Slashdot Mirror


Trump Offered NASA Unlimited Funding To Put People on Mars by 2020, Report Says (nymag.com)

From a report, based on a book by Cliff Sims, who worked as a communications official for Trump on his presidential campaign and in the West Wing: As the clock ticked down, Trump "suddenly turned toward the NASA administrator." He asked: "What's our plan for Mars?" Lightfoot explained to the president -- who, again, had recently signed a bill containing a plan for Mars -- that NASA planned to send a rover to Mars in 2020 and, by the 2030s, would attempt a manned spaceflight. "Trump bristled," according to Sims. He asked, "But is there any way we could do it by the end of my first term?"

Sims described the uncomfortable exchange that followed the question, with Lightfoot shifting and placing his hand on his chin, hesitating politely and attempting to let Trump down easily, emphasizing the logistical challenges involving "distance, fuel capacity, etc. Also the fact that we hadn't landed an American anywhere remotely close to Mars ever." Sims himself was "getting antsy" by this point. With a number of points left to go over with the president, "all I could think about was that we had to be on camera in three minutes .. And yet we're in here casually chatting about shaving a full decade off NASA's timetable for sending a manned flight to Mars. And seemingly out of nowhere."

27 of 600 comments (clear)

  1. Just realised... by YuppieScum · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...that he reminds me of Verruca Salt - "I want it NOW!"

    --
    This sig left unintentionally blank.
  2. It is called a boss by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Sounds like someone is not used to having a boss. Managers ask unknowingly ridiculous things all the time. It is called having a job.

    J

    1. Re:It is called a boss by jwymanm · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly. It could've even just been a fun quick question to ask. Everyone is on red alert for Trump to do or say something wrong. He does that anyway but how many damn hit pieces do you need for one person?

    2. Re:It is called a boss by bob4u2c · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Exactly.

      Bosses sometimes ask this to see what the bottleneck is. Sometimes you cite things they can control; like I would need about $1Mil to get the equipment for just testing that idea, or I would need at least a team of 12 people for a year to finalize the plan. Those are things a boss can effect if they see the project as worthwhile to them.

      Now if you come back and say, if we launched today all the supplies and a person. To get them there by that date they would need to travel at a speed that would kill them. The earliest we could do it without killing that person would be 2025 and even that would be putting the person at risk of dying. Then the boss knows its not a resource problem.

      Don't go into technical details. Just clarify what their goals are and why one or more of those goals can not be achieved (ie the person would be dead on arrival due to the speed needed to reach mars by 2020). You talk details, their eyes glaze over and they stop listening. Sometime a "sure we can, if you don't care if they are alive when they get there", is enough.

    3. Re:It is called a boss by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're bending over backward though to assign sane and skilled leadership skills to someone who does not have them. I will illustrate it with two different questions.

      Can we get someone to Mars before the end of my first term with infinite money?

      With infinite money, how soon could we get someone to mars?

      They're subtly different but one question is an intelligent question that identifies bottlenecks. The other is a vanity request.

    4. Re:It is called a boss by ljw1004 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Q1. "Can we get someone to Mars before the end of my first term with infinite money?"
      Q2. "With infinite money, how soon could we get someone to mars?"

      They're subtly different but one question is an intelligent question that identifies bottlenecks. The other is a vanity request.

      I agree that they're subtly different. The first one has a concrete goal, one that's not achievable but also still admits reasoned answer as to why it's not achievable. Therefore it's more effective in identifying bottlenecks. The second one seems more likely to lead to answers that use more money than necessary. But I'm not understanding how Q2 would be a vanity request?

      (I'm being obtuse. You of course meant to imply that Q1 is the worse request. I'm disagreeing with your assessment of the questions.)

  3. like ADHD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... casually chatting about ... seemingly out of nowhere.

    This is how people with a very high IQ think and act. Almost like ADHD, except very focused.
    This is just an observation, not an endorsement or denial of President Trump. I've worked w/people
    like this. You look at their results, not the traveled path they took getting there 'cause chances
    are you wouldn't understand it.

    And you might see an easier way to their answer, but remember, you saw their answer and thus
    were influenced by it.

    CAP === 'ranked'

    1. Re: like ADHD by Jason+Levine · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's "impossible" that becomes possible when enough time and money is thrown at it and then there's impossible that is actually impossible. If you promise all the resources in the world to someone and they still say it's not possible, it doesn't mean they're bad at their job. It might just mean that it's actually impossible. If you promised me the entire world's resources devoted to sending a person back in time, I'd tell you it's impossible. Even if the entire world stopped what it was doing and devoted itself to this one task, we wouldn't be able to do it. I know that's an extreme example, but some things truly are impossible. Even if we gave NASA an unlimited budget, they couldn't safely send a man to Mars by 2020.

      --
      My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
  4. Worth asking... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How is this different than any other business? A CTO with a million things on their plate may come to you and ask if you can speed up SAP deployment to a year.

    It's a good question. If your constraint is funding or inter-company politics, a motivated CTO can fix that. There are limits to how fast you can speed up some projects, but what's the harm in asking?

    Ditto for Mars. The President might have some interesting conversations if he made a phone call to Musk asking the same thing. Grant a contract or two, for half the cost of NASA, and see w hat magic Elon can pull out of his hat. (SpaceX will have landers on Mars before SLS does it's first launch anyway...)

  5. Not Really Wrong of Him to Try by Ferretman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I imagine he was rather disappointed with where our space program is at the moment though. Can't say as I blame him.

    It'll happen eventually though.

    Ferret

    --
    Sic gorgiamus allos subjectatos nunc
  6. Re:Who cares? by jellomizer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Also, constitutionally he doesn't have the rights to do this. This is why there is a government shutdown right now. He wants to pay for the wall, an other part of the government doesn't. The House of Representatives has the power of the purse strings, so they will not fund this wall. So the president will not approve any budget without such funding.
    If he had the ability to unlimited fund NASA, why doesn't he have the ability to fund for his wall.

    Also of note even with unlimited funding, putting a Man on Mars by 2020 is impossible. To perform such a project new technologies need to be made and the mythical man month is in play. There is only so much the everyone can do at once until they start stepping on each others feet.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
  7. Re:Trump is a fucking joke by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2, Insightful

    He doesn't care about science, or exploration, or doing things the right way.

    There is no scientific reason to send people to Mars. It is a political stunt. Every president is for it, but they all extend the schedule so the big spending will occur after they leave office.

    Guess what? We aren't going to Mars by 2030. Here's the reason: National Debt Clock.

  8. Re:HURR DURR TRUMP DUM by Opportunist · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Nah. We'd also call him desperate to pull a publicity stunt because he feels like his approval ratings are sliding.

    To Mars in 4 years. From what is essentially standstill. Keep on dreaming.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  9. Re: HURR DURR TRUMP DUM by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1, Insightful

    No they wouldn't, because they aren't so stupid and uneducated that they would think it was possible. And Trump didn't do this in public dumbshit. He did it in a private meeting, and it was so fucking stupid that they couldn't stop talking about it.

    --
    Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
  10. Re:Wait, so can we send Trump by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Please don't forget to launch Pence too. I know it's easy to forget him (let's face it, he's the blandest VP since Quayle), but please, at least this one time, don't.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. How the mighty have fallen by Bromancer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't begin to describe how immensely sad this makes me at so many levels. At what point did the techies become such losers? I can remember a time, when we would examine the seemingly impossible, buck up, and meet the challenge. We have by no means met the edge of technology or solved all the problems we can solve. Like so much in life, it comes down to will, and you guys are a a complete bunch of pussies.

    I want you to think about this. Really, truly, deeply think about this, and opportunity that was just lost. The space program has by and large been stalled. There is constant talk of going somewhere or doing something, sometime, which always seems to be 20 years away. Bureaucrats have been hired, who are more interested in job security than achieving. We have had a series of presidents, both republican and democrat, who have half assed the space program. We have lacked drive. We have lacked purpose. Now, an increasing number of people are losing interest that there is talk of far reducing funding or cancelling altogether. Why chase dreams when we can pay for more mundane practical stuff. It IS a good question.

    So, along comes trump. You (likely) live in California, so you reflexively hate him, no matter what he says or does. So, when he asks if you want to chase your so called dreams, for real, you withered in the moment and said no. You disgust me. You should disgust yourself, and anyone else who loves epic science. The bell was rung, and you CHOSE to be tone deaf.

    When Kennedy similarly rang the bell, better men than you rose and answered it. A whole host of knew technologies needed to be developed, but they new at its core, the moon shot was possible. Mars is the same. There are some issues to be solved, but they are not infinite. If Elon Musk offered a blank check for materials to have the best and brightest to work on this, you would faun over him, and maybe even be involved. But no, since you are small and petty, you mock and deride the effort because it was Trump.

    You can say the timing was bad. You can claim it was unfair. But anyone who has ever chased a dream knows, you have to have your elevator speech ready. You never know who you bump into to make it happen. Instead of being snarky at Trump, you should save your Ire for the fucking NASA admin who was not prepared. He was asked, and he was not ready. Pathetic.

    This was a moment in history lost. This was a moment for serious people with serious dreams. Instead, we got you. Instead of galvanizing expertise to figure out ways to meet the challenge, we will continue to support the nowhere scientists making nowhere plans for nobody. We will hand-wring and bitch that there is not money to test out solutions, since it is more fun to hand-wring and bitch than to actually tackle the problem. Again, you disgust me.

    1. Re:How the mighty have fallen by jareth-0205 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm sure you know all about it, I mean it's not exactly rocket science is it.

      The response to someone making impossible demands isn't OKAY LET'S FUCKING DO IT. Less than 2 years absolutely is impossible, of course it is. Hell it takes about 7 months to travel there. It's not a case of not being ambitious enough, it's not a case of being scared, it's a case of the very clever person in the room who knows how hard things are knows that trying to do that would be folly, waste a lot of money, and people will die.

      Fuck this macho bullshit. Hard things are hard, serious people respect that.

    2. Re:How the mighty have fallen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " You (likely) live in California, so you reflexively hate him, no matter what he says or does"

      I reflexively hate him BECAUSE of what he says & does.

      And i live in Texas.

      And fuck you.

    3. Re:How the mighty have fallen by MrTester · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh please.
      If I had been in Lightfoots shoes I wouldnt have heard this as "Ill give you all the money you need to get to Mars." I would have heard a question that, if taken seriously, would cause all of NASAs priorities to be shifted around, lots of money spent on planning/replanning but when push comes to shove and the answer becomes "no, actualy we cant make that happen in in your term" and NASA becomes Trumps latest tweet storm, jobs are lost, there IS no additional money, everything we did comes out of the existing budget and we wasted a ton of money shifting priorities.

      So "No sir, we cant" is the smartest answer there is when someone like Trump asks you to do something ridiculous.

  12. Re:Who cares? by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They have not yet solved the problem of humans surviving several months of radiation in space yet -- I'd call that a "new technology that needs to be made", although I suppose 100 tons of lead shielding would probably do the job...

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  13. Re:Trump is a fucking joke by penandpaper · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no scientific reason to send people to Mars. It is a political stunt.

    I don't think any disagrees that it is a political stunt but so was the initial moon landing. There was no scientific reason to send people to the moon. Yet, that helped spur technological and scientific advancement. I think the same could happen with a manned mission to Mars. Is it worth it? I don't know.

    Agree with the debt.

  14. Should have taken the money by petes_PoV · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Although it is impossible, since Mars missions are only feasible every 2 years due to orbital mechanics, the guy should have committed to it. With a huge cash injection, NASA could have made 10 years of progress in every aspect of space exploration. Hell, they might even have caught up with SpaceX in terms of rocketry.

    And after Trump's term is up ... what's the worst that could have happened? The guy gets fired and nobody is on Mars. But there would have been a lot of progress made. Maybe it would have then been possible by the end of Trump's second term?

    That is the problem with bureaucrats: they are too honest. Nobody expects politicians to tell the truth - the people they deal with should be self-serving for their causes, too.

    --
    politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
  15. Re:HURR DURR TRUMP DUM by squiggleslash · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The very reason why we consider Obama a better President is that he wouldn't promise unlimited funding for someone so unnecessary. Hell, he didn't even promise unlimited funding for infrastructure, and that's still urgently needed.

    It's bad enough when Trump defenders come up with "Oh, so it's bad when Trump does it but I don't hear any complaints when Obama did something that's not actually the same thing at all and was widely criticized at the time by the left", but "Oh, you'd support something completely stupid and reckless if it were proposed by someone you support precisely because he wouldn't do anything stupid and reckless" line is a whole new level of stupid.

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  16. Re:Who cares? by Shotgun · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The last President did claim that all he needed was a pen and a phone and the knowledge of how to use them.

    --
    Aah, change is good. -- Rafiki
    Yeah, but it ain't easy. -- Simba
  17. What Trump's second response should have been by SuperKendall · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When the NASA guy tried to patiently explain why it would be 2030 when NASA was there, Trump should have responded with:

    "Well SpaceX says they'll be landing people there in 2025, why is NASA so slow? Maybe I should just send more government money to SpaceX. Why do you think you deserve it instead?"

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  18. Re:By 2020? by tomhath · · Score: 5, Insightful

    RTFA. The question was asked almost two years ago.

    And if you get past your derangement, it's a reasonable way to prod a bureaucrat into thinking big.

  19. Re:Who cares? by WhiplashII · · Score: 2, Insightful

    OK, but he could say "there is a caravan of people coming, which amounts to an army threatening invasion, and the easiest way to deal with it is a wall."

    That would be within his purview and emergency powers, at least close enough that it would likely pass supreme court review (in the current court, of course).

    Just because you don't want something to happen doesn't mean it won't.

    --
    while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;