Mike Pence Tells NASA To Accelerate Human Missions To the Moon 'By Any Means Necessary' (theverge.com) 375
Today at the fifth meeting of the National Space Council, Vice President Mike Pence said the Trump administration is committed to sending humans back to the Moon by 2024, four years earlier than NASA's previous target of 2028. The Verge reports: Pence, speaking at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, noted that the administration will meet this goal "by any means necessary." He called on NASA to adopt new policies and argued that the space agency would need to embrace "a new mindset that begins with setting bold goals and staying on schedule." To do that, he said the administration may consider ditching some of NASA's current contractors -- which are currently developing new vehicles to take humans into deep space -- and using commercially developed rockets instead. "If commercial rockets are the only way to get American astronauts to the Moon in the next five years, then commercial rockets it will be," said Pence. "Urgency must be our watch word."
However, Pence offered few clear recommendations and changes that would help to accelerate NASA's return, apart from potentially switching rockets and contractors. "It was rhetoric about 'by all means possible' and 'we'll provide the resources necessary' and 'leadership is essential,'" John Logsdon, a space policy expert at George Washington University, tells The Verge. "I mean, they're all good words. But the devil's in the details."
However, Pence offered few clear recommendations and changes that would help to accelerate NASA's return, apart from potentially switching rockets and contractors. "It was rhetoric about 'by all means possible' and 'we'll provide the resources necessary' and 'leadership is essential,'" John Logsdon, a space policy expert at George Washington University, tells The Verge. "I mean, they're all good words. But the devil's in the details."
Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Setting bold goals and staying on schedule.
So I guess, they sacrifice safety.
Re: (Score:2)
Setting bold goals and staying on schedule.
So I guess, they sacrifice safety.
Reminds me of a recent Boeing story...
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Setting bold goals and staying on schedule.
So I guess, they sacrifice safety.
Reminds me of a recent Boeing story...
Or the Space Shuttle Challenge [wikipedia.org] and its o-rings.
(Speaking of sacrificing safety for schedule.)
Re: (Score:2)
Virgil "Gus" Grissom
Ed White
Roger Chaffee
All because NASA used pure Oxygen in the capsule.
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Informative)
Let's not forget Apollo One, Jan. 27, 1967 ... All because NASA used pure Oxygen in the capsule.
Yes, but that wasn't really done to cut corners or to keep to the schedule, but because on other air mix incidents and/or concerns, Choice of pure oxygen atmosphere [wikipedia.org].
The Command-Module redesign [wikipedia.org] included changing the air mixture and pressure while on the ground to be 64/40% oxygen/nitrogen and lower pressure (14 vs 16.7 PSI), with the mix changing to 100% oxygen and 5 PSI in flight -- the rational is detailed in the link. A 100% oxygen mix was kept in the suits to keep astronauts from getting the "bends" (decompression sickness) during the ascent.
In addition, and probably most importantly, all the flammable materials were replaced with non-flammable or self extinguishing materials.
Re: (Score:3)
There was a lot of pressure to meet that 'end of the decade goal.
I have always believed their deaths were a result of pushing ahead without thinking through the safety of what they were trying to accomplish. The goal being more important than the means.
Just an opinion.
Of course, hindsight is always 20/20, and they were "going where no man had gone
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it would have happened because they had good reasoning for their decisions.
It was all literally new. Never done before stuff.
Stupid would have been not learning from it.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignorant. Not stupid. Same as the door design.
Re: (Score:3)
The O-Rings was political. The original design of the SRBs was to have one contiguous pipe and ship it to FL via Gulf of Mexico. But nooo, jobs needed elsewhere. So it was cut into segments to fit on rail cars.
+1 to this. This is an early example of the SLS "Senate Launch System" where the pork had to be spread over as many states as possible to get those senators to approve the allocations.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, Hopefully what they will be abandoning is the hugely expensive launcher and capsule that senator Shelby Has been forcing NASA to use as a means of shoveling tens of billions of pork to his constituants. If NASA were able to at last abandon the go-nowhere jobs programs called SLS & Orion — and if they used an equivalent amount of funding, missions to the moon would indeed be possible.
The problem is Shelbly.
Re: (Score:2)
If not for pork, what is the purpose of landing on the Moon ?
Re: Wait, what? (Score:2)
To meet with the aliens. Duh.
Re: Wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
To meet with the aliens. Duh.
There are no aliens on the moon, idiot. That's where the nazis went.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
If not for pork, what is the purpose of landing on the Moon ?
Cheese. The Moon is made of it.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
If not for pork, what is the purpose of landing on the Moon ?
Nice beach holiday at the sea of tranquility?
Re: (Score:2)
If not for pork, what is the purpose of landing on the Moon ?
Didn't you see the PBS Nova documentary . . . ?
Nude on the Moon [wikipedia.org]
That's what put the "Buzz" in the Aldrin, and let's you know what Alan Shepard's golf "balls" on the Moon was really about.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard hammering was involved...
Re: (Score:2)
If not for pork, what is the purpose of landing on the Moon ?
To get there again, but before China, so they can avoid accusations of deriliction of duty in ceding the high ground.
Re: (Score:3)
"Let's talk about something else. Please, please think of us as actual big-talking, big-spending politicians, not merely as criminals. There has got to be something other than government corruption for you people to be thinking and talking about." [Leaving out "Oh, and a few of us might have personal investments in an aerospace contractor," in order to stay within the constraints of the question.]
Re: (Score:2)
Knowledge, technology, industry, develop stepping stones throughout the solar system.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:4, Funny)
If not for pork, what is the purpose of landing on the Moon ?
Whaling
Re:Wait, what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Senator Shelby isn't alone. There is a reason why the Space Shuttle was built from parts from 49 states. There is a reason why SLS and Orion likely have a similar distribution of vendors.
Our government loves to espouse their hate of socialism but when finding ways to create jobs back in their states or districts, they gladly distribute military and other large programs across the US.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Our government loves to espouse their hate of socialism but when finding ways to create jobs back in their states or districts, they gladly distribute military and other large programs across the US.
Kind of. They don't do it for Socialist reasons, they do it because they get kickbacks. Legalized corruption so to speak. It has nothing to do with Socialism other than it can look like Socialism from a certain angle.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's not. Socialism would be the government going into the rocket-building business to achieve its space goals, nationalizing the aerospace industry.
This guy just has an allergic reaction (like most right-wingers) to anything paid for with taxpayer dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
No, Hopefully what they will be abandoning is the hugely expensive launcher and capsule that senator Shelby Has been forcing NASA to use as a means of shoveling tens of billions of pork to his constituants. If NASA were able to at last abandon the go-nowhere jobs programs called SLS & Orion â" and if they used an equivalent amount of funding, missions to the moon would indeed be possible.
And just to be clear, the director of NASA said much the same in recent testimony to congress. Of course, he didn't say "the SLS is a shit program you're forcing us to waste money on" he said "it's important we keep our commitments and stay on schedule" in the context of "let's just buy a ride on SpaceX".
Re: (Score:2)
Or, if the cost isn't increased, accelerate the cost curve.
Re:Wait, what? (Score:4, Interesting)
Setting bold goals and staying on schedule.
So I guess, they sacrifice safety.
Well, both of those are hard to do when every President sets a different goal for NASA. Most NASA projects take longer than the average President's term in office; every President comes in and completely changes what it is he wants NASA to do. How is NASA supposed to operate successfully if their mission and goals change every 4 to 8 years?
NASA really should be given more independence with budget set out years in advance. Trump and Pence might give NASA one direction, two years from now President Justin Bieber might give them a completely different direction to take.
/ no one thought Trump had a chance at being President either
Re: (Score:2)
Setting bold goals and staying on schedule.
So I guess, they sacrifice safety.
Well, both of those are hard to do when every President sets a different goal for NASA.
BAM! we have the winner here.
Yup, Even with 8 years in office as has been the trend lately, NASA's goals and budget have been changed willy nilly by each occupant. NASA is just a political football, I'm amazed they function as well as they do.
Re: Wait, what? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The article says Accelerate missions to the moon -- by any means necessary.
The problem with Pence's lack of science knowledge is that too much acceleration to the moon could kill the cosmonauts due to G forces.
Oh, wait. Pence is working for America, right? Yeah, he is on our side.
Re: (Score:2)
Setting bold goals and staying on schedule.
So I guess, they sacrifice safety.
Of course... neither Pence or Trump will be going in the journey, so why do they need to waste time and money on things life safety? After all, any- and every-one apart from the aforementioned two are expendable and replaceable.
Re: (Score:2)
Setting bold goals and staying on schedule.
So I guess, they sacrifice safety.
Yes, this is why the new design will involve a nuclear powered trebuchet and remove the need for life support. After all the goal is to a get human to the moon, while that being alive and returning thing are details that can be worked out after?
Re: (Score:2)
No, what they sacrifice is _money._ And the current presidential budget proposal does not match Pence's words.
And how! So we're going to mount an ambitious moon program based on Falcon 9 Heavy? And send people to the moon this year?.
One major fucking sigh.......
Unless we plan on many launches to assemble a lunar-going vehicle in orbit, and somehow do it in a little over a year, it is pretty amazing to think we're going to do it with the present stable of rockets.
As I've noted somewhere in the deep dark past, each of the different rockets in production have their niches. And if we are planning to go to the
Re: (Score:2)
No, what they sacrifice is _money._ And the current presidential budget proposal does not match Pence's words.
Bullshit. The problem is NASA has been flushing billions down the toilet on the SLS, a total pork-barrel scam that will never fly. Even the director of NASA wants to end that boondoggle and switch to commercial launch platforms.
The budget is more than enough. It's the corruption by congress that keeps NASA from accomplishing anything in manned space flight. Congress just wants to send pork to their district, not men into orbit or beyond.
By Any Means Necessary (Score:2)
Ah, very good then [fanpop.com]
And the dish ran away with the spoon...
Hrmmm (Score:5, Funny)
NASA director reads the memo again:
by any means necessary
Hrmmm, clickety clickety clickety...Wall funds diverted to NASA!
Re:Hrmmm (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Hrmmm (Score:4, Funny)
All of this is an attempt to save face looking at the various tangible Moon projects from China and others. I'll believe it when NASA says "we'll go to the Moon in 20xx" and xx<25.
They already did that and succeeding administrations changed the priorities. I'll believe NASA is going for a moon landing when they actually touch down. Then they can get busy building a wall to keep people from the Mexican part of the moon from invading their crater with 'caravans'.
Re: (Score:2)
All of this is an attempt to save face looking at the various tangible Moon projects from China and others. I'll believe it when NASA says "we'll go to the Moon in 20xx" and xx<25.
They already did that and succeeding administrations changed the priorities. I'll believe NASA is going for a moon landing when they actually touch down. Then they can get busy building a wall to keep people from the Mexican part of the moon from invading their crater with 'caravans'.
When the Chinese land ans start establishing their systems on the moon, the same politicians who stood in the way of NASA at every turn will shit their pants and scream about how NASA dropped the ball and allowed the Chinese to achieve space superiority. Then we'll act. Worked for Sputnik and the Russian BM systems being developed.
Re: (Score:2)
NASA director reads the memo again:
by any means necessary
Hrmmm, clickety clickety clickety...Wall funds diverted to NASA!
Just tell trump that they are going to put all those scary foreignese "invaders" on the moon and he'll go right for it.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's exactly what they did.
https://www.foxnews.com/us/more-than-100-central-american-migrants-seen-on-video-scaling-border-wall-cbp-arizona-says
Show me the Money! (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, show me how its all going to be paid for, and most of it will be contracted out.
I'm all for going to Mars and sending someone there.
Pushing people to develop new technologies or think differently will help drive innovation.
But don't cut current programs and funding just because someone wants to get to Mars in their term.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all for going to Mars and sending someone there.
Agreed. Send Trump & Pence :D
Re: (Score:2)
NASA has about the same funding (adjusted for inflation) it did in the 60s when they did go to the moon. Technology has cut the costs significantly, the only thing preventing us is corruption, the right hands have to get greased, and political infighting as to which state is getting the production facilities.
Re:Show me the Money! (Score:5, Informative)
The table at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] ("2014 Constant Dollars" column) clearly shows that the NASA budgets of the 60s were approximately double the recent/current NASA budgets. Half is in no way "about the same."
Re: (Score:2)
And if we go by fraction of the total budget, we're at about a tenth of the 1966 figure.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't need to be expensive. I can think of plenty of people (including the dude mentioned in the article subject line) who could be sent on a very cheap Mars mission. For some definition of "sent", "mission" and even "Mars" which may not emphasize their comfort or survival.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, show me how its all going to be paid for
I mean, they could reduce the US military budget by $100 billion and still be spending more than twice what China does...
Re: (Score:2)
Put a black model on the crew and promote it as "Black to the Moon!"
The Republicans can garner some SJW points as well!
Maybe we'll find some Nazi's too.....
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034314/
Pence is a moon kind of guy (Score:2, Troll)
By any chance, is there a "christian" prophecy which includes human presence on the moon?
Re:Pence is a moon kind of guy (Score:5, Funny)
By any chance, is there a "christian" prophecy which includes human presence on the moon?
Yes, it says that a group of space cadets will go there in the reign of god-emperor Trump to build a wall.
Re: (Score:2)
By any chance, is there a "christian" prophecy which includes human presence on the moon?
Well, there is Iron Sky:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
That works . . . kinda sorta . . .
Re: (Score:2)
No, but perhaps they want to annoy the Muslims, by placing a naked-eye visible cross on Moon's face.
Is that vengeance for those perfidious Muslims arranging for the moon to orbit the earth such that at regular intervals several times a year the earth's shadow forms a Muslim crescent on the moon's surface to sting Christians everywhere in the eye?
Get your ass to.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mars^H^H^HMoon^H^H^H^HMars^H^H^HMoon
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
NASA seems to get flip flopped around until much of their announcements seem like syfy. I think it must drive the passionate people pretty crazy.
SpaceX's approach seems focused, organized and achievable.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Phobos? Why not land on Europa?
Apparently, we choose to go to the moon... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not because it is hard, but because we think it sounds easy. And will look good.
Because the real service we offer, is to allow the crueler half of a large generation empty remembrances of what they used to like the idea of, as we strip of it of meaning.
I've been to science/media conventions where folks in upper-level NASA positions (often conservatives) speak frankly on these subjects, along with a lot of engineer coworkers that spent time on the - none of this lines up at all with anything they'd want.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
>"Not because it is hard, but because we think it sounds easy. And will look good."
Welcome to politics!
"By any means necessary" - impossible (Score:5, Insightful)
That means two things, neither of which is going to happen:
- Increased risk, including a likelihood of deaths.
- Reducing Congressional oversight, so they can't micromanage NASA's budget and force NASA to hand out pork to the "right" Congressional districts.
Realistically, it would probably also require a third thing: firing the NASA bureaucracy that has grown up in service of Pournelle's Iron Law.
So, no. Not going to happen. NASA as it exists today is not capable of doing this job.
Re:"By any means necessary" - impossible (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you're right, but I would add two things:
- Appropriate mix of using contractors and in-house development. SpaceX and others are showing that they can get payloads, soon including people, into orbit. NASA should recognize the commodification of the basics and focus the big government dollars on space tech that the commercial guys won't touch right now. Of course, that means giving up on a lot of pork spending, in line with your item #2.
- Adjust the budget to realistically accomplish the goals. I suspect this means increasing the budget, but I don't know.
Anyway, as I said, I think you're right, which is to say: none of this is going to happen anytime soon.
NASA does a lot of stuff, and a lot of it (Earth observation missions, for example) works really well. But for these moon shot missions, nothing is at stake. Someone like Mike Pence says we're going to the moon for no particular reason, and nobody cares, and nobody believes we're actually going to the moon, so when we don't go, it's not a surprise to anybody--in fact, they've all forgotten that Mike Pence said anything about it in the first place. So who cares if we failed?
Re: (Score:3)
I guess he really needs to get back home. (Score:2)
and NASA tells Mike Pence - (Score:2)
- give us more money. Give us half of the budget allocated to the military. Give us half of their seven hundred dollar toilet seats and three hundred dollar spanners.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Launched out of a Jules-Verne style cannon.
Urgency must be our watch word. (Score:3)
"Urgency must be our watch word."
Why? Is it going somewhere?
Re: (Score:2)
It's a priority!!! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Pence is more than likely hoping to run for president in 2024. Humans returning to the moon would make a very nice campaign photo op.
Any means necessary? (Score:3)
I'm not sure what "any means necessary means". Does NASA get a blank check from the government? If Elon says for 10 trillion he can get us to the moon earlier, they'll fund it? If it involves paying large sums to Russia of China, that's ok too? How about safety? Send 10 rockets, as long as one makes it there that's fine, even if 9 crash and burn? Who exactly decides what means are necessary?
Re: (Score:2)
If it involves paying large sums to Russia of China, that's ok too?
I'm pretty sure this administration would have no problem with paying large sums of taxpayer dollars to Russia. China, I'm not so sure about.
Re: (Score:3)
NASA has cooperated with the Russians in the open for a long time, and have paid them millions of dollars. Those Soyuz flights to the ISS weren't free.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Try a rocket (Score:2)
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
We have millions of Americans who still cannot afford to go to the doctor, who cannot afford education, who cannot afford housing, and this asshat thinks we need to send people to the moon to do what, exactly?
I can barely get mod points and I have none at present to vote you down with, but apparently all you have to do is cut and paste this from a similar post that always gets made the last time Slashdot talked about going to the moon or Mars and you'll get 5 points. I've got news for you pal - in your lifetime I don't think we'll ever have people in the USA who can all afford to go to the doctor (health insurance issues are likely to get worse over time, not better because nobody has a workable plan to fix th
Re: (Score:2)
To plant another flag of course!
Re: Why? (Score:2)
Re:Why? (-ty on the moon...) (Score:2)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
My god, what an original and insightful comment! I don't think anybody [wordpress.com] has ever thought of that before!
Okay, let's math shit up. NASA's 2018 budget is approximately $21.5B (0.49% of the Federal budget) and the number of Americans living below poverty is approximately 39.7 million. Assuming there's zero administrative costs as well as zero costs in printing and mailing checks, that works out to be approximately $541.56 annually per poor person. Yep, that's going to make HUGE difference in people's lives alr
Why 2024? (Score:3, Insightful)
Hitch a ride with China? (Score:5, Funny)
Young Earth Creationist pushing for Moon by 2024 (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right, Mike Pence, the young Earth creationist, wants us to go to the Moon by 2024. This is a man who doesn't understand science or history of us getting to the Moon. He doesn't understand money either because NASA had 5% of the budget at that time. Currently NASA has what, half a percent of the budget?
Re:Young Earth Creationist pushing for Moon by 202 (Score:5, Informative)
Even in constant 2014 dollars, the current NASA budget is barely a third of what it was at its height — and since Space Has Really Become A Thing since then, what with the space stations and satellites and such, NASA tasked with doing a lot more missions than in the heady days of '66.
We want to get back to the moon in 5 years when we don't have human rated launch capability? And we want to do it on a giant rocket that hasn't launched once yet? Fine, but they're gonna need to open the pocketbooks a hell of a lot more than they are now.
No limits (Score:2)
to Trump's vanity. He has no vision. Everything he does is looking backwards. Bring back coal, go to the moon; what's next, fly a hot air balloon around the world?
Even if we go back to the moon, will Trump supporters believe we did it?
Creep Speak (Score:2)
Funding and meddling (Score:3)
Does this mean there will be adequate funding and an absence of political meddling?
Dan Quayle said he was for space, too (Score:3)
Where's the line in the Malignanat Carcinoma's federal budget for next year where NASA gets a 100% increase, from $20B to $40B?
Oh, I see, like any sleazy CEO, do more with less!!!
Datum: At the height of the Moon Race, in the sixties, NASA's budget was also $20B... in 1965 dollars. Adjusted for inflation, that would be about $180B or $200B now.
Anyone who wants more in space... without increasing the budget is a liar.
Meanwhile... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
60 years ago we allegedly went to the Moon
And AC is allegedly intelligent. But then he says shit like this. Sure. Get off this site, you're no nerd.