Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Thursday May 10 2018, @09:52AM   Printer-friendly
from the Lucy...in-the-sky-with-diamonds? dept.

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:


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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 10 2018, @02:14PM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 10 2018, @02:14PM (#677860)

    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)

    by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday May 10 2018, @02:29PM (#677874)

    There's zero evidence for it, you anti-science nut.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 10 2018, @08:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 10 2018, @08:19PM (#678091)

      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

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 11 2018, @09:32PM (#678578)

    Indeed, there was a heck of a lot riding on getting to the moon first. The incentive to cheat would be huge!