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."

8 of 375 comments (clear)

  1. Wait, what? by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Setting bold goals and staying on schedule.

    So I guess, they sacrifice safety.

    1. Re:Wait, what? by phayes · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, Hopefully what they will be abandoning is the hugely expensive launcher and capsule that senator Shelby Has been forcing NASA to use as a means of shoveling tens of billions of pork to his constituants. If NASA were able to at last abandon the go-nowhere jobs programs called SLS & Orion — and if they used an equivalent amount of funding, missions to the moon would indeed be possible.

      The problem is Shelbly.

      --
      Democracy is a sheep and two wolves deciding what to have for lunch. Freedom is a well armed sheep contesting the issue
    2. Re:Wait, what? by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Informative

      Let's not forget Apollo One, Jan. 27, 1967 ... All because NASA used pure Oxygen in the capsule.

      Yes, but that wasn't really done to cut corners or to keep to the schedule, but because on other air mix incidents and/or concerns, Choice of pure oxygen atmosphere.

      The Command-Module redesign included changing the air mixture and pressure while on the ground to be 64/40% oxygen/nitrogen and lower pressure (14 vs 16.7 PSI), with the mix changing to 100% oxygen and 5 PSI in flight -- the rational is detailed in the link. A 100% oxygen mix was kept in the suits to keep astronauts from getting the "bends" (decompression sickness) during the ascent.

      In addition, and probably most importantly, all the flammable materials were replaced with non-flammable or self extinguishing materials.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    3. Re:Wait, what? by nucrash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Senator Shelby isn't alone. There is a reason why the Space Shuttle was built from parts from 49 states. There is a reason why SLS and Orion likely have a similar distribution of vendors.

      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.

      --
      Place something witty here
  2. Hrmmm by sjames · · Score: 5, Funny

    NASA director reads the memo again:

    by any means necessary

    Hrmmm, clickety clickety clickety...Wall funds diverted to NASA!

  3. Show me the Money! by neoRUR · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes, show me how its all going to be paid for, and most of it will be contracted out.
    I'm all for going to Mars and sending someone there.
    Pushing people to develop new technologies or think differently will help drive innovation.
    But don't cut current programs and funding just because someone wants to get to Mars in their term.

  4. Apparently, we choose to go to the moon... by RyanFenton · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  5. Re:Young Earth Creationist pushing for Moon by 202 by ki4iib · · Score: 5, Informative

    Even in constant 2014 dollars, the current NASA budget is barely a third of what it was at its height — and since Space Has Really Become A Thing since then, what with the space stations and satellites and such, NASA tasked with doing a lot more missions than in the heady days of '66.

    We want to get back to the moon in 5 years when we don't have human rated launch capability? And we want to do it on a giant rocket that hasn't launched once yet? Fine, but they're gonna need to open the pocketbooks a hell of a lot more than they are now.