NASA Executive Quits Weeks After Appointment To Lead 2024 Moon Landing Plan (reuters.com) 111
A top NASA executive hired in April to guide strategy for returning astronauts to the moon by 2024 has resigned, the space agency said on Thursday, the culmination of internal strife and dwindling congressional support for the lunar initiative. From a report: Mark Sirangelo, named six weeks ago as special assistant to NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, left the agency as NASA abandoned a reorganization plan due to a chilly reception on Capitol Hill, Bridenstine said in a statement. His departure came after lawmakers rejected NASA's proposal to create a separate directorate within the space agency to oversee future lunar missions and ultimately develop human exploration of Mars. [...] Last week, the Trump administration asked Congress to increase NASA's spending next year by $1.6 billion as a "down payment" on the accelerated goal of landing Americans back on the moon by 2024, more than half a century after the end of the U.S. Apollo lunar program.
Didn't he read the memo... (Score:1)
Re:Didn't he read the memo... (Score:5, Interesting)
NASA still has a massive budget, vastly more than SpaceX will spend to actally get the job done. NASA is completely hamstrung by congress, and has been since the Apollo program was cancelled. Their funding is so earmarked that 10x the budget that should be needed still won't get the job done.
Congress has no interest in launch men to the moon, they only care about launching taxpayer dollars into their districts, and there's really nothing NASA can do about it. The space shuttle was a boondoggle from start to finish. Not a part of it was appropriate for the missions it performed. Do you think NASA chose that stupid "not a spaceplane, not re-usable, but with all the downsides of both" design? Of course not - it was forced on them by Nixon's budget office.
Do you think NASA really needed tens of billions of dollars to strap together used shuttle parts and launch them? SpaceX had so much trouble with their heavy lift rocket that they consider it a failure, and it actually works and cost 1% of what NASA spent to have nothing. Why do you think 100x the needed funding didn't get the job done? It's not incompetent engineering!
When NASA spends 100x what a project should reasonably costs, and still fails, flushing more money down the drain won't solve the problem. The problem is not lack of funds. The problem is not technical. The problem is corruption, and it's not going away.
Congress cant be fixed. (Score:1, Informative)
Congress is immune to FOIA requests, I've tried.
AOC has made multiple felony acts against the FEC (embezzling over a million of campaign contributions for personal use), but FEC has only 4 members of 7 for enforcement, Congress won't let other 3 be appointed, and required a 4 person vote yes to charge. AOC being corrupt will not be charged.
Half of Congress has been accused of sexual harassment/rape (yes half) and use a $16million tax payer fund to pay off accusers so it stays quiet. We are not allowed to
Re: (Score:1)
?
Rightards can never let go of a juicy lie
Re: (Score:2)
Do you think NASA really needed tens of billions of dollars to strap together used shuttle parts and launch them?
Launch vehicle is only one aspect of the lunar program. NASA still have to build out Lunar Gateway [arstechnica.com], lander, rover, and new spacesuits for men and women to the walk on the Moon. The original date for 2028 was to get there before the Chinese established their own moonbase in the 2030s. That was questionable. Now it's 2024 as a PR stunt [chron.com] by the administration. That proposed $1.6B budget request for NASA is coming out of funds [houstonchronicle.com] for low income college students.
Re: (Score:2)
Probably for the same stupid reason they were told to "reach out to the Muslim world" at one time...idiot politicians on the both the Left and Right told them to.
Seriously, NASA has one mission, and one mission only...space exploration. My proposal is to place it under the administration of the Fed. Not only does that give it independence from politics, it gives it a parent organization with some funding power.
(Whether the Fed should be independent, or even exist, is a whole 'nother topic of course.)
Re:Didn't he read the memo... (Score:4, Interesting)
Launch vehicle is only one aspect of the lunar program. NASA still have to build out Lunar Gateway, lander, rover, and new spacesuits for men and women to the walk on the Moon.
NASA has a much better track record with payloads than with rockets, which is why I confine my rant to rockets. I'd love to see them officially abandon lifters, and move to commercial launch for their payloads.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd love to see them officially abandon lifters, and move to commercial launch for their payloads.
This is tricky.
I agree. We've solved the "get stuff off the ground and into orbit" problem. Now leave it to private industry to find a way to do it cheaper.
On the other hand, one thing I like is seeing is NASA trying to get better performance out of the Space Shuttle Main Engines which burn liquid hydrogen. I also like to see NASA doing research & development on ion engines, nuclear propulsion, and any other propulsion ideas that come around.
I, too, would like to see NASA get out of the rocket busine
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that NASA designs rockets but doesn't build them -- their contractors do the building. If NASA both designed and built rockets, they'd do fine. If NASA neither designed nor built but just bought, they'd do fine. But they have the worst of both worlds, maximizing inefficiency.
Re: (Score:2)
The SSME was designed and built by Rocketdyne, who also built the engines for the Saturn V. It never made much sense to use it on the first stage: it has a low thrust-to-weight ratio, and hydrogen in general is just not what you want. Hydralox engines are very efficient, but hydrogen fuel tanks are very bulky, which has various downsides for a first stage. It never made a lot of sense for a vessel that can't leave orbit.
NASA has really not done any impressive work in general in rocket design in several d
Re: (Score:1)
There, fixed your sig for you
Re: (Score:2)
The space shuttle was a boondoggle from start to finish.
Eh... it started out OK. The Space Transport System was actually a good idea for giving NASA interplanetary manned capabilities, and the shuttle was only a tiny part of it. The Shuttle was to be fully reusable, and much, much simpler.
At that point, it wasn't a bad idea... the shuttle was to be simple, light, cheap, and single purpose (orbital launch).
But that was before politicians decided they should dictate how NASA got to space, instead of asking NASA to provide an orbital launch system.
And then the Air
Re:Didn't he read the memo... (the NEW space race) (Score:2)
Yep! Yep! This is what I love about SpaceX (and other competitors too like Amazon, trying to get into the game). The new "space race" is going to be among successful private businesses who see who can accomplish various useful goals in space first.
NASA doesn't even seem to have a cohesive plan, beyond "Give us enough money and then we'll see how we can spend it to rehash what we already did back in 1969 ... maybe adding some kind of fuzzy concept for a lunar base, to help ensure you give us all those tax
Re: (Score:2)
Yep! Yep! This is what I love about SpaceX (and other competitors too like Amazon, trying to get into the game). The new "space race" is going to be among successful private businesses who see who can accomplish various useful goals in space first.
Yeah yeah, yeah. This will be the triumph of free enterprise until the inevitable happens, and a few of these things go kaboom, sadly, taking people with them.
Then it will be an argument over the no true free market rocket, and figuring out how to blame it on NASA game.
I actually believe that this transitioning from NASA to quasi-private industry is a good thing. But watching the buzz lately, the companies and fans are getting a bigger infection of hubris than any Pre-Challenger launch NASA ever had.
Re: (Score:2)
SpaceX is what SpaceX is, but it's not a NASA-killer by any stretch.
SpaceX builds rockets. NASA needs to stop trying to build rockets, and focus on what commercial launch providers don't offer.
Re: (Score:2)
Boeing is building the SLS rocket for NASA. The big pieces aren't what's holding it up any longer. But, you'd be amazed at the numerous little unexpected problems that have been popping up during testing and manufacturing.
The SLS and Falcon Heavy were both based on the same basic idea: take parts that already work and stitch them together. That way you "just" need to add structural strength to the central core, and a good staging mechanism. Both signed up for the same world of hurt.
Falcon Heavy showed it wasn't easy at all, but it went from idea to first flight in half the time SLS went from idea to still no rocket. And the SpaceX budget is hard to know exactly, but it looks like about 5% of the SLS budget.
None of this st
Re: (Score:1)
Mercury, Gemini, early Apollo, and Skylab were "get it done, you're the experts, do what you have to" projects done by "can-do" people. THEN the rot completely set in and the politicians totally made it pay-for-play ("you want the funding? send work to my constituents.") witht he end of Apollo, all the planetary/galactic missions, and the shuttle. If they actually LET the NASA staff design/procure/construct/launch/manage the project then it'll be on-budget and a success (IF they could find staff as compe
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
NASA has, adjusted for inflation the same or bigger budget than the years of the Apollo project.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you sure about that? That doesn't jive with what I found.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Budget from 1963 to 1970 fluctuates between 20 and 43 billion dollars in 2014 dollars. The 1966 year was the top.
Today it's 20 billion dollars. I guess it's about the same as it was during the early and very late years of Apollo.
Re: (Score:2)
Stable genius creativity? (Score:2)
NASA is supposed to do more with less funding every year. Going back to the Moon as a PR stunt is totally doable by 2024.
Good FP. I'd even give it a funny mod point if I ever had one to give.
To earn insight, you'd have to consider #PresidentTweety's deficiencies in imagination and creativity. All he's got is the one card he was dealt when he was 3 years old. That's when he became a cheat, and he's never learned another trick. He's just gotten noisier and clumsier in cheating, especially about taxes and golf. (My favorite story of the week: https://www.npr.org/2019/05/19... [npr.org] )
If I were a presidential historian, I think the only
Re: (Score:1)
Sweet! (Score:2)
So, can I have the job? I'm qualified. I've been playing Kerbal Space Program for like... weeks.
I am a astrophile. (Score:5, Insightful)
I am a committed devotee of all things space and science fiction and have been for nearly 50 years. ...and all that as a given, if I was in charge and said "OK guys, we really, SERIOUSLY need to get our ass into space in a sustainable fashion" and NASA's response was "ok yeah, here's a whole new bureaucracy we'd like to create within our already massively top-heavy bureaucracy" I'd probably cut their bloody funding as well.
I am deeply convinced that space exploration should be one of our highest priorities.
I am certain that the best possible steps to human expansion in space begins with the US (not China, not Russia) establishing the first permanent lunar habitation, as well as the norms of operation in space.
I am a deeply committed (albeit not very good) Kerbal Space enthusiast.
Could they be more of a caricature of themselves?
The US hosts possibly one of the greatest collections of scientific and capable minds on Earth in NASA, overseen by the most bureaucratic, time-serving, risk-averse (I mean to their careers, not particularly human safety except where it would impact the former) papershufflers since the scuttling legions of scribes in Byzantium.
If I said "Let's really go into space!" and their response was "Here's our new org chart!" I'd probably shutter the damned place and turn their budget over to Musk and Bezos.
Re: (Score:1)
religious nonsense
space is a dead end
your sci-fi dreams were nothing more than the idle daydreams of bored juvenile hacks and propagandists
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
evolution is still happening and in less than a million years there won't be anything resembling the human race anywhere
I think you misunderstand how evolution works. The human race is currently in a form of stasis, since we have no serious risk from anything in our environment. If anything our gene pool is slowly losing quality as we figure out how to let people with genetic diseases survive and spread their broken genes, but if our medical science can cope with it, it's not a problem. Evolution has stopped in its tracks for the human race - because evolution requires the weeding out of the unfit before they have time to br
Dunbal is a moron, noted. (Score:1, Insightful)
"I think you misunderstand how evolution works." - Having read what you just sharted, I KNOW you do...
" The human race is currently in a form of stasis, since we have no serious risk from anything in our environment. " - Uneducated pronouncement...
" If anything our gene pool is slowly losing quality as we figure out how to let people with genetic diseases survive and spread their broken genes " - Uneducated understanding of disease genetics /immunology...
" but if our medical science can cope with it, it's n
Re:I am a astrophile. (Score:4, Insightful)
> The human race is currently in a form of stasis, since we have no serious risk from anything in our environmen
This sounds very confused. Reducing the direct biological pressures of food poisoning, starvation, correction free vision, resistance to infection, and starvation is permitting survival of large numbers of people who would have died even 100 years ago. much less 10,000 years ago. The removal of a direct environmental limitation is as much a part of evolution as the addition of such pressure: it allows other factors to become relatively more important, such as sociability and tolerance for industrial poisons.
Re: (Score:1)
No, I believe you have misunderstand how evolution works. Evolution doesn't require risk from the environment or weeding out of the unfit before they have time to breed, for it to happen.
Evolution would stopped in its tracks for the human race if everybody would have exactly equal number children, or at least that distribution of no. of children among population it is completely random. But neither of that is the case.
Some people don't have children at all, some only one, some few, and some a lot of them. A
Re: (Score:2)
NASA seems to be about 24% administrative positions. Personally I think that's way too many for an effective technical organization, but it's actually not too bad in a relative sense. SpaceX is a private company but some people have made estimates based on LinkedIn profiles, and those tend to come out in the 20-22% range.
Re: (Score:2)
I have a pretty good idea how diverse the operations and responsibilities of NASA are. I don't agree that requires a large amount of administration.
NASA *is* responsible for disbursing grants and such, which means the admin people are counted as NASA employees while the grantees are not. That adds some unfair weight towards the admin side, and I suspect more than explains the apparent differences with SpaceX.
Re: (Score:2)
No you don't!
Thanks, I live a long way away from my sister. Slashdot takes me back to when we were children.
(you get to run to Mom and tell her I'm being mean now)
Trump in favor of increasing NASA budget? (Score:1)
What? I hate science and exploring space now!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
he wants to brag he put Americans back on the moon and on Mars.
So what? If that means we get back to the moon sooner and to mars who cares whether Trump is on an ego trip?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I understand why it could take a decade. That doesn't mean the motivation behind trying to improve that deadline or giving focus to NASA should matter.
If Trumps ego gets us to the Moon or Mars faster then I think that is a win. Who cares why Trumps does it.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I never said that. What I said is all Trump cares about is that he gets the credit now for a project that won’t finish now. He won’t understand why NASA won’t launch now. If you are the director of this project would you like Trump as your boss not only demanding results but incapable of understanding the reasons. I’ve dealt with those bosses before. They can make your job unbearable.
The flip side is that Trump once understands it won’t launch in his Presidency, he has no qual
Re: (Score:2)
Re:He didn't get his bueracracy to lead. (Score:5, Interesting)
[He didn't get his bueracracy to lead.]
So he quit.,
Nailed it.
That's all this is.
He took the position to lead a huge bureaucratic branch-agency so as to advance his career and prestige. The new branch of bureaucracy did not materialize as anticipated, so there was no reason for him to stay.
NASA needs a lot less risk-averse, fiefdom-building bureaucrats & bureaucracy and a whole lot more talented top engineers and visionaries. Until that happens it's a money hole.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Should find a way to remotely kill people from mars.
Simple. Just send those people to Mars.
Only Alice (Score:1)
Alice Kramden is the only person that should be going to the moon.
Go to Mars, or go home.
Re: (Score:2)
Who wants to go to that dead rock? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
one way. Then we build a Dyson wall around Earth and make him pay for it.
Typical.. (Score:1)
The rest of the world is talking about going to Mars, mining asteroids, developing renewable power, and our "bring back coal" idiot-in-chief wants to go to the moon. One more way he's making 'murica great again!
Re: Typical.. (Score:1)
The difference between Trump and the rest of the world is that Trump is actually executing on his plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Asteroids? When the rings of Jupiter have plentiful ice for water sources in orbit?
Re: (Score:1)
Then their probes crash. Talk is cheap.
about time (Score:2)
The gateway is far too expensive, and zubrins approach is probably the much lower cost approach.
It's the optics (Score:2)
You gotta wait until China goes. Then this will light a fire under Congress' ass.