Despite appearances and a presidential tweet suggesting otherwise, the United States is "100%" committed to sending astronauts back to the moon in 2024 and establishing a long-term, sustainable presence there as a stepping stone to eventual piloted flights to Mars, Vice President Mike Pence said in an interview for CBS News' "The Takeout."
The SLS "is behind schedule, and it's over budget," Pence said in an interview Saturday with CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett. "But the truth is that since the start of the Space Launch System program, many administrations have underfunded it, have (not given) it the attention that it deserves."This administration will not make that mistake. We're committed to the work being done in Huntsville with the Space Launch System."But, he added, "if we can't get there on the platforms that we're building today, the rockets we're building today, we're going to get there by any means necessary. Because the president really does believe that American leadership in human space exploration is essential."...While NASA and, for now, the Trump administration are committed to the SLS for government moon missions, "we're going to continue to lean on" SpaceX and Blue Origin, Pence said. "We're going to continue to look to them to give us alternatives to ... provide American leadership in human space exploration."
CBS interviewed Pence with some interesting questions: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/mike-pence-interview-vice-president-reaffirms-administration-support-for-moon-first-strategy/QuoteDespite appearances and a presidential tweet suggesting otherwise, the United States is "100%" committed to sending astronauts back to the moon in 2024 and establishing a long-term, sustainable presence there as a stepping stone to eventual piloted flights to Mars, Vice President Mike Pence said in an interview for CBS News' "The Takeout."QuoteThe SLS "is behind schedule, and it's over budget," Pence said in an interview Saturday with CBS News chief Washington correspondent Major Garrett. "But the truth is that since the start of the Space Launch System program, many administrations have underfunded it, have (not given) it the attention that it deserves."This administration will not make that mistake. We're committed to the work being done in Huntsville with the Space Launch System."But, he added, "if we can't get there on the platforms that we're building today, the rockets we're building today, we're going to get there by any means necessary. Because the president really does believe that American leadership in human space exploration is essential."...While NASA and, for now, the Trump administration are committed to the SLS for government moon missions, "we're going to continue to lean on" SpaceX and Blue Origin, Pence said. "We're going to continue to look to them to give us alternatives to ... provide American leadership in human space exploration."
The truth is that SLS has slipped again. So will Jim B and Pence stop teasing the public with the SpaceX/BO option or will they follow through on the rhetoric?
At a hearing of the commerce, justice and science (CJS) subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee about the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.) said that while he and other committee members supported NASA in general, he didn’t understand why it was so important to move up the schedule for landing humans on the moon to 2024.“While I support a continued human presence in space, I remain concerned about the estimated cost — in excess of $20 billion over the next few years — to unnecessarily speed up by just four years the schedule for returning American astronauts to the moon,” he said in his opening remarks. “Arbitrarily changing this schedule will have grave consequences for other vital programs across the science fields and other programs across the government.”
In recent days, Bridenstine has visited with several House appropriators. He tweeted out July 16 and 17 pictures of him meeting with Serrano as well as Reps. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) and Charlie Crist (D-Fla.), who also serve on the CJS appropriations subcommittee.Bridenstine in one tweet thanked Serrano for his “continued support” of NASA’s programs. “We both agree that ongoing bipartisan support in Congress is critical for NASA’s return to the Moon and on to Mars as we inspire the #Artemis generation,” he wrote.
Key House appropriator still skeptical of NASA’s lunar plansQuoteAt a hearing of the commerce, justice and science (CJS) subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee about the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.) said that while he and other committee members supported NASA in general, he didn’t understand why it was so important to move up the schedule for landing humans on the moon to 2024.“While I support a continued human presence in space, I remain concerned about the estimated cost — in excess of $20 billion over the next few years — to unnecessarily speed up by just four years the schedule for returning American astronauts to the moon,” he said in his opening remarks. “Arbitrarily changing this schedule will have grave consequences for other vital programs across the science fields and other programs across the government.”
Quote from: su27k on 07/25/2019 04:49 amKey House appropriator still skeptical of NASA’s lunar plansQuoteAt a hearing of the commerce, justice and science (CJS) subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee about the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.) said that while he and other committee members supported NASA in general, he didn’t understand why it was so important to move up the schedule for landing humans on the moon to 2024.“While I support a continued human presence in space, I remain concerned about the estimated cost — in excess of $20 billion over the next few years — to unnecessarily speed up by just four years the schedule for returning American astronauts to the moon,” he said in his opening remarks. “Arbitrarily changing this schedule will have grave consequences for other vital programs across the science fields and other programs across the government.”The importance of moving up the schedule is to remove four more years of opportunity to change direction again.
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 07/25/2019 04:53 amQuote from: su27k on 07/25/2019 04:49 amKey House appropriator still skeptical of NASA’s lunar plansQuoteAt a hearing of the commerce, justice and science (CJS) subcommittee of the House Appropriations Committee about the Office of Science and Technology Policy, Rep. José Serrano (D-N.Y.) said that while he and other committee members supported NASA in general, he didn’t understand why it was so important to move up the schedule for landing humans on the moon to 2024.“While I support a continued human presence in space, I remain concerned about the estimated cost — in excess of $20 billion over the next few years — to unnecessarily speed up by just four years the schedule for returning American astronauts to the moon,” he said in his opening remarks. “Arbitrarily changing this schedule will have grave consequences for other vital programs across the science fields and other programs across the government.”The importance of moving up the schedule is to remove four more years of opportunity to change direction again.Not really, this is a change in direction. It's about having the return to the Moon during the Trump administration (assuming he wins reelection). I don't blame him, if I was in his place I'd like to get the credit too instead of the next guy.Unfortunately for Trump the Democrats control the House. They don't see a reason to speed up the schedule. That's why I don't think Artemis 2024 is going to happen. There isn't a political consensus for it.
This also ignores the Senate’s influence, not only will the Republican-dominated Senate push for $1.6 billion because it’s a partisan priority but also because it means more money for Alabama and Texas and reinforces SLS’s position as the cornerstone of NASA’s moon ambitions.
Hoping this post gets us back on topic.These seem to be the actual effects of Artemis, compared to the POR from 2017.* Strong push for the 2024 date on SLS and Orion programs* Acceptance of the use of commercial rockets for delivery to the Gateway for modules and resupply* Quick, non-compete awards for Gateway modules to established but non-dominated aerospace contractors* Arguably some scope limitations on Gateway* Lunar CLPS landers contracts to non-dominated aerospace contractors* Beginnings of a manned lander * NASA personnel and management attitude changesI'm pleased to see commercial rockets start to get their nose under NASA's metaphorical tent. The forces that resisted this previously in the name of protecting SLS were keeping NASA on the ground. Having commercial rockets in the mix actually creates good reasons to fly SLS. There is still a very strong bias to distort elements of the architecture so as to require SLS -- maybe we can finally get past that. We should all applaud the schedule improvement and focus on 2024. I find the new pace quite slow, but it is an improvement on the pace during the prior 12 years. Arguing the political overtones is poor form (and we all should know that the actual landings, if any, would happen past the current administration anyway).
Quote from: HeartofGold2030 on 07/25/2019 06:29 pmThis also ignores the Senate’s influence, not only will the Republican-dominated Senate push for $1.6 billion because it’s a partisan priority but also because it means more money for Alabama and Texas and reinforces SLS’s position as the cornerstone of NASA’s moon ambitions.Senator Shelby does head up the Senate Appropriations committee, but it takes 60 votes in the Senate to ensure passage of anything, and Republican's don't have those numbers. Plus whatever the Senate passes has to be reconciled with the House.I'm not ruling anything out, but the natural reaction to anything new but controversial is to do nothing in Congress, and Trump is not helping himself on this matter when he questions the NASA Administrator in public about why we're not going to Mars instead of the Moon next.
Quote from: Coastal Ron on 07/25/2019 06:48 pmQuote from: HeartofGold2030 on 07/25/2019 06:29 pmThis also ignores the Senate’s influence, not only will the Republican-dominated Senate push for $1.6 billion because it’s a partisan priority but also because it means more money for Alabama and Texas and reinforces SLS’s position as the cornerstone of NASA’s moon ambitions.Senator Shelby does head up the Senate Appropriations committee, but it takes 60 votes in the Senate to ensure passage of anything, and Republican's don't have those numbers. Plus whatever the Senate passes has to be reconciled with the House.I'm not ruling anything out, but the natural reaction to anything new but controversial is to do nothing in Congress, and Trump is not helping himself on this matter when he questions the NASA Administrator in public about why we're not going to Mars instead of the Moon next.I fully agree with you that Trump’s involvement has not been beneficial to the cause. However, maybe NASA ignoring the polarising Trump’s desire to go straight to Mars and instead heading for the Moon could remove some of the partisan stigma?
Talking of Shelby, I think he’ll be determined to fund Artemis because it gives SLS a purpose and accelerates it’s development;
...and when NASA starts questioning these two factors (SLS’ purpose and speed of development) bad things happen for Shelby...
...he probably still has PTSD from the Falcon-Heavy study debacle earlier this year. Shelby knows SLS’ days are numbered so he needs to give it a time to shine before it inevitably perishes, Artemis is perfect for that.
Shelby has had years to fund something for the SLS to do. YEARS. And hasn't. Without an accelerated development effort it's too late to fund payloads and programs for the SLS, since the SLS will likely be operational before the payloads will be, so the SLS will sit around for years or have to be launched on additional "test flights".
I see Artemis more as establishing all the necessary predicates for making the continuation of SLS untenable.
Quote from: TheRadicalModerate on 07/25/2019 06:52 pmI see Artemis more as establishing all the necessary predicates for making the continuation of SLS untenable.How many times do you people need to be proven wrong about "the imminent demise of SLS" before it gets through your heads that it's not getting cancelled?
Watch it... Some folks here said the same about CxP.
In the context of this thread 'by 2024' seems not at all unlikely, and is pretty imminent from the perspective of a program begun in 2008ish.
Quote from: speedevil on 07/25/2019 08:41 pmIn the context of this thread 'by 2024' seems not at all unlikely, and is pretty imminent from the perspective of a program begun in 2008ish.The fact that you think cancellation is at all likely at any point in the near-future, much less "imminent," baffles me. You don't need to like the program to acknowledge that it's not going to be cancelled under this administration.
