NASA's human spaceflight chief just resigned, and the timing couldn't be worse:
On Tuesday, NASA announced that its chief of human spaceflight had resigned from the space agency. The timing of Doug Loverro's departure is terrible, with NASA's first launch of humans in nearly nine years due to occur in just eight days.
[...] "Associate Administrator for Human Exploration and Operations Doug Loverro has resigned from his position effective Monday, May 18," the statement said. "Loverro hit the ground running this year and has made significant progress in his time at NASA. His leadership of HEO has moved us closer to accomplishing our goal of landing the first woman and the next man on the Moon in 2024. Loverro has dedicated more than four decades of his life in service to our country, and we thank him for his service and contributions to the agency."
Loverro's resignation set off a firestorm of speculation after it was announced. He was due to chair a Flight Readiness Review meeting on Thursday to officially clear SpaceX's Crew Dragon spacecraft for the first flight of humans to the International Space Station. The final go or no-go decision for that mission was to be his. That launch is presently scheduled for May 27.
However, his departure does not seem to be directly related to his work on Crew Dragon. Rather it seems to stem from the recent process during which NASA selected three bids—led by Blue Origin, Dynetics, and SpaceX—from among five bidders. In an email to the human exploration staff at NASA on Tuesday, Loverro admitted that he made a mistake earlier this year.
"Our mission is certainly not easy, nor for the faint of heart, and risk-taking is part of the job description," Loverro wrote. "The risks we take, whether technical, political, or personal, all have potential consequences if we judge them incorrectly. I took such a risk earlier in the year because I judged it necessary to fulfill our mission. Now, over the balance of time, it is clear that I made a mistake in that choice for which I alone must bear the consequences. And therefore, it is with a very, very heavy heart that I write to you today to let you know that I have resigned from NASA effective May 18th, 2020."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 20 2020, @05:27PM (12 children)
What does Doug know that we don't know?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @05:37PM
We the outsiders, can only suspect; he, might have been made to know definitely.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:18PM (1 child)
That there's a red pill and a blue pill. He choose the red one.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday May 21 2020, @08:38PM
I can never remember which pill is which.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:18PM (6 children)
(Score: 3, Informative) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:45PM (5 children)
This is what Doug says... what does Doug know?
In my experience, the reasons given on sudden top executive resignation letters are usually superficial fluff compared to other stronger unstated reasons.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Wednesday May 20 2020, @07:04PM (4 children)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 20 2020, @07:13PM (3 children)
The Rump is a supreme chickenshit. Even he might have the patience to wait a week for a successful manned launch before tweeting about his genius ouster of the head of manned spaceflight at NASA.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday May 20 2020, @07:57PM (2 children)
For example, there's this crude working hypothesis in the discussion that Loverra was instrumental in turning down a Boeing bid, Boeing in turn applied pressure to the usual suspects who (in overlap with your hypothesis) include Trump, and Trump gets NASA to fire Loverra. And now, the tweets aren't forthcoming because Trump is somehow scared to? Here's the things I find implausible, working from your side backwards:
I think it more likely that Loverra ran afoul of laws on gift taking or bidding. Maybe he accepted something from one of the competitors or did something that tainted the bidding process. You know, felonies. Rather than go to court, they're going to let him resign.
(Score: 2) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 20 2020, @10:41PM
That was my thought: took a 'gift' from someone he shouldn't have and got caught.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Thursday May 21 2020, @02:13AM
Trump has been publicly displeased a lot with Boeing recently between the failure to get their plane working, the cost overruns on SLS, and possible solvency issues. I don't see Trump wanting someone fired for not picking Boeing bids, although I don't know enough to not put it past Bridenstine to be a Boeing shill although he seems far more energetic during joint SpaceX conferences than Boeing ones.
Of course this is all speculation, but maybe he regretted all the spending he authorized over the past who knows how long to Boeing and is leaving to let someone else take the spotlight if SpaceX succeeds (or doesn't). Even if the leaks say it was forced, we have had so many "leaks" up to this point meant to cause issues that I have a hard time believing them. If I had been working on and spending money on a project earnestly for decades only to have some new players swoop in and do it faster, cheaper, and better than what I had it would be extremely embarrassing.
I would rather assume until the facts are known that there isn't malice involved. Of course if the SpaceX mission blows up on the runway or on takeoff or is pushed back, its fair play to assume the two were related.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @09:17PM (1 child)
Same as James Webb resigning. Van Allen belts mean its impossible for humans to survive the transit in a light craft. Once again Trump is forcing transparency.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @03:19AM
it's possible to traverse them when the shadow object moves in front of the sun
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @05:27PM (31 children)
Quote:
His leadership of HEO has moved us closer to accomplishing our goal of landing the first woman and the next man on the Moon in 2024.
End quote.
Great to see NASA is breaking new ground! This will be a historic first!
Just kidding. It really is groundbreaking. There has never been a vagina on the moon. Let's right this wrong, no matter the cost.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @05:40PM (22 children)
Oooh, the incel rage over yet another vagina moving farther away from him.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:12PM (19 children)
You don't get the point. The goal is to put a human on the moon. That's not groundbreaking in any way. We did that OVER 50 YEARS AGO. Returned repeatedly and brought back a bunch of rocks. So now we're supposed to get excited about this again like it's some achievement? The woman angle is just like a reboot of a very old TV show but changing the male roles to be female roles. In the case of Hollywood and NASA, it's just a sign that they have no new ideas and are cowardly trying to cash in on something that was done ages ago that doesn't need revisiting. It's a dollar grab.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:20PM (2 children)
Why not? Assuming they follow through, it's a step back towards doing interesting stuff in space.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @02:39PM (1 child)
Collecting rocks?
(Score: 2) by toddestan on Friday May 22 2020, @06:06PM
It's a step. Being it's our closest neighbor and we haven't been there for nearly 50 years, we it seems reasonable to go back to the moon first before we go Mars or a comet or something like that to collect rocks there.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PiMuNu on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:46PM (2 children)
> You don't get the point
To be fair, you made your point in a terrible way.
> The goal is to put a human on the moon.
* You said in GP "putting women on the moon is terrible" (I paraphrase; your language was somewhat more demeaning)
* You claim now that you meant to say "putting people on the moon is terrible, and it doesn't matter what gender they are"
So you phrased your point in a flamey way and then act surprised when you get a response to your flamery.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @09:01PM (1 child)
Please do not invent something I never said and put it in quotation marks indicating I said it.
That was YOUR REACTION to what I said, not what I said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @10:50PM
Hmm, you want to exchange misogyny for stupidity? Ironically probably a smart move!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:57PM (4 children)
And?
Given the historic oppression of women (remember, they only got to vote 100 years ago AFTER freed male slaves did) it is totally fine to celebrate women's accomplishments as something special. Should another country not celebrate launching a satellite just because Russia and the US did it before them?
Pffft, lazy misogynist just doesn't want to be called out. Stop getting so upset about what other people do that affects your life in no way whatsoever.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday May 20 2020, @09:48PM (3 children)
Why are all the female astronauts Jewish? Is being a hoary abrasive bitch part of that "right stuff" required to be an astronaut?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @10:12PM
Because they know it'll piss you off to know a woman is waaaaaay out of your league. Both metaphorically and literally.
How are those Tijuana whores treating you? Still have your last nut attached?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Kell on Wednesday May 20 2020, @11:19PM (1 child)
You seem to have exceptional information about people's religions that is not commonly available; please, out of demographic interest, tell me what religion each of the following is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_spacefarers [wikipedia.org]
Or do you not know and you are just spouting bullshit?
Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @11:29PM
"Or do you not know and you are just spouting bullshit?"
I hope that was a rhetorical question . . .
(Score: 5, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday May 20 2020, @07:18PM (4 children)
The goal is to get back to the Moon and stay there this time.
https://blogs.nasa.gov/bridenstine/2019/10/02/why-were-going-to-the-moon/ [nasa.gov]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Username on Wednesday May 20 2020, @10:36PM (3 children)
Hum. Why not just go to mars then? It's not like we can run to the moon and pick them up if it fails. Being closer doesn't make it safer. Going to make a large investment, might as well go for the big one first.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday May 20 2020, @11:19PM
There's politics and graft involved. But I actually prefer the Moon First approach.
We have no business going to Mars without fully reusable rockets and in-orbit refueling ("The SLS rocket may have curbed development of on-orbit refueling for a decade" [arstechnica.com]). Obviously, that means SpaceX's Starship, although it's remotely possible some other company could provide it, maybe Blue Origin. The two technologies will allow NASA or others to get thousands of tons of cargo and possibly hundreds of humans on the surface of Mars for each $1 billion. Compare to untold billions to use SLS to get some station thing in Martian orbit and send a tiny lander down.
Going to the Moon is relatively easy to do, so easy that Falcon 9 and Heavy are probably going to be used in place of SLS for a lot of the Artemis Program. There's already significant interest in the Moon from China, EU, India, and others. Travel time is short and there is hope for rescue if something goes wrong.
In my opinion, Artemis will continue even if we have a President Biden next year. The program can be scaled up or down as needed, since there's a combo of rovers/bots, manned landings, and an unnecessary space station. Let NASA (Congress) blow money on Artemis, while the technologies needed to explore Mars for real are developed.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @11:23PM
Because committing to going to Mars would be a real challenge, a true leap forward in manned spaced exploration.
A trip back to the moon is "safe": been there, done that, over 50 years ago, with far more primitive technology.
To be fair though, I don't think we are ready just yet to take on Mars. I believe we need more applied research before we can fire up that rocket aimed at the Red Planet.
To be less fair, I think the NASA manned spaceflight organization needs a big ticket mission to justify its existence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @07:41PM
The moon is good practice. We know that we can get there and back without much trouble, but a base has never been done before. Going to Mars directly means overcoming the (much greater) travel difficulties and the base at the same time. And yes, escape from the moon is much simpler. If a moon base has problems then you can evacuate in your return ship immediately and you will be home in a few days. You don't have to wait up to a year for a planetary alignment before you can start your months long trip home.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @08:31PM (1 child)
Getting your priorities in order is not for us mere 'incels'. It is only for the holier than thou woke. As they 'know' as they are woke.... If only the world would understand them!
BTW my wife thinks the whole thing is a load of rubbish and makes women look bad for promoting that over doing real things.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @10:14PM
Tell your wife to make me a sandwich. I'll PM you the address. I like pastrami on rye, think she can manage that?
(Score: 2, Funny) by Sulla on Thursday May 21 2020, @03:35AM
Yeah but we have never done it before using the metric system, in fact nobody has done that. This feat will be unmatched in human history.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday May 21 2020, @12:15AM
...thaaaaat...is one of the single sharpest retorts I've seen yet. Can I steal that one? :) It got an out loud "...daaaaamn" from me.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday May 21 2020, @01:53AM
51% of the population comprises 50% of this crew. WHITE GENOCIDE!!!!!!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday May 20 2020, @05:43PM (4 children)
An assumed 4.5 billion years of lunar history, of which we've had telescopes less than 450 years, or less than 0.00001% of that history - pretty big stretch to assume there's never been a vagina anywhere on a surface larger than all land in North America, particularly when half that surface is tidally locked facing away from us.
For perspective: 0.00001% of Bezos' net worth is about $100,000.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:15PM (3 children)
We'd be extremely fortunate to find evidence of an extinct bacterium on the moon. Forget higher life forms with a central nervous system, much less vaginas.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @07:29PM
The vagina didn't have to fossilize or leave traces after visiting the moon. What if it was an alien vagina? What if the moon IS a space station and had thousands of vaginas?? What if humanity has progressed (only took us 10k years or so to develop modern civilization) a few times and visited the moon in the past and forgot to memorialize the vaginas of the women astronauts?
So many possibilities, and no way you can refute any of them. Well, the space station one would be pretty easy once we colonize or get a serious base up there.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Grishnakh on Wednesday May 20 2020, @09:34PM (1 child)
You're totally forgetting the big Nazi settlement on the far side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 22 2020, @06:09PM
No vaginas there, but a lot of pussies.
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 20 2020, @07:54PM
Women have been astronauts for decades, doing the same work as the guys. Excluding them from this kind of mission would be just silly.
As for why we're going back to the moon: I have to hazard a guess that rockets, computers, rovers, science equipment, etc has changed a bit since the 1970's, and NASA's human missions have always been about more than just sticking it to the Soviets. For instance, if we can get astronauts there much more cheaply than the Apollo missions did, that matters, because it means that moon visits can become as unremarkable as visits to the ISS currently are (not saying they aren't doing useful work there, just that it's not worldwide TV every single time someone arrives).
Also, if we got really good at shipping stuff up there and established some sort of permanent facility, I could imagine using that as a staging area / launching pad for trips further out. Yes, you have the cost of landing the supplies and taking off again, but at least your final point of contact has to use substantially less fuel to get off the ground.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Funny) by Gaaark on Wednesday May 20 2020, @10:47PM (1 child)
My wifes vagina has been on my moons many times. Sits on my ass and massages my back and shoulders....then she rolls me over and explores my peak while i explore her Mons.....
Nothing ground-breaking about it. Ground-SHAKING, yeah!
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @11:25PM
If I were 15 years old, I would esteem this as the sickest burn in the thread.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:05PM (7 children)
I'm curious what that risk/mistake was. Sounds more like a political scandal and perhaps one of the two companies not accepted have some proof of corruption they were going to release around the launch for max embarassment value.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:14PM (6 children)
He selected Blue Origin, Dynetics, and SpaceX and didn't select TrumpRockets Group.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:31PM (3 children)
> He selected Blue Origin
My guess (only a guess!) -- blue and orange don't mix. He got canned for doing something positive with Bezos.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 20 2020, @07:06PM (2 children)
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @07:33PM
Good point!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @02:47PM
Unless it's what he's really doing. You're mistaking the noise covering up the signal. And there's a lot of noise.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @09:19PM (1 child)
He refused to paint Trump's name on the booster?
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Wednesday May 20 2020, @11:28PM
Maybe this time he told Pence not to touch the fucking thing with the DO NOT TOUCH label on it...
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/08/mike-pence-touches-nasa-equipment-right-next-to-do-not-touch-sign [theguardian.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by DannyB on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:09PM (8 children)
What if he resigned on the morning of launch day? Would that be much more worser timing?
What doesn't kill me makes me weaker for next time.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:25PM (7 children)
That, I believe, is the question of the century.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:36PM (6 children)
No way Jose! With 79+ years to go we'll definitely have a better question.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @06:52PM (5 children)
What, do you believe, is the question of the century?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @07:01PM (4 children)
Well, unless something went wrong on launch day the question of his hypothetical resignation on that day seems pretty mild.
The real question for this century is "Will rich assholes ever be held accountable for their crimes?" Humanity desperately needs a true justice system, in pretty much every country being rich is a free pass for crimes until the evidence piles up high enough for public outrage to outweigh the bribes.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @11:13PM (1 child)
No.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @12:44AM
It has happened many times, and we have steadily progressed as a species towards holding the powerful accountable. Mostly in bloody revolutions, but there has been a steady increase in judicial punishment. I think it'll happen eventually.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @02:52AM
That, I, pray tell, believe, is the question of the century.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday May 21 2020, @08:55PM
It's difficult but not impossible.
Try reading Catch and Kill by Ronan Farrow.
-- hendrik
(Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @08:38PM (4 children)
It's narrow-minded to have a goal of landing the first woman and the next man on the Moon without considering the full spectrum of genders. NASA's retrograde binary options must stop now and they should commit to sending 117 missions so that all 238 genders can frolic on the moon.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 20 2020, @09:13PM
Later generations don't identify with their country like older ones did.
They are taught to identify with some smaller tribe bearing the same outward appearance as themselves. It's the increased focus on "me".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @12:44AM (2 children)
Let's end the prejudice by putting the first OPENLY gay man on the moon:
http://goatse.info [goatse.info]
Why isn't THIS image on the golden disc we shot into the depths of space?
Is he not part of the human family?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @07:01PM
Good question, we're being dishonest to the aliens if we don't troll them too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21 2020, @07:45PM
Because it is nothing they haven't seen before. Probing is a thing, you know.