15 ms·

Pence: “America Will Return to the Moon–and Go Beyond”

45 points by thedevil 9y ago

scrumper 9y ago
Para 1: revives NSC. A good thing, I think. Para 2: China etc. threatening our military dominance... Uh oh, hope this isn't going to a bad place. Para 3: "We will refocus America’s space program toward human exploration and discovery." Yes, robots are more effective, but this is good, exciting, inspirational stuff. If it happens. And at least he didn't say "We will refocus our efforts towards military control of near-Earth orbit."
- cgore 9y ago
  > "We will refocus our efforts towards military control of near-Earth orbit." The US Space Corps is in the budget for 2018.
  - NegativeLatency 9y ago
    That's no joke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Corps
  - 52-6F-62 9y ago
    Where can I see this? Do they seriously want to slip the 'star wars' back in? edit: Thanks for the Wikipedia link. Those slippery weasels! That's the wrong direction. Apparently Russia's was reformed in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Space_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Space_Forces You've got to be kidding me. edit again: Apparently this includes the US Space Command >"HR2810 FY18 could re-establish the United States Space Command as a subordinate unified command under the United States Strategic Command not later than January 1, 2019. This bill also includes the creation of the United States Space Corps."
    - sailfast 9y ago
      Yes, but: > This proposal is opposed by the Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force, Air Force Space Command, and military leaders such as Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Paul Selva, Chief of Staff of the Air Force General David L. Goldfein, and the current commander of Air Force Space Command General John W. Raymond Also, from a joint perspective it makes no sense to bring this to the level of of Joint Chief. This would however be a perfect thing to talk about amongst the Chiefs as it would involve resources and personnel from across the services. I imagine that kind of thing is already happening, however.
      - 52-6F-62 9y ago
        Thanks, I missed that. That is somewhat reassuring. My knowledge of this in the present is limited, though.
  - scrumper 9y ago
    Separate agency to NASA though I think, which has always been sort of related to but not a part of the military.
  - NegativeLatency 9y ago
    It could just be from all the sci-fi I've consumed in my life, but I always thought the Navy would be a more natural fit to be the space corps. (I'm imagining a Battlestar Galactica / space marine future I suppose.)
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > It could just be from all the sci-fi I've consumed in my life, but I always thought the Navy would be a more natural fit to be the space corps. It's very common for sci-fi space forces to be modelled on terrestrial navies (frequently very heavily on Age of Sail / colonial era European navies.) But especially in the near future, there's not really likely to be a whole lot of functional similarity justifying that.
- zghst 9y ago
  Very rarely do people on the ground really understand the severity and threats of what really plagues America. We are so caught up in day to day living not dealing with the tough decisions that keep America operational.
kafkaesq 9y ago
Given the situation Puerto Rico right now - and the administration's utterly deplorable response to it - Whitey On The Moon never seemed so pertinent. http://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555796327/following-disaster-teams-in-puerto-rico http://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555796327/following-disaster-t... https://youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY https://youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY
- unethical_ban 9y ago
  Given we've had black, Asian, Israeli and lesbian astronauts, your politically correct racism is a bit out of tune. The point is made though, that given the atrocious status of Puerto Rico, it's tonedeaf to be announcing new plans for space exploration today.
  - kafkaesq 9y ago
    Given we've had black, Asian, Israeli and lesbian astronauts, your politically correct racism is a bit out of tune. If you prefer to believe that there's such a thing as "reverse racism" that's in anyway comparable to - or even worth mentioning in the context of - what's very blatantly happening in regard to the situation Puerto Rico right now, that's one thing. But if you're going to play the "headcount" card - it's not like the current administration gets any saving points for the demographics of astronauts put in space by previous administrations. And to bring up Sally Ride, who was not only closeted at the time of her mission, but for decades afterward (up until her death in fact) as some kind of an example how "already diverse" the space program has become - let's just say that doesn't exactly buttress your point.
RikNieu 9y ago
Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. Every president since Bush said something to this effect. My eyebrows will raise when NASAs budget does.
- jackmott 9y ago
  yup
- alehul 9y ago
  I wouldn't characterize America's space industry by NASA's budget anymore. What about support of the privatized space industry, instead? It seems to be progressing faster than NASA did.
  - NegativeLatency 9y ago
    I don't understand what point you're trying to make? Right now we have much more advanced tech than was available during the space race, and a lot of the pioneering work has already been done. Comparing NASA from the 60's - 70's to current space companies is not useful.
    - alehul 9y ago
      I'm merely pointing out that the government's support of the space industry shouldn't be characterized by NASA's budget. There are a lot of ways for the government to support an industry otherwise; an example being many countries' policy on renewable energy and clean transport, for instance.
      - greglindahl 9y ago
        I don't think anyone responding to you can figure out what you mean. The US government already has a successful model of interacting with the commercial space industry. You're proposing abandoning that for... ?
        9y ago
mud_dauber 9y ago
No chance if driven by a government entity. None.
- emodendroket 9y ago
  There's plenty of chance, if the government is headed by people willing to fund it.
- jbooth 9y ago
  Are you aware of how we got there the first time?
  - Consultant32452 9y ago
    They hired Stanley Kubrick to fake a moon landing but he was such a stickler for detail that he demanded they do it on location.
  - zghst 9y ago
    No corporation would ever give up their competitive advantage of being on the moon. Imagine a company that gains a competitive advantage and sits on it for 45 years. If a company would sit on a capability for 45 years without expanding and improving it. The government does things like this, it doesn't have market pressures or complete focus. If a new politician of a popular party gets elected and decides to reallocate the funds, they can do that at the snap of their fingers. The problem with the government is that they are managing the immediate needs of the electorate while balancing long term goals which are volatile. A healthy company is more narrow, more nimble, and more committed to a goal. A business is resource-time bound, a government not so much. A business must respond to the market/pressures much more so than a government. An unpopular business doesn't last long, whereas entire functions of government hold historic unpopularity, yet is free of anxiety. A great business caters to the individual in all of us, while the government caters to clashing interest groups.
excalibur 9y ago
> Under President Trump, America will lead in space again. We need to get Trump to lead the way to the moon personally. I heard Kim Jong Un said he doesn't have what it takes.
- craftyguy 9y ago
  Why stop him at the moon? I heard the Oort cloud has great golf courses.
- outside1234 9y ago
  I heard that he also said that President Trump was too chicken to spend 10 years on the moon too.
- synicalx 9y ago
  So you can get President Pence instead? Country-wide pray-away-the-gay camps are going to be fun I bet /s
thedevil 9y ago
While this came out today, Pence also made similar statements in the summer. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/vice-president-pence-visits-nasa-s-multi-user-spaceport-kennedy-space-center https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/vice-president-pence-visi... Nonetheless, I think him repeating the claims a second time signals more commitment.
- mhneu 9y ago
  Slight issue: Far more than past administrations, a huge number of things that come out of Pence's mouth are straight-up lies. He and the rest of the administration have demonstrated they will lie with abandon to serve their own ends. We've long passed the point where we should take anything at face value this administration (and this GOP congress as well) says. Mike Pence has a growing credibility problem: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/18/vice-president-pence-has-a-growing-credibility-problem/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/18/vi... It's not just the Russia scandal, Pence lies about health care too: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/its-not-just-the-russia-scandal-pence-lies-about-health-care-too http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/its-not-just-the-rus... How can Mike Pence get away with outrageous lies about the health care bill? https://www.salon.com/2017/07/17/how-can-mike-pence-get-away-with-outrageous-lies-about-the-health-care-bill/ https://www.salon.com/2017/07/17/how-can-mike-pence-get-away... All False statements by Mike Pence http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mike-pence/statements/byruling/false/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mike-pence/statement...
  - zghst 9y ago
    Also note that all of your sources are quite biased. This content all seems to be written by people who describe themselves as opposition to the administration and Pence. Salon of all of them is especially unreliable.
    - eesmith 9y ago
      Which news sources do you consider to be sufficiently unbiased that you wouldn't need to make this caution?
donald123 9y ago
we should just send Trump to the moon and be the president of the whole planet.
- codecamper 9y ago
  I was thinking he'd be perfect to be the first on Mars.
yohann305 9y ago
well, easy to state lapalissades now that we have Elon Musk working on it. (lapalissade is an actual word. Came in handy today! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapalissade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapalissade)
mhneu 9y ago
You can't take anything this admin says at face value - they've all shown enormous willingness to lie, that goes far beyond previous administrations. Let's wait for actions. Key is to look at their real agenda. What does Pence or his GOP donors get out of this annoucement? (I can't think of anything obvious, but let's see)
- bdamm 9y ago
  Distraction from Las Vegas.
- sandstrom 9y ago
  More contracts for the military-industrial complex?
bmcusick 9y ago
> It means establishing a renewed American presence on the moon... > And from the foundation of the moon... This is potentially bad news for SLS/Orion. They have no ability to land on the Moon. SLS doesn't do retro-propulsion and Orion can only land on Earth's ocean using heat shields and parachutes. That's why NASA has pushed for asteroid missions and building a space station around the Moon. Those are things that SLS can do. Of course if the intention is to land on the moon this is very good news for SpaceX and Blue Origin, both of whom have working retro-propulsion landings under their belt. Arguably, Blue Origin is in an ever better position than SpaceX since their New Shepard is about the right size for a moon lander. SpaceX would have to develop one. (Dragon 2 was originally supposed to do retro-propulsion landing, but NASA nixed the idea of landing legs that extended from a heat shield, so the idea was dropped. They would either have to develop a lander version of Dragon 2, or wait until the BFS is available)
- lwansbrough 9y ago
  Fortunately, SpaceX begins production of their moon lander in 6-9 months! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQ0jBKH36Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQ0jBKH36Y Edit: realized you were probably referring to this when you said BFS.
  - bmcusick 9y ago
    Yup, that's what I meant. I don't know how reliable those Elonian schedules are though. :-p
- simonh 9y ago
  New Shepard far too big, with far too much delta V for a moon lander. It’s design parameters are all wrong. Also SpaceX has a perfectly suitable propulsion system in the SuperDracos. The truth is none of the existing or currently planned systems, other than BFR, would make any sense as lunar landers. They’re just not designed for it. Dragon and Orion are Apollo Command Module replacements, not LEM replacements. For lunar landings and excursions we’d need a new vehicle along the lines of the LEM. Lightweight, vacuum only, reusable and refuelable with an ‘infinitely’ restartable engine. SLS would be perfectly capable of launching such a vehicle, in fact that’s exactly the sort of thing it’s designed for.
NOSHSHNACKERS 9y ago
That is what Pence is telling his wife.. Im going to the moon baby Ill be back later
codecamper 9y ago
And America will go there with the help of a certain South African.
- yammajr 9y ago
  The original op-ed actually addresses this. Sounds like the plan is to get SpaceX, Blue Origin, et al. involved. > To achieve these goals, the National Space Council will look beyond the halls of government for insight and expertise. In the coming weeks, President Trump and I will assemble a Users’ Advisory Group partly composed of leaders from America’s burgeoning commercial space industry. Business is leading the way on space technology, and we intend to draw from the bottomless well of innovation to solve the challenges ahead. https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moonand-go-beyond-1507158341 https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moon...
moomin 9y ago
No-one in their right mind would put paragraphs two and three next to one another. The literal interpretation is "Our enemies are working to defeat us, but we're going to completely ignore that". In practice, I suspect that a policy around 2 is much more likely, but it seems unlikely the money for that will be showing up in NASA's budgets. This is proper Kremlinology stuff. What does it really mean? Could be anything or nothing. Only those inside the loop know for sure. And that's subject to change.
Animats 9y ago
Sending a lunar rover to the Tranquility landing site for the 50th anniversary of the manned moon landing would be a nice touch.
- techdragon 9y ago
  You know what would be better, sending people back. Back to anywhere on the moon at all.
eesmith 9y ago
Quoting Charlie Stross, teller of lies for money and HN user, from http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2017/09/bread-and-circuses-circumlunar.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2017/09/bread-an... : > I don't often make exact predictions about the future; that's not an SF writer's job, and it's really easy to get egg on your face. Howver, here's a prediction: > If Donald Trump is still president, US astronauts will return to circumlunar space around July 16th, 2019 ... > I'm making this a prediction, however, because the POTUS factor. > July 2019 lies within the term in office of Donald Trump (or Mike Pence, depending whether impeachment/removal has happened first then). Trump is nothing if not an egomaniac, and offering him the opportunity to make a historic phone call to lunar orbit in front of the TV cameras is a guaranteed ego-stroke. Trump is of an age to have young-adult memories of Apollo and I can't see the idea not appealing to him if he can take credit for it.

45 points by thedevil 9y ago

Para 1: revives NSC. A good thing, I think. Para 2: China etc. threatening our military dominance... Uh oh, hope this isn't going to a bad place. Para 3: "We will refocus America’s space program toward human exploration and discovery." Yes, robots are more effective, but this is good, exciting, inspirational stuff. If it happens. And at least he didn't say "We will refocus our efforts towards military control of near-Earth orbit."

cgore 9y ago
> "We will refocus our efforts towards military control of near-Earth orbit." The US Space Corps is in the budget for 2018.
- NegativeLatency 9y ago
  That's no joke: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Corps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Space_Corps
- 52-6F-62 9y ago
  Where can I see this? Do they seriously want to slip the 'star wars' back in? edit: Thanks for the Wikipedia link. Those slippery weasels! That's the wrong direction. Apparently Russia's was reformed in 2015. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Space_Forces https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Space_Forces You've got to be kidding me. edit again: Apparently this includes the US Space Command >"HR2810 FY18 could re-establish the United States Space Command as a subordinate unified command under the United States Strategic Command not later than January 1, 2019. This bill also includes the creation of the United States Space Corps."
  - sailfast 9y ago
    Yes, but: > This proposal is opposed by the Department of Defense, U.S. Air Force, Air Force Space Command, and military leaders such as Secretary of Defense James Mattis, Secretary of the Air Force Heather Wilson, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Paul Selva, Chief of Staff of the Air Force General David L. Goldfein, and the current commander of Air Force Space Command General John W. Raymond Also, from a joint perspective it makes no sense to bring this to the level of of Joint Chief. This would however be a perfect thing to talk about amongst the Chiefs as it would involve resources and personnel from across the services. I imagine that kind of thing is already happening, however.
    - 52-6F-62 9y ago
      Thanks, I missed that. That is somewhat reassuring. My knowledge of this in the present is limited, though.
- scrumper 9y ago
  Separate agency to NASA though I think, which has always been sort of related to but not a part of the military.
- NegativeLatency 9y ago
  It could just be from all the sci-fi I've consumed in my life, but I always thought the Navy would be a more natural fit to be the space corps. (I'm imagining a Battlestar Galactica / space marine future I suppose.)
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > It could just be from all the sci-fi I've consumed in my life, but I always thought the Navy would be a more natural fit to be the space corps. It's very common for sci-fi space forces to be modelled on terrestrial navies (frequently very heavily on Age of Sail / colonial era European navies.) But especially in the near future, there's not really likely to be a whole lot of functional similarity justifying that.
zghst 9y ago
Very rarely do people on the ground really understand the severity and threats of what really plagues America. We are so caught up in day to day living not dealing with the tough decisions that keep America operational.

kafkaesq 9y ago

Given the situation Puerto Rico right now - and the administration's utterly deplorable response to it - Whitey On The Moon never seemed so pertinent. http://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555796327/following-disaster-teams-in-puerto-rico http://www.npr.org/2017/10/05/555796327/following-disaster-t... https://youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY https://youtube.com/watch?v=PtBy_ppG4hY

unethical_ban 9y ago
Given we've had black, Asian, Israeli and lesbian astronauts, your politically correct racism is a bit out of tune. The point is made though, that given the atrocious status of Puerto Rico, it's tonedeaf to be announcing new plans for space exploration today.
- kafkaesq 9y ago
  Given we've had black, Asian, Israeli and lesbian astronauts, your politically correct racism is a bit out of tune. If you prefer to believe that there's such a thing as "reverse racism" that's in anyway comparable to - or even worth mentioning in the context of - what's very blatantly happening in regard to the situation Puerto Rico right now, that's one thing. But if you're going to play the "headcount" card - it's not like the current administration gets any saving points for the demographics of astronauts put in space by previous administrations. And to bring up Sally Ride, who was not only closeted at the time of her mission, but for decades afterward (up until her death in fact) as some kind of an example how "already diverse" the space program has become - let's just say that doesn't exactly buttress your point.

RikNieu 9y ago

Yeah, I'll believe it when I see it. Every president since Bush said something to this effect. My eyebrows will raise when NASAs budget does.

jackmott 9y ago
yup
alehul 9y ago
I wouldn't characterize America's space industry by NASA's budget anymore. What about support of the privatized space industry, instead? It seems to be progressing faster than NASA did.
- NegativeLatency 9y ago
  I don't understand what point you're trying to make? Right now we have much more advanced tech than was available during the space race, and a lot of the pioneering work has already been done. Comparing NASA from the 60's - 70's to current space companies is not useful.
  - alehul 9y ago
    I'm merely pointing out that the government's support of the space industry shouldn't be characterized by NASA's budget. There are a lot of ways for the government to support an industry otherwise; an example being many countries' policy on renewable energy and clean transport, for instance.
    - greglindahl 9y ago
      I don't think anyone responding to you can figure out what you mean. The US government already has a successful model of interacting with the commercial space industry. You're proposing abandoning that for... ?
      - 9y ago

mud_dauber 9y ago

No chance if driven by a government entity. None.

emodendroket 9y ago
There's plenty of chance, if the government is headed by people willing to fund it.
jbooth 9y ago
Are you aware of how we got there the first time?
- Consultant32452 9y ago
  They hired Stanley Kubrick to fake a moon landing but he was such a stickler for detail that he demanded they do it on location.
- zghst 9y ago
  No corporation would ever give up their competitive advantage of being on the moon. Imagine a company that gains a competitive advantage and sits on it for 45 years. If a company would sit on a capability for 45 years without expanding and improving it. The government does things like this, it doesn't have market pressures or complete focus. If a new politician of a popular party gets elected and decides to reallocate the funds, they can do that at the snap of their fingers. The problem with the government is that they are managing the immediate needs of the electorate while balancing long term goals which are volatile. A healthy company is more narrow, more nimble, and more committed to a goal. A business is resource-time bound, a government not so much. A business must respond to the market/pressures much more so than a government. An unpopular business doesn't last long, whereas entire functions of government hold historic unpopularity, yet is free of anxiety. A great business caters to the individual in all of us, while the government caters to clashing interest groups.

excalibur 9y ago

> Under President Trump, America will lead in space again. We need to get Trump to lead the way to the moon personally. I heard Kim Jong Un said he doesn't have what it takes.

craftyguy 9y ago
Why stop him at the moon? I heard the Oort cloud has great golf courses.
outside1234 9y ago
I heard that he also said that President Trump was too chicken to spend 10 years on the moon too.
synicalx 9y ago
So you can get President Pence instead? Country-wide pray-away-the-gay camps are going to be fun I bet /s

thedevil 9y ago

While this came out today, Pence also made similar statements in the summer. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/vice-president-pence-visits-nasa-s-multi-user-spaceport-kennedy-space-center https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/vice-president-pence-visi... Nonetheless, I think him repeating the claims a second time signals more commitment.

mhneu 9y ago
Slight issue: Far more than past administrations, a huge number of things that come out of Pence's mouth are straight-up lies. He and the rest of the administration have demonstrated they will lie with abandon to serve their own ends. We've long passed the point where we should take anything at face value this administration (and this GOP congress as well) says. Mike Pence has a growing credibility problem: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/18/vice-president-pence-has-a-growing-credibility-problem/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/05/18/vi... It's not just the Russia scandal, Pence lies about health care too: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/its-not-just-the-russia-scandal-pence-lies-about-health-care-too http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/its-not-just-the-rus... How can Mike Pence get away with outrageous lies about the health care bill? https://www.salon.com/2017/07/17/how-can-mike-pence-get-away-with-outrageous-lies-about-the-health-care-bill/ https://www.salon.com/2017/07/17/how-can-mike-pence-get-away... All False statements by Mike Pence http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mike-pence/statements/byruling/false/ http://www.politifact.com/personalities/mike-pence/statement...
- zghst 9y ago
  Also note that all of your sources are quite biased. This content all seems to be written by people who describe themselves as opposition to the administration and Pence. Salon of all of them is especially unreliable.
  - eesmith 9y ago
    Which news sources do you consider to be sufficiently unbiased that you wouldn't need to make this caution?

donald123 9y ago

we should just send Trump to the moon and be the president of the whole planet.

codecamper 9y ago
I was thinking he'd be perfect to be the first on Mars.

yohann305 9y ago

well, easy to state lapalissades now that we have Elon Musk working on it. (lapalissade is an actual word. Came in handy today! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapalissade https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lapalissade)

mhneu 9y ago

You can't take anything this admin says at face value - they've all shown enormous willingness to lie, that goes far beyond previous administrations. Let's wait for actions. Key is to look at their real agenda. What does Pence or his GOP donors get out of this annoucement? (I can't think of anything obvious, but let's see)

bdamm 9y ago
Distraction from Las Vegas.
sandstrom 9y ago
More contracts for the military-industrial complex?

bmcusick 9y ago

> It means establishing a renewed American presence on the moon... > And from the foundation of the moon... This is potentially bad news for SLS/Orion. They have no ability to land on the Moon. SLS doesn't do retro-propulsion and Orion can only land on Earth's ocean using heat shields and parachutes. That's why NASA has pushed for asteroid missions and building a space station around the Moon. Those are things that SLS can do. Of course if the intention is to land on the moon this is very good news for SpaceX and Blue Origin, both of whom have working retro-propulsion landings under their belt. Arguably, Blue Origin is in an ever better position than SpaceX since their New Shepard is about the right size for a moon lander. SpaceX would have to develop one. (Dragon 2 was originally supposed to do retro-propulsion landing, but NASA nixed the idea of landing legs that extended from a heat shield, so the idea was dropped. They would either have to develop a lander version of Dragon 2, or wait until the BFS is available)

lwansbrough 9y ago
Fortunately, SpaceX begins production of their moon lander in 6-9 months! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQ0jBKH36Y https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWQ0jBKH36Y Edit: realized you were probably referring to this when you said BFS.
- bmcusick 9y ago
  Yup, that's what I meant. I don't know how reliable those Elonian schedules are though. :-p
simonh 9y ago
New Shepard far too big, with far too much delta V for a moon lander. It’s design parameters are all wrong. Also SpaceX has a perfectly suitable propulsion system in the SuperDracos. The truth is none of the existing or currently planned systems, other than BFR, would make any sense as lunar landers. They’re just not designed for it. Dragon and Orion are Apollo Command Module replacements, not LEM replacements. For lunar landings and excursions we’d need a new vehicle along the lines of the LEM. Lightweight, vacuum only, reusable and refuelable with an ‘infinitely’ restartable engine. SLS would be perfectly capable of launching such a vehicle, in fact that’s exactly the sort of thing it’s designed for.

NOSHSHNACKERS 9y ago

That is what Pence is telling his wife.. Im going to the moon baby Ill be back later

codecamper 9y ago

And America will go there with the help of a certain South African.

yammajr 9y ago
The original op-ed actually addresses this. Sounds like the plan is to get SpaceX, Blue Origin, et al. involved. > To achieve these goals, the National Space Council will look beyond the halls of government for insight and expertise. In the coming weeks, President Trump and I will assemble a Users’ Advisory Group partly composed of leaders from America’s burgeoning commercial space industry. Business is leading the way on space technology, and we intend to draw from the bottomless well of innovation to solve the challenges ahead. https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moonand-go-beyond-1507158341 https://www.wsj.com/articles/america-will-return-to-the-moon...

moomin 9y ago

No-one in their right mind would put paragraphs two and three next to one another. The literal interpretation is "Our enemies are working to defeat us, but we're going to completely ignore that". In practice, I suspect that a policy around 2 is much more likely, but it seems unlikely the money for that will be showing up in NASA's budgets. This is proper Kremlinology stuff. What does it really mean? Could be anything or nothing. Only those inside the loop know for sure. And that's subject to change.

Animats 9y ago

Sending a lunar rover to the Tranquility landing site for the 50th anniversary of the manned moon landing would be a nice touch.

techdragon 9y ago
You know what would be better, sending people back. Back to anywhere on the moon at all.

eesmith 9y ago

Quoting Charlie Stross, teller of lies for money and HN user, from http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2017/09/bread-and-circuses-circumlunar.html http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2017/09/bread-an... : > I don't often make exact predictions about the future; that's not an SF writer's job, and it's really easy to get egg on your face. Howver, here's a prediction: > If Donald Trump is still president, US astronauts will return to circumlunar space around July 16th, 2019 ... > I'm making this a prediction, however, because the POTUS factor. > July 2019 lies within the term in office of Donald Trump (or Mike Pence, depending whether impeachment/removal has happened first then). Trump is nothing if not an egomaniac, and offering him the opportunity to make a historic phone call to lunar orbit in front of the TV cameras is a guaranteed ego-stroke. Trump is of an age to have young-adult memories of Apollo and I can't see the idea not appealing to him if he can take credit for it.