House bill seeks to gut NASA’s Artemis plan, resurrect Journey to Mars

Lawmakers also appear to like cost-plus contracts.

Read the whole story

 

[Imbrium]

I watched the first moon landing in 1969 when I was 5 on a B&W TV.

50 years later and NASA has accomplished NOTHING with manned space flight.

Boeing and NASA have had 50 years to get off their collective asses!

How about NO to Boeing and SLS.

All it takes is the price of a stamp to file a protest of a contract award.

I suggest we get LOTS of stamps and shut Boeing the hell down!

50 YEARS! Time is up NASA !

Let us see what SpaceX can do with this funding instead.

Let SpaceX fund their own projects. If Elon wants to go to Mars (or where ever), fine, but not on the taxpayers dime.

That's not the point in question. In this case, the House is determining that NASA should create, own, and operate a transportation system to the Moon, at the same time as various US companies are trying to do this themselves.

In other words, the US government is to try to create an (inevitably less efficient) government funded and operated competitor to SpaceX.

That seems barely legal. And anti-competitive and certainly anti-free market.

I seem to recall rethugs saying "something, something, something, can't pick winners and losers, blah, blah, blah."

 

[fenris_uy]

Can someone please explain this to me?

The United States should retain "full ownership" of the Human Landing System, and unfettered insight into its design and development. In other words, it must be let under a cost-plus contract

How does the US retaining full ownership = cost-plus?

That's not the part that means cost-plus. The "unfettered insight into its design and development" is probably the part that means cost-plus. You can't do fixed cost, if you are not going to be in charge of the design or development.

 

[zepi]

I don’t envy you Americans having to choose between two parties, both insisting on going nowhere with rockets made entirely of pork.

 

[Danrarbc]

Looking at the bill, it is sponsored by a Democrat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendra_Horn

And the committee it seems to have come out of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... eronautics

Just so who you know exactly Boeing has bought and paid for.

There are 3 California members, and one from Colorado for the Dems + a Texas GOP member. Are those 5 members idiots? This hurts their states.

There's a reason SLS uses parts from nearly every state. Every state 'benefits' from it. The rocket doesn't benefit, of course, but Congress gets to point to the jobs supporting it.

Texas most certainly benefits though - because SLS keeps Johnson Space Center in the loop.

 

[alastairmayer]

I predict that as soon as China lands their people on the Moon, the US will suddenly decide that we need to go there too, and build a base. Yes, it is the crappiest reason to do something, but that was the crappy reason we went to the Moon in the first place. At that point, the only person who will be able the get the US there ASAP will be Musk.

Of course, if SLS turns out to be an unsustainable failure, or the Boeing lander is delayed/fails, that will only make it more likely that SpaceX will have to pull Congress's nuts out of the fire.

"If"? I think SLS is already an unsustainable failure, and delays/failures on Boeing's lander are pretty much a foregone conclusion.

But I also don't think Congress will give a rat's ass. They'll just keep throwing more of our money at whoever has the best lobbyists.

 

[nzod]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

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.

I forgot about the astronomy aspect of things. Quite right. Especially if we have sufficient industry on the moon to "make things". Even if it isn't a very cheap way to make things. Can you imagine a lunar telescope on the far side with a 30 meter aperture and no atmosphere to have to compensate for!?! Plus, 1/6th the gravity to need to worry about forming the mirror and the telescopes supporting pieces.

The one nasty problem to be solved is the tenaciousness of the lunar dust. It can be quite an aggravant as it seems to be able to get anywhere with the slightest bit of disturbance. In addition, apparently it is a bitch to get off of whatever surface to which it is clinging.

Links to the dust problem mentioned above are submitted for your perusal:
* “New” data from the Moon landings, 40 years on
* NASA’s Coating Technology Could Help Resolve Lunar Dust Challenge

This preemptive solution could be adapted for the Moon:

Spoiler

 

[jbode]

So, what do we imagine Bridenstine's choice of whiskey is, and how much is he consuming right now?

His drink of choice is Diet Mt. Dew.

It is interesting that less than two years after he leaves the House, they stab him in the back.

As the old saying goes, there is no honor among thieves.

And as the other old saying goes, "you want loyalty, get a dog."

 

[greybeardengineer]

Looking at the bill, it is sponsored by a Democrat: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kendra_Horn

And the committee it seems to have come out of: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... eronautics

Just so who you know exactly Boeing has bought and paid for.

There are 3 California members, and one from Colorado for the Dems + a Texas GOP member. Are those 5 members idiots? This hurts their states.

We don't know what the quo pro is for their quid. Remember aerospace is only a tiny part of government interests and economy in general.

 

[daveishereagain]

I watched the first moon landing in 1969 when I was 5 on a B&W TV.

50 years later and NASA has accomplished NOTHING with manned space flight.

Boeing and NASA have had 50 years to get off their collective asses!

How about NO to Boeing and SLS.

All it takes is the price of a stamp to file a protest of a contract award.

I suggest we get LOTS of stamps and shut Boeing the hell down!

50 YEARS! Time is up NASA !

Let us see what SpaceX can do with this funding instead.

Let SpaceX fund their own projects. If Elon wants to go to Mars (or where ever), fine, but not on the taxpayers dime.

That's not the point in question. In this case, the House is determining that NASA should create, own, and operate a transportation system to the Moon, at the same time as various US companies are trying to do this themselves.

In other words, the US government is to try to create an (inevitably less efficient) government funded and operated competitor to SpaceX.

That seems barely legal. And anti-competitive and certainly anti-free market.

I seem to recall rethugs saying "something, something, something, can't pick winners and losers, blah, blah, blah."

Oh, yes, they are very adept at speaking with forked tongue.

 

[Embattle]

This is your space program run by bureaucrats and politicians with advice from lobbyists. Any questions?

I think you'll find it applies to most things in America, by the way it isn't only advice but clear cases of what in most parts of the world would be considered bribery.

 

[mhalpern]

I watched the first moon landing in 1969 when I was 5 on a B&W TV.

50 years later and NASA has accomplished NOTHING with manned space flight.

Boeing and NASA have had 50 years to get off their collective asses!

How about NO to Boeing and SLS.

All it takes is the price of a stamp to file a protest of a contract award.

I suggest we get LOTS of stamps and shut Boeing the hell down!

50 YEARS! Time is up NASA !

Let us see what SpaceX can do with this funding instead.

Let SpaceX fund their own projects. If Elon wants to go to Mars (or where ever), fine, but not on the taxpayers dime.

That's not the point in question. In this case, the House is determining that NASA should create, own, and operate a transportation system to the Moon, at the same time as various US companies are trying to do this themselves.

In other words, the US government is to try to create an (inevitably less efficient) government funded and operated competitor to SpaceX.

Gov competition to domestic industry has an inconsistent record when the issue is brought up in court, sometimes its allowed (with caveats) most of the time it isn't, but the situation with this many jobs potentially being determined by a court ruling is unprecedented in itself

 

[daveishereagain]

I don’t envy you Americans having to choose between two parties, both insisting on going nowhere with rockets made entirely of pork.

It sucks big time. My dream of seeing a crewed landing on Mars in my lifetime will probably not get realized.

 

[daveishereagain]

This is your space program run by bureaucrats and politicians with advice from lobbyists. Any questions?

I think you'll find it applies to most things in America, by the way it isn't only advice but clear cases of what in most parts of the world would be considered bribery.

Indeed so. My use of 'advice' was ironic.

 

[alastairmayer]

Back in the day we had a phenomenon called shame.
I remember it fondly as it prevented shitty behavior to a certain extent.
Go ahead, say "ok, Boomer".

Ironically it's the "boomers" that seem to have lost all shame. They are the political class right now. :-/

"The average age of Members of the House at the beginning of the 115th Congress was 57.8 years; of Senators, 61.8 years, among the oldest in U.S. history"

Proves nothing. Politicians have never had any shame.

 

[metalliqaz]

I don’t envy you Americans having to choose between two parties, both insisting on going nowhere with rockets made entirely of pork.

Our rockets may be made of pork, but I'm pretty sure our space program has plenty to envy.

 

[Atterus]

Lemme get this straight... the House is so corrupt that they're betting on a has-been Boeing that has resorted to a model of subcontracting their subcontracts to the lowest, least capable labor? The Boeing that managed to run off their top skill over profit margins? They really think after the repeated space tech failures that Boeing has "non" delivered (far behind schedule) this is a brilliant idea when SpaceX and others have demonstrated repeatedly WITHOUT their help technology that not only costs less but is vastly more efficient? This reeks of political farting around and hoping the kickbacks will pay for another vacation to some hot resort all while claiming to be fighting "for the people" *spit*. These clowns all need term limits and zero financial freedoms while serving.

The government quit having any genuine interest in "doing" anything a while ago. It's full of a bunch of suits trying to climb over one another anymore (while axing veterans out of jealousy) while the politicans play games with institutional knowledge or want to reinvent fire to claim credit for inventing fire. There are numerous programs out there that already accomplished various "dream" techs, but you have these politicals doing everything they can to keep them suppressed because "a good crisis means good money/votes". Can't make money on going to the moon if we establish a efficient supply chain and have cheap reusable rockets. Not working? Blame the other party when they have to inherit your shit show for a bonus! You can make a killing putting your chips on a inefficient bloated pork fest all while claiming to "fight for the little guy, pay no attention to my paycheck" ha! Meanwhile, programs that actually have delivered operational prototypes well under budget and ahead of schedule get the shaft because there is no money or glory to leech.

Btw, personal experience? Party lines mean nothing. The methods/justifications just change is all.

But yeah... let's keep letting the government run more things, they CLEARLY are great at it... /rant

This is like giving EA sole gaming dev control over Star Wars...

 

[Jozsi]

This is simply unbelievable. Boeing needs to be shut out of any aerospace contracts until the present pump and dump stock market scam "business" style of the management is replaced by the engineering driven original Boeing priorities that were in place before the Mcdonnell Douglas reverse takeover. More people will die before this monster is finally slain but when money is involved, the lives of strangers are a small price to pay for these types.

 

[whiteknave]

This is absolutely insane. I smell Senator Shelby all over this trying to pull strings.

It's a House bill. The weird part is that SpaceX, Blue Origin and Maxar are blue states companies, and this bill is very bad for them

I would argue that SpaceX is a purple state company. While they are incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in California, a lot of their work is done in Texas and Florida.

 

[wagnerrp]

Can someone please explain this to me?

The United States should retain "full ownership" of the Human Landing System, and unfettered insight into its design and development. In other words, it must be let under a cost-plus contract

How does the US retaining full ownership = cost-plus?

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.

That was not what the OP was asking about. Government-owned vehicles can be, and often are, purchased on fixed-price contracts.

Government-owned vehicles, sure. Government-owned vehicle designs, less so.

 

[oldmanreese]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

Turn your question on its head. What is useful on Mars? Put aside all the grand plans. We can't live there without significant investment and there is no reason to believe that we can make it more than what it is. A dirt ball in a hard to reach orbit. No magnetosphere to speak of. No atmosphere to speak of.

 

[daveishereagain]

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.

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?

Your tax rate is now more inline with the world average.
The conservative policy is to have a trickle down effect. These new wealthier share holders putting the money back into the economy. Perhaps buying a new Tesla.

Oh, I feel that 'trickle' all right. Don't piss on my head and call it rain. 'Trickle down economics'........how quaint.

 

[mhalpern]

I don’t envy you Americans having to choose between two parties, both insisting on going nowhere with rockets made entirely of pork.

SLS is almost certainly the last pork launch vehicle, and this is recognized by the people who are responsible for the program, as such their logical course of action is to milk it for all they can, as long as they can until it gets canceled, ideally just after they retire so their successors can deal with the mess. the US has more launch capability that isn't strongly affiliated with the political process than anyone else in the world, in large and small launchers active and near active

 

[blackhawk887]

This is absolutely insane. I smell Senator Shelby all over this trying to pull strings.

It's a House bill. The weird part is that SpaceX, Blue Origin and Maxar are blue states companies, and this bill is very bad for them

Did SpaceX and BO have much skin in the game under Artemis? I know both had submitted proposals but I don't think either expected it to push much of their long term agenda.

Bridenstine was pushing to make the lander systems commercially owned with NASA as an anchor customer. That would mean bidders investing some of their own money and working to find other customers, although in the end NASA would probably end up being the only major customer.

Regardless of private investments, this is still bad for non-Boeing companies because they don't want to use SLS to launch the lander.

 

[Felix Aurelius]

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.

I'm sure Bridenstine and Tory Bruno have shared many a lare night in the bar, with Bridenstine cradling a Starship model while Bruno weeps into the latest ACES concept blueprint.

I'd read that tell-all. The back room chatter for this must be fascinating.

 

[Jim Z]

Back in the day we had a phenomenon called shame.
I remember it fondly as it prevented shitty behavior to a certain extent.
Go ahead, say "ok, Boomer".

Honestly I think shame died after the Greatest Generation™. Boomers don't seem to have any.

nope. Boomers think they're now the "greatest generation." That's what all of the slogans were in 2016, "MAGA" is because Boomers think they are what made America great.

 

[mhalpern]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

As with anything in space, the answer's quite complicated.

1) Moon base creates a reasonable first-step toward reaching Mars and beyond.
2) As has already been stated in other comments: Water ice. It's cheaper (financially/resources/delta-V.) to get the water-ice from the moon to a Mars-and-beyond-bound craft than it is to haul it up from Earth's surface.
3) For efficiency's sake, you build your Mars-and-beyond-bound craft in Lunar orbit. You fuel it there. You stock it there with multiple trips from Earth. The smaller/more frequent launches actually save on fuel/resources compared to hauling one GIANT craft into space that can make the trip straight from Earth's surface to Mars.
4) By making your craft in Lunar orbit, you have a much more effective slingshot to Mars because you're starting from a higher altitude than low-earth-orbit, so less actual fuel is required for the transfer.
5) By using a manned base on the Lunar surface, you create a whole host of benefits to the Mars program, listed as follows:
a) You have a base that's days, not years, away from getting home in case of a disaster. This base can be used for testing habitats/processes that will be used on Mars.
b) You have a base that's a good, safe 'abort' location in case of a failure while constructing the craft in Lunar orbit.
c) You have mountains of secondary and tertiary scientific endeavors that can be attached to said base that can and will benefit humanity greatly with housing, materials sciences, recycling, food production, and air quality, among other areas of study.

Unfortunately, the efforts toward this are being loaded with pork and biases toward established players like the embattled Boeing.

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,
3 & 4 building your mars craft in lunar orbit means everything takes the same amount of Delta V they would need to get to Mars from LEO before making the TMI burn, so you are using far more Delta V not less.
5 Very different environments different problems many places on Earth serve far better analogs to Mars than anywhere on Luna would

 

[wagnerrp]

I'm sure Bridenstine and Tory Bruno have shared many a lare night in the bar, with Bridenstine cradling a Starship model

Well great... now I want a Starship-shaped beer stein...

 

[daveishereagain]

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.

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?

Your tax rate is now more inline with the world average.
The conservative policy is to have a trickle down effect. These new wealthier share holders putting the money back into the economy. Perhaps buying a new Tesla.

Oh, I feel that 'trickle' all right. Don't piss on my head and call it rain. 'Trickle down economics'........how quaint.

Perhaps you can go and work for a Latino business who are seeing accelerating growth. Maybe you'll feel better about yourself. In addition take some pills so you feel less of a victim. Classic leftist.

Heh. I'm quite retired and living on social Security. Thanks for your contribution. Have a sparkling day.

 

[Jaypaul]

This bill is Socialism and big government. It was probably created because Boeing can’t complete in a fair Capitalist market.

 

[daveishereagain]

What is there on the moon that is so valuable for there to be a land rush? I've always been under the impression that the moon's most useful feature is its gravity.

As with anything in space, the answer's quite complicated.

1) Moon base creates a reasonable first-step toward reaching Mars and beyond.
2) As has already been stated in other comments: Water ice. It's cheaper (financially/resources/delta-V.) to get the water-ice from the moon to a Mars-and-beyond-bound craft than it is to haul it up from Earth's surface.
3) For efficiency's sake, you build your Mars-and-beyond-bound craft in Lunar orbit. You fuel it there. You stock it there with multiple trips from Earth. The smaller/more frequent launches actually save on fuel/resources compared to hauling one GIANT craft into space that can make the trip straight from Earth's surface to Mars.
4) By making your craft in Lunar orbit, you have a much more effective slingshot to Mars because you're starting from a higher altitude than low-earth-orbit, so less actual fuel is required for the transfer.
5) By using a manned base on the Lunar surface, you create a whole host of benefits to the Mars program, listed as follows:
a) You have a base that's days, not years, away from getting home in case of a disaster. This base can be used for testing habitats/processes that will be used on Mars.
b) You have a base that's a good, safe 'abort' location in case of a failure while constructing the craft in Lunar orbit.
c) You have mountains of secondary and tertiary scientific endeavors that can be attached to said base that can and will benefit humanity greatly with housing, materials sciences, recycling, food production, and air quality, among other areas of study.

Unfortunately, the efforts toward this are being loaded with pork and biases toward established players like the embattled Boeing.

1 costs MORE delta V to get to the lunar surface than it does to land on Mars.
2 see above as for financially add the fact that Ice processing infrastructure on Luna isnt free and hydrolox has horrible mass ratio,
3 & 4 building your mars craft in lunar orbit means everything takes the same amount of Delta V they would need to get to Mars from LEO before making the TMI burn, so you are using far more Delta V not less.
5 Very different environments different problems many places on Earth serve far better analogs to Mars than anywhere on Luna would

Well said. Many people are led by myths until the Real World is used in the equations. Using the moon as an assist to Mars is simply not realistic.

 

[Snark218]

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.

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?

Your tax rate is now more inline with the world average.
The conservative policy is to have a trickle down effect. These new wealthier share holders putting the money back into the economy. Perhaps buying a new Tesla.

Oh, I feel that 'trickle' all right. Don't piss on my head and call it rain. 'Trickle down economics'........how quaint.

Me me me
Trying finding a decent candidate to challenge Trump instead of self pity for 4 years.

You've now responded to the same comment twice, with two different bullshit, trolling, own-the-libs retorts. Put down the internet, you're bad at it and this is embarrassing.

 

[Statistical]

The conservative policy is to have a trickle down effect.

 

[blackhawk887]

Can someone please explain this to me?

The United States should retain "full ownership" of the Human Landing System, and unfettered insight into its design and development. In other words, it must be let under a cost-plus contract

How does the US retaining full ownership = cost-plus?

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.

That was not what the OP was asking about. Government-owned vehicles can be, and often are, purchased on fixed-price contracts.

Government-owned vehicles, sure. Government-owned vehicle designs, less so.

I thought Boeing legally owns the SLS design, although NASA obviously has the "unfettered" insight and access that the House bill would mandate applies to HLS.

 

[daveishereagain]

Trolls strollin',strollin'in.
Trollin' trolls strollin'. strollin' in, strollin' in. Strollin' trolls trollin'. Trolls strollin' in, strollin' in.

 

[rmm200]

In our hyper-partisan atmosphere we find ourselves in, you can't really have an article like this without giving the political party of those representatives being quoted. Unfortunately - party matters. Bipartisan is pretty much dead and buried. As for me, I am totally opposed to anything Shelby wants as being bad for the country. We have had enough of Boeing and cost-plus contracts.