Curiously (actually not) NASA omitted the part where Trump said "NASA was dead as a doornail and then we reinvigorated it." Full video at CSPAN https://t.co/0RuPUodxB6https://t.co/3Wltg9iRnz
I’d have to agree that Trump and Bridenstine have reinvigorated human space flight. I am afraid though that if Trump departs next year its back to an asteroid we go.
No, not an asteroid, just the ISS as NASA is mobilized to fight Climate Change instead of space exploration. Administrator Bridenstine and the Artemis Program will be gone the first day of the new Administration. China will by default become the new leader in space exploration.
I have to disagree, but for a different reason. The case can be made that the baton has been passed. That the heart and soul of space is driven by Mssrs. Musk, and Bezos, amongst others.
Sadly, in some ways, but in others, not so much. In the broadest terms NASA has fulfilled a proper role of any agency in a similar position. NASA has developed much of the technology, at least initially; has shown what can be done; has enabled least least two mighty companies to spring from American loins (hmm…too much?).
Perhaps the time is right for NASA to accept the rightly deserved laurels as the Agency continues the gradual but perceptible shift to a future in which commercial space provides the ride and, increasingly, provides long-term policy.
You’ve made some good points and interesting future telling, so I won’t comment on that. You did write, “to spring from American loins (hmm…too much?)” so I’ll say something about that.
It’s not too much or something people could honestly call a politically incorrect figure of speech. But it did remind me of something. A female member of Congress (possibly Ms. Ocasio-Cortez) once said that Mr. Trump didn’t have the ovaries to make a difficult decision. That was an intentional pay on the phrase “doesn’t have the balls”, and I rather liked it.
I don’t see it that way. Commercial Crew is a big step forward, but it started long before Mr. Trump took office. Artemis and the earlier lunar plans (with a 2028 landing) were something he (or his administration) could take credit for. But they haven’t happened. Even if he is reelected, the budget may not be there, and reliance on SLS almost assures that it won’t be there for any real “reinvigoration” of human spaceflight. It’s quite possible that, in nine months, it will just be another presidential initiative which didn’t go anywhere and didn’t actually “reinvigorate” anything. If Mr. Trump had been actively lobbying Congress to fund Artemis, or even seriously working to get NASA away from a SLS-based approach, then I could see a basis for such a claim. But he hasn’t. At best, I can only see a half-hearted attempt which could “reinvigorate” human spaceflight at some point in the future. Not something he has (past tense) already accomplished.
I disagree that Trump administration didn’t seriously work to get NASA away from SLS-based approach, they clearly tried to do this in Artemis:
1. Gateway: Originally co-manifested on SLS Block 1B, now launched on commercial launch vehicles
2. CLPS: Commercial cargo landers, entirely decoupled from SLS
3. HLS: Human landers originally planned to launch entirely on commercial LVs, SLS is only added because of Boeing lobbying and pressure from Congress
1 and 2 already have contracts signed and they’re fully funded by Congress. #3 is still in the air, we’ll see how the award goes, if some of the awards go to commercial LV launched lander, then I think it would still count as a win.
Also important that all three are using fixed-cost contracts and 1 and 3 are public private partnerships, these are as ground breaking as what Obama did for Commercial Crew, so I believe they should receive the same recognition.
I wasn’t saying that the Trump administration has done nothing for human spaceflight. As you point out, they have done some very useful things. But that hasn’t been a major effort on the part of the administration. Just putting competent people in charge (eventually) and telling them to do some sensible things. Admittedly, that’s better than some past administrations have done, and better than Mr. Trump’s administration has done in other areas. But I don’t see it as enough to brag about turning things around and “reinvigorating” NASA. To justify that claim, I’d expect a President to have put more effort into making things happen.
Given this President’s style, I’d at least as many tweets about pushing NASA’s human spaceflight program, as complaints attacking the Governor of California (because he doesn’t manage federal land, which is outside his control, in the way Finland rakes their forests, which they don’t), or the mayor of San Juan (because she complained about poor federal response to a disastrous hurricane, which, honestly it was, no matter what you think of the pre-Maria state of Puerto Rico’s infrastructure.)
To me, it just feels like Mr. Trump has lifted a finger or two to do the right things for human spaceflight, not put any real thought or effort into it backing up, and is now claiming that the near future achievements are a great triumph for his work. I just don’t see it as his accomplishment or something he has grounds to brag about.
I have a question. A question endlessly discussed in these pages, and elsewhere. Over and over.
I’ve listened to countless hours of House and Senate Committees and sub-committees. I have yet to hear a single congressperson ask this question:
“Why the hell is SLS many, many times more expensive than F9? Why do we accept schedule extensions in the face of stunningly superior performance by the private sector? Why…” I I could go on.
Work parceled to every district? Not accurate. But those from districts like Huntsville get a bit of a ‘bye’. The others? Perhaps of the countless hours of hearings I missed it? Maybe. It’s boring much of the time.
The direct comparison is pervasive, and obvious. The silence is so loud that I cannot think!
I doubt it would go back to asteroid, Congress is not interested in asteroid, there’s bipartisan support in Congress for going to the Moon. Also the international partners are not interested in asteroid (or Mars), they’re interested in the Moon and many already signed up for Artemis, that’s something democrats can’t ignore.
If Biden can get rid of SLS/Orion and divide the freed up funding between climate research and commercial space, I think we’d actually be better off in terms of human spaceflight.
We should just note that trump lied again and move on, nothing to see here. Of course NASA and human space flight was not dead, just working towards a goal. There have been several times when trump lied about what our space enterprise was doing and this is just another example.
His direction to prepare for a campaign event on the Moon – the plan to land in 2024 – is a serious threat to our space enterprise. That unrealistic goal pushes NASA towards skipping needed testing, taking short cuts. Which NASA has done many times before.
I’ve been impressed with changes seen so far with NASA since Trump came into office. If anything the changes are too little, and perhaps too late to save NASA relevancy.
The problem for NASA (and Trump), is that you can’t change the course of the Titanic instantly. Something with that kind of institutional inertia is going to follow the course laid down over decades of neglect.
I’d have to agree that Trump and Bridenstine have reinvigorated human space flight. I am afraid though that if Trump departs next year its back to an asteroid we go.
No, not an asteroid, just the ISS as NASA is mobilized to fight Climate Change instead of space exploration. Administrator Bridenstine and the Artemis Program will be gone the first day of the new Administration. China will by default become the new leader in space exploration.
I have to disagree, but for a different reason. The case can be made that the baton has been passed. That the heart and soul of space is driven by Mssrs. Musk, and Bezos, amongst others.
Sadly, in some ways, but in others, not so much. In the broadest terms NASA has fulfilled a proper role of any agency in a similar position. NASA has developed much of the technology, at least initially; has shown what can be done; has enabled least least two mighty companies to spring from American loins (hmm…too much?).
Perhaps the time is right for NASA to accept the rightly deserved laurels as the Agency continues the gradual but perceptible shift to a future in which commercial space provides the ride and, increasingly, provides long-term policy.
Or not. It’s fortune telling!
You’ve made some good points and interesting future telling, so I won’t comment on that. You did write, “to spring from American loins (hmm…too much?)” so I’ll say something about that.
It’s not too much or something people could honestly call a politically incorrect figure of speech. But it did remind me of something. A female member of Congress (possibly Ms. Ocasio-Cortez) once said that Mr. Trump didn’t have the ovaries to make a difficult decision. That was an intentional pay on the phrase “doesn’t have the balls”, and I rather liked it.
I don’t see it that way. Commercial Crew is a big step forward, but it started long before Mr. Trump took office. Artemis and the earlier lunar plans (with a 2028 landing) were something he (or his administration) could take credit for. But they haven’t happened. Even if he is reelected, the budget may not be there, and reliance on SLS almost assures that it won’t be there for any real “reinvigoration” of human spaceflight. It’s quite possible that, in nine months, it will just be another presidential initiative which didn’t go anywhere and didn’t actually “reinvigorate” anything. If Mr. Trump had been actively lobbying Congress to fund Artemis, or even seriously working to get NASA away from a SLS-based approach, then I could see a basis for such a claim. But he hasn’t. At best, I can only see a half-hearted attempt which could “reinvigorate” human spaceflight at some point in the future. Not something he has (past tense) already accomplished.
I disagree that Trump administration didn’t seriously work to get NASA away from SLS-based approach, they clearly tried to do this in Artemis:
1. Gateway: Originally co-manifested on SLS Block 1B, now launched on commercial launch vehicles
2. CLPS: Commercial cargo landers, entirely decoupled from SLS
3. HLS: Human landers originally planned to launch entirely on commercial LVs, SLS is only added because of Boeing lobbying and pressure from Congress
1 and 2 already have contracts signed and they’re fully funded by Congress. #3 is still in the air, we’ll see how the award goes, if some of the awards go to commercial LV launched lander, then I think it would still count as a win.
Also important that all three are using fixed-cost contracts and 1 and 3 are public private partnerships, these are as ground breaking as what Obama did for Commercial Crew, so I believe they should receive the same recognition.
I wasn’t saying that the Trump administration has done nothing for human spaceflight. As you point out, they have done some very useful things. But that hasn’t been a major effort on the part of the administration. Just putting competent people in charge (eventually) and telling them to do some sensible things. Admittedly, that’s better than some past administrations have done, and better than Mr. Trump’s administration has done in other areas. But I don’t see it as enough to brag about turning things around and “reinvigorating” NASA. To justify that claim, I’d expect a President to have put more effort into making things happen.
Given this President’s style, I’d at least as many tweets about pushing NASA’s human spaceflight program, as complaints attacking the Governor of California (because he doesn’t manage federal land, which is outside his control, in the way Finland rakes their forests, which they don’t), or the mayor of San Juan (because she complained about poor federal response to a disastrous hurricane, which, honestly it was, no matter what you think of the pre-Maria state of Puerto Rico’s infrastructure.)
To me, it just feels like Mr. Trump has lifted a finger or two to do the right things for human spaceflight, not put any real thought or effort into it backing up, and is now claiming that the near future achievements are a great triumph for his work. I just don’t see it as his accomplishment or something he has grounds to brag about.
I have a question. A question endlessly discussed in these pages, and elsewhere. Over and over.
I’ve listened to countless hours of House and Senate Committees and sub-committees. I have yet to hear a single congressperson ask this question:
“Why the hell is SLS many, many times more expensive than F9? Why do we accept schedule extensions in the face of stunningly superior performance by the private sector? Why…” I I could go on.
Work parceled to every district? Not accurate. But those from districts like Huntsville get a bit of a ‘bye’. The others? Perhaps of the countless hours of hearings I missed it? Maybe. It’s boring much of the time.
The direct comparison is pervasive, and obvious. The silence is so loud that I cannot think!
I doubt it would go back to asteroid, Congress is not interested in asteroid, there’s bipartisan support in Congress for going to the Moon. Also the international partners are not interested in asteroid (or Mars), they’re interested in the Moon and many already signed up for Artemis, that’s something democrats can’t ignore.
If Biden can get rid of SLS/Orion and divide the freed up funding between climate research and commercial space, I think we’d actually be better off in terms of human spaceflight.
Back to the stone age on a societal level if he stays.
We should just note that trump lied again and move on, nothing to see here. Of course NASA and human space flight was not dead, just working towards a goal. There have been several times when trump lied about what our space enterprise was doing and this is just another example.
His direction to prepare for a campaign event on the Moon – the plan to land in 2024 – is a serious threat to our space enterprise. That unrealistic goal pushes NASA towards skipping needed testing, taking short cuts. Which NASA has done many times before.
‘NASA was dead as a doornail’? Yeah, too harsh.
NASA was spinning its wheels? dead on!
I’ve been impressed with changes seen so far with NASA since Trump came into office. If anything the changes are too little, and perhaps too late to save NASA relevancy.
The problem for NASA (and Trump), is that you can’t change the course of the Titanic instantly. Something with that kind of institutional inertia is going to follow the course laid down over decades of neglect.