NASA Head: We're Not Abandoning Mission

(CBS)  NASA is not abandoning efforts to develop a new heavy lift booster in the wake of the Obama administration's decision to cancel NASA's moon program, agency Administrator Charles Bolden said Saturday.

But he added that any such rocket, even one using subsystems planned for the canceled Ares 5, is unlikely to fly before the 2020s at best, implying U.S. manned missions beyond low-Earth orbit are one to two decades away.

Even that long-range, somewhat nebulous goal is uncertain, as NASA and Congressional lawmakers struggle to understand the implications of the Obama administration's new direction for the civilian space agency.

That new direction, laid out in the administration's fiscal 2011 budget, calls for NASA to operate the International Space Station through at least 2020 and to buy commercial rockets and capsules to ferry astronauts to and from the lab complex in low-Earth orbit.

The Constellation moon program, developed by NASA during the Bush administration, was canceled, and while the space agency will get an additional $6 billion over the next five years to spur development of a commercial manned launch capability, a long-range goal for exploration beyond low-Earth orbit was not specified.

Many critics of the president's plan have complained about the lack of emphasis on a heavy-lift rocket to boost spacecraft into deep space. But Bolden insisted Saturday that NASA has not abandoned heavy-lift development. He argued some form of a powerful new rocket likely would fly before the Ares 5 could have launched given Constellation budget shortfalls.

He said he hopes he can convince Congress in the weeks and months ahead "that we can put ourselves on a path to obtain a heavy lift launch capability within the next couple of decades."

"Ideally, I would like to be flying a heavy-lift launch capability between 2020 and 2030," he said. "Whether or not we've matured to the point by then that the next NASA administrator will feel comfortable that it's OK to put humans on that heavy-lift launch vehicle, I can't say right now."

In the near term, the most critical step is defining what destinations make the most sense. Bolden said he believes Mars should be the ultimate goal, but any target beyond low-Earth orbit will require a powerful new rocket.

"I haven't talked to anybody, whether it's in OMB (Office of Management and Budget), the White House or anywhere that doesn't believe the nation needs a heavy-lift launch vehicle capability," he said. "We need it for science, we need it for intelligence, we need it for DOD, and NASA definitely needs it if we're going to talk about sending humans beyond low-Earth orbit.

"So the need for a heavy-lift launch vehicle, I don't think there's any disagreement on the part of anybody," he said. "How do we evolve there? We take the lessons learned from Constellation. If I'm able to negotiate with Congress appropriately, we may actually end up carving out some subsystems that are in the current Constellation program because they are advanced technology and they are things we will need to develop any heavy-lift launch system.

"So while we will phase out the Constellation program per se, I don't want to throw away the baby with the bathwater, if you will. We want to try to capture technologies and capabilities that are resident in the present Constellation system and use them as we migrate toward a new heavy lift launch vehicle."

Bolden defended the controversial push to develop a private sector manned launch capability and said different levels of oversight would be applied to companies with different levels of operational experience.

He also said he expects a debate about the future role of astronauts in the new program, saying it was not yet clear whether the government would, in effect, hire a commercial crew to carry out a specific task or use government astronauts on a commercial rocket.

He said while many Americans "idolize" astronauts, "there is a small contingent of people on the outside who really have a great disdain for astronauts. They feel because there is this elite astronaut corps, that we have stopped others from being able to go into space, so if they can just get rid of the elite astronaut corps then everybody else can go fly.

"That's a discussion we need to have," he said. "When we start using commercial capabilities to get people to low-Earth orbit, does that mean the astronaut office goes and says 'I want to rent a spacecraft to take a crew of six to the international space station?' Or 'I want to rent a crew to go to ISS to do six months of work?' There's a distinct difference between that operational mode. And that's the discussion we need to have."

Even so, Bolden, citing the experience of chief astronaut Peggy Whitson as an example, said space station astronauts require a high degree of training.

"I can't go out here and pick Joe Schmuck up off the street and send them to Johnson Space Center or here to the Kennedy Space Center for six weeks and they're going to be a Peggy Whitson. Ain't going to happen."

By CBS News space analyst Bill Harwood


For more info:
CBS News space analyst Bill Harwood's "Space Place" Updates
Space Shuttle Main Page (NASA)
International Space Station Main Page (NASA)

[daffy64]

Disappointed as I was initially to hear of Obama's decision to scrap Constellation, in the greater scheme, it's probably a good thing. Spending hundreds of billions on "Apollo on steroids" (as Nasa called it) really wouldn't break any new ground.

Mars is the new frontier. It has a 24hr day, an atmosphere, water, and resources to make manned colonies much more viable than the moon.

Read Robert Zubrin's superb book "The Case for Mars" and you'll soon see why he dubbed a return to the moon a white elephant.

[kenhamlett]

NASA is already outsourcing far too much of the work. It is silly to think that this double talk about a different focus will actually be deemed credible.
For example, Russia already has heavy lift capability. All that will happen is that we will outsource the project, the private company will absorb as much research money as possible then simply go buy Russian technology. No advancement at all but the goal is not to advance but to line the pockets of contractors. Foolish, but that is the real focus of NASA these days.
We should and could resume the moon flights. We can include the heavy lift rockets without any research at all. The goal should be a moon base. That is what we really need.
On the economic side, Apollo showed us that a strong space program is our best way to improve our technological advantage and that results in a robust economy. Outsourcing and scaling back is simply a sellout to special interests.

[Noval53]

It's a tragedy that NASA is going backwards in time. The space shuttle was only meant to be a transitional craft that would lead to the development of the space plane. Instead the shuttle is the transition craft to nowhere; the end of the line. Real space flight is still nothing but fantasy and star trek fable; largely because of a failing space program that's been on the downward slide for decades. Where is the drive and motivation to do something extraordinary; like land on the moon? Why is it NASA is now incompetent to go back to the moon 40+ years on? It's no wonder many people don't believe we ever went with such a pathetic space program ongoing now.

[ToolMangler1]

If America ever puts our space program on a 'back burner' that is the day America starts to die. Space and the American mind set is what generates our vast brain pool. We can recover from most horrendous natural disasters because we are Americans. We can recover from the greatest economic catastrophes, because we are Americans. But the moment we decide to take "SECOND PLACE" by letting go of the Space race, we start the slide from which no one returns (In their lifetime)

[prometheus9]

I agree with Major General Bolden, not because he's NASA's administrator, but because he's also been an astronaut. I never met the guy, but he's right about taking this new direction. Excellent decision. I would follow him to the end of the Galaxy, and that is a long, long ways. How can I say this to NASA,,,"I have been , and ever shall be your friend."

[rwsmith29456]

Good. They aren't going to cancel the heavy lift rocket. I think it is going to be some time before the private sector is able to send people up for satellite repair and the like. Why can't we update the Apollo spacecraft? It took us to the moon, it should be able to handle our needs in earth orbit. Cooperation between nations is great, but I don't think it's a good idea at all to depend on other countries for our technological needs. It's going to be a long time before another re-usable vehicle can be developed.

[Mark_67]

Paycuts should start at the top. The president and all the politicians. Do you know how much they live it up while the regular american goes without. The new motto of washinton" Let them eat cake" We should be going to space to find new fuels and minnerals for meds. Instead we let our elected officials live off our hard work. A leader should never ask anyone to do what he wont. Let Obama eat bologna for a while instead of filet mignon and maybe he'll get a clue. Only the ignorant would abandon the space program.

[earthling76]

This should bring things into perspective for you since you obviously have no idea how little of our tax dollars go towards paying for the legislative branch.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

And if we can't take better care of this planet maybe the human race doesn't deserve to journey from it.

[x684867]

Amazing...such smart scientists, but they can't understand why we need to scale back the politically bloated, underachieving NASA programs during economic recovery!

Here's an idea guys...go back to that awesome beginning of the 50's and 60's and get the job done without the politics. Trim the overhead, cut the bloat and ACHIEVE.

...it's what the rest of us are trying to do. Paycuts might help. Any volunteers?

[6591Hou]

It's politics which makes the space program difficult and over-complicated. NASA hasn't been adequately funded since Apollo, every politican who arrives at the White House has a "direction" but no funding...so programs get diverted, diluted, created, cut, over and over again. There is no 'national' vision, no 'global' concept.
The ISS is a science platform, supported by the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) along with Japan (JAXA) Europe (ESA) and Russia (RSC-E)and NASA. Keeping it flying is a global symbol of scientific partnership and cooperation, but getting out into the stars can also be a global symbol - not by ourselves but with our partners.
The age of exploration that led to global circumnavigation enabled our planet to begin communication and economic ties with lands and peoples we had never met before, to go out into the planetary bodies which surround us can uncover mineral resources and scientific discoveries which could prove equally valuable to our development as a people.