Trump promises to 'plant the American flag on Mars' & build defense shield

[JulesVerneATV]

Trump promises to 'plant the American flag on MARS' if he is elected president again in 2024 and vows to build a 'defense shield'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11433423/Trump-promises-plant-American-flag-MARS.html

How much would it cost and 'Direct to Mars' could it be done?

From 1963 to 1969 NASA budget was often 2% and as high as 4% of the Federal Budget, it may never be as high again unless something else were to happening politically.  In year 2018, Donald Trump issued Space Policy Directive-2, "Streamlining Regulations on Commercial Use of Space. There is speculation Jeb Bush, Michelle Obama, DeSantis or others from minor parties like Constitution Party, Green or Libertarian might also run.

The 45th president of the United States had a talk or announcement last night, 2024 space politics and US election speculation has arrived early after Mid Terms, however Donald Trump also supported Gateway 2016, 2017 - 2020, 2021 and Artemis 1 is now in Orbit. 

[laszlo]

The American flag is all over Mars. It first got to the surface in 1976, so I'd say he's a little late on this one.

[yg1968]

The American flag is all over Mars. It first got to the surface in 1976, so I'd say he's a little late on this one.

The flag didn't get planted on Mars (the key word being planted).

[yg1968]

Incidentally, one of the things that Vice President Mike Pence mentions in his book released yesterday is that it was Trump's idea to revive the National Space Council. He asked Pence during the 2016 Campaign if Pence would like to lead it. Pence was thrilled at the opportunity of doing so since he was a big fan of Apollo when he was young. 

[Proponent]

Incidentally, one of the things that Vice President Mike Pence mentions in his book released yesterday is that it was Trump's idea to revive the National Space Council. He asked Pence during the 2016 Campaign if Pence would like to lead it. Pence was thrilled at the opportunity of doing so since he was a big fan of Apollo when he was young. 

He does not seem to have been much of a fan of returning to the moon when he was a congressman, though.  He was co-chairman of the Republican Study Group in 2005 when that body proposed saving money by cancelling Constellation without replacing it with anything. Does that get a mention in the book?

[deadman1204]

[deleted]
Edit/Lar: Careful... this is starting to veer into general politics... please don't. Thanks

Edit/zubenelgenubi: Members couldn't resist quoting this post after Lar's warning, so I deleted it, and edited the replies.

[laszlo]

The American flag is all over Mars. It first got to the surface in 1976, so I'd say he's a little late on this one.

The flag didn't get planted on Mars (the key word being planted).

Mars Polar Lander 

[yg1968]

Incidentally, one of the things that Vice President Mike Pence mentions in his book released yesterday is that it was Trump's idea to revive the National Space Council. He asked Pence during the 2016 Campaign if Pence would like to lead it. Pence was thrilled at the opportunity of doing so since he was a big fan of Apollo when he was young. 

He does not seem to have been much of a fan of returning to the moon when he was a congressman, though.  He was co-chairman of the Republican Study Group in 2005 when that body proposed saving money by cancelling Constellation without replacing it with anything. Does that get a mention in the book?

No but VP Pence talks about space and NASA on 8 pages of his memoirs. He mentions that he specifically requested to be on the House Committee on Science, Space Technology before he was Vice-President. Here are some of the more interesting quotes from his book:

"But [...] even as a budget hawk, I believe firmly in the US space program. It is an incredible source of pride and progress, a launching pad for industries that have powered America's economy and improved the life over. And it is a frontier that someday may be settled. If and when that happens, it should be settled by free men and women carrying the American flag.

   

I wanted to encourage our astronauts and engineer to make their next giant leap and return Americans to the moon. I was in Huntsville to chair the fifth meeting of the [space] council in March 2019 not only to name the first commander of the Space Force, General Jay Raymond but also to make it official that we planned the "next man and first woman" to the Moon in five years in American rockets launched from American soil. Not just that, but the astronauts would be landing on the moon's south pole, where no American had ever gone.

The United States didn't have a rocket capable of sending astronauts to the moon, but instead of lamenting that and postponing the country's return there, the president and I were encouraging NASA to do what our administration had done elsewhere -with the economy, on foreign policy: shrug off compliancy, cut red tape and unnecessary regulations, and, as I said that day, think better bigger, fail smarter, and work harder. And do it with urgency. [...]

Trump liked to quip that "Rich guys love rockets," a reference to the generation of entrepreneurs investing in commercial space flight, including Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. If their companies' technology could get Americans back to the moon, NASA shouldn't hesitate to work with them. [...] With entrepreneurs such as him [Bezos] and Musk, the US space revival was well under way. And the country had a president who was a builder, who always wanted to go further, faster, and higher in every endeavor.

History may well record Space Force as being one of the most consequential achievements of our administration: providing for the common defense in the boundless reaches of space.

[yg1968]

[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.

[woods170]

[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.

Now that we are talking politics: Artemis' Moon to Mars program is nothing but a rebranding of NASA's "Journey to Mars".  Which has existed since 2014. In other words: Trump in 2018/2019 merely rebranded a program started under his predecessor Obama. The only thing Trump did was add one element to the program: a crewed lunar landing.

That's it. All other aspects, including Lunar Gateway, already were part of "Journey to Mars". Trump claiming "I started it", is just another lie being piled on top of the many thousands of other lies he has made.

[yg1968]

[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.

Now that we are talking politics: Artemis' Moon to Mars program is nothing but a rebranding of NASA's "Journey to Mars".  Which has existed since 2014. In other words: Trump in 2018/2019 merely rebranded a program started under his predecessor Obama. The only thing Trump did was add one element to the program: a crewed lunar landing.

That's it. All other aspects, including Lunar Gateway, already were part of "Journey to Mars". Trump claiming "I started it", is just another lie being piled on top of the many thousands of other lies he has made.

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.

[spacenut]

(Removed the party political broadcast)

I think he could have gotten NASA moving faster, especially with Birkenstein in charge, who brought in Starship to help. 

[yg1968]

(Removed the party political broadcast)

I think he could have gotten NASA moving faster, especially with [Bridenstine] in charge, who brought in Starship to help.

Although I agree with your comments, we are clearly going outside of space policy now. Every thread about Trump gets locked for this reason.

[woods170]

I think he could have gotten NASA moving faster, especially with Birkenstein in charge, who brought in Starship to help. 

Emphasis mine.

This is false. The HLS lander (Lunar Starship) was selected AFTER Bridenstine left NASA. The only thing you can credit Bridenstine for is understanding the fact that without a lander there won't be much of a crewed landing on the Moon. Bridenstine started HLS. But Starship was selected by Kathy Lueders, several months AFTER Bridenstine was gone and (fortunately) a few weeks BEFORE Bill Nelson got into office. NASA management was very clever to select the HLS winner exactly in the period that NASA leadership was in limbo in between two administrators.

[yg1968]

I think he could have gotten NASA moving faster, especially with Birkenstein in charge, who brought in Starship to help. 

Emphasis mine.

This is false. The HLS lander (Lunar Starship) was selected AFTER Bridenstine left NASA. The only thing you can credit Bridenstine for is understanding the fact that without a lander there won't be much of a crewed landing on the Moon. Bridenstine started HLS. But Starship was selected by Kathy Lueders, several months AFTER Bridenstine was gone and (fortunately) a few weeks BEFORE Bill Nelson got into office. NASA management was very clever to select the HLS winner exactly in the period that NASA leadership was in limbo in between two administrators.

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.

[woods170]

[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.

Now that we are talking politics: Artemis' Moon to Mars program is nothing but a rebranding of NASA's "Journey to Mars".  Which has existed since 2014. In other words: Trump in 2018/2019 merely rebranded a program started under his predecessor Obama. The only thing Trump did was add one element to the program: a crewed lunar landing.

That's it. All other aspects, including Lunar Gateway, already were part of "Journey to Mars". Trump claiming "I started it", is just another lie being piled on top of the many thousands of other lies he has made.

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

[Lar]

Mod warning:

"Trump says whatever comes to mind", "Trump lies", "Trump left the economy in great shape..."

Those are all general political comments. Don't do it.  Not here.

Take it to Twitter or FB or Mastodon  (this is me there for those who care  https://mstdn.social/@Lar_p and yeah, it's political)

Thanks.

[yg1968]

[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.

Now that we are talking politics: Artemis' Moon to Mars program is nothing but a rebranding of NASA's "Journey to Mars".  Which has existed since 2014. In other words: Trump in 2018/2019 merely rebranded a program started under his predecessor Obama. The only thing Trump did was add one element to the program: a crewed lunar landing.

That's it. All other aspects, including Lunar Gateway, already were part of "Journey to Mars". Trump claiming "I started it", is just another lie being piled on top of the many thousands of other lies he has made.

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. The document that you linked only says that the deep space habitat would be in cislunar space. 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).

[woods170]

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.
[/quote]

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.

[woods170]

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.

[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/

[yg1968]

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

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/

[yg1968]

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.

[zubenelgenubi]

Moderator FYI:
2 posts deleted, 6 posts edited, and 1 moderator warning thus far.

<sarcasm>
👍
</sarcasm>

[Oersted]

"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...

[deadman1204]

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).

[Coastal Ron]

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.

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:

"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.

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.

[yg1968]

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:

"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.

[Coastal Ron]

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.

...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.

[yg1968]

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.

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

[Coastal Ron]

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.

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...

[yg1968]

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.

[Slarty1080]

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.

[tea monster]

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.

[ulm_atms]

[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.]

[zubenelgenubi]

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.

[tea monster]

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.

[deadman1204]

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.

[yg1968]

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.

[deadman1204]

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.

[yg1968]

It's not partisan. You just have to stick to space policy. Had you said Trump's Mars initiative will never happen because he won't follow through (if elected); that would have been fine. You just have to stick to space policy, that's all there is to it. If you start talking about Trump's presidency as a whole or his character in general, you are then off topic. That is true for any President or politician.

[JayWee]

When was the last time something space related was an item in a US political campaign ?

[yg1968]

When was the last time something space related was an item in a US political campaign ?

Newt Gingrich spoke of going back to the Moon as part of his campaign to become the Republican's Presidential nominee in 2012. But Romney ridiculed him to such an extent that other politicians were reluctant to make space an important part of their campaign after that. However, space usually appears in political platforms.

[edzieba]

It's not partisan. You just have to stick to space policy. Had you said Trump's Mars initiative will never happen because he won't follow through (if elected); that would have been fine. You just have to stick to space policy, that's all there is to it. If you start talking about Trump's presidency as a whole or his character in general, you are then off topic. That is true for any President or politician.

The problem there is it allows declaration ("X will not deliver on that promise") but rejects providing evidence from past behaviour ("X will not deliver on that promise, as they have previously premised Y and Z and failed to deliver or even provide an actual plan, and have claimed credit for W and U that they only re-named").

[yg1968]

The problem there is it allows declaration ("X will not deliver on that promise") but rejects providing evidence from past behaviour ("X will not deliver on that promise, as they have previously premised Y and Z and failed to deliver or even provide an actual plan, and have claimed credit for W and U that they only re-named").

You can say that while sticking to space policy. For example, Woods170 stated that the Journey to Mars started under the Obama Administration which is true. In terms of taking credit for a program that he didn't start, you can also give commercial crew as an example. But a few months ago, Bolden said that he believes that you can and should take credit for something that happens under your presidency (for example, JWST and Perseverance for the Biden Administration). I tend to agree with him, being able to take credit for things is important to politicians and if you got a program across the finish late, you deserve some credit for it.

In any event, the Journey to Mars and the Mars portion of the Moon to Mars program are R&D projects for now, so there is not much to take credit for. The President that takes credit for human exploration to Mars should be the one that starts a commercial crew to Mars program, in my opinion.

[Robotbeat]

Gotta say one thing the Biden Administration did well is that they effectively depoliticized Artemis by choosing to continue it.

There was this perception that Democrats were for ISS and Republicans for the Moon, then it evolved to Democrats saved ISS and are for anything (including Mars) but the Moon, then Republicans supported the Moon again (with Mars as the eventual goal), and the Biden Administration, to their credit, decided to embrace it.

The perception has been broken. There’s now no significant perceived difference in destination. Artemis was basically depoliticized, no more canceling a program because it was perceived to belong to the “other team.”

Maybe that will change in 2024, but hard to say. A successful Artemis II flight around the Moon before the election might be a small help to the incumbent party, and as long as Artemis II occurs before transition in 2024 (if there is a transition), then Artemis is probably safe to continue.

The fiscal environment is a bit less predictable and could impact Artemis. If some candidate promotes fiscal austerity (I see no evidence of that happening), Artemis could be in danger.

But even Trump pushing for Mars if he wins in 2024 wouldn’t be discontinuous as NASA has stressed (by Congress’s insistence) that Artemis is about preparing for missions to Mars (and picking Starship HLS definitely helps that case).

The uncertain part could be the clash of egos of Elon and Trump… but the less said about that the better.

[deadman1204]

Mods, please give input.
ANY post that doesn't side with trump and implicitly believe his statements are deleted.
Is this a republican forum? How can there be discussion of political topics here when half the audience is not even allowed to comment?
If the mod rules do not allow for actual discussion, then this entire thread should be nuked.

[yg1968]

Gotta say one thing the Biden Administration did well is that they effectively depoliticized Artemis by choosing to continue it.

There was this perception that Democrats were for ISS and Republicans for the Moon, then it evolved to Democrats saved ISS and are for anything (including Mars) but the Moon, then Republicans supported the Moon again (with Mars as the eventual goal), and the Biden Administration, to their credit, decided to embrace it.

The perception has been broken. There’s now no significant perceived difference in destination. Artemis was basically depoliticized, no more canceling a program because it was perceived to belong to the “other team.”

Maybe that will change in 2024, but hard to say. A successful Artemis II flight around the Moon before the election might be a small help to the incumbent party, and as long as Artemis II occurs before transition in 2024 (if there is a transition), then Artemis is probably safe to continue.

The fiscal environment is a bit less predictable and could impact Artemis. If some candidate promotes fiscal austerity (I see no evidence of that happening), Artemis could be in danger.

But even Trump pushing for Mars if he wins in 2024 wouldn’t be discontinuous as NASA has stressed (by Congress’s insistence) that Artemis is about preparing for missions to Mars (and picking Starship HLS definitely helps that case).

The uncertain part could be the clash of egos of Elon and Trump… but the less said about that the better.

I would also give credit to the Trump Administration for embracing the Moon and Mars as it got both sides to support the program. Historically, Republicans were for the Moon and Democrats were for Mars. I never saw any division on the ISS. It was initially proposed by Reagan. Senator Cruz was in favor of extending it past 2030.

In terms of Trump (if he is elected a second time), I don't expect him to cancel Artemis program given that he is the one that started out. I doubt that other Republicans candidates would cancel it either.

[yg1968]

Mods, please give input.
ANY post that doesn't side with trump and implicitly believe his statements are deleted.
Is this a republican forum? How can there be discussion of political topics here when half the audience is not even allowed to comment?
If the mod rules do not allow for actual discussion, then this entire thread should be nuked.

Re-read your post and realize the things that you said that are contrary to forum policy: arguing with the mods will get your post deleted. Making general political comments will get your posts deleted. Make an effort to stick to space policy and stop arguing with the mods and your posts won't get deleted. It seems that your goal from the outset has been to get this thread locked.

[D_Dom]

OK, here is one moderators input, be advised I am not very active on this site and my opinions are not shared by other moderators. I was tempted to lock this thread as soon as I saw but have not done so.
 My hope is we can use this amazing information age to share knowledge and wisdom. We can see how that is working out. I think the ability to focus on policy is a requirement from Chris, he likes to use a football reference, play the ball not the man.

 If you can not comment on Trumps record as president or his intentions as candidate without judging the person then maybe you just ignore this thread. Somebody is wrong on the internet is not enough reason for me to weigh in.

 I have not attempted to moderate this thread, I could bring another perspective to this effort. My habit in moderation is pretty heavy handed, I tend to delete pages of posts.

 Poof, blasted into the bitsmog, never to be seen again. I doubt I will be looking into this thread.

[john smith 19]

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.

I think it's sometimes instructive to compare the things Trump and Musk say.

Musk has a fondness for striking metephor. But if you dig under the idea he's chopped through a fair bit of data to get to that idea.

Trump....

It's certainly a bold vision of the future. People might be tempted to hear echoes of Kennedy's "We chose to go to the Moon in this decade.." speech.  Forgetting this was a response to a memo from Johnson, who'd done the legwork to choose a goal that he reckoned would be actually achievable (although it took NASA getting about 4% of the Federal budget to do so. Now it's on about 0.4% of the federal budget).

As I don't live in the US I will have no vote and none of my taxes will go to whoever wins.

But am I stating the obvious that Trump has to win first to do anything ?
And as has been noted in 2016 no one actually knew what sort of POTUS Trump would make (although obviously people had opinions).  But now they have a much better idea of what they'd be voting for.

So any goals he states now (or even remembers in 2 years) have a looooong way to go before they have any chance of being realized (and I don't think you have much confidence in the goals he's articulated in the past anyway).

I don't follow US politics much but that nice Mr diSantis seems to have quite caught the eye of Republican voters in Florida.

My instinct is that by 2024 a SpaceX rocket will be on it's way to Mars.

Beyond that.....

[Greg Hullender]

I have to say that I'm surprised that anyone thought that moon vs. Mars was a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I like to think that I follow political news and space news pretty closely, but this is a distinction that certainly escaped me. For the most part, it just hasn't been anything that politicians in either party made a big deal out of.

I can clearly remember people making fun of Bush Jr. for his Mars proposal, though. (I used to have a "Bush on Mars in 2004" bumper sticker). I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Democrat.

[Robotbeat]

I have to say that I'm surprised that anyone thought that moon vs. Mars was a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I like to think that I follow political news and space news pretty closely, but this is a distinction that certainly escaped me. For the most part, it just hasn't been anything that politicians in either party made a big deal out of.

I can clearly remember people making fun of Bush Jr. for his Mars proposal, though. (I used to have a "Bush on Mars in 2004" bumper sticker). I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Democrat.

Yeah, it's somewhat exaggerated in space circles. But I do think it's notable that the Biden Admin chose to continue Artemis without any major changes. This is a break from every administration since... well, Reagan/Bush or something?

[Hog]

I have to say that I'm surprised that anyone thought that moon vs. Mars was a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I like to think that I follow political news and space news pretty closely, but this is a distinction that certainly escaped me. For the most part, it just hasn't been anything that politicians in either party made a big deal out of.

I can clearly remember people making fun of Bush Jr. for his Mars proposal, though. (I used to have a "Bush on Mars in 2004" bumper sticker). I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Democrat.

Yeah, it's somewhat exaggerated in space circles. But I do think it's notable that the Biden Admin chose to continue Artemis without any major changes. This is a break from every administration since... well, Reagan/Bush or something?

Trump would have a great opportunity to leave a real legacy with Artemis since his Artemis plans weren't dismantled by the follow-on government, almost like he never left.
Trump as President told NASA to send astros to the Moon, he might, as President actually see those plans bear fruit.  How often does that happen in national space?  JFK didn't live to see the space race end. 
Moon then Mars, that's always been the plan, right?  I swear that's what I read in a 70's vintage Popular Science magazine.

[laszlo]

Perhaps if Trump’s announcement was to say he is going to send several DC politicians to Mars, this could be a highly popular idea to campaign on. Plus it would boost the Florida economy with the public interested to simply watch politicians leave Earth.

Also already been done - Garn & Nelson. Wasn't noticed by the country as a whole. No one outside this forum remembers. Not much of a political strategy therefore. For a real media boost, send Ye, instead.

[deadman1204]

I have to say that I'm surprised that anyone thought that moon vs. Mars was a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I like to think that I follow political news and space news pretty closely, but this is a distinction that certainly escaped me. For the most part, it just hasn't been anything that politicians in either party made a big deal out of.

I can clearly remember people making fun of Bush Jr. for his Mars proposal, though. (I used to have a "Bush on Mars in 2004" bumper sticker). I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Democrat.

Yeah, it's somewhat exaggerated in space circles. But I do think it's notable that the Biden Admin chose to continue Artemis without any major changes. This is a break from every administration since... well, Reagan/Bush or something?

Trump would have a great opportunity to leave a real legacy with Artemis since his Artemis plans weren't dismantled by the follow-on government, almost like he never left.
Trump as President told NASA to send astros to the Moon, he might, as President actually see those plans bear fruit.  How often does that happen in national space?  JFK didn't live to see the space race end. 
Moon then Mars, that's always been the plan, right?  I swear that's what I read in a 70's vintage Popular Science magazine.

This ignores like 90% of history. The artimis program came about as a reason to use SLS/Onion. There had already been 10-15 years of development involved before trump even got elected. If you look at the entire thing holistically, trump was just one in a line of presidents who are making a moon landing happening.

[Hog]

I have to say that I'm surprised that anyone thought that moon vs. Mars was a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I like to think that I follow political news and space news pretty closely, but this is a distinction that certainly escaped me. For the most part, it just hasn't been anything that politicians in either party made a big deal out of.

I can clearly remember people making fun of Bush Jr. for his Mars proposal, though. (I used to have a "Bush on Mars in 2004" bumper sticker). I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Democrat.

Yeah, it's somewhat exaggerated in space circles. But I do think it's notable that the Biden Admin chose to continue Artemis without any major changes. This is a break from every administration since... well, Reagan/Bush or something?

Trump would have a great opportunity to leave a real legacy with Artemis since his Artemis plans weren't dismantled by the follow-on government, almost like he never left.
Trump as President told NASA to send astros to the Moon, he might, as President actually see those plans bear fruit.  How often does that happen in national space?  JFK didn't live to see the space race end. 
Moon then Mars, that's always been the plan, right?  I swear that's what I read in a 70's vintage Popular Science magazine.

This ignores like 90% of history. The artimis program came about as a reason to use SLS/Onion. There had already been 10-15 years of development involved before trump even got elected. If you look at the entire thing holistically, trump was just one in a line of presidents who are making a moon landing happening.

Artemis is more than Orion and its launch vehicle.
 The other Presidents served at best, 8 years consecutively.  Trumps potential influence on Artemis is unique, the others drove SLS/Orion, Trump gave it a purpose. 
Trump was elected in 2016, no one on Earth had heard of SLS or Orion in 2006(CEV/MPCV perhaps), let alone 2001.
Trump would/will tout the entire Moon effort as his own, facts/costs be damned.

[edzieba]

I have to say that I'm surprised that anyone thought that moon vs. Mars was a Republican vs. Democrat thing. I like to think that I follow political news and space news pretty closely, but this is a distinction that certainly escaped me. For the most part, it just hasn't been anything that politicians in either party made a big deal out of.

I can clearly remember people making fun of Bush Jr. for his Mars proposal, though. (I used to have a "Bush on Mars in 2004" bumper sticker). I'm pretty sure he wasn't a Democrat.

Yeah, it's somewhat exaggerated in space circles. But I do think it's notable that the Biden Admin chose to continue Artemis without any major changes. This is a break from every administration since... well, Reagan/Bush or something?

Trump would have a great opportunity to leave a real legacy with Artemis since his Artemis plans weren't dismantled by the follow-on government, almost like he never left.
Trump as President told NASA to send astros to the Moon, he might, as President actually see those plans bear fruit.  How often does that happen in national space?  JFK didn't live to see the space race end. 
Moon then Mars, that's always been the plan, right?  I swear that's what I read in a 70's vintage Popular Science magazine.

This ignores like 90% of history. The artimis program came about as a reason to use SLS/Onion. There had already been 10-15 years of development involved before trump even got elected. If you look at the entire thing holistically, trump was just one in a line of presidents who are making a moon landing happening.

Artemis is more than Orion and its launch vehicle.
 The other Presidents served at best, 8 years consecutively.  Trumps potential influence on Artemis is unique, the others drove SLS/Orion, Trump gave it a purpose. 
Trump was elected in 2016, no one on Earth had heard of SLS or Orion in 2006(CEV/MPCV perhaps), let alone 2001.
Trump would/will tout the entire Moon effort as his own, facts/costs be damned.

Trump took the existing SLS, Orion, and Gateway programmes, and gave them a shiny new label.
The programmes themselves were running for a decade prior, and will continue to run until Congress can think of another way to funnel the same funds to the same regions. HLS was kicked off under the Trump administration, but the shock decision to actually sole-source it with defined milestones rather than it just being another funding funnel for the usual suspects with an indefinite delivery timescale to keep the programme going as long as possible (as it was assumed by most to end up being, like Gateway) was taken under the Biden administration.

[Proponent]

Incidentally, one of the things that Vice President Mike Pence mentions in his book released yesterday is that it was Trump's idea to revive the National Space Council. He asked Pence during the 2016 Campaign if Pence would like to lead it. Pence was thrilled at the opportunity of doing so since he was a big fan of Apollo when he was young. 

He does not seem to have been much of a fan of returning to the moon when he was a congressman, though.  He was co-chairman of the Republican Study Group in 2005 when that body proposed saving money by cancelling Constellation without replacing it with anything. Does that get a mention in the book?

No but VP Pence talks about space and NASA on 8 pages of his memoirs. He mentions that he specifically requested to be on the House Committee on Science, Space Technology before he was Vice-President. Here are some of the more interesting quotes from his book:

Thank you.  Some of those excerpts are revealing, though, methinks, as is not infrequently the case when politicians speak on peripheral subjects, probably not in the way intended.  Please forgive me for appropriating the excerpts directly without embedding them in quotes from your post, in the interest of streamlining their presentation:

"But [...] even as a budget hawk, I believe firmly in the US space program....

I wanted to encourage our astronauts and engineer to make their next giant leap and return Americans to the moon. I was in Huntsville to chair the fifth meeting of the [space] council in March 2019 not only to name the first commander of the Space Force, General Jay Raymond but also to make it official that we planned the "next man and first woman" to the Moon in five years in American rockets launched from American soil. Not just that, but the astronauts would be landing on the moon's south pole, where no American had ever gone.

The United States didn't have a rocket capable of sending astronauts to the moon, but instead of lamenting that and postponing the country's return there, the president and I were encouraging NASA to do what our administration had done elsewhere -with the economy, on foreign policy: shrug off compliancy, cut red tape and unnecessary regulations, and, as I said that day, think better bigger, fail smarter, and work harder. And do it with urgency. [...]

This is both false and misleading.  According to Mike Griffin, Delta IV Heavy was up to the job.  According to the Augustine Commission, a Falcon Heavy-class lifter could do it (and that was with an Apollo mindset, where each mission was built around modules launched from the ground).  If Pence believes that, he is poorly informed.  And then he implies the he and Trump are responsible for creating SLS.

Trump liked to quip that "Rich guys love rockets," a reference to the generation of entrepreneurs investing in commercial space flight, including Elon Musk and Jeff Bezos. If their companies' technology could get Americans back to the moon, NASA shouldn't hesitate to work with them. [...] With entrepreneurs such as him [Bezos] and Musk, the US space revival was well under way. And the country had a president who was a builder, who always wanted to go further, faster, and higher in every endeavor.

I'm glad he recognizes the capabilities of American industry.  How, then, does he justify his enthusiastic support for SLS?  Has he ever, anywhere explained why he, a conservative Republican and self-described budget hawk, fulsomely supports the one and only government-managed launch vehicle?

History may well record Space Force as being one of the most consequential achievements of our administration: providing for the common defense in the boundless reaches of space.

Overstatement.  The Space Force's current functions were already being performed, and the common defense already provided for.  The argument for the Space Force was that for bureaucratic reasons the Air Force did not sufficiently prioritize space.

As I mentioned previously, we know that when he was co-chairman of the Republican Study Group in 2005, that body recommended cancelling Constellation and did not propose replacing it (and that is consistent with Pence's claim to being a fiscal conservative).  He says he wanted to be on the House Science & Technology Committee, but somehow in a dozen years in Congress he never made it there, suggesting it wasn't really much of a priority.  All in all, I am still wondering whether Pence ever expressed any interest in space before being elected vice president.

[yg1968]

This is both false and misleading.  According to Mike Griffin, Delta IV Heavy was up to the job.  According to the Augustine Commission, a Falcon Heavy-class lifter could do it (and that was with an Apollo mindset, where each mission was built around modules launched from the ground).  If Pence believes that, he is poorly informed.  And then he implies the he and Trump are responsible for creating SLS.

Delta IV wasn't human rated. He isn't talking about SLS. He is talking about using the rockets of the rich guys. You broke up the sentences in separate discussion points but the paragraph portrayed one idea which was that the Trump Administration was in favor of using the rockets of the rich guys. I took out one sentence were he talks about Bezos telling Pence that he is using his money from amazon to fund his true passion which is space. But the entire passage is about commercial rockets. Later, Pence talks about the success of commercial crew (he gives too much credit to the Trump administration on that one). 

I'm glad he recognizes the capabilities of American industry.  How, then, does he justify his enthusiastic support for SLS?  Has he ever, anywhere explained why he, a conservative Republican and self-described budget hawk, fulsomely supports the one and only government-managed launch vehicle?

He actually doesn't talk about SLS at all in his book.

Overstatement.  The Space Force's current functions were already being performed, and the common defense already provided for.  The argument for the Space Force was that for bureaucratic reasons the Air Force did not sufficiently prioritize space.

He does mention that but said that it was still a positive to make it into a separate branch.

As I mentioned previously, we know that when he was co-chairman of the Republican Study Group in 2005, that body recommended cancelling Constellation and did not propose replacing it (and that is consistent with Pence's claim to being a fiscal conservative).  He says he wanted to be on the House Science & Technology Committee, but somehow in a dozen years in Congress he never made it there, suggesting it wasn't really much of a priority.  All in all, I am still wondering whether Pence ever expressed any interest in space before being elected vice president.

Pence served on the Science Committee and its subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics from 2001-2002.

https://libraries.indiana.edu/mike-pence-congressional-papers

[deadman1204]

Pence served on the Science Committee and its subcommittee on Space and Aeronautics from 2001-2002.

https://libraries.indiana.edu/mike-pence-congressional-papers

I'd call only 2 years on a committee that he then chose to leave a sign of not much interest. Pence was involved in space in the trump admin because he was laying the groundwork for a presidential campaign. Space is a "happy good thing" that everyone kinda enjoys. It was a great way for him to be in the news about non-partisan stuff.

[Slarty1080]

If Trump gets in again and wants a human to plant an American flag on Mars then he really has his work cut out. I would first question if any such attempt would be truly genuine, rather than some politically based initiative with a range of ulterior motives that might involve Mars and rockets (which I suspect it is, as Trump doesn’t appear to me to be a technophile Mars loving geek like Musk. And to be fair I suspect few if any of the critters in Congress are either).

But giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he really does want an American flag planted on Mars for its own sake, then he needs to be very politically savvy and intensely rational about goals, means, costs and time frames. I will make no comment concerning Trumps abilities in these areas, but he will need to get congress onboard and the money lined up (somehow) and he needs a good highly technically competent “lieutenant” who would be capable of talking directly to someone like Elon Musk about truly practical issues of how to go about it.

Any attempt based on grandstanding, arm waving and chest beating will suffer from a painful bite on the posterior by reality. Grandstanding, arm waving and chest beating are fine of course (de rigueur even these days) but should come after the practical issues have been addressed. I hope for the best but fear the worst.

[yg1968]

If Trump gets in again and wants a human to plant an American flag on Mars then he really has his work cut out. I would first question if any such attempt would be truly genuine, rather than some politically based initiative with a range of ulterior motives that might involve Mars and rockets (which I suspect it is, as Trump doesn’t appear to me to be a technophile Mars loving geek like Musk. And to be fair I suspect few if any of the critters in Congress are either).

But giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he really does want an American flag planted on Mars for its own sake, then he needs to be very politically savvy and intensely rational about goals, means, costs and time frames. I will make no comment concerning Trumps abilities in these areas, but he will need to get congress onboard and the money lined up (somehow) and he needs a good highly technically competent “lieutenant” who would be capable of talking directly to someone like Elon Musk about truly practical issues of how to go about it.

Any attempt based on grandstanding, arm waving and chest beating will suffer from a painful bite on the posterior by reality. Grandstanding, arm waving and chest beating are fine of course (de rigueur even these days) but should come after the practical issues have been addressed. I hope for the best but fear the worst.

I think that Trump or any other President for that matter look at the big picture, the how to get to Mars would be up to other people such as the NASA Administrator, OMB, Congress, etc.

[deadman1204]

If Trump gets in again and wants a human to plant an American flag on Mars then he really has his work cut out. I would first question if any such attempt would be truly genuine, rather than some politically based initiative with a range of ulterior motives that might involve Mars and rockets (which I suspect it is, as Trump doesn’t appear to me to be a technophile Mars loving geek like Musk. And to be fair I suspect few if any of the critters in Congress are either).

But giving him the benefit of the doubt and assuming he really does want an American flag planted on Mars for its own sake, then he needs to be very politically savvy and intensely rational about goals, means, costs and time frames. I will make no comment concerning Trumps abilities in these areas, but he will need to get congress onboard and the money lined up (somehow) and he needs a good highly technically competent “lieutenant” who would be capable of talking directly to someone like Elon Musk about truly practical issues of how to go about it.

Any attempt based on grandstanding, arm waving and chest beating will suffer from a painful bite on the posterior by reality. Grandstanding, arm waving and chest beating are fine of course (de rigueur even these days) but should come after the practical issues have been addressed. I hope for the best but fear the worst.

The thing is, he can't do this. It has nothing to do with the person or even the party. EVERY major space initiative that didnt have all of congress behind it has failed, dem or republican. History is littered with space missions that went nowhere beyond a few speeches.
Congress is not excited about this proclamation of trumps, which means its dead in the water and PR only.

[yg1968]

Why would Congress act on what a Presidential candidate says?

[deadman1204]

Why would Congress act on what a Presidential candidate says?

You make my point for me.

This statement is just hot air. It doesn't matter what any candidate says. This is a many billion dollar idea (WAY more than SLS). Unless its obvious that congress would be all about it, its nothing more than a fantasy.  Thats my point, trump is WAY to polarizing to win over both parties for an idea like this (he was just the 3rd or 4th president in line for SLS, he didn't start sls/orion/gateway/moon trip ect. He just renamed some of it and let the programs continue). Without congress this is just fantasy.

[JohnFornaro]

The how to get to Mars would be up to other people such as the NASA Administrator, OMB, Congress, etc.

Sure, it would be up to "other people", but the people you mention are not going to do it.

[yg1968]

The how to get to Mars would be up to other people such as the NASA Administrator, OMB, Congress, etc.

Sure, it would be up to "other people", but the people you mention are not going to do it.

They are obviously not going to take orders from a Presidential candidate, he would have to be President. We saw what happened with Artemis, it's a long process to get a program such as HLS fully funded. In 2019, Vice President Pence made a speech saying that Artemis had to be accelerated to 2024. In order to accomplish this, the President proposed a FY20 supplementary budget (see the link below) of $1B for HLS (essentially for the base period) but only received $654.1M. In FY21, the President requested $3369.8M for HLS (essentially for Option A) but Congress only funded a portion of that, $928.3M. In FY22, the President requested $1,195.0M and received that amount. In FY23, the President requested $1,485.6M for HLS which includes funding for Appendix P (the House and Senate seem to be open to fully funded that, at least as of now). According to the FY23 budget request, the requested funding for HLS should gradually increase and should eventually reach $2,537.9M in FY27.

Presumably, the process for a NRHO to Mars public-private partnership program would be similar to what happened for the HLS program. But in my view, NASA should focus on HLS for now. They shouldn't think of a NRHO to Mars program until the HLS program is successful.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_fy_2020_budget_amendment_summary.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

[Coastal Ron]

The how to get to Mars would be up to other people such as the NASA Administrator, OMB, Congress, etc.

Sure, it would be up to "other people", but the people you mention are not going to do it.

They are obviously not going to take orders from a Presidential candidate, he would have to be President.

This whole thread assumes that Trump said what he said as part of a vision for the American people, versus the more likely situation that Trump said what he said to get attention.

While in the office as President, Trump showed little true interest in learning about what NASA could and could not do. For instance, in 2017 Trump had this exchange with Peggy Whitson, the commander of the International Space Station, and fellow American astronaut Jack Fischer:

TRUMP: “Tell me: Mars, what do you see a timing for actually sending humans to Mars? Is there a schedule and when would you see that happening?”

WHITSON: “Well, I think as your bill directed, it'll be approximately in the 2030s. As I mentioned, we actually are building hardware to test the new heavy launch vehicle, and this vehicle will take us further than we've ever been away from this planet.

“So, unfortunately space flight takes a lot of time and money so getting there will require some international cooperation to get the — it to be a planet-wide approach in order to make it successful just because it is a very expensive endeavor. But it is so worthwhile doing.”

TRUMP: “Well, we want to try and do it during my first term or, at worst, during my second term, so we'll have to speed that up a little bit, okay?”

WHITSON: “We'll do our best.”

Clearly Trump was not educated on any of the issues related to what it takes to send humans to Mars. And that is something of a hallmark of Trump, in that he is famous for not being educated in the details of how the U.S. Government ran, or what it even did.

Now here he is, almost two years out of office, and during that time he has shown no interest in space, much less Mars. And out of the blue he proposes "planting the American flag on Mars"?

Trump is obviously not serious about WHY America should commit taxpayer money to such a venture, and that is why this was only a case of crying for attention. Grandstanding. Trumpism at its finest (if you are into that kind of thing)...

[yg1968]

This whole thread assumes that Trump said what he said as part of a vision for the American people, versus the more likely situation that Trump said what he said to get attention.

While in the office as President, Trump showed little true interest in learning about what NASA could and could not do. For instance, in 2017 Trump had this exchange with Peggy Whitson, the commander of the International Space Station, and fellow American astronaut Jack Fischer:

TRUMP: “Tell me: Mars, what do you see a timing for actually sending humans to Mars? Is there a schedule and when would you see that happening?”

WHITSON: “Well, I think as your bill directed, it'll be approximately in the 2030s. As I mentioned, we actually are building hardware to test the new heavy launch vehicle, and this vehicle will take us further than we've ever been away from this planet.

“So, unfortunately space flight takes a lot of time and money so getting there will require some international cooperation to get the — it to be a planet-wide approach in order to make it successful just because it is a very expensive endeavor. But it is so worthwhile doing.”

TRUMP: “Well, we want to try and do it during my first term or, at worst, during my second term, so we'll have to speed that up a little bit, okay?”

WHITSON: “We'll do our best.”

Clearly Trump was not educated on any of the issues related to what it takes to send humans to Mars. And that is something of a hallmark of Trump, in that he is famous for not being educated in the details of how the U.S. Government ran, or what it even did.

Now here he is, almost two years out of office, and during that time he has shown no interest in space, much less Mars. And out of the blue he proposes "planting the American flag on Mars"?

Trump is obviously not serious about WHY America should commit taxpayer money to such a venture, and that is why this was only a case of crying for attention. Grandstanding. Trumpism at its finest (if you are into that kind of thing)...

Trump (like many other Presidents) is a big picture guy, he doesn't want to know the details as long as it gets done. In that exchange, I disagree with what Whitson is saying, the United States doesn't need international cooperation to get humans to Mars. International cooperation is nice to have but it shouldn't be in the critical path. For Mars, a NRHO to Mars public-private partnership that is similar to HLS should be created, you wouldn't even have to cancel SLS and Orion. Having said that, like I said above, you need to make sure that HLS is a success before moving on to the next step. Incidentally, the exchange between Trump and Whitson was in April 2017, before Artemis was announced. It seems that the idea that NASA should accomplish something important for human exploration before the end of 2024 seems to have stayed for the Artemis program.

[JohnFornaro]

Trump is the first President in modern history to have shunned reading detailed briefings...

Um, you realize that Trump hasn't been in office for two years?  And while we're realizing, you realize that JFK was the last prez to successfully realize his stated goal, and that a good number of years after his untimely death?  Reading briefings is not the sine qua non of the office.

Has this thread has run its course?

[deadman1204]

The how to get to Mars would be up to other people such as the NASA Administrator, OMB, Congress, etc.

Sure, it would be up to "other people", but the people you mention are not going to do it.

They are obviously not going to take orders from a Presidential candidate, he would have to be President. We saw what happened with Artemis, it's a long process to get a program such as HLS fully funded. In 2019, Vice President Pence made a speech saying that Artemis had to be accelerated to 2024. In order to accomplish this, the President proposed a FY20 supplementary budget (see the link below) of $1B for HLS (essentially for the base period) but only received $654.1M. In FY21, the President requested $3369.8M for HLS (essentially for Option A) but Congress only funded a portion of that, $928.3M. In FY22, the President requested $1,195.0M and received that amount. In FY23, the President requested $1,485.6M for HLS which includes funding for Appendix P (the House and Senate seem to be open to fully funded that, at least as of now). According to the FY23 budget request, the requested funding for HLS should gradually increase and should eventually reach $2,537.9M in FY27.

Presumably, the process for a NRHO to Mars public-private partnership program would be similar to what happened for the HLS program. But in my view, NASA should focus on HLS for now. They shouldn't think of a NRHO to Mars program until the HLS program is successful.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_fy_2020_budget_amendment_summary.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

The thing is, HLS wasn't "trump". The selection happened after trump left office.
The 2021 budget passed in the lame duck session with democrat (house) help. All of Artimis is a bipartisan issue.
The only reason HLS/Artimis is happening is because congress (both parties) want it to.

This original statement/thread is all just hot air. Congress isn't into it. Judging solely on how he acted when in office, trump wouldn't want to burn ALL his political capital to attempt to get congress to do something like this. It would be an ENORMOUS lift. Considering how radioactively partisan he is, its functionally impossible - which is only considering democrats. He would still need his own party to cough up 10s of billions of dollars as well.

The mods get cranky when we judge trump by his actions, but this statement is a meaningless throwaway. Just words to get attention.

[yg1968]

The how to get to Mars would be up to other people such as the NASA Administrator, OMB, Congress, etc.

Sure, it would be up to "other people", but the people you mention are not going to do it.

They are obviously not going to take orders from a Presidential candidate, he would have to be President. We saw what happened with Artemis, it's a long process to get a program such as HLS fully funded. In 2019, Vice President Pence made a speech saying that Artemis had to be accelerated to 2024. In order to accomplish this, the President proposed a FY20 supplementary budget (see the link below) of $1B for HLS (essentially for the base period) but only received $654.1M. In FY21, the President requested $3369.8M for HLS (essentially for Option A) but Congress only funded a portion of that, $928.3M. In FY22, the President requested $1,195.0M and received that amount. In FY23, the President requested $1,485.6M for HLS which includes funding for Appendix P (the House and Senate seem to be open to fully funded that, at least as of now). According to the FY23 budget request, the requested funding for HLS should gradually increase and should eventually reach $2,537.9M in FY27.

Presumably, the process for a NRHO to Mars public-private partnership program would be similar to what happened for the HLS program. But in my view, NASA should focus on HLS for now. They shouldn't think of a NRHO to Mars program until the HLS program is successful.

https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/nasa_fy_2020_budget_amendment_summary.pdf

https://www.nasa.gov/news/budget/index.html

The thing is, HLS wasn't "trump". The selection happened after trump left office.

The selection for the HLS base period was made in 2020. Option A was selected in April 2021 before Nelson became administrator. The selection officer for Option A was Lueders who was picked by Bridenstine. Jurczyk, the NASA Administrator at that time had also been picked by Bridenstine to be Associate Administrator (the Associate Administrator generally becomes Administrator before a new NASA Administrator is named).

[yg1968]

And if the effort to go to Mars ends up being as badly managed as the effort to return to the Moon has been, then NASA will NEVER be funded enough money to get humans to surface of Mars.

Pretty much nothing NASA is building for Artemis, for the Moon, will be able to be used as-is on a Mars mission. Which means that NASA is more than a decade away from going to Mars AFTER such an effort is funded. And Congress is barely funding the Artemis program enough to reach the Moon, so thinking Congress will bump up NASA's budget by $10B per year or more for a concurrent Mars mission - well, let's just say that is not something a rational person would assume today... 

A lot of your post is off topic (and I won't respond to that part). Play the ball (the Moon or Mars in this case), not the man (Trump in this case) is a fairly easy concept to understand.

In any event, I disagree that Artemis has been mismanaged. The problem with SLS and Orion is that they are governmental programs, not that they are mismanaged.

For the human exploration of Mars, it doesn't need to be $10B per year. NASA can take advantage of Starship. If Starship is successful, a crewed mission to Mars is possible. All that NASA needs to do is purchase the services from SpaceX. The best way to ensure that a Mars human exploration program is successful is by ensuring that HLS is successful.

[Coastal Ron]

And if the effort to go to Mars ends up being as badly managed as the effort to return to the Moon has been, then NASA will NEVER be funded enough money to get humans to surface of Mars.

Pretty much nothing NASA is building for Artemis, for the Moon, will be able to be used as-is on a Mars mission. Which means that NASA is more than a decade away from going to Mars AFTER such an effort is funded. And Congress is barely funding the Artemis program enough to reach the Moon, so thinking Congress will bump up NASA's budget by $10B per year or more for a concurrent Mars mission - well, let's just say that is not something a rational person would assume today... 

A lot of your post is off topic (and I won't respond to that part). Play the ball (the Moon or Mars in this case), not the man (Trump in this case) is a fairly easy concept to understand.

Not sure you realize what topic this is, but the title starts with "Trump promises to...", and Trump isn't even an elected official anymore, so yes, this is about the man, and whether his so called "promises" as a non-elected official deserve consideration.

And in order to believe that his "promises" deserve consideration, you have to have some degree of belief that Trump has a clue about what he is proposing. And I have shown, and the world knows, Trump showed a distinct lack of interest in the details of running the U.S. Government when he was President (which he isn't anymore), which I suggest means that he has no clue what his so called "promises" mean to the people of the U.S.

If you want to talk about the possibilities of going to Mars, there are plenty of other threads for that. This one is specific to Trump, and what he "promises" will happen.

[D_Dom]

Not saying you are wrong, in fact I agree with you across the board. That being said I have been thinking about deleting this thread since first noticing it, because of the "promise" in the thread title among many reasons. If anybody wants to keep posting to this thread then  everybody must stay excellent.

As John Fornaro pointed out, this thread has about run its course.

[yg1968]

If you want my opinion, it's better to lock a thread than deleting it. Perhaps, it has run its course.

[john smith 19]

Trump (like many other Presidents) is a big picture guy, he doesn't want to know the details as long as it gets done. In that exchange, I disagree with what Whitson is saying, the United States doesn't need international cooperation to get humans to Mars.

You're entitled to  your opinion.

Except the only way the Orion SM got done was because ESA supplied as it's contribution to ISS support.

Mercury didn't need that.

Gemini didn't need that.

Apollo didn't need that.

The contractor swallowed the whole budget on the capsule. Not a cent on the SM left.

But perhaps you feel Sen. Shellby and the other Senators of the "Space states" failed to secure adequate funding for Orion during its long construction period and with just a little bit more of a push it could have stayed a 100% US effort?

That's possible. If Trump is elected again maybe we'll find out.

Or not.

[JohnFornaro]

If you want my opinion, it's better to lock a thread than deleting it. Perhaps, it has run its course.

My freewheeling  opinions have led to several iffy threads being locked down.  Some of them were removed, and I agree with Yves, that thread lockdowns are far more preferable than removal.  When the threads are left up, then people have a chance to discover and understand the reason for the mods actions.  The memory hole is not a good look for NSF.

[JohnFornaro]

[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.

And here's proof that locking the thread is a far better activity than deleting a thread in its entirety.  I missed the original post by deadman.    We have no idea what "crime" was committed; all we see is the, well, dead man.

Apparently Simple Machines does not offer mods the option to freeze an individual post in a thread.

[yg1968]

Trump (like many other Presidents) is a big picture guy, he doesn't want to know the details as long as it gets done. In that exchange, I disagree with what Whitson is saying, the United States doesn't need international cooperation to get humans to Mars.

You're entitled to  your opinion.

Except the only way the Orion SM got done was because ESA supplied as it's contribution to ISS support.

Mercury didn't need that.

Gemini didn't need that.

Apollo didn't need that.

The contractor swallowed the whole budget on the capsule. Not a cent on the SM left.

But perhaps you feel Sen. Shellby and the other Senators of the "Space states" failed to secure adequate funding for Orion during its long construction period and with just a little bit more of a push it could have stayed a 100% US effort?

That's possible. If Trump is elected again maybe we'll find out.

Or not.

You make a good point about the service module, ideally that bargain shouldn't have been made. But I remember that part of the reason that the SM was given to ESA was to make Orion harder to cancel.

[john smith 19]

You make a good point about the service module, ideally that bargain shouldn't have been made. But I remember that part of the reason that the SM was given to ESA was to make Orion harder to cancel.

IIRC the actual wording was that NASA had several options for how ESA could make that years contribution to the ISS system.

NASA chose to take it as the Orion SM.

What you're not seeing is that situation existed because the contractor left no budget for the SM

Which looks like a quite stunning failure in management to me.

But that's just my opinion.

The US is 2 years away from the next round of elections. A study of mid term results was done which said the average hit to the incumbent party (whoever they are) is as follows
Senate  Congress
-3           -28
What actually happened this year?
+1         -7

so the Republican party did about 1/4 as well as it would expect to do at this time. The Democrats increased their margin in the Senate, which means they can no longer be held hostage by one particular right-wing Senators vote. Likewise of the slate of candidates personally endorsed by Trump at state level  roughly 75-80% were elected, but most of the high profile ones (like Kari Lake) failed. Those states will have 2 years to decide if they like things run by such people or not.

2 years is a long time in politics.

So to have your wish come true (in big picture terms) you need.

The Republican party needs to choose Trump as their candidate
They have to win the election with Trump, with an electorate who now know what they can expect from him as a President.
He has to remember his promise and honour it.

If you believe that Donald Trump is a man who always remembers his promises and honours them then you have nothing to worry about.

As someone who believes in the process of selecting a leader through elections open to all voters and implemented through a system that allows all voters to place their vote easily I would encourage everyone (whatever their PoV) to vote.

If you don't participate what you're actually saying is "I can, and will cope with any outcome of the election. I have no preference as to who is elected"

If that is literally true then stay at home and sit it out. It'll all be over in a bit.

2024 could be the highest turnout election ever if everyone who can vote does vote.

[yg1968]

You make a good point about the service module, ideally that bargain shouldn't have been made. But I remember that part of the reason that the SM was given to ESA was to make Orion harder to cancel.

IIRC the actual wording was that NASA had several options for how ESA could make that years contribution to the ISS system.

NASA chose to take it as the Orion SM.

What you're not seeing is that situation existed because the contractor left no budget for the SM

Which looks like a quite stunning failure in management to me.

But that's just my opinion.

I get the impression that management issues are inevitable for government programs.

Incidentally, I don't know why you think that I wish for Trump to win. It's not clear at this time that he will be the Republican candidate in 2024. I am just commenting on his Mars plans, that is all. This thread is a discussion of Trump's Mars plans, not his chances of being the Republican candidate or of him winning the Presidency in 2024 (both of these subjects are off topic).

[Coastal Ron]

Incidentally, I don't know why you think that I wish for Trump to win. It's not clear at this time that he will be the Republican candidate in 2024. I am just commenting on his Mars plans, that is all. This thread is a discussion of Trump's Mars plans, not his chances of being the Republican candidate or of him winning the Presidency in 2024 (both of these subjects are off topic).

Correction, Trump doesn't have a "plan", he has only stated a goal:

And we will plant our beautiful American flag very soon on the surface of Mars...

This is the totality of what he said:
Who - America
What - "plant our beautiful American flag"
Where - Mars
When - "very soon"
Why - n/a
How - n/a

That is NOT a "plan", in particular because it lacks a "Why" and a "How". What he stated is more like a campaign promise with no context. Who is the constituency? What current problem is he solving? How is America better because of this promise, instead of despite the promise?

I don't know why anyone would get excited about statements Trump makes that are obviously not backed up by abilities or interest. 

[yg1968]

Correction, Trump doesn't have a "plan", he has only stated a goal:

The dictionary is your friend.

plan

1. a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.
"the UN peace plan"

2. an intention or decision about what one is going to do.
"I have no plans to retire"

In the context of how I was using the word "plan", the second definition is the one that was relevant to my post (not the first one).

[Coastal Ron]

Correction, Trump doesn't have a "plan", he has only stated a goal:

The dictionary is your friend.

So is context. The English language is well known for having different meanings for the same word, depending on context. In this case Trump is not announcing his retirement, he is announcing a national goal.

plan

1. a detailed proposal for doing or achieving something.
"the UN peace plan"

Ask anyone at NASA - the people that would likely be tasked with this - if Trump announced a plan or a goal, and they would say "Goal". And that is because of the context of how NASA operates, they know the difference.

And as I pointed out above, Trump has not identified a "Why" or a "How", which are fundamental to creating any valid plan.

There is no plan, just a goal. And it is fine to have goals, but important to understand that they are not plans.

[yg1968]

Correction, Trump doesn't have a "plan", he has only stated a goal:

The dictionary is your friend.

So is context. The English language is well known for having different meanings for the same word, depending on context. In this case Trump is not announcing his retirement, he is announcing a national goal.

Retirement is just one example. Yes, context matters and in this case, the context should have told you that I meant "plan" as it is understood in the second meaning. In this case Trump intends for the United States to go to Mars.

plan 2. an intention or decision about what one is going to do.
"I have no plans to retire"

Similar: intention, aim, idea, intent, objective, object, goal, target

In any event, the details of the Mars plan would be left to the NASA Administrator and other people in the executive branch of government. Campaigns rarely give details for anything space related. It's surprising that anything space related was even mentioned during his speech.

[D_Dom]

You were warned repeatedly. Out of respect for the norms of this thread I have not deleted  anything but the latest nonsense.