Slashdot Mirror
President Trump Is Sending NASA Back To The Moon (npr.org)
President Trump has formally told NASA to send U.S. astronauts back to the moon. From a report: "The directive I'm signing today will refocus America's space program on human exploration and discovery," he said. Standing at the president's side as he signed "Space Policy Directive 1" on Monday was Apollo 17 astronaut Harrison Schmitt, one of the last two humans to ever walk on the moon, in a mission that took place 45 years ago this week. Since that time, no human has ventured out beyond low-Earth orbit. NASA doesn't even have its own space vehicle, having retired the space shuttles in 2011. Americans currently ride up to the international space station in Russian capsules, though private space taxis are expected to start ferrying them up as soon as next year.
So with his proposed cut to NASA of 30% how exactly does he expect to fund ANY human space travel? They can barely fund robotic exploration at the current funding levels.
He's going to get Mexico to pay for it!
and it's going to be YUGE!
Can't blame this one on Trump. This is the result of the last two idiots in office that decided to cancel the space shuttle program before we had a working replacement. Not that the shuttle was a shining example of success ether. But cancelling it before we had a working replacement was a stupid in a special order of magnitude.
I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
Saying something is not the same as doing.
If the president wants NASA to send men to the moon, stop signing directives and sign a check instead.
Also, veto the tax plan (if it ever reaches your desk) which would increase the cost of graduate studies that produce that sorts of scientists and engineers who put people on the moon.
The process of getting a human-rating certification takes years, and involves quite a few test launches, of both the rocket and the crew capsule. SpaceX is very close to meeting the requirements, and I believe at least one other private launch company is as well.
The Russians haven't designed a new rocket in many years. Their rockets already have the necessary certification for legal launches.
It's a political process, but one rooted in fatal failures in NASA's history.
We don't need to be shooting people through space in tin cans.
At this point we have three options.
1. Continue pissing in the wind with half funded programs, then cancelling them partway through.
2. Go Full Robotic.
3. Build an for real spaceship.
I vote #3
A For Real Spaceship is...
1. Multi megawatt reactor for power.
2. Magnetic shielding.
3. Rotating living and working section for artificial gravity
4. Complete closed loop environmental system.
5. Non-chemical engines.
I would also throw in a descent and ascent module, but they can be added later since they will required chemical rockets regardless.
Every one of these required technologies (except 3...a NASA engineer told me they've done it already) would spur innovation on the same level as the Apollo program. When complete, we could then jump in and go where we want...among the moon and Mars at least.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Until there is an actual, specific, and funded plan, all Trump is doing is shooting his mouth off again.
JKF, 12-Sep-1962:
We set sail on this new sea because there is new knowledge to be gained, and new rights to be won, and they must be won and used for the progress of all people. For space science, like nuclear science and all technology, has no conscience of its own. Whether it will become a force for good or ill depends on man, and only if the United States occupies a position of pre-eminence can we help decide whether this new ocean will be a sea of peace or a new terrifying theater of war. I do not say that we should or will go unprotected against the hostile misuse of space any more than we go unprotected against the hostile use of land or sea, but I do say that space can be explored and mastered without feeding the fires of war, without repeating the mistakes that man has made in extending his writ around this globe of ours.
... We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one we intend to win ...
There is no strife, no prejudice, no national conflict in outer space as yet. Its hazards are hostile to us all. Its conquest deserves the best of all mankind, and its opportunity for peaceful cooperation may never come again. But why, some say, the Moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask, why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic?
We choose to go to the Moon!
Trump, 11-Dec-2017:
The directive I’m signing today will refocus America’s space program on human exploration and discovery. It marks an important 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 footprint, we will establish a foundation for an eventual mission to Mars and perhaps, someday, to many worlds beyond. This directive will ensure America’s space program once again leads and inspires all of humanity.
Beyond the basics, Kennedy had to request that Congress provide the funds and, as such, had to play preacher, cheerleader and salesman to make it happen. Trump seems less sensitive to the intricacies of politics, back-scratching and making deals; more of "I'm own this company. Do what I say".
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
I'm a bit dry at the moment... I know I had a can of Instant Froth around here somewhere...
Much better... Now then...
It's not a question of being "anti-science" or not, but more the question of "why?"
In the 1960s, landing on the moon was a huge accomplishment. We conducted important science, established permanent lunar installations of ongoing significance, and it paved the way for our current space-based experiments on board the ISS. Even today, there is a long list (that I've seen before, but can't find at the moment) of experiments that we want to put on the moon.
However, one crucially-important thing has changed between 1969 and today: robotics. We can send a robot to the moon and call it disposable, rather than have to also send fuel for the return trip home, supplies to sustain life, and a pressurized vessel to contain it all while the astronauts are up there. There's a reason the Apollo program required the largest, heaviest, and most-powerful rocket ever flown: Putting mass into space is exponentially expensive. Each Apollo mission cost (on average) about four times as much as the whole Mars Science Laboratory program.
By sending robots to the moon (and Mars, and elsewhere), we can continue to reap the scientific benefits without literally burning American tax dollars and risking American astronaut lives. Once there, the robots can last for much longer than a human, running experiments until they fall apart... and then just a bit more. Frankly, robots are superior explorers to humans in just about every way except for three.
First, robots aren't as adaptable as humans, though they are getting better. Space-bound rovers are designed with adaptability in mind, and the engineers controlling them from Earth are brilliant at remote repair and alternative uses, but a rover won't likely be able to recover from an accidental roll down a hill, even if the damage is minimal.
Second, robots are still limited in their capability. We can't just drop down a new camera and say "here, use this." There has been some work into making reconfigurable robots that could upgrade themselves, but ultimately it's still just cheaper and easier to send a new set of wheels with the new camera.
Finally, robots just don't make good humans. Humans are fragile and sensitive, and we get so upset when one is damaged and is... decommissioned. If the goal is for humans to leave Earth and look towards colonizing other planets, we still have a lot of questions to answer about how to keep those people safe and healthy. That's why we have the ISS. There are a lot of ongoing experiments running on board the ISS, and that's satisfying our current science needs (and exhausting what little budget we have).
In summary, that's why we are where we are today. We use the relatively-nearby ISS to run human-based experiments, and send expendable robots to further places, maximizing the scientific knowledge gain while minimizing the expense of rockets, engineering, and lives. As much fun as it would be to fling more humans at that floating gray target for the sake of patriotic glory, it really doesn't contribute much to mankind's future. We've already taken the giant leap that was beneficial in 1969, by starting extraterrestrial exploration. The next one will be a permanent colony, but we're not quite ready for that yet, regardless of which president wants it.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I always thought that a rocket wasn't human-rated until the paperwork and documentation for the rocket weighed more than the wet mass of the rocket itself...
...si hoc legere nimium eruditionis habes...