PDA

View Full Version : The Donald Trump Admin Space Exploration Policy



Launch window
2017-Feb-25, 08:53 PM
...probably will make a statement some time in the future




the news on the net is already picking up on his possible space policy, "Donald Trump may accelerate NASA's return to the moon NASA is looking at the possibility of putting astronauts in lunar orbit late next year, far ahead of schedule." http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2017/02/15/Donald-Trump-may-accelerate-NASAs-return-to-the-moon/2791487203684/ NASA studying manned trip https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-24/nasa-studying-manned-trip-around-the-moon-after-prod-from-trump Trump’s NASA Is Probably Aiming For The Moon Or Mars http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/06/trumps-nasa-is-probably-aiming-for-the-moon-or-mars/
NASA officials discuss Trump’s push for first-term moon mission https://www.abqjournal.com/956861/nasa-officials-discuss-trumps-push-for-first-term-moon-mission.html
NASA generally proceeds slowly and incrementally – especially when human beings are blasted into space. But President Donald Trump and his advisers want to do something bold with the space program, and they’ve asked NASA to consider speeding up a long-planned moon mission. If Trump Sends NASA to the Moon, Congress Might Be Into It https://www.wired.com/2017/02/trump-sends-nasa-moon-congress-might/


internet opinions http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?pid=134194 collect space http://www.collectspace.com/ubb/Forum3/HTML/005125.html NASA's FY 2017 Budget Proposal https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?PHPSESSID=0o027bmv4lk8g9vpf4ious1ge3&topic=39540.0

swampyankee
2017-Feb-25, 10:18 PM
Next year? Do they want them to come back alive?

Superluminal
2017-Feb-26, 07:55 AM
Next year? Do they want them to come back alive?
Trump is probably thinking ahead. If NASA moves too slow and he's voted out in 2020, the new POTUS could kill anything Trump has going, redirect NASA with a new mission, setting NASA back again.

swampyankee
2017-Feb-26, 02:18 PM
Trump is probably thinking ahead. If NASA moves too slow and he's voted out in 2020, the new POTUS could kill anything Trump has going, redirect NASA with a new mission, setting NASA back again.

A one year time frame on a manned Moon landing isn't "thinking ahead"; it's completely unrealistic.

swampyankee
2017-Feb-26, 02:29 PM
Trump is probably thinking ahead. If NASA moves too slow and he's voted out in 2020, the new POTUS could kill anything Trump has going, redirect NASA with a new mission, setting NASA back again.

A one year time frame on a manned Moon landing isn't "thinking ahead"; it's completely unrealistic.

Glom
2017-Feb-26, 04:22 PM
It's only a lunar flyby. Still unrealistic though.

Spacedude
2017-Feb-26, 04:25 PM
Seeking out sites for the 5 huge letters?..................come on now, just a little humor ;-)

Nicolas
2017-Feb-26, 06:26 PM
A one year time frame on a manned Moon landing isn't "thinking ahead"; it's completely unrealistic.

As Glom said, it's to be a flyby instead of a landing. Something a specific Soyuz version -and a wealthy version of you (http://www.spaceadventures.com/experiences/circumlunar-mission/)- could do today. And something where putting people on board has little added value, except for PR.

Superluminal
2017-Feb-26, 10:15 PM
A one year time frame on a manned Moon landing isn't "thinking ahead"; it's completely unrealistic.

More unrealistic than starting from scratch and landing on the moon before the end of the 1960s? NASA was just a wee babe in those days.

swampyankee
2017-Feb-27, 01:30 AM
More unrealistic than starting from scratch and landing on the moon before the end of the 1960s? NASA was just a wee babe in those days.

More unrealistic than a decade from scratch for a manned Moon landing?

Yes; much more so. I've worked in aerospace.

Cookie
2017-Feb-27, 12:14 PM
*cough* Falcon Heavy *cough*

selvaarchi
2017-Feb-28, 02:58 AM
*cough* Falcon Heavy *cough*
Sorry folks that is reserved for Elon Musk [emoji5]

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Cougar
2017-Feb-28, 12:52 PM
He laid out a proposal on Monday that would increase military spending by $54 billion (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=pMJKdIFVI6pghfX2HXfSzxRpdoyDWYNWTiojIl dV5/1IL3c0JvVd9ZY5yf0hwFgAUf3Wkw4Pok6O3hUpmOmw8hrP71Os U6w3YnHe+Ikvjfv8krS8M5fHxRSK1YMbq8aeSIJHxqWZ8QATxL L442uKZi9llbsDJ0/g&campaign_id=8100&instance_id=93188&segment_id=104359&user_id=2d01adcfb5c9a771e32eed649b5cfb9c&regi_id=77773411) through cuts to programs related to science, education and the environment (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=pMJKdIFVI6pghfX2HXfSzxRpdoyDWYNWTiojIl dV5/0s/N1QjVKHyZY5yf0hwFgAQKF2A87F2j7C5P8f/mKp2Qigo2w08Lxjp1Ll97KSRQBPlqlP+9p94sVxLxOv+OfFvsF MQ/0l5MCErD8vu7boj7E3VnyO5nXde7YHrov8aP2Fp8zl8zlRkg==&campaign_id=8100&instance_id=93188&segment_id=104359&user_id=2d01adcfb5c9a771e32eed649b5cfb9c&regi_id=77773411). - NYTimes

Swift
2017-Feb-28, 01:47 PM
He laid out a proposal on Monday that would increase military spending by $54 billion (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=pMJKdIFVI6pghfX2HXfSzxRpdoyDWYNWTiojIl dV5/1IL3c0JvVd9ZY5yf0hwFgAUf3Wkw4Pok6O3hUpmOmw8hrP71Os U6w3YnHe+Ikvjfv8krS8M5fHxRSK1YMbq8aeSIJHxqWZ8QATxL L442uKZi9llbsDJ0/g&campaign_id=8100&instance_id=93188&segment_id=104359&user_id=2d01adcfb5c9a771e32eed649b5cfb9c®i_id=7777 3411) through cuts to programs related to science, education and the environment (http://p.nytimes.com/email/re?location=pMJKdIFVI6pghfX2HXfSzxRpdoyDWYNWTiojIl dV5/0s/N1QjVKHyZY5yf0hwFgAQKF2A87F2j7C5P8f/mKp2Qigo2w08Lxjp1Ll97KSRQBPlqlP+9p94sVxLxOv+OfFvsF MQ/0l5MCErD8vu7boj7E3VnyO5nXde7YHrov8aP2Fp8zl8zlRkg==&campaign_id=8100&instance_id=93188&segment_id=104359&user_id=2d01adcfb5c9a771e32eed649b5cfb9c®i_id=7777 3411). - NYTimes
Folks, our exception to the no-politics rule is narrowly limited to space exploration and science. Other comments about the current US administration, such as the budgets for other parts of the budget, will not be tolerated. This is the only warning for this thread; next one gets an infraction.

Superluminal
2017-Mar-01, 12:38 AM
More unrealistic than a decade from scratch for a manned Moon landing?

Yes; much more so. I've worked in aerospace.

Read today Soon Musk is planning a similar flight in a couple of years. Which would recommend, private flight or a NASA rush job?

BigDon
2017-Mar-01, 12:50 AM
No problem. NASA rush job.

KaiYeves
2017-Mar-01, 01:08 AM
Read today Soon Musk is planning a similar flight in a couple of years. Which would recommend, private flight or a NASA rush job?
If you want to compare flights, Expedia is always good.

swampyankee
2017-Mar-01, 09:49 AM
Read today Soon Musk is planning a similar flight in a couple of years. Which would recommend, private flight or a NASA rush job?

Which has deeper pockets?

Chuck
2017-Mar-01, 04:16 PM
As Glom said, it's to be a flyby instead of a landing. Something a specific Soyuz version -and a wealthy version of you (http://www.spaceadventures.com/experiences/circumlunar-mission/)- could do today. And something where putting people on board has little added value, except for PR.
As long as people are going anyway, maybe a worthwhile discussion would be about finding something scientifically useful for them to do. Perhaps many simple experiments that would have required many specialized robots. Or experiments in which data from early phases is needed before deciding what to do next.

selvaarchi
2017-Mar-02, 10:21 AM
So far not much details has emerged of President Trump's space plans. There was the one liner in his speech to Congress where he says "American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream.". What that exactly means has still to be flashed out.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/trump-invokes-dream-of-footprints-on-distant-worlds


In his first speech to Congress, President Donald Trump mentioned the human spaceflight program, though with too little specificity to clarify what he has in mind for the U.S. space program. Still, the fact that the space program was mentioned at all could be a positive indication that his Administration will support it against the backdrop of expected deep budget cuts for non-defense programs.

Word that Trump would say something about human spaceflight in his speech to a joint session of Congress tonight became public late this afternoon.

The short sentence appears close to the end of the speech: "American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream."

The space community is certain to dissect those words and try to divine their meaning -- what worlds (is the Moon a "distant world"?), on what timeline, with the government and the private sector playing what roles -- but useful analysis will have to await further information.

selvaarchi
2017-Mar-02, 11:18 AM
A 4 minute 30 second video on President Trump's plan to go back to the moon by PBS.

http://www.parabolicarc.com/2017/03/01/pbs-news-hour-video-returning-moon/


Is there renewed focus inside the Trump administration, NASA and the private sector to revive travel to the moon? There are signs, like a single reference in President Trump’s address to Congress, that seem to suggest that a space journey may be sooner than we might think. Science correspondent Miles O’Brien joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what we could learn and why it’s back on the table.

publiusr
2017-Mar-03, 10:31 PM
More
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-will-modern-moon-mission-look-like-180962317/

Swift
2017-Mar-05, 02:37 PM
More
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/what-will-modern-moon-mission-look-like-180962317/
publiusr

You are again falling into the habit of posting links with little or no explanation (previous warning (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?137275-Russian-rocket-fails-to-orbit-two-communication-satellites&p=2058463#post2058463)). "More" is not sufficient. You need to either given some sort of explanation, or a short, relevant quote from the article

selvaarchi
2017-Mar-12, 01:17 PM
Still no news from Trump directly on where he plans to take the US in space but those around him have indicated the moon is one of the goals.

http://www.space-travel.com/reports/Under_Trump_the_Moon_regains_interest_as_possible_ destination_999.html


Dismissed by former US president Barack Obama as a place explorers had already seen, the Moon has once again gained interest as a potential destination under Donald Trump's presidency.

Private sector companies in particular are energized by the prospect of future space exploration missions beyond low-Earth orbit, where the International Space Station circles the Earth.

Even though Trump himself has said little about the subject, his close circle and some former NASA officials have made clear their interest in returning to the Moon by way of partnerships with the private sector.

Billionaire Elon Musk, the president and chief executive of SpaceX, along with Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who also runs a rocket company called Blue Origin, have met with Trump's advisors several times since the Republican won the presidency.

"There is certainly a renewed interest in the Moon in the Trump administration," said John Logsdon, former director of the Space Policy Institute at The George Washington University.

selvaarchi
2017-Mar-16, 02:52 PM
Washington Post has got a scoop by revealing what President Trump's budget is.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/trump-budget-request-kills-arm-supports-sls-orion-and-public-private-partnerships


The Trump Administration's FY2018 budget blueprint proposes $19.1 billion for NASA, less than a one percent cut according to a copy of the document posted by the Washington Post. It is good news considering the draconian cuts proposed for many other agencies. President Obama's Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM) would be cancelled and NASA's Office of Education would be eliminated under the proposal, but other NASA programs survived relatively unscathed. The earth science program is cut, but not as deeply as many feared.

The blueprint is due to be officially released in a few hours, but the Washington Post was able to upload a copy early. [UPDATE, March 16, 7:20 am ET: The document is now posted on the Office of Management and Budget website.]

Spacedude
2017-Mar-16, 03:08 PM
NASA seems to break about even on the new budget breakdown, down 1%, EPA not so lucky :

https://st.hzcdn.com/simgs/90c2ad9908ca7d0d_8-5298/home-design.jpg

Glom
2017-Mar-16, 03:29 PM
No ARM. So they're not worrying about this kind of apocalyptic event? What do they know that we don't?

selvaarchi
2017-Mar-16, 04:26 PM
Statement by NASA acting Administrator Robert Lightfoot on the Fiscal Year 2018 agency budget proposal.

https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-acting-administrator-statement-on-fiscal-year-2018-budget-proposal


“The President mentioned in his speech to both houses of Congress that, ‘American footprints on distant worlds are not too big a dream.’ NASA is already working toward that goal, and we look forward to exciting achievements that this budget will help us reach.

“NASA teams continue to do amazing work to develop and launch our missions and increase this nation’s technical capabilities across the board. America needs NASA more than ever, and the agency’s work every single day is vitally important.

“While more detailed budget information will be released in May, we have received a top line budget number for the agency as part of an overall government budget rollout of more than $19 billion. This is in line with our funding in recent years, and will enable us to effectively execute our core mission for the nation, even during these times of fiscal constraint.

“While the budget and appropriation process still has a long way to go, this budget enables us to continue our work with industry to enhance government capabilities, send humans deeper into space, continue our innovative aeronautics efforts and explore our universe.

KaiYeves
2017-Mar-16, 06:33 PM
No ARM. So they're not worrying about this kind of apocalyptic event? What do they know that we don't?

If you live in the US, you can call your representatives and ask that they lobby for its reinstatement. It's not a sure thing at all, but it is still good to make one's voice heard.

publiusr
2017-Mar-17, 08:36 PM
Culberson' will fuss about the Europa lander omission--so I expect it to return.

marsbug
2017-Mar-18, 03:30 PM
In general this does seem to be in line with what I expected from Mr Trump - space as PR/political tool to show that he's making America ´great' again, rather than focus science, exploration. Correct me if I'm proveably wrong, but that´s what it seems his interest is to me. If I may offer my personal opinion, which I will add no further political commentary on... it seems to be the product of a very immature and ill informed view, and is something of a waste.

PetersCreek
2017-Mar-18, 04:04 PM
If I may offer my personal opinion, which I will add no further political commentary on...

You had already crossed the line before writing this. Please stay within bounds.

Cougar
2017-Mar-18, 11:19 PM
NYT had this today. Sorry if this is repeating:



"The administration [budget] proposal spares some programs (after discussing huge cuts to NIH and others). It would continue development of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s current generation of weather satellites, for example. NASA’s budget would be cut only slightly, by less than 1 percent, but the White House is proposing a shift in where the money would be spent — eliminating four earth science missions and the $115 million the agency is spending on education."



This does not sound good for CosmoQuest itself, whose "Origins" story includes the following funding connection....



"Massive cuts to NASA EPO funding and to planetary science have lead to budget cuts at CosmoQuest."



Thankfully, the president's budget is not something that is simply adopted. AFAIK, it is subjected to some serious haggling, lobbying, and horse-trading, and typically ends up a significantly different budget than originally proposed. We can only hope that the funding for NASA's education programs is retained. And perhaps we can also lobby to that end. I doubt it would take much more than signing up the president on one of our citizen science projects. :D

It's certainly tricky to skirt "the political" here, but it sounds like the administration's budget could have some serious consequences for CosmoQuest, doesn't it? Seems like we ought to be able to talk about that here.

selvaarchi
2017-Mar-19, 03:46 AM
Editorial in the Orlando Sentinel is disappointed with the budget. Expectations were much higher.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-trump-space-exploration-20170315-story.html

" When President Trump unveiled the outline of his first federal budget proposal this past week, many analysts described it as a mixed bag for America’s space program. We’d call it a missed opportunity.

There’s bad news and good news for space. While Trump proposed cutting $200 million, or about 1 percent, from NASA’s $19.3 billion budget this year, the space agency would fare much better than other non-defense agencies; the EPA, for example, is the target of a proposed 31 percent cut. The president called for canceling NASA’s mission to send astronauts to an asteroid, but preserving funding to develop the agency’s next rocket and crew vehicle. He advocated a deep cut in NASA’s Earth science programs, but maintained support for a robotic mission to Jupiter’s moon Europa."

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

publiusr
2017-Mar-24, 09:28 PM
SLS isn't going anywhere. Musk isn't happy--but I think it might be cheaper for him to develop payloads for SLS rather than ITS designs--if better composite tanks don't come along.

selvaarchi
2017-Apr-20, 03:37 PM
NASA has completed the study of adding crew to EM-1 but it will not be released to the public.

http://www.spacepolicyonline.com/news/nasas-study-of-adding-crew-to-em-1-is-completed-awaiting-response


NASA Acting Chief Scientist Gale Allen said today that the agency's feasibility study of adding a crew to the first launch of the Space Launch System (SLS) and Orion has been completed and briefed to agency and White House officials.* The report is not public, she added, and the agency is now waiting for a "go forward" plan.** She also said that NASA is expecting a flat budget for the next 5 years, not even including adjustments for inflation, which will reduce its buying power by $3.4 billion over that time period.

Launch window
2017-Apr-25, 07:45 AM
Trump Wants To Get Humans To Mars ASAP
http://www.newsy.com/stories/trump-wants-humans-to-reach-mars-during-his-presidency/
President Trump called the ISS to congratulate Peggy Whitson on her record time in space, but the subject quickly turned to Mars.

selvaarchi
2017-Apr-25, 10:48 AM
Trump Wants To Get Humans To Mars ASAP
http://www.newsy.com/stories/trump-wants-humans-to-reach-mars-during-his-presidency/
President Trump called the ISS to congratulate Peggy Whitson on her record time in space, but the subject quickly turned to Mars.
Should he not concentrate on getting American astronauts to LEO first before looking for other destinations.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

7cscb
2017-Apr-25, 12:50 PM
Should he not concentrate on getting American astronauts to LEO first before looking for other destinations.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Funny way to put it. By my count, American presence in space overshadows others'. The lack of actual craft will turn out to be a blip as they will likely have a relative plethora of options of how to get a ride there. I think going to Mars is silly. But I also think the Americans are better positioned to get there than anybody else.

YMMV

selvaarchi
2017-Apr-25, 01:04 PM
Funny way to put it. By my count, American presence in space overshadows others'. The lack of actual craft will turn out to be a blip as they will likely have a relative plethora of options of how to get a ride there. I think going to Mars is silly. But I also think the Americans are better positioned to get there than anybody else.

YMMV
That America is better positioned than other countries to get to Mars, I do not dispute. It is the time frame to achieve it.

Boeing and SpaceX have to go through a strict certification process before they can send astronauts to LEO. I may be mistaken but I have not read of Orion going through a similar process.

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

selvaarchi
2017-Apr-27, 08:46 AM
Astrophysicist Jack Burns, a member of President Trump's NASA transition team, talks about their plans for NASA.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a26025/nasa-future-jack-burns-moon-mars-sls-orion/

"If you feel like NASA's been in limbo lately, you're not alone.

"NASA has been kind of stuck for much of the last decade," says Jack Burns, who serves as a member of President Trump's NASA transition team. "After the shuttle stopped flying, people were even confused as to whether NASA existed any longer—I mean it was that bad."

On a recent visit to the University of Colorado at Boulder where Burns teaches and works, Popular Mechanics sat down with the astrophysics professor to learn a little about what we can expect from NASA in the coming years. Up first: flying people to space again. American astronauts haven't flown to orbit on an American launch vehicle since the last Space Shuttle flight in July 2011. Since then, NASA astronauts have been hitching rides on the Russian Soyuz rocket, and the U.S. has been paying for the privilege. The new NASA wants to change that."

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

selvaarchi
2017-Apr-27, 03:21 PM
A summary of the meeting between members of the privates space industry and US senators.

https://www.wmfe.org/private-aerospace-leaders-meet-with-senate-to-streamline-space-exploration/72704

"With the president hoping to get to Mars by his second term, US Senators met with members of the private space industry to figure out how to get there. Senator Ted Cruz invited private space leaders to talk about the way the government works with commercial aerospace companies.

At the hearing, leaders from Bigelow Aerospace and Blue Origin asked for a better way to license rocket launches and operate space stations. Blue Origin President Rob Meyerson stressed that space exploration is a collaborative effort, and hopes to work with NASA to create a base on the moon."

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

BigDon
2017-Apr-29, 07:21 PM
You folks do realize the purpose of the budget cuts, in general, are to lower the overall tax rate and expand the middle class, right?

A large, tax paying, middle class is what got the United States to the Moon in the first place.

publiusr
2017-Apr-30, 08:35 PM
And thereby hangs a tale. I like Sam Brownback. He was nice to Robert Zubrin. But the fact is--he broke Kansas
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/the-republican-blowback-against-sam-brownback-kansas/517641/

NASA has been cut too much over the years..Now--I'm big on the idea of dual use. Ares V was to launch a very wide radio telescope dish. Some in the military wanted Space Based Radar--as opposed to the X-band ship the Navy has had problems with. Missile defense is looked at.

A savings to taxpayers--as non-politically as I can put this--would be to find dual use. We got some mirrors from NRO--and one will fly for science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_National_Reconnaissance_Office_space_telescop e_donation_to_NASA

So what I want is to see is more dual use mil-space spending. This way space and DoD won't be at odds come acquisition--but hand in hand. I know--this all sounds like the "purple" armed services talk.

Swift
2017-May-01, 12:32 PM
You folks do realize the purpose of the budget cuts, in general, are to lower the overall tax rate and expand the middle class, right?

A large, tax paying, middle class is what got the United States to the Moon in the first place.
Please don't go there. The words "... to the Moon" do not cover for an otherwise disallowed post.


And thereby hangs a tale. I like Sam Brownback. He was nice to Robert Zubrin. But the fact is--he broke Kansas
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/02/the-republican-blowback-against-sam-brownback-kansas/517641/

And that one doesn't even have a hint of space, unless Kansas is on another planet.

That's it folks. No more warnings. Next post that is even slightly outside of our allowed exceptions to the no-politics rule gets an infraction.

Launch window
2017-May-08, 07:42 PM
some news, NASA opinion articles

NASA receives more than $19.6 billion in 2017 omnibus spending bill


The omnibus spending bill, released by congressional appropriators after extended negotiations, provides more money overall for the agency than earlier House and Senate bills, including significant increases for exploration programs and planetary science. It also funds programs that the Trump administration seeks to cancel or restructure in its 2018 budget proposal.

The $19.653 billion NASA receives in the bill is $628 million above the original request for the agency in the Obama administration’s final budget request in February 2016. It is $368 million above the $19.285 billion NASA received in fiscal year 2016.

The biggest winner in the spending bill is NASA’s exploration program, which gets $4.32 billion, nearly $1 billion more than the original request but similar to what the House and Senate offered in their bills last year. That total includes $2.15 billion for the Space Launch System and $1.35 billion for Orion.

The report accompanying the spending bill allows NASA to use exploration funding to support technologies such as advanced proposal, asteroid deflection and grappling systems intended for use on the Asteroid Redirect Mission (ARM), provided they “not distract from the overarching goal of sending humans to Mars.” The Trump administration’s fiscal year 2018 budget blueprint, released March 16, announced plans to cancel ARM.

Science programs will receive $5.76 billion in the spending bill, above both the requested $5.6 billion and lower levels in the House and Senate bills. Planetary science wins a large increase, to nearly $1.85 billion, well above the 2017 request of $1.52 billion and the $1.63 billion it received in 2016. That total includes $408 million for the Mars 2020 rover mission, including language directing NASA to add a small helicopter technology demonstration to the mission as long as it does not delay the mission’s launch.

That planetary science funding also includes $275 million for Europa missions, both the Europa Clipper multiple flyby spacecraft and a proposed lander. Language in the bill requires NASA to launch Europa Clipper no later than 2022 and the lander no later than 2024, although NASA officials have recently said they don’t expect the lander mission to be ready for launch until at least 2025. The Trump administration’s 2018 budget blueprint supported Europa Clipper but included no funding for a Europa lander.

NASA’s Earth science program, the subject of potential cuts, received $1.92 billion, the same as it received in 2016 but less than the $2.03 billion sought by the Obama administration. That funding includes $90 million for Pre-Aerosol, Clouds, and Ocean Ecosystem, or PACE, mission, which the Trump administration targeted for cancellation in its 2018 budget blueprint.

NASA’s space technology program receives $686.5 million in the bill, the same as it received in 2016 but less than $826.7 million requested by the Obama administration. Of that, $130 million is set aside for the Restore-L satellite servicing project, which the Trump administration said in its 2018 budget blueprint that it seeks to restructure, calling it “duplicative.”


http://spacenews.com/nasa-receives-more-than-19-6-billion-in-2017-omnibus-spending-bill/

Here Is the Trump Transition Team's Big Plan for NASA

Popular Mechanics met with astrophysicist Jack Burns, a member of President Trump's NASA transition team, to learn a little about what we can expect from the agency moving forward.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/moon-mars/a26025/nasa-future-jack-burns-moon-mars-sls-orion/
If you feel like NASA's been in limbo lately, you're not alone.

"NASA has been kind of stuck for much of the last decade," says Jack Burns, who serves as a member of President Trump's NASA transition team. "After the shuttle stopped flying, people were even confused as to whether NASA existed any longer—I mean it was that bad."

On a recent visit to the University of Colorado at Boulder where Burns teaches and works, Popular Mechanics sat down with the astrophysics professor to learn a little about what we can expect from NASA in the coming years.




Science wins reprieve in US budget deal
http://www.nature.com/news/science-wins-reprieve-in-us-budget-deal-1.21835




Trump to NASA Astronauts: ‘Who’s Ready to Go to Mars?’
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/white-house/trump-nasa-astronauts-who-s-ready-go-mars-n750136


The president spoke with Commander Peggy Whitson and Flight Engineer Jack Fischer aboard the International Space Station as Whitson celebrated setting the record for the most time spent in space of any American.
....
Always concerned with being ahead of schedule, Trump riffed "We want to try and do it during my first term, or at worst during my second term, so we'll have to speed that up a little bit, OK?"

"We'll do our best," Whitson replied with a laugh.
http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2017/fy2017-planetary-science-just-got-its-best-budget-in-years.html
NASA received $19.65 billion—its best budget since 2010—and the Planetary Science Division saw its budget increase to $1.846 billion—its best budget in more than ten years.

Needless to say, we are very pleased with this. It represents an increase of $215 million to planetary science above 2016, and is $345 million more than the President originally proposed for this year. When adjusting for inflation and programmatic consistency, this is the best budget for NASA's Planetary Science Division since 2005.

publiusr
2017-May-12, 09:29 PM
Needless to say, we are very pleased with this. It represents an increase of $215 million to planetary science above 2016, and is $345 million more than the President originally proposed for this year. When adjusting for inflation and programmatic consistency, this is the best budget for NASA's Planetary Science Division since 2005.

We need more good news like this.

selvaarchi
2017-May-12, 11:36 PM
The thread started with a wish by the president of the USA to put US astronauts on a trip around the moon on the 1st flight of SLS next year.

Now the study by NASA to look at the feasibility has recommended aginst the idea. In the mean time too the 1st flight of SLS has slipped by a year.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-05-12/nasa-rejects-idea-of-humans-on-first-flight-of-new-rocket

"NASA won’t fly humans on its first launch of the Space Launch System, the largest rocket in the agency’s history. While technically possible, the effort would have required as much as $900 million in new funding and pushed the first flight’s schedule to as late as June 2020, NASA officials said Friday."

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

Glom
2017-May-15, 07:01 AM
That's a relief. Space stunts to make the administration look good was the trap the Soviets fell into. The Americans not doing that was how they won the Space Race. Tortoise and hare and all that.

selvaarchi
2017-May-24, 04:29 AM
Trump's 2018 NASA budget is out. It is slightly smaller than this year's budget.

The Planetary Society has a break down of it.

Unless there is a significant increase in 2019 onwards I do not see NASA attempting a moon landing in Trump's 1st term or even the 2nd term.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2017/20170523-nasa-full-2018-budget-request.html

"President Trump's full 2018 budget request was released this morning. Unlike the 62-page "skinny" budget preview released in March, this is the full proposal that will go to Congress. In the coming months, both the House and Senate will debate various aspects of the budget before voting on a final version, which will return to the president's desk for a final signature.

Expect a contentious battle over everything from education funding to a proposed southern border wall, with the possibility of a government shutdown on the table."

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

publiusr
2017-May-26, 09:38 PM
The in-fighting is what I dread. Louder calls to kill each other's programs.

selvaarchi
2017-Jun-19, 11:20 AM
The Washington Times gives an optimistic outlook to President Trump's space policy.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/

"Bill Gates first noticed parallels between President John F. Kennedy and President-elect Donald Trump after speaking with the newly electd president: “But in the same way President Kennedy talked about the space mission and got the country behind that, there can be a very upbeat message that [Trump‘s] administration [is] going to organize things, get rid of regulatory barriers, and have American leadership through innovation.”

Indeed, there may be more to Mr. Gates’ JFK-space reference than just a metaphor."

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

swampyankee
2017-Jun-19, 12:52 PM
You folks do realize the purpose of the budget cuts, in general, are to lower the overall tax rate and expand the middle class, right?

A large, tax paying, middle class is what got the United States to the Moon in the first place.

Except the net effect of the cuts has not been that.

Swift
2017-Jun-19, 05:02 PM
Except the net effect of the cuts has not been that.
I'll repeat what I said when Big Don posted that originally.

Please don't go there. The words "... to the Moon" do not cover for an otherwise disallowed post.

I really mean it. That's it; nothing further from anyone.

BigDon
2017-Jun-19, 05:30 PM
It's so nice hearing about something optimistic. Thank you Selvaarchi.

The article is gone already I fear.

selvaarchi
2017-Jun-19, 09:52 PM
It's so nice hearing about something optimistic. Thank you Selvaarchi.

The article is gone already I fear.
Try searching Google with "Trump, the new JFK in space"

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

selvaarchi
2017-Jul-01, 08:12 AM
President Trump has signed the executive order to reactivate the National Space Council. Hopefully we will get some clarity on the US space direction now.

https://www.geekwire.com/2017/president-trump-signs-executive-order-reactivate-national-space-council/

"After months of foreshadowing, President Donald Trump today signed an executive order to revive the National Space Council, a move that’s likely to open the way for space policy changes that have been largely put on hold during the White House transition.

The order was signed at a White House ceremony on the eve of a long Fourth of July weekend. Among those in attendance: members of Congress, Boeing’s Dennis Muilenburg and other aerospace executives, and astronauts including Apollo 11 moonwalker Buzz Aldrin."


Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

selvaarchi
2017-Sep-02, 10:30 AM
President Trump's is slowly moving to get the this administration's space space policy jigsaw in place. The National Space Council has been reactivated and now we have a head for NASA.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Trump_names_former_Navy_aviator_to_head_NASA_999.h tml


US President Donald Trump announced Friday he plans to appoint James Bridenstine, a former navy pilot and Republican congressman, to head the US space agency NASA.

Bridenstine, 42, who backed Trump during the US presidential campaign, had long been considered the favorite for the job of NASA administrator.

ZappBrannigan
2017-Sep-04, 07:34 PM
The founder of this blog is not happy with the choice for NASA administrator.


But where this really goes wrong is Bridenstine’s very loud and strident denial of climate science.
Since he’s a Republican from Oklahoma, this perhaps isn’t surprising, but the breadth and depth of his denial is cause for great concern. He was elected to Congress in late 2012, and immediately launched into climate science denial grandstanding.


http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/trump-to-nominate-climate-science-denier-rep-jim-bridenstine-as-nasas-chief

selvaarchi
2017-Oct-06, 12:55 AM
National Space Council has met and the moon is our 1st destination:D

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/05/science/national-space-council-moon-pence.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fs cience&_r=0


Standing before the space shuttle Discovery in a voluminous hangar outside of Washington, Vice President Mike Pence announced on Thursday a renewed focus on putting Americans in space and making a return to the moon.

“We will return American astronauts to the moon, not only to leave behind footprints and flags, but to build the foundation we need to send Americans to Mars and beyond,” Mr. Pence said during a meeting of the National Space Council.

selvaarchi
2017-Oct-06, 10:44 AM
The Planetary Society analysis the 1st meeting of the National Space Council.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2017/20171005-pence-chooses-moon.html


With the retired space shuttle Discovery looking over his shoulder, Vice President Mike Pence kicked off the first meeting of the newly reconstituted National Space Council today by declaring Americans will return to the Moon. He also said Americans will establish a commercial presence in low-Earth orbit, and use the Moon as a training ground to prepare for missions to Mars.

The highly anticipated meeting took place at the Smithsonian's Udvar-Hazy Center outside Washington, D.C. The National Space Council is an advisory group tasked with streamlining and coordinating national space policy for civil, military and industry space programs. Its members include the leaders of multiple government agencies, including the Departments of State, Defense, Commerce, and NASA.

The event helped clarify some of the Trump administration's space policy intentions, but there are many details yet to be addressed. Space council members have 45 days to submit responses on today's meeting, and the real indicator of what happens next will come from next year's NASA budget request.

In short, there are many questions, and we'll need answers before we can truly understand this new policy. In the meantime, here are our initial reactions and analysis.

selvaarchi
2017-Oct-08, 12:09 PM
Here is the White House on the National Space Council meeting.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2017/10/05/moon-and-beyond


On Thursday, Vice President Mike Pence visited the National Air and Space Museum in Chantilly, Virginia. The purpose of the meeting at Steven F. Udvar-Hazy Center was to convene the National Space Council for the first time in 25 years. The Vice President, who served on the NASA subcommittee in his first year in Congress, will chair the new council. “[I]t is my great honor -- in fact, it’s very humbling for me -- to have the opportunity to serve as its chair at the first meeting in nearly a quarter-century,” the Vice President stated.

selvaarchi
2017-Oct-08, 12:58 PM
There are lots of article on the US's new direction in space. Here is yet another one.

I agree with the view that is to early as so far there is no other details other then the decision we will go to the surface of the moon and build a base. Till more details is flashed out how it is to be done and how will it be financed. How commercial companies will will fit in. We will just have and see how it crystallizes.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/10/nasa-moon-mars/542340/


The vice president’s comments marked a pivot from Barack Obama’s directive for a “Journey to Mars,” established in 2010, and harkens to the aspirations set forth by the George W. Bush administration. The Obama administration had maintained that some kind of human activity in cislunar space—the region between the Earth and the moon—was necessary to test technology for a mission to Mars, but the efforts would amount to a pit stop, not a destination. While Pence did not provide details on what kind of “foundation” Americans would build on the moon, the new direction was clear: Americans should be spending more time in their cosmic backyard before flying off into the solar system.

“It’s a 180-degree shift from no moon to moon first,” said John Logsdon, a space-policy expert and former director of the Space-Policy Institute at George Washington University.

The announcement is obviously good news for space-transportation companies and lunar researchers lamenting the country’s 45-year absence from the moon. For those in the Mars camp, many of whom aim for a human mission to the planet by 2033, the news puts their ambitions on shakier ground.

01101001
2017-Nov-07, 01:01 AM
Trump space adviser: Blue Origin and SpaceX rockets aren’t really commercial (https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/11/trump-space-adviser-blue-origin-and-spacex-rockets-arent-really-commercial/)


"Heavy-lift rockets are strategic national assets, like aircraft carriers," [Scott] Pace said. "There are some people who have talked about buying heavy-lift as a service as opposed to owning and operating, in which case the government would, of course, have to continue to own the intellectual properties so it wasn't hostage to any one contractor. One could imagine this but, in general, building a heavy-lift rocket is no more 'commercial' than building an aircraft carrier with private contractors would be."

Scientific American: Q&A: Plotting U.S. Space Policy with White House Adviser Scott Pace (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/q-a-plotting-u-s-space-policy-with-white-house-adviser-scott-pace/)

selvaarchi
2017-Dec-12, 12:04 AM
It is official. Trump has announced the they are going back to the moon.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/trump-astronauts-moon/index.html


President Donald Trump wants to send astronauts where no man has gone before.

Trump authorized the acting NASA administrator Robert M. Lightfoot Jr. to "lead an innovative space exploration program to send American astronauts back to the moon, and eventually Mars" during a White House signing ceremony.

Standing with retired astronauts and Vice President Mike Pence, Trump touted the initiative as the first step in establishing a foundation on the moon for "an eventual mission to Mars and perhaps someday to many worlds beyond."

"The directive I am signing today will refocus America's space program on human exploration and discovery," Trump said. "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 plan on flag and leave our footprint."

slang
2017-Dec-12, 12:34 AM
They? I know I've got my preference about whom to send first.

Trebuchet
2017-Dec-12, 12:55 AM
It is official. Trump has announced the they are going back to the moon.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/12/11/politics/trump-astronauts-moon/index.html

Hasn't that always been an objective of SLS?

selvaarchi
2017-Dec-12, 01:45 AM
Hasn't that always been an objective of SLS?No near the moon and anywhere else [emoji4]

Sent from my SM-G900F using Tapatalk

KaiYeves
2017-Dec-12, 03:29 AM
They? I know I've got my preference about whom to send first.

Ooooh, ooooh, but for the uncrewed test flight without a heat shield, can we fill the capsule with final exams and term papers?

/it's that time of the semester and I'm losing my mind

Launch window
2017-Dec-18, 08:49 AM
Trump signs policy directing NASA to send humans to the Moon
http://www.spacetoday.net/Summary/6877
President Trump signed a policy directive Monday to send humans back to the Moon, but offered no additional details about that plan. In a brief White House ceremony, Trump signed Space Policy Directive 1, which directs NASA to return humans to the Moon as a step towards later missions to Mars.

some articles from Jeff Foust who used to post regular in the spacepolitics blog

A bridge to Venus
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3389/1
by Jeff Foust

NASA planning to purchase Earth science data from commercial smallsat systems
http://spacenews.com/nasa-planning-to-purchase-earth-science-data-from-commercial-smallsat-systems/
by Jeff Foust

selvaarchi
2017-Dec-22, 01:24 PM
With the new trust for NASA to focus on the moon, could NASA outsource it?

http://thehill.com/opinion/technology/365918-why-nasa-might-outsource-the-return-to-the-moon


With all of this private sector activity directed at the moon, the question arises, what if NASA were to outsource the return to the moon?



A big argument for outsourcing lunar exploration came recently in the form of a study conducted by Edgar Zapata at the Kennedy Space Center of NASA’s current commercial space partnerships, the Commercial Orbital Transportation Systems (COTS) program, and the Commercial Crew program. The conclusion of the study is that NASA has saved hundreds of millions of dollars by going to COTS rather than using the space shuttle to carry cargo to and from the International Space Station. Those savings are going to increase once the Commercial Crew spacecraft, the SpaceX Dragon, and the Boeing Starliner become operational in about a year.

The current plan of the Trump administration is to focus NASA’s efforts on a return to the moon before embarking on sending people to Mars. The effort has a lot of arguments in favor of it, economic, political and scientific. However, going back to the moon is bound to be expensive. Considering that NASA saved and will save a lot of money by going commercial for transportation between Earth and Earth orbit, the case for a similar arrangement for going back to the moon is compelling.

The idea would be for NASA and whichever international partners would care to join in a return to the moon effort to create what might be called the "commercial lunar program." The CL program would be divided into three parts, cargo to the moon, people to the moon, and then, finally, a lunar base.

selvaarchi
2018-Jan-04, 01:16 PM
Astronauts think Trump's plan to go back to the moon will take time.

https://www.voanews.com/a/astronauts-moon-mission-take-time/4191680.html


American astronauts aboard the International Space Station told VOA on Wednesday that their excitement about recently announced plans to restore U.S. manned space missions to lunar orbit was eclipsed only by their skepticism about the logistical feasibility of completing the mission within six years.

“Going back to the moon is a bigger project than a lot of people think,” said Expedition 54 Flight Engineer Scott Tingle, who joined fellow NASA astronaut Mark Vande Hei at the ISS on December 19.

selvaarchi
2018-Jan-16, 11:15 AM
The latest issue of The Space Review carries an article the says NASA can not expect an increase in their budget. So if Trump wants to return to the moon during his presidency then they will have to put the current major developments (SLS, Orion capsule and deep space habitat) on the back burner and concentrate all the resources on the moon mission.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3407/1


In September 2009, the Augustine Committee issued its report reviewing the United States human spaceflight plans. The main finding of this report was that NASA had too much on its plate. In 2009 NASA had the Constellation program, whose primary goal was to return humans to the Moon by 2020. However, the funding to carry out this program was woefully inadequate.

What was true then is more so today. NASA has been actively pursuing three programs for human spaceflight beyond low Earth orbit: the Space Launch System (SLS), the Orion spacecraft, and, more recently, the Deep Space Gateway. But progress on these three programs has been slow in large part due to inadequate funding.

selvaarchi
2018-Jan-25, 08:56 AM
There are reports circulating that The Trump administration wants to end NASA funding for the ISS in 2025.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/24/16930154/nasa-international-space-station-president-trump-budget-request-2025


The Trump administration is preparing to end support for the International Space Station program by 2025, according to a draft budget proposal reviewed by The Verge. Without the ISS, American astronauts could be grounded on Earth for years with no destination in space until NASA develops new vehicles for its deep space travel plans.

The draft may change before an official budget request is released on February 12th. However, two people familiar with the matter have confirmed to The Verge that the directive will be in the final proposal. We reached out to NASA for comment, but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

selvaarchi
2018-Jan-30, 08:32 AM
There are reports circulating that The Trump administration wants to end NASA funding for the ISS in 2025.

https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/24/16930154/nasa-international-space-station-president-trump-budget-request-2025

A 2 minute video of Biglow offering to step in with his unit if that is to happen.


The race to space is heating up for commercial businesses, including one right here in the Valley. This comes after news broke that NASA may be forced to stop funding the International Space System by 2025.

At Bigelow Aerospace, crews are hard at work, creating technology that’s out of this world.

“There is no handbook that explains how to operate a commercial space station,” Bigelow VP of Corporate Strategy Blair Bigelow said. “This is something that only the government has been doing.”

In 2016, Bigelow partnered with NASA to launch a prototype called BEAM, which stands for Bigelow Expandable Activity Module.

And so far, it’s been a success.

“It was awarded a mission extension and it’s now a more operational part of the ISS,” Bigelow said. “It’s been used as a mini-warehouse of sorts.”

But folks at Bigelow have even bigger plans. This is just a scale of their latest project: B-330, set to launch in 2021, just four years before the possible defunding of the ISS.

“Abandonment of the ISS without a commercial alternative would be absolutely foolish,” Bigelow said.

So Bigelow has sent a proposal to NASA, saying the B-330 could save taxpayer money.

Cougar
2018-Jan-30, 01:57 PM
Will NASA or space exploration receive a single word of mention during his state of the union speech tonight?

schlaugh
2018-Jan-31, 03:40 AM
Will NASA or space exploration receive a single word of mention during his state of the union speech tonight?

Apparently not. No mention of space or NASA in the transcript:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/2018-state-of-the-union-address-trump-transcript-full-text/

selvaarchi
2018-Feb-13, 10:31 AM
Three major takeaways from NASA's 2018 budget for me were -
1) Trump administration wants to cancel Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST).
2) No more extension beyond 2024 for ISS unless comercial companies take it over.
3) This surprised me most. Nothing substantial towards a return to the moon by NASA.

Here are two articles on the subject-

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-davis/2018/20180212-wh-proposed-19-budget.html


Happy NASA budget release day! The White House released its fiscal year 2019 budget request this morning, and it proposes more than $19.9 billion for NASA.

Congress has yet to fund NASA in 2018, so the agency has spent this fiscal year operating on 2017-adjacent numbers, under a series of continuing budget resolutions (and two government shutdowns).

I had planned to first post the raw 2019 numbers in one of our handy, mobile-friendly tables before settling in to write a more in-depth look at the details. But NASA still hasn’t released the full budget document, and there are several structural changes to the way the line items for 2019 are presented.

Complicating matters further is that after the budget was complete, Congress raised government spending caps, and the Office of Management and Budget proposed to give NASA another $300 million. Most of that would go to human spaceflight.

http://spacenews.com/nasa-budget-proposal-seeks-to-cancel-wfirst/


The Trump administration is offering $19.9 billion for NASA in its fiscal year 2019 request, while seeking to cancel a flagship astronomy mission and end NASA funding of the International Space Station in 2025.

A key cut included in the proposal, released Feb. 12, is cancelling the Wide-Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST), the agency’s next flagship astrophysics mission after the James Webb Space Telescope. NASA had been in the midst of revising the mission’s design to lower its costs from an estimated $3.9 billion to $3.2 billion.

“Development of the WFIRST space telescope would have required a significant funding increase in 2019 and future years, with a total cost of more than $3 billion,” the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stated in a document outlining planned cuts across the overall federal budget proposal. “Given competing priorities at NASA, and budget constraints, developing another large space telescope immediately after completing the $8.8 billion James Webb Space Telescope is not a priority for the Administration.”

Zartan
2018-Feb-13, 01:00 PM
The latest issue of The Space Review carries an article the says NASA can not expect an increase in their budget. So if Trump wants to return to the moon during his presidency then they will have to put the current major developments (SLS, Orion capsule and deep space habitat) on the back burner and concentrate all the resources on the moon mission.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3407/1

Ummm...don't they need SLS and Orion for the Moon mission??
Also, the idea that BFR will have "cost per launch 1/100 of SLS" tells that writer has poor grasp of reality.

selvaarchi
2018-Feb-13, 02:24 PM
Ummm...don't they need SLS and Orion for the Moon mission??
Also, the idea that BFR will have "cost per launch 1/100 of SLS" tells that writer has poor grasp of reality.

True but I expected to see more allocation for moon missions(R&D). As it stands, China will be more active then the US with moon missions for the next few years.

selvaarchi
2018-Feb-15, 01:30 PM
American express alam at the proposed cancellation of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST).

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Astronomers_Concerned_with_Proposed_Cancellation_o f_Space_Telescope_999.html


Sharing alarm voiced by other scientists, leaders of the American Astronomical Society (AAS) are expressing grave concern over the administration's proposed cuts to NASA's astrophysics budget and the abrupt cancellation of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST).

"We cannot accept termination of WFIRST, which was the highest-priority space-astronomy mission in the most recent decadal survey," says AAS President-Elect Megan Donahue (Michigan State University). "And the proposed 10% reduction in NASA's astrophysics budget, amounting to nearly $1 billion over the next five years, will cripple US astronomy."

WFIRST, the successor to the 28-year-old Hubble Space Telescope and the forthcoming James Webb Space Telescope, is the top-ranked large space-astronomy mission of New Worlds, New Horizons in Astronomy and Astrophysics, the National Academies' Astro2010 decadal survey, and is an essential component of a balanced space astrophysics portfolio. Cutting NASA's astrophysics budget and canceling WFIRST would leave our nation without a large space telescope to succeed Hubble and Webb.

selvaarchi
2018-Feb-17, 01:21 AM
Another article on the budget.

https://eos.org/articles/five-takeaways-from-trumps-proposed-budget-for-nasa


President Donald Trump has requested $19.9 billion for NASA’s 2019 fiscal year (FY), a $500 million increase from FY 2018’s budget request and $61 million below FY 2017’s funding level. If this budget passes Congress unchanged, experts expect it will signal big changes to NASA’s focus and direction.

Notably, the budget request calls for defunding the International Space Station, cutting a flagship space telescope mission, and sending humans back to the Moon for extensive exploration. The budget also carries over requests from 2018, including canceling several Earth-observing satellites and eliminating NASA’s Office of Education. For a breakdown of the budget request compared to 2017’s spending, see Table 1.

selvaarchi
2018-Feb-21, 06:49 AM
Article in Forbes arguing against the cancellation of WFIRST.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/02/20/cancelling-wfirst-will-permanently-ruin-nasa/#3121c95b57b0


Last week, the White House released their plans for the 2018 fiscal year budget. Across many metrics and departments, it was a bloodbath, gutting about $50 billion from agencies focused on science, health, food, arts, humanities, the environment, and education, among many others. But among the reductions was one murderous stroke to NASA: the elimination its flagship mission of the coming decade, WFIRST. The Wide-Field Infrared Space Telescope was chosen by NASA to be the single most important astrophysics mission of the 2020s, and has been in the early planning stages for nearly 20 years. Countless astronomers and astrophysicists have spend their entire professional lives working to make this mission happen, and teach us things we'll never know, otherwise, about the Universe. Cancelling it is a decision that must be revoked, or NASA will cease to be the leading science and space agency for planet Earth.

Cougar
2018-Feb-21, 03:03 PM
American[s] express ala[r]m at the proposed cancellation of the Wide Field Infrared Survey Telescope (WFIRST).

This is very bad. A chance to investigate dark energy, but instead Trump wants to go to the moon? "Incurious" is the least offensive adjective I can think of to describe this administration's thinking about astronomy and science in general.

KaiYeves
2018-Feb-21, 05:36 PM
This is very bad. A chance to investigate dark energy, but instead Trump wants to go to the moon? "Incurious" is the least offensive adjective I can think of to describe this administration's thinking about astronomy and science in general.

Indeed.

selvaarchi
2018-Feb-22, 10:47 AM
Highlights from the National Space Council’s meeting.

https://www.geekwire.com/2018/national-space-council-hearing-takes-aim-launch-regulations-china/


Space industry deregulation, and the potential perils posed by China’s space program, shared the spotlight at today’s meeting of the National Space Council, presided over by Vice President Mike Pence.

Commercial space ventures and NASA’s vision for deep-space exploration also got shout-outs when members of the council, newly named advisers and other VIPs gathered inside the Space Station Processing Facility at NASA’s Kennedy Space Center in Florida.

“As we continue to push further into our solar system, new businesses and entire enterprises will be built to seize the infinite possibilities before us,” Pence declared. “And there will be no limit to the jobs and prosperity that will be created across this country.”

selvaarchi
2018-Mar-24, 04:09 AM
NASA gets a bigger budget than requested. Now to see if the return journey to the moon takes off.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2018/20180322-fy18-omnibus.html


Update 3/23/18 2:24pm ET: After an initial veto threat, the President signed the bill into law. NASA's funding for fiscal year 2018 is officially wrapped up.

Update 3/23/18 12:39am ET: The Senate votes in favor of the omnibus, 65-32. It now goes to the White House for the President's signature.

Update 3/22/18: The House of Representatives just passed the omnibus, 256-to-167.

Solfe
2018-Mar-25, 12:28 AM
NASA gets a bigger budget than requested. Now to see if the return journey to the moon takes off.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2018/20180322-fy18-omnibus.html

I don't know about the moon, but a program for a Mars sample return got 75 mil. That is cool, but could you do it with that much?

Superluminal
2018-Mar-25, 08:00 AM
I don't know about the moon, but a program for a Mars sample return got 75 mil. That is cool, but could you do it with that much?
For an annual budget just to get the R&D started and the project going. That sounds about right. By the time the sample lands in Utah, and the project ends, I bet it'll be well over a $ billion.

selvaarchi
2018-Apr-21, 03:29 AM
NASA has an Administrator.

https://spacepolicyonline.com/news/bridenstine-confirmed-as-nasa-administrator-on-party-line-vote/


Rep. Jim Bridenstine (R-Oklahoma) was confirmed by the Senate this afternoon to be the next Administrator of NASA. The vote was along party lines: 50-49. Bridenstine is taking over the agency as Robert Lightfoot retires. A career NASA civil servant, Lightfoot has been serving as Acting Administrator since the Trump Administration began in January 2017.

Bridenstine was nominated by President Trump in September 2017, but his nomination was controversial. Like the vote today, he was approved by the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee twice — in November 2017 and January 2018 — on party-line votes. (Under Senate rules, the nomination had to be resubmitted in January at the beginning of the second session of the 115th Congress.)

selvaarchi
2018-May-10, 08:04 AM
Bridenstine confirms the push to the moon and also to Mars.

http://spacenews.com/bridenstine-emphasizes-support-for-moon-and-mars-exploration/


A day after telling one audience that the U.S. was returning to the moon, new NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine reassured another that Mars remained a goal for the agency as well.

Speaking May 9 at the Humans to Mars Summit here, Bridenstine said that NASA’s implementation of national space exploration policy signed by President Trump in December, calling for a human return to the moon, didn’t mean NASA was no longer pursuing eventual human missions to Mars.

“If some of you are concerned that our focus in the coming years is the moon, don’t be,” he said. “The president’s vision has emphasized that our Exploration Campaign will establish American leadership in the human exploration of Mars. We are doing both the moon and Mars, in tandem, and the missions are supportive of each other.”

selvaarchi
2018-May-19, 01:47 PM
"New NASA Chief Bridenstine Says Humans Contribute to Climate Change 'in a Major Way'"!

https://www.space.com/40640-nasa-chief-bridenstine-climate-change.html


In a NASA town hall yesterday (May 17), NASA's new administrator, Jim Bridenstine, said that he knows Earth's climate is changing, and that humans contribute to it "in a major way," also supporting NASA's research into that important area. The statement is significant because Bridenstine has expressed doubt about human-caused climate change in the past, causing some to question his suitability to lead a fact-focused NASA.

In 2013, as an Oklahoma congressman, Bridenstine claimed there was no current trend toward global warming. More recently, such as in his NASA administrator confirmation hearings last November, he has acknowledged that human activity contributes to climate change. But he had stopped short of saying that humans are the phenomenon's primary cause.

selvaarchi
2018-Jun-16, 11:16 AM
NASA is on a roll if we see the 2019 budget.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2018/0615-nasas-2019-budget-takes-shape.html


In a surprising display of timeliness, the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives have both now released their funding bills for NASA in fiscal year 2019. The two bills are broadly consistent in their repudiation of cuts and reorganizations of major NASA programs, support for the Administration's lunar ambitions, and generous top lines for NASA's budget.

However, there are significant differences, and those differences will be the point of negotiations that will now begin between the two committees. It is very likely that there will be no votes on a final bill until November or December, after the election.

Below is a table comparing proposed funding levels of some programs and directorates between last year's final budget, the President's Budget Request, and the House and Senate bills.

selvaarchi
2018-Jun-22, 04:29 AM
Trump now wants the US to dominate space, Moon and Mars - for that he will have to increase the budget and work more closely with the US commercial players.

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Trumps_wants_to_dominate_space_Moon_and_Mars_999.h tml


President Donald Trump boasted Monday of the US commercial space industry's deep wallet and enterprising spirit, and vowed US dominance in exploration of the Moon and Mars, as well as any future space race.

"America will always be the first in space," Trump said during a speech at the White House.

"We don't want China and Russia and other countries leading us. We've always led," he added.

"My administration is reclaiming America's heritage as the world's greatest space-faring nation."

Spacedude
2018-Jun-22, 12:35 PM
"My administration is reclaiming America's heritage as the world's greatest space-faring nation."

Reclaiming?

KaiYeves
2018-Jun-22, 04:09 PM
Dominate?

schlaugh
2018-Jun-22, 05:17 PM
"My administration is reclaiming America's heritage as the world's greatest space-faring nation."

Reclaiming?

Marketing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Nicolas
2018-Jun-23, 08:07 AM
In the sense that there currently is no US manned launch capability, you could speak of reclaiming if you reintroduce that. Which administration(s) if any are responsible for making that happen, is another discussion.

publiusr
2018-Jun-23, 07:44 PM
I support the Space Force.

It has been my opinion that space-related duties have been divvied up across other branches of the military to prevent a repeat of the formation of the USAF--which was the US Army air corp. Worse, the ABMA was dismantled--probably due to USAF pressure.

The way things stand now, space advocates rank beneath the janitor at the Pentagon. With a truly distinct, and separate branch--they can belly up to the acquisitions bar and fight against the blank checks handed out to carrier groupies, the fighter mafia, etc.


One possible duty of the Space Force might be asteroid mitigation.

There seems to be a move away from the nuclear triad, and land based missiles looked to be on the chopping block for awhile. But no SLBM could ever do anything to an asteroid--being too weak and small, compared to the MX Peacekeeper.

What I really want is something like Athena III, but in TAV type silos. There was a spaceplane that was to go atop something like a shuttle SRB but in a big silo--with only the payload above ground level, where it could be swapped out at a moment's notice.
This could be a spaceplane, or perhaps a transient event payload for asteroid intercept.

In this way, if something like 'Oumuamua should ever pass by--you could launch an intercept at a moment's notice--within a day or so. Storable solids with hypergolic fuel payloads allow for vehicles to be on station.

I for one would prefer my tax dollars to go to that--as opposed to the F-35, say. Fighters cannot also help science and NASA. A Space Force actually can.

You have to ask yourself a question. Apart from dropping a few X-15s, which symbol of the Cold War advanced science more?

The B-52? Or the R-7?

Launch window
2018-Jul-01, 09:27 AM
more on ' Space Force '

The leader of NASA stands behind Trump's Space Force
https://www.cnet.com/news/the-leader-of-nasa-stands-behind-trumps-space-force/

Astronaut Mark Kelly blasts Trump's Space Force plan
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/06/20/astronaut-mark-kelly-blasts-trumps-space-force-plan-calls-it-dumb-idea.html

NASA chief backs Trump's Space Force proposal
https://www.engadget.com/2018/06/27/nasa-administrator-backs-trump-space-force-proposal/

Superluminal
2018-Jul-01, 10:10 AM
the ABMA was dismantled--probably due to USAF pressure.
Aviation Boatswain Mates Association?

KaiYeves
2018-Jul-01, 12:46 PM
Aviation Boatswain Mates Association?

Army Ballistic Missile Agency.

selvaarchi
2018-Jul-06, 12:06 PM
While President is pushing for a Space Force (https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/05/trump-ignores-countless-critics-claims-e), China wants to prevent a space arms race.

https://gbtimes.com/china-urges-prevention-of-space-arms-race


A senior Chinese official has called for international efforts to explore effective ways to avoid a possible arms race in space.

Zhang Hanhui, China's assistant foreign minister, made the remarks at the opening of an international symposium jointly held by China, Russia and the United Nations (UN) in Beijing, which ran on Wednesday and Thursday, Xinhua reports.

The symposium mainly discussed current space security situations, threats that may arise from countries stockpiling weapons that could be used above the planet and the forming of new laws.

schlaugh
2018-Jul-06, 01:12 PM
Well that’s ironic since China is the only country known to have deliberately destroyed an orbiting satellite in order to test an anti-satellite system.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test?wprov=sfti1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

KaiYeves
2018-Jul-06, 05:11 PM
Well that’s ironic since China is the only country known to have deliberately destroyed an orbiting satellite in order to test an anti-satellite system.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007_Chinese_anti-satellite_missile_test?wprov=sfti1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Are you sure? The US shot down satellites as tests in 1985 and 2008 (https://www.airspacemag.com/military-aviation/first-space-ace-180968349/).

PetersCreek
2018-Jul-06, 05:24 PM
Thread closed pending moderator discussion.

slang
2018-Jul-08, 08:44 AM
While President is pushing for a Space Force (https://reason.com/blog/2018/07/05/trump-ignores-countless-critics-claims-e), China wants to prevent a space arms race.

https://gbtimes.com/china-urges-prevention-of-space-arms-race

selvaarchi, this post is problematic because it violates our "no-politics except [...] rule". Rule 12 states:


However, the following exceptions apply:

A) Political impact upon space programs, exploration, and science.

This isn't really about impact on space programs, it is primarily about international and military politics that happen to include space. That's not what the exceptions in rule 12 were intended for. Aside from the topic in general, your first line is a fine example of the kind of political flame-bait we do not want. Infraction issued, please don't post such opinion articles on pure political (national or international) again. And in case of doubt if something is acceptable, please ask a mod first.

Thread reopened. Remember that the sidetrack on ASAT weaponry is, in this particular context, also unwanted.

selvaarchi
2018-Jul-27, 12:18 PM
Bridenstine express his views on US space future.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2018-07-27/nasa-s-jim-bridenstine-on-why-america-s-going-to-the-moon-forever


The vision is: NASA does things that nobody else can or will do. So if there’s a robust commercial space industry in low Earth orbit, then NASA doesn’t need to be there. We want to be one of many customers in the mature economic domain we’re hoping low Earth orbit will become in a matter of years.

What NASA can do is go further. So we use our resources to go to the moon, and we build an architecture around the moon that includes landers that can get us to the surface, initially with robots and rovers and eventually with humans. And we build a gateway, an outpost around the moon [the Lunar Orbital Platform-Gateway, planned for the 2020s], so that everything is reusable. We want to build an architecture that has NASA’s critical infrastructure, so that our commercial partners can go to the surface of the moon, and our international partners can go to the surface of the moon, and NASA can go to the surface of the moon. We call it the Gateway, but it’s really an outpost that has human habitation capabilities.

publiusr
2018-Aug-03, 09:48 PM
Shades of Medaris' Troop rockets:
https://spacenews.com/space-launch-vehicles-eyed-by-the-military-to-move-supplies-around-the-world/

selvaarchi
2018-Aug-21, 10:49 AM
One important are that the Trump administration has "not given the sort of attention it should".

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3554/1


The main theme of the Trump Administration’s space policy has been to restore American leadership in space. During the campaign, candidate Trump asserted that the United States had lost its leadership role in space, and since coming into office, every Space Policy Directive and announcement has emphasized restoring that leadership. Many of those decisions have continued efforts started during the Obama Administration, and the United States has consistently been a world leader in nearly all areas of space capabilities and activities. However, there is one area of space activity where the US leadership has waned and is not being addressed by the Trump Administration: multilateral diplomacy, particularly on space security issues.

Launch window
2018-Aug-24, 02:50 AM
Nasa reveals plans to use Moon water to help build new space station and head to Mars
https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/nasa-moon-water-discovery-latest-find-space-station-mars-solar-system-a8503111.html

Former Space Shuttle Commander and DARPA Executive Joins SPA Board of Directors
http://spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=52990

The US plan for a Space Force risks escalating a 'space arms race' from theconversation dot com
https://theconversation.com/the-us-plan-for-a-space-force-risks-escalating-a-space-arms-race-101368


Johnson Space Center
"Our administration is working tirelessly to put an American crew aboard the lunar orbital platform before the end of 2024." -VP Pence
https://twitter.com/NASA_Johnson/status/1032693610674679814

selvaarchi
2018-Aug-24, 03:30 PM
Now we have a date when we can expect to see Americans walk the surface of the moon again.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/08/how-the-white-house-plans-a-return-to-the-moon-during-trumps-presidency/


“Our administration is working tirelessly to put an American crew aboard the lunar orbital platform before the end of 2024,” Pence said Thursday to a capacity audience inside Teague Auditorium on the space center campus.

selvaarchi
2019-Jan-20, 01:36 AM
The border wall fight betweeN President Trump and the House of Representatives, is affecting NASA scientist.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2019/0118-miseries-mount-as-shutdown-drags-on.html


Fifty years ago, NASA was triumphant after sending the first humans around the Moon. John F. Kennedy's challenge to land a man on the moon and return him safely to Earth before the decade was within reach. Launches were scheduled every few months. Apollo 9 in March. Apollo 10 in May. Apollo 11 in July. The future seemed limitless.

Today NASA sits idle, the vast majority of its workforce sent home, the victim of the longest partial government shutdown in U.S. history.

The partial government shutdown that shuttered NASA has lurched into its 28th day with no end in sight. The new Democratic majority in the House of Representatives has passed multiple bills to reopen the government, but the Senate Republican majority has refused to consider a single one unless it has the backing of the President. Negotiations are stalled.

While there have been 20 government shutdowns since the 1970s, an unsettling realization has dawned on hundreds of thousands of public employees and contractors: this time is different.

KaiYeves
2019-Jan-20, 06:46 AM
Related: Government Science in the Shutdown (https://forum.cosmoquest.org/showthread.php?171456-Government-scince-in-the-shutdown)

selvaarchi
2019-Mar-15, 11:49 AM
Cuts to the tune of US $0.5 billion in the 2020 budget have been criticised. Most ot it in NASA’s science programs.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-criticized-for-proposed-budget-cuts/


NASA’s fiscal year 2020 budget request is facing scrutiny from nearly all quarters for its proposals to cut science missions and education programs as well as defer work on an upgraded version of the Space Launch System.

The proposal, released March 11, offers $21.02 billion for NASA in 2020, a decrease of about $480 million over what the agency received in 2019 in an appropriations bill signed into law Feb. 15. Those cuts, though, are not distributed equally among the agency’s various directorates.

NASA’s science programs would receive $6.3 billion, a decrease of $600 million from what they received in 2019. That includes a 30 percent cut for NASA astrophysics programs excluding the James Webb Space Telescope, which is funded in a different budget line.

publiusr
2019-Mar-16, 06:29 PM
Tired of space always getting cuts

selvaarchi
2019-Mar-27, 09:36 AM
Rep. Rick Larsen, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on space issues including China.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/03/25/larsen-faa-space-launch-1232526


The space launch industry is poised to grow exponentially in the coming years. That means more work for the Federal Aviation Administration, which licenses each launch and keeps the airspace clear.

Rep. Rick Larsen, a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, questions whether the FAA has enough manpower and technology to handle such a load. The Washington Democrat told POLITICO he’s visiting the FAA’s William J. Hughes Technical Center in New Jersey this week to see for himself what sort of investments the agency is making in the technology that ensures planes and space launches don’t cross paths.

selvaarchi
2019-Mar-27, 01:09 PM
"Vice President Pence said Tuesday that the Trump administration is committed to landing U.S. astronauts on the moon within the next five years."

I do not see any additional budgets to support the proposal. The last time the US did a intensified effort to send humans to the moon, it cost the US government 4% of its GDP per year over 10 years to achieve the target. This time round you could argue the US has developed most of the technology for a moon landing and we have commercial companies willing to join in. with all that my take will still be, it still will require a budget increase several times bigger that today's budget for 2020.

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/435884-pence-us-to-send-astronauts-to-the-moon-within-5-years


"Just as the U.S. was the first nation to reach the moon in the 20th century, so too will we be the first nation to return astronauts to the moon in the 21st century," Pence said at a meeting of the National Space Council in Alabama.

"The first woman and the next man on the moon will both be American astronauts, launched by American rockets from American soil," he added.


While officials have spoken broadly about restoring American leadership in space, Pence's comments on Tuesday mark the administration's most concrete timeline for sending astronauts to the moon.

selvaarchi
2019-Mar-28, 12:11 PM
"NASA's moonshot whiplash"

https://www.axios.com/nasa-whiplash-five-year-moonshot-adafe604-a5da-4455-a196-ab7d25021d5f.html


The Trump administration's new goal of returning astronauts to the surface of the moon by 2024 — five years earlier than planned — is a huge gamble with the prestige of the United States.

Why it matters: If it succeeds, this week could be remembered as the turning point that restored some of the space program's lost glory. But that's a big if, since the rockets and spacecraft are nowhere near ready. And if it fails, it would be a huge embarrassment to the nation that did all of this once before and couldn't do it again on deadline.

Show less
The last American to set foot on the moon's surface was Eugene Cernan in 1972. That was back when America had a clear purpose in space. Now, we're a country in search of a vision.
In setting the five-year timeline, Vice President Mike Pence, who chairs the National Space Council, gave stark instructions to an agency that strives to be both bold and relatively risk-averse: "In order to succeed... we must focus on the mission over the means."

One thing he didn't mention: more money.

Tom Mazanec
2019-Mar-29, 03:08 AM
SpaceX only hope for 2024 Moon landing:
https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2019/03/spacex-only-option-for-human-landing-on-the-moon-by-2024.html

Nicolas
2019-Mar-29, 12:45 PM
I especially like Musk's response to Everyday Astronaut asking him whether he thinks Starship would be ready before 2024:

"I think so. For sure worth giving it our best shot! Would be great to have a competitive, commercial program to build a moon base that is outcome-oriented (not cost-plus), so you only get paid for safe delivery of cargo."

Even though he'd be on the receiving end, he doesn't want cost-plus. Of course, without cost-plus structure, his position against Boeing is even better.

Swift
2019-Mar-29, 12:51 PM
I especially like Musk's response to Everyday Astronaut asking him whether he thinks Starship would be ready before 2024:

"I think so. For sure worth giving it our best shot! Would be great to have a competitive, commercial program to build a moon base that is outcome-oriented (not cost-plus), so you only get paid for safe delivery of cargo."

Even though he'd be on the receiving end, he doesn't want cost-plus. Of course, without cost-plus structure, his position against Boeing is even better.
This is probably a whole separate discussion, but I think commercial space flight is going to have to eventually get to outcome-oriented and not cost-plus pricing, if it is to become a real, commercial concern. The majority of the business world works that way; you are paid for deliverables, not for a set profit above your costs.

Nicolas
2019-Mar-29, 05:10 PM
Certainly. It's just that you'd expect the push to step away from cost-plus would first come from those who pay for it, not from those who receive it. :)

selvaarchi
2019-Apr-27, 04:23 PM
The next post has a bit of everything about US - China relationships in space - more specifically, all the area between earth and the moon from a military and commercial view point.

https://spacenews.com/congressional-panel-looks-at-national-security-implications-of-chinas-space-ambitions/


Are the United States and China inevitably headed to a war in space? That was the central question posed by members of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission at a hearing on Thursday on Capitol Hill.

In testimony, experts provided ample evidence of China’s space ambitions and cited the already well documented achievements of the Chinese space program. But while the professional consensus is that China is a rising space power with a growing arsenal of anti-satellite weapons, a future war in space is not a foregone conclusion, these experts argued.

The commission was created by Congress in 2000 to investigate the national security implications of trade and the economic relationship between the United States and the People’s Republic of China.

publiusr
2019-Apr-30, 09:47 PM
The proposed cut to SLS got me riled up.
https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/11/18259747/nasa-trump-budget-request-fy-2020-sls-block-1b-europa

"The request effectively cancels the development of a more powerful version of the SLS."

Errr.

selvaarchi
2019-May-01, 02:33 PM
ars technica latest issue, pours cold water, on the US new target to have US astronauts on the moon by 2024.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/04/cost-politics-and-bureaucracy-may-doom-plan-for-2024-moon-landing/


It was only a little more than one month ago that Vice President Mike Pence gave NASA a bold new direction—a goal of landing humans back on the Moon by 2024. Be urgent, he told the space agency. Work with purpose. We can, and must, do better as a nation in space, he said.

But in the weeks since Pence's speech in Huntsville, Alabama, the reality of space policy has begun to settle in. For starters, it won't be cheap to return to the Moon. Moreover, elements of NASA's bureaucracy have already begun to resist the accelerated schedule and pressure the White House to hew to existing plans. And politically, the goal may well be a non-starter in a divided Congress.

selvaarchi
2019-May-01, 03:42 PM
NASA have come out with a plan to achieve a 2024 manned landing on the moon. One area where it is short on details is cost of doing it.

https://spacenews.com/nasa-outlines-plan-for-2024-lunar-landing/


While the administration continues to work on a revised budget request for carrying out the new goal of landing humans on the moon in 2024, the technical plan for doing so is starting to take shape.

In a presentation at a joint meeting of the Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board here April 30, Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations, outlined the agency’s current thinking about how it could land people on the moon in 2024, albeit in a minimalistic approach.

“We’re off building that plan, and it fits on paper,” he said. “But I will tell you it is not easy and it is not risk-free.”

selvaarchi
2019-May-04, 02:18 PM
NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine still says that landing on the moon can be done by 2024 with existing technology. He has refused to give a rough estimate of costs but says it would be lees then a budget increase of 8 billion a year.

https://spacenews.com/bridenstine-plays-down-costs-of-2024-moon-landing/


NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine told Senate appropriators May 1 that while the administration is not yet ready to release a revised budget that accommodates an accelerated human lunar landing program, the costs will not be as high as some rumors.

During a hearing of the commerce, justice and science subcommittee of the Senate Appropriations Committee, members sought details about how much it will cost to achieve the goal announced by Vice President Mike Pence March 26 of landing humans on the south pole of the moon in the next five years.

selvaarchi
2019-May-08, 09:51 AM
NASA is start filling thr details on how they are going to do it. Still no details oncost.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3708/1


Some time in 2024, a Space Launch System rocket will lift off from the Kennedy Space Center, carrying an Orion spacecraft. That mission, just the third for the SLS/Orion combination, and only the second with astronauts on board, will send the Orion to the vicinity of the Moon. There, it will dock with a vehicle with the grandiose name Gateway, but consisting of just a power and propulsion module and a docking node. Astronauts will then transfer to a lunar module already docked to the Gateway, and from there head down to the south pole of the Moon, becoming the first astronauts to step on the lunar surface since Gene Cernan and Jack Schmitt in 1972.

That is, at least, the plan that is taking shape at NASA to achieve the new goal, announced nearly six weeks ago by Vice President Mike Pence, of landing humans on the south pole of the Moon within five years (see “Lunar whiplash”, The Space Review, April 1, 2019). While it wasn’t a surprise that Pence sought to accelerate previous NASA plans, whose 2028 date for a human return was criticized for being too slow, few expected Pence to bring forward the deadline by that much. Surely NASA must have a plan for achieving that goal, right?

So the space industry, as well as members of Congress, waited to see that plan, and its corresponding budget. And waited, and waited some more. It wasn’t until last week until NASA started providing some of the details about how it could pull forward a human lunar landing by four years.

“We’re off building that plan,” said Bill Gerstenmaier, NASA associate administrator for human exploration and operations, during a presentation last Tuesday at a joint meeting of the Space Studies Board and Aeronautics and Space Engineering Board of the National Academies. “It fits on paper and it looks like it’s something we can go do, but I will tell you it is not easy and it is and it is not risk-free.”

selvaarchi
2019-May-08, 12:32 PM
Instead of SLS, using rockets reusable rockets, could reduce the cost of going to the moon.

http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3706/1


In the 1960s, President Kennedy successfully challenged us to land an American on the Moon and return him safely to the Earth within a decade. Today, President Trump and Vice President Pence have issued a much greater challenge: do the same in five years, but in a manner that supports “long-term exploration and utilization,” or, in NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine’s words, “this time to stay.”

It is quite a challenge. But, it can be done, and for much less than we spent in the ’60s.

What’s the cause of the paradigm shift in cost? It’s the new availability of reusable rockets costing about five times less, like the whole world witnessed again on April 11 with the successful return of the three Falcon Heavy booster cores. This technology will allow for payloads not before even considered due to their very high costs. It has revolutionized our ability to go to Moon, Mars, and beyond.

Here’s how: The rockets would dock in space, in low Earth orbit, multiple times. To do this there is already a good option that is currently available. Four flights of SpaceX Falcon Heavy, costing about $500–600 million, can take 25 tons to the lunar surface and have enough propellant left over for the journey back of the capsule. Of the four upper stages that would land on the surface, tanks of all but one can be used for future habitats, while one would be used for sending the capsule back to Earth. These tanks left on the surface, after the fuel inside them is expended, are large enough—at 3.5 meters in diameter and 6 to 8 meters in length—for astronauts to live in, walk around, and sleep in comfortably. If inflatable habitats from companies like Bigelow aerospace are placed inside, it would make for a comfortable environment. They could be covered in lunar regolith or placed inside lava tubes to reduce the radiation hazard.

selvaarchi
2019-May-14, 01:49 PM
We now know how much extra money we need this year to land humans on the moon by 2024 - an extra US$1.6B - but no figures for the next 4 years. We also know the mission will be called Artemis, Twin sister of Apollo and "goddess of the moon" in Greek mythology.

https://www.al.com/news/2019/05/nasa-seeks-16b-to-jump-start-new-moon-shot-program-called-artemis.html


NASA leaders said today the White House will seek $1.6 billion in extra funding from Congress this fiscal year to meet its ambitious goal of sending a man and a woman to the Moon’s surface in 2024, a program now officially named "Artemis” for the sister of Apollo, namesake of the original Moon mission program.

selvaarchi
2019-May-14, 02:28 PM
The Planetary Society's verdict on the extra $1.6B - not enough.

http://www.planetary.org/blogs/casey-dreier/2019/the-moon-in-2024-a-crash-program-or-modest-proposal.html


Today's announcement lacked details regarding the long-term cost of the accelerated program. It did not even detail how much additional funding would be required over the next 5 years, which is the standard planning period for NASA programs.

In the weeks leading up to this announcement, I spoke with an experienced aerospace engineer and manager who is intimately familiar with NASA. I asked them, what's a good gut-check budget for landing on the Moon by 2024?

They and I independently estimated that it would require $4 to $5 billion per year for 5 years, or between $20 billion and $25 billion total, to get NASA astronauts to the lunar surface by 2024. Eric Berger at ArsTechnica reported that some internal estimates at NASA were upwards of $40 billion. This supplemental budget, assuming it represents the start of an annual commitment that grows at 1% per year (consistent with NASA's previous budget proposal), suggests that the White House is willing to add a mere $9 billion over 5 years to achieve this accelerated goal. That's not nothing, but a return to the Moon in 2024 it ain't.

publiusr
2019-May-18, 08:12 PM
Instead of SLS, using rockets reusable rockets, could reduce the cost of going to the moon.


That actually may not be the case:
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3678/1

"That alternative approach would likely cost **more** money, (emphasis mine) although Bridenstine didn’t provide an estimate in his testimony. 'There are options to achieve the objective, but it might require some help from the Congress,' he said."
And Bridenstine seems anti-SLS.

Some stumbling blocks to commercial space:

https://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2019/05/nasa-return-moon-with-without-sls/

"The other option is to launch both ICPS and Orion on a single launch. This would avoid the need to develop rendezvous and docking capability, as well as the need for a quick turnaround of Falcon Heavy’s launch pad. NASA LSP estimated that five years to plan the integration of Falcon Heavy, ICPS, Orion, and the LAS would be needed before such a vehicle could come to fruition.... L2 simulations showed that ICPS could get Orion about halfway to the moon from Low Earth Orbit."

Look at the NASASPACEFLIGHT article above to see a comparison shot of the EELV size Falcon Heavy and what a true HLLV looks like.

Some other thoughts from The Space Review
http://www.thespacereview.com/article/3675/1

"When I think this plan can be improved upon, I’ll say so. When commercial launchers are ready to take over for SLS, I’ll say it’s time it should be done."

"We all knew that Ralph Kramden wasn’t ever going to launch his wife Alice to the Moon. He was just expressing his frustration over his issues. Usually, by the end of every episode he said to Alice, 'Baby, you’re the greatest.' The space enthusiasts have often been frustrated with the pace of advancement with human spaceflight. That probably will never completely go away. But if NASA and the international partners pull off this return to the Moon, many of us frustrated enthusiasts will say, NASA you’re the greatest."

selvaarchi
2019-Jun-08, 02:12 AM
Here we go again - now it is back to Mars:confused:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/trump-wants-nasa-to-go-to-mars-not-the-moon-like-he-declared-weeks-ago.html


President Donald Trump on Friday said NASA should focus on going to Mars, not the moon, weeks after he proclaimed his support for a lunar mission.

“NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon,” Trump tweeted. “We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!”

swampyankee
2019-Jun-08, 02:34 AM
Here we go gain - now it is back to Mars:confused:

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/06/07/trump-wants-nasa-to-go-to-mars-not-the-moon-like-he-declared-weeks-ago.html


Moon part of Mars? We’re going to need new textbooks.

schlaugh
2019-Jun-08, 02:42 AM
It's like watching a tennis match - but with only one player.

KaiYeves
2019-Jun-08, 03:27 AM
So many very infractable comments I could make... :whistle:

Noclevername
2019-Jun-08, 10:36 AM
So many very infractable comments I could make... :whistle:

:shhh:

Just think it to yourself, as loudly as you like.

Be a heck of a thing to get in trouble for!

Jens
2019-Jun-08, 11:09 AM
So many very infractable comments I could make... :whistle:

Yes, I’ll refrain from the infractable comments as well. [emoji4]

Noclevername
2019-Jun-08, 11:14 AM
Anyway, back to the tennis game.

...Any clues as to what (or who) that $1.6B would go to?

selvaarchi
2019-Jun-08, 01:19 PM
Anyway, back to the tennis game.

...Any clues as to what (or who) that $1.6B would go to?

Not do, more likely. Trump must have been shown, what the bill will be to land man on the moon by 2024 He then found a way, to pull the plug on the proposal.

Noclevername
2019-Jun-08, 01:28 PM
Not do, more likely. Trump must have been shown, what the bill will be to land man on the moon by 2024 He then found a way, to pull the plug on the proposal.

About the decision making process regarding NASA missions....

...Well, how about that local sports team? :silenced:

KaiYeves
2019-Jun-08, 02:47 PM
About the decision making process regarding NASA missions....

...Well, how about that local sports team? :silenced:

I’m looking forward to watching SailGP in New York (https://sailgp.com/races/new-york/) in a few weeks. I guess Team USA is my “local” team, and they seem to be improving a lot over the course of the season. But personally my favorite is Team Japan.

Spacedude
2019-Jun-08, 05:18 PM
Moon part of Mars? We’re going to need new textbooks.

He may have confused Mars with "Moon being part of Earth", as in Theia (a Mars sized object) colliding with early Earth to form the moon........but I'm not his official translator.

Noclevername
2019-Jun-08, 05:27 PM
They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part)

Maybe interpreting generously, "the bigger things we are doing" means Moon missions in support of ("part" of) a Mars landing? Like, practice?

Jens
2019-Jun-09, 02:20 AM
I sort of agree that in this case it may be a case of poor writing rather than ignorance. It’s hard to imagine that someone could think that the moon is part of Mars...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

schlaugh
2019-Jun-09, 02:55 AM
Maybe interpreting generously, "the bigger things we are doing" means Moon missions in support of ("part" of) a Mars landing? Like, practice?

That would be consistent with this president’s manner of speech.

Nicolas
2019-Jun-11, 09:38 AM
That's how I read it too: the return to the moon is part of the effort in getting people to Mars, not an end goal in itself this time.

Roger E. Moore
2019-Jun-11, 12:26 PM
To borrow a famous movie quote, show me the money.

7cscb
2019-Jun-11, 06:50 PM
Well the Moon being part of Mars made me giggle. I suppose the explanation that the Moon is one step towards Mars is reasonable. I'm still giggling.

Noclevername
2019-Jun-11, 09:49 PM
To borrow a famous movie quote, show me the money.

Yup.

The Space Exploration policy of this admin seems to be no policy, or rather an ever changing array of policies. But none will happen without a committed, reliable budget.

Getting a reliable budget for anything seems to be a difficulty even beyond the norm nowadays.

Squink
2019-Jun-12, 01:52 AM
When is the manned mission to Pluto, which as you know, is part of Mars?

Jens
2019-Jun-12, 01:58 AM
When is the manned mission to Pluto, which as you know, is part of Mars?

Don't be silly. Pluto is a dog, and Mars a candy bar. Dogs and candy bars are completely different.

Trebuchet
2019-Jun-12, 02:46 PM
I keep finding myself surprised at Blue Origin getting NASA contracts, considering the President's opinion of the guy who owns it.

KaiYeves
2019-Jun-12, 02:52 PM
I keep finding myself surprised at Blue Origin getting NASA contracts, considering the President's opinion of the guy who owns it.

Maybe he hasn’t made the connection.

Roger E. Moore
2019-Jun-30, 12:36 AM
Guess this goes here. Major work underway, but still no one dares speak The Price That Must Be Named.

https://phys.org/news/2019-06-nasa-intense-rocket-future-moonshots.html

Roger E. Moore
2019-Jul-04, 08:14 PM
"Reality check" on Orion and Artemis.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/07/heres-a-reality-check-on-nasas-artemis-moon-landing-program/

publiusr
2019-Jul-13, 10:30 PM
They've been hating on SLS over there.

Something they don't like to report.

A Peacekeeper/Orion (modern day Little Joe) tested the Orion abort profile--and it passed.

And Starship' abort motor is....?

Nicolas
2019-Jul-15, 08:05 AM
Where are the passenger parachutes in a 747? SLS/Orion is a "small" capsule launcher, while Starship is an interplanetary vehicle with a 100 pax capacity. You can't expect similar safety solutions applying to both. Its safety features are akin to similar aircraft: it's mostly about redundancy and reliability. It is not realistic to have an escape tower on a crew compartment of that size. Sure it would be nice if it could, but it can't so the risk is minimized in other ways. By the way, you could say that Starship is the launch abort system of the entire earth launch stack as it can separate from the booster if something would go wrong with it.


Oh launch abort, the spacecraft itself is capable of aborting from the booster, the erm… Launch abort on the spaceship itself is kinda pointless, if you’re on Mars you’re taking off or you’re not taking off. You know, parachutes don’t work too well and [you can’t have] some standard abort system, and just how do you abort 100 people it’s just not feasible, the key is to make the spaceship itself extremely safe and reliable, and have redundancy in the engines, high safety margins and have [it be] well tested. Much like a commercial airliner. Like they don’t give you parachutes.