PBS NewsHour's Take on #Moon2024
“The Trump administration wants NASA to get back to the moon by 2024, using any means necessary. But will the money and the commitment be there to support the effort? Science correspondent Miles O’Brien talks to NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine about technical and political risk, international competition and his broader vision for the agency.”
A mild correction for Miles. VP Pence’s speech did not occur at Marshall Space Flight Center but at the United States Space and Rocket Center which is not part of MSFC but the home of Space Camp, Space Academy, and many other educational programs. Although it acts as an official NASA visitor’s center, it is not part of NASA/MSFC. The VP did not visit MSFC during his time in Huntsville to make his speech.
Nice to have Miles O’Brien, very good asking particular questions and describing it for lay people. His closing statement “politics not as easy as rocket science.”
Interesting PBS included this in the Newshour as only coverage of this back to the moon program is here on NW and a few other space specific forums. Everyplace else there is no mention.
Going to the Moon is about Exploitation, going to Mars is about Exploration. Financially the only way to go to the Moon to stay would be with a Lunar Development Corporation, a Public-Private Partnership. Then NASA is free to focus on going to Mars, leveraging lunar resources as needed.Any other road will likely lead to failure as has been previous efforts.
I say again, this has nothing to do with exploration, exploitation, or anything else besides getting a “big, beautiful” plaque on the moon with Trump’s name in giant letters. That’s the only reason the administration is suddenly pushing for us to return to the moon by 2024. I wouldn’t even call this politics. It’s just Trump’s ego.
Reasonable people must agree with you. Why must we go back to the Moon “using any means necessary”? What is the motivation for the 2024 date, is it necessary to make sure we can fit in the needed testing? No, it is an arbitrary decision by political figures. It means that we must cut lots of corners, skip testing, accept greater risk. By coincidence (?) in 2024 we will be in the late stages of a political contest to replace the person elected in 2020. Certain people are confident that they know who will be in office on that year and they are making plans based on that.
Plans that ask people to risk their lives should be made by the appropriate people who understand the risks involved, the challenges, etc etc. We are proceeding on a path that means that we accept great risk – people’s lives, national resources, reputations. Who are we racing? No one.
Some people say that we should hand this over to commercial operators – as if their crew members will be ready to accept much greater risk for no reason. You cannot pay someone enough for them to lose their lives – so that a political figure will have something to boast about.
“Plans that ask people to risk their lives should be made by the appropriate people who understand the risks involved, the challenges, etc etc… You cannot pay someone enough for them to lose their lives…”
That worked so well in Iraq. And in the Malvinas. And… Actually, I’m not sure I want to go on. If I do, I’ll probably go back to 1812 before I run out of steam. But there are hazardous occupations, and we do pay people to risk their lives all the time. And sometimes over purely commercial ventures. Hell, some people even voluntarily and at their own expense do insanely dangerous things like free solo rock climbing or walking across Antarctica alone.
So mistakes have been made – so why not make more? You didn’t bother to read about the Apollo 1 fire or Apollo 13 or the Challenger accident or the Columbia loss – you feel that being an astronaut is a hazardous occupation and we paid them to risk their lives? If people like you want to do insanely hazardous things you will NOT get my tax money to do it with.
Someone out there thinks that Iraq should have been a money making effort, that we should have taken the oil to pay for it. But those people that did their duty and followed (flawed) orders in Iraq were NOT mercenaries.
In the Falklands, Argentina invaded and Britain responded.
Hold on there, partner! Those cases are different! The Commander in Chief experienced serious personal angst before ‘sending our boys to war!’ He endured sleepless nights, hours of disquieting anguish! Lucky for him he finally discovered the magic of patriotism!
“it is an arbitrary decision by political figures”
A personal observation: Having been in the design business for nearly 40 years, I’ve learned that nothing happens without a deadline. The Romans would phrase it more powerfully: nihil sine fatalibus.
I try not to promise more than I can produce. Some feel that 2024 is an over-promise. In this case, an impossible promise will be made. Resulting blowback will be worse than simply stating a more realistic date in the first place.
Actually, the 2024 deadline might make sense. I’m not saying it isn’t a matter of presidential ego. But we keep hearing complaints about how every new president cancels the existing human exploration program and tells NASA to go in a different direction. (Moon to Mars to Moon, with the occasional asteroid thrown in for variety….) What if a viable deadline has to be within a single President’s term of office?
Perhaps the goals need to be adjusted down to what is achievable in that timeframe. But the current goals are to put two people on the surface of the Moon in five years. NASA did that with Apollo, starting from zero spaceflight capability to putting two people on the lunar surface in eleven years. Expecting they could do better today isn’t too unreasonable. Of course, NASA is now being asked to do that for quite a bit less than Apollo, and to do so in a way which can evolve into something sustainable. That might be pushing a realistic schedule.
But he will need to be re-elected to do so since the resistance at NASA is determined to run out the clock on this term by dragging out the testing on the SLS.