NASA's Bolden Claims NASA Is 'Doomed' Unless It Stays the Course To Mars (spacenews.com)

MarkWhittington writes: According to a story in Space News, NASA Administrator Charles Bolden made a speech at the Center for American Progress in which he declared that if the next president deviated from the Journey to Mars program, the space agency would be "doomed." The point he was making, that programs of that nature, have to have consistent support over several presidencies and congresses, was a valid one. The point was equally valid in 2010 when President Obama abruptly and without warning canceled the Constellation space exploration program. Bolden, however, had a ready answer for that, which may not be convincing on close examination.

Comments

Space exploration takes time

[Sasayaki]

It's an unfortunate byproduct of our electoral system that most government departments have trouble seeing beyond the 4 year election cycle, because a whole new group of people could be in power by then and completely reverse the direction they've been taking for this time.

This problem is amplified in the United States, it seems. Countries like Canada, Australia, most of the EU don't have this problem; the political parties are often quite similar in terms of their policies, differing usually only in name and a few minor things.

It's hard to think of a solution that might help the US situation, apart from an agreement between the two major parties that, for major undertakings like the mission to Mars, if the other assumes power then it will continue.

Of course, every politician and their dog will want conditions on that; riders, perks, kick-backs, etc. It's hard to see how it could actually work in practice.

enough of Mars

[k6mfw]

Whenever I hear/read "Case For Mars" I'm thinking here we go again... I'm thinking NASA is doomed to keep a single course to Mars (there's other stuff ya know). Matula posted this on NASAwatch:

I blame most of the destination argument on the creation of the Mars underground in the 1980's. Prior to that NASA was focused on using the Shuttle for industrialization in LEO with projects like demonstrating the repair and return of satellites, building structural items in orbit, tethers, etc., all logical starting points for building a Cislunar industrial capability that would have given us the Solar System. NASA didn't even have plans to send robots to Mars. By advocating that we needed to skip the Moon and go rushing off to Mars they started this entire useless destination debate that has paralyzed space policy ever since.

Although their arguments made no rational or economic sense, falling back on outdated ideas like "manifest destiny" and painting Mars like a second Earth, they struck some cord among a very vocal hard core group that has shouted down any rational space strategy ever since. We see it now with Senators force feeding the SLS with money it doesn't need while starving commercial crew because the SLS would, in theory, be able to take astronauts to Mars. As a result the ISS is only one Soyuz failure away from being abandoned.

We need to give Mars a rest and once again spend the limited budget on building capabilities in space, space tugs, orbital refueling, lunar LOX, that would serve for going to all the interesting destinations beyond Earth, not keep wasting money on plans to go to a single one that is already well mapped and explored.

end quote

Re:enough of Mars

[tnk1]

We'll be ready when we are ready. You don't get a program like a Mars landing off the ground by continuously postponing it until we're "ready", because the technology to get to Mars is pretty specific. You keep sending robot probes and the result is the best darn robot probes that money can buy, you build a moonbase, and you've got a good moonbase. You're still not solving the hardest problems of a Mars shot... which is a craft able to keep people alive for about a year in deep space to get to Mars and then land and do something on a planet with a substantially higher gravity than the Moon. And then back again.

No doubt, if we wait, some things will get easier, but I don't think anything gets substantially easier about that process until we focus on it.

The moon is fine, but we've solved the problem of getting to the moon forty years ago.

Sure, if you want to set up a moonbase as a stepping stone to Mars, that makes some sense, but the moon is very close to Earth, compared to Mars. And if a moonbase is the best way to do that, then it will become evident in a Mars program study. I sincerely doubt that people making money on the manned space program actually care if they make the money on Mars or the Moon. They'll take our money either way.

Re:enough of Mars

[spauldo]

While I agree Mars was probably a bad choice, changing course again will just make things worse. That's the main problem; we don't have the political will to stick with one strategy and see it through.

We'll get good science and engineering out of the Mars missions, and hopefully open some opportunities for the private sector in space as well. I was hoping we'd get a moon base first, but I'd rather we stick with a plan and actually accomplish it than switch back and forth and accomplish nothing.

Re:enough of Mars

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

I blame most of the destination argument on the creation of the Mars underground in the 1980's. Prior to that NASA was focused on using the Shuttle for industrialization in LEO with projects like demonstrating the repair and return of satellites, building structural items in orbit, tethers, etc.

And the shuttle, an overpriced and poor design, shows that they weren't up to the task.

We need to give Mars a rest and once again spend the limited budget on building capabilities in space, space tugs, orbital refueling, lunar LOX, that would serve for going to all the interesting destinations beyond Earth, not keep wasting money on plans to go to a single one that is already well mapped and explored.

I think NASA should focus on science earth observation and interplanetary probes. Leave the industrial stuff to industry.