NASA returning to the moon

[Echnaton]

CNET has a report that NASA will announce some major contracts to build the hardware needed to establish a permanent presence on the moon.  On the 50th anniversary of the A11 landing of course. Without the funding in the current budget to back the program, it seems to be some wishful thinking.  But maybe they have the political support lined up. We'll see.


https://www.cnet.com/news/nasa-pushing-hard-to-get-back-to-the-moon-this-year-really/

[bknight]

It would be nice to have a program and funding,but I don'tthink the left leaning House will vote for it.

[apollo16uvc]

To be honest, I am not convinced.

NASA has been saying this for decades.

I guess without the financial strain of the Shuttle and construction of the ISS, there is more room financially?

Will see.

[AtomicDog]

It would be nice to have a program and funding,but I don'tthink the left leaning House will vote for it.

Why not?

[bknight]

It would be nice to have a program and funding,but I don'tthink the left leaning House will vote for it.

Why not?

Social(more politically correct) programs will get the liberals attention, not an increased space budget, IMO.

[AtomicDog]

It would be nice to have a program and funding,but I don'tthink the left leaning House will vote for it.

Why not?

Social(more politically correct) programs will get the liberals attention, not an increased space budget, IMO.

A Pew Research Center study in 2015 came up with this:
http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-8-attitudes-on-space-issues/

"There are no differences between party groups on opinion about the space station. But, liberals express more positive views than moderates or conservatives about the country’s investment in the space station."

Granted, the ISS and Lunar exploration are a bit different, but I think that they are similar enough that it would be presumptuous to assume a negative liberal view on the latter.

[bknight]

It would be nice to have a program and funding,but I don'tthink the left leaning House will vote for it.

Why not?

Social(more politically correct) programs will get the liberals attention, not an increased space budget, IMO.

A Pew Research Center study in 2015 came up with this:
http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-8-attitudes-on-space-issues/

"There are no differences between party groups on opinion about the space station. But, liberals express more positive views than moderates or conservatives about the country’s investment in the space station."

Granted, the ISS and Lunar exploration are a bit different, but I think that they are similar enough that it would be presumptuous to assume a negative liberal view on the latter.

I hadn't seen that one but I vividly remember Ralph Abernathy marching with a few hundred followers outside A 11 launch facilities.  Very shortly thereafter the axe stated falling on the Apollo program.

[AtomicDog]

It would be nice to have a program and funding,but I don'tthink the left leaning House will vote for it.

Why not?

Social(more politically correct) programs will get the liberals attention, not an increased space budget, IMO.

A Pew Research Center study in 2015 came up with this:
http://www.pewresearch.org/science/2015/07/01/chapter-8-attitudes-on-space-issues/

"There are no differences between party groups on opinion about the space station. But, liberals express more positive views than moderates or conservatives about the country’s investment in the space station."

Granted, the ISS and Lunar exploration are a bit different, but I think that they are similar enough that it would be presumptuous to assume a negative liberal view on the latter.

I hadn't seen that one but I vividly remember Ralph Abernathy marching with a few hundred followers outside A 11 launch facilities.  Very shortly thereafter the axe stated falling on the Apollo program.

1. You're referencing an incident that happened nearly 50 years ago. Is it fair to judge the state of the liberal view of space exploration today based on that?

2. I thought that it was generally accepted that it was Richard Nixon that cancelled Apollo and replaced it with the Space Shuttle , because he wanted to get rid of a Democratic space legacy and replace it with his own. I really don't think that Nixon was inclined to listen to a bunch of "pointy-headed liberals".

[bknight]

1. You're referencing an incident that happened nearly 50 years ago. Is it fair to judge the state of the liberal view of space exploration today based on that?

2. I thought that it was generally accepted that it was Richard Nixon that cancelled Apollo and replaced it with the Space Shuttle , because he wanted to get rid of a Democratic space legacy and replace it with his own. I really don't think that Nixon was inclined to listen to a bunch of "pointy-headed liberals".

We have differing view points of the liberals and their agenda/power/influence.

ETA:
It is well understood that Nixon was not a space enthusiast, and IIRC wanted to cancel A-15, 16 and 17, but was influenced to change the cancellations to only include A-18-20.  The hardware had already been purchased and the only cost would have been mission operations, which were not inconsequential.  You may be correct in that he wanted to put his administration's brand on the next manned space operations.

[AtomicDog]

1. You're referencing an incident that happened nearly 50 years ago. Is it fair to judge the state of the liberal view of space exploration today based on that?

2. I thought that it was generally accepted that it was Richard Nixon that cancelled Apollo and replaced it with the Space Shuttle , because he wanted to get rid of a Democratic space legacy and replace it with his own. I really don't think that Nixon was inclined to listen to a bunch of "pointy-headed liberals".

We have differing view points of the liberals and their agenda/power/influence.

ETA:
It is well understood that Nixon was not a space enthusiast, and IIRC wanted to cancel A-15, 16 and 17, but was influenced to change the cancellations to only include A-18-20.  The hardware had already been purchased and the only cost would have been mission operations, which were not inconsequential.  You may be correct in that he wanted to put his administration's brand on the next manned space operations.

You are supporting your point of view based on a 50 year old incident. I am supporting mine based on current statistics.

[bknight]

You are supporting your point of view based on a 50 year old incident. I am supporting mine based on current statistics.

We shall see then.

[apollo16uvc]

Can't imagine Apollo 15 through 17 would have been canceled. Together with the LM the rover is the most iconic piece of hardware of the entire project.

[bknight]

Can't imagine Apollo 15 through 17 would have been canceled. Together with the LM the rover is the most iconic piece of hardware of the entire project.

I misremembered it was only 16 and 17.
https://www.wired.com/2013/09/ending-apollo-1968/

[cjameshuff]

To be honest, I am not convinced.

NASA has been saying this for decades.

I guess without the financial strain of the Shuttle and construction of the ISS, there is more room financially?

Will see.

They've replaced those with the financial strain of the SLS and Gateway station, which these contracts are designed around. The Gateway only exists because SLS can't launch Orion, a cargo payload, and a service module big enough to get it all to LLO in one launch, and SLS is poorly suited to sending payloads to LEO (being designed to send smaller payloads to higher energy orbits), plus has competition there that would make it look even more ridiculous. But SLS and Orion have to be used for political reasons, and the Gateway gives them somewhere they can reach.

But a reusable lander that could get to the Gateway from the moon wouldn't be small enough to launch as a co-manifested payload on SLS, which is why they're breaking it up into a tug, expendable descent stage, and an ascent module. It's a stupid way to do things, even Lockheed wanted to do a single piece reusable lander. Between propellant deliveries and replacement descent stages, all limited by the flight rate of SLS, it'll take years and several billions of dollars in SLS flights alone per lunar surface mission...and first they've got to build the Gateway. Which itself is chopped up into bits small enough to be co-manifested payload on SLS/Orion launches.

The whole thing seems designed to generate as many SLS/Orion flights as possible, making "progress" with each step without actually accomplishing anything.

[bknight]

Firt NASA has to build and test fly the SLS, and that is taking a long time for an expendable rocket.  Not to change the design, but perhaps NASA should start embracing the fully reusable rocket?