SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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, 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.