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."
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."
What makes you think this will be different?
...that he reminds me of Verruca Salt - "I want it NOW!"
This sig left unintentionally blank.
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
We could absolutely put people on Mars by 2020.
But if you want them to be alive when they get there, it'll take a bit longer.
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'
Trump's one of those "businessmen" who think two women can bring a baby to term in 4 1/2 months.
Debate is a form of harassment. Do not question my truth.
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...)
..he would have said "No, Mr President we can't get it done for 2020 but we can get it done for the end of your second term if you start the funding right now.!
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
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
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.
Nobody else, Republican or Democrat would ever suggest such a ridiculous and obviously ego catering idea.
Sure they would. They just wouldn't do it publicly.
With Trump, there is no filter. What he says in private is what he has in public. This is what his supporters love, and his detractors hate.
If he asked the same question of Elon Musk, he would have had a yes. Of course, Elon has a long track record of missing deadlines, but if SpaceX didn't have to use profits from regular launches to fund their Starship program, they could probably move it forward faster.
And if any Democrat President had offered unlimited funding to get a human mars landing in 4 years we'd be applauding the progressive actions to move technology and human progress forward.
Or have we forgotten that Obama shut down the space program altogether?
Nice troll.
TL/DR? Okay, here you go:
The Space Shuttle program was extended several times beyond its originally envisioned 15-year life span because of the delays in building the United States space station in low Earth orbit—a project which eventually evolved into the International Space Station. It was formally scheduled for mandatory retirement in 2010 in accord with the directives President George W. Bush issued on January 14, 2004 in his Vision for Space Exploration.[
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
and maybe Mitch McConnell? Asking for a friend.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
The point is that Obama did not "shut down the space program altogether". He did cancel the Constellation program because, in his words, it was "over budget, behind schedule, and lacking in innovation." He and other officials subsequently restored development of the Orion capsule, along with the Ares I lift stage and a Heavy Launch Vehicle stage to replace Ares V.
If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
Or just a Tesla. They can launch a Tesla into space with four space suited astronauts (two in the front, two in the back.) Easy-peasy.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
This isn't democrats vs republicans. It is that Trump is an Insane Idiot, not fit to be president.
Precisely.
My thoughts while reading TFS were "Unlimited funding sounds silly", then "Mars by 2020... that's ridiculously aggressive..." and I started thinking about the planetary motions involved, and current launch capabilities (for humanity, not just NASA), and started constructing a timetable in my head. They'd need to launch by early 2020, with supplies for a year, and we'd still need some way to get them home... it just isn't going to happen.
None of that has anything to do with who's in the White House. Even with unlimited funding, there is reality to be dealt with. Space is big. Rocket science is hard. Humankind has not yet built a spacecraft that is capable of landing humans on another planet (with planet-scale gravity) and taking off again, let alone actually returning them to Earth. If we don't return them to Earth, human society has not reached a point where it's generally acceptable to send people to their certain death.
"But is there any way we could do it by the end of my first term?"
Again, my thought: "Oh, of course. That's why it's a ridiculous date. He wants a headline."
Past presidents had reasons for their decisions, however they affected NASA's funding. I may not agree with those reasons or their priorities, but at least they had American societal interests in mind. Trump is only interested in his own brand.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Where are you getting 438 days? Every proposal I've seen for sending humans to Mars has transit times in the range of a few months to a few weeks,depending on payload. Assuming we sent a SpaceX Starship carrying only a few people and only enough supplies to reach Mars (having sent the rest of the supplies ahead of time) you could cut the transit time way down.
And once you're on Mars (or the Moon), radiation pretty much stops being an issue unless you're stupid about it. A few meters of rock or twice that of sand offers as much radiation protection as the Earth's atmosphere, and we don't actually need that much to be reasonably safe.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
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
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.
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;
Woah now, slow down with that wild optimism. It's only been proven that we can launch a 2-seater Tesla into space.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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...
Actually it's not that bad. Current estimates are that a Mars round trip will take about 60% of an astronaut's career limit and that below 16 feet of Martian soil radiation will be Earth level. With a reasonable surface budget you're straddling the career limits, but note that they mean +3% chance of dying from cancer, it's not like a lethal dose or anything. The biggest dynamic is solar flares which are fairly low power and also directional so possible to shield against. Most think there'll be an emergency shelter inside the water tank, because water is quite effective at those energy levels. There's also the galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) that you can't shield much against, but they aren't a blocker for an exploration mission. They'd make it really hard to make any kind of permanent settlement though.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
How about we send Trump himself?
Flying to the moon is fairly easy because the minimum energy transfer orbit is a few days, and windows come along every day, or a couple times an hour if you're in orbit.
Flying to Mars is harder because the transfer orbit is 8.5 months long and a window opens once every two years.
The amount of energy (depth of gravity wells, etc.) isn't really much different, and is dwarfed by the energy required to get into Earth orbit in the first place.
It's not quite that simple. To go fast you need greater delta-v; because of orbital mechanics, to go more than a little bit faster you need a LOT more delta-v. Because of the need to carry fuel, the rocket equation tells us that our maximum delta-v is related to the specific impulse of our engine. It's a bit counter intuitive, but chemical engines can only let you go so fast. Making the non-fuel payload lighter helps, but it very quickly becomes an insignificant factor compared to the fuel mass. As long as you're using chemical rockets, launch windows, and the transit times they imply, are very much windows, with brick walls in between.
You could make a fast transit to Mars using ion or nuclear engines, but that's not off the shelf technology so it's not going to happen in the next two years.
Unless my fellow democrats can come up with a better candidate than that total nut job Cortez or the fake native American, President Trump will win another term in office. As it stands right now, we simply don't have a viable candidate to oppose the President.