SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
NASA chief on Moon return: "This will not be Lucy and the football again"
In 1989, President George H.W. Bush announced the Space Exploration Initiative, a long-range commitment toward the human exploration of deep space, beginning with a return to the Moon. "Major parts of that policy went forward, but establishing permanence on the Moon was abandoned," Bridenstine said Tuesday. Then, in 2004, President George W. Bush announced a bold plan to send humans back to the Moon, where they would learn how to operate in deep space and then go on to Mars. This became the Constellation program. Again, major parts of that policy went forward, Bridenstine said. But NASA abandoned the drive back to the Moon.
Before the US Senate confirmed pilot and former congressman Bridenstine, the Trump administration announced a plan to send humans back to the Moon. "To many, this may sound similar to our previous attempts to get to the Moon," Bridenstine said Tuesday. "However, times have changed. This will not be Lucy and the football again."
How have times changed? During his brief address, Bridenstine listed several technologies that he believes have lowered the cost of a lunar return. These include the miniaturization of electronics that will allow for smaller robotic vehicles, the decreasing costs of launch, private investment in spaceflight, commercial interest in lunar resources, and new ways of government contracting. (Bridenstine did not mention the Space Launch System rocket or the Orion spacecraft).
The speech was only a few minutes long, so I wouldn't read too much into the absence of SLS/Orion. But it's no secret that BFR could deliver 150 metric tons to the Moon or Mars by using in-orbit refueling, vs. a lot less when using the expensive SLS.
Previously:
Related:
Should We Skip Mars for Now and Go to the Moon Again?
How to Get Back to the Moon in 4 Years, Permanently
After the Falcon Heavy Launch, Time to Defund the Space Launch System?
President Trump Praises Falcon Heavy, Diminishes NASA's SLS Effort
NASA's Chief of Human Spaceflight Rules Out Use of Falcon Heavy for Lunar Station
NASA Cancels Lunar Rover
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday May 10 2018, @12:38PM (9 children)
To be fair, the priorities normally only change completely every 8 years, not 4. It's very rare for a sitting President to not be re-elected; the last time this happened was GHWBush, and to be fair here, his single term was basically a 3rd term for his predecessor, Reagan, since he was Reagan's VP and his administration didn't do anything terribly different. The last time we actually had a true 4 year term that was different from both the preceding and subsequent terms was with Jimmy Carter.
So you should be able to give NASA something to do within 8 years, except the problem here is that it seems that it always takes some time to change course when a new administration comes in, particularly if it's a Democrat President (they're usually loathe to change the bad policies of the previous administration, as we saw with Obama; Republican Presidents don't have this problem, they'll happily change stuff on Day 1).
On top of the problem with us changing the party in power in less than a decade, we also have the problem that most of our population is a bunch of religious nuts, and doing hard science with a voting public that believes in kooky religious garbage is very hard. It's even worse these days with the Internet and all the "fake news" and other BS. Now we have a large portion of the population that believes in "Niburu", that vaccines cause autism, that Hillary participates in Satanic child-sacrifice rituals, that climate change science is a vast conspiracy to deprive them of their 10mpg pickup trucks, that the Moon landings were a hoax, I could go on and on. In short, our voting citizens are gullible morons.
If we want to do serious space science that involves big, long-term missions, I think the best answer is to simply, when we get access to the money needed to do it, give it to ESA and JAXA and ask them to do it. We just need to finally admit to ourselves that we can't do any big projects any more, and that we should sit back and let someone else more capable, and who does a better job with long-term planning, do them instead, but with our funding help.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 10 2018, @02:14PM (3 children)
I love how vaccines causing autism is just as unbelievable to you as moon landing hoax theories. One should be much more plausible than the other to a healthy mind.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday May 10 2018, @02:29PM (1 child)
There's zero evidence for it, you anti-science nut.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 10 2018, @08:19PM
No, there's very little plausible evidence that it is a considerable risk. Reactions to vaccinations aren't unheard of, they are just vanishingly rare, which is still a decent number when you're counting many millions. 99% of anti-vaxxers are illiterate morons, but their fears aren't entirely unfounded.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 11 2018, @09:32PM
Indeed, there was a heck of a lot riding on getting to the moon first. The incentive to cheat would be huge!
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 10 2018, @05:00PM (4 children)
The Presidency may only change every 8 years (please people, let's make an exception this time), but there are House/Senate elections every 2 years, giving outsized power to whoever bribed their official the most.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday May 10 2018, @06:21PM (3 children)
The Presidency may only change every 8 years (please people, let's make an exception this time)
Not gonna happen. I'd bet money on it. My prediction: the Democrats will again nominate some lousy candidate, who at best is completely wooden and uncharismatic, and at worst not only has the charisma of the stapler guy from Office Space but also seems to be corrupt, or is simply unpalatable to most of the population, and then will lose to Trump. It's quite possible they'll even nominate Oprah (a huckster who's pushed all kinds of pseudoscientific and other bullshit on her show, from anti-vax crap with Jenny Mccarthy to "the secret" to Dr. Oz's snake oil).
but there are House/Senate elections every 2 years, giving outsized power to whoever bribed their official the most.
That's a good point. Look what happened with Obama: he had a short time with a Democratic majority in Congress, and then pretty quickly the Republicans took over and he spent all his time fighting them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 10 2018, @07:51PM
Obama had a super majority for two years and still couldn't get things done.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday May 10 2018, @08:28PM (1 child)
> pushed all kinds of pseudoscientific and other bullshit on her show, from anti-vax crap with Jenny Mccarthy to "the secret" to Dr. Oz's snake oil
She can stomp Trump on his own turf, I guess :)
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Friday May 11 2018, @12:49PM
Nope, even Trump doesn't spew as much bullshit as Oprah has.
I'm serious here: if the dumb-ass Democrats nominate fucking Oprah in 2020, I'm voting for Trump. I will not vote for someone who's peddled as much pseudoscientific bullshit as Oprah. At least Trump *tried* to make money somewhat honestly, by building buildings and being a reality TV star, trying to show off his supposed business skills. Oprah did more than probably anyone to give a speaking platform to the anti-vax movement, and is personally responsible for many peoples' (esp. childrens') deaths.