Leading the Way Back To The Moon? Bolden: No Congress: Yes
Bipartisan Legislation Sets NASA’s Focus on the Moon
“U.S. Representatives Bill Posey (R-FL), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-TX), Chairman Frank Wolf (R-VA), Robert Aderholt (R-AL), John Culberson (R-TX), Steve Stockman (R-TX), Pete Olson (R-TX), Rob Bishop (R-UT) and Ted Poe (R-TX) have once again reintroduced bipartisan legislation directing NASA to develop a plan for returning to the Moon and establishing a human presence there. The RE-asserting American Leadership in Space Act, or REAL Space Act, sets a clear course for NASA toward human space flight while keeping within current budgetary constraints.”
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.”
I thought, until the recent discussion about a flight to L2 to insect and asteroid came up, that the 2021 Orion flight was going to go on a lunar fly-by. I’m surprised if on only the first flight out with people we would actually send a vehicle all the way out to the moon-Apollo did not do that on the first flight or even the second-there had been a whole series of unmanned and manned Apollo tests including several CMs, Apollo 4 and 6 Saturn V launches, Apollo 7 manned earth orbital flight, prior to Apollo 8. Also, I wonder what doing another lunar orbit or fly-by does for anyone, but maybe that is not the question since it was really just to do a test flight? I thought that was the NASA plan. Now we are hearing about the flight to the asteroid at L2. Is the main purpose for flight test, or for asteroid ‘science’? And a rather sudden redirect from the lunar fly-by. I’ve not really seen a rational explanation of either of these.
I described to my son (7 yrs) all the efforts that would be required to send colonists to Mars. A dangerous multi-month journey, radiation danger when outside on the surface, recycling systems, theoretical resources on the ground to exploit, regular resupply, etc..
He thought about it and said, why not just colonize the moon first? The problems are the same, but it’s much closer.
son, because NASA rather have an unrealistic long-term goal for which they cannot be held accountable instead of realistic milestones that one day could take us to Mars … in like you saying you are dropping out of school to concentrate on playing in the NFL, the Moon would be like focusing on playing HS varsity and then college football.
So, you presented a problem to your son using your own arguments and he greed with you. Shocker. Can I do the same to my nephew and use that to justify any other government’s policy? He’s the same age and absolutely adores me, I could get some weird shit “proven sensible” that way.
He didn’t agree with me. He made a logical conclusion on his own that I never alluded to. Also, the our discussion wasn’t about the government’s policy, it was about human colonization of the solar system. The discussion was technical and logical, not political -unlike your comment.
The idea that a discussion like that is somehow automatically “weird shit” and manipulative of children is insulting and ridiculous.
It’s a simple observation that a child has made and I agree with: The problems are the same, but the target is much closer.
How could you possibly present anything in a fair light to your son when you are so biased as to read my argument as political (even when I can’t even vote on your country, much less care to find out which party would support my opinions), and when I don’t even express any personal opinion at all in the above post, is beyond my imagination.
But perhaps it makes sense to you. We will agree to disagree then.
Patrick,
What I find often gets left out of discussions like you had with your son is what happens, and what can happen, after people get a foothold on the Moon or Mars. The “what” of things can make the “where” and “why” analyze very differently. Your son’s answer may well come out the same, but did it consider anything past the essentials — getting to the destination and staying alive there? The Moon and Mars really represent two quite different sets of challenges and also two quite different sets of opportunities.
On another note, I’m glad you’re talking with your son about this. I wish more parents would. I missed my opportunity with my son (many years ago); we just never talked about space. I’ve tried to make up for it with my grandson, but I basically missed trying to “inspire” a whole generation. I’d much rather see people follow your example than mine.
Steve
Charlie Bolden made the point, very clearly, that “We cannot continue to change the course of human exploration.” The reasoning behind his statement is so simple and obvious that any 6-year-old should be able to understand it.
Yet, exactly one day later we have Congress people, yet again, trying to “change the course of human exploration.” It must be a day ending in “y”.
These clowns can’t possibly be that clueless, which leaves only the possibility that they are trying to deliberately derail the President’s plan for NASA — again. In the SpaceRef report there is no mention of SLS or Orion, but I think it’s safe to assume that they, and the pork they represent, are the reasons for this repeated proposal, and the only reason it is bipartisan. I wonder if NASA or Congress would be tasked with developing the rest of the hardware required if this proposal goes through.
So now we’ll probably enter into yet another round of delays, studies, debates, and added costs, during which time little or no work will be done on the current POR, and at the end of this wasted time I have no doubt that some of these same Congress people will blame NASA for having been spinning its wheels.
This is an abuse and a distortion of the democratic process, since the people with the power to destroy any progress seem to be in the driver’s seat.
Isn’t that exactly what he and his boss did day 1 … change the direction of HSF? Not even sure how HSF plays a roles in his ill conceived vision to begin with. And NO, hand waving about humans on Mars in some distant future is pure twaddle.
“REAL Space Act“? Okay, now I know they hire staffers just to think up cool names for their bills!
That aside, I have no problem with this act in principle with one and one condition only: Show me the money. If they’re going to appropriate the huge (possibly as much as 5% of the Federal budget) for the task then all power to them. If they’re going to stick with flat or even declining budgets and hope that angry rhetoric makes a difference, then they’re not just wasting the time of Congress, they’re actually delaying and impeding any hope of progress on the part of NASA.
Maybe they’re just putting on a show for space industry workers in their districts?
My goodness! What have we come to? Tea Party propeller heads, right wing commie hating conservatives and a ditzy left wing socialist all demanding that the US return to the Moon! Good grief! If we’re not careful we could wind up actually leaving earth orbit and going somewhere. Imagine that.
Send me duh money!!!!”
Before those Spacex and the commercial guys do it for nothing!!
Pigs don’t fly
Dream on ralphy!!!
So seven Republicans and one Democrat qualifies as a bi-partisan committee now?
Great. Now that you are throwing money on a useless rocket (SLS, in case there is any doubt) instead of using it to do more of the cool things, cancel the rest of those that still survive and spend it on a lander that will be worth nothing anywhere else than the moon and will get discontinued after building about 12. Totally makes sense, and reminds me not at all of Constellation. Yikes.
Any chance this actually gains any traction in this administration? What could be the real damage to the space program if this new detour does so?
Read: The Uneasy State of NASA’s Human Space Exploration Program.
“By contrast, he said, there appeared to be far more interest in a return to the Moon, leading him to conclude that such a mission might be better goal, if there was a way to gracefully back out of the president’s asteroid mission goal. “There’s a great deal of enthusiasm, almost everywhere, for the Moon,” he said. “I think there might be, if no one has to swallow their pride and swallow their words, and you can change the asteroid mission a little bit… it might be possible to move towards something that might be more of a consensus.”
This is why I like Boeing’s proposal for Lunar, asteroid and Mars missions using early-model SLS. Not only does it cut a chunk out of the already-too-long SLS development program, it also allows you to go to the Moon whilst honestly claiming to be doing as part of getting ready to go on to asteroids, HMO and, ultimately, the Martian surface.