There is a pervasive rumor circulating in the space sector that the President will make a statement associated w/the #Apollo11 anniversary. It would supposedly have more to do w/Mars than #moon2024. Sources talk about a 24 Jul event at @NASA - maybe JSC. #rumor #hearsay #gossip pic.twitter.com/g5q4s75dnuOf course it would be a typical Trump tactic to pivot to a #Mars destination for @NASA - and not #Moon2024 - right after @JimBridenstine fires (promotes) Bill Gerstenmaier and his staff for not getting to the Moon fast enough per orders from @VP Pence. #Artemis #whiplashNASA Administrator to Talk Moon Landing Anniversary, Moon to Mars Plans https://t.co/w1nKn42cKY #Artemis #Mars #Moon #Apollo50#NASA sources now talking about 19 Jul event w/President to talk about @NASA plans/destinations. Since White House usually only confirms events shortly before they happen official word likely next week - perhaps at 15 Jul press event with @JimBridenstine #artemis #moon2024 #Mars
But there’s been a lot of talk of sustainability on the Moon. Do we want to create a sustainable outpost on the Moon, or is it not going to be a long-term thing?Gateway will be an orbit around the Moon for 15 years, and the lander will be able to go back and forth to the Moon from the Gateway over and over again, and we will have access to any part of the Moon any time we want. That’s the goal. And in fact, if we want to have people on the surface of the Moon for long periods of time, we could do that as well. And we’ll probably have to do that to prove the technologies and capabilities for Mars.But the goal is to get to Mars, and we need to know what we need to do on the Moon for the Mars mission. It is also true that because we have international partners and commercial partners, they might want to build out on the surface of the Moon. We would love that.But what we’re focused on and what we are going to do is build the capabilities to get to Mars and partner with commercial to do so. And if they want to do things on the Moon that maybe are in commercial interest but not necessarily in NASA’s interest, we welcome that.“THE MOON IS THE PROVING GROUND. MARS IS THE DESTINATION.”It’s important to remember that if we build out in one spot on the surface of the Moon, we’re going to know a whole lot of information about that one spot where we landed. That’s what we did in Apollo. We landed on the Moon six times, and we know a lot about the Moon in the six locations where we landed. What we missed for 40 years was the fact that there are hundreds of millions of tons of water ice on the south pole of the Moon. So what we don’t want to do is limit our ability to have access to the entirety of the Moon. We want to not only go sustainably to the Moon, but go sustainably and have access to any part of the Moon at any time we want, utilizing technology that will get us to Mars.And if there is an industry partner or an international partner that wants to build out a certain part of the Moon, partnering with us on the architecture, we welcome that.I see, but for NASA specifically, building out an outpost on the surface of the Moon is not the priority right now?It depends on what you mean by outpost. We could have numerous missions on the surface of the Moon, all at the same time. But are we looking to build a base on the Moon? That’s not necessarily the agenda. I’m not saying it can’t be done or it shouldn’t be done or that our commercial partners wouldn’t want to do it. All I’m saying is, our focus is using the Moon for the technology capabilities to go on to Mars. But you know when you talk about an outpost or a lunar base, that means 100 different things to 100 different people. It’s very difficult for me to say, “No, that’s not what we’re doing” or “Yes, that’s what we are doing.”But the goal is to have access to any part of the Moon anytime we want and to enable commercial and international partners to join us in that effort. And if some of them want to build up more capability on the surface of the Moon, that’s great for NASA, it’s great for science, it’s great for our country.But what we’re going to continue to focus on is the capabilities and the technology that we need to go on to Mars.
He acknowledged the $20–30 billion cost estimate, but suggested international and commercial partnerships could help reduce those costs. “What we’re learning is that there are other people that want to contribute to this,” he said. “They want to invest their own money. Why? Because they want customers that are not NASA. If they have customers that are not NASA, it drives down our costs.”“It’s very realistic that it could come in well under the $20 billion when I gave that original range,” he said, which he said assumed NASA alone would pay for the cost of the program.
One area of concern, though, is that the 2020 fiscal year is likely to start on a continuing resolution (CR), as has been the case throughout recent history. Continuing resolutions, which fund agencies at levels of the previous fiscal year, restrict the ability to start new programs unless they’re formally authorized through an “anomaly” to the CR.“If that happens,” Bridenstine said, “we need to look at how NASA can move forward in some kind of anomaly.”
Per-Mission: $500M D4H, $170M FH2R, $80M ICPS/DCSS, $150M CCP = $900M
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 07/13/2019 04:31 pmPer-Mission: $500M D4H, $170M FH2R, $80M ICPS/DCSS, $150M CCP = $900MThe per-mission cost of SLS is $876M (slide 18). Your commercial alternative is not cheaper in absolute terms, and imposes additional costs in the form of increased mission risk.You can argue about ground support infrastructure costs as well, of course, but then you also need to quantify the increased risk of failure inherent in doing so many launches and dockings while fuel slowly boils off in the LEO thermal environment.
This is so backwards. Bridenstine is saying that NASA's objective is to develop a transportation system with the capability to access any part of the lunar surface, and that he hopes that somebody else is interested in funding missions which might utilize this capability.How about we try reversing those roles? Wouldn't it make more sense to have government-funded missions to the lunar surface so that "somebody else" can invest in the transportation system?
We should have a lunar base which can sustain itself for twenty two months. Then we can be reasonably sure that the Mars base could sustain itself for the same amount of time.
MARGARET BRENNAN: Tell me, though, about your plans for Artemis, the plan to put humans back on the Moon just five years from now.BRIDENSTINE: That's right. So we want to go back to the Moon sustainably, in other words, to stay, but we also want to keep our eye on what is President Trump's goal? What is his vision? He wants to put an American flag on Mars. So we go to the Moon so that we can learn how to live and work on another world and ultimately have more access to the solar system than ever before. So that we can get- no kidding- to Mars.
MARGARET BRENNAN: But then the president tweeted "NASA should not be talking about going to the Moon. We did that 50 years ago. We should be focused on much bigger things." Is he fully onboard with what you just laid out? BRIDENSTINE: A hundred percent. I talked to him after that tweet. I wanted to make sure we were in alignment, we absolutely are. He understands, and in fact he said to me, "I know we've got to go to the Moon to get to Mars." But he said, "What is that generational achievement that will inspire all of Americans?" It's putting an American flag on Mars. He said, "Make sure you're committed to the- to the flag on Mars."
Translation: "After that tweet, we all panicked because we weren't sure if the President was on the same page as us. Thankfully, after talking to him, it seems like he just wanted us to emphasize how this leads to Mars, which is why we're going to make an announcement to that end pretty soon."It's pretty much what everyone eventually decided Trump's tweet actually meant, once we got over the collective heart attack it caused.
I think we should all long for the day where our leaders proclamations don't constantly need interpreting by 3rd parties...
Quote from: jadebenn on 07/15/2019 04:04 amTranslation: "After that tweet, we all panicked because we weren't sure if the President was on the same page as us. Thankfully, after talking to him, it seems like he just wanted us to emphasize how this leads to Mars, which is why we're going to make an announcement to that end pretty soon."It's pretty much what everyone eventually decided Trump's tweet actually meant, once we got over the collective heart attack it caused.That is Bridenstine's version of what happened. And maybe it's the true version, but this is still a situation where no one knows what the heck Trump means when he tweets something, and then all we know is what is reported back by a third person.I think we should all long for the day where our leaders proclamations don't constantly need interpreting by 3rd parties...
Where's the fun in keeping things calm and steady? This will keep the team on their toes. Hopefully it keeps people thinking and moving things forward and reduces the complacency that always seems to settle into programs over time.
It's not like complacency hasn't been a regular in NASA's HSF programs.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 07/15/2019 05:35 amWhere's the fun in keeping things calm and steady? This will keep the team on their toes. Hopefully it keeps people thinking and moving things forward and reduces the complacency that always seems to settle into programs over time.When you're developing plans that cost ten's of $Billions, you need stable requirements. So when the President tweets something that seems to change the requirements it slows down progress until everyone can find out what the heck is the new plan, and then start anew.I'm not sure how you see this as a good thing.QuoteIt's not like complacency hasn't been a regular in NASA's HSF programs.NASA's HSF program hasn't been funded to do anything new, so why would you say they are complacent? I'm sure you know that NASA employees do not control their own destiny, they work for the NASA Administrator, who works for the President, who signs the funding bills Congress creates.Where is NASA complacent in all of this?
QuoteHe acknowledged the $20–30 billion cost estimate, but suggested international and commercial partnerships could help reduce those costs. “What we’re learning is that there are other people that want to contribute to this,” he said. “They want to invest their own money. Why? Because they want customers that are not NASA. If they have customers that are not NASA, it drives down our costs.”“It’s very realistic that it could come in well under the $20 billion when I gave that original range,” he said, which he said assumed NASA alone would pay for the cost of the program.
