NASA Moon chat - We are going - or are we? - The Something Awful Forums

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > NASA Moon chat - We are going - or are we?

Helical Nightmares: Apr 30, 2009

We Are Going

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl6jn-DdafM

quote:

NASA
Published on May 14, 2019
We are going to the Moon, to stay, by 2024. And this is how.

Very inspirational and a great marketing gimmick, but this begs the question "Are we really?" and "How much will it cost?"

From Ars Technica's Eric Berger,

https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/nasas-full-artemis-plan-revealed-37-launches-and-a-lunar-outpost/

quote:

NASA�s full Artemis plan revealed: 37 launches and a lunar outpost
Still missing? The total cost. And that's probably by design.

In the nearly two months since Vice President Mike Pence directed NASA to return to the Moon by 2024, space agency engineers have been working to put together a plan that leverages existing technology, large projects nearing completion, and commercial rockets to bring this about.

Last week, an updated plan that demonstrated a human landing in 2024, annual sorties to the lunar surface thereafter, and the beginning of a Moon base by 2028, began circulating within the agency. A graphic, shown below, provides information about each of the major launches needed to construct a small Lunar Gateway, stage elements of a lunar lander there, fly crews to the Moon and back, and conduct refueling missions.

This decade-long plan, which entails 37 launches of private and NASA rockets, as well as a mix of robotic and human landers, culminates with a "Lunar Surface Asset Deployment" in 2028, likely the beginning of a surface outpost for long-duration crew stays. Developed by the agency's senior human spaceflight manager, Bill Gerstenmaier, this plan is everything Pence asked for�an urgent human return, a Moon base, a mix of existing and new contractors.

quote:

One thing missing is its cost. NASA administrator Jim Bridenstine has asked for an additional $1.6 billion in fiscal year 2020 as a down payment to jump-start lander development. But all of the missions in this chart would cost much, much more. Sources continue to tell Ars that the internal projected cost is $6 billion to $8 billion per year on top of NASA's existing budget of about $20 billion.

The plan also misses what is likely another critical element. It's not clear what role there would be on these charts for international partners, as nearly all of the vehicles could�and likely would�come from NASA or US- based companies. An international partnership, as evidenced by the International Space Station program, is likely key to sustaining a lunar program over the long term in the US political landscape.

Three miracles

Although the plan is laudable in that it represents a robust human exploration of deep space, scientific research, and an effort to tap water resources at the Moon, it faces at least three big problems.

The first issue is funding and political vulnerability. One reason Bridenstine has not shared the full cost of the program as envisioned is "sticker shock" that has doomed other previous efforts. However, if NASA is going to attempt a Moon landing with this specific plan�rather than a radical departure that relies on smaller, reusable rockets—the agency will need a lot more money.

So far, the White House has proposed paying for this with a surplus in the Pell Grant Reserve Fund. But this appears to be a non-starter with House Democrats. "The President is proposing to further cut a beneficial needs-based grants program that provides a lifeline to low-income students, namely the Pell Grants program, in order to pay for the first year of this initiative�something that I cannot support," House science committee chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson has said.

Congress is also not going to give NASA an unlimited authority to reprogram funds, with an apparently open-ended time frame, which Bridenstine has sought.

A second problem is that NASA's current plan relies on its contractors to actually deliver hardware. Boeing's work on the core stage of the Space Launch System is emblematic of this problem. The company has been working on the core stage for eight years, and it is unlikely to be ready for flight before another year or two. Boeing's management of the contract has been harshly criticized by NASA's Inspector General. After all this, can Boeing be counted on to deliver an SLS core stage in 2020, then again in 2022, and six more between 2024 and 2028?

The big SLS rocket was supposed to have been fairly straightforward to develop, as it relied on space shuttle components, such as its main engines and solid-rocket boosters. By contrast, the three-stage, reusable lunar lander envisioned by NASA to get humans from the Gateway to the lunar surface will require new engines and systems, including fuel management at very low and high temperatures. Is five years enough time for this if it has taken NASA, Boeing, and the rest of the SLS contractors a decade to deliver the rocket?

Finally, NASA's architecture for a lunar return requires completion of a more powerful version of the Space Launch rocket, known as Block 1B, to be ready by 2024. In the new architecture, the SLS Block 1B booster carries a crewed Orion spacecraft to the Gateway along with "surface logistics"�likely air, water, food, and other consumables needed for a multiday journey down to the surface and back to the Gateway.

The key new technology in the Block 1B rocket is an upper stage, known as the Exploration Upper Stage, for which Boeing is also the contractor. In recent months, NASA has urged Boeing to complete the initial version of the SLS rocket and halted work on this new upper stage. Given Boeing's performance on the core stage, it is possible NASA may seek an alternative provider, such as Blue Origin with its existing BE-3U upper stage engine, to build the Exploration Upper Stage. This is a big ask for Boeing, Blue Origin, or anyone by 2024.

Three outcomes

So what happens next? NASA took a key technical step Thursday in awarding contracts for two of the three elements of its proposed lunar lander design. The more dicey questions will come in the political arena.

NASA is in danger of becoming a political football. Democrats are unlikely to support Pell Grants as a source of funding, and some space industry sources have speculated that this may have been a "poison pill" from the White House's Office of Management and Budget to undermine a long-term, costly program. If Democrats wanted to push back in a political way, they could tell President Trump they will only support NASA's lunar landing with Department of Defense funds earmarked for the "Space Force." Under such a scenario, the politicization of NASA would be bad for an agency that has mostly flown above the partisan fray.

And the unspoken question is "Is the remilitarization of NASA a good thing? Even if that means NASA is fully funded?"

quote:

And what happens if President Trump loses reelection in 2020? By early 2021, when a new administration moves in, it won't see much tangible evidence of a lunar return. The SLS rocket is unlikely to have made its first flight, there will merely be some drawings on lunar landers, and the Lunar Gateway will remain a year or two away from launch. This would make the lunar program very vulnerable from a funding standpoint, especially if the new president is more concerned about climate change and Earth science and wants to pivot toward a lower-cost space program that capitalizes on the launch successes of the new space industry.

Finally, if the Trump administration wins, and truly cares about the 2024 landing�given the anemic $1.6 billion budget supplement and tapping of Pell Grants, it is far from clear it does�there is a path forward for NASA. With a more robust expenditure in fiscal year 2021 and some successes with the SLS rocket, it's possible that the agency could remain on a plausible path back to the Moon with this plan. It probably won't happen in 2024, as two sources told Ars the year 2026 is a more realistic date even given the new sense of urgency.

But at least, finally, there's a plan of record to debate.

What say you goons?

# ? May 23, 2019 03:47

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 21:02

reignofevil: Nov 7, 2008

No fuckin way we're getting back to the moon.

# ? May 23, 2019 03:47

its all nice on rice: Nov 12, 2006; Sweet, Salty Goodness.; Buglord

How will this increase profits??

# ? May 23, 2019 03:48

Chinatown: Sep 11, 2001; by Fluffdaddy; Fun Shoe

Helical Nightmares posted:

What say you goons?

*steps over hypodermic needles and human feces after exiting a decaying public transit system*

"HEH WELL AT LEAST SOME PHD NERDS WILL GO TO THE MOON TO LEARN HOW TO FARM THERE!!!!!"

Rome 2.0

# ? May 23, 2019 03:49

Good soup!: Nov 2, 2010

im going

# ? May 23, 2019 03:55

Big Beef City: Aug 15, 2013

Moondoggle

# ? May 23, 2019 03:56

SLICK GOKU BABY: Jun 12, 2001; Hey Hey Let's Go! 喧嘩する
大切な物を protect my balls

Roll it into the Space Force, then the budget can get rolled in with the military budget and be a grain of sand that nobody cares about :smug:

# ? May 23, 2019 03:59

Lil Swamp Booger Baby: Aug 1, 1981

You gotta be a piece of dookie dongle dingle wangle poo poo to not want to go back to the moon and establish a poonbase.

# ? May 23, 2019 04:00

Moridin920: Nov 15, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

apple pissed $85 b into the wind on stock buy backs and we can't even fund a $20 billion space program lol we're such fuckwit morons

# ? May 23, 2019 04:02

beer gas canister: Oct 30, 2007; shmups are da best come play some shmups they're cheap and good and you like them; Plaster Town Cop

still relevant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goh2x_G0ct4

# ? May 23, 2019 04:04

Big Beef City: Aug 15, 2013

Lil Swamp Booger Baby posted:

You gotta be a piece of dookie dongle dingle wangle poo poo to not want to go back to the moon and establish a poonbase.

Nothing to do with want.
It'd be baller as poo poo to have a total moon unit and a mars base that shoots lasers and you need a grappling hook and exploding wall sections you have to climb to get into and all kinds of action noises it plays and whatever else.

I'd love both of these things a lot.
The question was 'are we'.

# ? May 23, 2019 04:11

Lil Swamp Booger Baby: Aug 1, 1981

Big Beef City posted:

Nothing to do with want.
It'd be baller as poo poo to have a total moon unit and a mars base that shoots lasers and you need a grappling hook and exploding wall sections you have to climb to get into and all kinds of action noises it plays and whatever else.

I'd love both of these things a lot.
The question was 'are we'.

I promise you we will. I promise you this as I hold both your hands in mine as I crouch down and look into your eyes while you play with your big alphabet blocks on the floor.

"Are we really? Are we really going to the moon?"

Yes Big Beef City my only son, we are, I promise.

# ? May 23, 2019 04:17

Good soup!: Nov 2, 2010

I want to take a poo poo on the moon

# ? May 23, 2019 04:25

Winifred Madgers: Feb 12, 2002

SLS is not a serious space program, it's nothing more than a way to spread pork around to congressional districts. Reusing the famously hideously expensive and outdated shuttle technology is Exhibit A. I'd almost say NASA as a whole but they do still have some good things going on, so I'll dial it back and say only most of NASA is pork.

# ? May 23, 2019 04:26

William Henry Hairytaint: Oct 29, 2011

Space exploration and research on ways to allow people to live off-planet and/or extract resources from off-planet is important for humanity's survival but nobody, understandably, wants to pay for it. Draining Pell funds for it is definitely not the way to go.

The hardest part of all this is going to be selling it without any breakthroughs that open up space travel/living to your everyday civilian. Billions of dollars spent so a hundred scientists can live on the moon is not a scenario that appeals to your average citizen. Billions spent so thousands or more people from all walks of life could live there would be more attractive. But you can't get to that second scenario without funding the first because it's all gotta start somewhere.

NASA's a bloated organization and it's too tied to the US, we need something new, leaner, and funded by every nation that wants to contribute, with input from every nation that wants to contribute. But that won't be an easy thing to do, especially with the crossover between space exploration and military applications. As long as the two are entertwined people are going to be inclined to be secretive about their research and that will just slow the entire thing down.

That's even before you face the fact that unless there's something under our noses that we're missing, faster than light travel doesn't appear to be possible, which severely limits our ability to expand outward in a way that allows humanity to remain a cohesive unit.

# ? May 23, 2019 04:39

HJE-Cobra: Jul 15, 2007; Bear Witness; Hell Gem

Son of Sam-I-Am posted:

SLS is not a serious space program, it's nothing more than a way to spread pork around to congressional districts. Reusing the famously hideously expensive and outdated shuttle technology is Exhibit A. I'd almost say NASA as a whole but they do still have some good things going on, so I'll dial it back and say only most of NASA is pork.

To be fair they're only looking at reusing the main engines and solid rocket boosters and stuff, not the actual shuttle part. The shuttle itself was the ridiculous part of the equation, with the way it attached on the side rather than on top. Repurposeing functional solid booster rocket designs for a new system seems reasonable to me.

Here's some art of what it might look like.

# ? May 23, 2019 04:40

Literally A Person: Jan 1, 1970; Smugworth Wuz Here

I for one am excited for three months after we establish MOONBASE ALPHA and the entire surface has been strip mined to the point the moon no longer has enough mass to properly control the ebb and flow of the ocean and our puny species is wiped from the Earth in a torrent of flotsam.

:killing:

# ? May 23, 2019 04:41

Linux Pirate: Apr 21, 2012

Literally A Person posted:

I for one am excited for three months after we establish MOONBASE ALPHA and the entire surface has been strip mined to the point the moon no longer has enough mass to properly control the ebb and flow of the ocean and our puny species is wiped from the Earth in a torrent of flotsam.

here comes another chinese earthquake

ebrbrbrbrbrbrbr

# ? May 23, 2019 04:48

I. M. Gei: Jun 26, 2005; CHIEFS

BITCH

It�s awesome that Trump wants to spend my (and other poor peoples�) college money on a stupid, crazy, unnecessary moon fort that humans might not be able to survive in, much less work or live in.

# ? May 23, 2019 04:50

numberoneposter: Feb 19, 2014; How much do I cum? The answer might surprise you!

You know what NASA stands for don't you?

Never
A
Straight
Answer

:tinfoil:

# ? May 23, 2019 04:50

I. M. Gei: Jun 26, 2005; CHIEFS

BITCH

Seriously has anyone given ANY thought whatsoever to whether or not people can survive on the moon at all for extended periods of time?

# ? May 23, 2019 04:52

marijuanamancer: Sep 11, 2001; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

i hope we goto the moon

# ? May 23, 2019 04:54

marijuanamancer: Sep 11, 2001; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

when bezos said he wanted to go the other day i knew it was gonna happen. i mean what are you gonna do, stop the worlds richest man?

# ? May 23, 2019 05:04

guestimate: Nov 10, 2011

Unfortunately if climate change is anything like they say we should focus on unfucking the Earth instead.

# ? May 23, 2019 05:10

marijuanamancer: Sep 11, 2001; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

wouldn't that be great. there was that european billionaire that bought a bunch of forest or something i think?

# ? May 23, 2019 05:12

WatermelonGun: May 7, 2009

marijuanamancer posted:

when bezos said he wanted to go the other day i knew it was gonna happen. i mean what are you gonna do, stop the worlds richest man?

hopefully he dies alone in space!

# ? May 23, 2019 05:12

marijuanamancer: Sep 11, 2001; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

lol unfortunately he'll probably kill at least a few other people in the process if it goes that way

# ? May 23, 2019 05:13

Helical Nightmares: Apr 30, 2009

marijuanamancer posted:

when bezos said he wanted to go the other day i knew it was gonna happen. i mean what are you gonna do, stop the worlds richest man?

poo poo, you weren't kidding. I totally missed that.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/05/10/bezos-its-time-to-go-back-to-the-moon-this-time-to-stay.html

# ? May 23, 2019 05:14

Moridin920: Nov 15, 2007; by FactsAreUseless

I like how funding is a concern when again apple by themselves just pissed $85 billion into the wind on buy backs

# ? May 23, 2019 05:16

WatermelonGun: May 7, 2009

marijuanamancer posted:

lol unfortunately he'll probably kill at least a few other people in the process if it goes that way

who will be the space sherpas in this space everest scenario

# ? May 23, 2019 05:16

marijuanamancer: Sep 11, 2001; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

the moon base is gonna be sick as gently caress if they do it right, its the launch platform to the rest of the solar system at least

# ? May 23, 2019 05:19

Les Os: Mar 29, 2010

but what if one of the astronauts is a werewolf

# ? May 23, 2019 05:19

marijuanamancer: Sep 11, 2001; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

banished to the dark side

# ? May 23, 2019 05:20

numberoneposter: Feb 19, 2014; How much do I cum? The answer might surprise you!

As long as they launch some hot babes and drugs up there too I want to party.

# ? May 23, 2019 05:20

WatermelonGun: May 7, 2009

whitey on the moon 2049

# ? May 23, 2019 05:22

marijuanamancer: Sep 11, 2001; by Jeffrey of YOSPOS

mushrooms are even easier to grow than weed

# ? May 23, 2019 05:22

Julius CSAR: Oct 3, 2007; by sebmojo

Moon god?

# ? May 23, 2019 05:23

WatermelonGun: May 7, 2009

bezo�s drone police eject you into the void if you cancel your prime subscription

# ? May 23, 2019 05:27

Ka0: Sep 16, 2002; AS A PROUD GAMERGATER THE ONLY THING I HATE MORE THAN WOMEN ARE GAYS AND TRANS PEOPLE

The lunarians are not going to be happy about this poo poo.

# ? May 23, 2019 05:48

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 28, 2024 21:02

Sjs00: Jun 29, 2013; Yeah Baby Yeah !

I've got my zero gravity slingshot and moon rocks

# ? May 23, 2019 05:52

The Something Awful Forums > Main > General Bullshit > NASA Moon chat - We are going - or are we?

«‹›7 »