
NASA executive quits weeks after appointment to lead 2024 moon landing plan - Rooster61
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-space-exploration-nasa/nasa-executive-quits-weeks-after-being-named-to-lead-moon-initiative-idUSKCN1SU0A5
======
avmich
We have so much of so good off-the-shelf technology, that technically the only
thing seriously missing is the lunar lander. Practically all components today
are better or significantly better than in 1960-s - engines, materials,
control systems, electrical power, spacesuits, radios.

However, the crucial difference is the risk tolerance, and here we have much
higher requirements than we had, and that is what adds months and years to
development and billions to costs. Some lunar lander could be created in time
- we have variety of technologies, and people working on similar things. But
to have it reliable so we'd be happy to send humans to the surface in 5 years
- that requires a crash program with significant budget right now.

~~~
tzs
What today is better than the Saturn V? That thing could put something like 3x
the mass into lunar orbit than the Falcon Heavy.

~~~
avmich
Saturn V flew about twice a year. I think it's easier today to get Falcon
Heavy to fly 6 times a year, matching total payload, or to fly even more
frequently. We have about 20 launches of Falcon 9, with 20+ tons payload each,
which totals to 400+ tons annual - which is more than Saturn V carried per
year.

~~~
btilly
That requires orbital construction. Also that imposes very severe constraints
on size and shape of those pieces. This is not technology that we have
demonstrated in a meaningful way.

For example the stage of the Apollo mission that took it from Earth orbit to a
trajectory that would intercept the Moon was
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-IVB),
which nearly twice the maximum payload of the Falcon Heavy. Do you really want
to trust this step to a rocket that has to be assembled and fueled in space?

~~~
avmich
> That requires orbital construction.

Do you know how many times two objects were successfully docked in space? And
how many times they did that automatically?

> Also that imposes very severe constraints on size and shape of those pieces.

Objection to "very severe". You can have your standard fairing size full, with
diameter about 5 meters and length of 15 meters or so. That's quite comparable
to 6.6 meters diameter of Saturn-V payloads, is more than LEM without legs.
What shape constraints you have in mind?

> This is not technology that we have demonstrated in a meaningful way.

We didn't demonstrate orbital docking technology?

> nearly twice the maximum payload of the Falcon Heavy.

But it was launched with one rocket altogether. Nobody prevents us from
launching the booster stage separately and dock it with spacecraft on LEO.
More, nobody prevents us from sending analog of Apollo spacecraft and LEM to
the moon separately - with their own booster each. Those variants were
considered in 1960-s and rejected purely on the basis of time to develop the
technology - something which we have today well developed.

> Do you really want to trust this step to a rocket that has to be assembled
> and fueled in space?

Let me remind you that Gemini and Atlas-Agena stage docked and changed orbits
in mid-1960-s, confirming that it at least can be done with then-current
technology. Today ISS has a history of pushes by Shuttle, of refuels with
Progress and ATV ships and I'm not sure what prevents using similar - though
not identical - approach with translunar injections.

~~~
btilly
The component that I laid out is larger in both diameter and length than the
standard fairing size you list.

You are right that it would be possible to send the Apollo spacecraft and LEM
to the Moon separately, to join there, but the Apollo spacecraft is 2/3 of
that mass. The rocket to do the Apollo spacecraft by itself exceeds the specs
that we can launch on Falcon Heavy.

It would be more doable to build a multi-stage rocket in space and fire that.
So one launch for Apollo+LEM, 2 launches for 2 booster stages. Put the three
together and off you go. Of course this requires designing a new rocket,
designed to be carried into space, to dock robotically, and then launch. Which
is doable. But also isn't current tech.

If we're going to build a new rocket ANYWAYS for this mission, I think it
makes more sense to cross fingers and wait for SpaceX's SuperHeavy + Starship
configuration.

 _Update:_ While looking for current news on that, I found that SpaceX
building SuperHeavy rockets in two locations. And I found that, today, they
reported raising a billion dollars in funding for their development efforts.
Which I submitted as a news article because I think that it is of interest
separately from the NASA discussion.

~~~
avmich
We're in the area of discussion known to some as "Lego bricks for return to
the Moon". Some discussions - with pictures :) - are here - [http://novosti-
kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum9/topic1499/](http://novosti-
kosmonavtiki.ru/forum/forum9/topic1499/) .

I agree that we don't have some components to take "off the shelf" \- lunar
module being the primary example. But "to put a payload on a rocket which
never flew on this rocket" is not the "not current tech" \- and since we have
docking components, including robotic docking, existing elsewhere, I would
argue that it won't require any significant time (like 5 years) to get ready.

The point is that we don't need to build rockets to go to the Moon - we have
them already. We currently don't have lunar module - and we'll need to create
that. Also we didn't do some specific integration of existing technologies -
space boosters, docking etc. - but making that is way easier than making a new
rocket.

> The component that I laid out is larger in both diameter and length than the
> standard fairing size you list.

It's not necessary to re-create 3rd stage of Saturn-V to fly to the Moon.
Today there are better ways - using the existing launchers.

------
ryder9
NASA requested $1.4B in increase

for comparison, Military budget increased from $586B in 2015 to $713B in 2019

~~~
georgeecollins
Or they just asked for (and presumably will get) an additional $15 B of
subsidies for farmers to compensate for the trade war. Nothing against
farmers, but if it is so easy to do that, why not fund NASA a bit?

~~~
Loughla
If you only consider the near future, food and food security is more important
than space.

If you consider long-term, we should be pouring everything we have into
figuring out space colonization and travel, but I also just want to live in
The Culture already, so I'm biased.

~~~
braythwayt
Let me be the lone voice of dissent fervently hoping that mankind (at least in
any form I can envision us) does not leave our solar system.

Why do we need to "colonize space?" Show me mankind living peacefully and
within its means on our enormous rock, and then I'll get excited about us
spreading elsewhere.

Until then, I get the uneasy feeling that what we really want to do is shit
our own bed, and instead of cleaning it up, simply spread out and start
shitting in other beds.

\---

Jeebus, I'm cranky!

~~~
TeMPOraL
You could assume the pessimistic vision in which we never start "living
peacefully and within its means" (and barring large-scale changes in our
biological makeup and/or totalitarian governments you can't imagine, it seems
likely simply from game-theoretical considerations). But even in that
pessimistic vision, we _should_ colonize space. Why? Because in that vision,
we're going to shit our bed anyway, and there's a whole universe of wooden
planks and feathers waiting to be turned into more beds.

Seriously, it's not like there's some intrinsic worth in all these rocks
spinning around fusion reactors. To the best that we can tell, there aren't
any other sapient beings around who could claim we're infringing on their
sense of beauty. It's just us, the only ones possessing the spark of giving
meaning to things, and a lot of dead rocks waiting to be used.

Personally, I don't think we'll stop fighting and doing stupid things, but I
feel it's entirely possible that - assuming we survive the next few decades as
a technological civilization - we will fix up this planet. And space
habitation could be very helpful in this in multiple ways - beamed energy,
geoengineering, moving some kinds of manufacturing to orbit, experience in
managing ecosystems gained on running closed-loop habitats, etc.

~~~
braythwayt
Manifest Destiny, 20xx Edition.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Nah. It's the belief that we shouldn't venture out because we're not perfect
that's kind of Inverted Manifest Destiny - the belief that universe is divine
and we need to be worthy to partake in it.

------
ricardobeat
The Apollo program ran for 12 years and ended with six successful missions.

Here we are half a century later, with wildly more advanced technology, a
bunch of ready-to-fly rockets to choose from, and they need _another_ ten
years for a single mission? What “organizational changes” are necessary that
cost billions?

~~~
yingw787
I think I read somewhere that we actually lost the technology to build the
Saturn V; the fab tools, the blueprints, and the skilled labor isn’t there
anymore. It’s like Damascus steel or Roman concrete or Greek fire. We may have
to reinvent it.

~~~
mikeash
It would be very difficult to build a new Saturn V just because any product of
any complexity is inherently embedded in the economic ecosystem it came from.
If the plans specify a #5 Widget and nobody has made a #5 Widget in the past
30 years, then you’re kind of stuck even if the vastly superior #8 Widget is
currently available in any hardware store.

What you say is true but it’s not correct to frame is as a step backwards as
is often done. The Saturn V would be hard to build today because technology
has moved _forward_ a great deal.

This is an important distinction because it means that building a new rocket
with the capabilities of the Saturn V is still very much possible. SLS and
Super Heavy are two rockets in active development that will exceed the Saturn
V. SLS is taking forever but that’s just a matter of not putting resources
into it. It’s expensive, but Saturn V was too. Super Heavy is a little more
speculative but it looks promising and its capabilities will blow Saturn V’s
out of the water if it actually flies, and for far less money.

~~~
wolf550e
EDITED

The Constellation program cost $12B between 2005-2009 [1] and includes Ares V,
an earlier version of SLS (but also Orion and Ares I). SLS under the current
name (without Orion) has cost $14B 2011-2018 [2]. No idea about 2009-2011. It
will cost several billion per year until it is cancelled.

It uses existing (flown in space) shuttle engines, shuttle main tank tooling,
5 segment version of shuttle's 4 segment boosters (also 15 years in
development), etc. It requires no new technology and it is not trying to be
better than anything. It has all the money it wants. They even took money away
from commercial crew to pay SLS, a few years ago, which made commercial crew
late which forced them to pay more to the Russians.

The problem with SLS is that it is designed to burn money. It is not designed
to fly, to achieve a mission of any kind. It is optimized to cost as much as
possible, because its success is defined as "raised average wage in my
congressional district for as long as possible" by the people who ordered it
done.

1 - [http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-
davis/2016/20160801-hor...](http://www.planetary.org/blogs/jason-
davis/2016/20160801-horizon-goal-part-2.html)

2 -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_hi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_Launch_System#Funding_history_and_planning)

~~~
mikeash
Where does that $50 billion figure come from? I found a NASA report from last
year that says $11.9 billion. That’s an average of somewhat less than $2
billion/year so far. In contrast, the Saturn V took about five years from
start to first flight, and development cost something like $6-9 billion/year.

I wouldn’t be surprised if SLS ended up costing more in the end, precisely
because spending is lower. A project with less funding that drags on forever
costs more than one with better funding that’s finishes quickly.

~~~
wolf550e
I edited to remove that number and add links.

Had it been designed by engineers with budget or deadline in mind, we could
have debated methodologies. But it was designed by congress with exact
hardware to use mandated by them, with no ability by engineers to change it to
lower costs.

Also, of course, "cost plus" contracting means that an engineer that suggests
an idea to lower costs is thrown out of the room by management.

See Dr. Dan Rasky from NASA, top expert on heat shields, explain from inside:
[https://youtu.be/g3gzwMJWa5w?t=679](https://youtu.be/g3gzwMJWa5w?t=679)

Also, most talks by Dr. Robert Zubrin (author of Case for Mars) explain that
the human spaceflight part of NASA is nuts.

------
duxup
Sounds like it is simply that "if we'e not going to do / fund the thing
there's not much for me to lead here" kinda situation.

~~~
a3n
But why was he escorted out of the building. Unusual for a leadership
position?

~~~
Balgair
Probably protocol. Many NASA sites are co-located on USAF bases or have the
same 'legality/rules' if they have military projects on them. I wouldn't read
too much into it until more is known.

------
neuronexmachina
This article from a couple months ago has some info on the new "Moon to Mars"
mission directorate NASA wanted to establish, separate from the existing
operations-focused Human Exploration & Operations Directorate. As the original
submitter's article mentions, the proposal was rejected by lawmakers:
[https://federalnewsnetwork.com/budget/2019/03/new-mission-
di...](https://federalnewsnetwork.com/budget/2019/03/new-mission-directorate-
in-nasa-budget-request-would-explore-new-capabilities-for-moon-mars-missions/)

> “What we’re talking about is creating a new mission directorate at NASA,”
> Bridenstine said during the March 27 hearing. “And it’s focused on
> development activities that are very large in scale. And that mission
> directorate, we would call it Moon to Mars Mission Directorate, because it’s
> going to be focused on getting to the moon and using those capabilities to
> go on to Mars. So on the management side we’re trying to separate operations
> from development so that we can get a better mix of the right people in the
> right places to accomplish these objectives.”

> The problem, Bridenstine said, is that the current division between
> operations and development is muddled. Operations refers to the actual
> missions: Flying to and resupplying the International Space Station, for
> example. Development refers to the design and implementation of never-
> before-used technologies.

------
starpilot
Let's not forget we planned on returning by 2020... in 2004:

[https://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/bush_vision.html](https://www.nasa.gov/missions/solarsystem/bush_vision.html)

~~~
jessaustin
Haha that's a great URL. God save us from that.

"I see... WMDs... and banks that are... too big to fail."

------
thowaway9883
During the Apollo era the NASA budget was about 10X what it is now as a
percentage of the federal budget [0]. Given the budget is a fraction of what
it was back then, compounded with the fact all of the people who lead during
that era are now retired, the NASA request doesn't seem unreasonable.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#/media/File:NAS...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#/media/File:NASA-
Budget-Federal.svg)

~~~
azeotropic
This is a strange way compare NASA's budget size over time. It mostly reflects
the out of control growth of entitlement spending, which was only 20% of the
budget in the 1960s and is half of the budget now
([https://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/entitlement_spending](https://www.usgovernmentdebt.us/entitlement_spending)).

According to your source, at it's peak during Apollo, NASA's budget was only
twice what it is now in constant dollars. In constant dollars NASA's budget is
basically the same as it was when it was operating a fleet of space shuttles
in the 80's and 90's, but NASA isn't operating any now. Where does the money
_really_ go?

------
ohiovr
Going to the moon again, making a permanent moon base, manned missions to
mars, and other manned missions get proposed in every administration to make
some headlines and excitement but ultimately in every case, they fail in
funding, or politically, and they all quietly disappear and are forgotten.

~~~
viburnum
Because it’s a dumb idea, but everyone is in denial about how dumb it is, so
just lying about future plans is the best solution for everyone.

~~~
sq_
Genuinely curious, in what way do you think it's a dumb idea? The whole "let's
go to space" thing in general? Or just the way we're going about it?

~~~
viburnum
Most of the resources in manned space flight are devoted to not killing the
astronauts. Just sending robots is way cheaper and you can do a ton more
projects for the same amount of money. Landing a robot on a comet is way more
interesting than the 130th trip to a space station that’s only 200 miles away
from earth (a person can bicycle that far in a day). And going to Mars is
impossible for less than hundreds of billions of dollars, if it’s possible at
all.

Sending people into space was a stunt, like climbing to the top of Everest.
Having done it a few times there’s no point in doing it again. People say, oh
you learn so much from it, but that would be true for trying to live on the
bottom of the ocean or in treehouses or whatever. Romantic nonsense is fine
but manned spacedlight is expensive and requires a ton of talented engineering
that could be better used elsewhere.

------
ilaksh
It was weird though there was a big announcement video on YouTube about the
lunar mission and no one even bothered to comment.

------
PorterDuff
It seems to me that space proponents need to study other tricky-to-justify
programs for lessons. Just do whatever the F-35 people did.

I wish that the main thrust (so to speak) was towards permanent off-planet
settlement and economies rather than merely having a human grab the soil
samples.

Also, it would be nice to see a more results-oriented attitude rather than
have the whole deal watered down with politics. Of course, you could probably
say that about the US military.

~~~
SiempreViernes
I think it's hard for a civilian agency to use the defence sectors tricks.
NASA could probably get a lot of people behind building a giant laser on the
moon to "strike the enemy", but it's hard to see how they could get much
support from the science community for such a project.

~~~
PorterDuff
Au contraire. Just scatter around the components of the project into various
Congressional districts. Build large facilities in places with political
horsepower and name them after important people. Gemini/Apollo is fraught with
this.

Personally, I doubt that the science community would be behind manned space
travel in any case. It's more marketed to the engineering and military world.
I wouldn't doubt that internal NASA competition over limited dollars shows
astronomers and planet scientists smothering the manned efforts in it's crib
now and again.

------
rjf72
And _this_ is why getting private industry into space is what matters.

$1.6 billion is a tiny fraction of what we spend on things that will have
basically 0 impact on the longterm outcome of our species. But since it
doesn't get votes or feed special interests, it's left unfunded. Of course
even if it was funded, it might well get cut. For instance one reason Nixon
stripped down the space program was literally because he didn't like JFK and
didn't want JFK's legacy overshadowing his own. [1]

Bezos, for instance, wanting to spend the majority of his wealth creating a
private space industry can be seen as capricious, but I think this is myopic.
Some time, ideally not all that far from now, space will have revolutionized
every single aspect of our society. It provides endless lands for colonizing,
endless mineral resources for harvesting, and an infinite frontier to reach
ever deeper into. If we only moved forward once everything else was sound and
stable, we'd never move forward.

[1] - [http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/jason-
callahan/20...](http://www.planetary.org/blogs/guest-blogs/jason-
callahan/20141003-how-richard-nixon-changed-nasa.html)

~~~
dmead
> And this is why getting private industry into space is what matters.

Really? that's an interesting conclusion to jump to. Maybe it would be easier
to properly run the government than try to make companies that pretend to do
the job of nation states?

Bezos is doing what he's doing precisely because he has the money to do it and
not be beholden to profit motives. Saying "we should get private companies
involved in space" comes with a HUGE asterix of "as long as they aren't
beholden to profit motives".

And yes, spaceX is a thing but they're never going to turn a profit. The whole
thing is a for profit company in name only.

~~~
pault
At one point international trade was the job of nation states. I don't think
it's outrageous to imagine that some large scale endeavors require enormous
upfront capital and organization, but eventually become cheap enough to move
to the private sector.

~~~
dmead
I agree, i thought of the old trade companies in England that were basically
responsible for spreading the british empire. I still can't but think this is
somehow different.

------
rurban
"Sirangelo was escorted out of NASA’s headquarters in Washington on Wednesday
after his resignation" does not sound like a resignation to me.

------
dreamcompiler
> Sirangelo’s ouster was sealed by increasing skepticism that 2024 was a
> realistic deadline for moon landings

This. Trump wanted a return to the Moon by the end of his second term, but
it's just not possible. NASA doesn't even have a human launch vehicle capable
of low-earth orbit (LEO) at the moment. It will in a few years, but getting to
the Moon is significantly harder than LEO and getting people back from the
Moon is 10x harder still. And we no longer have an existential cold war with
Russia to motivate us.

------
rc_kas
"back on the moon by 2024" This entirely smells of Trump wanting to stroke his
own ego and get credit for a moon landing.

~~~
nabla9
It was was actually Pence's idea. Pence was visiting NASA and Bridenstine
mentioned to Pence that getting into moon by 2024 was possible. Pence just
added the new policy goal into his speech on the spot and it became the
official policy of the Government.

[https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-
vice...](https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/remarks-vice-
president-pence-fifth-meeting-national-space-council-huntsville-al/)

>In Space Policy Directive-1, the President directed NASA to create a lunar
exploration plan. But as of today, more than 15 months later, we still don’t
have a plan in place. But Administrator Bridenstine told me, five minutes ago,
we now have a plan to return to the moon. (Applause.)

... little later

>And I’m here, on the President’s behalf, to tell the men and women of the
Marshall Space Flight Center and the American people that, at the direction of
the President of the United States, it is the stated policy of this
administration and the United States of America to return American astronauts
to the Moon within the next five years. (Applause.)

Of course, this does not mean anything. WH is not committing any work towards
that goal and probably don't know how. They just said it, requested money and
left it there hanging. NASA has funding for Moon mission in 2028. The extra
money to get there faster is nowhere to find.

~~~
mturmon
This is wrong. Accelerating a return to the moon came from Trump. Please see:

[https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019/...](https://www.google.com/amp/nymag.com/intelligencer/amp/2019/01/trump-
offered-nasa-unlimited-funding-to-go-to-mars-by-2020.html)

Some have speculated that the NASA (acting) Administrator at the time, Robert
Lightfoot, was replaced with Bridenstine because the latter would back a fast
return to the moon.

~~~
nabla9
The the article you link to has nothing about going to the moon.

------
viburnum
Manned space flight is a dumb idea and no amount of nerd fantasies will change
that. Just send robots instead.

~~~
frosted-flakes
We did send robots to the moon before we sent people. But no robot could do
what those people who landed on the moon did, let alone bring back hundreds of
pounds of selected moon rocks. And it wasn't just for the science; putting
humans on the moon was a goal in itself, one put in motion by Kennedy in his
challenge to the nation to do it "before the decade is out".

Should we put humans on the moon (or Mars) today? I don't know, but I don't
think it's a dumb idea. Impractical maybe, but still a laudable goal.

~~~
dooglius
>But no robot could do what those people who landed on the moon did, let alone
bring back hundreds of pounds of selected moon rocks

Can you elaborate? Robots in 1969 perhaps couldn't, but bringing back rocks
seems well within the abilities of present robotics.

~~~
frosted-flakes
People landed on the moon and returned in 1969. No robot could do that—we
didn't have the tech.

Even now it would be a tall order. The moon walkers didn't just scoop up a
random bunch of rocks, they selected specific rocks that were chosen to prove
or prove the geologists' hypotheses, drilled 10 foot core tubes, chipped
pieces off large boulders, climbed mountains and steep hills, and set up
complex, long-running experiments that would continue broadcasting to earth.
Heck, they even sent a geologist to the moon, because a trained scientist can
recognise what a human with a fixed camera cannot.

I would bet that a pair of humans could do in a week what all of the Mars
landers put together have done to date (apart from land on opposite sides of
the globe). Don't discount human intelligence, ingenuity, and physical
ability. Robots are great for assembly line work, but not exploring unknown
territory.

