from the One-of-these-days,-Alice...-to-the-Moon! dept.
Trump adds $1.6 billion to NASA budget request to kick start 'Artemis' moon mission
The Trump administration is adding an additional $1.6 billion to NASA's $21 billion 2020 budget request to kick start plans to return American astronauts to the moon in 2024, four years earlier than previously planned, NASA announced Monday. In a surprise announcement, agency Administrator Jim Bridenstine said the revitalized moon program will be named Artemis after the Greek goddess of the moon.
[...] According to a NASA fact sheet, the new budget request includes $1 billion "to enable NASA to being supporting the development of commercial human lunar landing systems three years earlier than previously envisioned. This acquisition strategy will allow NASA to purchase an integrated commercial lunar lander that will transport astronauts from lunar orbit to the lunar surface and back."
Gateway development will be limited to what is needed to make the station a viable staging base for trips to the surface. That will free up $321 million for other moon spending. An additional $651 million is earmarked for the Space Launch System — SLS — heavy lift rocket and Orion spacecraft. Lunar surface technologies and propulsion systems would receive an additional $132 million with $90 million going to robotic exploration and research near the moon's south pole.
[...] The same day Bridenstine talked of the challenge of landing on the moon, Amazon-founder Jeff Bezos unveiled a lunar lander called Blue Moon that could put 6.5 metric tons on the surface of the moon. He said Blue Moon, carrying an ascent stage, could meet NASA's schedule for landing astronauts on the surface by 2024.
Previously: NASA Chief Says a Falcon Heavy Rocket Could Fly Humans to the Moon
Here's Why NASA's Audacious Return to the Moon Just Might Work
Lockheed Martin Proposes Streamlined Lunar Gateway for 2024 Manned Lunar Landing
Related Stories
Submitted via IRC for Bytram
NASA chief says a Falcon Heavy rocket could fly humans to the Moon
[...] Until now, it was thought that only NASA's Space Launch System could directly inject the Orion spacecraft into a lunar orbit, which made it the preferred option for getting astronauts to the Moon for any potential landing by 2024. However, [NASA Administrator Jim] Bridenstine said there was another option: a Falcon Heavy rocket with an Interim Cryogenic Propulsion Stage built by United Launch Alliance.
[...] This plan has the ability to put humans on the Moon by 2024, Bridenstine said. He then emphasized—twice—that NASA's chief of human spaceflight, William Gerstenmaier, has yet to bless this approach due to a number of technical details. His reservations include the challenge of integrating the Falcon Heavy rocket in a horizontal position and then loading Orion with fuel in a vertical configuration on the launchpad. The Falcon Heavy would also require a larger payload fairing than it normally flies with. This would place uncertain stress on the rocket's side-mounted boosters.
"It would require time [and] cost, and there is risk involved," Bridenstine said. "But guess what—if we're going to land boots on the Moon in 2024, we have time, and we have the ability to accept some risk and make some modifications. All of that is on the table. There is nothing sacred here that is off the table. And that is a potential capability that could help us land boots on the Moon in 2024."
Here's why NASA's audacious return to the Moon just might work
Speaking in front of a high-fidelity model of the Apollo program's Lunar Module spacecraft, Vice President Mike Pence charged NASA with accelerating its Moon plans last week. Instead of 2028, Pence wanted boots on the ground four years earlier, before the end of 2024. This marked the rarest of all moments in spaceflight—a schedule moving left instead of to the right.
Understandably, the aerospace community greeted the announcement with a healthy dose of skepticism. Many rocket builders, spaceship designers, flight controllers, and space buffs have seen this movie before. Both in 1989 and 2004, Republican administrations have announced ambitious Moon-then-Mars deep space plans only to see them die for lack of funding and White House backing.
And yet, this new proposal holds some promise. Pence, as well as NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, have adopted a clear goal for the agency and promised enduring political support. Moreover, they have said the "end" matters more than the "means." This suggests that whatever rockets and spacecraft NASA uses to reach the Moon, the plan should be based on the best-available, most cost-effective technology. In short, they want to foster a healthy, open competition in the US aerospace industry to help NASA and America reach its goals.
Lockheed Martin offers architecture for 2024 human lunar landing
Lockheed Martin says it has developed an approach to achieving the goal of landing humans on the south pole of the moon by 2024, but warns that construction of essential hardware would have to start soon to meet that deadline.
In a briefing at the 35th Space Symposium here April 10, company officials said they can make extensive use of existing hardware to develop components like a scaled-down version of the lunar Gateway and a two-stage lunar lander on an accelerated schedule.
While many details have yet to be worked out, the basic elements of the plan, Lockheed argues, demonstrates that the ability to meet the 2024 deadline established March 26 by Vice President Mike Pence in a National Space Council speech is at least technically feasible, if challenging.
[...] Lockheed's plan would diverge from NASA's old approach after Exploration Mission (EM) 1, an uncrewed test of the Orion spacecraft launched by the Space Launch System in 2020. The company proposes launching a "Phase 1" Gateway in 2022 consisting of just the Power and Propulsion Element (PPE) and a small habitation module with docking ports. NASA expects to issue awards for the PPE in May, while the habitation module could be adapted from ongoing studies that are part of NASA's Next Space Technologies for Exploration Partnerships, or NextSTEP, program.
Also at Space.com.
See also: Falcon Heavy's first commercial flight is 'huge' as 'an inflection point' for SpaceX, banker says
Previously: Is the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway the Right Way to the Moon?
Canada Will Contribute to the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway
Here's Why NASA's Audacious Return to the Moon Just Might Work
Bridenstine estimates Artemis cost at $20–30 billion
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine said in a television interview June 13 that it will cost the agency an additional $20 billion to $30 billion to return humans to the moon, the first range of costs given by the agency for the program.
In an interview with CNN, Bridenstine said that estimate would be above earlier projections for costs of existing elements of what's now called the Artemis program, such as the Space Launch System rocket and Orion spacecraft.
"For the whole program, to get a sustainable presence on the moon, we're looking at between 20 and 30 billion dollars," he said. "When we talk about the 20 to 30 billion dollars, it would be 20 or 30 billion on top of the normal NASA budget but, of course, that would be spread over five years."
[...] The lack of cost estimates for Artemis had become a point of frustration for members of Congress. "For us in Congress to be able to grapple with these things, we need some idea of how much of a cost is expected to be incurred over the next five years," said Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) during a June 11 hearing by the House Science Committee's space subcommittee on NASA's science program where he sought, unsuccessfully, to get a cost estimate like the one Bridenstine provided in the interview.
Also at The Verge.
Previously: Here's Why NASA's Audacious Return to the Moon Just Might Work
Lockheed Martin Proposes Streamlined Lunar Gateway for 2024 Manned Lunar Landing
Artemis: NASA to Receive $1.6 Billion for 2024 Manned Moon Landing
NASA Orders First Segment of Lunar Station for 2024 Artemis Moon Mission
After shocking leadership shakeup at NASA, new head of human exploration says moon 2024 is doable:
Less than 24 hours after being named head of human exploration at NASA, former astronaut Ken Bowersox said the agency is trying to speed up decision-making in its quest to reach the moon by 2024.
"The key is we need to fly when we're ready, but if we don't shoot for 2024 we have zero chance," Bowersox said Thursday at the American Astronautical Society's John Glenn Memorial Symposium. "Our attitude is to get as much of this going as we can — to move as fast as we can, as long as we can."
Bowersox' brief remarks in Cleveland follow the shocking announcement Wednesday night that Bill Gerstenmaier — a pillar in NASA's human exploration operations since 2005 — was out as the agency's associate administrator for the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate.
The announcement was made in a Wednesday email to NASA employees from Administrator Jim Bridenstine. "As you know, NASA has been given a bold challenge to put the first woman and the next man on the Moon by 2024, with a focus on the ultimate goal of sending humans to Mars," he wrote. "In an effort to meet this challenge, I have decided to make leadership changes." He then named Bowersox — a 62-year-old veteran of five space shuttle flights — as Gerstenmaier's replacement.
The decision — which surprised many in the space community — comes as NASA continues a years-long struggle to keep its human exploration plans on track. Projects such as the Space Launch System rocket being built to launch humans to the moon and the commercial crew program, meant to alleviate the country's reliance on Russia for transportation to the International Space Station, are years behind schedule.
See also: To the Moon and beyond
Related: 2020s to Become the Decade of Lunar Re-Exploration
NASA Chief Says a Falcon Heavy Rocket Could Fly Humans to the Moon
Here's Why NASA's Audacious Return to the Moon Just Might Work
Lockheed Martin Proposes Streamlined Lunar Gateway for 2024 Manned Lunar Landing
Artemis: NASA to Receive $1.6 Billion for 2024 Manned Moon Landing
NASA Orders First Segment of Lunar Station for 2024 Artemis Moon Mission
Project Artemis: Return to the Moon to Cost Another $20-30 Billion
(Score: 4, Funny) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday May 14 2019, @01:53PM (12 children)
In 2025, Trump plans to open the "Trump Selene" hotel. Set along the shores of the beautiful Sea of Serenity, the 25 story building will have all amenities and a planned 36-hole golf course. "It will be the best. I know how to build golf courses, and building one on the moon can't be very different. They tell me the fairways will be HUGE."
In other news, Trump added $3 billion to the NASA budget to figure out how to grow grass on the Lunar surface.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 14 2019, @02:33PM (4 children)
Nobody (with any sense) expects him to make a profit... but he does know how to do flashy, and a manned moon landing is about as flashy as a President can hope for.
Personally, I'm in favor of this particular boondoggle.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 3, Funny) by JNCF on Tuesday May 14 2019, @07:10PM
It's gonna really backfire on him when the astronauts all die crossing the Van Allen belts and Trump accidentally proves that America never landed on the moon ;)
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 14 2019, @07:28PM (2 children)
Why yes, that really will make a splash for President Elizabeth Warren!
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 14 2019, @07:34PM
Don't kid yourself, even W is going to try to take credit for the next landing.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday May 15 2019, @08:33AM
While it's Nixon's signature on the moon, I suspect most people think of JFK.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Tuesday May 14 2019, @03:16PM (6 children)
If Trump committed to building a hotel and golf course on the moon in 2025, and he could be trusted to deliver, then I'd vote for him.
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Tuesday May 14 2019, @04:59PM (2 children)
Problem with that bolded above.
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by Fluffeh on Tuesday May 14 2019, @10:50PM (1 child)
If Trump came in through the front door, wet and dripping and said it was raining outside, I'd still have a look through the window to make sure.
Sadly, the longer he seems to be President, the more blatant his lies are becoming. It's like he is learning that no, no-one really calls him out for the lies, and if they do, there is enough noise to drown out that lone voice - so he's taking full advantage of the situation.
On the upside, at least China is still paying those tariffs and putting a lot more money into the country, amirite?
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday May 15 2019, @09:11AM
If Trump came in through the front door, wet and dripping and said it was raining outside, I'd still have a look through the window to make sure.
I'd reach for the suncream. Or a shotgun.
(Score: 3, Touché) by DeathMonkey on Tuesday May 14 2019, @06:18PM (1 child)
Dude can't even handle building a wall on the planet Earth....
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday May 15 2019, @08:30AM
All walls get melted by zombie dragons
(Score: 3, Touché) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 14 2019, @06:29PM
He knows how to lose his Daddy's money really well.
Unfortunately (for his pet projects), spending the taxpayers' money requires considerably more skill, experience, intelligence, patience, finesse, and a half dozen other positive qualities he lacks.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday May 14 2019, @02:20PM (17 children)
where (realityFactor) can vary from 10 to 100 on a normal day and never so low as 10 for a government/bureaucrat run organization.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Tuesday May 14 2019, @02:54PM (3 children)
1.6B * 1K = 1.6T Sounds like that might just barely be enough to get SLS to fly them to the moon. Unfortunately, SpaceX will have completed their 100th moon landing by that time for a total cost of $2B. Okay, so I exaggerate, but I won't be surprised when SpaceX makes it there at a very small fraction of the cost NASA eventually gets there on their own rocket.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday May 14 2019, @04:08PM (2 children)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday May 14 2019, @11:14PM (1 child)
The problems NASA is having with getting a launch vehicle up and running seems to be a problem with the private industry they have contracted to do the job.
Government can do some really amazing things, and your particular government did do some amazing things in the past, but you have all been sucked into thinking that government always does things poorly when in fact it is The US government that does things poorly.
That will largely be because of corruption from what I can see.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 15 2019, @11:31AM
Private industry has already figured out what to do about poorly performing contractors.
Well, there isn't a government in the world that's doing "really amazing things" in space for a sensible price. Not one. Meanwhile Elon Musk recently did one of the most amazing car commercials ever, using a new rocket in space (usually orders of magnitude increase in cost), at lower cost than normal car commercials.
Or due to lack of a profit motive. Or due to disinterest in those contracts. Corruption is not the only problem here.
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Tuesday May 14 2019, @03:30PM (11 children)
It is a facile comment and does not match reality (or perhaps you have some evidence).
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Tuesday May 14 2019, @04:37PM (10 children)
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Tuesday May 14 2019, @11:16PM (8 children)
I have worked in the private sector for the last 35 years or so, and can tell you that private industry is no more efficient than government.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Tuesday May 14 2019, @11:39PM (7 children)
Except when it does things for an order of magnitude less like SpaceX did. That sort of thing.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday May 15 2019, @01:15AM (6 children)
SpaceX hasn't been to the Moon yet. SpaceX hasn't even been out of low-Earth orbit yet.
But yes. SpaceX is doing some really cool stuff for a lot less money than United Launch. Who are Boeing and Lockheed Martin, but that's not NASA's fault, that's because of corruption.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday May 15 2019, @01:42AM (1 child)
SpaceX did send a payload to the Moon. Unfortunately, it was an Israeli missile.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:25AM
Oh yes. I forgot about that.
To be fair to SpaceX, it wasn't their fault that mission failed.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:37AM (2 children)
And when they do go to the Moon, you can be sure they're not going to dump a couple hundred billion dollars to do so (roughly the cost of the Apollo program in current dollars).
It's not SpaceX that's paying big money for that corruption.
(Score: 2) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday May 15 2019, @03:02AM (1 child)
The point I was making is that private enterprise is not some magic efficiency fairy.
Yes, I agree, SpaceX seems to be good at putting things into LEO cheaply.
Yes, the US government is corrupt. My point still stands.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday May 15 2019, @11:14AM
And yet, here we are discussing private enterprise that is vastly more efficient than any government agency worldwide in the field. That includes not just NASA, but government space programs of Russia, the ESA, China, India, etc (with the "etc" here being rather large, there are dozens of countries with various sorts of space activities).
You may have worked for 35 years in the private sector, but you haven't worked for SpaceX else you wouldn't have made your original claim, methinks.
Moving on, SpaceX isn't a fluke. There's a large number of companies throughout the world that demonstrate such efficiency gains over government, such as Amazon, Maersk, Coca Cola and Pepsi, any large restaurant chain, the entire private sector oil industry, etc. Even private partners in government corruption are pretty efficient at exploiting that corruption.
Then there's the other side of the coin. Sure, there are grossly inefficient businesses out there. But they'll only be out there as long as they can turn enough of a profit to stay in business. Government can stay in business till there's mass revolution. Will the US government become less corrupt and more efficient in a human lifetime? It's possible, but not likely. But those highly inefficient places you apparently have worked at for the past 35 years are likely to be replaced over that time span, even if they have government connections.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Wednesday May 15 2019, @02:58AM
Haven't been out of LEO? How about that car in Mars transfer orbit?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 2) by PiMuNu on Wednesday May 15 2019, @11:58AM
An assertion was made with no evidence and now you refuse to back up the assertion with evidence. So I call bulls**t.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday May 14 2019, @03:47PM
There is already a lot of money allocated for other parts of the mission, like the development of SLS and Orion. Does seem optimistic though.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Tuesday May 14 2019, @02:30PM (2 children)
That oughta buy a roll of duct tape...
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Informative) by Alfred on Tuesday May 14 2019, @04:12PM (1 child)
* the duct tape committee is governed by the adhesives board which is overseen by the food and drug administration for some reason.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 14 2019, @10:13PM
Factory to be built in Michigan to make sure the electoral balance tips favorably in the next election. Tape is to be shipped all the way down to Florida by special rail line built across Indian land. Massive protests at factory site and rail line ensue. A good chunk of that $1.6 billion will go to fund National Guard troops called out to quell unrest.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 14 2019, @04:37PM
The Ego has landed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bob_super on Tuesday May 14 2019, @04:59PM (2 children)
> An additional $651 million is earmarked for the Space Launch System heavy lift rocket and Orion spacecraft
So we have a plant that takes care of Trump's ego, Shelby's priorities, and Boeing's bottom line, while making it really hard for the Dems in the House to just oppose ("It's just a drop in the budget ocean, merely a handful of F35s or less than stealth bomber" until it gets the usual multipliers applied).
We have a winner !
(Score: 3, Funny) by JoeMerchant on Tuesday May 14 2019, @06:31PM
Smoked pulled pork is a Houston specialty, you can get it hundreds of places within 5 miles of the Space Center.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 14 2019, @07:19PM
Who says there is no money for the ‘green new deal’ ?
there’s 10% right there being wasted because a Musk or Bezos rocket will eventually be launching this thing.
(Score: 4, Informative) by sshelton76 on Tuesday May 14 2019, @06:58PM (2 children)
Not mentioned in the article is where the money is coming from.
It turns out he's diverting Pell Grant money, i.e. money to help offset the cost of college for our kids. Thanks Trump!
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trump-pell-grant-money-nasa-budget_n_5cda230fe4b0615b0817f581 [huffpost.com]
Sorry for the huffpo link but it was the only one I could find that wasn't paywalled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 14 2019, @07:05PM
College is a scam! Divert that money.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 14 2019, @11:42PM
Clearly that money would be better spent making college more expensive. There's been plenty of money dumped into education spending. It just makes dysfunction worse.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 14 2019, @07:39PM (4 children)
Why does NASA want to bother with a manned mission to the moon?
Besides the obvious ~$23 billion added to their budget, is there any specific scientific goal that needs people on the moon?
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Tuesday May 14 2019, @09:50PM (3 children)
Not only scientific but very scientific: if US don't put people on the Moon first, the Chinese will do it.
And get a chunk of excellent real estate, like the South Pole–Aitken basin [wikipedia.org] - shielded from solar radiation, water as ice, thiner planetary crust that should get easier access to minerals. Establish a defends post on Leibnitz mountains and you deny that estate to any intruder.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday May 14 2019, @11:55PM (1 child)
Let me guess, that answer wasn't intended to be very scientific? Maybe very sarcastic?
My view is that the science-only angle is a dead end. Humanity can have all kinds of curiosity, but there's not much to gain from knowledge you rarely use. Exploring space with emphasis only on the scientific aspect has already overextended itself.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 15 2019, @12:19AM
This makes you very observant today.
(Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Wednesday May 15 2019, @01:28PM
.
By definition, any "intruder" would have access to space technology. They would be coming in from Earth at high speed. If they are serious about taking that location, they could simply hit the "defence post" with a kinetic strike against which any "defences" would be utterly useless. Then you just circle back round, touch down and build your own base on the smouldering remains of the previous one.
Space technology really does change the dynamics of warfare. Everyone is effectively packing megaton-scale weaponry that an immobile target cannot defend against.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Wednesday May 15 2019, @12:45AM
3 billions aircraft and stuff
5 billions kickbacks
all the rest: realtime 3d modelling and CGI to make the footage of the mission look like the one of the fake moon landings of '69.
Account abandoned.