mean easier.

      • Mader Levap says:
        0
        0

        Do you seriously claim flying to Mars is as easy as flying to Moon? *facepalm* Sorry, I can’t take this seriously.

        • meekGee says:
          0
          0

          Read the comment above before you face palm.  Will help to preserve your hairline.

          Flying around is not a goal, it gains you nothing.  So sure, flying around the moon is easier than flying around  Mars.

          But setting up a colony is easier on Mars.  And the goal of the space program should not be flag planting.

          Further, landing on the Moon buys you nothing on your way to Mars.  It’s just a distraction.

          • Gonzo_Skeptic says:
            0
            0

            But setting up a colony is easier on Mars.

            How so?

            The length of the journey and small windows of opportunity for Mars would make for a logistics nightmare.

          • meekGee says:
            0
            0

            Because in a colonoy, unlike a base, you’re talking about one-way shipping of a lot of cargo for building infrastructure, so the time-in-transit doesn’t matter much. You’re building up capacity on Mars, and then you do ISRU, which is a LOT easier there. (CO2 atmosphere, water, minerals, etc)

            The delta-V is pretty similar (most of it is escaping from Earth) and you can launch from Earth to a parking orbit year-round, you just do the TMI once every 2 years.

            The main thing is that once on the surface, you’re not in hard vacuum, the temperature swings are low more benign, the water is not cryogenic and there’s ocean’s worth of it just a foot underground. Methane and Oxygen are easily produced – a lot easier than baking it out of rocks.. You go to a riverbed and you’ll find mineral deposits, just like on Earth.
            People need to stop thinking about a “mission” and start thinking about “settlement”. It really shifts things around, and a short mission is not a step on the way to a settlement.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        And the longer fall gives you more time to regret getting yourself into this fix.

        • meekGee says:
          0
          0

          The blame for the fix is with whoever arranged the Solar System.

          You have a nearby body that’s incredibly hostile and resource poor. You have a further body that’s much more benign. The trip is longer, the stay is easier.
          So there really isn’t much to it. If you’re going for a quick visit, it’s door #1. If it’s a permanent stay, door #2.

          There’s nothing behind door #1 that’s going to help you with door #2, not even in terms of learning curve – it’s just too completely different.

  4. Ben Russell-Gough says:
    0
    0

    He may have no choice – NASA’s current ‘free drift’ is getting perilously close to becoming stagnation (and this is increasingly affecting robotic as well as human spaceflight).  He needs a direction from above and he needs it now so he can stop the questions about the agency’s very future beyond EM-2 in (hopefully) 2021.

  5. JimNobles says:
    0
    0

    Why is this a surprise. Did anyone expect Congress to pay for a Moon program?

    NASA can talk about Mars because a) they always have and b) it’s far enough in the future that they don’t need to ask of any money for it.

  6. Steve Whitfield says:
    0
    0

    Well, if the Moon fans have finished bashing Charlie for not pushing their agenda, there are a couple of things in Jeff Foust’s blog that I find worth commenting on.

    First off, I would say that Al Carnesale of UCLA has been stuck in the university dealing a board of directors for too long when he talks about a “possible to move towards something that might be more of a consensus”  Very diplomatic.  NASA is not run by consensus, never has been, and never can be.  As far as I’m concerned, that statement alone completely invalidates his opinions and the study on NASA Strategy study that he headed.  He is clearly out of touch with NASA and how it works.

    Second, Charlie Bolden is quoted in Jeff’s blog as saying “We cannot continue to change the course of human exploration.”  And that is the bottom line; an undeniable truth.  Every change in Presidency and/or Congress seems to change the plans FOR NASA, and NASA has little or no say in the matter.  Neither the WH nor Congress has given NASA orders for the Moon.  The President says an asteroid.  Congress says nothing useful.  So we’re going to an asteroid, and that’s that.

    Don’t blame Bolden or NASA for this, like so many do.  And lose the soldier analogies, they don’t apply.  Here’s a man trying to do a tough job and the rules keep getting changed on him.  Don’t be surprised that he’s finally said, if you change things yet again, no one’s going anywhere in our lifetime; it’s not a threat, it’s a logical consequence and should be obvious to everyone. Try to imagine (realistically) walking in Bolden’s shoes for a week.

    • Anonymous says:
      0
      0

      “Every change in Presidency and/or Congress seems to change the plans FOR NASA, and NASA has little or no say in the matter”

      This reminds me of the Soviet space program, and one of Korolev’s colleagues mention in the James Harford’s book “Korolev” when JFK announced a race to the moon: “We either can race the Americans to the moon or not. We did neither.” (paraphrase from my memory). Another discussion from same book is Soviet Politburo never really committed funding and resources to their manned space program, there were many senior officials saying it was a waste of time. Korolev was able to make use of what industrial and development centers they had at the time but it was far smaller in scale to what USA had i.e. Boeing, Lockheed, Douglas, Aerojet, Fairchild, Martin Marietta, Bell Aerospace, McDonnell, TRW, North American,… many of these companies no longer exists and NASA centers have fewer people and much unused facilities. Seems like we’ve become like the Soviet space program. But there’s great artwork and still making use of the Soyuz.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Michael,

        Ironically, the other similarity between US space now and Sergei Korolev’s situation then is that there isn’t/wasn’t a single political “boss” calling the shots, but rather multiple “bosses” making it impossible too run a sensible program.

    • Jim R. says:
      0
      0

      And yet, Bolden was part of the “we cannot continue to change the course of human exploration” story line back in 2009.  When Obama is out of office, and Bolden is doing something else… the asteroid mission  will be no more.  Hopefully the commercial space guys get something done this decade.  

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        His stance is the same now as then, but he doesn’t call the shots as to what programs NASA does.  He must feel like a ping pong ball.  The politicians seem to give him about as much respect and consideration as a ping pong ball.

  7. muomega0 says:
    0
    0

     “…Crawl before you walk.”

    return to the moon first will not solve Mars..it build things that do not contribute to the technologies required for BLEO.

    The key is to demonstrate that both the hardware and crew can survive the one year (or more) mission to Mars in the appropriate environment in an economical manner.  Deploying a habitat to L2–the gateway–provides this demonstration.  It may take dozen of flights and hardware improvements (R&D) to achieve the one year duration with a mass low enough to head to Mars.  If its one one mission, great!….

    the lunar surface has very little to do with deep space travel (1/6th g vs micro g,  radiation protection–regolith vs ? )   landing heavy objects on Mars,  or surviving or utilizing the atmosphere, nor does it have anything do with HLV and its 5 engine development programs, nor certifying crew to LEO.

    • Stuart J. Gray says:
      0
      0

      I completely disagree.
      The moon provides an opportunity to test all the technology required for Mars in an even more hostile environment, but only three days away.
      We also need the moon to fuel ANY mission to go beyond moon orbit.
      The only practical way to leave Earth/moon orbit (currently) is to send an empty (fuel, air, & water) from LEO to lunar orbit.
      Once it achieves lunar orbit, it gets fueled & stocked.
      After checkout, the mars-nauts leave Earth, get on board and leave.
      To try to send a fully fueled & manned spacecraft from LEO to lunar orbit is foolish.

      • muomega0 says:
        0
        0

        The moon does not provide the proper environment to travel to Mars.
         – the moon blocks half the GCR
         – 1/6 g and 6 day sorties vs micro -g for a year
         – does not contain methane

        The hardware for the moon does not enable
         – a thermal protection system to land heavy objects on mars
         – may include regolith for GCR (radiation) protection which is not the solution for Mars trip

        The business case for lunar ISRU does not close until the missions reach 1000 metric tonnes/yr and EP is likely the cheapest way to Mars.

        Staging at L2 offers many benefits over staging in LEO.
        – demonstrate crew and hardware for 1 year or more in the proper environment to head to Mars
        – lunar control of rendezvous and docking
        – lunar control of ascent and descent
        – provide continuous lunar communications
        – provides lunar safehaven with minimum dV (~ 400 ft/s per yer)
        – staging in a typical 100 km lunar orbit  would constrain sorties to 14 day intervals

        If you want to land 100’s of metric tonnes of equipment on the lunar surface for ISRU, then one will have to *foolishly* send spacecraft from LEO to the lunar surface with this equipment.

        If one builds a depot centric architecture, this allows smaller LVs to deliver propellant, which accounts for over 70% of the mass, uncrewed, to both LEO and L2, lower NASA costs over 20 years by $57B.

        Again, the key is to demonstrate that the crew and hardware can function for the one year trip time to Mars and back while surviving exposure to galactic cosmic radiation and micro-gravity. 

        A 21 day Orion which will be powered down when attached to the deep space habitat coupled to an expensive HLV development program architecture that does not meet NASA’s challenges to sustainably explore.

      • Steve Whitfield says:
        0
        0

        Stuart,

        I agree with most of what you say, but with an added caution.

        These days many people are complaining about being endlessly stuck in LEO.  I think much of that is the fault of having no long-term overall LEO plan (and a system that can’t seem to commit to a long-term plan).

        My caution is that I can see the same thing happening with the Moon.  Even though it seems like the land of opportunity with a list of endless things to do there: 1) there is no list that has been committed to; and 2) LEO used to look like the land of opportunity just as much, but things stagnated there pretty quickly.

        Unless there is belief and commitment from all levels, from the bottom (tax payers), right to the top (WH and Congress), the Moon will just be more money ineffectively spent resulting in very little created after many years and dollars.

        The difference between this and going to Mars?  None what so ever, really.

        One thing  that scores points for an asteroid mission is that we can learn useful skills and science without having to commit to a mega-billion-dollar, 20-year program, and maybe even make some money off it before too long.

        But, generally speaking, as long as the system remains incapable of choosing and supporting a sensible plan, and seeing it through to the end, I don’t see us going to the Moon or Mars in any meaningful, useful way. I think it comes down to the words in Keith’s NW header about NASA — “Get involved. Take it back. Make it work — for YOU”. Until the people demand that the system be fixed NASA will continue to spin its wheels and everybody loses, including the “commercial” companies.

        Just my two cents.

        Steve

        • adastramike says:
          0
          0

          “One thing that scores points for an asteroid mission is that we can learn useful skills and science without having to commit to a mega-billion-dollar, 20-year program, and maybe even make some money off it before too long.”

          Don’t know that the asteroid mission has really scored that many points. There is no broad support in NASA for it, not that broad support is a requirement. And if there was broad support in NASA for an asteroid mission, asteroid-mission supporters would be pointing to that as evidence of why an asteroid mission is better than the Moon.

          And the tea leaves seem to be saying there may be plans to visit more than one asteroid. How is that not a mega-billion dollar effort as well? ISS was $100 billion. Mars HSF will also be several mega-billion dollars that will take 20 years. So I really don’t see the difference here regarding mission cost. But of course point me to a study if this is not the case!

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          adastramike,

          I am not aware of the tea leaves you refer to, so I was talking about a single asteroid program, as has been reported.  Perhaps you can provide more details.

          As far as NASA support goes, people can be disappointed that their favored program isn’t happening, and speak up about that, but still support the program that is happening, like good employees.  When you say there is no broad support, are you talking managers or the working people?  If you are seeing managers speak out against the officially chosen program, then I’d say those managers were way out of line.

    • Mader Levap says:
      0
      0

      “return to the moon first will not solve Mars”
      Of course it will not magically make Mars travel possible. It will make future travel to Mars cheaper and safer thanks to R&D in space-related technologies.

      “it build things that do not contribute to the technologies required for BLEO.”
      False. While coverage of common things is not big, returning to Moon is SO MUCH easier it is worth it.

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        Only if it’s done right. But I doubt a NASA moon mission (as typically proposed) will ever do it right. Constellation is a good example of what happens when modern NASA gets pointed at the moon.

        The moon is broken as a destination because the moon-faction in NASA is broken.

        • Steve Whitfield says:
          0
          0

          In all fairness, I think we should be differentiating between two very different scenarios — attacking the Moon to solve the Moon, and attacking the Moon as an analogue of Mars, like the desert and Arctic/Antarctic projects done on Earth.  I envision them as two very different sets of goals/activities, and the “getting there” part is minor, a whole separate program.

    • adastramike says:
      0
      0

      I don’t think anyone is claiming the Moon will prepare you in every way for human Mars exploration. If you want to use the logic that one HSF mission must prepare you in every way for the next destination, then ISS does little of that either. What ISS and human lunar exploration do is provide knowledge on how to build and operate human-tended spacecraft in LEO or habitats and auxiliary equipment on the Moon.

      A Moon base would test some aspects of landing technology (landing on rough terrain) but not all needed for Mars. It would help test human space radiation protection measures on a celestial body, which can apply to Mars. It would provide operations experience for living and working on another celestial body. It would help humans learn how to process mineral resources (if at the lunar poles) and extract water.  It wouldn’t test entry technologies since the Moon doesn’t have an atmosphere but neither does an asteroid. It doesn’t test long-duration deep-space travel (unless you take a low-thrust circuitous route to the Moon) but neither does visiting an asteroid in lunar orbit.

      In any case, it doesn’t seem that these missions are being designed as stepping-stones for the next goal. Not that the individual missions don’t provide some experience and technologies that could be applied to the next goal.

  8. Ryan says:
    0
    0

    I hate to see someone derided for speaking the truth, even if it sounds bad.  We aren’t going to the moon within his lifetime, unless there is a defense reason for it.

  9. Gonzo_Skeptic says:
    0
    0

    NASA should not be setting unrealistic goals – such as a HSF mission to Mars – just to preserve a bloated  organization.

    NASA should focus on maintaining the ISS through 2030 and developing the capability to get there and back safely.

    If this is too boring for some people at the agency, maybe they should seek a different line of work because that is what the future looks like.

    • Jim R. says:
      0
      0

      HSF to the ISS until 2030?  That’s it?  That’s a mediocre goal.  

      • Gonzo_Skeptic says:
        0
        0

        That’s a mediocre goal.

        It’s called reality.  Deal with it.

        • adastramike says:
          0
          0

          That’s not called reality, it’s called accepting defeat or tolerating mediocrity. The ISS, while an engineering achievement in space assembly, is been there, done that…And Obamaites should know this, since the Moon is clearly also seen as ‘been there, done that’. Not saying your an Obamaite necessarily.

          The ISS, while complex to operate and maintain, is in some ways an enabler of future HSF and in others a distraction.  It was the best compromise for its time, and now it’s time to start planning the next steps in space. Besides, if gov’t leaders were to go with your suggestion, what do we then do in 2030 and beyond? Just build ISS part 2? The next 10-15 years for HSF requires thinking and planning now. While I am a proponent of returning humans to the Moon, specifically to the lunar poles, I think sending humans beyond LEO is the ultimate near-term goal, whether to the Moon or an asteroid or Mars, or all three.

    • Brian_M2525 says:
      0
      0

      SpaceX, Boeing and Sierra Nevada will have the transport systems for ISS in about 5 years. Let them take over the integration process and you’ll get the time to fly down in short order. NASA needs to put their people to work on something else. 

    • Steve Whitfield says:
      0
      0

      The only problem I see with that is when you say “NASA should,” which implies that NASA has a choice.  They don’t.  They can only do what they’re told to do, with the exception of projects covered by very minor discretionary funds.

      I suspect that this fact may contribute largely to the empire building at NASA, in contrast to the 60’s, and in some groups the 70’s, when people were doing what they believed in and had bought into.  At some point, it seems, careers became just jobs to them.

  10. hikingmike says:
    0
    0

    Here, this seems to fit your mood –
    http://www.youtube.com/watc

  11. Gonzo_Skeptic says:
    0
    0

    How far is it to Mars compared to the Moon?

    Click this:http://bit.ly/ZBUPJN

  12. Paul451 says:
    0
    0

    When the US fell behind the early Soviet program, Kennedy’s goal was to have NASA develop a heavy-lift vehicle and a demonstration missions that the Soviets couldn’t match. NASA gave him a few suggestions, and Kennedy (or his staff) picked what became Apollo. Kennedy then publicly “challenged” NASA to go to the moon… A goal which he reportedly couldn’t have cared less about.

    Likewise, I can’t imagine Obama actually gives too hoots about the moon vs Mars vs asteroid debate. So for him to “propose” an asteroid mission, that suggestion must have come from NASA HQ. So why is there this nonsense from Bolden about to “bang his shoe” to demand action from Obama? It doesn’t make sense that Obama “proposed” something that Bolden/Garver didn’t suggest to him in the first place.

    • Brian_M2525 says:
      0
      0

      You got it! These people who think its all an Obama idea are full of it. 
      Actually, Kennedy chose the goal that would give the best chance of beating the Soviets. It took another 18 month before they decided to go with LOR and Saturn V. There was a substantial argument at the time about whether to do the mission with Saturn V or with smaller rockets (in the analogy he talked about Atlas, but he was probably really talking about Saturn 1bs. For a time von Braun argued in favor of the 1bs, a much smaller rocket which would require multiple assembly flights and refueling. He made the analogy of DC-3s and DC-6s. He argued that if you had the DC-3s now, why wait to try and develop the DC-6s. 

      • Paul451 says:
        0
        0

        The version I heard was Von Braun wanted to do orbital assembly with smaller rockets (claiming that technology like orbital refuelling would be needed eventually anyway), but Kennedy (or his proxy in the debate) just wanted a heavy lifter to out-lift the Soviets. There’s a story about Kennedy meeting with Webb, with Webb trying to discuss the post-Apollo path, and Kennedy trying to drum in to Webb that Apollo had nothing to do with space travel/etc, “I’m not interesting in space!”

        Interesting parallels, Kennedy wanted the BFR; painfully expensive, with one mission and no future. Von Braun wanted more affordable, incrementally developed technologies, with the moon as just one stepping stone in a broader goal of permanently settling space.

        But you know… teh Vision, teh Leadership!

  13. Anonymous says:
    0
    0

    ” Either Charlie Bolden never pounded his shoe at the White House – or (more likely) they were not listening when he did.”

    If it was the latter, he did what he could do.