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This discussion has been archived.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: 2) by meustrus on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:38PM (1 child)

    by meustrus (4961) on Wednesday December 13 2017, @04:38PM (#609254)

    Ah, "Falcon" is not what I thought the F in BFR stood for. Thanks for clearing that up.

    If we're fine with having One True Launch System, then going all in on the BFR is probably a good idea. But as a congressman recently said (can't remember which one), space launch systems are critical strategic resources like aircraft carriers. Whoever controls them controls the biggest source of military power and authority.

    We cannot allow that power and authority to belong to private corporations whose incentive is short-term profit rather than the long-term survival and prosperity of even a small but significant segment of humanity. So while the BFR is exciting, it's also extremely dangerous for the most advanced launch system to be controlled by an unaccountable, international, for-profit corporation.

    For our own sake, we need to make sure that either a) the US owns a more powerful launch system, even if it's more expensive, or b) nobody else (Russia, China, et al) can use the BFR without our approval.

    One plausible scenario we want to avoid is Chinese companies being compelled to sneak Chinese military assets into space on the BFR. As a private corporation, SpaceX would not have enough red tape to detect and prevent this even if they had the inclination to. The Chinese could leapfrog our military dominance and become the new leading world superpower this way.

    Of course, the reader is welcome to disagree with the premise that the US should remain the leading world superpower. But you can bet that nearly everyone in the US government agrees with it.

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative. Maybe the underused +1 Interesting?
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:31PM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Wednesday December 13 2017, @05:31PM (#609283) Journal

    Ah, "Falcon" is not what I thought the F in BFR stood for. Thanks for clearing that up.

    It's clearly a way for Daddy Musk to deflect criticism of putting profanity in the name of the rocket, by injecting some ambiguity into the initialism. This is the guy who wants to name his Tesla vehicles Models S, 3, X, Y in that order (here's someone getting triggered by it [theverge.com]). BFR might get renamed to something else closer to launch. Consider Big Falcon Rocket a way to keep the wink-wink-nudge-nudge joke alive until then.

    But as a congressman recently said (can't remember which one), space launch systems are critical strategic resources like aircraft carriers.

    There's really no indication that SpaceX is going to suddenly uproot and become a European or Chinese company. And in fact, it has deep roots here with various space launch facilities and ties to U.S.-based Tesla/etc.

    As I said in some comment somewhere, we can support other companies like the United Launch Alliance, Orbital ATK, Blue Origin, and Rocket Lab at the same time, at least by funding development of new rockets from those players if not necessarily purchasing launches. There will be bids for launches, but some more expensive launchers like ULA's will end up getting used simply for redundancy (since a SpaceX explosion would probably delay launches by a month or more).

    The guy you were thinking of is Scott Pace: Trump Space Adviser: Mars "Too Ambitious" and SLS is a Strategic National Asset [soylentnews.org]

    His perspective is stupid. SLS is a fucking joke. If you axed SLS [nextbigfuture.com] and gave HALF of the future allocated money to SpaceX, you are going to get a much better outcome. Especially if the first SLS flights with payloads (remember that the maiden flight has been delayed [theverge.com], likely to late 2019 or 2020, and won't have a significant payload [wikipedia.org]) are facing off against Falcon Heavy or BFR. So 2022 for Europa Clipper and a manned flight to lunar orbit, if those aren't delayed as well. As planned, BFR would be able to carry payload with more mass than any iteration of SLS... in reusable mode! Expendable mode BFR from SpaceX would have nearly double the payload to LEO as SLS Block 2.

    When is SLS Block 2 planned to launch? 2029-2030. If SLS continues you will pay $4 billion a year for the program every year starting in 2019. Holy shit.

    For our own sake, we need to make sure that either a) the US owns a more powerful launch system, even if it's more expensive, or b) nobody else (Russia, China, et al) can use the BFR without our approval.

    SpaceX and ULA are already set to eliminate our reliance on Russia for manned launches.

    I don't agree that we need exclusivity. But if you wanted to set this up, there's a way to do it: revive Interplanetary Transport System (ITS). SpaceX downgraded from ITS to BFR this year due to economic realities. But if you want your powerful and exclusive launch system, you could give SpaceX 25-50% of the Space Launch System gravy train, and they could agree to give NASA exclusive access to ITS launches for a period of 10 or 20 years. Or give the U.S. government veto power over who gets to ride on it.

    We already established that BFR will peak at around twice the payload to LEO of SLS Block 2. What about the ITS plan from 2016 [wikipedia.org]?

    ITS: 300 tons to LEO in reusable mode, or 550 tons to LEO in expendable mode. Compared to 130 tons to LEO for SLS Block 2, which is always expendable. Fuck my ass.

    Finally, while SpaceX can work with China [arstechnica.com], note that SpaceX is already extremely wary of China, because Musky knows that China steals secrets on reflex:

    ELON MUSK: 'If We Published Patents, It Would Be Farcical' [businessinsider.com] (2012)

    "We have essentially no patents in SpaceX. Our primary long-term competition is in China," said Musk in the interview. "If we published patents, it would be farcical, because the Chinese would just use them as a recipe book."

    And yet... [reddit.com]

    A new SpaceX? China developing system to recover, reuse space rockets [cnbc.com]

    https://cybersecurity.jobs/spacex/careers/?vs=26 [cybersecurity.jobs]

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]