Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
NASA Moon

Outgoing NASA Administrator Urges Incoming Leaders To Stick With Artemis Plan (arstechnica.com) 42

Posted by BeauHD from the what-to-expect dept.
Before NASA Administrator Bill Nelson retires in a couple of weeks, he has one final message for the next administration: Don't give up on the agency's Artemis Program to return humans to the Moon. In an interview with Ars Technica's Eric Berger, Nelson discussed his time in office, the major decisions he made, and his concerns for the space agency's future under the Trump administration. Here's an excerpt from the interview: Ars: I wanted to start with the state of Artemis. You all had an event a few weeks ago where you talked about Artemis II and Artemis III delays. And you know, both those missions have slipped a couple of years now since you've been administrator. So I'm just wondering, do you know how confident we should be in the current timeline?

Bill Nelson: Well, I am very confident because this most recent [delay] was occasioned by virtue of the heat shield, and it has been unanimous after all of the testing that they understand what happened to Orion's heat shield. The chunks came off in an irregular pattern from the Artemis I heat shield. With the change in the re-entry profile, they are unanimous in their recommendation that we can go with the Artemis II heat shield as it is. And I must say that of the major decisions that I've made, that was an easy one for me because it was unanimous. When I say it was unanimous, it was unanimous in the IRT, the independent review team, headed by Paul Hill. It wasn't to begin with, but after all the extensive testing, everybody was on board. It was unanimous in the deputy's committee. It was unanimous in the agency committee, and that brought it to me then in the Executive Council, and it was unanimous there. So I'm very confident that you're going to see Artemis II fly on or around April of 2026, and then if the SpaceX lander is ready, and that, of course, is a big if -- but they have met all of their milestones, and we'll see what happens on this next test... If they are ready, I think it is very probable that we will see the lunar landing in the summer of 2027.

Ars: Do you think it's appropriate for the next administration to review the Artemis Program?

Bill Nelson: Are you implying that Artemis should be canceled?

Ars: No. I don't think Artemis will be canceled in the main. But I do think they're going to take a look at the way the missions are done at the architecture. I know NASA just went through that process with Orion's heat shield.

Bill Nelson: Well, I think questioning what you're doing clearly is always an issue that ought to be on the table. But do I think that they are going to cancel, as some of the chatter out there suggests, and replace SLS with Starship? The answer is no.

Ars: Why?

Bill Nelson: Put yourself in the place of President Trump. Do you think President Trump would like to have a conversation with American astronauts on the surface of the Moon during his tenure?

Ars: Of course.

Bill Nelson: OK, let me ask you another question. Do you think that President Trump would rather have a conversation with American astronauts during his tenure rather than listening to the comments of Chinese astronauts on the Moon during his tenure? My case is closed, your Honor, I submit it to the jury. Further reading: Elon Musk: 'We're Going Straight to Mars. The Moon is a Distraction.'

Outgoing NASA Administrator Urges Incoming Leaders To Stick With Artemis Plan More | Reply

Outgoing NASA Administrator Urges Incoming Leaders To Stick With Artemis Plan

Comments Filter:

  • But if the spacex lander is starship (Score:3)

    by Ken_g6 ( 775014 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2025 @02:35AM (#65068969)

    Then why shouldn't they cut out all the other parts?

    • NASA is now open to benchmarking its costs versus private industry for different aspects of R&D, launch, and recovery..

      Even if the benchmark comparisons aren't fully apples to apples, basic metrics like cost to launch one kilogram into space, number of launches per year, and more are open to political review of Government VS private industry.

    • Starship isn't what's going to get the crew to lunar orbit. That's still Orion. Starship has a very long way to go before it gets crew rated for launches or landings. It may happen, and I hope it does, but it's not happening in time for a 2027 lunar landing.

  • Support the option with the best chance of success (Score:3)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2025 @03:23AM (#65068999)

    Yes multiple options for manned spaceflight should be supported. But the lions share of the funding and support should go to whichever project will (without compromising safety etc) put man on the moon the fastest. If that's SpaceX, support SpaceX. If that's Artemus, support Artemus. If that's some other company, support that.

    • Why? You can't even spell Artemis. How will putting a walking symbol on the Moon change anything for anyone? It's just masturbating at this point.
      If dead airless rocks fascinate you that much, do a robotic return mission like the 1970 Soviet Luna 16 mission.
      Oh never heard of it? Shows you how much this is about science vs symbolism.

      • Science, symbolism, because we can, because Elon Musk wants to make sweet love to a robot in orbit next year, who cares why? Haven't you read the enormous benefits [nasa.gov] of the first moon missions? Similar benefits can be had again. IMO we should be going to Mars, but changing NASA's priority at this point would just cause yet another 4 to 8 year delay. We're aimed at the moon, so that's where we should go. It's not about bringing back some more moon rocks. It's about setting up a permanent science base and turni

        • > It's about hope, prosperity and scientific progress

          That's not compatible with the current political climate in the US.

          • I get that you're just trying to dunk on Trump and Republicans, but Trump is very much an advocate for space. Any environment that keeps NASA's budget up and doesn't whiplash NASA by taking the budget from current space exploration efforts (say, by dropping the moon 70% through development and demanding they focus on Mars instead, sftu Musk unless you're paying for Mars yourself or can get it as an extra and separate program) is compatible with the hope, prosperity, and scientific progress NASA-led space ef

            • It's not a Trump-specific observation; Republicans as a general rule are anti-science, pro-Jesus. Thus the fights about removing evolution and sex Ed from classrooms and posting the Ten Commandments prominently on government property.

              Science can explain why tariffs are a bad idea, why clamping down on immigration will cause major issues likely to hurt more Americans than it helps, and why it makes sense to nationalize some things rather than leave them to corporations.

              They don't want to be told they're wro

              • They warned us way back in the 60s that if people were freely allowed to think whatever they wanted that we'd soon be overrun by hippies.

      • Actually the moon is a perfect staging ground to test equipment that they want to use for Mars. On top of that it's closer so when, not if WHEN, something goes wrong we can either resupply or evacuate without it taking months. On top of that a moon facility could be used for prototyping production that would likely be necessary for longer term occupation. I mean if Elon wants people to live on Mars, they'd better be able to support themselves - including refining ores and growing food.

        That's why I've nev

      • How will putting people on Mars help anyting, except Leon's ego? Better to put unmanned rovers there instead. The reason for going to the moon in person is similar to the summary - China's going to do it and therefore politics demands we do it also. The reason we went to the moon in the 60s was politics also. Probes are vastly cheaper; you don't have to get all those astronautic systems in place to keep the payload alive and return it safely.

  • Get rid of Artemis for fucks sake, and redirect those workers (not their management) to help out elsewhere like Blue Origin, Stoke Space, or SpaceX etc. There's lots of demand for aerospace workers, we don't need them wasting their life on Artemis.

  • I rest my case.
    • Sure, but none if that 4 billion went to Ukraine or the big guy.

      • Wait until you see the running tab for Israel.

      • For real.

        Hey we sent actual freedom fighters $60 billion of weapons we already paid for, to American firms, and that were going to expire, and be destroyed in 5-10 years.

        Angry fist shaking from the plebs...wtf

    • For real. The current government better make good on the decades long gas-lighting around reducing the recurring spending deficits and overall debt. There's no one left to blame...maybe Powell if you are desperate. But GOP has run of the joint, and should be able to make good on all the promises.

      I'm a self-described "space-nutter" but will gladly give up Artemis and more to get the economic situation under control. But as we all know, neither NASA, nor EPA, nor Education Dept. add up to anything comp

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by AvitarX ( 172628 )

        Lol, they're definitely going to run up the debt, likely quicker than now (but that's not known, I would be pleasantly surprised if they don't).

        Not a dig at Trump even, just an observation what's being said, and a history of Republicans liking to run up the debt because of over estimating (maybe in good faith) the extra tax base tax cuts will bring.

  • Fueled By Arrogance. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by geekmux ( 1040042 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2025 @04:51AM (#65069103)

    Do you think that President Trump would rather have a conversation with American astronauts during his tenure rather than listening to the comments of Chinese astronauts on the Moon during his tenure? My case is closed..

    Bill Nelson struck me as an intelligent human capable of logical thought. Right up until he hung the entire fucking justification for going to our moon on this Communist-goading bigger-dick measuring bullshit.

    Between that lame-ass response and NASAs obscene cost when compared to damn near any third party (the new administration is just slightly excited about cutting Government bloat), he might have just killed the program inadvertently.

    • This appeal to the Orange One's vanity is probably the best argument there is for getting Trump to agree to Artemis continuing. Add in the pork value to the congressional districts where it is being built, and that will be why it does or does not persist.

      Sad but true.

    • The reason we went to the moon the first time was the fear that someone else (Soviets in that case) might beat us to it. The reason we'll go back is the fear that someone else (China) might beat us to it. Even Neil DeGrasse Tyson agrees with that sentiment. Bill Nelson just pulled a political move out of his hat. That's not the sign of an idiot. That's the sign of an intelligent man swallowing the bile rising in the back of his throat and doing what he had to to keep a program he believes in alive. Face it,

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      It doesn't add up either. China is saying around 2030 for a manned moon landing. Trump can't be president after January 2029.

  • Good argument, weak basis (Score:5, Insightful)

    by excelsior_gr ( 969383 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2025 @05:29AM (#65069149)
    His final argument, before he "submitted it to the jury", implied that Artemis will put people on the moon within the next 4 years. According to the current plan, the first crewed Artemis mission is planned for mid-2027, 1.5 years before the end of Trump's term. Given the delays of the Artemis program, that's a pretty thin time-margin that could easily be missed, even with a rather successful space program. From the perspective of Nelson's own argument, Trump is probably better off claiming that he aims for Mars (as also supported by Musk, who called the Moon a diversion), than go for a Moon-revisit with a time-schedule that is likely to fail.

  • "Do you think President Trump would like to have a conversation with American astronauts on the surface of the Moon during his tenure?"

    Trump has NEVER showed any interest in science or anything that isn't related to his ego or money. I can't ever see him prioritizing a manned mission to the moon. It isn't going to make any money and would just be a repeat of what they did 50+ years ago. Also, his farm-belt American fan base doesn't think space exploration should be a greater priority than immigration and wo

    • "Trump has NEVER showed any interest in science or anything that isn't related to his ego or money. "

      Musk will build a Trump-Hotel on the moon, obviously.

    • Trump has NEVER showed any interest in science or anything that isn't related to his ego or money. I can't ever see him prioritizing a manned mission to the moon.

      Back in 2017 Trump literally signed the policy that kicked off Artemis as we currently know it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dgatwood ( 11270 )

        Trump has NEVER showed any interest in science or anything that isn't related to his ego or money. I can't ever see him prioritizing a manned mission to the moon.

        Back in 2017 Trump literally signed the policy that kicked off Artemis as we currently know it.

        Maybe I missed something, but Artemis started early in the Obama administration, and was originally supposed to have launched back in 2017. It launched half a decade late, but that doesn't mean there was anything meaningful that happened governmentally other than continuing to shovel money into the furnaces of a bunch of defense contractors.

  • SLS is a big part of Artemis and costs a fortune (Score:4, Informative)

    by magzteel ( 5013587 ) on Tuesday January 07, 2025 @10:12AM (#65069729)

    The Space Launch System (SLS) is a big part of the Artemis program. It has cost $26B so far and it is estimated to cost $2B per launch. That sounds awesome for Boeing and the other contractors but it's crazy for the taxpayers. $2 billion per launch and Artemis needs many of them. It's not sustainable.

    • $2 billion per launch and Artemis needs many of them. It's not sustainable.

      It's even worse than $2bln.

      https://www.space.com/nasa-sls... [space.com]

      "In late 2021, a report by NASA's Office of Inspector General showed that NASA will likely spend a total of $93 billion on the Artemis program between 2012 and 2025, and that each SLS launch will cost about $4.1 billion."

      • $2 billion per launch and Artemis needs many of them. It's not sustainable.

        It's even worse than $2bln.

        https://www.space.com/nasa-sls... [space.com]

        "In late 2021, a report by NASA's Office of Inspector General showed that NASA will likely spend a total of $93 billion on the Artemis program between 2012 and 2025, and that each SLS launch will cost about $4.1 billion."

        That's insanity

  • You'll need a few launches to get to the mood at a few billion a launch. Space x can do that for a fraction of the cost. Give the contract to them and quit wasting money.

  • The Federal Government in general, and NASA in particular, suffer from the biggest case of Sunk Cost Fallacy in the history of sunk costs,

Slashdot Top Deals

The difference between reality and unreality is that reality has so little to recommend it. -- Allan Sherman

Close