Two former NASA administrators express wildly different opinions on NASA’s Artemis lunar program
At a symposium yesterday in Alabama, former NASA administrators Charles Bolden and Jim Bridenstine expressed strong opinions about the state of NASA’s Artemis lunar program and the chances of it getting humans back to Moon before the end of Trump’s term in office and before China.
What was surprising was how different those opinions were, and who said what. Strangely, the two men took positions that appeared to be fundamentally different than the presidents they represented.
Charles Bolden
Charles Bolden was administrator during Barack Obama’s presidency. Though that administration supported the transition to capitalism, it also was generally unenthusiastic about space exploration. Obama tasked Bolden with making NASA a Muslim outreach program, and in proposing a new goal for NASA he picked going to an asteroid, something no one in NASA or the space industry thought sensible. Not surprisingly, it never happened.
Bolden’s comments about Artemis however was surprisingly in line with what I have been proposing since December 2024, de-emphasize any effort to get back to the Moon and instead work to build up a thriving and very robust competitive space industry in low Earth orbit:
Duffy’s current messaging is insisting it’ll be accomplished before Trump’s term ends in January 2029, but Bolden isn’t buying it. “We cannot make it if we say we’ve got to do it by the end of the term or we’re going to do it before the Chinese. That doesn’t help industry.”
Instead the focus needs to be on what we’re trying to accomplish. “We may not make it by 2030, but that’s okay with me as long as we get there in 2031 better than they are with what they have. That’s what’s most important. That we live up to what we said we were going to do and we deliver for the rest of the world. Because the Chinese are not going to bring the rest of the world with them to the Moon. They don’t operate that way.” [emphasis mine]
In other words, the federal government should focus on helping that space industry grow, because a vibrant space industry will make colonizing the Moon and Mars far easier. And forget about fake deadlines. They don’t happen, and only act to distort what you are trying to accomplish.
Meanwhile, Jim Bridenstine, NASA administrator during Trump’s first term, continued to lambast SpaceX’s Starship lunar lander contract, saying it wasn’t getting the job done on time, and in order to beat the Chinese he demanded instead that the government begin a big government-controlled project to build a lander instead.
Jim Bridenstine
Bridenstine is arguing for the country to go “all-in to build a landing system as quickly as possible. … And if the goal is to beat China to the Moon, we need to have a program that is, in fact, you know, dare I say, a Defense Production Act kind of program. We’re going all-in to build a landing system as quickly as possible with a team that would be a small team with authorities — maybe authorities put together by an executive order from the President of the United States — that this is a national security imperative that we’re going to beat China to the Moon, and in order to get that done, we need to have a small Skunk Works-type organization that can be in charge and make that lander come to reality.”
To put it more succinctly, private enterprise on its own can’t do it. What we need is another big budget “Manhattan Project”, run by the government (with lots of cash).
This is the exact opposite of the capitalism model that Bridenstine accelerated with great energy during Trump’s first term. It also makes no sense, especially because we have decades of evidence that such government big projects never happen on time, and go significantly over budget as they do so.
It appears the opinions of both men are based on their present status in the industry. Bolden is essentially retired, so he can say anything. When I met him at an event a few years ago and gave him a copy of my 2017 policy paper, Capitalism in Space, he said he was aware of it and liked its ideas. His comments yesterday confirm that stance.
Bridenstine meanwhile is another kettle of fish. After leaving NASA, he formed a lobbying company dubbed The Artemis Group, with ULA its biggest donor. It appears he is now touting policy ideas to help those donors, even if the ideas he is pushing make no sense.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
At a symposium yesterday in Alabama, former NASA administrators Charles Bolden and Jim Bridenstine expressed strong opinions about the state of NASA’s Artemis lunar program and the chances of it getting humans back to Moon before the end of Trump’s term in office and before China.
What was surprising was how different those opinions were, and who said what. Strangely, the two men took positions that appeared to be fundamentally different than the presidents they represented.
Charles Bolden
Charles Bolden was administrator during Barack Obama’s presidency. Though that administration supported the transition to capitalism, it also was generally unenthusiastic about space exploration. Obama tasked Bolden with making NASA a Muslim outreach program, and in proposing a new goal for NASA he picked going to an asteroid, something no one in NASA or the space industry thought sensible. Not surprisingly, it never happened.
Bolden’s comments about Artemis however was surprisingly in line with what I have been proposing since December 2024, de-emphasize any effort to get back to the Moon and instead work to build up a thriving and very robust competitive space industry in low Earth orbit:
Duffy’s current messaging is insisting it’ll be accomplished before Trump’s term ends in January 2029, but Bolden isn’t buying it. “We cannot make it if we say we’ve got to do it by the end of the term or we’re going to do it before the Chinese. That doesn’t help industry.”
Instead the focus needs to be on what we’re trying to accomplish. “We may not make it by 2030, but that’s okay with me as long as we get there in 2031 better than they are with what they have. That’s what’s most important. That we live up to what we said we were going to do and we deliver for the rest of the world. Because the Chinese are not going to bring the rest of the world with them to the Moon. They don’t operate that way.” [emphasis mine]
In other words, the federal government should focus on helping that space industry grow, because a vibrant space industry will make colonizing the Moon and Mars far easier. And forget about fake deadlines. They don’t happen, and only act to distort what you are trying to accomplish.
Meanwhile, Jim Bridenstine, NASA administrator during Trump’s first term, continued to lambast SpaceX’s Starship lunar lander contract, saying it wasn’t getting the job done on time, and in order to beat the Chinese he demanded instead that the government begin a big government-controlled project to build a lander instead.
Jim Bridenstine
Bridenstine is arguing for the country to go “all-in to build a landing system as quickly as possible. … And if the goal is to beat China to the Moon, we need to have a program that is, in fact, you know, dare I say, a Defense Production Act kind of program. We’re going all-in to build a landing system as quickly as possible with a team that would be a small team with authorities — maybe authorities put together by an executive order from the President of the United States — that this is a national security imperative that we’re going to beat China to the Moon, and in order to get that done, we need to have a small Skunk Works-type organization that can be in charge and make that lander come to reality.”
To put it more succinctly, private enterprise on its own can’t do it. What we need is another big budget “Manhattan Project”, run by the government (with lots of cash).
This is the exact opposite of the capitalism model that Bridenstine accelerated with great energy during Trump’s first term. It also makes no sense, especially because we have decades of evidence that such government big projects never happen on time, and go significantly over budget as they do so.
It appears the opinions of both men are based on their present status in the industry. Bolden is essentially retired, so he can say anything. When I met him at an event a few years ago and gave him a copy of my 2017 policy paper, Capitalism in Space, he said he was aware of it and liked its ideas. His comments yesterday confirm that stance.
Bridenstine meanwhile is another kettle of fish. After leaving NASA, he formed a lobbying company dubbed The Artemis Group, with ULA its biggest donor. It appears he is now touting policy ideas to help those donors, even if the ideas he is pushing make no sense.
On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.
The print edition can be purchased at Amazon or from any other book seller. If you want an autographed copy the price is $60 for the hardback and $45 for the paperback, plus $8 shipping for each. Go here for purchasing details. The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.
The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News
Once again, you are letting Ayn Rand do your thinking for you.
Over at NSF we read about a difference between Shuttle and Starship tiles:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=50748.msg2730574#msg2730574
Do the tiles on Starship have 65x worse thermal conductivity than the Space Shuttle?
all units are (W/m-K)
Space Shuttle Tiles: https://tpsx.arc.nasa.gov/MaterialProperty?id=1&property=4
.013 at 255K
.289 at 1533K
TUFI: https://tpsx.arc.nasa.gov/MaterialProperty?id=8&property=3
.843 at 255K
1.6 at 1505K
I find it hard to believe the Starship tiles have 65x worse thermal conductivity than the Space shuttle tiles at cold-ish temperatures and 5.5x worse at 1500K?
“Are we sure the TUFI (material #8) is really what’s on the Starship?”
–Now, that is either true or it isn’t.
If it isn’t true—maybe you could get away with Lunar Starship one day.
It is not ready to go to the Moon.
Orion and SLS are fully stacked.
Once again, your Libertarian bias has blinded you.
Once again, you are letting your reflexive statism show.
The thermal conductivity of TPS tiles at “cold-ish” temperatures doesn’t really matter much.
Very low thermal conductivity at very high temperatures was pretty much mandatory for the Shuttle given its aluminum airframe. Starship’s stainless steel hull can stand a lot more heat so there is more latitude to trade thermal conductivity for other desirable TPS tile properties such as, say, durability.
Dick and Jeff: There is also the manufacturing component. NASA never could manufacture its tiles efficiently or cheaply or quickly. Replacing the tiles was difficult and slow.
SpaceX now has a factory producing tiles quickly in the thousands.
Robert Zimmerman,
SpaceX’s ability to mass-produce TPS tiles is also related to its having designed Starship to employ mostly three or four standard tile sizes and shapes with the number of uniquely-shaped tiles kept to a minimum. Each of Shuttle’s tiles, in contrast, was pretty much unique.
Jeff Wright: As Dick Eagleson points out it doesn’t really matter what the thermal conductivity of Space Shuttle tiles versus Starship tiles is. The only question is “Will the Starship TPS system allow a rapidly reusable system?” The original idea SpaceX had was to vent very cold methane through thousands of holes on the “hot” side to provide thermal protection; there would have been no tiles.
Just because Orion and SLS are stacked doesn’t mean squat. There are so many things that could go wrong that the projected February 2026 launch date most probably will not happen. With the status of the Orion heat shield, NASA is betting the lives of 4 astronauts on a very definite unknown. If things go wrong Artemis will go away. In most respects Artemis is just a redo of the Apollo. And despite Duffy’s bluster, there will be no Blue Origen lander before 2030.
As long as SpaceX is not hampered by government or legal abuse, they will have a proven lander by 2028 for Artemis. And if Starship is man-rated by then, they may fly their own Moon mission. And if Artemis III is delayed, SpaceX may go ahead and beat both the U.S. and Chinese governments to the Moon.
Dick Eagleson: Yup. What a concept! Standardize the tile design! By jove, its so radical no wonder no NASA person could conceive it!
Jeff Wright,
The actual thermal conductivity does not matter. What matters is whether the tiles do the job. We have seen that they do. This is what engineers care about.
Now what matters is whether the company can keep them in place and whether there is damage that would be fatal or harmful to a crew if they should fall off.
If you insist upon perfection, then you will be waiting until someone finds or invents unobtanium. You also would not fly Artemis II crewed.
Bill B. – “If things go wrong Artemis will go away.”
And NASA will go away too.
In real life, politics is more often about interests than ideals. In his first term, Trump needed Republican senators and red state voters. That would involve continued funding for government programs based in those states…such as SLS. Obama wanted to spread the money around to innovators from Silicon Valley. These people tended to come from blue states and support democrats. At the time, that included Elon Musk. It is a natural form of hypocrisy. It’s the same sort of thing that makes democrats love people like George Soros and Republicans support farm subsidies. It’s built into human nature, like gravity is built into the universe. It can be overcome, but you cannot get anything done in government (or really, anywhere else) by just lamenting that it exists.
BillB,
Entirely correct – and I do mean entirely.
There were all sorts of shenanigans with Artemis 1 between completion of stacking and the actual launch, including failed wet dress rehearsals, multiple GSE bothers and anguishing over whether or not to have the thing hide in the VAB from a hurricane. Starships are much tougher and far easier to move around as they are moved empty – The SLS-Orion stacks include massive tonnages of solid propellant. Hence the need for what amounts to world-class mining equipment to move them around. Starships travel much more quickly on commodity multi-axle transporters. Whisking a Starship stack off the pad and back to shelter in the event of approaching bad weather is a no-brainer because running it back to cover, then out again after the wind passes is no big deal.
It’s pretty much guaranteed that at least some of the same sorts of delays will afflict Artemis 2. If it goes in 1Q 2026 I will be very surprised.
Everything else you say is true too. Duffy has publicly called Elon out and SpaceX will now proceed Moonward at flank speed using entirely its own hardware, if necessary – and it likely will be – to shorten the schedule. There will now be a Starship-based substitute for the SLS-Orion stack – a subset of the Mars armada crew carrier – that will be able to meet HLS Starship in a much closer lunar orbit than NRHO. HLS Starship won’t have to mooch around waiting for its partner Starship like it would for Orion either. My guess is that the two Starships will fill up in LEO from two different depots, then travel Moonward in formation.
Fun times ahead. I hope the first earnest of future intent SpaceX shows us is an IFT-12 flight of a V3 Starship stack from Starbase Pad 2 before the end of this year.
Per Dick’s comment, “My guess is that the two Starships will fill up in LEO from two different depots, then travel Moonward in formation,” is anyone else seeing the Chesley Bonestell painting of this in their mind’s eye? 75 years later, it’s about to become fact, and capitalism in space is fast becoming a reality.
The troubling thing, though, is that the kind of informed discussion about going back to the moon on this and other forums never quite seems to percolate to the decision makers in Congress or in the White House. When, short of Richard Feynman and the Challenger post mortem, have we ever witnessed such a substantive, reality-based hearing in committee? Granted, Mr. Musk and his colleagues may end up going back to the moon on their own anyway, but I still believe that we would be better off if our thinking about such things were more congruent with reality and more reflective of some kind of shared vision about our future*. Including the vision that, yes, we are that kind of country and culture, and we are going to let *capitalism and individual initiative* do what they do best.
*This is from the Google AI overview, and I find little to disagree with:
“The phrase ‘without vision, the people perish’ is a biblical proverb from Proverbs 29:18 that means a lack of foresight, goals, or direction leads to a society or individual becoming aimless and failing. This proverb is often interpreted in a few ways: that a lack of goals leads to stagnation and a loss of purpose, or in a more literal sense that it refers to a need for divine or prophetic guidance for a society to avoid moral decay and unrestrained behavior.”
Both Kennedy’s New Frontier (even if wrongheaded from Robert’s POV) and the flight of Apollo VIII were inspirational in times of darkness and doubt, and most of us need such things. And a few (reality-based) Fireside Chats wouldn’t hurt, either.