8 thoughts on “Bridenstine’s Impossible Task”

  1. From Eric Berger’s piece, Cornyn, Cruz, Babin wrote:

    “We are deeply concerned that NASA is not only disregarding this history but that splitting up the work on the lander between two different geographic locations is an unnecessary and a counterproductive departure from the unquestionable success of the previous lunar lander program.”

    What previous lunar program? We haven’t built an Apollo lander in almost 50 years. Was there a more recent lunar lander program that I missed?

    1. Perhaps they are thinking of Altair, which was unquestionably successful in generating beautiful Powerpoints?

  2. Unfortunately, the commenters on Politico can’t get past their hatred for Newt Gingrich to actually engage with the idea.

    1. The headline set it up as a joke. So, they say everyone not Democrat is anti-science and when non-Democrats engage in that sphere of interest, they get mocked. Can’t have that narrative challenge by objective reality.

    2. I see lots of commenters at that site who need an attitude adjustment via altitude by helicopter ride.

  3. Is $2 billion enough of a reward?

    Someone could get to the Moon rather inexpensively but just having a base on the Moon isn’t enough. It has to be capable enough to do things and affordable enough that it can be maintained for many years. And why would we want just one?

    Perhaps have a larger pool of money, like $10 billion, and award $5 billion to the winner, $3 billion to second, and $2 billion to the third. Then, have another pool of money to compete for every year for various types of missions but make this pool to be more in line with NASA’s current funding.

  4. While such a contest has a certain surface appeal, its advocates pretty clearly mean to get the prize money from the government and that way lie monsters. By the time prize money for such a purpose could be squeezed out of Congress, fast-moving events will very likely have rendered the whole idea redundant.

    Artemis, as presently envisioned – or Artemis 1.0 as I like to refer to it – simply isn’t going to work on the timeline VP Pence has laid down. This latest bit of business involving splitting the lander program between two mutually hostile NASA centers pretty much seals that deal, although I think said deal was more than adequately sealed even before Bridenstine put this final bit of polish on.

    I think the kicking upstairs of both Gerst and Hill were previous moves aimed, at least in art, at achieving the same end. Simultaneously shaking up the status quo as part of greasing the skids for same and, at the same time, letting it be seen that no one who thinks they can simply outlast political appointees is necessarily untouchable, was a brilliant two-fer.

    Based on what Bridenstine has done to-date, I’m increasingly of the opinion that that is what he intended. If he is, in fact, not a grandmaster-level player of political chess, then he is certainly putting on a very credible pretense of being so. He seems to be playing a long game, here, and the temporary enmity of three senators is a sort of pawn sacrifice in furtherance of a long-term victory.

    I think most of NASA’s lifers and the U.S. Congress already know Artemis 1.0, as presently constituted, is impossible. Most of those people also don’t think this matters. Their notion seems to be that, once Trump and Pence are gone – which they assume will happen in 2020 – Bridenstine and all this Moon-in-2024 nonsense will go with them and everyone can get back to doing what they’ve been doing for decades – milking the taxpayer for a nice annuity unencumbered by any real requirement to ever accomplish much of anything. That would be a return to the pie-in-the-sky-by-and-by regime of indefinite and ever-rightward-shifting target dates for things that a steady stream of appropriations can be engineered to feed for open-ended years to come.

    Bridenstine, I think, wants to ensure Artemis 1.0, its present form, goes on the rocks as soon as possible so as to provide the political headspace for ginning up Artemis 2.0, the wholesale transfer of the program to the commercial sector and away from refractory NASA centers like MSFC and its legacy base of defacto state-owned contractors.

    When SpaceX’s SHS flies to orbit next year, while SLS is still its seemingly perpetual two years away from actual flight – and the lunar lander program within NASA has become another inevitable dumpster fire – Bridenstine will be well-positioned to begin engineering the transition from Artemis 1.0 to Artemis 2.0 in earnest.

    So, by the time any such notional contest as Gingrich, et al, urge could be ginned up, things will be moving in pretty much the direction its proponents desire without any necessity of actualizing the contest.

  5. I emailed Sen. Richard Burr yesterday, and told him about Newt Gingrich’s proposal. I told him that I’m for it. That we should offer prizes. Here is the email I sent.
    ==============
    Dear Sen. Richard Burr,

    Newt Gingrich has come up with a proposal for returning to the Moon. That is to offer a $ 2 billion prize. I think that is a great idea. We should not be spending $ 50 billion, or more, to return to the Moon. We can get there by 2024, and do it with less money. Here is a link to a news article.
    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/19/newt-gingrich-michael-jackson-moon-1466853

    Read that article. It mentions prizes. I have written to you before about prizes. Also, lets bring back the DC-X program, and lets have DARPA offer a prize of $ 1 billion, to the first company to launch a reusable spacecraft, that can carry 2.5 tons, or more to Low Earth Orbit. It would need to be launched twice, or more a week, and make 22 launches in 11 weeks.
    We also need a bill, that would have the U.S. recognize lunar land claims. Here is a link to such a proposal for a bill.
    http://www.spacesettlement.org/law/

Comments are closed.