Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Tuesday December 12 2017, @09:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the To-the-Moon,-Alice!-To-the-Moon! dept.

No more sending humans to an asteroid. We're going back to the Moon:

The policy calls for the NASA administrator to "lead an innovative and sustainable program of exploration with commercial and international partners to enable human expansion across the solar system and to bring back to Earth new knowledge and opportunities." The effort will more effectively organize government, private industry, and international efforts toward returning humans on the Moon, and will lay the foundation that will eventually enable human exploration of Mars.

"The directive I am signing today will refocus America's space program on human exploration and discovery," said President Trump. "It marks a first step in returning American astronauts to the Moon for the first time since 1972, for long-term exploration and use. This time, we will not only plant our flag and leave our footprints -- we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars, and perhaps someday, to many worlds beyond."

The policy grew from a unanimous recommendation by the new National Space Council, chaired by Vice President Mike Pence, after its first meeting Oct. 5. In addition to the direction to plan for human return to the Moon, the policy also ends NASA's existing effort to send humans to an asteroid. The president revived the National Space Council in July to advise and help implement his space policy with exploration as a national priority.

President's remarks and White House release.

Presidential Memorandum on Reinvigorating America's Human Space Exploration Program

Also at Reuters and New Scientist.

Previously: Should We Skip Mars for Now and Go to the Moon Again?
How to Get Back to the Moon in 4 Years, Permanently
NASA Eyeing Mini Space Station in Lunar Orbit as Stepping Stone to Mars
NASA and Roscosmos Sign Joint Statement on the Development of a Lunar Space Station
Bigelow and ULA to Put Inflatable Module in Orbit Around the Moon by 2022


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:43AM (10 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:43AM (#609029) Journal

    ISS-style cooperation excludes China, thanks to your congresskritters.

    Thanks also to China's massive espionage program. Sorry, I too don't buy that China would act in good faith with a cooperative space project like the ISS.

    Based on their mood (and interest), I can't exclude the same faith in relation with Russia - the only reason it doesn't happen immediately is because of Russians' still-needed liftoff capabilities.

    Russia also runs a significant part of the ISS. Those sections simply can't be run without them.

    I'm not feeling the good faith effort from them either, but they got in on the ISS. Or NASA for that matter due both to continual Congressional interference with their budgets and some of the peculiar ways of NASA (spare no expense on safety, for example, until the costs compromise the mission or the contracts from the desired vendor, then suddenly no corner is too shallow to cut). Really, the only ones whom I would trust would be ESA and JAXA because they're already very dependent on successful cooperation with others and have demonstrated a reasonable level of trustworthiness and consistent attention to detail. Maybe the ISRO.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:57AM (7 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @12:57AM (#609034) Journal

    ISS-style cooperation excludes China, thanks to your congresskritters.

    Thanks also to China's massive espionage program. Sorry, I too don't buy that China would act in good faith with a cooperative space project like the ISS.

    Funny how the Europeans don't have these problems [wikipedia.org]. There are a number of explanations possible; among them:
    - the Chinese respect the Europeans more (than US) and don't spy on them; *or*
    - the Europeans really see it as a collaboration rather than a competition, therefore there's no reasons for China to spy on them because the data is freely shared anyway.

    (Good faith, eh? Have you looked on your side as well?)

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:24AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday December 13 2017, @01:24AM (#609046)

      3. Europeans are fools. All their stuff is going to be swiped by the Chinese.

      4. Europeans have less-valuable technology, perhaps because it was already swiped, and they'd like an opportunity to swipe something from the Chinese. (good luck going up against the experts)

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:25AM (5 children)

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:25AM (#609127) Journal

      Funny how the Europeans don't have these problems.

      Where's the evidence to support your assertion? The link didn't show anything relevant.

      • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:37AM (4 children)

        by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @07:37AM (#609130) Journal

        Where's the evidence to support your assertion?

        Terminology: "problems" in this specific context is meant to be understood as "the European aren't bother to sever the collaboration with the Chinese in space R&D for reasons of possible Chinese espionage".

        As in: "I don't have any problems/issues with Chinese espionage, I simply don't care whether they do it or not, not enough to drop the collaboration with them the way US Congress did".

        I hope my comment becomes clearer now.

        --
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:02AM (3 children)

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:02AM (#609137) Journal

          Terminology: "problems" in this specific context is meant to be understood as "the European aren't bother to sever the collaboration with the Chinese in space R&D for reasons of possible Chinese espionage".

          We'll see if that worked for them or was a stupid idea.

          • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:31AM (2 children)

            by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:31AM (#609140) Journal

            In your view, what's the worst that can happen?
            The Chinese getting the technology and start producing it at lower prices? Cool, better prices for Europeans, less problems with 'Where'd we place the industry in countries with high population density?', a good foundation to discover so

            --
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:33AM

              by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @08:33AM (#609142) Journal

              (shitty virtual keyboard) the message should have continued with 'to discover something else'.

              --
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:08PM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:08PM (#609273) Journal

              The Chinese getting the technology and start producing it at lower prices?

              Yes, and the ESA gets to pay for the R&D.

  • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:03PM (1 child)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:03PM (#609246)

    Really, the only ones whom I would trust would be ESA and JAXA because they're already very dependent on successful cooperation with others and have demonstrated a reasonable level of trustworthiness and consistent attention to detail.

    They should just put JAXA in charge of everything, and other nations only need to contribute money and do work only as directed by JAXA. Just look at the trains in Japan for proof. Everything they do there works almost perfectly, so that when a train leaves 20 seconds early, they apologize profusely [bbc.com]. Only in a fantasy would you see that kind of attention to detail on an American subway system or Amtrak.

    The American train and subways systems are proof that things run by the American government are doomed to failure when things must be done exactly right, as in space travel (don't forget all the bridges that are falling down). And over in Europe, the fact that they can barely keep their union together shows that they can't really be trusted with anything important either. Russia's space program is looking like it's failing these days too, probably as a result of their massive economic problems (it doesn't help that most Russian men are alcoholics), and China can't even figure out how to have escalators which don't grind people up [cnn.com].