Author Topic: Trump promises to 'plant the American flag on Mars' & build defense shield  (Read 20431 times)

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16785
  • Liked: 6720
  • Likes Given: 2927
Quote from: yg1968
HLS-Starship was selected under the base period in April 2020. Option A was selected in April 2021. But Starship couldn't have been selected for Option A if it hadn't been selected under the base period.

Again: Spacenut stated that Bridenstine brought in Starship. That is categorically false. The selecting officer for the base period was Stephen Jurczyk. Bridenstine had no role in the selections made for both the Base Period and Option A. The fact that SpaceX opted to offer Starship for the NextSTEP H BAA, is not Bridenstine's accomplishment.  The only thing Bridenstine accomplished was getting a competition started to select a lunar lander. So, you can only credit him with getting started on getting a lander ready.

But getting certain companies to respond to the HLS competition, let alone getting them to offer specific solutions, is not Bridenstine's accomplishment. In fact, Bridenstine was not even allowed to do so. Because doing so would be a violation of the same stringent set of federal acquisition rules that eventually toppled Loverro.

Right but HLS being a public-private partnership was done under Bridenstine. It wasn't clear that it would be at the outset (especially the ascent module, see the link below). NASA also didn't insist on a 3 element lander which opened the door to Starship. Lueders was named HEO Associate Administrator by Bridenstine. Jurczyk was named NASA Associate Administrator by Bridenstine. Nelson essentially replaced Lueders with Jim Free for deep space exploration and Jurczyk with Cabana (although Jurczyk retired, I don't think that Nelson would have kept him as associate administrator).

https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/nasa/nasa-wants-speedy-development-of-commercial-lunar-landers/
« Last Edit: 11/17/2022 04:31 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16785
  • Liked: 6720
  • Likes Given: 2927
I am not sure that the Journey to Mars or Gateway are worth bragging about. The Journey to Mars was a Journey to no where. It didn't include the Moon which made it almost useless. In terms of taking credit for a program, any administration that participated in the program can claim credit for it. If anything it shows that a politician cares enough to even talk about it. In terms of lies or more accurately exaggerations, it's not like other politicians don't bend the truth or exaggerate either. Trump is just more obvious about it.

Emphasis mine.

Wrong. The Journey to Mars very much included the Moon, just not the lunar surface. But the prototype for the Mars Transfer Vehicle was the Deep Space Habitat (NextSTEP, which later was rebranded Lunar Gateway), which was planned from Day 1 to be tested near the Moon. Just look at NASA's description of the Journey To Mars:

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/journey-to-mars-next-steps-20151008_508.pdf

Around the Moon isn't the same as on the surface of the Moon. In any event, I am not sure that I would brag about Gateway. I am somewhat supportive of Gateway because of the international collaboration that it brings but I am glad that Bridenstine decided to minimize it by reducing its scope (e.g., HALO is smaller than what was originally planned).

Emphasis mine.

This is again a misconception on your part. More than a year before Bridenstine got into office, NASA has already partnered with Orbital Sciences/Orbital ATK to use a Cygnus-based module as the initial habitat module (what we now know as HALO) for Deep Space Habitat, instead of the bigger ISS based modules offered by Boeing and LockMart.

I strongly suggest you start reading up on the history of NextSTEP because your knowledge base is lacking.

When NASA started working with Orbital is not relevant, the decision to down select the Appendix A habitat providers and go ahead with a minimal habitat (which ended up being called HALO) was made in July 2019 (more than a year after Bridenstine started), see this thread:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=48634.0

Quote from: JOFOC for minimal habitat
The NextSTEP-2 Appendix A contractors’ concepts were assessed for potential use as a Minimal Habitat. Northrop Grumman was the only contractor with concepts and the development and production capability that met both requirements and schedule.

https://spaceref.com/status-report/nasa-gateway-program-justification-for-other-than-full-and-open-competition-for-the-minimal-habitation-module/

See also this link:
https://spacenews.com/nasa-to-sole-source-gateway-habitation-module-to-northrop-grumman/

« Last Edit: 11/17/2022 04:05 pm by yg1968 »

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16785
  • Liked: 6720
  • Likes Given: 2927
I think that Trump prefers Mars than the Moon but he was probably told in 2017 that Mars wasn't possible before the end of 2024. However, Mars before the end of 2028 would be possible with Starship.

Nevertheless, the Trump tweet that you cited above does also mention the Moon, so I think that he also supported the Moon but preferred Mars as the ultimate goal.

As Pence mentioned in the quote above, Trump did say that rich guys loves rockets and if they can help NASA (get to the Moon or Mars), that is great.

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10185
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 6567
  • Likes Given: 61209
Moderator FYI:
2 posts deleted, 6 posts edited, and 1 moderator warning thus far.

<sarcasm>
👍
</sarcasm>
« Last Edit: 11/17/2022 07:08 pm by zubenelgenubi »
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights.  Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline Oersted

  • Member
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2774
  • Liked: 3849
  • Likes Given: 2661
Quote from: page 237 of VP Pence's book
"and I were encouraging NASA to do what our administration had done elsewhere -with the economy, on foreign policy: shrug off compliancy,

Compliancy? How about "complacency". - Seems the editor did not proofread Pence´s book...

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1652
  • USA
  • Liked: 1393
  • Likes Given: 2324
Back to the main topic - I will not believe it until I see a detailed plan for how this will be accomplished (I'm not holding my breath). Until then, its just a promise to spend alot of money without congressional buy-in (which fails 100% of the time).

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8556
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 9917
  • Likes Given: 11630
I think that Trump prefers Mars than the Moon but he was probably told in 2017 that Mars wasn't possible before the end of 2024. However, Mars before the end of 2028 would be possible with Starship.

NASA won't even be able to get back to the Moon by 2028, and you think NASA could get to Mars by then? I don't think you understand what it takes to go to Mars for NASA.

SpaceX might indeed get to Mars by 2028, but that will have nothing to do with NASA, nor with Trump. Of course that wouldn't stop Trump from claiming credit, but Elon Musk is solely responsible for their Mars effort.

Oh, and NASA getting back to the Moon this decade will only be possible because Elon Musk is committed to going to Mars. NASA would still be looking for an HLS system if SpaceX wasn't committing private funds to colonizing Mars.

Quote
Nevertheless, the Trump tweet that you cited above does also mention the Moon, so I think that he also supported the Moon but preferred Mars as the ultimate goal.

We can only go by what Trump says, and he said:
Quote
"For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon — We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!"

It is clear that Trump did not support NASA returning to the Moon, regardless how Pence and Bridenstine spun his comments.

Quote
As Pence mentioned in the quote above, Trump did say that rich guys loves rockets and if they can help NASA (get to the Moon or Mars), that is great.

Yeah, and look how much progress Bezos has made. Not much. He couldn't even win an HLS contract, and Blue Origin is part of the reason by the ULA Vulcan rocket is so behind schedule.

It should be clear by now that the 2024 return-to-Moon date was a fake date, and no real thought was put into how to actually make that happen. So in that light Trump taking credit for NASA going to Mars adds nothing to the actual effort - which NASA has been working on for decades already.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16785
  • Liked: 6720
  • Likes Given: 2927
NASA won't even be able to get back to the Moon by 2028, and you think NASA could get to Mars by then? I don't think you understand what it takes to go to Mars for NASA.

SpaceX might indeed get to Mars by 2028, but that will have nothing to do with NASA, nor with Trump. Of course that wouldn't stop Trump from claiming credit, but Elon Musk is solely responsible for their Mars effort.

Oh, and NASA getting back to the Moon this decade will only be possible because Elon Musk is committed to going to Mars. NASA would still be looking for an HLS system if SpaceX wasn't committing private funds to colonizing Mars.

If Trump creates a commercial crew to Mars program and SpaceX wins an award, of course Trump could take credit for it. Same thing goes for any President that does that including Biden (should he decide to do so in the future).

We can only go by what Trump says, and he said:
Quote
"For all of the money we are spending, NASA should NOT be talking about going to the Moon — We did that 50 years ago. They should be focused on the much bigger things we are doing, including Mars (of which the Moon is a part), Defense and Science!"

It is clear that Trump did not support NASA returning to the Moon, regardless how Pence and Bridenstine spun his comments.

You are emphasizing the first part of the tweet but the second part (which I have put in bold above) says that the Moon is also part of the Mars efforts.

Yeah, and look how much progress Bezos has made. Not much. He couldn't even win an HLS contract, and Blue Origin is part of the reason by the ULA Vulcan rocket is so behind schedule.

It should be clear by now that the 2024 return-to-Moon date was a fake date, and no real thought was put into how to actually make that happen. So in that light Trump taking credit for NASA going to Mars adds nothing to the actual effort - which NASA has been working on for decades already.

It wasn't a fake date, Pence even considered using commercial rockets (in addition to SLS) to attain this goal (as mentioned in his March 2019 speech). Pence even repeats that in his book (see the quotes in my prior post). Shelby stopped him from doing so but it was being considered.
« Last Edit: 11/17/2022 09:37 pm by yg1968 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8556
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 9917
  • Likes Given: 11630
NASA won't even be able to get back to the Moon by 2028, and you think NASA could get to Mars by then? I don't think you understand what it takes to go to Mars for NASA.

SpaceX might indeed get to Mars by 2028, but that will have nothing to do with NASA, nor with Trump. Of course that wouldn't stop Trump from claiming credit, but Elon Musk is solely responsible for their Mars effort.

Oh, and NASA getting back to the Moon this decade will only be possible because Elon Musk is committed to going to Mars. NASA would still be looking for an HLS system if SpaceX wasn't committing private funds to colonizing Mars.

If Trump creates a commercial crew to Mars program and SpaceX wins an award, of course Trump could take credit for it...

Not sure you realize how hilarious it is what you just said. You are saying that Trump would create a "Commercial Crew" program just so that he can claim credit for going to Mars. Because no one else on Earth can even get to the Moon with the money Congress is giving NASA, so of course SpaceX would be the only available winner of such an offering (can't say "competition" because there wouldn't be any).

NASA obviously can't add much to a trip to Mars if they are struggling to get back to the Moon in the same time period. Clearly Trump doesn't know anything about the efforts involved in going anywhere in space, he just thinks he can make pronouncements and take credit for the work of others - Elon Musk and SpaceX in this case.

Quote
...It should be clear by now that the 2024 return-to-Moon date was a fake date, and no real thought was put into how to actually make that happen. So in that light Trump taking credit for NASA going to Mars adds nothing to the actual effort - which NASA has been working on for decades already.
It wasn't a fake date, Pence even considered using commercial rockets (in addition to SLS) to attain this goal (as mentioned in his March 2019 speech). Pence even repeats that in his book (see the quotes in my prior post). Shelby stopped him from doing so but it was being considered.

See, you focusing on just replacing the SLS is proof that Artemis supporters really don't understand WHY the original 2024 date was a made up date, and not based on any sound engineering assessments. For instance:

- No one thought SpaceX was an option for the Moon lander back in 2017, and all the companies that everyone were thinking could have built a Moon lander, none of them submitted bids that could have supported 2024 (much less this decade).

- There are no suits for astronauts to use for landing on the Moon. The Artemis program was announced 2017, and NASA only awarded contracts for Moon suits in 2022 - and the NASA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has stated that NASA isn't even planning to have two suits available until November 2024, which really doesn't support planning for a 2024 mission, AND the OIG thinks that is impossible anyways.

Bottom line is that even without all of the drama surrounding the SLS & Orion, the Trump Administration never really understood what it would take to achieve a 2024 Moon landing with humans. It was political theater, with the date picked to coincide with a political need (Trump leaving 2nd term in office), and not a reflection of reality.
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16785
  • Liked: 6720
  • Likes Given: 2927
The 2024 goal was announced during Pence's March 2019 speech at the National Space Council meeting, not in 2017. But even if the 2024 goal wasn't achieved, it doesn't really matter. The sense of urgency for the 2024 goal gave Artemis a kick in the pants. It encouraged Pence and Bridenstine to look at commercial alternatives to SLS for the first crewed landing.

More importantly, HLS (Nexstep Appendix H) was announced a month after Pence's March 2019 speech. Before Pence's March 2019 speech, for Appendix E, NASA was thinking about a 3 element lander where the ascent module was possibly going to be governmental (not good) and the first crewed lunar landing was only going to be in 2028.

Quote from: February 2019 Spaceflight Insider article
Meanwhile a Space Launch System rocket would send Orion with an ascent vehicle to rendezvous with the Gateway where the full lander system would be docked together. [...]

Gerstenmaier said the ascent vehicle might be developed using a more traditional approach where more NASA requirements are placed on the contractor.

https://www.spaceflightinsider.com/organizations/nasa/nasa-wants-speedy-development-of-commercial-lunar-landers/

See at 9 minutes of this video where Gest explained this:
youtu.be/N1tEh8SgbDw

See also these slides:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_hls_baa_industry_forum_14feb2019.pdf
« Last Edit: 11/18/2022 12:55 am by yg1968 »

Offline Coastal Ron

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8556
  • I live... along the coast
  • Liked: 9917
  • Likes Given: 11630
The 2024 date was announced in 2019, not 2017. But even if the 2024 goal wasn't achieved, it doesn't really matter. The sense of urgency for the 2024 goal encouraged Pence to look at commercial alternatives to SLS.

Which was, predictably for everyone who follows the SLS program, shut down quickly by Senator Shelby. It was the wrong way to go about replacing the SLS, if that was even the goal. The only way to "replace" the SLS was to cancel the program, and Pence never advocated for that.

Quote
Furthermore, HLS (Appendix H) was announced after Pence's March 2019 speech. As VSECOTSPE mentioned the 2024 date gave the program a kick in the pants. Before Pence's speech, for Appendix E, NASA was thinking about a 3 element lander where the ascent module was possibly going to be governmental (not good).

You just keep proving my point that the Trump Administration announced a goal before they had any idea it was achievable.

As someone that has made a living being a professional scheduler, I understand the difference between "fake dates" and "aggressive schedules". Fake dates are created without any knowledge about what the pacing items would be to achieve a date, whereas an aggressive schedule is one that knows what the pacing items are, and has developed approaches to solving them.

The Trump Administration never got buy-in from Congress before they announced the 2024 date, which was a failure on their part. And you can't blame Congress for that, because the President is NOT a king. The President has to convince Congress why it is important to fund the programs they are advocating for, including the Artemis program.

Biden inherited the Artemis program, and is fine with having it continue. But otherwise Biden is not expending the kind of "political capital" that Trump SHOULD HAVE expended way back in 2017 that would have allowed NASA to fund the hardware and capabilities that are missing for returning to the Moon.

And if you think Congress was not very enthusiastic about funding a return-to-the-Moon program, just wait until Trump tries to get them to fund a Mars human landing program - there is no "National Imperative" for spending that kind of money, especially when NASA will be able to buy rides to Mars from SpaceX for a fraction of the cost.

Trump is just pontificating to get attention. Yet again... ::)
If we don't continuously lower the cost to access space, how are we ever going to afford to expand humanity out into space?

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16785
  • Liked: 6720
  • Likes Given: 2927
Which was, predictably for everyone who follows the SLS program, shut down quickly by Senator Shelby. It was the wrong way to go about replacing the SLS, if that was even the goal. The only way to "replace" the SLS was to cancel the program, and Pence never advocated for that.

The goal wasn't to cancel SLS but to also look at commercial options in addition to SLS. I hope that this option will be proposed again by Biden or another President since it seems more realistic than canceling SLS which would be difficult, even without Shelby.

Offline Slarty1080

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2696
  • UK
  • Liked: 1837
  • Likes Given: 804
I laughed my socks off when SpaceX were awarded the HLS contract. Nobody had anticipated SpaceX making such a low bid or that a stand in NASA Administrator would make such a bold decision in an attempt to actually meet a date. There must have been a hornets nest of angry critters in Congress after that. But they only have themselves to blame.

And that Musk's huge Mars rocket looked so incongruous compared to the other paltry offerings made it even funnier.

Seems to me that the only person who is really genuinely interested in actually getting people to Mars is Elon Musk. The calculus of the critters involves grandstanding, playing political games and a range of ulterior motives. I doubt very much that any of them really give a damn about Mars.
My optimistic hope is that it will become cool to really think about things... rather than just doing reactive bullsh*t based on no knowledge (Brian Cox)

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 859
  • Likes Given: 181
The 2024 goal was announced during Pence's March 2019 speech at the National Space Council meeting, not in 2017. But even if the 2024 goal wasn't achieved, it doesn't really matter. The sense of urgency for the 2024 goal gave Artemis a kick in the pants. It encouraged Pence and Bridenstine to look at commercial alternatives to SLS for the first crewed landing.

Pence and Trump are politicians, not rocket engineers. Politicians announce all sorts of things (*cough* SDI, Constellation, NASP, etc. *cough*). This does NOT mean that these things will happen, or happen when the politician says they will.

I do agree that setting some arbitrary date soon in the future helped accelerate the glacial progress of the SLS program, but I don't think for one minute that they had any real shot at achieving this time goal, even if Pence or Trump actually believed that they could do it.


See also these slides:
https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_hls_baa_industry_forum_14feb2019.pdf
Slides and power point presentations are not proof of anything other than intent. If the space program were proven by slides, we'd have colonized Pluto by now.

Online ulm_atms

  • Rocket Junky
  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 897
  • To boldly go where no government has gone before.
  • Liked: 1505
  • Likes Given: 599
[deleted]

Your comments are overly political, even for the policy section. But the Artemis/Moon to Mars program was initiated under the Trump Administration. The Mars portion of the Moon to Mars program is essentially a rebrand of the Journey to Mars but it was there nevertheless under the Trump Administration.
Two things.

[deleted]

Two, the whole HSF program is so politically driven that there will always be political "discussions" about it.  When "Space Policy" is being driven by politics and elections schemes...how can you not discuss the political side which is driving a chunk of all this?  We can't just bury our heads in the sand about the political side driving parts of Space Policy.

I feel bad for the mods deciding where the line is with this truthfully.  And to the MODS....There is going to be two years minimum of this in all reality...can we all get some guidance of what is and is not acceptable during this time please?

And now for the on topic reply to the thread...I don't see any of this happening.

[zubenelgenubi: I deleted deadman1204's content  from his post and all replies containing it or replying to it.]
« Last Edit: 11/19/2022 01:49 pm by zubenelgenubi »

Offline zubenelgenubi

  • Global Moderator
  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10185
  • Arc to Arcturus, then Spike to Spica
  • Sometimes it feels like Trantor in the time of Hari Seldon
  • Liked: 6567
  • Likes Given: 61209
Moderator:
D1204's post content is now deleted, as other members continued to post replies to it or containing it, after Lar's warning up-thread. ⚠️

Multiple posts edited.
Support your local planetarium! (COVID-panic and forward: Now more than ever.) My current avatar is saying "i wants to go uppies!" Yes, there are God-given rights.  Do you wish to gainsay the Declaration of Independence?

Offline tea monster

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 633
  • Across the Universe
    • My ArtStation Portfolio
  • Liked: 859
  • Likes Given: 181
Apollo was political. There was no logic or reason for shooting for the Moon apart from beating the Russians for political reasons. It was a spectacular technology and scientific (apart from Apollo I) success, but don't fool yourself that it wasn't politically motivated.

The history of manned space flight, and even crewed space vehicles, is tightly woven with politics. You can't discus one without involving the other.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1652
  • USA
  • Liked: 1393
  • Likes Given: 2324
Mods please tell us what you count as acceptable political discussion?

Its fact that politicians regardless of party are not always truthful. Its not possible to have a discussion about politics (which this entire thread/subsection is) without being able to judge the person making the statement.

Offline yg1968

  • Senior Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16785
  • Liked: 6720
  • Likes Given: 2927
Mods please tell us what you count as acceptable political discussion?

Its fact that politicians regardless of party are not always truthful. Its not possible to have a discussion about politics (which this entire thread/subsection is) without being able to judge the person making the statement.

I am not a mod but it was already explained in this post:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57682.msg2431485#msg2431485

General political comment is not allowed. Space policy comment is allowed.

Offline deadman1204

  • Full Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1652
  • USA
  • Liked: 1393
  • Likes Given: 2324
Mods please tell us what you count as acceptable political discussion?

Its fact that politicians regardless of party are not always truthful. Its not possible to have a discussion about politics (which this entire thread/subsection is) without being able to judge the person making the statement.

I am not a mod but it was already explained in this post:
https://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=57682.msg2431485#msg2431485

General political comment is not allowed. Space policy comment is allowed.
Regardless of whats written, that is not how the mods are enforcing. ALL comments that do not believe this statement have been deleted. The defacto result is that this is not a "space policy" topic, nor a "political" topic, but a partisan topic. Only those who take the "authors" statement at face value are allowed to post in the thread.

 This thread should be deleted, as any real discussion is not allowed and the moderation ends up being inherantly partisan since all dissenting views are silenced.

Tags:
 

Advertisement NovaTech
Advertisement Northrop Grumman
Advertisement
Advertisement Margaritaville Beach Resort South Padre Island
Advertisement Brady Kenniston
Advertisement NextSpaceflight
Advertisement Nathan Barker Photography
0