Charlie Bolden Doesn't Like Rockets Built By 'Normal People'
Falcon Heavy? New Glenn? NASA chief says he’s not a “big fan”, Ars Technica
“On Tuesday, during a Q&A session at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ Space 2016 Conference, Bolden was asked for his opinion on the emerging market for small satellites and launchers. He chose to respond instead with his thoughts on NASA’s own rocket, the Space Launch System, and private-sector development of larger launch vehicles. “If you talk about launch vehicles, we believe our responsibility to the nation is to take care of things that normal people cannot do, or don’t want to do, like large launch vehicles,” Bolden said. “I’m not a big fan of commercial investment in large launch vehicles just yet.”
Keith’s update: Hey Charlie, normal people seem to be building rockets at a much lower cost than NASA people can. Just sayin’.
As for “commercial investment in large vehicles”, newsflash: that’s not your money they are investing. Its theirs. Ask Steve Jurvetson, that guy you spoke with at AIAA today. As for your comment about “normal people” (who are they, BTW?) and their inability to build rockets is contrary to the open access, inclusive, Maker-oriented, commercial space policy advocated by the Obama Administration.
You are retiring from NASA soon, yes?
Could NASA actually obstruct commercial heavy lift launchers? Not that I think they would, but just wondering . . .
I think if they stopped supporting the growth of the industry with coin and savy they could slow them down. Stop them…maybe not so much. It’d be stupid to try since Russia and China are working on them too.
Congress would loooove to stop Commercial Heavys and get them out of the way of their precious SLS.
Personally I think these comments by Bolden are just him walking that tight-rope between what we all know is best for space exploration and what Congress wants. They still sign his paychecks and talk is cheap. It’s what NASA does that matters and Space Act Agreement contracts are how they’ve been doing it.
Red Dragon is proof that commercial space does not necessarily need NASA’s money to move forward. That is an FH mission right?
Russia’s space program is bankrupt and the Chinese PRC owned launch vehicles are “commercial” developments? And at what warp speed is China advancing? One crewed launch every 5 years?
The tortoise and the hare come to mind.
China is not in a race with the US in space, nor is there any reason for them to engage in one. AS my Chinese friend says, if they lost, they would look incompetent. If they won, they would irritate their largest customer.
An astute and typically Chinese statement. China is in fact in a race of sorts with the west in general, looking to occupy the preeminent position currently occupied by the west and particularly the US.
Nothing wrong with it as long as the competition remains in commerce, but recent military buildups including a new carrier by China (military budget dwarfed by US) causes some concern.
Government approval is required for launches, and NASA is part of that process. Leasing launch sites at Canaveral/Kennedy also involves NASA. So do a good number of other things. So, in a legal sense, NASA has the authority to drag their feet and obstruct private launches. Whether they would do so, or whether they would be overruled at a higher level is a different question. Personally, I don’t see any meaningful obstruction in the cards.
“You are retiring from NASA soon, yes?”
Very hard to put a positive spin on Gen. Bolden’s turn at the helm.
How about commercial cargo, commercial crew, 3-D printer, and BEAM?
There is absolutely nothing commercial about the so called commercial cargo and commercial crew NASA programs. Even worse, they have been net money loosing propositions for the taxpayers. On a per pound of cargo and per person to ISS basis, they cost even more than the economically inefficient shuttle and even more than the Russian rides. That’s before taking into account the development costs, which makes the picture even worse. To be fair, much of the blame predates Bolden’s tenure and there is still much positive that has come out of the current crew and cargo contracts in spite of the negatives, but on the whole they do not negate the validity of Mr. Spencer’s evaluation. BEAM and the 3D printer on ISS are mildly interesting stunts but with insufficient prospect of major significance to cite as exoneration of Mr. Bolden’s service as administrator.
Gee Bernardo…sounds like you’re having a pretty crumby day. Cheer up…commercial space is coming soon.
Let’s see, under Bolden, NASA:
– SAFELY flew out the Shuttle manifest and completed the ISS, — Operated the ISS successfully for 8 years despite rising tensions between the US and Russia and the losses of both commercial cargo providers’ rockets, awarded two new commercial crew contracts, competed the second round of Commercial Resupply Service contracts for ISS
– Righted the JWST program (previously plagued by cost and schedule creep), began developing WFIRST
– Flew by Pluto, landed Curiosity safely on Mars, launched Juno and a dozen or more other science missions restoring the balance lost under Griffin
– Came up with a ten year plan for aviation research and got it approved through OMB that turned hostile under O’Keefe
– Terminated the underfunded Constellation (Presidential decision not his – or Congress’ preference – but somebody had to implement it smoothly)
– Managed the continuing development of SLS and Orion and successfully flew the EFT-1 test
– Maintained the best record in the government for employee satisfaction and workplace productivity.
If your criteria for NASA Administrator success is: “Did he cancel all big government funded programs and assume Elon Musk and other entrepreneurs will do them quicker and cheaper?”- yeah, I guess Charlie was a failure but for most of us – and for taxpayers, he has been a hero and a patriot.
All fair points. In fact I suppose my comment was moe a reflection of the malaise that I see at NASA, a malaise characterized by lack of vision.
On the other hand, all of your points are valid and are real achievements. I suppose the Mission to Mars meme is uppermost in my mind; on the whole my comment was unfair to the General.
Yeah I understand the frustration – but I’d argue that Bolden and NASA have been held hostage to the inability of Obama and Congress to agree on a destination and enough funding to reach it – and I don’t see much evidence this will get better even after the election. Hopefully we’ll at least be able to get funding for the Cislunar proving hound habitat and allow NASA to stop working on the ARM!
Give Charlie B. a break, he’s taking a breather from his world farewell tour, an exhausting tour that clouds the mind.
Commercial launchers may eventually kill the SLS pork. Tens of billions will have been spent with nothing to show for it. How embarrassing for NASA.
Just like commercial reusable suborbital rockets have killed sounding rockets, right ?
I should point out that as of today SLS has capabilities that surpass those of commercial rockets- even the paper rockets. So, no, SLS won’t die. It will be used, though, to launch the much-needed missions to Uranus and Neptune, among others that previously required years-long planet slings. At great cost, but still.
Only if you restrict your mission to include a single launch. I could envision launching such an outer planetary mission using an ACES upper stage which was refueled in LEO. Worst case, two fully refueled ACES upper stages (for a two stage boost out of LEO).
Certainly a refueled ACES upper stage would cost less than an SLS launch, even using the most optimistic cost numbers available for SLS.
I suppose you mean ACES on some sort of ULA vehicle?
As far as I know SLS will still be king of the hill. Indeed besides the braying here and elsewhere about this huge program, myself included, once operational it will be a thing to behold with tremendous and unique capabilities not matched even by in-space refueling- a technique we don’t have (although the Soviets did some work in this area).
I can hardly believe the words of praise Im writing about SLS, but aside from the cost- a huge parenthesis- it is a thing of beauty and will become a symbol of national prestige. Yes, I know about the throwaway aspects, and the oft-described ‘aged’ tech, but still. It is one hell of a rocket.
One or two fully fueled ACES upper stages ought to have plenty of delta-V capability for an unmanned Uranus or Neptune mission. You launch the thing into LEO, using the ACES propellant to make orbit and rendezvous with a LEO fuel depot and completely fill the tanks. SLS is just not needed for these missions!
I really don’t understand why you’re drooling over the thing. It will be a boat anchor holding NASA back when you consider how much it will cost every single year, regardless if it launches in that year or not.
For outer planet missions nuclear electric propulsion as originally planned for the JIMO mission would allow shorter travel times and more flexible mission strategies.
Can we make than nuclear electric propulsion but _not_ as proposed for JIMO? 100 kWe is excessive for unmanned planetary missions, and the reactor design JIMO considered couldn’t throttle down to significantly lower powers when the ion thrusters were off. I’m also not a fan of NaK-cooled fast reactors.
Nuclear electric propulsion has nothing to do with SLS.
Oh, if only we had some kind of government funded space program to research such things.
Hell indeed.
90% of the development and operational costs are set in the preliminary design, which occurred four decades ago. Historically, just the SSMEs, ETS, and SRMs cost 1B/yr alone–with these low costs, the case does not close.
An HLV simple forces an ACES-like upper stage to be launched in one shot. Otherwise the upper stage could be designed for on-orbit loads only and launched empty or partially fueled, improving its payload mass fraction. The penalty was 70 tons of propellant boiloff staging 5, no 6 flights for Mars DRM 5. The entire architecture would be billions cheaper per year with this lack of insight–praise unwarranted.
These decisions were made decades ago and no one has a solution to lower SLS costs. One can conclude that ‘normal’ folks are ignoring the number one Space Grand Challenge: Economic Access to Space. Somewhere along the line the Abilene Express group think shifted from normal to “Abby something”. Many now call the process ‘deplorable’.
https://youtu.be/yH97lImrr0…
There is a maximum of four SLS launches between now and 2028 when the first new Shuttle engines will be delivered (baring delays) and work can start on the fifth launch.
One launch is spent on the demo, EM-1. At least one will be spent on manned launches. And one is earmarked for Europa, if that gets funded. In addition, NASA wants to launch a cis-Lunar habitat, if that’s ever funded, which will require at least one other launch (because SLS can’t launch both Orion and cargo.)
So that uses up at least four and probably six launches.
So when exactly did you expect Uranus/Neptune missions to launch? Mid-to-late 2030’s?
It seems to me that without SLS, a mission could be funded and launched much much sooner. Even without novel technology (you know, the stuff that NASA should be funding), the most convoluted multi-gravitational-slingshot trajectory will still be quicker than “Step One: Wait fifteen to twenty years for an available SLS launch”. The fact that it’s billions of dollars cheaper too is merely a bonus.
Guys. Calm down.
Everything said above is true, and perhaps my wistful thinking about outer planet orbiters before I leave this earth is a pipe dream, at least for the foreseeable future; and more than likely putting lipstick on a pig.
My comments were simply looking at the damn thing, that’s all. Yes it’s delaying other much- needed projects. But as somebody who watched/felt/heard more than one mighty Saturn 5 leave Earth- after clearing a three mile radius!- I can say that it is an experience not to be missed.
Boondoggle? Yep. A hell of a rocket? Right again.
#theemperorhasnoclothes
Sorry Charlie, but you can either develop SLS or all the technology to go to Mars not both given the mantra flat is the new up for budgets. So if you let commercial develop your HLV freeing up close to $60B over the next 20 years maybe the #journerytomars moves from a mirage and a hashtag to a sustainable and attainable plan.
I don’t see any indication that enabling tech for a Mars trip is being developed. Maybe I missed something.
cause SLS/Orion are sucking up all the money. the ECLSS, radiation protection, ISRU, 3D printing etc are all getting pennies in a starved budget.
Charlie’s agency is sponsoring multiple “commercial” initiatives, suborbital reusable rockets, smallsat launchers, lunar data purchases and so on. Few of these have had any results.
However, with the one commercial program success that is trucking supplies to our fabled national space lab, 15% of the deliveries are not making orbit.
Maybe he has a reason to be worried?
This is so disappointing. This just further proves the point that those in government do not truly see the benefit of public-private agreements. Soon, even with all of our missteps, the cost to LEO and beyond will be reduced by a factor of 10.
This will be an enormous boon for SMD as we will be able to accomplish so much more.
As Jeff2Space keenly points out: “Commercial launchers may eventually kill the SLS pork.”
I mean – Doesn’t everyone know that NASA (and our contractors) are the only ones who can design space vehicles. This is a direct implication on Charlie Bolden that he does not want competition. News flash – no one wants competition but we all have competition.
Enjoy SLS dollars while you can because at some point the bureaucratic weight will end it.
I liked a few months ago when he said that the FH isn’t real but SLS is. As if one paper rocket can be more real than another.
I think F9H is a bit more substantial than a paper rocket – BFR is, as is the BezosFR. SLS is somewhat behind F9H.
I agree. Some here would differ with that, so I split the difference. Neither has anything actually sitting on a Launchpad or flying, so I just think it’s silly for one to say the other isn’t “real”. The world will change when the FH first goes up, and especially when its pieces come back and land. Can we say the same about SLS, when we all know it’s booster will be salvage on the ocean floor right along side the Saturn V first-stage boosters for Apollo, Voyager, and Skylab, and then it won’t be scheduled to launch again for another 3-5 years? To me “real” means that humanity is going somewhere beyond just the destination of any particular mission. When they both fly, FH and NG will be “real”.
Thank you for noting that New Glenn isn’t a competitor for Falcon Heavy, it’s Blue Origin’s answer to SpaceX’s BFR.
FH is meant to launch 50+ tonnes to LEO, and with a Raptor upper-stage that might come close to 70 tonnes to LEO.
BO’s New Glenn is also slated to launch about 70 tonnes to LEO.
OTOH, BFR is meant to launch a reusable Mars vehicle plus 200 tonnes of payload to LEO.
No, New Glenn is nothing like an answer to BFR.
Current administration ends in a couple months, current fiscal year ends in a couples weeks, next year’s budget is already set. Why does anyone care what Charlie says at this point?
Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos are normal people? SpaceX and Blue Origin hire normal people?
So…
Early in his first term, Obama is the tech president and supports efforts like SpaceX/private space flight, hobnobbing with Elon Musk. US manned spaceflight after the shuttle has been contracted to the Russians of all people, and Bolden is not a fan of the private sector occupying the void that his stewardship of NASA so graciously provided?
I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.
Come on .. let us keep things in perspective. Bolden was President Obama’s choice. The President was informed his choice would not be confirmed by the senate. The senate wanted a “monster rocket” guy to head the agency. So Senator Nelson, from Florida, put forth a guy that would support a monster rocket. Bolden is just doing exactly what the senate confirmed him to do… push the monster rocket.
Which, it must be said, is exactly as it should be. We elected the President to make decisions. He did it. I don’t agree with many of the things Mr. Obama has done, but that is the way democracy work. The fact that the Senate told the President it wouldn’t support another nominee, similarly, is right and proper. Balance of power.
not before the vote… the person he wanted was going to push more commercial options for NASA and move away from the pork .. it wasn’t about what was best for the nation .. it was about the pork in certain political districts.
You are conflating two issues. Why wouldn’t senate people confer- “advise”- the President before a vote? Of course they do/ should. You have made many comments about the proper role of Congress and the President so I’m surprised you took issue with my comment.
The pork issue goes to motivation not process.
the process was PREDICATED on the pork.. there was no process… the president is supposed to nominate .. then the senate is supposed to vote.. THAT is the process… that process was interupted by the pork .. no mister president the person you nominated is against our pork so here is one WE want . .not one YOU want .. because OUR choice will protect our pork..
sheesh
You know this…how? Not to be snarky…it’s just that I figured people talk. Staff people talk. They work things out. “we don’t like this guy”. Seems ok to me as they look for someone both can accept.
The issue of motivation seems separate except insofar as there’s a trade to offer. But still people need to talk before something is done?
Do you recall the paper that then candidate Obama put forward? Seven pages, one of the most detailed campaign papers ever put forward about space during a campaign. Scott Greason, Obama’s pick, was supposedly the author and it called for NASA doing a lot more commercial and moving away from NASA developing any new rockets. This conformed to what President Bush outlined in the VSE, which was tossed into the circular filing cabinet when the senate brought in Griffin, who gave us the 60 day study and the ESAS which was the total opposite of the VSE. Everything about the VSE from Bush and Obama were attacking the status quo of NASA and the political districts it supports. Both were direct attacks at the pork.
Maybe Charlie’s isn’t the problem. Maybe it’s the system.
A great sentiment let down by his next four words, and betrayed completely by his next sentence.
By his own argument, NASA shouldn’t be in the HLV game. If there’s commercial interest, NASA should be veering away in order to enable things that those commercial players can’t or don’t want to do.