Proposed House bill pushes NASA's crewed moon landing back to 2028

[Admin]

NASA should aim to put boots on the moon in 2028, not 2024, and achieve this goal explicitly to aid human Mars exploration in the 2030s, according to an authorization bill that was introduced Friday (Jan. 24) by the leadership of the House committee on science.

Proposed House bill pushes NASA's crewed moon landing back to 2028 : Read more

 

[vance_lunn]

This is pure politics. The Democrats don't want Trump to have the "victory" of returning us to the Moon, so they want to postpone it until after his terms would be over. In addition, there are several other notably Democrat characteristics in this proposal. Full government ownership instead of using private rockets, and social engineering by overstocking the ISS with spacesuits for "diversity". And they want to delay our return in hopes that another country will beat us to it, because the Democrats don't want us to be the leader. Yes, I know there are risks with the current schedule, and there is no guarantee that we'll be able to get to the Moon by 2024, but that is no reason to deliberately delay it by 4 whole years. Bunch of children.

 

[Adarious]

What, if anything, can be done to combat this effort that they are pushing under the impeachment trial distraction?

 

[Admiral Lagrange]

What, if anything, can be done to combat this effort that they are pushing under the impeachment trial distraction?

 

[Admiral Lagrange]

The Senate will modify the bill before approving it. But you are right about 1 thing, NASA is subject to all kinds of politics. That's why we haven't been back to the moon or made a lot of progress landing humans on Mars.

 

[Spacetrooper]

You narrow this scientific mission down to the lowest rung on the ladder, divisive politics. Science has no politics, but you certainly have spun your way into it. I have read the concerns voiced here and elsewhere, can NASA and it's collaborators realistically achieve the goal of landing on the moon by 2024? If you want to introduce politics, don't you think the current admin wants it done during Trump's second term so he can take credit for it? Knowing Trump's narcissistic style, he will take 100% credit and then in the same tweet, bad mouth his enemies, complete with misspelled words and acting like a spoiled 4th grader. That in itself is a huge assumption based on Trump's mob-run administration and penchant for habitual lying. One of the rare figures in the Trump orbit who has maintained a steady course and has stayed clear of being indicted is the chief of NASA.

First and foremost is the safety of our astronauts. This will be a huge and complex project that dovetails with the ultimate goal, landing on Mars. Space is a very dangerous environment and putting a timeline on safety is stupid. I disagree with almost all of your assumptions that the change in timeline was totally politically motivated. What impulse gave you that idea? Have you read all the mission requirements and what gives you the facts to support your assumption we can even pull off landing on the moon by 2024? If it were a mission to land on the moon only, then I can see 2024, but again, this mission directorate involves much more than repeating 1969.

I wouldn't read into it as you have done that NASA is taking over full ownership of rockets. Again, you are making hysterical political rants because without the collaboration of SpaceX and Boeing, that would be two fewer technology partners NASA has worked well with for a long time now. Without NASA, those two firms would be barely getting off the ground, NASA has shared as their own directorate dictates from the onset.

Did you notice two female astronauts have been working in space doing repair work outside the ISS? How would you like it if you were ordered to work in the space environment wearing a woman's spacesuit? Or, are you the type that doesn't like highly qualified women doing a "man's job?"

I love space exploration and my hobby related to that is astrophotography. I would be the type to provide space exploration with more financial support, but we have to maintain a sense of balance too. Exploration is a huge expense and a lot to ask of taxpayers who have their own reasons not to write NASA blank checks or support the fantasies of big egos and defense contractors who own many of our politicians. Our budget deficit is so far out of control I wonder what happened to all those Tea Party types who raised hell about it not long ago, now, crickets. 53% of our taxes are going to the military, I believe we spend more on that than any country on earth. I often wondered what is the purpose of all the expensive high technology weapons delivery systems when in the last 19 years we have been bogged down and the trillions of dollars spent, our adversaries used cheap IEDs against us, basically a pile of TNT or an old dumb bomb with a fuse We had better get a handle, but the way I see it those who are spending like drunk sailors don't give a damn anyway because they will be dead by the time our kids have to deal with it.

The waxing and waning of NASA has put human space flight into limbo for 20 years. The only way to push a bureaucracy is to set an aggressive goal. The attitude of 10 year plans are paralysing to the mission to the moon and mars. IF we wait till its is affordable enough or safe enough our grandchildren will be wondering when the next humans will land on the moon.

 

[Jason K]

The waxing and waning of NASA has put human space flight into limbo for 20 years. The only way to push a bureaucracy is to set an aggressive goal. The attitude of 10 year plans are paralysing to the mission to the moon and mars. IF we wait till its is affordable enough or safe enough our grandchildren will be wondering when the next humans will land on the moon.

NASA's human space flight has been in limbo, it could be argued, since before Apollo successfully landed on the moon. The basic plans for STS (the Shuttle) were already laid in 1969, and that locked us into a trajectory for the next 40 years. And it didn't pan out the way the Shuttle concept designers had hoped. We didn't develop the easy, fast, relatively cheap method to access space the way it was believed the Shuttle would allow. Shuttle turned out to be WAY more expensive and extensive in its turn-around between flights, and was ultimately a more fragile craft than originally believed, as evidenced by the events of 34 years ago this very day.

I do agree whole heartedly that aggressive goals are the only way to pressure the bureaucracy to continue development. But the 10-year plans exist purely because these ventures are huge enterprises that take a decade or longer to come to fruition. You need such a large roadmap-type plan in order to have any chance of successfully completing such projects. I'd argue that it's the changing priorities of the White House and Congress over the years as new members come and go, who rewrite the 10-year plans on the fly; that is the paralytic agent here. Just look at the current SLS: from what I've read, the design work on the Block 2 configuration with the Exploration Upper Stage was suspended indefinitely back in 2019. And now the House bill calls for a fully assembled Artemis module to be launched, rather than assembled on-orbit ... but of course the Block 2 SLS which MIGHT be up to the task is not on anyone's design table anymore. That might be a big part in the 2024 to 2028 timeline shift, I'm not sure (I need to finish reading the bill).

(Side note: The article mentions the bill calls for exploring options for Gateway aside from lunar orbit, such as maybe at a LaGrange point. When did that plan change? I thought Gateway was always envisioned for L2? When did it get bumped to LLO?)

Anyhow, I've not much faith in the Congress generally, and when it comes to science and NASA, even less so. I understand that congresspeople represent the tax-paying citizen's interests in federal spending and surely need to play a role in the decision making, but having Congress set the goals and the schedule for NASA just adds entirely too many cooks to the kitchen. It's messy and overly convoluted and complex. So basically, every date I read I tend to add 10 years to, and that's when I think we'll see something a whole lot less capable of what we were promised actually on the pad. I guess I'm cynical because I'm tired of waiting for those weekly Shuttle flights to an orbiting hotel, as I was promised, way back in the 80s.

 

[Macro]

Interesting will be to know how far competition is from landing on the Moon. Chinese, Russian government and private corporations like SpaceX are definitely able to land unmanned cargo missions .
Rather then short term mission we should rather opt for permanent lunar base. Delivered and setup by robotic cargo ships.

 

[Truthseeker007]

Or maybe their is a reason we can't go back to the Moon and or not allowed. All they have to do is act like they are going to and just keep putting it off for any number of reasons.