Biologist, Explorers Club Fellow, ex-NASA Space Biologist and Payload integrator, Editor of NASAWatch.com and Astrobiology.com, Lapsed climber, Explorer, Synaesthete, Former Challenger Center board member 🖖🏻

55 replies on “Selling Artemis To A Skeptical America”

  1. That’s a tough sell. It’s trying to get kids interested in science and technology, while funding a lunar program off college scholarships. I think that counts as sending a mixed message.

    1. There are several billion *surplus* $$ in the fund that aren’t being used for anything. But news stories and camera-hogging congresspeople will omit that fact.

    2. Those Pell Grant surpluses have just been sitting there for years doing nothing because the Obama Administration over funded the program. At least this will create jobs for them when they graduate.

      1. You’re injecting reality into a discussion of image and public perception. True or not, this makes it _look_ like the administration isn’t interested in helping poor kids afford to attend college. That appearance is going to make it hard to convince people a Moon landing is helping get students interested in and studying science and technology.

        It’s like the bad press the 737 has gotten recently. The MAX was a botched job, but the older models are excellent aircraft and as safe as ever. But that fact doesn’t change the appearance or avoid the bad press.

        1. True, the Democrats have every incentive to mislead the public on this and their spun machine is probably already gearing up to do so.

          1. Is it too much to ask that you don’t inject your MAGA politics into damn near every comment section on this site?

          3. NASA policy has been a presidential issue since President Kennedy called on America for Project Apollo. But it’s not about MAGA but about ensuring a real future for humanity as both Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk understand. And like it or not President Trump, like President Kennedy, is focusing NASA in the right direction for space development even if their respective personal motives were/are based on domestic politics.

            My politics are advocating for the economic development of the Moon and I don’t want to see some Congress Critter, like Senator Mondale did, framing it as NASA versus the poor. That was one of the reasons that Project Apollo became a dead end as NASA shifted from the human exploration of space to its “applications” programs (Skylab, Shuttle, ISS) that have stranded us in LEO ever since. That is why it’s important to stamp out this idea that money is being taken from poor students to fund it when all that is being transferred is money sitting there idle.

    3. I’m not fond of it either, but maybe they could spin it as offering STEM opportunities to future college graduates who used pell grants.

    4. Also need to consider are public schools adequate in preparing kids for a engineering or science career? Then asking them to pursue college when they see so many college grads under a mountain of debt.

      1. The answer is no, the public schools aren’t adequate, at least not in low income districts. And yes, all those loans are a huge disincentive. Which probably means the unspent Pell grant money should be redirected to something which vaguely resembles the intended purpose. Congress, in effect, decided to spend a certain amount on post-secondary education for people from low income families. The specific approach doesn’t seem to be working, or at least it can’t seem to spend the allocated money. To me, that means it should be spent on some other approach to solving the same problem.

        1. The key barrier is that would require Congress to pass new laws on how financial aid is done. But the big banks that make a fortune on student loans would make it very clear to their Congress Critters that is not acceptable. which is one piece of the puzzle. The other is that when Congress increases the amount of financial available state governments have generally responded by reducing the levels of support for higher education. But I do agree it is something Congress should be working on.

          The Pell Grant has surplus simply because college enrollment has been falling for years. Fewer students over all mean fewer students qualified for the Pell Grants. The report notes that there are 2.6 million fewer students enrolled in Fall 2017 than in the peak year of 2011. Part of it is the falling birthrate, the other is the increase in demand in vocational fields where no degree is needed like plumbing.

          https://hechingerreport.org…

          University enrollment decline continues into sixth straight year

          Numbers fall at all levels, with the drop in
          first-year students speeding up

          by Jon Marcus
          December 20, 2017

          1. And if the historic data on Pell Grants is any indication, the next economic downturn will likely wipe out the current Pell Grant surplus.

          2. Not likely. Falling birthrates are the major driver of the decrease in college enrollments, and it looks likely to continue into the future.

            https://hechingerreport.org…

            The number of public school students could fall by more than 8% in a decade

            Column by Jill Barshay

            November 26, 2018

  2. Public support isn’t critical so much as congressional support. The public just doesn’t care that much about space, although they’ll cheer whenever the space program does something new that’s cool.

    1. >Public support isn’t critical so much as congressional support.

      Good point, the public never had any say about Apollo, Shuttle, ISS, VSE, etc. I think it is when a congress member feels criticism of funding or not (i.e. areas with a major NASA center or contractor) then they will decide whether or not to agree with a program.

  3. I’ve heard no reasons for why we should do Artemis, nor have I heard anything about a long term plan. Is there some intent to do something long term like an outpost? Or maybe the intent is to ensure the commercial sector can support tourism? Or are we string up some ‘forward base” from which we’ll eventually send someone to Mars? Maybe its just to make sure the US can protect its interests in the face of Chinese advances? Maybe someone is trying to figure out some reasoning? Taxpayers ought to be skeptical until there is some reasoning and a plan?

    1. I’m pretty sure all Trump wants out of it is a plaque on the surface with his name on it (ie, another branding job). Beyond that I don’t think he’s thought about it.

      1. Could we just name an asteroid after him? That would be easier. (The answer is no. The IAU doesn’t approve names for asteroids if the proposed name is that of a living, political figure.)

    2. Administrator Bridenstine in his townhall was very clear that its to establish a permanment presence on the Moon for science and technology development. And he made a point they are going to do it with an open architecture that will allow private firms and other nations to join in as they wish.

      1. Where’s the long-term plan and budget associated with it? SMD takes great pains to develop long-term plans and near-term missions to implement those plans. Thyat’s one of the reasons why the program is so well understod and supported on the Hill. Where’s the beef here? As noble as this idea might be, this comes across to many as the product of another of 45’s 3 am tweets.

        1. You might want to fact check your incorrect statement about budgets being in place for SMD’s near and long term mission plans. There are a plethora of missions mentioned in the Planetary Decadal Survey alone that will never see the light of day. I’m not even including the Astrophysics, Heliophysics, and Earth Decadal Surveys here.

          1. The Decadal Survey is, in many respects, a wish list. It’s almost impossible to get NASA to even consider a mission if it isn’t mentioned in the Survey. Or, at least addresses goals mentioned in the Survey. So everyone makes sure everything anyone is interested at least gets a mention.

            But the last one did set out long term plans based on a vaguely realistic guess at costs and budgets. Large strategic missions, in order of priority, were the first element of a Mars sample return (if it’s cost could be reduced below $2 billion). Then, or if Mars sample return’s cost couldn’t be kept down, instead, a Europa ocean mission, if it’s cost could be reduced below $2 billion. Then start thinking about a Uranus or Neptune orbiter. In terms of New Frontiers, the Survey gave a short list of missions and said NASA should fly two in the next decade. In terms of Discovery, they said NASA should fly one every two years and it must address the scientific objectives described in the Survey. There were also words about a balance between large and small missions, funding for research and analysis and for technology development.

            That’s more or less what NASA has been doing, as a recent National Academies study (the decadal mid-term review) concluded. That sounds like a plan to me. It’s a plan that doesn’t funds everything everyone would like, and it’s a plan that says there’s a whole lot more to do than money to do it. But anything else would be unrealistic, and that’s wouldn’t be a useful or viable plan.

          2. Yes my point was about Mr. Kaplan’s statement that budgets were in place for SMD’s near and long term mission plans which is not true.

        2. The long term is both simple and difficult- human beings living in space. Bezos has this exactly correct.

          To this extent just about anything we do in space helps move into that direction. Some are more efficient, of course.

          1. I mostly agree. One could argue we accomplished that with ISS. So we need real long-term plan and strategy so it becomes clear how 45’s 2024 mission feeds into that. We’ve heard some good things re: architecture using common interfaces, but there’s a lot more that’s needed. But we need much, much more.

        3. Unfortunately, human spaceflight has always been very political. Not that politics aren’t involved in those SMD decadal surveys and other long-term plans. There is. But arguing about the balance between large and small missions, Mars versus Jupiter, or the fact that JWST doesn’t observe my favorite colors, are mild differences compared to the issues involving human spaceflight.

          You can’t say it’s about commercial exploitation of space, because some people hate that idea. You can’t say it’s about international cooperation and good will, because some people hate that. You can’t say it’s about science because some people very strongly oppose spending that kind of money on science. I think that leads to very vague and mushy goals, where you say all of the above, throw a bone to everyone, and make sure everyone has two things they sort of like for each goal they object to.

          And I’m sure you’ve seen mission proposals with equally vague traceability. When it comes to setting priorities and deciding on the details, it really helps to have clear focused goals and a nice, smooth flow of logic from the goals to the implementation. But you aren’t going to get that without a national consensus on why we’re sending astronauts anywhere.

          1. I don’t disagree. It’s great that a real commercial space business is begining to thrive and even drive new activity. We can hope that decisionmakers can figure out how best to levereage these develpoments.

          2. It’s only political because the cost is so high. If Bezos is right- and surely Elon is halfway there- governments will be far less involved. And aside from providing destinations that by nature prod industry, government has very little to show for billions already spent.

          3. Yes and no. NASA isn’t a high budget agency by federal government standards. I think the whole thing is political because it’s high visibility and too expensive to be a non-government effort. Except, as you say, Mr. Bezos and Mr. Musk are on the way to changing that. But that’s only indirectly about cost; I see it as more about something (anything) which takes a high profile activity out of hand people with a political agenda. (Arguably, that’s not the right way to say it either, since Mr. Bezos’ thing about off-world industry and colonies is also a political agenda. But I think you’ll see what I mean.)

        4. They don’t come over night, it takes horse trading between the centers to spread the work around, not to mention cutting deals with international partners to make it more diffuclt to cut. And you need to get the respected Congress Critters involved so they see the jobs in their districts. Its not like Blue Origin or SpaceX where the CEO just issues orders and signs a check to get it started. This Townhall was just the first sales pitch to the NASA workers.

          1. Well….45’s 2024 plan appeared literally overnight. Strategy by tweet. I don’t think that the ink was even dry on the FY2020 submission before this was announced. It send a message that the goal wasn’t well thought out, because if it was, it would have been in the FY2020 budget. Sales pitches can’t change that reality no matter how one tries to spin it.

          2. The Space Council gave NASA 15 months to come up with a plan to return to the Moon. NASA bureaucrats decided it wasn’t worth the effort and didn’t do as directed. So the administration gave them the deadline.

          3. It’s the way he governed, and by and large it’s a piss poor approach. Unless, of course, he’s shoveling dollars your way.

      2. Of course! It’s not a plaque Trump’s after, it’s a whole moon base! Bridenstine must have sold it to him by saying the the installation would be known as Moon Base Trump! After all, the only way to get his attention is to say something “huuge” will be named for him. Brilliant (and bigly) move by the NASA administrator…

    3. It is easy to say this time it will belong term or permanent but that does not tell anyone what or why. In 1961 there were pictograms illustrating what Apollo would look like. I have not seen this for Artemis. The only 2 definitive things I’ve heard are that we will land 2 Americans and that one will be a woman. Only 2? Very little definition yet.

  6. It *IS* a hard sell. We are up against a public mindset that includes somewhere between one-third and up to even one-half (depending) of the remarks on social media, YouTube and general websites comments sections being of the ‘Moon landings were faked’ and ‘they’re going to fake it again’ and bullsh1t like that… :'(

  7. First step in selling this to a skeptical America? Telling anyone about it. I haven’t read NASAwatch in a few days. Checking in today is the first I have heard of this, at least called “Artemis”. It didn’t make any local news outlet or front page. At least now I know why Bridenstine kept rattling on about sending a woman to the moon at the Planetary Defence Conference a few weeks ago. His emphasis on that point made it sound downright weird. I guess they wanted a milestone that hadn’t been checked off years ago.

    1. Exactly. Nobody knows about US going back to the moon except those that follow NW or other space forums, or employed in the business.

  8. May I just say, whatever the outcome of this “Moon or Bust by 2024” plan, Director Bridenstine is a friggin’ breath of fresh air.

  9. The name strikes me as a good one, echoing and extending Apollo. (Artemis was Apollo’s twin sister.) And I bet Andy Weir’s not complaining either.

  10. Up until now, the space program has had solid support on both sides of the aisle. Now that Trump has made it a political issue by picking the 2024 date and making it a talking point for campaign rallies, the bipartisan support will fade quickly.

    1. The really embarrassing question would be, “What about early 2025?” Mr. Bridenstine’s stated reason for an early deadline, which I agree with, is that it has to be before a new administration can change course, pick a different goal, and make NASA start all over again. Well, early 2025 wouldn’t give the new administration time to do that, and we’d already be so close to the lunar landing that canceling it wouldn’t be viable. And early 2025 would also eliminate the criticism of this all being a presidential ego trip. Of course, that would be an embarrassing question if it really were all about a presidential ego trip.

      1. If they’re worried about a new administration changing course, they better get to the moon by 2021.

        1. Actually, that’s not a bad idea. But a human landing would be a bit ambitious. But a goal and a deadline before each change of government might not be a bad idea. How about a robotic lander to determine the presence and accessibility of lunar ice? That’s still pretty ambitious for a 21 month deadline, but it’s a step in the right direction. It would also push NASA back towards the rapid development cycle of Apollo and its supporting, robotic missions.

    2. Yes. It’s all orangeman’s fault. Also Obama didn’t seem to mind to make it a political issue in 2009.

      1. Had to look that up… I think you probably mean Obama’s 2010 space policy speech where he committed to raising NASA’s budget by $6 billion over 5 years (according to wikipedia). Pretty similar to Mr. Trump’s ambitions funding wise, but of course without the headline grabbing goal. The Repubs put an end to that in 2011 when they took the House, right? Probably what the Dems will do now…

  11. The reason for going to the moon is to add knowledge and wealth to the world, to raise us all up from that which we are to something better. To do it will require grit and sweat and pain and a tenacious spirit. If it is to put the first woman on the moon, or the first anyone or anything, it is not worth doing. We have to see beyond such things, to get away from the silliness that has often infected our movement into space with our cute blue suits and colorful patches and starry eyes and get into the hard, dangerous work that it will take to live there and make off-Earth home. We shall see if we are up to it.

  12. I think the pink boot thing is highly condescending. We have plenty of highly-qualified female astronauts who will be on the lunar missions due to their own merit, there’s no reason to even hint otherwise.

    1. That is why I asked the question. But go look at the response to the tweet. All of the complaints are from men. Women are liking/retweeting it including some rather prominent members of the space community.

    2. I’m not about to tell anyone how to dress. But isn’t it a bit out of character for the mythical figure the program is names after?

  13. Of course America is skeptical. America can see that this is a stunt intended to boost Pence’s election chances in 2024. America would be much happier with a carefully planned deliberately paced program of exploration and development, proportionate to and in parallel with addressing the huge array of other problems and needs facing us.

Comments are closed.