Pence: “America Will Return to the Moon–and Go Beyond”(whitehouse.gov)
whitehouse.gov
Pence: “America Will Return to the Moon–and Go Beyond”
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2017/10/05/vice-president-mike-pence-america-will-return-moon%E2%80%94and-go-beyond
75 comments
Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. Every president since Bush said something to this effect. My eyebrows will raise when NASAs budget does.
NASA wants to spend over $2B per launch on a super heavy lift system called the SLS, that can only lift about twice as much as a Falcon Heavy that costs around $120M a launch.
Maybe it's not NASA's budget, but how it's spent?
Maybe it's not NASA's budget, but how it's spent?
What about the extra range/energy that could be delivered to a falcon heavy size payload?
More is always better when we are talking interplanetary travel. But the Falcon Heavy is adequate, esp. if you can do in-orbit assembly.
If NASA needs a bigger rocket, they can buy the SpaceX BFR, which has a substantially greater cargo capacity than the SLS, and if they offered SpaceX a fixed price contract at $200M a launch I'd bet Musk would jump at it.
If NASA needs a bigger rocket, they can buy the SpaceX BFR, which has a substantially greater cargo capacity than the SLS, and if they offered SpaceX a fixed price contract at $200M a launch I'd bet Musk would jump at it.
My comment was more aimed at the political rather than technical side of the current state of the American space program.
I was more thinking about politicians not just continuing exhaling hot air through their vocal cords in front of cameras, but having them actually make concrete commitments by actually putting their money where their mouth is.
If they doubled NASAs budget and chucked that 50% increase to private contractors like SpaceX, great, that would probably have incredible results. But seriously, stop talking big and actually commit to these dreams, dammit!
I was more thinking about politicians not just continuing exhaling hot air through their vocal cords in front of cameras, but having them actually make concrete commitments by actually putting their money where their mouth is.
If they doubled NASAs budget and chucked that 50% increase to private contractors like SpaceX, great, that would probably have incredible results. But seriously, stop talking big and actually commit to these dreams, dammit!
"doubled NASAs budget and chucked that 50% increase to private contractors like SpaceX"
I agree. If the US said they would tax Apple's cash pile @ 10% if Apple were willing to repatriate the money, that'd bring in enough to double NASA's budget. I'm not saying 10% is the right number, but just giving an example.
I agree. If the US said they would tax Apple's cash pile @ 10% if Apple were willing to repatriate the money, that'd bring in enough to double NASA's budget. I'm not saying 10% is the right number, but just giving an example.
It would bring in triple that. Personal dividend tax is 20%.
Plus California takes another 10% off the top, so they could start their own space program!
Plus California takes another 10% off the top, so they could start their own space program!
I don't have a good idea about how this scales. What would something with twice the lift of the Falcon Heavy cost?
It costs 2 Falcon Heavy launches plus some work on on-orbit assembly.
Scale it up ... or just send a brace of falcon heavies
I think we can be keen in recognizing that the Trump admin maintains interest in science as much as the previous admins.
I wouldn't characterize America's space industry by NASA's budget anymore.
What about support of the privatized space industry, instead? It seems to be progressing faster than NASA did.
What about support of the privatized space industry, instead? It seems to be progressing faster than NASA did.
NASA is supporting the privatized space industry, though. Remember that Dragon were/is developed because NASA gave SpaceX a contract for ISS support. Falcon 9 development also got NASA support.
"support" is not the same as a contract. ULA got a $1B a year just for "readiness", SpaceX gets contracts to do actually useful things, at a far lower cost than other contractors or NASA itself.
That's a good point, and you're right that NASA's budget will trickle down as support to privatized space companies.
As progress in the industry moves forward, though, I expect we may find other forms of government support, such as what we see in many countries' policies towards renewable energy.
As progress in the industry moves forward, though, I expect we may find other forms of government support, such as what we see in many countries' policies towards renewable energy.
There is no "trickle down" for what NASA is doing with SpaceX and OrbitalATK: It's an outright contract to deliver stuff to the ISS.
I meant that the government funding trickles down to SpaceX and OrbitalATK through NASA's contract.
That's not what those words usually mean when applied to money, see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
I don't understand what point you're trying to make?
Right now we have much more advanced tech than was available during the space race, and a lot of the pioneering work has already been done.
Comparing NASA from the 60's - 70's to current space companies is not useful.
Right now we have much more advanced tech than was available during the space race, and a lot of the pioneering work has already been done.
Comparing NASA from the 60's - 70's to current space companies is not useful.
We're currently depending on Soviet rockets to get us into orbit, so the state of US space travel is a little shaky right now
We don't depend on the Russians for cargo, and 2 US systems for launching people to the ISS are getting close to the finish line.
I'm merely pointing out that the government's support of the space industry shouldn't be characterized by NASA's budget.
There are a lot of ways for the government to support an industry otherwise; an example being many countries' policy on renewable energy and clean transport, for instance.
There are a lot of ways for the government to support an industry otherwise; an example being many countries' policy on renewable energy and clean transport, for instance.
I don't think anyone responding to you can figure out what you mean. The US government already has a successful model of interacting with the commercial space industry. You're proposing abandoning that for... ?
Sorry I wasn't more clear.
This article is about government support of the space industry, and the parent comment stated "I'll believe it when NASA's budget is raised."
My point is that the government can support the space industry in many ways, some of which won't involve more funding for NASA. As an example, governments have 'supported' renewable energy through policy without needing to do so through a NASA-like equivalent in the renewable energy sector.
This article is about government support of the space industry, and the parent comment stated "I'll believe it when NASA's budget is raised."
My point is that the government can support the space industry in many ways, some of which won't involve more funding for NASA. As an example, governments have 'supported' renewable energy through policy without needing to do so through a NASA-like equivalent in the renewable energy sector.
The US government already supports the space industry in many ways, including ways that have nothing to do with NASA's budget. You're proposing? ...
Exactly. I'm saying that NASA's budget is an outdated metric to determine the American government's support of the space industry.
I'm not proposing anything else.
I'm not proposing anything else.
yup
> It means establishing a renewed American presence on the moon...
> And from the foundation of the moon...
This is potentially bad news for SLS/Orion. They have no ability to land on the Moon. SLS doesn't do retro-propulsion and Orion can only land on Earth's ocean using heat shields and parachutes.
That's why NASA has pushed for asteroid missions and building a space station around the Moon. Those are things that SLS can do.
Of course if the intention is to land on the moon this is very good news for SpaceX and Blue Origin, both of whom have working retro-propulsion landings under their belt. Arguably, Blue Origin is in an ever better position than SpaceX since their New Shepard is about the right size for a moon lander. SpaceX would have to develop one.
(Dragon 2 was originally supposed to do retro-propulsion landing, but NASA nixed the idea of landing legs that extended from a heat shield, so the idea was dropped. They would either have to develop a lander version of Dragon 2, or wait until the BFS is available)
This is potentially bad news for SLS/Orion. They have no ability to land on the Moon. SLS doesn't do retro-propulsion and Orion can only land on Earth's ocean using heat shields and parachutes.
That's why NASA has pushed for asteroid missions and building a space station around the Moon. Those are things that SLS can do.
Of course if the intention is to land on the moon this is very good news for SpaceX and Blue Origin, both of whom have working retro-propulsion landings under their belt. Arguably, Blue Origin is in an ever better position than SpaceX since their New Shepard is about the right size for a moon lander. SpaceX would have to develop one.
(Dragon 2 was originally supposed to do retro-propulsion landing, but NASA nixed the idea of landing legs that extended from a heat shield, so the idea was dropped. They would either have to develop a lander version of Dragon 2, or wait until the BFS is available)
Fortunately, SpaceX begins production of their moon lander in 6-9 months!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQ0jBKH36Y
Edit: realized you were probably referring to this when you said BFS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQ0jBKH36Y
Edit: realized you were probably referring to this when you said BFS.
Yup, that's what I meant. I don't know how reliable those Elonian schedules are though. :-p
New Shepard far too big, with far too much delta V for a moon lander. It’s design parameters are all wrong. Also SpaceX has a perfectly suitable propulsion system in the SuperDracos.
The truth is none of the existing or currently planned systems, other than BFR, would make any sense as lunar landers. They’re just not designed for it. Dragon and Orion are Apollo Command Module replacements, not LEM replacements. For lunar landings and excursions we’d need a new vehicle along the lines of the LEM. Lightweight, vacuum only, reusable and refuelable with an ‘infinitely’ restartable engine. SLS would be perfectly capable of launching such a vehicle, in fact that’s exactly the sort of thing it’s designed for.
The truth is none of the existing or currently planned systems, other than BFR, would make any sense as lunar landers. They’re just not designed for it. Dragon and Orion are Apollo Command Module replacements, not LEM replacements. For lunar landings and excursions we’d need a new vehicle along the lines of the LEM. Lightweight, vacuum only, reusable and refuelable with an ‘infinitely’ restartable engine. SLS would be perfectly capable of launching such a vehicle, in fact that’s exactly the sort of thing it’s designed for.
You mistook my point. Not that New Shepherd can be used "as is", but merely that Blue Origin and SpaceX have developed propulsion-based landing technology and NASA/Boeing have not. There's a much shorter development path from New Shepherd/Dragon 2-->LEM, than from Orion.
And of course SLS could launch a LEM. The problem there is that it costs $2 billion/launch. That's "just a bit" of a price premium relative to Falcon Heavy, or whatever the fully reusable generation of rockets is going to cost.
And of course SLS could launch a LEM. The problem there is that it costs $2 billion/launch. That's "just a bit" of a price premium relative to Falcon Heavy, or whatever the fully reusable generation of rockets is going to cost.
Why not just use the Saturn V designs? Are they that bad?
As magnificent as the Apollo program was, and the Saturn V in particular, it was an incredibly expensive and complex launch system, unsustainably so.
Additionally, even if you did want to recreate a Saturn V, the designs themselves aren't going to get you very far. Most of the tooling has been lost likely along with much of the institutional know how, especially on the technician side of things. I'd be very surprised if you could recreate a functioning Saturn V for a lower cost than designing an entirely new launch system.
Additionally, even if you did want to recreate a Saturn V, the designs themselves aren't going to get you very far. Most of the tooling has been lost likely along with much of the institutional know how, especially on the technician side of things. I'd be very surprised if you could recreate a functioning Saturn V for a lower cost than designing an entirely new launch system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rocketdyne_F-1#F-1B_booster
> As part of the Space Launch System (SLS) program, NASA had been running the Advanced Booster Competition, which was scheduled to end with the selection of a winning booster configuration in 2015. In 2012, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) proposed using a derivative of the F-1 engine in the competition as a liquid rocket booster ... The F-1B engine has a design goal to be at least as powerful as the un-flight-tested F-1A, while also being more cost effective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-3#Pyrios
> Developed during the later stages of the Apollo program, the F-1A was test fired, but never flew. Several were crated and stored by Rocketdyne (later Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne). The company has also maintained an F-1/F-1A knowledge retention program for its engineers for the entire period the engine has been mothballed.
Also, https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engi... .
> As part of the Space Launch System (SLS) program, NASA had been running the Advanced Booster Competition, which was scheduled to end with the selection of a winning booster configuration in 2015. In 2012, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne (PWR) proposed using a derivative of the F-1 engine in the competition as a liquid rocket booster ... The F-1B engine has a design goal to be at least as powerful as the un-flight-tested F-1A, while also being more cost effective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_C-3#Pyrios
> Developed during the later stages of the Apollo program, the F-1A was test fired, but never flew. Several were crated and stored by Rocketdyne (later Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne). The company has also maintained an F-1/F-1A knowledge retention program for its engineers for the entire period the engine has been mothballed.
Also, https://arstechnica.com/science/2013/04/new-f-1b-rocket-engi... .
And this engine lost the SLS competition to the SSME+solids. So yes, it's an interesting point that the Saturn V engine might still be buildable, but it's not cost effective today, and it's not the Saturn V rocket.
While this came out today, Pence also made similar statements in the summer.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/vice-president-pence-visi...
Nonetheless, I think him repeating the claims a second time signals more commitment.
https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/vice-president-pence-visi...
Nonetheless, I think him repeating the claims a second time signals more commitment.
Slight issue:
Far more than past administrations, a huge number of things that come out of Pence's mouth are straight-up lies.
He and the rest of the administration have demonstrated they will lie with abandon to serve their own ends. We've long passed the point where we should take anything at face value this administration (and this GOP congress as well) says.
Mike Pence has a growing credibility problem: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/18/vi...
It's not just the Russia scandal, Pence lies about health care too: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/its-not-just-the-rus...
How can Mike Pence get away with outrageous lies about the health care bill? https://www.salon.com/2017/07/17/how-can-mike-pence-get-away...
All False statements by Mike Pence http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mike-pence/statement...
Far more than past administrations, a huge number of things that come out of Pence's mouth are straight-up lies.
He and the rest of the administration have demonstrated they will lie with abandon to serve their own ends. We've long passed the point where we should take anything at face value this administration (and this GOP congress as well) says.
Mike Pence has a growing credibility problem: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/18/vi...
It's not just the Russia scandal, Pence lies about health care too: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/its-not-just-the-rus...
How can Mike Pence get away with outrageous lies about the health care bill? https://www.salon.com/2017/07/17/how-can-mike-pence-get-away...
All False statements by Mike Pence http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mike-pence/statement...
Also note that all of your sources are quite biased. This content all seems to be written by people who describe themselves as opposition to the administration and Pence. Salon of all of them is especially unreliable.
Which news sources do you consider to be sufficiently unbiased that you wouldn't need to make this caution?
Para 1: revives NSC. A good thing, I think.
Para 2: China etc. threatening our military dominance... Uh oh, hope this isn't going to a bad place.
Para 3: "We will refocus America’s space program toward human exploration and discovery."
Yes, robots are more effective, but this is good, exciting, inspirational stuff. If it happens. And at least he didn't say "We will refocus our efforts towards military control of near-Earth orbit."
Para 2: China etc. threatening our military dominance... Uh oh, hope this isn't going to a bad place.
Para 3: "We will refocus America’s space program toward human exploration and discovery."
Yes, robots are more effective, but this is good, exciting, inspirational stuff. If it happens. And at least he didn't say "We will refocus our efforts towards military control of near-Earth orbit."
> "We will refocus our efforts towards military control of near-Earth orbit."
The US Space Corps is in the budget for 2018.
The US Space Corps is in the budget for 2018.
Where can I see this? Do they seriously want to slip the 'star wars' back in?
edit: Thanks for the Wikipedia link. Those slippery weasels! That's the wrong direction.
Apparently Russia's was reformed in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Space_Forces
You've got to be kidding me.
edit again: Apparently this includes the US Space Command
>"HR2810 FY18 could re-establish the United States Space Command as a subordinate unified command under the United States Strategic Command not later than January 1, 2019. This bill also includes the creation of the United States Space Corps."
edit: Thanks for the Wikipedia link. Those slippery weasels! That's the wrong direction.
Apparently Russia's was reformed in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Space_Forces
You've got to be kidding me.
edit again: Apparently this includes the US Space Command
>"HR2810 FY18 could re-establish the United States Space Command as a subordinate unified command under the United States Strategic Command not later than January 1, 2019. This bill also includes the creation of the United States Space Corps."
Yes, but:
> This proposal is opposed by the Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force, Air Force Space Command, and military leaders such as Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Paul Selva, Chief of Staff of the Air Force General David L. Goldfein, and the current commander of Air Force Space Command General John W. Raymond
Also, from a joint perspective it makes no sense to bring this to the level of of Joint Chief. This would however be a perfect thing to talk about amongst the Chiefs as it would involve resources and personnel from across the services. I imagine that kind of thing is already happening, however.
> This proposal is opposed by the Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force, Air Force Space Command, and military leaders such as Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Paul Selva, Chief of Staff of the Air Force General David L. Goldfein, and the current commander of Air Force Space Command General John W. Raymond
Also, from a joint perspective it makes no sense to bring this to the level of of Joint Chief. This would however be a perfect thing to talk about amongst the Chiefs as it would involve resources and personnel from across the services. I imagine that kind of thing is already happening, however.
Thanks, I missed that. That is somewhat reassuring. My knowledge of this in the present is limited, though.
It could just be from all the sci-fi I've consumed in my life, but I always thought the Navy would be a more natural fit to be the space corps.
(I'm imagining a Battlestar Galactica / space marine future I suppose.)
(I'm imagining a Battlestar Galactica / space marine future I suppose.)
> It could just be from all the sci-fi I've consumed in my life, but I always thought the Navy would be a more natural fit to be the space corps.
It's very common for sci-fi space forces to be modelled on terrestrial navies (frequently very heavily on Age of Sail / colonial era European navies.)
But especially in the near future, there's not really likely to be a whole lot of functional similarity justifying that.
It's very common for sci-fi space forces to be modelled on terrestrial navies (frequently very heavily on Age of Sail / colonial era European navies.)
But especially in the near future, there's not really likely to be a whole lot of functional similarity justifying that.
Separate agency to NASA though I think, which has always been sort of related to but not a part of the military.
Very rarely do people on the ground really understand the severity and threats of what really plagues America. We are so caught up in day to day living not dealing with the tough decisions that keep America operational.
Quoting Charlie Stross, teller of lies for money and HN user, from http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2017/09/bread-an... :
> I don't often make exact predictions about the future; that's not an SF writer's job, and it's really easy to get egg on your face. Howver, here's a prediction:
> If Donald Trump is still president, US astronauts will return to circumlunar space around July 16th, 2019 ...
> I'm making this a prediction, however, because the POTUS factor.
> July 2019 lies within the term in office of Donald Trump (or Mike Pence, depending whether impeachment/removal has happened first then). Trump is nothing if not an egomaniac, and offering him the opportunity to make a historic phone call to lunar orbit in front of the TV cameras is a guaranteed ego-stroke. Trump is of an age to have young-adult memories of Apollo and I can't see the idea not appealing to him if he can take credit for it.
> I don't often make exact predictions about the future; that's not an SF writer's job, and it's really easy to get egg on your face. Howver, here's a prediction:
> If Donald Trump is still president, US astronauts will return to circumlunar space around July 16th, 2019 ...
> I'm making this a prediction, however, because the POTUS factor.
> July 2019 lies within the term in office of Donald Trump (or Mike Pence, depending whether impeachment/removal has happened first then). Trump is nothing if not an egomaniac, and offering him the opportunity to make a historic phone call to lunar orbit in front of the TV cameras is a guaranteed ego-stroke. Trump is of an age to have young-adult memories of Apollo and I can't see the idea not appealing to him if he can take credit for it.
> Under President Trump, America will lead in space again.
We need to get Trump to lead the way to the moon personally. I heard Kim Jong Un said he doesn't have what it takes.
We need to get Trump to lead the way to the moon personally. I heard Kim Jong Un said he doesn't have what it takes.
Why stop him at the moon? I heard the Oort cloud has great golf courses.
So you can get President Pence instead? Country-wide pray-away-the-gay camps are going to be fun I bet /s
I heard that he also said that President Trump was too chicken to spend 10 years on the moon too.
No-one in their right mind would put paragraphs two and three next to one another. The literal interpretation is "Our enemies are working to defeat us, but we're going to completely ignore that".
In practice, I suspect that a policy around 2 is much more likely, but it seems unlikely the money for that will be showing up in NASA's budgets.
This is proper Kremlinology stuff. What does it really mean? Could be anything or nothing. Only those inside the loop know for sure. And that's subject to change.
In practice, I suspect that a policy around 2 is much more likely, but it seems unlikely the money for that will be showing up in NASA's budgets.
This is proper Kremlinology stuff. What does it really mean? Could be anything or nothing. Only those inside the loop know for sure. And that's subject to change.
Sending a lunar rover to the Tranquility landing site for the 50th anniversary of the manned moon landing would be a nice touch.
You know what would be better, sending people back. Back to anywhere on the moon at all.
And America will go there with the help of a certain South African.
The original op-ed actually addresses this. Sounds like the plan is to get SpaceX, Blue Origin, et al. involved.
> To achieve these goals, the National Space Council will look beyond the halls of government for insight and expertise. In the coming weeks, President Trump and I will assemble a Users’ Advisory Group partly composed of leaders from America’s burgeoning commercial space industry. Business is leading the way on space technology, and we intend to draw from the bottomless well of innovation to solve the challenges ahead.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moon...
> To achieve these goals, the National Space Council will look beyond the halls of government for insight and expertise. In the coming weeks, President Trump and I will assemble a Users’ Advisory Group partly composed of leaders from America’s burgeoning commercial space industry. Business is leading the way on space technology, and we intend to draw from the bottomless well of innovation to solve the challenges ahead.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moon...
well, easy to state lapalissades now that we have Elon Musk working on it.
(lapalissade is an actual word. Came in handy today! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapalissade)
(lapalissade is an actual word. Came in handy today! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapalissade)
mhneu(2)
kafkaesq(1)
we should just send Trump to the moon and be the president of the whole planet.
I was thinking he'd be perfect to be the first on Mars.
No chance if driven by a government entity. None.
Are you aware of how we got there the first time?
They hired Stanley Kubrick to fake a moon landing but he was such a stickler for detail that he demanded they do it on location.
No corporation would ever give up their competitive advantage of being on the moon. Imagine a company that gains a competitive advantage and sits on it for 45 years.
If a company would sit on a capability for 45 years without expanding and improving it. The government does things like this, it doesn't have market pressures or complete focus. If a new politician of a popular party gets elected and decides to reallocate the funds, they can do that at the snap of their fingers.
The problem with the government is that they are managing the immediate needs of the electorate while balancing long term goals which are volatile. A healthy company is more narrow, more nimble, and more committed to a goal. A business is resource-time bound, a government not so much. A business must respond to the market/pressures much more so than a government. An unpopular business doesn't last long, whereas entire functions of government hold historic unpopularity, yet is free of anxiety. A great business caters to the individual in all of us, while the government caters to clashing interest groups.
If a company would sit on a capability for 45 years without expanding and improving it. The government does things like this, it doesn't have market pressures or complete focus. If a new politician of a popular party gets elected and decides to reallocate the funds, they can do that at the snap of their fingers.
The problem with the government is that they are managing the immediate needs of the electorate while balancing long term goals which are volatile. A healthy company is more narrow, more nimble, and more committed to a goal. A business is resource-time bound, a government not so much. A business must respond to the market/pressures much more so than a government. An unpopular business doesn't last long, whereas entire functions of government hold historic unpopularity, yet is free of anxiety. A great business caters to the individual in all of us, while the government caters to clashing interest groups.
There's plenty of chance, if the government is headed by people willing to fund it.