House bill seeks to gut NASA’s Artemis plan, resurrect Journey to Mars
- Thread starter JournalBot
- Start date
Upvote
11
(12
/
-1)
Unless you attach a hefty check along with your email, your rep is going to be completely deaf to anything you say. As they say, money talks, bullshit walks.
Upvote
16
(27
/
-11)
"If this or anything like it is approved, I will resign from the National Space Council's User Advisory Group. After years of me and so many others urging NASA to get out of LEO and go back to the moon and this time to stay, it would be too much to bear to now watch at close range it being ruined by a Mars fantasy, probably while other nations make a lunar land rush."
I don't understand this comment. The problem is not Mars vs Moon, it is commercial cheap fast paced cheap fixed-price contract vs oldspace cost-plus going nowhere contract.
I don't understand this comment. The problem is not Mars vs Moon, it is commercial cheap fast paced cheap fixed-price contract vs oldspace cost-plus going nowhere contract.
Upvote
20
(25
/
-5)
I hope Orion comes equipped with a HANS device to protect the astronauts from whiplash from having to quickly change directions so often.
Upvote
61
(61
/
0)
I'm confident that we'll get the currently planned fusion reactors working in twenty years.
Ask me next year and the answer will be the same.
Upvote
68
(69
/
-1)
No. It's still there. It's just excluded from Lunar duties (which they still have to perform, now using SLS, twice a year), and made into the Mars Gateway.
Upvote
29
(29
/
0)
Hand out to Boeing bill. Ugh.
I keep wondering why people reporting on Boeing aren't mentioning their $43 billion they spent on stock buybacks. Considering the state that Boeing is in today, it sure seems like that money would have been better spent on the programs that are visibly failing today.
Boeing Enhances Shareholder Wealth through Share Repurchases
By Anirudha Bhagat, Jun 28, 2019
https://marketrealist.com/2019/06/boein ... purchases/
Apparently shareholder wealth is way more important than actually providing their customers with products that work properly.
I keep wondering why people reporting on Boeing aren't mentioning their $43 billion they spent on stock buybacks. Considering the state that Boeing is in today, it sure seems like that money would have been better spent on the programs that are visibly failing today.
Boeing Enhances Shareholder Wealth through Share Repurchases
By Anirudha Bhagat, Jun 28, 2019
https://marketrealist.com/2019/06/boein ... purchases/
Apparently shareholder wealth is way more important than actually providing their customers with products that work properly.
Upvote
92
(92
/
0)
Unclear at what all the fuss is about.
Boeing successfully investigated and ameliorated a massive engineering failure that put thousands of live at risk without any tragic consequences, right?
Who better to trust with a massive, bloated contract to send humans to Mars?
(/s)
Boeing successfully investigated and ameliorated a massive engineering failure that put thousands of live at risk without any tragic consequences, right?
Who better to trust with a massive, bloated contract to send humans to Mars?
(/s)
Upvote
39
(42
/
-3)
Science and Tech advancements require adequate, secure and sustained funding. Hypercompetitive (read starved) funding that changes with the whims of politicians or the field gets you nowhere. While this dynamic and its results are manifestly clear when it comes to space, I think the same dynamic occurs in the biological and health sciences- the costs are simply hidden and externalized (closed labs, demoralized workforce) and stalled progress.
Yay progress.
Upvote
17
(17
/
0)
What people don't understand is that no one on this committee dreamed of space when they were a child, or if they did, those dreams died long ago. I can say this because no one who had such dreams and continue to hold them in their heart could have ever proposed or voted for this.
Upvote
47
(47
/
0)
There is plenty of anti-Mars sentiment in the community. It's also much more of a PC comment to make then straight up calling out the House for being bought and paid for.
Upvote
13
(16
/
-3)
Under the proposed bill, NASA can still build the Gateway, it just can't require it to be in the critical path for crew landings.
Upvote
26
(26
/
0)
Not sure about land rush per say.
For what is possibly valuable about it.
1) There does appear to be water there. Possibly accessible water
2) Oxygen can be extracted from lunar regolith
3) There appears like there could be somewhat ready access to a number of important elements in Lunar Regolith that should be possible to extract through processing. All important to a settlement and/or spaceflight industry. oxygen, sodium, magnesium, aluminum, silicon, calcium, titanium, and iron are the principle components of lunar regolith
4) Modest gravity well with NO Atmosphere
5) dV from Lunar surface to LEO is significantly less than from Earth's surface to LEO.
Not saying it SHOULD be the stepping stone to Mars. It would be easier to go visit it and learn some stuff about living on a gravity well, "in space" that we can't learn in LEO and would be useful for Mars.
But it doesn't really help us get to Mars. Not on the time scale of "boots on Mars by the 2030s". It certainly has applicability to get outside Cislunar space down the road.
Even with full reusability from Earth, Lunar launches to LEO are still less dV required than from Earth's surface. Possibly lower stress on the spaceship to shuttle Lunar surface to LEO and back than there would be on a fully reusable Earth to LEO rocket. So there might still be lower TCO in the long run.
Certainly way cheaper to go from the Moon to one of the L points than from Earth to one of the L points.
From a Commercial stand point, the Moon probably represents a much bigger bonanza. Again those readily accessible minerals (there are also hydrates on the Moon that shouldn't be too hard to access, so at least low volume water production is possible, even without water ice. Though that would be ideal). Close enough to make visiting "easy". How long before a Mars "vacation" is possible? I suspect other than maybe a few billionaires, probably not this century, even with lots of advances. Even with the use of things like NERVA (or more advanced nuclear propulsion) the window for Earth-Mars and Mars-Earth travel is every two years and relatively narrow. Then it takes 10 months to get there and 10 months to get back. So you are talking about all of the support costs for ~2.5 years. Plus the time investment of that. Even with a nuclear propulsion source IIRC that keeps the same every 2 year window for a reasonable mission, but shaves it down to something like 4 months transit time. That MIGHT reduce transit time sufficiently that you could leave early in the expanded window, get there, spend a few weeks there and then travel back. Accomplishing the whole thing in less than a year and limiting the tourist season to every other year.
But at any rate, for a long, long time to come, it is going to be limited to governments and large corporations with deep pockets sending explorers and possibly bankrolling colonies who'll likely NEVER come back. Or at best, would be one way for decades before returning.
The Moon on the other hand, if costs continue to get pushed lower and lower with something like Starship and super heavy, then you might end up at a place where you can take a week or two long vacation on the moon, with the attendant 3 days each direction and all you might be talking about shelling out is a couple of hundred thousand a person.
That's in upper middle class territory for a lot of the 1st world for those willing to devote their financial resources to an incredible vacation. Certainly within reach of the entire upper class.
That's costs by the 2050s maybe. By the end of the 2100s? Don't know. If we ever manage cheaper energy, more engineering advances, expanding lunar colonies it might in the realm of tens of thousands for a vacation.
Of course there is more there than just tourism, but Lunar tourism is certainly possible this century. Martian tourism? Probably not.
Upvote
51
(51
/
0)
My rep has demonstrated that he actually has a backbone. Whether or not he would choose to exercise it in this case is another question.
Upvote
19
(19
/
0)
I could only imagine of where the world would be if the same level of indecision existed before North America got discovered. I think what compounds everything is personal greed - how sad.
Upvote
14
(14
/
0)
As much fun as it is to dogpile on Shelby, I smell corporate welfare to keep Boeing solvent as it copes with disaster after disaster because they can't seem to produce things without serious flaws in them.
Just the hardware and software parts, of course (/snark).
With Boeing losing profits, and way too many congresscritters with investments in the businesses they promote, it's the safe way to give yourselves pay raises. Give corporations business and cut their taxes.
The cynic in me says that Shelby played only a single person's role in this. But they're all complicit.
Upvote
61
(61
/
0)
KhepryQuixote
Ars Praetorian
The side of the Moon that always faces away from the Earth would be prime territory for radio astronomy as most, if not all, of the Earth's radio traffic would be blocked, leading to cleaner reception of signals from suitable radio sources in our galactic neighborhood.
In addition, as a plethora of Internet-centric satellites, e.g. SpaceX's StarLink constellation, which will nominally number in the multiple thousands, pollutes the night-sky for astronomical purposes, the Moon's relatively cleaner skies will likely be the future of astronomical observation, if only from observatories in orbit around it, let alone those on the surface (if the Moon dust problem can be mitigated).
Those not on the surface of the Moon will be at the mercy of those on it. Imagine hundreds of prospector robots cruising the surface looking for tasty deposits of vital minerals. Whether those minerals could be exploited locally is a matter of energy, be it solar or nuclear. If such exploitation could occur, then the Moon's gravity well at one-sixth that of Earth's would be a potential initial gateway to the asteroid belt and beyond.
In the end, it'll come down to willpower and technology. The alternative is to stare at our navels until we lack either the will or means for the exploration and exploitation of the greatest gifts of all to humanity: the Solar System.
Upvote
37
(38
/
-1)
In the House, individual votes do matter. My local Representative was elected with only a couple hundred votes over his opponent. Embarrassing someone with ads calling out the equivalent of a "bridge to nowhere" can actually cost them re-election. Which, handily enough, comes every two years in the House.
Upvote
35
(35
/
0)
What they mean is NASA owning the vehicle design (SLS/Orion) built under contract from an external company (Boeing/Lockmart), as opposed to someone like SpaceX or ULA owning the vehicle design and providing fixed cost launch services.
Upvote
56
(56
/
0)
Wonder how soon something similar will happen?
They really want to give Boeing this?
Boeing 727 accidents
They really want to give Boeing this?
Boeing 727 accidents
Upvote
8
(10
/
-2)
That's what every large company did with its extra cash from Trump's tax breaks. That's why the market appears to be doing so well. You didn't actually think it was good company fundamentals did you?
Upvote
47
(56
/
-9)
Pardon the profanity, but I'm really out of diplomatisch things to say:
God fucking damn it, can we stop mixing space science and politics? This fucking institutional schizophrenia is accomplishing exactly fucking nothing except throwing money into a hole, and it's robbing us of countless opportunities because some fucking Representative or Senator hast a vested interest in whatever bullshit Boeing and the rest of Old Big Space is trying to sell without actually delivering anything.
Jesus Christ, I want to buy Brindestine a bottle of good liquor, not because I like him, but nobody deserves this kind of managerial whiplash.
It's way too early to get this angry, fucking hell.
God fucking damn it, can we stop mixing space science and politics? This fucking institutional schizophrenia is accomplishing exactly fucking nothing except throwing money into a hole, and it's robbing us of countless opportunities because some fucking Representative or Senator hast a vested interest in whatever bullshit Boeing and the rest of Old Big Space is trying to sell without actually delivering anything.
Jesus Christ, I want to buy Brindestine a bottle of good liquor, not because I like him, but nobody deserves this kind of managerial whiplash.
It's way too early to get this angry, fucking hell.
Upvote
59
(63
/
-4)
It's bipartisan...it seems the party lines disappear when they have a giant platter full of pork sitting in front of them.
Upvote
47
(48
/
-1)
If I understand contracts & IP... I am not a lawyer.
Cost plus means the US Gov is paying for all research, and acquires ownership of any IP thereby generated.
Fixed cost means the contractor does the research, acquires ownership of the IP, to which the government gets to license at a pre-negotiated rate.
Upvote
26
(27
/
-1)
Next time someone questions my tendencies to express revelry in inciting rebellion and general disobedience, I'm going to point them to this article.
And then spend an hour explaining why this article is ample justification.
And then spend an hour explaining why this article is ample justification.
Upvote
-6
(6
/
-12)
Actually Moon-then-Mars was Jan 15, 2004. I'd always assumed it was so that the administration could justify no actual progress (no one can expect us to get from inception to Mars in 4 years).
Upvote
9
(9
/
0)
To paraphrase the Ronny Cox character from "Robocop", Boeing will love all the cost-plus contracts. Who cares if it works or not?
Upvote
23
(23
/
0)
'Proving' probably wont all be done in a single trip. Mars is 8 months away.
Upvote
4
(4
/
0)
Dear Eric,
Back when the Snowden leaks were coming out, all the really scary reveals seemed to happen on a Friday. For months it seemed we would get yet another "piss me off Friday" article. If you're going to write an article about Boeing getting yet another undeserved handout, can you please release them on Fridays? Then I have the weekend to recover without having to get work done at the same time.
Thx!
Back when the Snowden leaks were coming out, all the really scary reveals seemed to happen on a Friday. For months it seemed we would get yet another "piss me off Friday" article. If you're going to write an article about Boeing getting yet another undeserved handout, can you please release them on Fridays? Then I have the weekend to recover without having to get work done at the same time.
Thx!
Upvote
41
(42
/
-1)
That was not what the OP was asking about. Government-owned vehicles can be, and often are, purchased on fixed-price contracts.
Upvote
14
(15
/
-1)
Ironing out technologies before heading to Mars is IMO the most important. With the moon, worst case is a 3 day rescue mission. Mars would be a 6+ month recovery mission.
I can't believe someone would try something so blatant like this. There's got to be some serious campaign donation money happening behind the scenes here. It's too bad you can't clean up your election advertising and maximum donation per person/company to keep the graft down.
Upvote
27
(28
/
-1)
It wouldn't surprise me to start seeing flip flops every quarter. April? We're going to the Moon again. July? Back to Mars.
Fucking ridiculous.
This is one of the reasons I seriously advocate for putting the manned program on indefinite hiatus. It's become clear that its only purpose is to funnel tax dollars to specific districts and contractors, not to further manned presence in space for whatever reason.
No American will set foot on the Moon again or on Mars as part of a national space program. That window was nailed and superglued shut after Apollo 17. They may do it as part of a private or commercial operation from SpaceX or BO or some other player, but not as part of a NASA mission. Even if this proposal gets shitcanned on the House floor, others will follow to pull the rug out just as metal is getting bent for Artemis elements beyond SLS.
JSC and MSFC will become the graveyards of dozens of prototypes and not-quite-finished concepts for getting to/landing on/living on the Moon and Mars, none of which will ever fly. Apollo will be NASA's (and the US') only manned BEO accomplishment.
Upvote
39
(40
/
-1)
It's never a bad time to contact your reps.
I think it might also be an idea to get a list of folks running against anyone who proposed this, so we can donate to their (ie, the opponent's) campaigns. Clearly the representatives from Boeing have enough already.
Upvote
23
(24
/
-1)
Was the House so jealous of the (SLS) Senate Launch System, that they needed an equally porky (HLS) House Landing System to complement it?
Upvote
49
(49
/
0)
Contract type doesn't dictate who "owns" the IP, the buyer always owns that. The Artemis Program had NASA out of the "buyer" role, so they wouldn't have had complete control over everything, even if the contracts could be written to make that a non-issue. The Cost-Plus comment is based on past history of how these "Government ownership" task orders work.
Upvote
-2
(2
/
-4)
That's not necessarily correct. The IP can remain the possession of the company doing the work or the government as contracted. For the SLS core, NASA is doing the engineering and Boeing the construction. The IP remains with the government. However, no sane private enterprise would agree to manufacture someone else's not-yet-complete design at a fixed price. Cost-plus contracts were developed so the government could shoulder the risks for uncertain endeavors. Which is why buying the next round of SLS cores on a cost-plus basis is so ironic. Said manufacturing shouldn't be uncertain after you've already built two or three.
Upvote
27
(27
/
0)