Bridenstine Talks Moon – and Mars – in DC
Keith’s note: NASA Administrator Jim Bridenstine spoke at the Humans to Mars Summit in Washington, DC today from 8:35-8:55 am EDT.
Bridenstine cautions people at Mars summit not to worry if the NASA focus is on the Moon – "we are doing the Moon and Mars in tandem – developing technologies at the Moon that will feed forward to Mars"
— NASA Watch (@NASAWatch) May 9, 2018
"Our return to the surface of the Moon will allow us to prove and advance technologies that will…[enable] us to land the first Americans on the Red Planet," says Administrator @JimBridenstine during his keynote at the #HumansToMars Summit. Watch: https://t.co/LMI7g8oXUy pic.twitter.com/RaIorcKdGu
— NASA (@NASA) May 9, 2018
Good speech – Bridenstine was overtly supportive of SLS, Orion and commercial industry; he also talked about how the Moon is a logical step on the way to sending humans to Mars.
If he continues to support Orion and SLS without getting to the bottom of their expense and infrequency of use, then I will quickly lose faith in his leadership ability. The situation needs to be fixed. we do not need the status quo of the last 13 years maintained.
I would not want to be responsible for answering the clamor of people like you, and me, for some sort of coherence. HSF in his Agency is mired in SLS/Webb/ISS expense.
There are NO good solutions, people. Someone is going to take a hit.
Counting on grand solutions rarely succeeds; as with Shuttle, Hubble and the ISS in the past, we will muddle through. Already, the House is likely to vote to increase NASA’s budget by 8 percent and soon SLS and Orion development spending will start to taper even as cost forecasts for SLS will go down as new SLS launched science missions and the availability of a second pad increase production rates. There is a coherent plan – just not one people on this site agree with.
Well, yes and no. The plan is clear, and coherent. NASA is building one hell of a very cool rocket, too, and nobody disagrees with that. It is going to be something special. And until recently NASA provided about the only rocket-building data points in the US.
No, the plan’s clarity is not the problem. Were it not for a little company that started by launching a puny rocket in the South Seas in 2005 (04?), SLS might not look like the big wart that it has become.
SX provided another data point. F1 morphed into F9B5 and FH; 5 years to F9, another few to 9B5 and FH. And did it at 1/10 the cost. That simple fact has made comparisons obvious. And add to that the enormous operational staff at NASA, and folks who love NASA and America, like me, wonder WTF?
(And that is the LAST time I am going to make that point, I swear).
I think it is a matter of where the hit would happen. As it is, I think because of poor management, Human Space Flight costs are artificially high. We have an Orion that offers little new technology, its not a big development effort, the ESA is building the Service Module and yet the cost is outrageous and notice that no one is in a hurry to get it done. ISS is decades past development, going on a decade past assembly, in a period of steady state operations, and only one or 2 Americans on board at a time, and yet for some reason just as expensive as ever. I see no problem continuing to spend the amount we’ve been spending on HSF if we get something worthwhile. So yes, Orion and ISS ought to take some hits. We really do not need 75% of the HSF budget going into operations for a couple people in orbit. Those programs, those contractors could take a hit. HSF could improve significantly and put some people onto jobs where their input would count for something.
So, how do you think they are supposed to reduce costs and streamline operations?
Maybe he’s playing the potamic two step cause he still needs to get a deputy through confirmation. (Any leads on who his second in command will be Keith?) After that he can convene the team off site maybe they can use Camp David) with no leaks retreat to figure out how to kill SLS and Orion and move forward with a plan that is affordable and sustainable as well as flows work through the centers to appease their congressional overlords. You can’t kill sls and orion without a good plan for keeping the centers still active doing stuff like Landers, insitu prop depots, habitat, rovers, suits and more. just killing it and turning everything over to commercial will be too big a pill to swallow regardless of the cost saving cause congress really cares about jobs not actual exploration progress.
There is nothing wrong with either the Moon or Mars. but NASA’s first destination is Earth. Without the Carbon Monitoring System we may not survive long enough to reach the planets.
As I understand it Mr. Musk’s fixation with establishing extraterrestrial colonies, as soon as possible, is all about disproving your statement.
Isn’t it a bit of a stretch to call a $10M research all that stand between us and extinction? Besides, US is not the only country who can do this, how about we let Europe or China do the public service this time?
Go have a chat with the Europeans, the Russians or the Chinese.
There is nothing wrong with the Moon, or Mars, or the Earth as objects of study and exploration, but NASA’s first job ought to be developing the technology to make travel to all of these places affordable and sustainable. That was the plan NASA took on in 1971, after the digression of the Moon landing. NASA is further away from that capability today with Orion and SLS than they were in 1981 when Shuttle started flying and a space station was just ahead.
Fortunately Mr. Musk seems to be taking on NASA’s government role – I am glad someone is doing it. NASA is not. Frankly, NASA needs to get their head screwed on and establish a supportable plan. Talk of lunar or Mars missions is premature if you cannot afford the programs.
Yes, the winner team wants go to the Moon and Mars for the
good of human beings.
Best wishes to the 2020s manned lunar exploration and Mars
humans landing.
I think both the Moon and Mars are valid destinations and they share some of the logistical and scientific issues to maintain a presence at either so the research would surely overlap
Prove it on the Moon, deploy it to Mars… sounds like a rational plan to me since fixing something on the moon is a 3 or 4 day trip one way from help on the Earth. Mars? Not so much; twice yearly launch windows and 6 months one way.
Except that the environments of the Moon and Mars are dissimilar to the point that you need two different sets of ground operation systems.
Someone have to decide which destination to spend money on for surface hardware.