Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Sunday June 16 2019, @03:45PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-many-SpaceX-launches-would-that-buy? dept.

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


Original Submission

Related Stories

Here's Why NASA's Audacious Return to the Moon Just Might Work 42 comments

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 Proposes Streamlined Lunar Gateway for 2024 Manned Lunar Landing 12 comments

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


Original Submission

Artemis: NASA to Receive $1.6 Billion for 2024 Manned Moon Landing 47 comments

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


Original Submission

NASA Orders First Segment of Lunar Station for 2024 Artemis Moon Mission 10 comments

According to Extreme Tech,

NASA is going back to the Moon, and this time, it intends to stay a while. That's the news from NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine, who announced the first company chosen to deliver a vital component of the space agency's Lunar Gateway space station. Maxar Technologies will build the power and propulsion system for the Lunar Gateway, the first step in NASA's ambitious new Artemis project that will put humans on the Moon's surface in just five years.

"This time when we go to the Moon, we're actually going to stay," Bridenstine said. "The goal here is speed. 2024 is right around the corner."

But then, there is this:

May 24 (UPI) -- Just weeks after he was assigned to lead NASA's renewed efforts to explore the moon, special assistant Mark Sirangelo has left the space agency, officials said.

NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine announced Sirangelo's departure in an internal memo Thursday, Space News reported.

Sirangelo joined NASA last month as special assistant to the administrator and was tabbed to guide the agency's efforts to explore the lunar surface. Bridenstine said, however, that NASA's proposal for the "Moon to Mars Mission Directorate", which had support from the White House, was turned down by Congress.

"NASA proposed to the House and Senate a reorganization to establish a new mission directorate focused on a sustainable lunar campaign," Bridenstine said in a statement. "The proposal was not accepted at this time, so we will move forward under our current organizational structure within the Human Exploration and Operations Mission Directorate."

The mission was first announced in March to meet Vice President Mike Pence's goal of returning humans on the moon by 2024.

Sirangelo appeared with other NASA officials this week at an advisory council to discuss exploration plans. At the meeting, he said he'd been working on the plan to return to the moon, a mission he called "daunting." Also at the meeting, Bridenstine said NASA needs an additional $1.6 billion for the 2020 budget to reach the goal.

"Given NASA is no longer pursuing the new mission directorate, Mark has opted to pursue other opportunities. I want to personally thank Mark for his service and his valuable contributions to the agency," Bridenstine said.

What is a young science-curious Soylentil to think?


Original Submission

New Head of Human Exploration at NASA Committed to Reaching the Moon by 2024 18 comments

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


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.
(1)
  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:12PM (3 children)

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:12PM (#856270)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Freedom%27s_Sentinel [wikipedia.org]

    Operation Freedom's Sentinel is the official name used by the U.S. Government for the mission succeeding Operation Enduring Freedom in continuation of the Global War on Terrorism.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#/media/File:Defense_spending.png [wikipedia.org]

    --
    🌻🌻 [google.com]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:38PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:38PM (#856282)

      Stop wasting our time with BS numbers:

      This ultimately means that, when done to conceal confidential information, entities can–and are essentially required to under the terms of Standard 56–shift money from one line item to another so long as the totals stay consistent. The rule also allows entities to omit the line item entirely while retaining the amounts so as to maintain the same net results. This means that readers of these reports will never know if the amounts reported spent on specific projects or things are an accurate representation (see id.). As you might expect given the rationale of this being a national security precaution, there will not be any narrative in these reports explaining or revealing where a modification has taken place (see id.). If they can maintain net position in their reports, an entity can even omit a project entirely by folding it into another department or project within the same entity.

      https://constitution.solari.com/fasab-statement-56-understanding-new-government-financial-accounting-loopholes/ [solari.com]

      In a strange twist, paragraph 8a of the new rule seems to insist that modifications may only be made if it does not “change the net results of operations.” In conversations with federal officials, this was stressed to me, that the new rule would not allow for changes to “total net cost” line items on public financial disclosures.

      However, paragraph 8c of the same rule reads:

      “An entity may apply Interpretations of this Statement that allow other modifications to information required by other standards, and the effect of the modifications may change the net results of operations and/or net position.”

      This directly contradicts 8a, and seems to allow in some cases for changes even to total net position numbers. When asked on the record if 8c opened the door for greater changes, FASAB answered, “We cannot speculate about the changes.”

      One thing is certain: the taxpayer who opens up a federal financial statement expecting to find correct numbers will no longer be sure of what he or she is reading. Bluntly put, line items in public federal financial statements may now legally be, for lack of a better word — wrong.

      https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/secret-government-spending-779959/ [rollingstone.com]

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:45PM (1 child)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:45PM (#856285)

        It's not BS to say that US military spending is > $700B per year, and > $40B of that is attributable to continuing operational costs associated with cleaning up the 2003 "Mission Accomplished" adventure.

        That's $40B per year, whereas Artemis is ~$25B over 5 (likely more) years.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
  • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:18PM (4 children)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:18PM (#856272) Journal

    I take two!

    Sorry, only one per customer

    The Apollo program cost around that much, in 1969 dollars.

    --
    La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:40PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:40PM (#856284)

      I'm no Alan Einstein, but shouldn't inflation mean it is cheaper to do this now than in the 1960s?

      • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:51PM

        by isostatic (365) on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:51PM (#856288) Journal

        $20b in 1969 is $140b today, so that's about 15-20% of the cost of apollo.

      • (Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:51PM

        by fustakrakich (6150) on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:51PM (#856289) Journal

        Isn't that what I said? Why it's such a deal? At these prices how can anybody refuse?

        --
        La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @06:53AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @06:53AM (#856517)

      That is comparatively inexpensive.

      And given the SLS, the analogy to Apollo is quite apt [youtube.com].

      Let's do it! For Buzz, Neil and Mike!

  • (Score: 2, Interesting) by RandomFactor on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:22PM (6 children)

    by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:22PM (#856274) Journal

    Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.) during a June 11 hearing by the House Science Committee's space subcommittee on NASA's science program [spacenews.com] where he sought, unsuccessfully, to get a cost estimate like the one Bridenstine provided in the interview.

    The earlier hearing before congress may not have been the place to say
     
    "they're not necessarily the final figures." or "it's practically impossible to settle on an accurate price tag." which were also part of the CNN interview.
     
    But yeah, bad optics there.

    --
    В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
    • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Ethanol-fueled on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:27PM (5 children)

      by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:27PM (#856276) Homepage

      The real question is, when the budget is approved and all those White men send another rocket into space, will Google portray it as being the work of Black women and hipster faggots rather than clean-cut conservative White men?

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:47PM

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:47PM (#856286)

        Watch it again: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4846340/ [imdb.com]

        you know you want to.

        --
        🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 1) by RandomFactor on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:59PM (1 child)

        by RandomFactor (3682) Subscriber Badge on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:59PM (#856290) Journal

        So, you think NASA is populated primarily by conservatives?
         
        Hadn't really thought about it. There are factors I can see that would pull both directions.

        --
        В «Правде» нет известий, в «Известиях» нет правды
        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by JoeMerchant on Sunday June 16 2019, @05:31PM

          by JoeMerchant (3937) on Sunday June 16 2019, @05:31PM (#856301)

          Mission Control Houston, is built on Lyndon B. Johnson's family ranch land.

          They hire from all over, and kids that went to tech school can come out a little liberalized, but once they're on campus there's not much to eat besides BBQ, and off campus there's not much politics you can talk without getting beat up besides conservative.

          Other big NASA centers like Huntsville, Cocoa Beach, Stennis in Mississippi as very much the same.

          JPL is an exception to the rule, can't swing congressional funding without California's support.

          --
          🌻🌻 [google.com]
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @07:20PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @07:20PM (#856319)

        There are no conservatives, men or women, at NASA, because conservatives don't use the metric system. And NASA does. Duh.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @10:13PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @10:13PM (#856364)

          because conservatives don't use the metric system.

          I don't know about that. Brad always struck me as a right-winger. Remember what happened to him [youtube.com]?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:38PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:38PM (#856283)

    20 Billion would go a long way towards sustainable presence on this rock as well...

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by isostatic on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:49PM (2 children)

      by isostatic (365) on Sunday June 16 2019, @04:49PM (#856287) Journal

      Fine, take it from the 650 billion military budget. Increasing sustainability will reduce the events that require U.S. military funding, so it's a win-win.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @07:32PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @07:32PM (#856324)

        You havent figured out the welfare-warfare state yet have you?

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @11:39PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @11:39PM (#856396)

        That'd buy a lot of blanket trees and hambushes.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @05:10PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @05:10PM (#856294)

    Uncle/Cousin/Daddy Joe Bridenstine needed a new mansion.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday June 16 2019, @05:32PM

      by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Sunday June 16 2019, @05:32PM (#856302) Journal

      There's a clue in the summary. Rep. Mo Brooks (R-Ala.). Alabama being where the Marshall Space Flight Center is.

      Yes, it's pork. It gets distributed to various states. Bridenstine is just the negotiator. Putting a politician in charge of NASA actually makes sense if the main goal is to secure budget from fellow politicians.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @11:41PM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16 2019, @11:41PM (#856398)

    Anyone?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @12:35AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @12:35AM (#856416)

      Depends how much you like Tang.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @05:22AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @05:22AM (#856505)

      zero. it's a complete waste of resources.
      we should be working on better ways to get oil out the ground, then we can drive our big trucks like men are supposed to!

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @10:41AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @10:41AM (#856572)

      Infinite, it is the best possible use of resources. The benefits of the possible discoveries and technologies developed are unimaginable.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday June 17 2019, @10:54AM (1 child)

      by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Monday June 17 2019, @10:54AM (#856574) Journal

      https://spinoff.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]

      https://spacenews.com/op-ed-the-business-roi-on-nasa-research-investments/ [spacenews.com]

      https://www.computerworld.com/article/2551652/nasa-research-finds-way-into-it--consumer-products.html [computerworld.com]

      "The integrated circuit and [the emergence of] Silicon Valley were very closely linked with NASA," Hubbard said. For example, he noted that hardware pioneer Silicon Graphics Inc. got off the ground with the help of investments from NASA.

      Hubbard also pointed out that NASA engineers have worked "hand-in-hand" with businesses and universities to help develop a variety of technologies, including microelectromechanical systems, supercomputers and microcomputers, software and microprocessors.

      Overall, Hubbard added, $7 or $8 in goods and services are produced for every $1 that the government invests in NASA.

      The benefits of NASA research are clear, even without the embellishment of myths. For example, the space agency did not invent the powdered beverage Tang, and its engineers did not develop the microwave oven.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday June 17 2019, @07:48PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday June 17 2019, @07:48PM (#856760) Journal
        The taint is strong in NASA funding.

        Overall, Hubbard added, $7 or $8 in goods and services are produced for every $1 that the government invests in NASA.

        Assuming generously that the goods and services wouldn't be produced anyway and are actually worth what is claimed here.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by PiMuNu on Monday June 17 2019, @11:38AM

      by PiMuNu (3823) on Monday June 17 2019, @11:38AM (#856581)

      GPS; Satellite comms; Weather forecasts; Various military assets.

    • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday June 17 2019, @07:06PM (2 children)

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday June 17 2019, @07:06PM (#856736) Journal

      Considerable [wikipedia.org].

      --
      This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @07:20PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @07:20PM (#856741)

        Make America Seem Huge Under Great And Nebulous Aims.

        Don't be MASHUGANA! [youtube.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @07:24PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17 2019, @07:24PM (#856744)

        And When you're done being Mashugana, We'll make your dreams come true! [youtube.com]

(1)