Slashdot Mirror
Mike Pence Tells NASA To Accelerate Human Missions To the Moon 'By Any Means Necessary' (theverge.com)
Today at the fifth meeting of the National Space Council, Vice President Mike Pence said the Trump administration is committed to sending humans back to the Moon by 2024, four years earlier than NASA's previous target of 2028. The Verge reports: Pence, speaking at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama, noted that the administration will meet this goal "by any means necessary." He called on NASA to adopt new policies and argued that the space agency would need to embrace "a new mindset that begins with setting bold goals and staying on schedule." To do that, he said the administration may consider ditching some of NASA's current contractors -- which are currently developing new vehicles to take humans into deep space -- and using commercially developed rockets instead. "If commercial rockets are the only way to get American astronauts to the Moon in the next five years, then commercial rockets it will be," said Pence. "Urgency must be our watch word."
However, Pence offered few clear recommendations and changes that would help to accelerate NASA's return, apart from potentially switching rockets and contractors. "It was rhetoric about 'by all means possible' and 'we'll provide the resources necessary' and 'leadership is essential,'" John Logsdon, a space policy expert at George Washington University, tells The Verge. "I mean, they're all good words. But the devil's in the details."
However, Pence offered few clear recommendations and changes that would help to accelerate NASA's return, apart from potentially switching rockets and contractors. "It was rhetoric about 'by all means possible' and 'we'll provide the resources necessary' and 'leadership is essential,'" John Logsdon, a space policy expert at George Washington University, tells The Verge. "I mean, they're all good words. But the devil's in the details."
All of this is an attempt to save face looking at the various tangible Moon projects from China and others. I'll believe it when NASA says "we'll go to the Moon in 20xx" and xx<25.
Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
Not because it is hard, but because we think it sounds easy. And will look good.
Because the real service we offer, is to allow the crueler half of a large generation empty remembrances of what they used to like the idea of, as we strip of it of meaning.
I've been to science/media conventions where folks in upper-level NASA positions (often conservatives) speak frankly on these subjects, along with a lot of engineer coworkers that spent time on the - none of this lines up at all with anything they'd want.
Ryan Fenton
I think you're right, but I would add two things:
- Appropriate mix of using contractors and in-house development. SpaceX and others are showing that they can get payloads, soon including people, into orbit. NASA should recognize the commodification of the basics and focus the big government dollars on space tech that the commercial guys won't touch right now. Of course, that means giving up on a lot of pork spending, in line with your item #2.
- Adjust the budget to realistically accomplish the goals. I suspect this means increasing the budget, but I don't know.
Anyway, as I said, I think you're right, which is to say: none of this is going to happen anytime soon.
NASA does a lot of stuff, and a lot of it (Earth observation missions, for example) works really well. But for these moon shot missions, nothing is at stake. Someone like Mike Pence says we're going to the moon for no particular reason, and nobody cares, and nobody believes we're actually going to the moon, so when we don't go, it's not a surprise to anybody--in fact, they've all forgotten that Mike Pence said anything about it in the first place. So who cares if we failed?
Setting bold goals and staying on schedule.
So I guess, they sacrifice safety.
Reminds me of a recent Boeing story...
Or the Space Shuttle Challenge and its o-rings.
(Speaking of sacrificing safety for schedule.)
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
No. They sacrifice politics and stupidity. Maintain focus on the mission and stop getting involved in bullshit and fluffing the nests of their lazy contractor buddies. You think you are so smart and part of the solution but you are the problem. Government is rife with waste and corruption and back scratching and not rocking the boat and Not Invented Here and people just holding out for their pensions because there are no benefits to succeeding but many benefits to NOT failing. Spend out your budget, retire, get a pen, leave the mess to the next generation, repeat, no rinse.
Setting bold goals and staying on schedule.
So I guess, they sacrifice safety.
Well, both of those are hard to do when every President sets a different goal for NASA. Most NASA projects take longer than the average President's term in office; every President comes in and completely changes what it is he wants NASA to do. How is NASA supposed to operate successfully if their mission and goals change every 4 to 8 years?
NASA really should be given more independence with budget set out years in advance. Trump and Pence might give NASA one direction, two years from now President Justin Bieber might give them a completely different direction to take.
/ no one thought Trump had a chance at being President either
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Our government loves to espouse their hate of socialism but when finding ways to create jobs back in their states or districts, they gladly distribute military and other large programs across the US.
Kind of. They don't do it for Socialist reasons, they do it because they get kickbacks. Legalized corruption so to speak. It has nothing to do with Socialism other than it can look like Socialism from a certain angle.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen