This is not a NASA Website. You might learn something. It's YOUR space agency. Get involved. Take it back. Make it work - for YOU.
TrumpSpace

NASA Is Offered A Chance To Be Relevant Again

By Keith Cowing
NASA Watch
March 26, 2019
Filed under , ,
NASA Is Offered A Chance To Be Relevant Again

NASA Administrator Statement on Return to Moon in Next Five Years
“Among the many topics discussed during our meeting at the U.S. Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, Alabama, was to accelerate our return to the Moon:
– NASA is charged to get American astronauts to the Moon in the next five years.
– We are tasked with landing on the Moon’s South Pole by 2024.
– Stay on schedule for flying Exploration Mission-1 with Orion on the Space Launch System (SLS) rocket next year, and for sending the first crewed mission to the lunar vicinity by 2022.
– NASA will continue to ‘use all means necessary’ to ensure mission success in moving us forward to the Moon.”

Keith’s note: OK, so that is sporty to say the least but wait – the commercial EM-1 option is now dead:
“Earlier today I was also at Marshall Space Flight Center for an all-hands to reinforce our commitment to SLS with the workforce. We discussed my recent announcement that NASA would consider all options to fly Orion around the Moon on schedule. I shared the analysis we conducted to asses flying the Orion on different commercial options. While some of these alternative vehicles could work, none was capable of achieving our goals to orbit around the Moon for Exploration Mission-1 within our timeline and on budget. The results of this two-week study reaffirmed our commitment to the SLS. More details will be released in the future.”
So … SLS is the only solution and somehow, HEOMD, MSFC, and Boeing are suddenly going to not only be on time and on budget – but they are going to increase the speed with which they deliver SLS/Orion capabilities without a budget increase. The same people are going to suddenly learn a bunch of new tricks – seemingly over night. Or … are we going to see a bunch of reassignments and retirement parties? Something has to give. The status quo is clearly not going to just become efficient over night – and things are going to have to change over night if this challenging new schedule is going to be met.
“We will take action in the days and weeks ahead to accomplish these goals. We have laid out a clear plan for NASA’s exploration campaign that cuts across three strategic areas: low-Earth orbit, the Moon, and Mars and deeper into space. “I have already directed a new alignment within NASA to ensure we effectively support this effort, which includes establishing a new mission directorate to focus on the formulation and execution of exploration development activities. We are calling it the Moon to Mars Mission Directorate.”
OK- so NASA will change the phone book and they have a “plan”. Earlier today VP Pence lamented the fact that NASA did not have a plan to go to the Moon after 15 months of National Space Council operations – but that Jim Bridenstine told him today that NASA now has a plan. So … let’s see the plan.
The Vice President certainly laid down the gauntlet to NASA to get off its collective butt and go back to the Moon. Jim Bridenstine happily picked up the gauntlet and accepted that challenge. Now its up to NASA and its contractor workforce to either work with Bridenstine and Pence or, by sitting on their hands, to work against them.
What is at stake? Well … what do you think will happen when SpaceX and Blue Origin start sending their own missions to the Moon – without NASA?

NASA Watch founder, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA, Away Teams, Journalist, Space & Astrobiology, Lapsed climber.

49 responses to “NASA Is Offered A Chance To Be Relevant Again”

  1. ed2291 says:
    0
    0

    If Space X is heavily involved then there is a chance. If not and it is business as usual since 1972 then there is not a chance. As Keith Cowing said so well, “What is at stake? Well … what do you think will happen when SpaceX and
    Blue Origin start sending their own missions to the Moon – without
    NASA?”

  2. Nick K says:
    0
    0

    I would say that NASA has zero chance. Maybe in five years we will see the first manned Orion flight.

    Perhaps NASA could start a “commercial moon mission” program, like ISS commercial cargo and ISS commercial crew and then I could see Space X succeeding, and doing so at a reasonable cost.

  3. cb450sc says:
    0
    0

    The CNN article included:

    “Some will say it’s too hard, it’s too risky, it’s too expensive. But the same was said back in 1962,” Pence said.

    So I assume if they want us on the moon in 5 years we should expect the NASA budget to be up to something in the $150B range???

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Actually you only need to double the budget to $44 billion to match the highest NASA budgets in the Apollo Era.

      • cb450sc says:
        0
        0

        Your number is if you adjust the late 60s numbers for inflation, not if you look at it as percentage of the federal budget (which is a more accurate indicator, IMHO, since the federal CPI numbers are seriously cooked). I’m willing to accept there’s some wiggle as to whether you want to count the total federal budget vs. the discretionary budget.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I don’t see why the percent of the federal budget matters. We’re talking about the work required for the job, and how much that would (or should) cost. That shouldn’t depend on how much (or how little) money the customer has.

        • MAGA_Ken says:
          0
          0

          Budget levels are a ridiculous way of making the adjustment. The Federal Government is much larger and bloated than in the 60s.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          The percentage of the federal budget is a poor indicator because there wasn’t Medicare then nor the “war on poverty”, which greatly expanded the budget.

        • cb450sc says:
          0
          0

          Ok, let’s break this down a couple ways. We’ll start with the NASA budget which peaked in ’66 at around $6B, or around 4.5% of the federal budget. If we use the government api index, that’s about a factor of 8 (or about 4% per annum), which is where the aforementioned number of $48B inflation-adjusted dollars comes from. OTOH, it’s widely acknowledged that the cpi numbers are cooked as a way to hold down cola adjustments; most studies indicate it’s usually low by a percentage point or two. Using an alternative inflation indicator, that compounds quickly up to $130B or so. Frankly, I wouldn’t put much stock in either number because the different methodologies to compute the purchasing power of a dollar compound over time, and it’s too long an extrapolation over a half-century.

          But the actual crux of the argument comes from making the statement of returning to the moon in five years, where the “five” is the important part. That means making it a national priority. And the last time this exact project was a national priority, we decided it was worth a big chunk of the overall budget, a piece so large it’s well over $100B annually today.

          As for paying what it costs? I don’t know of any vendor today that can sell you a manned trip to the moon and back. Are there vendors that clearly are on the development path? Sure. But they are currently working on just reaching an actual manned orbital trip. You want that in five years? I’ve worked on budgeting and management of big civil engineering projects. Speed requires a lot more eyes and hands on-deck, and that means a big pulse of cash.

          P.S. that five years isn’t a coincidence. Trump is counting on it during a hypothetical second term to try and glorify himself like Kennedy. So yeah, they really mean five. If you come back and say “we could do it in ten”, they won’t be interested.

          • fcrary says:
            0
            0

            I’m afraid I don’t understand your logic. You seem to be saying that, if it’s a “national priority” we are compelled to spend a relatively large fraction of the budget on it. I’d say a national priority means we spend whatever is required to get the job done. But if that isn’t a large fraction of the GDP, it isn’t like we’re obliged to spend more than necessary.

            As far as what it costs, yes, a crash program would be expensive. But that doesn’t like the cost to the GDP. You estimate the work required, calculate the cost that implies, and that gives you the required (or planned) budget. Now much or how little of the federal budget that represents isn’t part of that arithmetic. (Note, I was talking about cost. What a company might _charge_ is, of course, a bit more flexible and often does depend on what the customer can afford.)

          • space1999 says:
            0
            0

            Beat me to it… although arguing about whether NASA’s budget is effectively larger or smaller than in the Apollo era in general seems kind of meaningless to me. The ways of doing things have changed and the perceived value has changed. Something like arguing about whether the 1972 Dolphins were better than the 1986 Bears…

    • mfwright says:
      0
      0

      whether adjust for inflation or not, back in 1962 $25B (or 150B) goes directly into US economy from building rocket engines to building office desks. These days much of purchases will be for imported products.

      • cb450sc says:
        0
        0

        And that would change based on what? Most of the money goes back into the economy as salaries that get spent. On things like food and mortgages. Those people will be buying the same stuff regardless of where those salaries are spent.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          His point, I think, was that if the money is spend on imported products, then it isn’t going back into our economy. It’s going into someone else’s economy. But it isn’t clear to me how much money would go into imported products. The Commercial Lunar Payload Services contracts, although for much smaller landers than a manned mission would require, specified US bidders only.

  4. George Purcell says:
    0
    0

    If it is going to happen, five years to the Moon really has to be a contracted SpaceX mission, probably Dragon based.

    • savuporo says:
      0
      0

      SpaceX isn’t particularly famous for hitting hard deadlines. Anything here would have to be a crash program cobbled together from existing assets.

      Lander is of a small enough, but substantial size is the key missing piece. Can we get the LK modules out of museums ?

      • Jeff2Space says:
        0
        0

        Falcon Heavy is going to fly twice this year. Dragon 2 is going to fly an abort test and possibly a crewed flight to ISS this year. I would say it is well within the realm of possibility that they could fly a Dragon 2 on a “free return” trip around the moon and back.

        But Dragon 2 would likely be unsuitable for an actual lunar landing.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          I’m not sure, but they might be able to pull off a Dragon 2 lunar landing. What they couldn’t do is the lunar takeoff.

          • Jeff2Space says:
            0
            0

            True, but a crewed one way trip to the moon is surely a no-go.

          • savuporo says:
            0
            0

            Pre-land a solid kick stage on the lunar surface for takeoff, along with a spare unmanned Dragon 2

            I’m half kidding

          • ThomasLMatula says:
            0
            0

            What you would need to do is add descent stage with large fuel tanks for the Super Dracos. And yes, add some Super Dracos on it as needed for the additional mass of fuel.

            But by the time NASA would approve that the Starship will be flying.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        Actually to be fair, you are partially correct. SX doesn’t deliver new technology as promised. But they are fully capable of meeting, for instance, launch deadlines.

  5. RocketScientist327 says:
    0
    0

    Keith the plan is commercial.

    Anyone inside the 495 knows this is the SLS mafia flexing power. It truly is like the king is wearing no clothes. I still cannot wrap my puny econ mind around the engineering gymnastics required to make SLS work. Simply put – it does not. Look at these “projected numbers”:

    2020 – About $1.6 billion
    2021 – About $1.9 billion
    2022 – About $2.0 billion
    2023 – About $2.9 billion
    2024 – About $3.4 billion

    We are using the SLS shoehorn into a circle which must first pass through a rectangle then a rhombus followed by an isosceles triangle. What the hell are we doing as leaders here?

    Are we choosing a federal jobs program or a lunar exploration and settlement program?

    We have billions of dollars wasted waiting on SLS. Isn’t two decades and at least $16.7 billion enough to realize this <censored> isn’t going to work? Money is one thing buy our time is everything. Think about the young engineers who came onboard in the late 1990s – what do we have to show for it?

    My God we should be screaming to kill CxP/SLS/CEV/Orion. We owe it to ourselves and our own integrity. This stuff just doesn’t work.

    • Lawrence Wild says:
      0
      0

      Gosh, talk about an easy question to answer.
      It’s a Federal jobs program, of course.

      Look, there are no voters on the moon and it has zero votes in either the Senate or the House. Alabama, Utah,, Texas, etc, however, do have those things. And Congress folks get elected by those voters. Honestly if they weren’t jobs programs we wouldn’t have any civilian space agency, only DOD launches. The average American just isn’t interested. Heck you can’t even get the average American voter to care about which party or representatives can get the trains to run on time or the roads paved (Taken a close look at our infrastructure lately?). We have a 1950’s era electrical grid, an FCC that thinks that most of American has good broadband, and a banking regulatory system that has been gutted. And we still keep electing the same people.

      NASA? NASA barely rates as a blip in the radar on most voters thinking. So, yes, it’s about the jobs, because jobs get you votes.And votes are all politicians really care about.

    • robert_law says:
      0
      0

      And you can sit back an abdicate space leadership to China and Russia It could take years for space x who have power-point presentations while NASA has a real Rocket in development, I read on CNN elon musk was taking a back seat in Space X to concentrate on computers, where the money for space X is launching commercial satellites .

      • ThomasLMatula says:
        0
        0

        ROFLOL. NASA is the one with Power Points. SpaceX is too busy flight testing their Hopper and building the oribital version of the Starship to do Power Points. They are even too busy to build a structure to build it in.

        • fcrary says:
          0
          0

          SpaceX might not bother with PowerPoint, but they do have time to do some nice graphics and CGI renderings.

          But, Mr. Musk’s ambitions aside, a more important point is that SpaceX _has_ an operational launch vehicle which could support lunar operations. We can argue about mission modes and low Earth orbit rendezvous versus direct landing. But if they wanted to NASA and SpaceX could conduct a lunar landing with the Falcon Heavy. The Falcon is well beyond the PowerPoint stage.

      • Michael Spencer says:
        0
        0

        You are living in Bizzaro World, sir.

  6. Synthguy says:
    0
    0

    Interesting that Pence explicitly pointed to Chinese missions, including Chang’e 4 in his comments. I don’t suggest that the US is actually in a race with China for the Moon, given China’s plans call for taikonauts on the surface by the 2030s. But clearly the US Government wants to light a fire under NASA to make sure that its US astronauts who are the next humans to walk on the lunar surface. If the US does actually begin to deliver towards the 2024 objective, I wonder how the Chinese will react? Might they accelerate their timetable, and we do end up in another race by default?

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      I doubt China will accelerate their schedule. They are doing what they want to do, for their own reasons and on their own schedule. As far as I can tell, they have very little interest in what the United States is planning to do or when we are planning to do it. Traditionally, China has considered the rest of the world to be of periferial importance compared to what goes on within China.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      It’s a race, but not with China. The race is with SpaceX which means it’s even more important that Marshall wins. If was against China and Marshall lost than the race would continue to Mars and Marshall would get an even larger budget. But in this race if SpaceX wins Marshall is put out of business and becomes. at best, a back water like Langley did after Johnson was opened.

      So Marshall better get going as it’s their future that is at stake. If they fail they won’t have any new rockets to put in their rocket garden and it’s all that will be left.

      And on Twitter Elon Musk has already accepted the challenge and indicated he will give it a shot with the Starship/Super Heavy. So the race between Old Space and New Space is on!

  7. PsiSquared says:
    0
    0

    This is isn’t going to happen. Congress will never pass the NASA budget required to do this with SLS and some lunar lander in 5 years. Congresspeople with their fingers in the SLS pie won’t vote to fund SpaceX or some other private companies to get this done in 5 years.

  8. Brent Andrew Hawker says:
    0
    0

    Told you years ago. It’s the means and acconpishing the goal by the most efficient means possible is what drives this administration.. now the NSC is choke full of the sellers. Hopefully they and NASA will lend an ear to the Buyers.

  9. jm67 says:
    0
    0

    NASA already was relevant through its unmanned Space and Earth Science missions. The Pluto flyby made headlines around the world. Yesterday’s announcement didn’t make a blip in the news cycle. People don’t care about landing on the moon again, and realize that the next administration will simply scrap the effort in 16 months.

  10. Chris says:
    0
    0

    All that money and NASA could have been used in an attempt bring back the DC-X. Computers are a lot better, and landing vertically is being done almost routinely.

    Instead billions is being wasted on old shuttle parts, and outdated methods.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      We already have the successor to DC-X. It’s called a Falcon 9 Block 5 reusable first stage (also known as a Falcon Heavy reusable booster). The closely related Falcon Heavy core stage is also designed to be reusable (hopefully the next launch will stick the landing on the autonomous drone ship).

  11. rb1957 says:
    0
    0

    In the 60s, Kennedy backed his words with money.

    For a lunar landing in 2024 …
    I think SpaceX (and maybe others, maybe NASA) will have a capable rocket,
    SpaceX (and maybe others, like Boeing) could have capable capsule (to transport astronauts to lunar orbit and return),
    but a capable, man-rated, lander is, IMHO, a big ask … lots of development, lots of $$s.

    But, with lots of dollars much can be achieved.

    • Jeff2Space says:
      0
      0

      The $2+ billion per year NASA is spending on SLS is completely wasted. A Falcon Heavy expendable launch list price is $150 million. If you “do the math” for how much each can put into LEO for the same price, you’ll wonder why we’re wasting so much money on SLS.

  12. MAGA_Ken says:
    0
    0

    It’s a tight schedule but it’s not like the parts aren’t already in development or have been produced. Orion is pretty much complete as is the service module and SRBs. The core stage is the big hold up but I suggest that with the 737 MAX grounding and Starliner delay, Boeing cannot allow any future delay of the of the SLS be put at it’s feet. Another black eye will have just that more impact on stock price.

    That leaves the Gateway, EUS and lander. The Gateway isn’t needed for a landing in 2024 so I suspect it will be pushed out to 2028 for the “permanent presence” part. The EUS will and lander will almost certainly be bid out, though I’m not sure of the EUS contract status.

    • ThomasLMatula says:
      0
      0

      Yep, another B737 Max had to make an emergency landing yesterday while Southwest was attempting to fly it to a storage location. And you forgot that the USAF has grounded the new KC-46’s for unrelated issues as well. Guess it’s been over looked in all the other bad news about Boeing.

      • fcrary says:
        0
        0

        Be nice. I’m surprised if you don’t know it already, but that Southwest flight in Orlando had engine problems. And Boeing doesn’t make the engines. Talk to CFM International (the manufacturer) or Southwest (the operator.) On the other hand, many people don’t realize that and it’s really bad press.

        • ThomasLMatula says:
          0
          0

          Yes, it was engine problems, but it still doesn’t help its image. Nor does it help that the flight was going to their long term storage facility in Victorville, California indicating they don’t expect to be flying the Max in the near future even with the proposed Boeing fix.

  13. John Carlton Mankins says:
    0
    0

    There’s (at this moment) an odd glitch on the NASA “https://www.nasa.gov/specia…” website: if you click on Why…Economy, you get a second look at the Why…Exploration talking point. Needs fixing.

  14. AnonymousCoward826 says:
    0
    0

    “Now its up to NASA and its contractor workforce to either work with Bridenstine and Pence or, by sitting on their hands, to work against them.”

    Let’s be clear that NASA can’t do anything that Congress hasn’t specifically directed and funded them to do. So this is about Congress playing ball. NASA and its contractor workforce have little influence at this point.

    • fcrary says:
      0
      0

      That’s not entirely true. Unless it’s specifically earmarked, NASA does have some budgetary discretion. It’s limited, but they could (for example) spend money out of their Exploration budget on design studies for a lunar lander rather than Gateway. That’s not much, but the first six months is likely to be design studies, and six months takes us to FY20. That’s when Congress will have to authorize and fund the program. (Well, strictly speaking, they could step in and say no at any time, but that would have to pass the Senate and be signed by the President…)

      • Lawrence Wild says:
        0
        0

        The next budget fight is going to be a doozy. Between inter-party fighting. Presidential Candidates trying to score political points. Old Space vs. New. Ecological impact concerns, etc. Messy isn’t going to begin to describe it.

  15. Kieran_A_Carroll says:
    0
    0

    Well, there’s always Zubrin’s Moon Direct…

  16. Bill Housley says:
    0
    0

    My answer? SLS, Orion, and LOP-G all become irrelevant to envelope expansion. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they get cancelled…at least not iimmediately. Actual fight doesn’t seem to be a criteria of their sponsor, Congress. In fact, as far as Congressional goals go, SLS is already an earth-shaking success!